laklak wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Nonviolent protest is the most effective way to change a government.

To be fair, carpet bombing and the 82nd Airborne is also pretty effective.

...in preventing truth decay, when combined with a program of personal moral hygiene and regular professional scare.

Hearts and minds, man, hearts and minds.

proudfootz wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

...in preventing truth decay, when combined with a program of personal moral hygiene and regular professional scare.

Hearts and minds, man, hearts and minds.

If you've got them by the balls, having the hearts and minds follow is not a problem.

Well, as hearts and minds are insubstantial things, the surest hold will be aimed at our physicality. All those things that are existential threats.

One good reason to do away with society's safety nets: that the majority of Americans will be too worried every day whether they can pay the rent, feed their kids, or afford to go to the doctor ensures that the present Duopoly can be maintained without too much trouble.

People impoverished who rebel are easily dismissed as 'greedy' or 'envious' to folks who are too immersed in their own struggles to take a peek at what's going outside their own little bubbles, or feel that they can afford to defend those perceived to be lower on the social hierarchy.

Willie71 wrote:I think the debate is misframed. Clinton would have put corporate shills in her cabinet, just like Obama did. They would appear to be qualified at some level, and people wouldn't see the obvious corruption because the media would present information in a palatable way. Clinton would continue with the wealth extraction, but have more professional messaging. The advantage is the damage would roll out slower than trumps damage.

Trump is a buffoon, incompetent, and super fucking dangerous. That's obvious. The damage is quick. That is the advantage as people can see it for what it is.

If Clinton won, the dem establishment would have been quite content to stay on the same pro corporate path. Even with the Dems losing, the top players are sticking with that message, but progressives can capitalize on the loss.

proudfootz wrote:Well, as hearts and minds are insubstantial things, the surest hold will be aimed at our physicality. All those things that are existential threats.

One good reason to do away with society's safety nets: that the majority of Americans will be too worried every day whether they can pay the rent, feed their kids, or afford to go to the doctor ensures that the present Duopoly can be maintained without too much trouble.

People impoverished who rebel are easily dismissed as 'greedy' or 'envious' to folks who are too immersed in their own struggles to take a peek at what's going outside their own little bubbles, or feel that they can afford to defend those perceived to be lower on the social hierarchy.

willhud9 wrote:Hm, the candidate for Virginia governor who was endorsed by both Sanders and Warren lost the primary by double digits.

Too be fair, our current Lt. Governor and the winner of the democratic primary for this state, is a calm, reasonable man who happens to be the most progressive candidate in Virginia's history, but I find it politically noteworthy to mention that the endorsement of Sanders and Warren was nowhere close to being impactful enough for Periello. This has happened in several states so far.

This is a big deal for me, and for many Americans. A republican governor in Virginia, especially one who would allow Trump to do what he wants in the state, would be disastrous. Ralph Northam is a superior candidate over the GOP guy. So what if the establishment democrats back him? His victory in Virginia is better than Ed Gillespie's.

Practical politics. Go figure.

Oldskeptic wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Hm, the candidate for Virginia governor who was endorsed by both Sanders and Warren lost the primary by double digits.

Too be fair, our current Lt. Governor and the winner of the democratic primary for this state, is a calm, reasonable man who happens to be the most progressive candidate in Virginia's history, but I find it politically noteworthy to mention that the endorsement of Sanders and Warren was nowhere close to being impactful enough for Periello. This has happened in several states so far.

This is a big deal for me, and for many Americans. A republican governor in Virginia, especially one who would allow Trump to do what he wants in the state, would be disastrous. Ralph Northam is a superior candidate over the GOP guy. So what if the establishment democrats back him? His victory in Virginia is better than Ed Gillespie's.

Practical politics. Go figure.

Well, if Bernie couldn't get the nomination why would anyone expect his endorsement to get anyone else a nomination? Seems the populist aint all that popular.

If anyone cares to notice; Perriello the progressive lost to Northam the moderate by about the same 12 point margin as Bernie the progressive lost to Hillary the moderate. Someone must have rigged the primary.

Ya might think that after 36 years of Bernie spreading the same message that it would mean something other than talking points for Bernie Bros that can't get anyone nominated let alone elected.

willhud9 wrote: A republican governor in Virginia, especially one who would allow Trump to do what he wants in the state, would be disastrous. Ralph Northam is a superior candidate over the GOP guy. So what if the establishment democrats back him? His victory in Virginia is better than Ed Gillespie's.

