|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
anglagard writes: Nevertheless, should Trump be denied the nomination, it will obviously compare with Humphrey's back in 1968... Humphrey won his party's nomination back in 1968, so I had to think a minute and look up Humphrey before I could figure out the comparison you're drawing, and I'm still not sure. Is it that Trump's denial of the Republican nomination in a multi-candidate race would be like Humprey's denial of the presidency in a multi-candidate race? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
The New York Times editorial page was particularly hard on both The Donald and the Republicans today. From No, Not Trump, Not Ever:
quote: And from Republican Elite’s Reign of Disdain:
quote: An aside: Given the decline in life expectancy among middle-aged whites in some regions of America, it's difficult to understand the hostile attitudes toward government subsidized health care in those same regions. Of course, it's equally difficult to understand their Republicanism in the first place, given that Republican constraints on government's ability to reign in big business are responsible for a lot of the economic mess we've been through in the last decade. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
anglagard writes: Do you understand now why we find a similarity? Oh, sure, I get what you were saying now, thanks for the explanation. I had interpreted what you said as comparing a Trump denial of the nomination to something Humphrey was denied, not something he denied someone else. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
vimesey writes: I blame the Internet - it's empowered idiots. You could also blame the Supreme Court, who declared that money is speech. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Today's news reports that fracking has placed 7 million Americans at risk of man-made earthquakes, USGS says. Here's a nice USGS map from the article:
Lot's of good information in that article, worth reading. There are no excellent candidates out there, only satisfactory ones, terrible ones, and unthinkable ones. Concerning fracking, a good deal of any country's wealth depends upon its natural resources and its ability to take advantage of them, but the fracking industry is pooping on the rug. If fracking were properly regulated to reduce its environmental impact to an acceptable level then it's cost would soar and we would no longer be energy independent, but such is life. If environmentally safe fracked oil and gas is prohibitively expensive at today's prices then let it sit in the ground until it's economical. We don't want to shit where we live, something the Republicans don't seem to care about. Bernie's, "No, I do not support fracking," is not a reasonable statement. Vermont banned fracking, as big a sacrifice as Tahiti banning snow - there have never been any producing wells in Vermont. Try banning fracking in Texas. Hillary's "more nuanced answer" is a good one, indicating a willingness for more regulation, but even that would likely face a big fight, first in Congress, and then later in court. Even if she takes an Obama-like regulatory route, that would likely be challenged in court, too. Did everyone already know that there are many exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law? Fracking is exempt from from parts of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others. Attempts to increase oversight of the fracking industry would be a big fight, and with the Republicans in control of Congress there is no chance of reining it in, no matter who is elected. Let's hope that residents in the new earthquake zones take note and begin voting in their own best interests. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
petrophysics1 writes: The article you referenced is talking about salt water injection wells, that is not where frac fluid ends up, it is recycled. Is this opening paragraph from the article incorrect:
quote: So if I understand you correctly, your point is that the article is incorrect to say that frackers pump salt wastewater deep underground?
How deep is the potable water at your house? You don't know. If you drill a 2000 ft. deep well at your house is the water potable or is it's salt content so high you can't use it for anything. Be truthful, you have no fucking clue, but you think you should vote on how I run my business. I have maps of the underground aquifers in our neighborhood from the local water management board, but I don't understand the relevancy. There's no oil drilling in New Hampshire, and certainly no fracking. No one around here, including those who had the misfortune of needing deep wells (at 330 feet mine's a baby) has ever had a problem with salt. Around here it's iron and manganese.
Your USGS study associates salt water injection wells with earthquakes if they occur within 15km or 9 miles of the injection well. You might buy that BS but I'm a geologist and you are going to have to show me that. Aren't the people at USGS also geologists?
