|
SedanChair posted:Yeah that's pretty ridiculous. He's a Catholic trained by Jesuits. Any proper godless socialist knows such a man to be an ally. I fear people may not realize that Jesuits are the cool Catholics. They're the Pope Francis of the Church, not the Pope Benedict XVI.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Bast Relief posted:An atheist I know hates Kaine because she views his selection as pandering to Christians. She might be partially right but come on. She's actually a cool uber feminist most of the time but right now she's gone full blown Stein. I'm disappointed. Even so, I'm pretty cool with a guy who is against abortion but still votes in favour of pro-choice because he realizes it's up to the mother. That is an excellent indicator of a man moral in his politics. e: Gene Wolfe and Stephen Colbert are both devout Catholics, they are more than okay in my book. ManlyGrunting fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I fear people may not realize that Jesuits are the cool Catholics. They're the Pope Francis of the Church, not the Pope Benedict XVI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah that's pretty ridiculous. He's a Catholic trained by Jesuits. Any proper godless socialist knows such a man to be an ally. A Jesuit literally came up with the big bang theory. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Anyone who dislikes Tim Kaine is a bad person. How can you not like the physical embodiment of a fusion of Mr. Rogers and Ned Flanders the ding dang diddly politician?  Well hey there neighbor Ned, I think it's time for the Fusion Dance so we can go help Hilary against Majin Yuuge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Funny how the Jesuits are so respected now considering they were literally the churches militants arm at one point. (I like them too, but I was raised in the Franciscan traditions)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
The person most responsible for setting me on the path to change from a Religious Right Conservative to the godless Progressive I am today was an ex-Jesuit Buddhist who was my philosophy teacher in 2001.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Real question: Can anyone explain to me, what CU is and why it's bad? Like if I could get an easy-to-read effortpost, I would love you and think you're cool. Quoting this again because I don't know if he got an answer and I know there are probably other posters like me who aren't regular DND posters but want to visit for the election. CU refers to "Citizen's United v FEC," which was the landmark Supreme Court case that expanded political contributions from large organizations. It's the infamous "corporations are people, too" ruling that many refer to in regards to campaign finance reform. It protects political spending as a form of free speech even when that spending is done via a corporation, union, or nonprofit. Many on the left see the ruling as a major step backward in keeping elections a level playing field. It created what we call "SuperPACs," which are large political action committees typical bankrolled by corporations independent of an actual party. That is, as long as the money does not go directly to the Republican Party, for example, the Koch Brothers could pool a ton of money for as many ads, speaking engagements, etc. that they want without repercussion. Some see this as essentially giving corporations a ton of power in elections as more money is rarely a negative in an election cycle and candidates that aim squarely at lower-income voters would have trouble keeping up. Some candidates on both sides hate this because it also forces them to spend a ton of time and effort trying to interact with potential donors instead of actually campaigning. Hope this helps, and I'm sure some other DND posters can give more detail if you need and explain the various candidate positions at length. 
Axel Serenity fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Of particular note is that Citizens United, as in the group in that bill, had made a movie which was basically "Killary Sucks: The Film" and the dispute was whether or not this constituted electioneering in some form. So even if she was fine with expanded money, this was a personal insult to 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I fear people may not realize that Jesuits are the cool Catholics. They're the Pope Francis of the Church, not the Pope Benedict XVI.  My aunt literally loves everyone and doesn't have a hateful bone in her body, but whenever the Jesuits are brought up, she mumbles about them stealing her team, but then smiles and says, "God loves everyone and so do I".
