Politics | 2014-15

By IWMTB19 Go To PostThe right's recent "if you're anti-racism, you should be anti-abortion and defund Planned Parenthood!" is probably the most racist and transparent online campaign I've seen in years.

The only way to make any sense of the claim that abortion is doing major racial harm to the country because of the higher frequency of abortion among black women is to make the implicit assumption that black women have no agency or no ability to make good decisions which is about as racist as possible. That black women are allowed to choose to make their own decisions is what is destroying the black community.

I can understand some anti-abortion people, but this is just ridiculous racism by the right.

The ol' divide and conquer strategy.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostThe right's recent "if you're anti-racism, you should be anti-abortion and defund Planned Parenthood!" is probably the most racist and transparent online campaign I've seen in years.

The only way to make any sense of the claim that abortion is doing major racial harm to the country because of the higher frequency of abortion among black women is to make the implicit assumption that black women have no agency or no ability to make good decisions which is about as racist as possible. That black women are allowed to choose to make their own decisions is what is destroying the black community.

I can understand some anti-abortion people, but this is just ridiculous racism by the right.

Google Margaaret Sanger. She's attributed with founding planned parenthood and being a virulent racist whose aim was to use the organization to eliminate black people and other "undesirables".

That being said, that shit is almost a century ago, and has as much value as an argument as their other popular pro life argument of "Jane Roe was a fictitious name of a woman who is now pro-life so everyone must be pro life".


Literally can't argue substance and have no understanding of the facts so they latch on to personalities and argue for/against them instead. (Keep in mind, most of these people are CHRISTian fundamentalists) that sort of thinking goes with the territory.

Jesus was good - so all Christians are good
Margaret Sanger was a racist - so all PP supporters are racist.

This is more or less how their brains work.

What would some of you all consider a progressive country?

US is really just archaic in its approach to just about everything.

I know one of the founders of PP was racist, but the far-right is doing a bunch of "the only way to save the black community is to stop abortion of black children!" over the last few weeks with the recent PP "sting" and they're not specifically mentioning the founder as much because no one cares about that specific issue much anymore. You can be against abortion, but this argument being pushed that only white legislators can save the black community by taking away the rights of black women (and that the choices of black women are destroying their culture or some shit) is absurdly racist.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostI know one of the founders of PP was racist, but the far-right is doing a bunch of "the only way to save the black community is to stop abortion of black children!" over the last few weeks with the recent PP "sting" and they're not specifically mentioning the founder as much because no one cares about that specific issue much anymore. You can be against abortion, but this argument being pushed that only white legislators can save the black community by taking away the rights of black women (and that the choices of black women are destroying their culture or some shit) is absurdly racist.

The reason that's their angle is because of Sanger. They're convinced that PP isn't just an organization sinning by killing unborn babies, but is also carrying out Sanger's dream.

Conservatives have almost never taken a position on the black community that isn't racist. Why are you surprised?

Nothing surprises me anymore about the GOP. Nothing.

By Fenderputty Go To PostNothing surprises me anymore about the GOP. Nothing.

That one actually did surprise me with how movie villain it was

I was thinking that with Bush's inability to stop saying dumbshit that Rubio would eventually coast to this nomination, but he is absolutely despised by the far-right so now I don't know.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostI was thinking that with Bush's inability to stop saying dumbshit that Rubio would eventually coast to this nomination, but he is absolutely despised by the far-right so now I don't know.

For the longest time I thought Bush was going to get the nom in a similar fashion to Romney. Begrudgingly settle.

I'm not so sure anymore. Walker seems like he could steal the GOP nom. Who knows.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostI was thinking that with Bush's inability to stop saying dumbshit that Rubio would eventually coast to this nomination, but he is absolutely despised by the far-right so now I don't know.

No Hispanic dude or black dude (or really any minority, or a woman, or a non Christian) is getting the conservative nomination for at least the next 3-6 election cycles. They will nominate another old white guy as they always do.

This is going to be between Bush and Trump. Trump could single handily flood the airwaves with negative ads, and considering that Bush beat McCain that way in 2000, and Romney beat everyone else that way last time. Trump's money is the scariest thing for the rest of the republican field.

Trump just went on the attack with Walker too.

