Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Zappit
Staff member
Well, Bernie did an interview with the Daily News editorial board that really, really makes him look bad. He admits he doesn't know how to break up the big banks, which was a pretty big issue he's been running on.
He also whiffed on foreign policy questions, admitting he doesn't know about those issues, either. Combine that with the time he didn't know how many dictators North Korea has, and Bernie really doesn't look prepared to lead the country. I mean, he's had plenty of time to research this stuff, especially when it's an issue he's running on, but he has no idea how to bring these ideas into reality. "Tax the rich" won't solve those problems.
I had a feeling about Bernie from early on. He seemed laser focused on a scant few issues, and his math never added up when analyzed. He's big on talk on light on substance.
The delegate math works out this way: Clinton only needs 33% of the delegates from the remaining contests. New York doesn't look good for Bernie. He's exposed his weaknesses, and he's going to get hammered on that during the debate. New York could be a Clinton landslide after the debate.
Bernie could literally win every other state left, but if the percentages turn out like Wisconsin, he still comes up short. The superdelegates won't turn. Bernie became a Democrat because he wanted to be president, and the party sees it that way. They feel that, in Bernie's eyes, the party is nothing more than a means to an end.
He also whiffed on foreign policy questions, admitting he doesn't know about those issues, either. Combine that with the time he didn't know how many dictators North Korea has, and Bernie really doesn't look prepared to lead the country. I mean, he's had plenty of time to research this stuff, especially when it's an issue he's running on, but he has no idea how to bring these ideas into reality. "Tax the rich" won't solve those problems.
I had a feeling about Bernie from early on. He seemed laser focused on a scant few issues, and his math never added up when analyzed. He's big on talk on light on substance.
The delegate math works out this way: Clinton only needs 33% of the delegates from the remaining contests. New York doesn't look good for Bernie. He's exposed his weaknesses, and he's going to get hammered on that during the debate. New York could be a Clinton landslide after the debate.
Bernie could literally win every other state left, but if the percentages turn out like Wisconsin, he still comes up short. The superdelegates won't turn. Bernie became a Democrat because he wanted to be president, and the party sees it that way. They feel that, in Bernie's eyes, the party is nothing more than a means to an end.
No, that is not so. A completely monogamous person can still be hypocritical on any of a number of issues without straining monogamy. Likewise, another person's randy behavior may be known by all, but so long as there is no denial of the proclivity, there's no hypocracy on at least that issue.
--Patrick
The first part isn't even implied by my statement. Saying that cheaters are hypocrites in no way means that non-cheaters are not.
The second part, I don't really agree that the situation you're describing is cheating. If a person publicly states that they sleep around, then the other person in the relationship knows, which hardly makes it cheating. It's something more like polyamory. The essence of cheating, to me, is making a commitment and then violating it, i.e.: hypocrisy.
Ah, so you mean all the cheatings: Cheating on diets, marriages, gambling, tests, etc.
Still, I don't think it would actually be "hypocracy" unless that person was known to preach/campaign against the specific thing they violated. Just because someone cheats on a test does not predispose them to sleeping around any more than getting caught in an OTB scandal increases the chance they will stop at a McDonald's on the way home from their next Weight Watchers meeting.
--Patrick
Don Blankenship to do a year in jail and suffer $250,000 fine for deadly mine accident. Still a slap on the wrist, but it's more than most rich people get.
GasBandit
Staff member
And AGAIN I confuse him at first glance with Don Hertzfeldt and am momentarily bewildered.
Last edited:
Price of Cuprimine (used for treating liver disease) rises from $440-$1,700/month to $44,000/month as Valeant Pharm. rises prices on common drugs.
Surprisingly, Shkreli is not involved.
Surprisingly, Shkreli is not involved.
The pharmaceutical industry needs to be subject to anti-price gouging laws, fast. This is bullshit, as is rebranding drugs to renew the patents (which prevents cheap generic forms of the drug being made available).
#ResistCapitalism
Well, I'll just be waiting for the invisible hand of the free market to swoop in and fix this mess.
...
The regulation changes don't prevent people from raising prices, they fast-track the approval of generic equivalents made by alternative sources once someone does raise prices.
--Patrick
It's a less than ideal solution, but it's also one that the FDA doesn't need approval for. If Congress got involved then it'd REALLY turn into a cluster fuck.
The legislation change doesn't mandate that it'll happen, but it should happen, if only because some other company will ideally see the opening and the opportunity and jump in to fill the "discount" void.
...in other words, the regulatory approval process was changed to mitigate a lot of the latency that was suppressing "market forces" under the older system.
--Patrick
I thought this was a good article about Nuclear Terrorism: http://thebulletin.org/what-does-nuclear-terrorism-really-mean9309
Not too alarmist, not too dismissive either. Overall, good IMO
Not too alarmist, not too dismissive either. Overall, good IMO
Meet the most hated man in the Pentagon.
(Hint: He's the guy getting military spending in check. Just consider what a guy like this could be doing if he was applied to negotiating prices for medication.)
(Hint: He's the guy getting military spending in check. Just consider what a guy like this could be doing if he was applied to negotiating prices for medication.)
The drug companies would do what the defense contractors are doing. Run to their pet Congressperson or Senator to try and stop him.
$500M that's more-or-less attributed to the efforts of ONE GUY is a good ROI. More power to him.
$500 million just for price checking those crappy jets we keep buying. He's probably saved even more from other projects.
Remember folks, "There’s classified, and then there’s classified" your President said.
Basically another proven instance of the powerful protecting their friends, and abusing legal power to punish their enemies. Now they're just admitting it in the open, and still nobody cares.
Basically another proven instance of the powerful protecting their friends, and abusing legal power to punish their enemies. Now they're just admitting it in the open, and still nobody cares.
Some people are more equal than others.Remember folks, "There’s classified, and then there’s classified" your President said.
Basically another proven instance of the powerful protecting their friends, and abusing legal power to punish their enemies. Now they're just admitting it in the open, and still nobody cares.
Not to be Devil's Advocate (I'm sure they can hire plenty themselves) but, of course there's "classified" and "classified". Anything over "classified" is listed as such to the public, but there's a big difference between secret, top secret, need-to-know-only, confidential,.... Dependent on who classified it, when, at what level, and so on. I'm sure most of us are capable of thinking of some info that's technically "classified" but really poses no risk, while we can also certainly think of info that we don't want out in the open.
That said, this is obviously not the difference in "classified"s we're talking about here.
That said, this is obviously not the difference in "classified"s we're talking about here.
Indeed. It's just hard to accept/assume Clinton only released trivial information while what Snowden said was High Treason To the Nation.
And out of the two of those people, I only trust one of them.
Snowden necessarily traded information to China and Russia in order to make his escape effective.
Making some of the stuff public is fine, but using the information as currency to stay out of jail, particularly since we can guess that Russia wasn't paid in small secrets, is something that still tells me Snowden isn't doing the world as big a favor as his fawning disciples would like us to believe.
Making some of the stuff public is fine, but using the information as currency to stay out of jail, particularly since we can guess that Russia wasn't paid in small secrets, is something that still tells me Snowden isn't doing the world as big a favor as his fawning disciples would like us to believe.
GasBandit
Staff member
In the end, he still probably did more good than harm to the US by forcing the issue into the open.
Also, many of the "meh-grade" classified e-mails recovered from Clinton's server were too highly clasified for the senate investigation committee to be allowed to read them.
Also, many of the "meh-grade" classified e-mails recovered from Clinton's server were too highly clasified for the senate investigation committee to be allowed to read them.