2016 elections.

[Drem]

I think the donation issue is sketchy, because obviously the truth will never come out and there's probably a little bit of column A (donations leading candidates) and column B (genuine donations), but....

On to fracking since you brought it up twice. Do you have any of that pesky evidence Fracking is bad? I'll spoil your fun, you don't. It sounds bad. But there's very little evidence that's its actually bad.

Wait, really? You can't be serious.

Study up, there's so much evidence that responding to this with links is actually a waste of time. When Range Resources pays a family $750,000 to ensure their children never speak of fracking for the rest of their lives after causing health issues and ruining their ten acre ranch, that should say something to you

Also thanks for your response to my earlier questions, brin. I don't agree because we'll be much worse off with Trump no matter how you justify your vote, but I get it.

[brinstar]

When Range Resources pays a family $750,000 to ensure their children never speak of fracking for the rest of their lives after causing health issues and ruining their ten acre ranch, that should say something to you

THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE DREM I NEED SIGNED CONFESSIONS

[Zanchief]

Here's a fun site that tackles a few myths and makes things easy to read. It's objective and doesn't care for politics. I'm sure you guys won't read it because accepting fracking isn't that bad would damage your cause, but I can try I guess.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... g-6386593/

[brinstar]

okay let's look at the items in that article

1. there's not as much of it as politicians say

my take: then maybe we shouldn't be relying on it so heavily. let's transition immediately towards stuff we know will last us millions of years, such as wind and sunlight

2. it doesn't use as much water as people think

my take: tell that to texas. go talk to dying children in flint about how they can't have clean water because we need it for fracking. explain to the california ag industry that natural gas production is more important than food production

3. natural gas is still half as dirty as coal when it comes to CO2 emissions, and escaped methane from the fracking process is even more of a GHG. also drilling/transportation machinery used in the process causes massive pollution as well

my take: did you read that and think "oh see brinstar you idiot there's nothing wrong with fracking"? how the fuck could anyone consider THIS a defense of fracking? are you sure you wanted me to read this article at all?

4. contrary to that fuckin idiot from oklahoma (who btw is the single loudest proponent of the fossil fuels industry because they feed him millions of dollars every year), plenty of spills have happened which contaminate groundwater. however, the process itself is very unlikely to do so.

my take: okay, so the process itself might not jam chemicals into aquifers. does that mean we should be okay with associated regular surface spills that DO contaminate rivers and groundwater supplies? dumb

5. catskill people are being let down that the promised "texas-style" fracking boom hasn't delivered, but pennsylvania has had great success for now

my take: ok so what? what happens when it runs out? what are all those people going to do?

6. CNG is great but there's no infrastructure and it can't compete with gasoline - although it can replace coal-fired power plants maybe

my take: okay, so nobody wants to make CNG vehicles because there aren't enough filling stations. wooooo, another stellar argument in support of fracking! if you want to use natural gas to replace all the coal-fired power plants in america, go right ahead - but i guarantee you it won't work, as republicans love their coal almost as much as their guns and their bibles. half a point

7. although lighting tapwater on fire is a bit sensationalist - it mainly happens when companies don't follow code - there are documented cases of methane bubbling up into groundwater.

my take: again, how do you look at this and think "oh that'll show him"? why does it matter that the flammable tapwater was a result of shitty labor/materials/practices and not the concept of fracking itself? you can't divorce the two in the real world, so the difference is moot

8. there's no proof that the process increases public risk for exposure to radioactive materials, just the usual toxins and heavy metals

my take: first of all i didn't even know radioactivity was connected to fracking discussions, so that's a new one on me. you can have this one

9. after loads of pressure, some companies are now revealing their secret ingredients. texas passed a law requiring disclosure. yet that's still some nasty shit, and we're not really sure what to do with it when it comes back up.

my take: why did they have to be forced to reveal their ingredients, exactly? could it be all the known carcinogens, hmmmmmmm? typical capitalism: make a big mess in pursuit of profits, worry about cleanup later

10. we still do have a lot of gas, and it should be a transition crutch between coal/oil and renewables

my take: why the fuck not start immediately? we're already 30 years behind, why put it off any further than we have to?

final score: zanchief 1.5, brinstar 8.5

thanks for the wonderful anti-fracking article. you can quit trolling any day now

[Zanchief]

It's not an anti-fracking article. I didn't read it and be all like yea let's stick it to Brinstar. That's your bag man, I was just trying to educate on both sides. As always, you didn't seem to care at all about what is true and just made this about a meaningless argument.

