Lol. RIGHT!? Jeezumcrow, I've imbibed way more than usual. This world of ours, man...makes me wanna just become Jack Sparrow (or...whoever the less Johnny Deppish pirate du jour is) and pretend that none of this crap is happening and we're all united against the damn British again...
At least we knew who our enemy was, then...unlike now, when they run the country and no one cares because SURVIVOR is on...
Well...the world, or the rum...either way...*goes back to drunkenly watching THE MAGICIANS in order to not think anymore*
Anyone who thinks nuclear energy is the solution hasn't been paying attention to the world in the last 75+ years or so. Between Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and Fukushima (which as I understand is STILL affecting the planet thanks to the ocean taking the toxic waste and radiation from that horror show global thanks to currents) - not to mention Lake Karachay (where spending an hour could be enough to kill you) and Russia's rumored Endgame plans for that toxic waste dump - we have plenty of evidence that nuclear energy is too risky to put all our ducks in that basket. And that is without mentioning that all the nuke testing pre- and post- WW2 have affected global health in measurable ways...there is evidence that radiation in the atmosphere, and in the food and soil and water, due to those tests may be responsible for the global obesity epidemic. Or at least a contributing factor. Who knew that irradiating our food, water, air and soil might have side effects!? Goddamn liberals, ruining everything for good, honest, God-fearing Americans with their science and their 'consequences for actions'...
I'm SURE that all of this is cheaper to deal with than shifting to wind/solar/hydro power.../s
Last edited by zinderel; 04-14-2019 at 03:51 AM.
Where was your talk of "leadership" when Sanders didn't release his tax returns?
Where was your talk of "leadership" when he failed to address sexual harassment during his campaign in 2016?
Where was his "leadership" on addressing racial issues in the last election while running against a man he now admits is a racist?
-----
"Pelosi admonishes Trump for using 9/11 video to criticize Ilhan Omar"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/polit...-11/index.html
-----
"Sanders' evolution on race may not have come soon enough"
Bernie Sanders' biggest selling point in 2016 was that he was the only person in the Democratic primary running not named Hillary Clinton.
2020 won't be that way. And to be successful, he'll have to earn every vote he can get.
This field will be massive, and in many ways, everyone is running as not Hillary Clinton (note Amy Klobuchar and Beto O'Rourke's digs at Clinton in their Wisconsin appearances). And while he certainly pushed the party left on a number of issues, including health care and college tuition, it's the Democratic Party that has pushed Sanders to the left on race and identity.
So, where does that leave Sanders, particularly with African-American voters, the key group that he struggled with against Clinton? In South Carolina, he lost by nearly 50 points (50!) -- and Clinton won 87% of the black vote.
That smackdown ended up being a preview of how Sanders would do throughout the delegate-rich South, highlighting weaknesses in the top echelons of his campaign team, which was largely white and male. Aides from 2016 say that they had a plan to reach black voters, but were largely ignored. Some also complain that they were often treated as tokens or props, particularly after Sanders was shouted down by a group of Black Lives Matter protesters at an event in Seattle...
Sanders is a Democratic socialist who has been hesitant to talk about race and showed a disdain for identity politics on one hand while never acknowledging it on the other hand.
"I wouldn't say so much he has evolved as many more lessons learned," Turner said. "He listens, he is a student of the game. He sees a lot as class-based, it's his predominate lens but it's not his only lens."
In 2016, Sanders was hesitant to call Trump a racist during a debate with Clinton. But during a recent trip to South Carolina to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, he called him a racist.
"Has he learned lessons since 2016, yes," said Symone Sanders, the national press secretary for Sanders' 2016 bid. "He has been actively working since 2016 to reach out to various communities to be on the ground and listen to folks. He has been to South Carolina a few times, which is really important. But some of the language is going to be problematic."
Indeed, his comments about diversity and racism in a recent GQ magazine article drew the ire of black progressives. He suggested that some of his opponents "think that all that we need is people who are candidates who are black or white, who are black or Latino or woman or gay, regardless of what they stand for, that the end result is diversity."
Symone Sanders disagreed.
"Nobody is saying that, and in a race where there are Latinos and women and black women, people will use it against him," Sanders said. "I don't care how many times you go to South Carolina. You say things like you said to GQ because you think it's appealing, it's alienating to some folks. As a young black millennial, I don't like hearing it because it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding about race and gender and what people are looking for."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/polit...020/index.html
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 05:12 AM.