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:23
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Real question: Can anyone explain to me, what CU is and why it's bad? Like if I could get an easy-to-read effortpost, I would love you and think you're cool. In addition to Axel Serenity's good post, here's an earlier post by me on CU. Discendo Vox posted:CU is fine. It's unlikely to be overturned. Like TPP, the case has gotten so politicized that those arguing it tend not to understand what it represents. Recent electoral events particularly put paid to the idea that large amounts of PAC spending == political success. Axel Serenity posted:Some candidates on both sides hate this because it also forces them to spend a ton of time and effort trying to interact with potential donors instead of actually campaigning. Discendo Vox posted:This is not CU, it's politics. CU did not change that calculus. The closest relevant caselaw is the line involving Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, which shut down public campaign financing, following the Davis v FEC case, which shut down a narrow area involving the candidate's personal funds. The return of public funding systems, and overturning the cases that shut down public funding equivalency (starting with Davis), would be more appealing, but still difficult to argue or achieve until we have a Dem court.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
ManlyGrunting posted:Even so, I'm pretty cool with a guy who is against abortion but still votes in favour of pro-choice because he realizes it's up to the mother. It's not even that; it's because he has a functioning understanding of the 1st amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:CU is fine. It's unlikely to be overturned. Like TPP, the case has gotten so politicized that those arguing it tend not to understand what it represents. Discendo Vox posted:Recent electoral events particularly put paid to the idea that large amounts of PAC spending == political success. I disagree, PACs are problematic in part because unlimited spending on campaigns gives wealthy interests (even more) disproportionate political influence. Limiting politically motivated spending is acceptable as a way to prevent this, even if it is a limitation on "speech". We've long accepted that individual donation limits to political campaigns or parties are ok, as they are an explicit check on the political influence of the wealthy. It's not hard to see why so many people disagree with allowing unlimited spending by PACs, as it makes those kinds of limits completely pointless. I'd argue people do understand the implications of CU. I suspect you're probably right that it won't be overturned. It's interesting how one-sided public opinion is against CU: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg-poll-americans-want-supreme-court-to-turn-off-political-spending-spigot quote:Unhappiness with the 2010 decision cuts across demographic and partisan and ideological lines. Although the ruling was fashioned by the court’s conservative majority, Republicans oppose Citizens United 80 percent to 18 percent, according to the poll. Democrats oppose 83 percent to 13 percent, and independents, 71 percent to 22 percent. Among self-described liberals, conservatives, and moderates, 80 percent say the decision should be overturned. Even if it's a push poll 80% is approaching the theoretical maximum of consensus in politics, on the assumption that 10-15% of people are reliably politically deranged. It's true that Jeb's campaign was a great object lesson that PAC money isn't political panacea. However it shouldn't be controversial that a spending advantage isn't important for political campaigns, especially at lower level of government where the national media isn't going to cover every insult tweet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Can't speak for anyone else, but I was in awe because "You have sacrificed nothing" coming from the father of a deceased Muslim soldier towards a privileged, arrogant, idiotic blowhard like Trump is rhetorically devastating stuff From a page back, but also worth noting that said privileged, arrogant, idiotic blowhard also skipped out of the Vietnam draft. And then he said this: quote:“I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era,” Trump said in a video that resurfaced Tuesday on Buzzfeed, “It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.” If anyone hasn't heard that quote before, play the fun game of guessing what he's talking about before looking up the context. It's STDs from sleeping around
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I fear people may not realize that Jesuits are the cool Catholics. They're the Pope Francis of the Church, not the Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope who spent his entire cardinalate screeching in Argentinian media that lgbt rights would bring armageddon, or the Pope who took time in an encyclical about climate change to throw a bone to the far right about how the ideology of gender (i.e. trans people) is demonic (and worthy of defrocking a priest for daring to officiate a wedding)? Not saying anything about Kaine specifically, and he's obviously not a trad catholic (Tridentine cosplay would probably be electoral poison for either party for different reasons), but Francis II's PR being still so pervasive is disappointing (yes I know it's more bellyaching about the state of the Church and it's ability to build an image). That said jesuits are sort of okay, sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:The Pope who spent his entire cardinalate screeching in Argentinian media that lgbt rights would bring armageddon, or the Pope who took time in an encyclical about climate change to throw a bone to the far right about how the ideology of gender (i.e. trans people) is demonic (and worthy of defrocking a priest for daring to officiate a wedding)? Not saying anything about Kaine specifically, and he's obviously not a trad catholic (Tridentine cosplay would probably be electoral poison for either party for different reasons), but Francis II's PR being still so pervasive is disappointing (yes I know it's more bellyaching about the state of the Church and it's ability to build an image). Brief pedantry: he's the first Francis, so it's just "Francis".
