Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[DC Tom]

Hours After Pigs' Death, Scientists Restore Brain Cell Activity

 

Posted here, because three of them have already announced their candidacy for the 2020 presidential campaign.  The rest have just declared their support for AOC.

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

It was a moment so surreal, it seemed almost like a dream. During Fox News’s Monday night town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), host Bret Baier asked audience members how many had private health insurance. A large majority raised their hands. He then followed up by asking how many would like to see Medicare-for-all enacted. Almost all the same hands went up — remember, this was on Fox News! — with wild cheers to boot.

Baier’s action violated a major rule of lawyers: Never ask a witness on the stand a question to which you don’t know the answer. However, I must point out, only in the Fox News bubble would anyone be surprised by the popularity of Medicare-for-all — polls routinely find more than half of Americans say they support it, including one from last year that found a majority of Republicans say they back Sanders’s signature initiative.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/16/how-fox-news-accidentally-revealed-truth-about-support-medicare-for-all/?utm_term=.74d5a1e61386

[row_33]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not just charity.  Charitable deductions.  Literally, assuming charity doesn't count unless it's on your tax return.  

 

rich liberals gave nothing to charity for the years i did tax returns for the rich and famous

 

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Did someone say something about climate change being related to gender inequity?

Well, the Green New Deal certainly did, and I pointed out that it was one of the reasons that the bill absolutely was NOT about a serious discussion. See below.

 

On 4/11/2019 at 5:50 PM, BuffaloHokie13 said:

If they wanted a serious discussion on the environment and climate change they wouldn't have shoe-horned in all of the social inequity and policy that has no relation to environmental policy. It was never about a serious discussion, it was about numbing the American people to socialist policies based on race and gender.

Here was your response

 

On 4/11/2019 at 6:47 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

Once again, I'm talking about global warming, I'm not focused on the Green New Deal, specifically, though I like that it was put forward and is such a big talking point. 

 

I think Inslee's plan is closer to something that realistically should/might happen, though I just don't think he's a viable candidate at this point.  But what he said about the Green New Deal being "aspirational" is exactly how I feel.

 

But there's absolutely an aspect of social inequity that's interconnected with climate change.  If you accept that global warming/climate change is real, it's almost illogical to assume the 2 are completely disconnected.

Here's my subsequent request

 

On 4/11/2019 at 7:54 PM, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Go ahead and connect those dots with something substantive.

And then radio silence. So please, tell me about how climate change specifically impacts different races and genders more than others. If you want to argue class, that's certainly a discussion and there are points on both sides, but definitely not race or gender.

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Hours After Pigs' Death, Scientists Restore Brain Cell Activity

 

Posted here, because three of them have already announced their candidacy for the 2020 presidential campaign.  The rest have just declared their support for AOC.

Here's their lineup:

 

This little piggy went to market,

 

This little piggy stayed home,

 

This little piggy had roast beef,

 

This little piggy had none.

 

This little piggy went ...

 

Wee, wee, wee,********

all the way home!

 

********* HAHA Gator is not only part of your linked study but he's running for office too.

[sabrecrazed]

32 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

'Cause he's racist.  

Apparently homophobic too. He's already written off mayor Pete because he's gay. Not because he's a marxist, but because he's gay. 

 

This guy's virtue signal gets weaker and weaker every time he comes down here. 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

Hours After Pigs' Death, Scientists Restore Brain Cell Activity

 

Posted here, because three of them have already announced their candidacy for the 2020 presidential campaign.  The rest have just declared their support for AOC.

yes but are they affluent, gay, articulate and/or well spoken?

[reddogblitz]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Imagine if the Dems nominated a pathological liar! lol, you guys would probably call him out over it! 

 

I don't have to imagine.

 

I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was nominated.

 

And 2 years ago when that lady with her pants on fire got nominated.

 

[row_33]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I don't have to imagine.

 

I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was nominated.

 

And 2 years ago when that lady with her pants on fire got nominated.

