|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
There was no doubt that the Spygate stuff was going to be discussed at length when Trump met with Theresa May during this trip. And there was also little that Trump was going to force May to direct her intelligence services to cooperate with the DOJ given that the UK is neck deep in this mess and Trump knows the full extent of their involvement. Now we have some confirmation. Steele is going to meet with the DOJ to talk about the dossier, and my guess is that he and the Brits are being given some kind of immunity in exchange.
Former British spy Christopher Steele has agreed to meet in London with U.S. officials regarding the dossier, The Times of London is reporting.
A source close to Steele told the newspaper he plans to meet with American authorities within the next several weeks, but only about his interactions with the FBI and only with the approval of the British government.
Steele’s decision is an apparent about-face from his reported refusal to meet with U.S. investigators regarding his infamous report.
Reuters reported in May that Steele was unwilling to meet with a federal prosecutor who Attorney General William Barr tapped to lead an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. And Politico reported on April 17 that Steele was refusing to meet with the Justice Department’s office of the inspector general, which is looking into the FBI’s use of the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser.
Source.
The part that I find interesting about this is the limitation that Steele will only discuss his interactions with the FBI. Presuming that it's true (big if), there are a couple different interpretations regarding what the could mean. Does it mean that only the FBI is going to get thrown under the bus for this mess? Does it mean that Steele's relationship with British intelligence is off limits? What about FusionGPS, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Brennan, the CIA, the State Department (Kavalec) or the Clinton campaign? Part of the reason for the confusion about the ambiguity is that it's not entirely clear who Steele dealt with in connection with the drafting and dissemination for the CIA. We know he pushed it on the FBI through Bruce Ohr and on the State Department through Kavalec. Beyond that, various other people peddled it including Glen Simpson of FusionGPS and various affiliates of the Clinton campaign. Maybe the DOJ doesn't really need Steele for those things. The release of the IG report on the FISA abuse is imminent (Barr is rumored to have it already), so we'll see soon enough.
|
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else?
|
On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else?
It's not hard to figure out. Bernie is an unwelcome element to the Democrat Party because he threatens their big money interests. The mainstream media has devolved into little more than a megaphone for the Democrat Party, so giving Bernie short-shrift will be as natural to them as hating on Trump.
|
On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else?
I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't?
|
On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? Could be any of the 3 really
|
On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't?
There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree.
As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me.
|
On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me.
Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not?
|
On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not?
Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally.
|
On June 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not? Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally. Sigh, no one is going to let go of capitalism. Not Warren, not Bernie, not anyone.
|
On June 05 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not? Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally. Sigh, no one is going to let go of capitalism. Not Warren, not Bernie, not anyone.
Some of us already have (as in a worldview contingent on the perpetuation of capitalism). I think Bernie's done that to a degree but I have no illusions that he's going to burn down capitalism.
Which is why I'm increasingly pessimistic we'll avoid the worst climate predictions and am planning accordingly.
|
On June 05 2019 01:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Looks like the census is trying some underhanded stuff next year. By lowering the population of POC, they can claim larger % of crimes than others. I expect this to go to court (I think it already did once). 2020 Census Could Lead To Worst Undercount Of Black, Latinx People In 30 Years (mod edit needed) Show nested quote +Challenges threatening the upcoming 2020 census could risk more than 4 million people to be missing from next year's national head count, according to new projections by the Urban Institute.
The nonpartisan think tank found that the danger of an inaccurate census could hit some of the country's most difficult-to-count populations the hardest. Based on the Urban Institute's analysis, the 2020 census could lead to the worst undercount of black and Latinx people in the U.S. since 1990.
"Miscounts of this magnitude will have real consequences for the next decade, including how we fund programs for children and invest in our infrastructure," says Diana Elliott, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute who co-wrote the report released Tuesday.
Nationally, black residents could be undercounted by as much as 3.68 percent. I'm not sure why it wasn't brought up here last week, but some troubling information came out regarding the court case that is centred around this issue last week. Essentially, there is currently a battle between the administration and an advocacy group about the inclusion of a question regarding whether residents of a household are American citizens or not. The advocacy group charges that including the citizenship question is designed to suppress minority participation in the census, particularly people from central and South America because they will be scared of the government using that information against them. The administration's legal team claimed the question will have the exact opposite effect, and will allow the government to better allocate resources for communities.