You realize that this is the exact garbage that Hill and Tlaib were calling out, right?
Here is Hill's exact Tweet calling it out...
- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...43201423085568
Having to do the same with O'Rourke...
- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...54546986115072
Pointing out that Sanders managed to actually address it...
- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...53927055417344
Pointing out the specific responsibility that Pelosi has here...
- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...62855667400706
What I "realize" is that you're quick to hypocritically call out everyone but your "pet" candidates -- like Sanders -- for their faults and it does nothing positive for the party as a whole when you try to sabotage the leadership of the party.
I remember you calling out Hillary for not supporting BLM and when I posted the link of the mothers speaking on behalf of her campaign, you disappeared from sight and didn't even have the common decency to admit that you were wrong.
Same goes for people like you not voting "against" Trump -- which is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.
Having a preferred candidate is one thing but trying to sabotage the Democratic party is another -- maybe when you start addressing Sanders' lack of "leadership" on key issues as adamantly as everyone else's I'll be able to take you seriously as anything other than someone who will attack the Democratic party unless he gets his way on how the party is run.
It's telling that you said you liked Carter -- I like Carter too, but despite his best intentions, his politics were not successful on the national stage, especially in comparison to both Clinton and Obama.
Sanders couldn't even get that far without running as "Democrat" and still lost by millions of votes in the primary.
Stop trying to force a losing strategy on the rest of the Democratic party.
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 07:42 AM.
Nuclear is not "cheaper".
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
Takes massive public subsidies
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natu...wer-subsidies/
And the problem of nuclear waste that is radioactive for eons has not been solved.
It's funny that free market conservatives back the one alternative energy that takes the most Government funding.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
If #ACAB isn't meant to be understood as a statement that All Cops Are Bastards, this does suggest a communication problem when statements aren't meant to be taken literally.
The British system has not killed 100,000 people.
The point on nuclear energy is in response to people who see climate change as likely ending the world in the next 12-100 years.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
You're right about the questions.
There were also plenty of cakemakers in the area willing to make cakes for gay weddings, so there were alternatives available. One question is the extent to which that matters.
It's real.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...ection-1395515
The Colorado situation is a bit more complex in that the baker didn't exclusively make wedding cakes, although these accounted for a good chunk (not 50 percent, but close) of his business. He would be a willing to make cakes for gay people that weren't about wedding; He wouldn't make a cake for Steve & Dave's wedding, but he would make a cake for Steve passing the bar exam.
We all agree that businessmen should be forced to follow just laws; the questions come to the merits of the specific law, as well as when a businessman is no longer an artist.
Is the decision to never mix business with religion or politics a suggestion or a law? Ben & Jerry facing a boycott is based on customer response, rather than any legal repercussions.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
He won't bake cakes for Halloween either. While the issue was in court (or I guess it still might be), he stopped making wedding cakes altogether, at significant detriment to his livelihood.
Another shop offered to bake the cake as soon as the story made the news. But no one was ever actually looking to get a cake there, as the guy was being used to create a test case in the first place. This is different than the issue of minorities not being served in the south in the 60s, because it's not the south in the 60s. A black customer who was turned away from lodging or a restaurant in the south in the 60s likely would find themselves with no options. A gay couple who can't buy a wedding cake from Baker A is going to have little trouble buying the cake from multiple competitors in the same market in the 21st century.
The Civil Rights Act was always about liberal values coming to loggerheads with themselves. Which way to bend is contextual, not evergreen.
If you recall, the court punted on the case by throwing it out on the grounds that the local body (don't recall what it was called) actually insulted the man's religious beliefs in its decision.
It was interesting to see Kelly Ann on Meet the Press today. She supposedly was there to talk about the president's immigration policies, but kept trying to pivot to Omar. I appreciate that Chuck Todd was like, "I know what you're trying to do here, let's get back to the subject."
I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn't a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It's worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn't mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.
1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.
2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.
3. I'm not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.
4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left's main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.
5. If you're concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother's life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.
I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren't openly discussing theirs.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
I didn't say every Democrat openly calls for abolishing ICE, just that it's the party of the people calling for it. And the elected officials calling for it face no repercussions for doing so, which suggests that for the leadership it is an acceptable position. If the leadership were against calls to abolish ICE, they would respond to anyone who openly holds that position with a fervor reserved for elected officials who turned out to wear blackface in 1980s yearbooks, as long as the next in line isn't accused of multiple counts of sexual assault.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets