U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[DunderMifflin]

35 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think it's cute when white Republican guys learn about the history of racism in the Democratic Party in their mid-40s. 

It's good to see that monthly payment to Glenn Beck U is paying off.

Anyway, did ya know that the Democractic Party is for the Gold Standard cause, well, you know Grover Cleveland was for it back in the 1890s.

I never said racism was specific to the democratic party.

I said it's a part of the US political system that has existed for 200+ years. Which is an extension of the racism of the British Empire that goes back even further. Never said it hasnt gotten any better. 

Also, I'm not a Republican. 

And it's seems you know way more about whoever Glenn Beck is than I do.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Calling fucking autism an epidemic and a medical calamity doesn't sound problematic to you and dehumanizing to people that have autism? Because all you have to do is talk to people with autism to find out how upset that wording and those views makes them.

 

I note that you evade my main point again. I'm beginning to wonder how deeply felt your purported disagreements with Hillary Clinton really are.

Here's what Stein said on autism (among other things):

"I had been, for a while, very alarmed about the public health calamities that I was witnessing as a new doctor and a mother of young kids. There were these new epidemics of asthma and cancer and autism and diabetes and obesity. And I said to myself, 'Hey, our genes didn't change overnight.' You know, my generation didn't grow up with this."

Looking around at this subject, I've come up with some articles questioning whether autism is an epidemic. So it seems her position is scientifically inaccurate. It may even be offensive to some. But her phrasing appears to be within the realm of common medical discourse. To say based on this that she doesn't want to treat people with autism as people is stretching awfully far. 

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I never said racism was specific to the democratic party.

I said it's a part of the US political system that has existed for 200+ years. Which is an extension of the racism of the British Empire that goes back even further. Never said it hasnt gotten any better. 

Also, I'm not a Republican. 

And it's seems you know way more about whoever Glenn Beck is than I do.

Well, given some of the false equivalencies you are making here, I thought you might be.

Look, I am not in denial that the current Democratic Party probably has some race issues. And it's important that we be aware of that and be able to talk about it, since it has become a multiracial party, and getting rid of discrimination is a goal of liberals.

But, the whole idea of what you are pushing here, that both parties are essentially the same or both candidates are the same is horseshit.

[DunderMifflin]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, given some of the false equivalencies you are making here, I thought you might be.

Look, I am not in denial that the current Democratic Party probably has some race issues. And it's important that we be aware of that and be able to talk about it, since it has become a multiracial party, and getting rid of discrimination is a goal of most liberals.

But, the whole idea of what you are pushing here, that both parties are essentially the same is horseshit.

Why is it horseshit? Hillary Clinton is working for banks and wall street in my eyes. It doesn't get anymore white power than that. 

 

I think the whole idea that a hillary presidency vs a Trump presidency is going to be some huge measurable difference that results in less racism is horseshit. And I think it's beyond disgusting for Hillary supporters to promise and guarantee that it will be better.

[Corvinus85]

27 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/
 

Reading the comments below that article leads me to believe how overly simplistic the article really is. Bees may not be on the brink of extinction, but nor are they fairing as well as the article is trying to convince us.

[Weeping Sore]

29 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/
 

Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is the phenomenon that occurs when the majority of worker bees in a colony disappear and leave behind a queen, plenty of food and a few nurse bees to care for the remaining immature bees and the queen.

So that's different than a lot of bees dying. A beekeeper expects to find dead bees all the time, and occasionally the whole hive might die of starvation or the elements or some other factor. But in the collapse phenomenon, the workers fly out for miles as usual and then are apparently unable to find their way back. The article does not mention the distinction. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 hours ago, James Arryn said:

 

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Reading the comments below that article leads me to believe how overly simplistic the article really is. Bees may not be on the brink of extinction, but nor are they fairing as well as the article is trying to convince us.

Yeah, per the article, colonies ARE collapsing at an increased rate, with commercial populations only sustained by the expensive process of splitting existing hives and adding new queens.  Obviously for wild bees, there is no such buffer.  The only articles I've found supporting this narrow examination of how bee populations aren't declining (commercial populations are admittedly not crashing, but only because of unnatural intervention) are from Bayer and Syngenta.  

 

@DP, couldnt a pacifist make a pretty sound argument that Clinton is worse than Stein?  I mean, whether you think her (Clinton's) support of military actions is justified or not, Stein certainly isn't advancing an antivaxx agenda.  So the body count is a lot higher on one side.

I can see some pandering, but it seems pretty benign compared to any pandering Clinton has been doing.  Your vitriol against Stein seems out of place, especially with comments about ignoring questions to 'piss people off'.  Argue in good faith or don't bother.

I say this as someone who is happily voting for Clinton despite some serious misgivings about her judgment and proclivity for violence as a solution.

[OldGimletEye]

25 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Why is it horseshit? Hillary Clinton is working for banks and wall street in my eyes. It doesn't get anymore white power than that. .

And who is wanting to repeal Dodd-Frank? It's not Hillary.

Look, I have no interest in destroying the system finance in this country. Having a decent financial system is important to economic growth. That doesn't mean I'm cool with everything Wall Street has done. And I do think regulation is warranted.

Donald Trump really has no plan with regard to Wall Street. 

Donald Trump probably doesn't know what the Bagehot rule is. Donald Trump probably doesn't know what the purpose of the Orderly Liquidation Authority is. Hillary does.

Getting financial regulation is an extremely important matter as financial crises can impose huge cost. Trump has no idea what he is doing here. Trump won't be burning Wall Street to the ground. Nor would that be good policy. In fact Trump would give huge tax cuts to these guys.

