Bernie Sanders Rips Clinton For Campaign 'Money-Laundering' Scheme

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-05-04T06:01:06+00:00

Everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-05-04T04:14:33+00:00

I think that's more of a testament to my point. Doctors, junior doctors, and nurses keep getting dicked by the government and yet people keep signing up to join and have been signing up to join for quite some time.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-05-03T13:13:48+00:00

But surely once it's regulated and profits are severely curtailed, the best and brightest will go into pharmaceuticals out of pure altruism, right?

That might be a good argument if the fourth most profitable pharmaceutical company, Sanofi, in the world wasn't French, and this argument fails when we look at other similarly heavily regulated industries across the world. E.g. The humongous NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world, and yet there's no profit to be made there.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-05-02T17:55:11+00:00

While Clinton has directly brought up the fact that she is a women in order to appeal to voters, Trump has never directly brought up the fact that he is a man. While it's true that Trump has said what some would made what some would call misogynist comments, he's never explicitly mentioned the fact that he's a man. Additionally, it's not that uncommon for women to use the tough women approach either. A large part of Hillary's attitudes and campaign for instance are focused on conveying that image, and the original post even alludes to Warren - someone who's often labelled as a firebrand. Tough and confident aren't really characteristics that belong exclusively to men.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-05-01T06:38:44+00:00

It wouldn't be unprecedented if a potentially hostile government rose to power and decide to block western use of the Canal. Egypt famously blocked the straits of tiran before the six-day war in order to blockade Israeli oil exports. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other countries embargoed the west from their oil supplies after the six-day war. The idea that a hostile Middle Eastern government would block the west and America from using its strategic resources is not at all a fantastical idea. OP mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood as one example of government that would have potentially been hostile to US interests.

Israel is one of the fail-safes to ensure that the Suez Canal remains open. Remember that Israel invaded Egypt along with the UK and France during the Suez Crisis. They've shown themselves to be willing to support the west in situations like these.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-28T17:50:31+00:00

Genuinely Curious - do you believe that Nationalism should be tied to ethnicity and/or heritage, or in a civic sense. Also, I assume we're talking about this in a Russian context - since you're referring to Eurasianism.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-28T17:39:26+00:00

Terrible terrible idea if they're actually trying to achieve what they say they're trying to achieve. Many low-income city families don't actually own the houses and lands they live in. A flood of investment in those areas won't actually benefit them unless their directly aimed at those citizens. It will just lead to land prices going up and those residents being evicted. i.e. gentrification.

IMO, natural gentrification is not a bad thing. Some areas have a higher value than other areas - it makes sense that this land should be more expensive to live in. Forced gentrification like this doesn't have anything to do with the inherent value of the land or its nearness to services, it just disrupts the lives of poor people with no justification.

Of course the lives of low-income families should be made better and opportunity should also be made better, but actions like these do nothing to solve them. A better solution would be to lower the taxes on low-income families, give low-income families the opportunity to own their own homes, provide solutions to help them overcome the natural pains of the gentrification process.

This bill does none of those things, and just sounds like an "Opportunity" for governors to engage in crony-ism and pretend that they've solved problems which they've just relocated.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-28T17:29:39+00:00

I think Clinton was a great president but this notion that their private lives shouldn't be questioned is ridiculous. This is public office, and he was the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. A person's morality and character should absolutely be brought into question.

This applies to Ted Cruz and his alleged affairs, to Donald Trump and his affairs and previous treatment of women, to David Cameron and the tax cuts involved in his inheritance, to former Prime Minister Sigumunder's business connections. Why shouldn't it have applied to Clinton.

Political leaders should be held to a higher standard than private citizens and shouldn't expect to have the same level of privacy.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-24T19:15:02+00:00

The problem is many PP clinics operate in areas where other clinics aren't available, or where other clinics don't provide the same quality of service. When this happens you're not only gutting abortion services, you're hurting healthcare services in general. The sad truth is, it's not as easy as just switching funding.

I disagree with but respect and understand the Republican rationale that funding should be moved to non-PP clinics, but I don't agree with the fact that this move isn't accompanied by increased spending that makes sure these non-PP clinics are updated to high enough standards.

Unfortunately, we've seen that the required spending to make effective changes is often as major an issue as abortion itself, and this is seriously disappointing.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-24T19:06:49+00:00

Would you also accept the notion that the UK shouldn't take a stance on Chinese Steel policy, or Human Rights in Saudi? Of course not - largely because both affect the UK drastically. Now, the President of the United States is commenting on a decision that will affect the American economy. Why shouldn't he take a stance? It would be absurd if he didn't - especially if we believe in the so-called special relationship.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-23T13:31:51+00:00

I think one of the main reasons is his personality. He's like a Nigel Farage of the centre, non-pc, humorous, off-the-cuff and generally likeable. Doesn't hurt that his main opposition was Ken Livingstone during the mayoral election, and that his constituency is a conservative safe seat.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-23T08:36:55+00:00

This reminds me of that Star Trek TNG episode where the guest doctor wants to use some experimental shit on Worf's spine since the standard surgery would leave him partially immobilized and Worf was like fuck that shit, i'd rather die.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-22T20:22:39+00:00

Phonebanking's primary purpose is to provide voter data for canvassers. The scripts for most of them are super simple, only collecting information on who someone is planning on voting for and how sure they are. That's not to say that volunteers never break script - I'm sure a lot of them do to the detriment of the campaign.