Well, basically the administration's entire argument has been called into question with the discovery of primary source evidence found in the files of a recently deceased GOP strategist, Thomas Hofeller. Hofeller was famous for being one of the chief proponents of gerrymandering (he created the map in North Carolina for example), and was heavily involved in the strategy behind that. What happened was, his daughter found a bunch of hard drives of data while going through his belongings, and in that data was a bunch of documents outlining a strategy behind how the GOP could even further gerrymander districts and advantage the Republicans by undercounting populations in traditionally Democratic districts, and forcing the districts to expand to meet districting requirements. However, the strategy relied upon asking a citizenship-related question on the census because the current census data was not useful for do what Hofeller wanted and he posited that asking a citizenship question would cause minorities, particularly the Latinx community, to under-report, which would benefit his strategy. As it turns out, it appears that the documents Hofeller created were the basis for the administration's justifications for the census question, and he was directly involved in their justification for including the citizenship question:
Mr. Neuman testified that Mr. Hofeller told him that using citizenship data from the census to enforce the Voting Rights Act would increase Latino political representation — the opposite of what Mr. Hofeller’s study had concluded months earlier.
Court records show that Mr. Neuman, a decades-long friend of Mr. Hofeller’s, later became an informal adviser on census issues to Mr. Ross, the commerce secretary. By that summer, a top aide to Mr. Ross was pressing the Justice Department to say that it required detailed data from a census citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
The court filing on Thursday describes two instances in which Mr. Hofeller’s digital fingerprints are clearly visible on Justice Department actions.
The first involves a document from the Hofeller hard drives created on Aug. 30, 2017, as Mr. Ross’s wooing of the Justice Department was nearing a crescendo. The document’s single paragraph cited two court decisions supporting the premise that more detailed citizenship data would assist enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
That paragraph later appeared word for word in a draft letter from the Justice Department to the Census Bureau that sought a citizenship question on the 2020 census. In closed congressional testimony in March, John M. Gore, the assistant attorney general for civil rights and the Justice Department’s chief overseer of voting rights issues, said Mr. Neuman gave him the draft in an October 2017 meeting.
The second instance involves the official version of the Justice Department’s request for a citizenship question, a longer and more detailed letter sent to the Census Bureau in December 2017. That letter presents nuanced and technical arguments that current citizenship data falls short of Voting Rights Act requirements — arguments that the plaintiffs say are presented in exactly the same order, and sometimes with identical descriptions like “building blocks” — as in Mr. Hofeller’s 2015 study. The reason this whole thing is a big deal is because not only does it provide strong evidence that those pushing for the citizenship question knew it would benefit the Republicans and stifle minority participation in the census, but also that key witnesses for the administration potentially have committed perjury.
The entire New York Times article on this is well worth the read. Lower court judges had already sided with the advocacy group, and the case is before the Supreme Court. It appeared the Supreme Court might have been leaning toward siding with the administration, but this new evidence has thrown that entirely into question.
I've read up a bit on how Hofeller's strategy would work, and from my understanding of it is this: Say that federal law requires a voting district to have 10,000 people living in it (whether they are all citizens or not is not known, but 10,000 people is 10,000 people so based on census data that should be the district), and there's a city that has almost exactly 10,000 people, which they know because of census data. Let's say this district votes 51% to 49% in favour of the Democrats consistently, but the surrounding rural areas vote overwhelmingly Republican. Of course there won't be exactly 10,000 voters because of children and non-citizens who live in the city. A citizenship question is added to the census, and causes 250 people not to be counted (or 2.5% of residents). To meet the requirement that the district must have 10,000 people, the district must now expand such that it will have 10,000 people, which means that it must now include a portion of rural folks, who, again, vote overwhelmingly Republican. This small district boundary change suddenly shifts the number of people who vote Republican to be larger than the number of Democrats, and the Republicans now have an electoral advantage built into the district.