Well done.

[brinstar]

It's not an anti-fracking article. I didn't read it and be all like yea let's stick it to Brinstar. That's your bag man, I was just trying to educate on both sides. As always, you didn't seem to care at all about what is true and just made this about a meaningless argument.

Well done.

the fuck? were you not presenting that article as fact-based and educational? i took it that way on good faith, and that's how i read it, because that's how you learn things. do you take issue with my summaries of each major point? did i mischaracterize anything presented in the unbiased article YOU provided? if i misread something, point it out, don't be a fucking prick about it

fuck's sake man, if you say "you guys think fracking is bad but it's not, here's an article, learn something" and then provide an article detailing a bunch of facts about fracking that are almost entirely bad, you don't get to be like "lol welp you don't like truth" when i point them out

STOP FUCKING TROLLING

[Zanchief]

You said supporting Fracking is bad. I said there's largely no evidence that it is bad. I presented an article that sheds some light on the subject in a reasonably objective way, that if taken as truth, does not show fracking to be bad. Some of the topics present some dangers, but mostly point out that with the proper regulations, they can be controlled (like very type of energy). You took it as some gauntlet thrown down, which it wasn't. I'm being a prick? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote, and the tone I used, then the tone you used. I could capitalize baseless accusations throughout my posts, but since mine have substance, its not required.

[brinstar]

You said supporting Fracking is bad. I said there's largely no evidence that it is bad. I presented an article that sheds some light on the subject in a reasonably objective way, that if taken as truth, does not show fracking to be bad. Some of the topics present some dangers, but mostly point out that with the proper regulations, they can be controlled (like very type of energy). You took it as some gauntlet thrown down, which it wasn't. I'm being a prick? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote, and the tone I used, then the tone you used. I could capitalize baseless accusations throughout my posts, but since mine have substance, its not required.

you are simply wrong. the very article you posted contained plenty of evidence that it is bad: dangerous atmospheric emissions associated with the industry processes, regular surface spills which contaminate groundwater, escaped methane that is a far worse GHG than CO2, a backlog of untreated wastewater (which, as the article failed to mention, is often pumped back into the ground for storage, causing increased seismic activity) and so forth. unless you have a different definition of the words "evidence" or "bad" than the rest of us do, you are either being obstinate or fatuous. pick one, i care not.

again, if you think i am mischaracterizing any facts presented in the unbiased article you supplied, please point them out and explain how i misread them rather than responding solely with sneering condescension. if, however, your disagreement with me on the tenets of this article stems from my reaction to those facts, then try to understand that different people can look at the same set of evidence and react different ways. for example, a hard-line conservative can look at welfare programs and see a bunch of lazy slackers looking for handouts, while a progressive can look at the same programs and see a critical protection for chronically-disadvantaged people cast aside by an economic system designed to marginalize them. one person might see a law requiring picture ID to vote as a necessary step to prevent voter fraud, while another person sees it as an attempt to disenfranchise the working poor and minorities. in this case, you seem to think that the environmental and public health risks intrinsic to the fracking industry in particular - as quite clearly stated in the very article we're discussing - are tolerable in light of the economic benefits of increased natural gas production via this process. i do not. it has nothing to do with truth.

[Zanchief]

if, however, your disagreement with me on the tenets of this article stems from my reaction to those facts, then try to understand that different people can look at the same set of evidence and react different ways.

Of course I understand this. That's pretty much NT in a nutshell. The article has a very reasonable position about fracking, which you've exaggerated to conform to your opinion, which is expected. I made a point of not linking to something false, so it clearly itemizes issues, but it puts them in context (which you ignored). If you read that entire article and came away with it thinking "shit man, fracking is really bad" that's cool. That's your cause, you're entitled too it. I don't think most reasonable people will do the same though.

[brinstar]

what was the article's "position" beyond "here are some facts about fracking"? what exactly made you think the "position" it took was "reasonable"? i thought you said it was unbiased? how did i exaggerate its position? which context(s) did i ignore? why do YOU get to decide what most "reasonable" people will come away with after reading this article? are people only "reasonable" if they agree with YOU?

i thought you were all about facts and evidence over vague insinuations and false equivalencies, so let's see some for once

[Drem]

While saying one or two good things about fracking (it doesn't use as much water as we think, the radiation, etc), the article basically reinforces all the reasons why we think the industry is negative overall: methane seeping into groundwater, spill contaminations, about an 8% net loss of a shitty greenhouse gas going straight into the atmosphere, and on and on