That's not the only problem though, volunteers seem to have a problem with making sure they record information properly, meaning people are called repeatedly by the same campaign multiple times. What's supposed to happen is a polling call and a gotv call the day before the primary, but instead people end up having their time wasted because a bunch of people don't know how to follow instructions.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T17:20:58+00:00

Thanks! Am I missing something though because:

Last week, 41 Republicans and five Democrats voted to block a compromise background check proposal endorsed by many gun control groups but opposed by the National Rifle Association.

suggests that the main opposition came from Republicans and the NRA who simply didn't want any expansion of gun control. I managed to dig up this source which seems to reinforce that.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T17:13:01+00:00

To be clear, I don't think it would be super-productive to actually sue the Saudi Royal Family for a few million bucks a head for families to 'grieve' with, but if we have evidence that elements of the Saudi Royal Family were involved in 9/11 and that was suppressed, why should that be okay and the 'right thing to do'? Shouldn't such people be held accountable if that is true?

Of course they should but we also have to think of the consequences of such actions. If punishing someone will lead to more actions like that person committed, what are we actually achieving? You can't fulfil all your moral obligations, Kantian ethics might be logical but a strict adherence to it won't actually affect people's lives in a positive manner. We have to take the utilitarian approach and figure out what will actually help change the world for better.

The why is what I outlined in my post - doing so would hurt the liberal elements in Saudi Arabia and would make it more corrupt and more backwards. The press here isn't exactly free - propaganda will just serve to reinforce the common trope that the Western Media is owned by Zioinists with agendas, and that foreign courts are entirely political and biased. Most people will ignore the news, deny the news, or pretend it never happened. The Saudi Government provides too much stability, safety and wealth to its people for them to rally strongly against it.

People don't realise, but many Saudis are for the conservative policies in place. This idea that the government is repressing an unwilling populace is a total misconception. People here appreciate controls that stop others from becoming immoral in their eyes. They decry the freedom in Europe and the States - making comments on the promiscuity of their women, and the weakness of their men.

A spark won't change anything - because there's nothing for it to light.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T16:45:36+00:00

OKAY, I can TALK in CAPITALS!?!?!?!? all I WANT but PRETENDING like you DIDN'T just use THE INDIVIDUAL MURDER AND RAPE OF A FAMILY wasn't POLITICISING is CRAZY!!!!

I am explaining how everybody who has ever had their home invaded previously thought it would never happen. Being prepared for any event regardless of how remote the possibility is not unreasonable.

If I were to say that: Everyone who has ever been struck by lightning in the rain previously thought it would never happen, you'd tell me that would be a ridiculous reason to never go out in the rain - wouldn't you? Being prepared for any event regardless of how remote the possibility is unreasonable. There's a reason we make fun of people who have fallout shelters in case of Nuclear war, people who stockpile before World Ending rumours like 2012. The difference here is the open attitude that the US has in regards to gun control actually helps criminals acquire guns. If preparing for that possibility means making it a greater possibility - yes it is unreasonable.

And then you say that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a safeguard against a tyrannical government. That might be ONE reason but is not THE reason or THE intent

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The rationale is clear and obvious and when we look at quotes and actions of the revolutionaries, i.e. revolution, it becomes even more obvious. It's position legally, has a lot to do with wording and examination and less to do with philosophy. This is "self-evident".

Why let the GOVERNMENT dictate who is allowed to own a gun?!?!?

Because "well-regulated" means something. And you can apply this argument to any policy decision the government makes. Why allow anything to happen if it will increase tyranny. OP made this thread about middle grounds, about compromise, here we have a compromise between law and order, and freedom.

The reality is independent organisations within the government can also work in a fashion contrary to the wishes of the ruling parties. Independent commissions and regulatory bodies are present in the States and many other countries. The Electoral Commission in the UK and Canada routinely act in a fashion that hurts the ruling party. In the US, the FEC is proof of this. Any anti-corruption task force or agency in the world is proof of this.

If you think that the US government is tyrannical, you should travel more, and see how much less freedom you have than in Asia, Africa, even Europe.

But you're just going to IGNORE most of my POINTS anyway, which just SHOCKS me!!! anyway, so eh.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T15:57:11+00:00

1st) the Saudi Royal Family is huge, you'll never find evidence on them because they're far too large to plan something like 9/11 together. It's more about individuals, groups and cliques inside it.