It's a similar concept to the previous, rather obvious version of gerrymandering, but it's significantly more subtle. The electoral maps (which are to be redrawn in many cases in 2021, which is why this court case is such a huge deal) would look much less obviously rigged than they did with traditional gerrymandering, but non-the-less, it would still cause some districts to switch from either being swing districts to being solid Republican, or cause solidly Democrat districts to turn into swing districts, both of which are more helpful for the Republicans than the Democrats.
|
On June 05 2019 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not? Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally. Sigh, no one is going to let go of capitalism. Not Warren, not Bernie, not anyone. Some of us already have (as in a worldview contingent on the perpetuation of capitalism). I think Bernie's done that to a degree but I have no illusions that he's going to burn down capitalism. Which is why I'm increasingly pessimistic we'll avoid the worst climate predictions and am planning accordingly.
Capitalism is a solution to a temporary problem. People need to understand that it does not contribute anything in a world without scarce resources. The fact that capitalism will become pointless once we get the hang of fusion makes the whole thing feel particularly stupid. Capitalism is just a word for the way societies naturally end up occurring. It is a step in human development, not something to identify with or see the glory in. It is sad to me that some people identify with capitalism as if it is even something to identify with.
|
On June 05 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not? Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally. Sigh, no one is going to let go of capitalism. Not Warren, not Bernie, not anyone. Some of us already have (as in a worldview contingent on the perpetuation of capitalism). I think Bernie's done that to a degree but I have no illusions that he's going to burn down capitalism. Which is why I'm increasingly pessimistic we'll avoid the worst climate predictions and am planning accordingly. Capitalism is a solution to a temporary problem. People need to understand that it does not contribute anything in a world without scarce resources. The fact that capitalism will become pointless once we get the hang of fusion makes the whole thing feel particularly stupid. Capitalism is just a word for the way societies naturally end up occurring. It is a step in human development, not something to identify with or see the glory in. It is sad to me that some people identify with capitalism as if it is even something to identify with.
I don't think that fusion will eliminate the concept of scarcity. Capitalism isn't going anywhere any time soon.
|
Like I said before, there are reasons why Biden has never been able to secure the nomination for president in his previous campaigns. He just can't get out of his own way and routinely says and does stupid shit. Here's yet another example. He's been caught (AGAIN) plagiarizing the work of others without attribution:
The climate platform of former vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden appears to have lifted wholesale language from environmentalist nonprofits without attribution.
The similarity in language was first spotted online by Josh Nelson, the vice president of progressive and environmentalist cell phone company CREDO Mobile. "The paragraph in Joe Biden's climate plan about carbon capture and sequestration includes language that is remarkably similar to items published previously by the Blue Green Alliance and the Carbon Capture Coalition," he tweeted Tuesday morning.
Nelson cited two example of apparently copied language. "Biden's goal is to make CCUS a widely available, cost-effective, and rapidly scalable solution to reduce carbon emissions to meet mid-century climate goals," reads the Biden website.
Meanwhile, the website for the Carbon Capture Coalition states, "[our] goal is to make carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) a widely available, cost-effective, and rapidly scalable solution to reduce carbon emissions to meet mid-century climate goals."
Biden's website also claims that, "carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS) is a rapidly growing technology that has the potential to create economic benefits for multiple industries while significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions."
That, Nelson notes, mirrors the language of a 2017 letter to the Senate from the Blue Green Alliance: "Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a rapidly growing technology that has potential to create economic benefits for multiple industries while significantly reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions."
The apparent copying recalls plagiarism charges that sank Biden's very first presidential run in 1988, after he gave speeches that duplicated remarks first made by British Labor Party Leader Neil Kinnock. The then-Delaware Senator also went on to admit that he was punished as a student at Syracuse Law when he was caught plagiarizing a law review article.
Source.
|
On June 05 2019 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not? Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally. Sigh, no one is going to let go of capitalism. Not Warren, not Bernie, not anyone. Some of us already have (as in a worldview contingent on the perpetuation of capitalism). I think Bernie's done that to a degree but I have no illusions that he's going to burn down capitalism. Which is why I'm increasingly pessimistic we'll avoid the worst climate predictions and am planning accordingly. Capitalism is a solution to a temporary problem. People need to understand that it does not contribute anything in a world without scarce resources. The fact that capitalism will become pointless once we get the hang of fusion makes the whole thing feel particularly stupid. Capitalism is just a word for the way societies naturally end up occurring. It is a step in human development, not something to identify with or see the glory in. It is sad to me that some people identify with capitalism as if it is even something to identify with. I don't think that fusion will eliminate the concept of scarcity. Capitalism isn't going anywhere any time soon.