It's mostly debunking myths about why people think it's beneficial, and telling you why it's bad. Did you read past the first few lines of each point? Only a few points are made in fracking's favor, and they are far outweighed by the negative aspects of the business, in my opinion

[Lyion]

You said supporting Fracking is bad. I said there's largely no evidence that it is bad. I presented an article that sheds some light on the subject in a reasonably objective way, that if taken as truth, does not show fracking to be bad. Some of the topics present some dangers, but mostly point out that with the proper regulations, they can be controlled (like very type of energy). You took it as some gauntlet thrown down, which it wasn't. I'm being a prick? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote, and the tone I used, then the tone you used. I could capitalize baseless accusations throughout my posts, but since mine have substance, its not required.

The pro fracking arguments sound remarkably like the pro smoking arguments that were given for decades, ignoring the rather common sense view of anyone who has seen it up close. At a minimum it's bad for the ecology, and more likely it's causing severe damage. My guess is we'll continue to do it until the outcry and evidence go beyond the simple anecdotal to real long term statistics.

Your arguments are rational and almost conservative, Zan. You must be getting old, or Justin Trudeau fever has departed.

[Harrison]

Okay, moving on from our neighbor from the north's delusions...

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/09/hil ... ing-money/

So just last night she's talking about reining in on fracking, and she took money from them that morning. You can't make this shit up.

[brinstar]

it's entirely possible she simply doesn't understand why that might be an issue for some people or that she doesn't grasp that some of us have attention spans longer than 3 seconds and are able to think back a few short years ago to remember when she was against marriage equality and immigrant amnesty and renewable energy

like when you've spent enough of your life as privileged political royalty how would you have even the slightest idea what ordinary people think of the way you conduct your affairs? it's like michael jackson being able to do whatever he wants since the age of like 4 and becoming an adult who doesn't understand why it's not okay to have jesus juice sleepovers with actual children

[brinstar]

kinda reminds me of this:

[Drem]

[brinstar]

whoaaaa

in other news, violence erupted at/around drumpf rally in STL today

then this evening there were enough protesters at his chicago rally to reach critical mass and prevent the rally from even happening

this is the most bonkers election season i think we've had in who knows how long

[Lyion]

The 90s were like this with Ross Perot. Ross was far, far scarier than The Donald, in my opinion. Trump is a clown. Once in power, he'll bask in his own self importance for a month before realizing the Senate isn't going to pass anything he's asking for and he becomes the same as Bubba, W, and Obama. The sad thing is that seems far better than Hillary or Cruz, both who would be making nefarious inside deals selling out more American jobs and garnering real power due to the fact they both 'get it'.

Bernie is a bit of a wildcard, but his unitary state views and simplistic populist propaganda of free stuff and Robin Hood puts him in the same boat as Trump. Fortunately, everything he's promising is legislative and with a less than 10% chance of the Dems retaking the House, none of it will ever materialize. Heck, we couldn't get single payer with a fucking Dem supermajority and people expect <albeit 'democratic'> socialism from a divided congress?

The biggest current issue is the ridiculous difficulty in removing incumbent candidates and the fact we have so many lifetime politicians. For example, my rep is Marcy Kaptur, a big Bernie supporter and 'revolutionary' who just hit 33 years in the House. The average age of members in the US Senate is 63. Until we clean out congress real change is not possible, regardless of if Dems or Reps control it. In my opinion elections every two years in the House are completely counterproductive. Make the Senate 8 years, the House 4 years, and slap 2 terms max for each. I don't see it ever happening, especially as our far left and far right fringes grow and care less about real incremental change and buy into unrealistic rhetoric.

[brinstar]

that's all pretty accurate, but i do have a couple of beefs

first i'd argue that the reason we didn't get single payer with a dem supermajority is that not enough dems actually WANTED single payer. too many of them had campaign chests stuffed with donations from the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, so they took single payer off the table and went with a system that still allows insurance companies a robust profit motive

as for most of president bernie's goals becoming reality, yeah it's nigh impossible with the current congress. there are a few common-sense things he could probably drag through, like increased support for veterans, but the big hope is that if he's on the ballot in november, the massive enthusiasm of his base - something hillary's campaign lacks completely - would provide major gusto for downticket dems in senate and house races. so it's not just "put bernie in the white house and we'll accomplish these things" it's "vote your asses off for bernie AND anyone likely to help him"