I think your argument here is nonsense.

25 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I think the whole idea that a hillary presidency vs a Trump presidency is going to be some huge measurable difference that results in less racism is horseshit. And I think it's beyond disgusting for Hillary supporters to promise and guarantee that it will be better.

LOL okay. So you are seriously arguing that both parties are the same on race? Which party do you think is more likely to take issues of discrimination seriously? Which party do you think is more likely to believe that the legacy of historial racism is still a problem?

[sologdin]

stein is not anti-vaccine; she is critical of pharmaceutical firms having control over regulatory agencies.

 

fairly obvious that building a border wall vel non is a measurable distinction as to racism.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And who is wanting to repeal Dodd-Frank? It's not Hillary.

Look, I have no interest in destroying the system finance in this country. Having a decent financial system is important to economic growth. That doesn't mean I'm cool with everything Wall Street has done. And I do think regulation is warranted.

Donald Trump really has no plan with regard to Wall Street. 

Donald Trump probably doesn't know what the Bagehot rule is. Donald Trump probably doesn't know what the purpose of the Orderly Liquidation Authority is. Hillary does.

Getting financial regulation is an extremely important matter as financial crises can impose huge cost. Trump has no idea what he is doing here. Trump won't be burning Wall Street to the ground. Nor would that be good policy.

I think your argument here is nonsense.

LOL okay. So you are seriously arguing that both parties are the same on race? Which party do you think is more likely to take issues of discrimination seriously?

 

 

It looks like you are fine with anti racism until it's a threat to your money. I don't find that anything worthy of bragging about. Or any significant difference whatsoever than business as usual USA racism 

 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

 

It looks like you are fine with anti racism until it's a threat to your money. I don't find that anything worthy of bragging about. Or any significant difference whatsoever than business as usual USA racism 

 

So according to you, the only way to "prove" that their are differences between Hillary and Trump on race is for Hillary is to utterly destroy the financial system?

Now why on Earth would that be good for anyone? 

Sounds to me like, you're not interested in reform, but just utter destruction.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Now why on Earth would that be good for anyone? 

 

Because it would end the white strange hold on the economy and the power it grants the white establishment to influence and dictate most other areas of life and in other areas of the world.

[OldGimletEye]

On the differences between Hillary and Chump on Wall Street regulation.
One is a competent technocrat. Another one, not so much.
I'll let two scholars of banking explain:

Quote

Will the U.S. Presidential election have an impact on financial regulation? The answer depends on who becomes President, the priorities of the winner, and the inclinations of the Congress. That said, we thought it would be useful to examine what the candidates say they will do. To summarize, we find Republican nominee Trump’s call to “dismantle Dodd-Frank” deeply troubling. By comparison, our differences with Democratic nominee Clinton are relatively minor.

http://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/10/9/clinton-versus-trump-on-financial-regulation

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Because it would end the white strange hold on the economy and the power it grants the white establishment to influence and dictate most other areas of life and in other areas of the world.

Using this logic, we should probably just destroy every industry then. I don't think burning everything to the ground is a sensible way to go. That Hillary doesn't think so, doesn't prove she is just as racist as Chump.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

There's now two polls in Arizona that have Clinton ahead. Will be interesting to watch that state (and Utah, of course).

Folks say there are a lot of 'wasted' votes in places such as Texas where Clinton is overperforming, but Trump will eventually win. However, I am hopeful that will drive some change at least at the local level, assuming Presidential coattails transfer to local races. In that sense, and in the sense that close races in seemingly red states give the Democrats confidence for future elections, it isnt so bad for folks in that state to show up in force. Sort of laying groundwork for a future vote. 

Trump has only led in ONE poll in Arizona since the first debate.

its also important for red state democrats to vote because it piles up evidence in all states that they are being denied representation by computer driven gerrymandering. If they don't vote we don't have much evidence to argue with.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 And here it is folks. The big payoff we've all been waiting for...TRUMP TV!

 https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpTV?src=hash

 

/We deport, you deride

[sologdin]

election as marketing for the new network.  nice.

Quote

 Republican candidate himself are thinking about how to capitalise on the populist movement that has sprung up around their campaign in the event of an election defeat to Democrat Hillary Clinton next month

as though it weren't the initial purpose.

[lokisnow]

Re Clinton flaws

since I've been following politics, republicans have never admitted their presidential candidate has flaws and are never expected en masse to so admit. On the other hand, democrats are always expected to admit their candidate has flaws and it often seems they are constantly challenged to en masse admit to their candidates flaws otherwise they are being unreasonable.

after ten years of this, round about 2010, I decided this was fucking bullshit and from now on I would follow the republican principle and refuse to concede rhetorical ground upfront about my candidate. To me it is about establishing a rhetorical even starting point with republicans to give my chosen team the best chance of winning. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

stein is not anti-vaccine; she is critical of pharmaceutical firms having control over regulatory agencies.

 

fairly obvious that building a border wall vel non is a measurable distinction as to racism.

Well, kinda. She's not anti ALL vaccines, but she is against (as of last week) mercury in vaccines and wants that removed.

More disturbing to me is that she supports homeopathy as a central plank of her health plan. And then there's the bullshit with GMOs. 

I do agree with @OnionAhaiReborn that if you're worried about intervention that's a much scarier 'risk' than being fairly badly informed about science, or at least should be - though being into anti-science fads is pretty bothersome. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Trump has only led in ONE poll in Arizona since the first debate.

Hmm....I guess the paucity of polls will lead to larger uncertainties. However, it is fair to say Arizona is closer than PA or MI (say), and therefore behooves more polling.