Practical politics. Go figure.

Oldskeptic wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Well, as hearts and minds are insubstantial things, the surest hold will be aimed at our physicality. All those things that are existential threats.

One good reason to do away with society's safety nets: that the majority of Americans will be too worried every day whether they can pay the rent, feed their kids, or afford to go to the doctor ensures that the present Duopoly can be maintained without too much trouble.

People impoverished who rebel are easily dismissed as 'greedy' or 'envious' to folks who are too immersed in their own struggles to take a peek at what's going outside their own little bubbles, or feel that they can afford to defend those perceived to be lower on the social hierarchy.

A 33.333...% decrease in the poverty rate since 1959 corresponding with a 113.333...% increase in population from 150,000,000 to 320,000,000.

While the population has more than doubled the number of those below poverty line increased from 40,000,000 to 46,500,000.

Not to mention that what poverty meant before is not what it means now.

Poverty in 1959 : No ac, no phone, no car. Some places no indoor plumbing and no electric power.

Poverty in 2017 : Window mount ac, no reliable internet connection, your cell phone doesn't make good videos, and there isn't an on suite off the master bedroom.

Oldskeptic wrote:
Poverty in 2017 : Window mount ac, no reliable internet connection, your cell phone doesn't make good videos, and there isn't an on suite off the master bedroom.

The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote: A republican governor in Virginia, especially one who would allow Trump to do what he wants in the state, would be disastrous. Ralph Northam is a superior candidate over the GOP guy. So what if the establishment democrats back him? His victory in Virginia is better than Ed Gillespie's.

Practical politics. Go figure.

If you want to make sure Gillespie gets beaten, then the obvious candidate to choose is the one who does best against him in head-to-head polls (Perriello).

How the fuck is it pragmatic to go with the guy with a smaller lead (Northam)?

(Having had this argument in the Presidential election, I must admit my questions are almost entirely rhetorical - I'm really quite uninterested in the mental gymnastics needed to square this circle, particularly if they're the same contortions used last time.)

Animavore wrote:Trump and the Repubs want to roll back those pesky environmental and endangered species acts which stop the fossil industry drilling and cracking on certain, protected lands. They also have plans for a lot of those Native lands going to waste.

Hillary may have broadly supported fracking, believing it to be cleaner, rightly or wrongly, but I see no evidence she was going to put public lands up for a massive cash grab.

There is no parallel universe were she would've green-lighted what amounts to large-scale, industrial environmental vandalism.

Clinton, who was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, believed that shale gas could help rewrite global energy politics. “This is a moment of profound change,” she later told a crowd at Georgetown University. “Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role.” Clinton tapped a lawyer named David Goldwyn as her special envoy for international energy affairs; his charge was “to elevate energy diplomacy as a key function of US foreign policy.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 96786.html

To refresh, fracking or hydraulic fracturing means producers are blasting pressurized water, sand and chemicals into shale rock miles underground to extract natural gas.

The Environmental Protection Agency considers shale gas to be clean energy. Some environmentalists, though, are doubtful that it’s that much better than coal or oil, given reports that fracking can cause methane leaks (a greenhouse gas that’s much more potent than carbon dioxide) and earthquakes and set water ablaze.

Clinton clearly supported the practice as secretary of state. Her special envoy for international energy affairs launched the Global Shale Gas Initiative encouraging other countries to explore shale as an energy source.

An in-depth investigation by progressive magazine Mother Jones said that Clinton’s support of fracking was "part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel."

We found instances of Clinton and the State Department talking up fracking to Latin America, the European Union, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Pakistan, China and India.

"The United States will promote the use of shale gas. Now, I know that in some places is controversial. But natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today, and a number of countries in the Americas may have shale gas resources," Clinton said in a 2009 speech to the Inter-American Development Bank.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -fracking/

Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hil ... -fracking/

Hillary Clinton Picks TPP and Fracking Advocate To Set Up Her White House
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/16/hil ... ite-house/

Hillary Clinton never actually said the word “fracking” during her keynote address at the National Clean Energy Summit in Nevada on Thursday, but she still clearly laid out her views on the technique: She’s all for it. She says it needs to be conducted and regulated properly so it doesn’t cause excessive environmental harm, but she believes that can be done. Which puts her totally in line with President Obama, and out of line with most of the environmental community.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/where-d ... -fracking/

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:
And each was a seperate statement - you said it mate, not me.

