• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
I don't view it as such. Does the public really care about other farming techniques?
There are much bigger issues in our food supply linked to public health and especially worker safety. It seems like a waste of time to be battling for GMO labeling.

http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2013/11/05/salmonella-crippled-workers-tortured-chickens-and-toxic-chemicals-surely-usda-is-now-ready-to-ditch-its-plan-to-modernize-poultry-inspection/
I think all information that the public wants should be readily available unless you have a really good reason not to provide it, and I don't think that you have it here.
Again, I strongly believe that if you want the public to treat GMOs rationally (a worthy goal I share with you) the way to do it is through education, even from the purely practical level, hiding that information is not going to achieve the results you want.
 
Just like California prop 65?
Yeah, that didn't have negative effects. None at all...

Again, a GMO label does not tell the consumer anything useful. Just panders to the anti-GMO crowd.
 

Drakeon

Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/chris-christie-acceptance-speech_n_4175161.html


Democrats have to be nervous about what this means when Christie runs for President. He performed this well in a state that Obama carried by 17 points this time last year.

Frankly as a Democrat I find that to be pretty fucking formidable.

Oh Diablos, it's too early too worry about 2016. More importantly, the Democrats didn't even try to win NJ. And most importantly, how does Christie possibly survive the Republican Primary?
 

Xdrive05

Member
Hard to predict what kind of president Christie would be. Can't see him being any different than Obama on most issues. He would at least "remain centrist" for his first four years in order to win reelection. As far as the supreme court goes, he probably would go far right as his bone tossed to the base.

As a rebuke of the tea party I'd be all for it. But that shouldn't be the single issue to vote on of course.
 

Chichikov

Member
Just like California prop 65?
Yeah, that didn't have negative effects. None at all...

Again, a GMO label does not tell the consumer anything useful. Just panders to the anti-GMO crowd.
I'm not sure I see paralleled to prop 65, but I don't know a whole lot about it (just skimmed the wiki article about it) what is you exact concern?

And it's provide useful information to people who don't want to consume GMOs, yeah, I think it's a bit silly to make that choice, but I feel the same about extreme veganism and I still support giving the people the information needed to pursue that type of diet.
I honestly think it's a bit paternalistic to effectively say "you're too stupid to handle that information, so I don't think you should have it".
 
I'm not sure I see paralleled to prop 65, but I don't know a whole lot about it (just skimmed the wiki article about it) what is you exact concern?

And it's provide useful information to people who don't want to consume GMOs, yeah, I think it's a bit silly to make that choice, but I feel the same about extreme veganism and I still support giving the people the information needed to pursue that type of diet.
I honestly think it's a bit paternalistic to effectively say "you're too stupid to handle that information, so I don't think you should have it".
how many times do I have to repeat GMO labels do not tell the consumer anything? It's not an allergen, it's not an ingredient (unless you think a few pieces of DNA or RNA constitute an ingredient), it's not a nutrition fact, it doesn't relate to quality or grade. It doesn't relate to vegans or religious reasons either.

You should care how strict GMO testing is and keeping it strict before it comes to market not little labels.

Prop 65 was loved by lawyers who wanted to make a quick buck.
http://m.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Prop-65-lawsuit-bill-helps-businesses-4876499.php
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/chris-christie-acceptance-speech_n_4175161.html


Democrats have to be nervous about what this means when Christie runs for President. He performed this well in a state that Obama carried by 17 points this time last year.

Frankly as a Democrat I find that to be pretty fucking formidable.

So why are exit polls showing Clinton would beat Christie by 6 points? Come on. He's a very good candidate but chill the hell out.

If you should be worried about anything, be worried that Cooch nearly fought his way back from a double digit deficit in Virginia. Democrats better hope Obamacare gets better.
 
So why are exit polls showing Clinton would beat Christie by 6 points? Come on. He's a very good candidate but chill the hell out.

If you should be worried about anything, be worried that Cooch nearly fought his way back from a double digit deficit in Virginia. Democrats better hope Obamacare gets better.

When was Cuccinelli down 10+ points?
 

Diablos

Member
So why are exit polls showing Clinton would beat Christie by 6 points? Come on. He's a very good candidate but chill the hell out.

If you should be worried about anything, be worried that Cooch nearly fought his way back from a double digit deficit in Virginia. Democrats better hope Obamacare gets better.
That's what I was wondering about as well. How can McAuliffe have only won by +3 when most polls had him leading by double digits, if not 9 points? Is it a response to healthcare? Or were voters just lazy?