 

 

she was the greatest and most qualified candidate in US history, then she lost and they all said she was the worst candidate in history

 

 

and 2/3 of the GOP and 2/3 of "conservative" writers wish she would have won

 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

she was the greatest and most qualified candidate in US history, then she lost and they all said she was the worst candidate in history

 

 

and 2/3 of the GOP and 2/3 of "conservative" writers wish she would have won

 

She was so good she even had a special class of dog named---------------------Cankle Biter.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

She was so good she even had a special class of dog named---------------------Cankle Biter.

 

the best part was the media kept trying to say Trump looked like crap and was fat.... which immediately caused us to think that...... ummmmmmm....

 

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

And 2 years ago when that lady with her pantsuit on fire got nominated.

 

corrected

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Honestly have a hard time caring what you think. Also honestly having a hard time understanding why you're here spewing virtue.

 

 

The feeling is mutual  

4 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Well, the Green New Deal certainly did, and I pointed out that it was one of the reasons that the bill absolutely was NOT about a serious discussion. See below.

 

Here was your response

 

Here's my subsequent request

 

And then radio silence. So please, tell me about how climate change specifically impacts different races and genders more than others. If you want to argue class, that's certainly a discussion and there are points on both sides, but definitely not race or gender.

 

In other words, you brought up gender, not me.

 

Thanks for providing evidence of that!

[BuffaloHokie13]

4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The feeling is mutual  

 

In other words, you brought up gender, not me.

 

Thanks for providing evidence of that!

So you're abandoning the part about

Quote

But there's absolutely an aspect of social inequity that's interconnected with climate change.  If you accept that global warming/climate change is real, it's almost illogical to assume the 2 are completely disconnected.

because absolutely and almost illogical typically describe things that are simple to point out. That was your response to my statement, which clearly included racial and gender inequity. If you didn't read that far before making your statement I understand though.

Edited April 18, 2019 by BuffaloHokie13

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The feeling is mutual  

 

 

No it's not. I don't come down here and moralize from a position of complete amorality.

 

But please, by all means, carry on.

 

[transplantbillsfan]

13 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

So you're abandoning the part about

because absolutely and almost illogical typically describe things that are simple to point out. That was your response to my statement, which clearly included racial and gender inequity. If you didn't read that far before making your statement I understand though.

 

Clearly included gender equity, huh?

Tell me more about what I said but really meant.

13 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

No it's not. I don't come down here and moralize from a position of complete amorality.

 

But please, by all means, carry on.

 

 

By all means, ignore me.

[BuffaloHokie13]

5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Clearly included gender equity, huh?

Tell me more about what I said but really meant. 

 

By all means, ignore me.

Not sure how I could've been clearer

On 4/11/2019 at 5:50 PM, BuffaloHokie13 said:

If they wanted a serious discussion on the environment and climate change they wouldn't have shoe-horned in all of the social inequity and policy that has no relation to environmental policy. It was never about a serious discussion, it was about numbing the American people to socialist policies based on race and gender.

But sure, by all means, please clarify what you meant by

 

On 4/11/2019 at 6:47 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

But there's absolutely an aspect of social inequity that's interconnected with climate change.  If you accept that global warming/climate change is real, it's almost illogical to assume the 2 are completely disconnected. 

 

I'm still eagerly awaiting backup of any kind.

[transplantbillsfan]

18 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Still working on that connection between climate change and racial/gender inequity?

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/1526380054794835

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132516646495

https://www.opencanada.org/features/inequality-explained-7-ways-climate-change-and-inequality-are-connected/

https://inequality.org/great-divide/confronting-climate-change-in-a-deeply-unequal-world/

http://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-412

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/02/15/how-racial-and-regional-inequality-affect-economic-opportunity/amp/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/global-warming-american-south/532200/

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=2106693b39454f0eb0abc5c2ddf9ce40

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroot.com/race-and-class-are-the-biggest-issues-around-hurricane-1798536183/amp

 

 

Your counter? Hope I get something other than the Ad Hominem attack I'm expecting.

