US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7933

On June 24 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or just a piss-poor rejoinder.



Are you being intentionally dense? You know what the word crony means right? Or you think she would be filling positions with strangers of which she knew nothing of their loyalty?

This isn't even a crack on her, it's what every president has always done.

But the answer seems to be nothing. Considering Democrats are struggling despite having Trump and the walking shit-show the Republicans are in power I think it's fair to say that Democrats would be in even worse shape going into 18 and even less likely to change the house so essentially she wouldn't pass anything for 4 years (like I said during the primary).

Democrats strategy of running on damage mitigation is a loser and will continue to be a loser until they realize it's a loser and change strategies.

On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.

Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.

The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance.

On June 24 2017 08:51 TheLordofAwesome wrote:

Thanks, I'll go take a look.

On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.

Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.

The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance.

Arkansas's pesticide regulators have stepped into the middle of an epic battle between weeds and chemicals, which has now morphed into a battle between farmers. Hundreds of farmers say their crops have been damaged by a weedkiller that was sprayed on neighboring fields. Today, the Arkansas Plant Board voted to impose an unprecedented ban on that chemical.

"It's fracturing the agricultural community. You either have to choose to be on the side of using the product, or on the side of being damaged by the product," says David Hundley, who manages grain production for Ozark Mountain Poultry in Bay, Arkansas.

The tension — which even led to a farmer's murder — is over a weedkiller called dicamba. The chemical only became a practical option for farmers a few years ago, when Monsanto created soybean and cotton plants that were genetically modified to survive it. Farmers who planted these new seeds could use dicamba to kill weeds without harming their crops.

Farmers, especially in the South, have been desperate for new weapons against a devastating weed called pigweed, or Palmer amaranth. And some farmers even jumped the gun and started spraying dicamba on their crops before they were legally allowed to do so. (Dicamba has long been used in other ways, such as for clearing vegetation from fields before planting.)

The problem is, dicamba is a menace to other crops nearby. It drifts easily in the wind, and traditional soybeans are incredibly sensitive to it. "Nobody was quite prepared, despite extensive training, for just how sensitive beans were to dicamba," says Bob Scott, a specialist on weeds with the University of Arkansas's agricultural extension service.

As soon as spraying started this spring, the complaints began arriving. By June 23, state regulators had received 242 complaints from farmers who say their crops have been damaged. "This has far eclipsed any previous number of complaints that we've gotten, and unfortunately, this number seems to just keep growing," says Scott. "Every day we get an update with eight or ten more complaints."

In his area, Hundley says, "any soybean that's not [resistant to dicamba] is exhibiting damage. I can name 15 farmers within three or four miles who have damage, and I can only name 3-4 farmers who have used the technology."

On June 20, the Arkansas Plant Board met to consider an emergency ban on further spraying of dicamba, and farmers crowded into the meeting to argue both sides.

"The individuals who were damaged were quite passionate. The growers who had invested money in the technology also were quite passionate," says Jason Norsworthy, a weed specialist at the University of Arkansas, who attended the meeting.

At that first meeting, a procedural mix-up prevented the board from holding a valid vote. On June 23, it reconvened and voted, 9-5, to ban any spraying of dicamba on any crops except for pasture land for 120 days. The ban will take effect immediately if the governor of Arkansas signs it.

The decision, assuming it goes into effect, is a hard blow for farmers who paid extra for dicamba-resistant seeds. They now won't be able to spray dicamba, which they were counting on doing. "A lot of those growers will not have a good option for pigweed," Scott says.

Even Hundley, who was in favor of banning dicamba, doesn't feel that it's an optimal solution. "It's pitting Arkansas farmers against Arkansas farmers, and that's never good," he says.

Looking toward the future, Scott isn't sure whether dicamba ever will be a good tool for farmers, because it appears to be so difficult to control. "I have walked a lot of fields that leave you scratching your head, how did this happen? Because it seemed like they did everything right," he says.

He also doesn't think the problem will be limited to Arkansas. His state just happened to hit this problem first, because Arkansas's farmers adopted dicamba earlier than those in other states. "Arkansas may be ahead of the curve, but I anticipate other states also having this problem," he says.

On June 24 2017 08:35 Danglars wrote:

It might enrage another deranged killer you're right.

Otherwise, you're trying to prove a tenuous connection between health insurance and mortality risk which has been disproven (Kronick 2009). But back to the point, it seems that everybody's looking to imitate Trump's stupid tweets (Clinton, Sanders, Warren) as some form of flattery.

Trump 2020 campaign is in full swing. He should really be paying these guys, seriously.

On June 24 2017 08:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
again

On June 24 2017 08:50 zlefin wrote:

no, you're the one being intentionally dense. crony has clear negative connotations that are unjustified in this instance, as you full well know. it's also false that all presidents only fill positions with cronies, as you also full well know.
It's also pretty clear I didn't say nothing, so that's just you strawmanning. don't ask the question if you're going ot pretend the answer is something other than what it is; and lie about what people said.
you're not in a position to complain about strategy when you can't even get basic argumentation right.

On June 24 2017 09:20 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/gregpmiller/status/878219446267109377

I want to see the same people accusing Trump of divulging classified info to the Russians argue WaPo is doing just great here. I'm sure Putin appreciates knowing precisely which tools are at the US's disposal + Show Spoiler +

On June 24 2017 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:


What negative connotations does crony have and in what way is it unjustified?

I didn't say she would only fill positions with cronies so that's an argument against one I never made. You did say nothing, you said the big thing would be essentially doing nothing.

I was wondering if there was some substantive progress she would have made and so far the answer is no, she had no plan to do anything and her supporters saying Bernie's inability to compromise would have inhibited his ability to make change was basically hot air as they never expected Hillary to get anything done.