Basically your post showed me someone can read something, and because of a lack of background, has no clue what it really means. Then tell us what it really means. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Taking what Petrophysics said in Message 95:
Petrophysics in Message 95 writes: The price of gasoline was $1.45 a gallon in 1981..........my brother bought gas the other day in Denver for $1.29. So doing the math (actually, DollarTimes did the math), $1.45 in 1981 dollars would be worth $3.97 today. According to Weekly Denver, CO Regular Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices, last week the average price of regular in Denver was $1.93/gallon, and a month ago $1.52/gallon. If Petrophysics brother really purchased gas at $1.29/gallon anytime within the past month or two then he found a real bargain. I'm not sure what point Petro was trying to make, but his comparisons would be more meaningful if made with average rather than bargain prices. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Pardon my ignorance, but can someone describe or point me to the message that describes the war crimes Hillary committed?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
petrophysics1 writes: Yes, try reading what they said........instead of the journalist. Okay, I've gone and read the USGS's Induced Earthquakes Raise Chances of Damaging Shaking in 2016. The only difference I can see is that the USGS article doesn't say that the wastewater injected into the ground contains salt. Is that the difference your concerned about? Because if so it's a minor point. The main point is that millions of gallons of wastewater injected into the ground is causing earthquakes. Whether there's salt in that wastewater is beside the point when it comes to earthquakes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
People are already questioning how anything you describe Hillary Clinton doing in Message 76 represents war crimes, and you're just being evasive. War crimes *does* have a definition, why don't you use it?
You have a bunch of reasons why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president - they're better discussed than misrepresented. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
3751 words, of which only a third were your own.
Percy writes: You have a bunch of reasons why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president - they're better discussed than misrepresented. Okay. Go ahead, discuss them. I only had one point, and that was that war crimes *does* have a definition, and you're not using it. You ignored that point and have since indicated you're not backing away from your allegation. Before your points about Hillary Clinton can be discussed I think you have to stop misrepresenting them as war crimes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
A recent article in Politico (Donald Trump cracks open his wallet) reports that Donald Trump loaned his campaign an additional $11.5 million in March. It adds that Trump has received a total of $12.2 million in mostly small donations, and has loaned his campaign a total of $36 million. Of course a loan is not a donation, but I'm curious to what extent Trump's money has made possible his run for the Republican nomination. Could he have gotten those loans from elsewhere if he weren't wealthy and couldn't provide the loans himself? I don't think so. In my opinion the Trump run wouldn't be possible without Trump money.
We need campaign reform all over the place, and not the kind of campaign sabotage committed by the Supreme Court when they decided money was speech. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Cat Sci writes: Are you supposed to not use your own money for your own campaign? Having laws that allow the wealthy to use as much money as they wish to fund a political campaign, whether their own or someone else's, distorts, even perverts, the democratic process. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: But is his campaign really the primary issue at which campaign finance reform efforts such as overturned in Citizens United were targeted? If Trump is spending his own money, then it is pretty hard to make the claim that there is outside corporate influence over his campaign. We know that he is not being bought by Big Oil, Big Pharma etc. The problematic principle established by the Supreme Court is that money is speech. I don't know the law or the constitution the way you do, but my understanding is that you can trace the roots way back before the Citizen's United ruling. Doing a quick Google I found mentions of a Buckley v Valeo decision - I never heard of it, but maybe you have? Anyway, it's the Supreme Court's position that money is speech that I was referring to, not a specific decision like Citizen's United. As I said to Cat Sci, allowing money to be speech distorts and perverts the democratic process.
Citizen's United is bad law, but I understand the constitutional issues at stake that underlie the reluctance to limit participation in campaigns by money. But trying to limit candidates use of their own money on their campaigns is a far more troublesome idea, constitutionally. I wonder what form you think regulation in this area should take, but I know better than to ask for a proposal after you did not offer one. I only object when you accuse without asking. I don't believe the wealthy should be allowed to pour as much money as they want into a political campaign, whether their own or someone else's. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Cat Sci writes: How so? Because it allows the wealthy to buy elections. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024