The context and overall point of a conversation doesn't just disappear for a single statement within that conversation.

It does the way you wrote it.

I can see how you might see that way if you've completely forgotten the train of conversation. Either that, or you're going for a really lame "gotcha!" to try and score a point after floundering for the last few pages.

Nothing to say about what I didn't say then? You're just going to ignore that too or are you going to blame me for "Being an idiot who can't read or understand stuff" again?

What the hell are you talking about?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm pointing out one guy at the EPA isn't going to be worse for the planet than global fracking.

No, your argument was that Clinton would be worse than Trump overall.

As to Trump's term being more or less worse remains to be seen.

Dismantling the EPA, Dakota Access Pipeline and Paris agreement all in the first few months? No, it doesn't remain to be seen. All the signs are there, clear as day.

I don't for one minute think that they won't push fracking but would Clinton have pushed it more effectively?

We also have the US out the picture as far as taking on the environment. Other countries will push really quick to grab this market whilst America flounders which could push the technology along a lot faster. The US is only one country and the rest of the globe will take advantage of this I would think.

Sure are a lot of assumptions in there. It's funny how everyone wants to play up how much energy we use and how much we contribute negatively to the environment and global warming, but then downplay it when it's not convenient for their argument.

What the fuck are you tralking about - I didn't downplay anything and I'm also not the one with the reading issue. I said that the US could fall behind in green tech.... What were you imagining I said after that because I can't converse with your imagination if you don't tell me what you think you are reading.

I was conflating this post with another one, my mistake.

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
Poverty in 2017 : Window mount ac, no reliable internet connection, your cell phone doesn't make good videos, and there isn't an on suite off the master bedroom.

How not to argue your point.

1) post a dubious graph.
2) pull a bunch of baseless assertions out of your ass.

For Tirado, being poor has meant walking miles to jobs because she didn’t have money to fix her car. Stacking boxes and cleaning toilets. Suffering chronic pain from rotten teeth she can’t afford to have cared for properly. Getting treated like human garbage by customers, bosses, doctors, and landlords. And then, after all that, being asked why she’s not smiling on command. She writes:

I get that poor people’s coping mechanisms aren’t cute. Really, I do. But what I don’t get is why other people feel so free in judging us for them. As if our self-destructive behaviors therefore justify and explain our crappy lives. Newsflash: It goes both ways. Sometimes the habits are a reaction to the situation.

The genesis of Hand to Mouth was something she wrote last year on an online forum responding to a person who asked why poor people do things that seem so self-destructive. “Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain,” she wrote, while enumerating various things she’s done that might not seem particularly foresighted. Her impromptu essay was picked up by the Huffington Post, the Nation, and Forbes and generated, she says, “thousands” of e-mails.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-to-mouth

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
No, your argument was that Clinton would be worse than Trump overall.

Dismantling the EPA, Dakota Access Pipeline and Paris agreement all in the first few months? No, it doesn't remain to be seen. All the signs are there, clear as day.

Sure are a lot of assumptions in there. It's funny how everyone wants to play up how much energy we use and how much we contribute negatively to the environment and global warming, but then downplay it when it's not convenient for their argument.

What the fuck are you tralking about - I didn't downplay anything and I'm also not the one with the reading issue. I said that the US could fall behind in green tech.... What were you imagining I said after that because I can't converse with your imagination if you don't tell me what you think you are reading.

I was conflating this post with another one, my mistake.

And to my last post I offer this post as evidence

Willie71 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:

Hearts and minds, man, hearts and minds.

If you've got them by the balls, having the hearts and minds follow is not a problem.

Well, as hearts and minds are insubstantial things, the surest hold will be aimed at our physicality. All those things that are existential threats.

One good reason to do away with society's safety nets: that the majority of Americans will be too worried every day whether they can pay the rent, feed their kids, or afford to go to the doctor ensures that the present Duopoly can be maintained without too much trouble.

People impoverished who rebel are easily dismissed as 'greedy' or 'envious' to folks who are too immersed in their own struggles to take a peek at what's going outside their own little bubbles, or feel that they can afford to defend those perceived to be lower on the social hierarchy.

Poverty results in criminal activity to get by, and that results in profits for the prisons, and the rest join the military, providing an endless supply of disposable assets for the war machine. Both are very lucrative for those at the top. Don't forget the big box stores that teach their employees how to apply for food stamps so thry can survive, while the corporation's make record profits. Of course raising minimum wage would bankrupt the system...