By Vahagn Go To PostNo Hispanic dude or black dude (or really any minority, or a woman, or a non Christian) is getting the conservative nomination for at least the next 3-6 election cycles. They will nominate another old white guy as they always do.

This is going to be between Bush and Trump. Trump could single handily flood the airwaves with negative ads, and considering that Bush beat McCain that way in 2000, and Romney beat everyone else that way last time. Trump's money is the scariest thing for the rest of the republican field.

The establishment will go nuclear on Trump before they allow him to be nominated; that will almost certainly result in a third party run and Democratic victory but it'd minimize the long term damage to the GOP.

Rubio is a strong candidate for 2020. He can't compete with Jeb, their strengths overlap and Jeb has the edge in all of them. I think Jeb even polls better with Florida hispanics.

It'll be Walker or Jeb. Question is how much damage Trump does to the eventually nominee before it's settled.

By Forever Go To PostThe establishment will go nuclear on Trump before they allow him to be nominated; that will almost certainly result in a third party run and Democratic victory but it'd minimize the long term damage to the GOP.

Rubio is a strong candidate for 2020. He can't compete with Jeb, their strengths overlap and Jeb has the edge in all of them. I think Jeb even polls better with Florida hispanics.

It'll be Walker or Jeb. Question is how much damage Trump does to the eventually nominee before it's settled.

Trump is a joke, and without a war chest of untold billions, he would continue being a joke. But he's ruthless and an egomaniac. It wouldn't be past him to spend 500 million just blanketing the airwaves tearing apart anyone and everyone they could just to win. The dude's entire world view is that he's a winner and practically everyone else in the entire world are losers. Even if the Koch brothers made him their personal enemy (I don't see why as his interests are far more aligned with theirs than Jeb's) he'd still give them a run for their money.

Scott Walker would lose the female vote by nearly 20 points to Hillary. The establishment won't let him beat Jeb.

And any minority, of any kind, or woman, or non Christian has absolutely no damn shot.

Walker, Trump, and Bush are all Rick-Perry-on-drugs-bad at public speaking, it's hard for me to think any of them are going to get out of this looking not terrible.

Also, Bernie's anti-immigration ranting today is incoherent and probably shows he has no grasp whatsoever on economic issues which is lame for me since I like him better on social issues.

Trump being president would be hilarious to me in some fucked up way...


Although I'd be doing it with some sick binoculars...from another country.

By AlphaSnacks Go To PostTrump being president would be hilarious to me in some fucked up way…


Although I'd be doing it with some sick binoculars…from another country.

The "I" in ICBM stands for "Intercontinental."

He's criticized graham for being too hawkish and Walker for running out of money and education and roads going to shit.

He's a racist xenophoobe, but they all are. Gun to my head I have to choose GOP candidate, it's currently trump.

I decided to just put all of Huckabee's awful quotes in an easy to read instagram like photo, pretty much the same style of that awful Iran one. Here's my first go at it.

And another one.

That jay z one is so bad.

Gawddamn Mike,

Are the votes worth it? Is the 15min seconds worth it?

By MagusKen Go To PostGawddamn Mike,

Are the votes worth it? Is the 15min seconds worth it?

Dude sells books. He gets more than 15 seconds with this shit.

If one of these guys calling this deal a prelude to a second Holocaust somehow gets elected president, that first meeting with German leaders is gonna be interesting. How do you go with "yeah, we think you agreed to death of millions more Jews and we're going to violate this international agreement" to German politicians without getting punched in the face?

So the GOP House passed a law banning states from passing laws or propositions that mandate GMO information on food labels.

Because something something small government. Something something states rights.

By Vahagn Go To PostSo the GOP House passed a law banning states from passing laws or propositions that mandate GMO information on food labels.

Because something something small government. Something something states rights.

Wild as it may seem. I"m not really opposed to this. The anti GMO FUD is horrible. There's all sorts of bad info on food. Why do I have to read "no gluten" on my fucking cold cuts?

That legislation is good. "States rights" is either a farce or a really scary dogwhistle all of the time. I don't think this hypocrisy is worth getting worked up over when the content of the bill is good.

I don't care about the GMO debate either way. I care that the confederate flag represents states rights when slavery or civil rights is discussed. But that notion is dropped when big food corporations want their bought politicians to pass industry friendly laws.