re: term limits, i'm pretty torn. i like the idea, but if they're too harsh you can inadvertently toss out valuable experience as well. you need to find a balance between a continuous flow of fresh faces/ideas and useful veterans of the process. also, the public needs to take some blame: year after year after year we keep electing the same clowns back into office because it's easier to go with the name you're familiar with (or the R or D behind his/her name) than to spend even 5 minutes researching challengers. i get tired of the "we need to throw all the bums out" attitude because it never translates into results; what they really mean is "someone else needs to throw all the bums out because i'm too busy watching sportsball but i still want to pretend like i have an informed opinion". edited to add: my rep, Jeff Fortenberry, is running unopposed this cycle. he's one of the few sane republicans in the house, but come on - we have a quarter million people in lincoln and not ONE of them even bothered to run? weak

anyway i think 4 yrs on the house and 8 years on the senate is a bit of a stretch, i'd go with 3 yrs on the house and maybe do 7 on the senate though. my boss is pretty conservative but he thinks the POTUS should be a single 6-year term and you're done. the rationale is that first-term presidents don't really get a lot of time to be POTUS because they start out at the bottom of the learning curve, and by the time their 3rd year starts they already have to start thinking about reelection. it's only once you get reelected that you can focus on doing the job for 4 years straight. a single 6-year term still gives you 1-2 years to cut your teeth and then skips reelection and goes straight to the 4-year homestretch where you don't have to worry about campaigning while running the country. seems pretty smart to me.

[Reynaldo]

Have to say my precinct was the easiest voting process I've ever had for the primary. In and out in less than 2 mins!

My useless Rubio vote is now recorded lol.

[Harrison]

Rampant election fraud detected in Arizona.

Life long registered Democrats suddenly showing up in the software as independents or libertarians, which in a closed primary excludes their vote from counting.

I figure Sanders was going to lose Arizona anyways, but this is no less disturbing of a trend in this election.

Lines 5-8 hours long. Some districts having NO polling centers at all.

Fuckery all around.

[brinstar]

Rampant election fraud detected in Arizona.

Life long registered Democrats suddenly showing up in the software as independents or libertarians, which in a closed primary excludes their vote from counting.

I figure Sanders was going to lose Arizona anyways, but this is no less disturbing of a trend in this election.

Lines 5-8 hours long. Some districts having NO polling centers at all.

Fuckery all around.

in 2012 there were 200 polling places in maricopa county
in 2016 there were 60 polling places in maricopa county
many predominantly latinx/black neighborhoods didn't have a polling place at all
no polling site should have to prepare for 20,000 voters to show up, but that's (on average) the number of people who got in line in maricopa

around 30% of voters who showed up yesterday were told they were incorrectly registered and must fill out a provisional ballot that by law would not be counted, yet early ballots (favoured by old people and the non-poor) had no such issues casting those ballots

suspicious packages called in causing evacuations

closed-source proprietary voting software

and finally the AP calling it with less than 1% of the vote counted while there were still tens of thousands of people waiting in line even though the delegates are awarded proportionally and not winner-take-all


are you expecting me to believe that an entire state in general - and maricopa county in particular - is simply THAT INEPT and can't fucking handle running a primary? i refuse.

the only legitimate question, if you're sane and honest, is how much of this epic fuckery was caused by shitty voter suppression laws passed by overwhelmingly conservative state officials, and how much of this is actual election-fixing/fraud

[Lyion]

The media are notorious for not letting votes play out.

The same people howling the loudest were fine with some Philly precincts voting 110% democrat and for fighting against any sort of Voter ID or protections to ensure elections are not rigged. Voter supporession is far less prevalent than dead people voting or box stuffing by asshat liberals who think the ends justify the means.

It's time to move elections into the 21st century and stop having elections with the potential for rampant fraud. The poor are not by and large being denied votes. What is happening is local elections have very low accountability and massive potential for cheating.

I expect it to remain a wedge issue and for there to continue to be lawsuits against requiring someone to show an actual I.D. to vote. Heaven forbid elections be fucking fair.

[Harrison]

"Voter supporession is far less prevalent than dead people voting or box stuffing by asshat liberals who think the ends justify the means."

Lolwut

This has already been refuted more times than I really feel like proving. It's general knowledge. It's not even worth the time for me typing this sentence, even.

Voter ID laws are a fucking joke. Stop presenting red herrings as if we don't already see them as a sneaky way to suppress more votes. We've seen through it for a long time now. That's why these idiotic laws only get passed in red states.

[brinstar]

The poor are not by and large being denied votes. What is happening is local elections have very low accountability and massive potential for cheating.

why on earth would you think/imply these two things are mutually exclusive?? they're bloody well not