I agree, if healthcare.gov woes aren't fixed and soon Democrats are going to get clobbered over it.

When was Cuccinelli down 10+ points?
I thought one of the final polls had McAuliffe up by 9-10... among others that were even more.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
So why are exit polls showing Clinton would beat Christie by 6 points? Come on. He's a very good candidate but chill the hell out.

If you should be worried about anything, be worried that Cooch nearly fought his way back from a double digit deficit in Virginia. Democrats better hope Obamacare gets better.
You're really something, you know that? You go from talking about how the government shutdown won't mean anything to the elections next year because no one will remember it, to saying that some website issues for healthcare.gov will cost Democrats dearly.

This whole disingenuous shtick you have going got old a long time ago, but now it's just legit annoying as fuck.
 

Diablos

Member
You're really something, you know that? You go from talking about how the government shutdown won't mean anything to the elections next year because no one will remember it, to saying that some website issues for healthcare.gov will cost Democrats dearly.

This whole disingenuous shtick you have going got old a long time ago, but now it's just legit annoying as fuck.
Seriously though, between the site not working (still can't view my eligibility results, luckily for me I'm grandfathered and my premium is acceptable) and now there being reports of identity theft concerns, it's going to make Democrats in tight races take some interesting positions in 2014 I fear. Unless, of course, they can fix the site and soon, and hope that all the baggage that went along with it as well as Obama's half-true campaign promise don't linger for too long.
 
You're really something, you know that? You go from talking about how the government shutdown won't mean anything to the elections next year because no one will remember it, to saying that some website issues for healthcare.gov will cost Democrats dearly.

This whole disingenuous shtick you have going got old a long time ago, but now it's just legit annoying as fuck.
But you are forgetting the Republican media machine and Darrell Issa dragging out the hearings well into summer next year. Its an established fact that Democrats suck at messaging, let alone pivot and re message. But in all honesty I believe immigration reform will be the focus of everyone heading into the elections.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
That was just PPP, some others had him higher. It is natural to expect it to tighten, but all the way down to only 3 points? Something is up. Cooch was a de facto idiot tea party GOPer. No way should it have even been that close.

Polls ranged from +1 to +12 in the last two weeks of the election, and the average was +6. So it was closer than expected by 3 points. That's not a huge amount.Off year elections are always hard to poll as turnout is very hard to get right.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/states/VA
 

Renji_11

Member
Polls ranged from +1 to +12 in the last two weeks of the election, and the average was +6. So it was closer than expected by 3 points. That's not a huge amount.Off year elections are always hard to poll as turnout is very hard to get right.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/states/VA

Plus the gender gap was suppose to be close to the high teens for women voting for McAuliffe. For whatever reason it was only 8 points last night.
 
The polling on the other two positions were accurate which tells us people were just embarrassed to admit they were voting cooch. It happens because in this case cooch is a fascist asshole.

It wasn't about obamacare. In fact, exit polling shows 20% of people against obamacare votes terry. It also wasn't the #1 issue according to these polls by a mile and cooch barely won this group. And finally, support and nonsupport for the law is almost exactly the same in va as in 2012's presidential election.

I think the argument could be made better that obamacare had little to do with va election. What mattered is that cooch was a terrible candidate that lost the unmarried female group by a shit ton.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
The polling on the other two positions were accurate which tells us people were just embarrassed to admit they were voting cooch. It happens because in this case cooch is a fascist asshole.

It wasn't about obamacare. In fact, exit polling shows 20% of people against obamacare votes terry. It also wasn't the #1 issue according to these polls by a mile and cooch barely won this group. And finally, support and nonsupport for the law is almost exactly the same in va as in 2012's presidential election.

I think the argument could be made better that obamacare had little to do with va election. What mattered is that cooch was a terrible candidate that lost the unmarried female group by a shit ton.

This strikes me as entirely reasonable. My sense was people were holding their nose and voting on both sides, by and large. Terrible candidates.
 
The polling on the other two positions were accurate which tells us people were just embarrassed to admit they were voting cooch. It happens because in this case cooch is a fascist asshole.

It wasn't about obamacare. In fact, exit polling shows 20% of people against obamacare votes terry. It also wasn't the #1 issue according to these polls by a mile and cooch barely won this group. And finally, support and nonsupport for the law is almost exactly the same in va as in 2012's presidential election.

I think the argument could be made better that obamacare had little to do with va election. What mattered is that cooch was a terrible candidate that lost the unmarried female group by a shit ton.

It was the #2 issue at 27%, behind the economy (45%). I'd say it certainly played a role.
 