 

And I'm sure you'll be able to very easily refute each and every one of those links (some clearly more credible than others) and not just attack one while trying to ignore the others.

 

I have more... just not spending a lot of time on this with the schedule release today and finally watching the GoT premiere.

Edited April 18, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[row_33]

why are people bothering with this?

 

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Your counter? Hope I get something other than the Ad Hominem attack I'm expecting.

 

And I'm sure you'll be able to very easily refute each and every one of those links (some clearly more credible than others) and not just attack one while trying to ignore the others.

 

I have more... just not spending a lot of time on this with the schedule release today and finally watching the GoT premiere.

Uh huh. So after informing me that I don't know what you think or really mean you make a post with no salient points. Just links, and you expect me to form your conclusion for you? I am genuinely confused on what you expect me to 'counter'.

 

Look, this type of post honestly has no business here and is not in good faith imo. A good faith post would have presented points and backed them up, as necessary, with linked source material. This feels like, and I could be mistaken, a post where you had no actual informed points, so you googled the topic and pasted some links - even admitting that some of your sources are lacking credibility. It legitimately boils down to ' Well, there are some studies out there from the past 15 years.'

 

Regardless, I will take a look at them over time (my office blocks all foreign domains and social media, so 75% has to wait until 6 or later).

[Gavin in Va Beach]

"World Coming to an End!!!! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!!!!!"

[row_33]

23 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

"World Coming to an End!!!! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!!!!!"

 

how many days since 12 YEARS TO DOOM was declared by AOC?

 

[GG]

Looks like our soft racist has issues differentiating causation and correlation? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Boy, this thread went off the rails.

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Boy, this thread went off the rails.

 

Dems have absolutely no game at this point in time

 

they are looking to 2024 now, hoping to hold the House in 2020

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

He couldn't fit in the clown car? Or,  he knows something is gonna happen to his gal Hillary and the blowback will be too much even for NE Virginia?

 

Ex-Virginia Gov. McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020
 

Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020, meaning establishment, centrist Democrats will have one less option in a nominating free-for-all that so far has highlighted the party’s leftward shift.
 

McAuliffe said Wednesday night that instead of joining a crowded Democratic field vying to challenge President Donald Trump, he will concentrate his efforts on helping Democrats win this year in Virginia — with the possibility that he runs for governor or president in the future.

</snip>

[BuffaloHokie13]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

Looks like our soft racist has issues differentiating causation and correlation? 

So far I'm through 2.

 

The first is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to.

 

The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quite from the abstract 

Quote

I review how the devaluation of nonwhite bodies has been incorporated into economic processes and advocate for extending such frameworks to include pollution.

It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things.

[BuffaloHokie13]

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/1526380054794835

This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132516646495

The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract 

Quote

I review how the devaluation of nonwhite bodies has been incorporated into economic processes and advocate for extending such frameworks to include pollution.

It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://www.opencanada.org/features/inequality-explained-7-ways-climate-change-and-inequality-are-connected/

This one has 7 points!

1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad.

2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations.

3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants.

4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030.

5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi

6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative.

7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://inequality.org/great-divide/confronting-climate-change-in-a-deeply-unequal-world/

This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

http://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-412

This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/02/15/how-racial-and-regional-inequality-affect-economic-opportunity/amp/

This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/global-warming-american-south/532200/

This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=2106693b39454f0eb0abc5c2ddf9ce40

The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872.

 

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroot.com/race-and-class-are-the-biggest-issues-around-hurricane-1798536183/amp

The Root. No further comment needed.

 

2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make?

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

He couldn't fit in the clown car? Or,  he knows something is gonna happen to his gal Hillary and the blowback will be too much even for NE Virginia?

 

Ex-Virginia Gov. McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020
 

Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020, meaning establishment, centrist Democrats will have one less option in a nominating free-for-all that so far has highlighted the party’s leftward shift.
 