States Rights is only a dog whistle when it's apparent it's inconsistently applied.

By Vahagn Go To PostI don't care about the GMO debate either way. I care that the confederate flag represents states rights when slavery or civil rights is discussed. But that notion is dropped when big food corporations want their bought politicians to pass industry friendly laws.


States Rights is only a dog whistle when it's apparent it's inconsistently applied.

This isn't anything new for the GOP though. States rights only applies when it's a right they like. Otherwise they're totally cool with the feds setting some standards. See pot regulation and their protection of religious freedoms blah blah.

By Fenderputty Go To PostThis isn't anything new for the GOP though. States rights only applies when it's a right they like. Otherwise they're totally cool with the feds setting some standards. See pot regulation and their protection of religious freedoms blah blah.

Oh for sure. DOMA, attempts at personhood amendments, attempts to define marriage. All these have been tried at the federal level. But it's just relevant in light of super recent defenses of the confederate flag.

The sad thing is states rights as a concept isn't necessarily a bad thing considering the regional differences between places. But it's never really applied in that way.

By Fenderputty Go To PostThis isn't anything new for the GOP though. States rights only applies when it's a right they like. Otherwise they're totally cool with the feds setting some standards. See pot regulation and their protection of religious freedoms blah blah.

Why can't we let states decide if they want only a man and woman to marry?

Colorado legalized weed? Not on my watch. You don't get that choice!

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-donald-trump-vice-president-2015-7

As if I needed more reason to dislike Mark Cuban

States Rights is supposed to harken back to the founding as another instrument of checks and balances against the federal government.

We liberals don't mind using the federal government to solve problems that the private sector or states have shown an unwillingness or inability to solve. That's one of the central principles, in practice, of American liberalism. There is no preordained size that the govt must not exceed or willingness to accept failed/broken systems just as long as the government doesn't get involved.


What's particularly significant with this new bill, is that it doesn't aim to use the federal govt to maintain a White or Christian supremacist America. Most times that conservatives en masse abandon the mantle of states rights, there is some racial or religious component.

Here, they're just flat out abandoning one of the pillars of conservatism for campaign contributions.

Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms over this when things like drug debates bring way more negative effects.

GMOs are scientifically sound, the research has been done and there is an actual scientific consensus on this. The liberals who oppose them might as well be anti-vaxxers or climate deniers.

I honestly wish this fervor would target the real problem, agribusiness and fucks like Monsanto.

By Forever Go To PostGMOs are scientifically sound, the research has been done and there is an actual scientific consensus on this. The liberals who oppose them might as well be anti-vaxxers or climate deniers.

I wrote a lot of stuff but decided to simplify and focus my main point. People who want food labels (or the autonomy to decide that at the state level) to reflect genetic modification aren't the same as people who don't vaccinate their kids or don't believe in and want to address climate change.

Much in the same way calling someone an asshole doesn't make you actual Hitler.

Not addressing climate change is a potential species extinction level event. Being irresponsible about vaccinations as a community or state invites the possibility of millions of people being ravaged by an epidemic of preventable diseases.

California asking big food companies to label their food or asking Chipotle to remove GMO's does nothing of the kind.

This is the same kind of logic that argued that refusing to wholly accept the analytics community makes you an anti-vaxxer. No, no it reallllly doesn't.

Those two groups of people are allowing their ideology to endanger the entire species. Don't lump them in with any idea you think isn't "accepting of science enough"

You're better than Mike Huckabee.

It's been two and a half decades then. There's nothing wrong with genetically modified food.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Jesus man.

By Fenderputty Go To PostIt's been two and a half decades then. There's nothing wrong with genetically modified food.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Jesus man.

There's also nothing wrong with non-genetically modified food. That's the point.

I'm not more prone to developing serious medical illnesses because I eat at Chipotle than if I ate at a GMO using counterpart.

That's not the case with anti-vaxxers or climate deniers. There is something ABSOLUTEY wrong with not vaccinating your kid. there is something absolutely wrong with denying climate change or contributing to it full stop.

Theres good to come from GE crops though. So there is something wrong with propagating negative and unfounded information. Which is exact what pulling GE foods from shelves does.