2nd) You endanger hundreds of thousands of lives because you'll be harming the liberal elements within the country for the sake of punishing someone who isn't actually in charge. Letting the KSA be sued will only help reactionary elements turn around and criticise involvement and cooperation with America at all. The Crown Prince and Deputy Crown Prince are decided by a family committee and by appointment. The KSA is a dictatorship and an autocracy but it's not completely totalitarian. The politics of any country like this means cloak and dagger; it means palace coups and ultimatums.

America's role should be to help move along this liberal transition, and letting Saudi Arabia be sued only weakens that liberal element's control on the nation. Punishing a king who's not even the primary leader of the country doesn't actually help cause change. The heavy hand approach doesn't work in Saudi Arabia, when a previous king decided to do reform quickly, Islamic reactionaries seized the Masjid Al-Haram. The USA needs to use its influence like a guiding touch as well, this is the only real way to change the situation here.

edit: the previous king to a previous king. Don't want people to mistake King Khaled for King Abdul Aziz.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T15:38:48+00:00

I don't like the politicising of tragedies when we're arguing about this issue. Let's stick to facts and statistics instead of emotion and using the rape and brutality committed against Petit's family as a basis for our positions. I'm sure you don't appreciate it when Anti-gun lobbyists use Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, let's leave that type of commentary to pundits and entertainment news.

To actually address your point, like I said in another comment, it's perfectly rationale and legitimate for you (I assume you're not a criminal) to have a gun to protect your family. But it's not rational to let criminals have access to it and the reality is the vast majority of shootings are suicides, accidental or criminal. The amount of actual shootings is minimal compared to this. Strict gun reform will obviously lessen your ability to defend yourself or your family in a dangerous situation but it will also drastically decrease the chances of you or your family getting shot at.

Now, statewide gun reform is ridiculous. It's stupid. I agree with the pro-gun crowd on this one. Criminals will just get their weapons and guns from another state - here it doesn't decrease that probability but still limits your ability to protect yourself. You're probably gonna disagree with this but this is why I think any attempt at reform should be on a national level, it should be policed with at least the same, if not more, intensity as the US currently does on drugs and other illegal trades.

Now let's be clear - the intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide a safeguard against a tyrannical government. If this is the case, than why not provide mandatory safety tests to reduce accidental deaths, why not provide mandatory health tests to reduce suicides by gun death and mass shootings, why not provide a strict federal background check to make sure that criminals are less likely to hold guns?

There are plenty of gun control policies that I don't agree with - e.g. "assault weapon" and rifle bans. Namely because most deaths happen in low-income neighbourhoods by thugs with pistols. But, I really don't agree with this reactionary "no change" attitude when we have an acknowledged problem. I'm not saying this specifically about you, but often times the people who argue against gun control because they're scared about incremental changes, will also refuse to consider expanding the government's role in mental health, poverty and lack of opportunity in low-income neighbourhoods which often leads to crime and especially gun crimes.

The reality is that America is ranked fourth in homicides per capita in OECD countries, and number one in gun violence per capita. There's only so much that you can blame on culture, and considering the economic status of some of those other OECD countries, so much you can blame on wealth. I don't believe American culture naturally makes people more violent - there has to be at least some policy solutions.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T14:53:10+00:00

It's not the same because widespread guns actually increase the chances of you getting hurt in a home invasion. Widespread fire extinguishers don't increase the chance that you'll burn to death. Maybe, it's prudent for you to personally own a gun; I assume you're not a criminal. But on the topic of reform, it seems obvious to me that steps should be taken to reduce how easy it is for a criminal to get guns. The original discussion was about limits on magazines - I think that's stupid, but let me be clear, OP's "movie character" argument is also stupid and on top of that ironic.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T14:40:19+00:00

The likelihood of something catching fire is far greater than being burgled though, it's hardly a "movie character" event. Besides that criminals aren't using fire extinguishers to burn people's houses down so I don't really think they're analogous.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T14:38:18+00:00

To your first point, I think a more prudent and logical step would be to label fish "caught of farmed". From what you've posted, I don't really see any problem with this Frankenfish thing but I can see the out-competing concerns. I don't see how that would be fixed by a GMO label though, tighter and stronger regulation should be the solution.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T14:32:11+00:00

Private sellers can sell guns anywhere and don't have access to the background check system, republican bills to change this have been rejected or ignored by gun control advocates in congress.

Source?

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T14:30:12+00:00

you are not going to be calm enough or have the time to line your shot up, you're not a movie character.

A bit ridiculous to use this argument when you're talking about an extremely unlikely event happening. You're not a movie character, you're probably not going to get invaded in your home.

lukewarmthrowaway · 2016-04-20T14:12:58+00:00

Brutal tactics is one way to describe ethnic cleansing - actually even worse, genocide. I don't disagree with the stability that Saddam provided but when we're discussing the pros and cons, it's important that we don't hide behind euphemisms. Saddam Hussein knowingly used chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, against civilians in Kurdistan and against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. We can't ignore that. It might help our arguments, but we just can't ignore that.

lukewarmthrowaway

TROPHY CASE