Fusion means we can have as much of any given material as we need. We are able to change things into other things, but it is cost prohibitive because of scarcity of energy. Cold fusion is 100% an elimination of scarcity of resources. You are likely underestimating just how many things we're already able to do so long as energy is cheap enough.
|
On June 05 2019 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
I find myself liking Warren more and more, but I still feel like she is a "build order loss" vs Trump.
My current list of "If I was allowed to just choose the president":
1. Yang
2. Bernie
3. Warren
4. Inslee
My list in terms of "confidence against Trump":
1. Bernie
2. Buttigieg
3. Biden
4. Inslee
I would put Warren in second place of confidence against Trump, then bump everyone down from there, Bernie still #1.
|
On June 05 2019 09:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On June 05 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On June 05 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2019 04:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turned on (couple hours in the background) MSNBC to see whats going on there...
I think it's weird that they've talked about Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, And Gillibrand more than Sanders. Do people think that's intentional (avoiding covering him), coincidental (just my observations), circumstantial (there's legitimate news rationale), or something else? I honestly haven't spent much time comparing Bernie and Warren since things are changing so quickly at this stage of the primary. My impression has been that Warren is trying to basically copy everything about Bernie while being able to say "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!111" and other similar phrases. Is there some sort of anti-donor thing Bernie is still doing that Warren isn't? There's their sincerity and theoretical underpinning for why, how, and when we need to change it. There's the likelihood they keep their fundraising promise in a general or expand it through the party (or keep it through the primary or a reelection). When it's down to 3 candidates there's going to be a lot more pressure from big donors/bundlers/corporate interests and so on to take their money as assurance it's just rhetoric they're using when it comes to holding the wealthy and powerful accountable to any significant degree. As for the specifics about which donors specifically aren't welcome, I don't believe her rhetoric represents thoroughly held convictions enough to matter personally, so there's not much value in looking into it for me. Don't know a lot about it, but hasn't Warren run enough Senate campaigns, and have enough bills with her name on them to know what she's serious about and what not? Depends on who you're asking? I mean campaigns and names on bills can just as easily be theater as the rhetoric. I don't think Warren is capable of letting go of capitalism as an organizing principle in her life and her band aids will never keep up with the bleeding personally. Sigh, no one is going to let go of capitalism. Not Warren, not Bernie, not anyone. Some of us already have (as in a worldview contingent on the perpetuation of capitalism). I think Bernie's done that to a degree but I have no illusions that he's going to burn down capitalism. Which is why I'm increasingly pessimistic we'll avoid the worst climate predictions and am planning accordingly. Capitalism is a solution to a temporary problem. People need to understand that it does not contribute anything in a world without scarce resources. The fact that capitalism will become pointless once we get the hang of fusion makes the whole thing feel particularly stupid. Capitalism is just a word for the way societies naturally end up occurring. It is a step in human development, not something to identify with or see the glory in. It is sad to me that some people identify with capitalism as if it is even something to identify with. I don't think that fusion will eliminate the concept of scarcity. Capitalism isn't going anywhere any time soon. Fusion means we can have as much of any given material as we need. We are able to change things into other things, but it is cost prohibitive because of scarcity of energy. Cold fusion is 100% an elimination of scarcity of resources. You are likely underestimating just how many things we're already able to do so long as energy is cheap enough.
There's a funny motivation for the multi-trillion dollar industries of banking, energy, and war to get as close as they can to that concept of fusion but not to find it, as it would destroy their own industry in the long run. That's how capitalism works.
|
|
|
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism. It will do what every other revolutionary advance in technology has done: it will cause tremendous deflationary pressures on a broad base of goods of services, thereby raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere.
|
On June 05 2019 11:22 xDaunt wrote:
Fusion isn't going to create an abundance that will replace capitalism.
Not as long as capitalists can think of a way to use it to continue moving wealth from the most marginalized to those who need it least and sell it as
raising everyone's standard of living and freeing capital to be deployed elsewhere.
I can put a homeless/jobless person in prison for not having a home/job and argue that I've improved their quality of life by giving them a job and a place to stay with that reasoning though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