The article even touched on the fallacy you just used. Non GE crops can be worse. Maybe not themselves, but in the way their grown. Less pesticides and such for the GE crop.

One of the crops in the article aims to help solve vitamin A deficiencies in poor area by adding beta carotene.

It absolutly is wrong to help spread the misinformation and FUD

Mike Huckabee indeed

The benefits of GMO crops for humanitarian hunger efforts probably have a stronger ethical claim to the debate than the potential unknown drawbacks of monocultured crops, but playing god with the food supply is potentially problematic. The idea that GMO foods are poison is junk science and right up there with anti vaxxer nonsense though.

By Fenderputty Go To PostTheres good to come from GE crops though. So there is something wrong with propagating negative and unfounded information. Which is exact what pulling GE foods from shelves does.

The article even touched on the fallacy you just used. Non GE crops can be worse. Maybe not themselves, but in the way their grown. Less pesticides and such for the GE crop.

One of the crops in the article aims to help solve vitamin A deficiencies in poor area by adding beta carotene.

It absolutly is wrong to help spread the misinformation and FUD

Mike Huckabee indeed

The article suggesting that non-GMO crops can be worse is the same substandard logic as suggesting that GMO crops can be worse.

Either we're going off of conclusive scientific evidence or we aren't. And the conclusive scientific evidence is overwhelmingly that GMO crops aren't worse. Not that they're better. There is no discernible difference. Don't give me this "maybe can be" bullshit.

B) no one is suggesting pulling GE food from shelves as a law. GE can damn well do research if they want without selling other products even if a grocery store like Whole Foods refuses to peddle their wares. Blaming the market for lack of technological innovation is like arguing "if everyone on earth bought iPhones,
Apple could afford to make better products - therefore Samsung is the reason we don't have flying Apple cars"

C) and, for the last time, no. Me eating chipotle isn't the same as me not Vaccinating my child. I'm with you that being deathly afraid of GMO's is junk science. But u blaming lack of miracle foods on people that are skeptical is just asinine

At their worst. Anti-GMO, pro-organic folks are on the same level as people who peddle diet pills. It's nonsense and its misinformation, but we're not talking about risking the human race. You'll overpay for shit with an organic label just like you'll overpay for frosted flakes instead of the store brand or buy green bean coffee extract and blow 15 bucks on a whole bunch of nothing.

I said chipotle giving into public outcry was the FUD. People think gluten is bad for them too because of BS labeling practicies. I never said you were spreading FUD by eating there. I said you're spreading FUD by saying "we don't know. It could take decades and decades" while sulataniously saying you're happy they pulled the GE foods. You bought into and tried to sell the fear in this very thread.

And the article didn't suggest. They made the claim and that in some cases GE foods did have less pesticides. Thats non inconclusive.

The article also claimed:

or at correlations between food sales and disease trends, which anti-GMO activists like to do—you can make a better case against organic food than against GMOs.

And gave links to those trends

By Fenderputty Go To PostI said chipotle giving into public outcry was the FUD. People think gluten is bad for them too because of BS labeling practicies. I never said you were spreading FUD by eating there. I said you're spreading FUD by saying "we don't know. It could take decades and decades" while sulataniously saying you're happy they pulled the GE foods. You bought into and tried to sell the fear in this very thread.

And the article didn't suggest. They made the claim and that in some cases GE foods did have less pesticides. Thats non inconclusive.

The article also claimed:



And gave links to those trends

Wait, are you going to legitimately argue that celiac disease is bullshit? Orrr?

Arguing something has pesticides in it therefore it's bad is no different from arguing that GE fruit was bad because it had a virus. There's no discernible difference in human health In any clinical trial from eating organic foods vs GMO foods. There is not a single study that says conclusively that eating organic X fruit is worse for your health than eating GE X fruit. So you claiming "organic food could be worse because of X" is the same junk science as someone saying "GMO food could be worse because of Y"

We've been eating shit with pesticides used in farming for a hell of a lot longer than the 25 years you think give GE foods freedoms from suspicion without any clear cut example of it being dangerous for us.

And my original point, which I deleted entirely in that post because it convoluted the message was that 25 years isn't 75 years so actively avoiding GMO's is irrational just as actively avoiding organic food or chipotle is irrational. All of the evidence to date suggests the foods have no discernible difference regarding serious health complications whether they're organic or GMO. Your passion for this isn't because GMO foods are healthier, it's because of some misplaced level of contempt you feel for people who distrust GMO foods enough to prefer non GMO in their life. These people aren't doing anyone any got damn harm.