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Did anyone have good dirt on Jill Stein? I'd like to make an effort post on how garbage tier of a candidate she is, I know she panders to anti vax despite probably not believing it, know she has said extremely stupid things like the American people are more oppressed now than they ever have been, know she's against nuclear. What are the other things that decisively show how bad she is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
greatn posted:Did anyone have good dirt on Jill Stein? She wants homeopathy and naturopathy to be taught in schools.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
I kind of expected the Green party to have a more coherent energy policy for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Pastrymancy posted:I kind of expected the Green party to have a more coherent energy policy for some reason Nah. They are anti-nuke, and hate all other forms of baseload as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:She wants homeopathy and naturopathy to be taught in schools. I have heard that but not been able to find it
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
I'm going through the platform on jill2016.com and here are some other bad things:quote:Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators. Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. This is based on discredited science, neonics are actually not responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder apparently, and anyway bee numbers are on the rise. quote:Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. This is bad policy but you'll never convince a green party voter about it so it may not be worth trying. quote:Create living-wage jobs for every American who needs work, replacing unemployment offices with employment offices. Government would be the employer of last resort, and the unemployed would have an enforceable right to make government provide work. Create direct public employment, as the Works Progress Administration did, in public services and public works for those who can't find private employment. This is, uh, something. While parts of it are good in theory, actually eliminating unemployment insurance because you're guaranteeing everyone a government job if they want one is very iffy policy. For one thing, you want unemployment insurance itself to still be a thing for private sector workers who lose their jobs and need some kind of support while they look for a new private sector job. Getting rid of unemployment insurance in favour of just handing jobs to people without them sounds like good policy only if you actually buy into the right-wing meme that the main use of UI is to fund lazy moochers who don't ever want to get a job, ignoring the actual point of UI which is to help temporarily unemployed workers find new jobs. This also sounds suspiciously like workfare, whereby people losing white collar jobs would be denied any benefits unless they accept jobs "in public services and public works" which could result in things like laid off clerks and admin assistants applying for unemployment insurance and being told "that doesn't exist anymore, the only way to support yourself is to take this job digging ditches". But then, I suppose all those concerns are baseless since quote:Guarantee economic human rights, including access to food, water, housing, and utilities, with effective anti-poverty programs to ensure every American a life of dignity. we're just going to wave a wand and end poverty through mincome and rebuilding the safety net, so there's no need for UI anymore. quote:Avoid chronic diseases by investing in essential community health infrastructure such as local, fresh, organic food systems, pollution-free renewable energy, phasing out toxic chemicals, and active transportation such as bike paths and safe sidewalks that dovetail with public transit. This is a mix of good policy (don't pollute near residential neighbourhoods, encourage active transportation) and wacky policy (organic food will save us from disease, toxic chemicals). quote:Ensure that consumers have essential information for making informed food choices by expanding product labeling requirements for country of origin, GMO content, toxic chemical ingredients, and fair trade practices. Again, GMO labeling is a bad policy. quote:Replace Common Core with curriculum developed by educators, not corporations, with input from parents and communities. a) I'm pretty sure Common Core was already developed by educators, not corporations b) parents and communities are dumb and will lead to bad teaching practices because "common sense blah blah blah this is how we learned it in my generation and we turned out fine" is a bad way to teach and also "Precious Moonbeam III requires 100% personalized attention, only communicates through song, and can never be in the same building as a peanut" is also a bad way to teach quote:Cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases. Ensure a just transition that replaces reductions in military jobs with jobs in renewable energy, transportation and green infrastructure development. Um... yeah that'll definitely work. quote:Restore the National Guard as the centerpiece of our defense. What does this even mean? quote:Provide equal and free access to the airways for all ballot-qualified candidates, not just those with big campaign war chests. This sounds good in theory until you realize that most of the ballot-qualified candidates are completely nuts and will be broadcasting low-budget commercials about how your eight year old children should buy gold and hide it under their beds from the communists. Honestly though most of the planks in the platform are good things, they're just completely unfeasible in the current American climate. Jill Stein's personal bad beliefs don't seem to have infected the platform much; there's no mention of anti-vax, or of homeopathy, etc. 90% of it could have been taken verbatim from some really excited Bernie fan's wishlist of what America could look like in twenty years. A lot of the bad stuff comes in what's not mentioned, like not mentioning nuclear power as an option for either energy production or research, despite the fact that based on what we currently know about energy production it's currently the only realistic option for large-scale phasing out of fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
greatn posted:I have heard that but not been able to find it quote:Tucked into this long, starry-eyed list of progressive causes are a few lines that remind you of the far left's fraught relationship with biological science. There's a call not just to label genetically modified foods but to “put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.” Never mind that scientists have studied GMOs extensively and found no signs of danger to human health—Stein would like medical researchers to prove a negative. She would also “Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.” This is a nod to the discredited theory that some pesticides are driving the collapse of honeybee populations (which, by the way, are not actually collapsing). Again, this is somewhat standard stuff on the far left these days, but coming from a physician, it's discouraging. It is also in keeping with the last official Green Party platform, from 2014, which supports the “teaching, funding, and practice” of “alternative therapies” such as naturopathy and homeopathy, i.e. funneling money into quack medicine. (Stein first ran for president as a green in 2012). http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_for.html e: apparently they removed the wording that specifically mentions homeopathy in April but kept the plank encouraging the use of alternative medicine in general: http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=820 vyelkin fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:What does this even mean? As I understand it from chatting with Green Party supporters, this amounts to "What do we need a professional military for anyway? Bring all our boys home, the military's purpose should be defense of the United States which is what the National Guard is for."