This strikes me as entirely reasonable. My sense was people were holding their nose and voting on both sides, by and large. Terrible candidates.

In addition to cooch being cooch, I think the shutdown had an effect on polling as people just didn't want to associate with that party.

But non-swing voters rarely deviate from their party. The only question is whether they show up to vote or not. That's probably why the race ended almost the same as obama's in percentage.

The good news for dems? GOP support in va is among the elderly who have a tendency to die while the dem base is 30-45.



PD - a distant second and cooch barely won that group. 20% who opposed obamacare still voted for Terry Mac. Explain that.
 
Terry's internal pollsters claiming their polls always had it 2-4 points, never more or less. Stable the entire time.

And apparently they claim cooch's position for full repeal actually hurt his numbers though not as much as other stances like abortion.
 
In addition to cooch being cooch, I think the shutdown had an effect on polling as people just didn't want to associate with that party.

But non-swing voters rarely deviate from their party. The only question is whether they show up to vote or not. That's probably why the race ended almost the same as obama's in percentage.

The good news for dems? GOP support in va is among the elderly who have a tendency to die while the dem base is 30-45.



PD - a distant second and cooch barely won that group. 20% who opposed obamacare still voted for Terry Mac. Explain that.

Where are you getting that number? CNN's exit poll shows Terry got 11% of those who oppose Obamacare, while Cooch got 6% of those who support it.
 

Mort

Banned
Apples to oranges. GMO label isn't telling you anything useful or informative. They already go through extensive testing (especially for allergens) and strengthening that side would be a lot better than slapping a label. It's useless. It does nothing for the consumer. Diet and ingredient labels do. It's nothing like a PKU warning label on artificial sweeteners or allergy labels.

http://www.biofortified.org/blog/example of a nice non profit GMO site. But for ever one of these informative sites you get twenty FUD sites.

Msg was another example of this type hysteria.

The point is that it does more harm than good because of the stigma associated with GMO foods. Every damn food we eat is a GMO. Watch the lecture I posted before.

What stigma though? There doesn't appear to be any change in sales of GMOs in areas where GMO's are labeled like Europe.

You can talk about hippies being hysterical, but you're being just as guilty and unscientific by screaming about "unfair stigmas" when if you actually looked at the data that isn't the case at all.
 
Where are you getting that number? CNN's exit poll shows Terry got 11% of those who oppose Obamacare, while Cooch got 6% of those who support it.

Sorry, I meant disappointed in obamacare. Which indicates votes weren't switching because of the rollout.

And you numbers still prove my point. 11% is still a lot!
 

Wilsongt

Member
I'm SHOCKED! Absolutely SHOCKED!

Boehner opposes landmark U.S. gay-rights bill, dimming its chances

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner on Monday opposed a bill to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, dimming the chances of the White House-backed measure becoming law.

"The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Steel issued the statement at about the same time that the bill's backers in the Senate appeared to have gathered enough support to clear a Republican procedural roadblock.

Dean Heller of Nevada became the fifth Senate Republican to announce support for the bill. "This legislation raises the federal standards to match what we have come to expect in Nevada, which is that discrimination must not be tolerated under any circumstance," Heller said.


The bill has become the latest example of the ideological struggle within the Republican party over gay rights. While an increasing number of Republicans are showing more flexibility over gay rights, conservative groups are threatening to mount challenges against those Republicans who support such measures.

The four other Senate Republicans who publicly back the bill are Orrin Hatch of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

These five Republicans, combined with all 53 Senate Democrats and two independents who routinely vote with them, will give supporters of the bill the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to clear a Republican procedural roadblock.

A vote was set for 5:30 p.m. (2230 GMT).

But before the Senate roll call could begin, it was upstaged by the statement from Boehner's office and reaction to it.

House passage had already seemed unlikely, but Boehner's statement underscored the fact that there seems to be no interest from the Republican leadership in even bringing it up.

Regardless, House Democrats said they would push to get a vote on the measure, guardedly hopeful that they could get most members of the chamber to support it.

Fred Sainz, a vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest civil rights group for gays in the United States, ripped into Boehner, saying: "On a day when Senate Republicans are leading and saying 'yes' to employment protections, it doesn't seem very smart for the speaker to say 'no.'"


POLLS SHOW SUPPORT FOR GAY RIGHTS

"He (Boehner) comes across as completely out of step with Americans," said Sainz, alluding to polls showing that most Americans support gays rights.

The bill is seen as the most important gay-rights measure to come before Congress since the 2010 repeal of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the armed forces.