I just want a label that tells me whether Monsanto was involved in the process or not.

By db Go To PostI just want a label that tells me whether Monsanto was involved in the process or not.

They are in even organic biopesricides now. Also covered in article.

By Vahagn Go To PostI wrote a lot of stuff but decided to simplify and focus my main point. People who want food labels (or the autonomy to decide that at the state level) to reflect genetic modification aren't the same as people who don't vaccinate their kids or don't believe in and want to address climate change.

Much in the same way calling someone an asshole doesn't make you actual Hitler.

Not addressing climate change is a potential species extinction level event. Being irresponsible about vaccinations as a community or state invites the possibility of millions of people being ravaged by an epidemic of preventable diseases.

California asking big food companies to label their food or asking Chipotle to remove GMO's does nothing of the kind.

This is the same kind of logic that argued that refusing to wholly accept the analytics community makes you an anti-vaxxer. No, no it reallllly doesn't.

Those two groups of people are allowing their ideology to endanger the entire species. Don't lump them in with any idea you think isn't "accepting of science enough"

You're better than Mike Huckabee.

The whole premise of this argument is stupid. You're literally mad that I pointed out that opposition to GMOs is an equally unscientific position as climate change denial; a self-evident fact that should invite no controversy.

That said, if you're going to engage in moral hyperbole, the potential benefits of GMOs (which have been delayed or thwarted by unscientific paranoia) could literally save millions of lives among our most vulnerable communities. Fuck off if you think that starving to death is more acceptable than catching measles.

You're not better than Mike Huckabee.

By Forever Go To PostThe whole premise of this argument is stupid. You're literally mad that I pointed out that opposition to GMOs is an equally unscientific position as climate change denial; a self-evident fact that should invite no controversy.

That said, if you're going to engage in moral hyperbole, the potential benefits of GMOs (which have been delayed or thwarted by unscientific paranoia) could literally save millions of lives among our most vulnerable communities. Fuck off if you think that starving to death is more acceptable than catching measles.

You're not better than Mike Huckabee.

Wow clownshoes.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/how-monsanto-is-terrifying-the-farming-world-6392824

Mansanto is literally destroying the livelihoods and self-sufficiency of thousands of farmers all across the world, many of whom are incredibly poor.

I'm going to assume you don't know about this, and I'll leave it at that. But if you think anti GMO hippies in LA are the reason poor people in India aren't getting food. Educate yourself.

Mansanto suing farmers whose seeds have been contaminated by Mansanto seeds is a much bigger drag on poverty conditions than chiptole eliminating GMO's.

And I didn't know there were any anti GMO folks suggesting you should risk starving to death as a state rather than eating a non-organic Apple. Because, that's totally what they're arguing by asking for labels. How draconian.

To be clear Vahagn touched on what I've been dancing around this whole time with my fuck Monsanto kick. Their ethics are shady at best, inhumane at worst, and this is the group I'm supposed to trust, meh.

By Vahagn Go To PostWow clownshoes.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/how-monsanto-is-terrifying-the-farming-world-6392824

Mansanto is literally destroying the livelihoods and self-sufficiency of thousands of farmers all across the world, many of whom are incredibly poor.

I'm going to assume you don't know about this, and I'll leave it at that. But if you think anti GMO hippies in LA are the reason poor people in India aren't getting food. You're a fucknut idiot. Educate yourself

An embarrassing strawman. You're so mad (over nothing) that you're babbling nonsense like an idiot. No one is saying Monsanto is a wonderful company, they're saying that the FUD about GMOs is unscientific and unhelpful, a stance that you decline to attack because you know you'd be factually wrong.

In 2005 an estimated 190 million children and 19 million pregnant women, in 122 countries, were affected by vitamin A deficiency, which is responsible for 2 million deaths and 500,000 cases of permanent blindness every year. That is the status quo. Golden Rice could have helped those people if it hadn't been a victim of the lunatics you are presently defending. The founder of Greenpeace left Greenpeace over this issue.

Stop being such an emotional little bitch.