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:As I understand it from chatting with Green Party supporters, this amounts to "What do we need a professional military for anyway? Bring all our boys home, the military's purpose should be defense of the United States which is what the National Guard is for." This seems like a way to make Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping very happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This seems like a way to make Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping very happy. You don't say. The Green Party view of the military, from my anecdotal experience talking with them, is that they believe that economics and politics can guarantee world peace, and obviate the need for military adventures and overseas presence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Man if neonics don't gently caress with bee colonies all those studies that came out like last week talking about a 40% decrease in sperm viability and bee keepers losing 45% of their hives last year must be from an alternate universe
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
The Green Party right now is basically a snapshot of 1970s Liberal Views except far removed from the original (and mostly meaningful) context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This seems like a way to make Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping very happy. Thanks for the reminder that Democrats are avid hegemonists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
rscott posted:Man if neonics don't gently caress with bee colonies all those studies that came out like last week talking about a 40% decrease in sperm viability and bee keepers losing 45% of their hives last year must be from an alternate universe This is news to me considering the source I'm consulting saying it's mostly a myth is from two days ago: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/28/beepocalypse-myth-handbook-dissecting-claims-of-pollinator-collapse/  SedanChair posted:Thanks for the reminder that Democrats are avid hegemonists. Not saying the US should run the world, but even if you believe in some kind of global balance of power between Great Powers then it doesn't seem untrue to say that having the world's largest Great Power suddenly withdraw from the world and turn isolationist, whether caused by the election of a far right or far left candidate, would be beneficial for the other Great Powers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Thanks for the reminder that Democrats are avid hegemonists. You can either be a bernout talking about the DNC having whistle-blowers assassinated and how you're voting for the Green party or you have to go full throated establishment Democrat, there's no in between anymore judging by this thread and my facebook feed
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
rscott posted:You can either be a bernout talking about the DNC having whistle-blowers assassinated and how you're voting for the Green party or you have to go full throated establishment Democrat, there's no in between anymore judging by this thread and my facebook feed That tends to happen when at least one group calls everyone who disagrees with them
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This is news to me considering the source I'm consulting saying it's mostly a myth is from two days ago: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/28/neonicotinoids-may-reduce-sperm-count-lifespan-in-male-honeybees/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/science/neonicotinoid-insecticide-bee-sperm.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That tends to happen when at least one group calls everyone who disagrees with them If all it takes to get you to hew to centralist democrat ideology is a couple of dumb kids calling you names you should probably reevaluate why you believe what you believe in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
rscott posted:If all it takes to get you to hew to centralist democrat ideology is a couple of dumb kids calling you names you should probably reevaluate why you believe what you believe in the first place Most people, including leftists, believe what they believe for very dumb reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/28/neonicotinoids-may-reduce-sperm-count-lifespan-in-male-honeybees/ This is interesting but considering the overall lack of a decline (and indeed the long-term increase) in honeybee populations, even where these insecticides are used on an industrial scale, it seems like it may be less of a concern than we may think? Not saying these particular pesticides shouldn't be banned, I'm a complete amateur in the field of bees, but my understanding is that even those large numbers (beekeepers lost X% of their colonies last year, etc.) are often misleading because beekeepers always lose a large percentage of colonies each year and so they're constantly replacing them with new ones, but these figures never reflect the replacement, just the loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Jill Stein is currently on twitter complaining that even though NC's voting restrictions were struck down, NC is still evil because they require 90k signatures for her to be on the ballot Is anything not about her
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
She would trade Donald Trump getting elected for the Green party hitting 10 or 15% nationally but she wanted to step aside for Sanders to take over the party Nomination so I don't think it's necessarily all about her but she seems to really dislike Hillary Clinton
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
More DNBee chat, please!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:20
|
|