McAuliffe said Wednesday night that instead of joining a crowded Democratic field vying to challenge President Donald Trump, he will concentrate his efforts on helping Democrats win this year in Virginia — with the possibility that he runs for governor or president in the future.

</snip>

 

But you didn't post the best part: where he said he could "beat Bush - I mean Trump - like a rented mule." 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to.

 

The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract 

It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things.

 

This one has 7 points!

1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad.

2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations.

3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants.

4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030.

5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi

6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative.

7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share.

 

This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece.

 

This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted.

 

This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times.

 

This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic.

 

The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872.

 

The Root. No further comment needed.

 

2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make?

 

Imagine that, someone went through the effort to read the links and comment on the content.   

 

Bravo.

[3rdnlng]

55 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to.

 

The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract 

It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things.

 

This one has 7 points!

1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad.

2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations.

3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants.

4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030.

5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi

6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative.

7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share.

 

This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece.

 

This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted.

 

This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times.

 

This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic.

 

The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872.

 

The Root. No further comment needed.

 

2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make?

You've done yeoman's work in reading through Abby Normal's mountains of trash. Alas, you've wasted your time. Anyone reasonable here knows he's fullofshit and relies on volume to discourage anyone refuting his nonsense. Well, you've refuted his nonsense but you've done nothing to change his mind. You would have better luck in herding cats.

[BuffaloHokie13]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You've done yeoman's work in reading through Abby Normal's mountains of trash. Alas, you've wasted your time. Anyone reasonable here knows he's fullofshit and relies on volume to discourage anyone refuting his nonsense. Well, you've refuted his nonsense but you've done nothing to change his mind. You would have better luck in herding cats.

I said my piece on the response not really being a good faith response. I opted to reply in good faith anyway in this instance. We'll see how it goes.

[reddogblitz]

Mayor Pete plays piano. I've only been able to find one really short clip of him playing.

 

I propose that he and  Condoleezza Rice have a piano off.

 

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Uh huh. So after informing me that I don't know what you think or really mean you make a post with no salient points. Just links, and you expect me to form your conclusion for you? I am genuinely confused on what you expect me to 'counter'.

 

Look, this type of post honestly has no business here and is not in good faith imo. A good faith post would have presented points and backed them up, as necessary, with linked source material. This feels like, and I could be mistaken, a post where you had no actual informed points, so you googled the topic and pasted some links - even admitting that some of your sources are lacking credibility. It legitimately boils down to ' Well, there are some studies out there from the past 15 years.'

 

Regardless, I will take a look at them over time (my office blocks all foreign domains and social media, so 75% has to wait until 6 or later).

 

If inundating with links of articles and tweets have no business here, why is it that they seem to happen here so often?

[Foxx]

16 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The feeling is mutual  

 

In other words, you brought up gender, not me.

 

Thanks for providing evidence of that!

are you honestly trying to take the dooshnoozles title away from him?

[BuffaloHokie13]

28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

If inundating with links of articles and tweets have no business here, why is it that they seem to happen here so often?

So, to be clear, you don't care to make any of your own points or address any of mine?

[LB3]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

So, to be clear, you don't care to make any of your own points or address any of mine?

No. He just wants to talk at you. This person educates our youth. Terrifying.

 

Great job on your thoughtful response to his links though. Most wouldn't waste their time on him.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

No. He just wants to talk at you. This person educates our youth. Terrifying.

 

Great job on your thoughtful response to his links though. Most wouldn't waste their time on him.

It's incredibly disappointing that the person coming in to say it's a giant circle jerk doesn't actually want to engage in honest discussion.

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

It's incredibly disappointing that the person coming in to say it's a giant circle jerk doesn't actually want to engage in honest discussion.

 

A clear indicator was his preemptive attack on how no one would refute it and rather ad hominem attack him. You called his bluff and now all he has is deflection.

[Deranged Rhino]