Democrats and a number of Republicans have pushed for years for passage of such a bill. In 2007, the then Democratic-led House passed a smaller version of the latest measure, but Republicans in the Senate blocked it.


The current bill would prohibit employers from firing, refusing to hire, or discriminating against those employed or seeking employment, on the basis of their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity.

Such protections are already prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability.

Nearly 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies now extend workplace protections based on sexual orientation and more than a third on the basis of gender identity, said supporters of the bill in the Senate.

Heritage Action, a conservative advocacy group, opposes the bill and last week warned lawmakers that it would include their votes on it in their annual "legislative scorecard."

Heritage Action charges that the measure would undermine civil liberties, increase government interference in the labor market, and trample on religious liberty.

Although the bill exempts religious groups, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced its opposition, in part, because of the measure's support for gay marriage, which the Catholic Church opposes.

House rejection of the bill would help shape mid-term congressional elections in November next year when a third of the 100-member Senate and the entire 435-member House will be up for grabs.

The gay community traditionally votes Democratic, and rejection of the bill would probably make it even more likely to maintain that support.

About 5 percent of the voters in the 2012 election were lesbian, gay or bisexual and 76 percent of them voted for Democratic President Barack Obama, according to a poll commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

The survey questioned 1,000 voters who participated in the 2012 election. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

Only 76% voted for Obama? Fucking log cabin Republicans.

Also, fuck Republicans.
 
The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs
Does that mean if he found out that other workplace discrimination laws caused the same thing, he'd want to repeal them too?
 

leroidys

Member
Apples to oranges. GMO label isn't telling you anything useful or informative. They already go through extensive testing (especially for allergens) and strengthening that side would be a lot better than slapping a label. It's useless. It does nothing for the consumer. Diet and ingredient labels do. It's nothing like a PKU warning label on artificial sweeteners or allergy labels.

http://www.biofortified.org/blog/example of a nice non profit GMO site. But for ever one of these informative sites you get twenty FUD sites.

Msg was another example of this type hysteria.

The point is that it does more harm than good because of the stigma associated with GMO foods. Every damn food we eat is a GMO. Watch the lecture I posted before.
I know, I'm not an idiot. My contention is that it's shameful that an alliance of corporations could pour such an enormous amount of money into this race to stave off something so seemingly trivial.

Stupid people will keep being stupid regardless.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
The real problem with GMOs is patents. Otherwise, safety concerns aren't entirely baseless, but usually overblown.
 
Rubio throws a ton of cold water on Christie's win last night:

"I think we need to understand that some of these races don't apply to future races. Every race is different–it has a different set of factors–but I congratulate (Christie) on his win," he told CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
It all comes from one dissenting voice int the FCIC, a guy from AEI (which is the think tank that is largely responsible for GWB amazingly successful economic plan), you can read about it here if you're really bored, it's all bullshit.

It's wrong, they had no role in the crash other than being a victim like many others. Just like the CRA did not, either.

The GOP blames them because gov't bad. They ignore all the evidence that the problem in the sub-prime market came almost exclusively from the private lenders.

Unbenannt.png


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/0...-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/

edit: whoa wtf you beat me, chichkov! You will pay for this transgression!


edit: Well fine then, I'll contribute something else: http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr318.html

A couple pages late, but thanks for the links. They answer pretty much every question I had regarding Freddie/Fannie.
 

Diablos

Member
Polls ranged from +1 to +12 in the last two weeks of the election, and the average was +6. So it was closer than expected by 3 points. That's not a huge amount.Off year elections are always hard to poll as turnout is very hard to get right.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/states/VA
Alright, makes more sense now. Reassuring.

Also the fact that Terry got a considerable amount of people who outright oppose or are not satisfied with the ACA is quite good.

Rubio throws a ton of cold water on Christie's win last night:
lol, Rubio's troll hand is strong.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
From McCuffle's pollster:

Garin said the campaign specifically polled on Cuccinelli’s bragging point as the first attorney general to target the health law, and that it was a loser for him.

“We tested Cuccinelli’s brag that he was the first attorney general to sue to stop Obamacare,” Garin said. “That actually made more voters less likely to support him than more.”

This will strike commentators as impossible to believe. If a majority in Virginia disapproves of Obamacare, as the exit polls show, surely Cuccinelli’s call for repeal can only be a positive, right? Well, no, not necessarily. And that’s important. It turns on the idea that disapproval of the law does not necessarily translate into support for getting rid of it; that those who disapprove have multiple reasons for doing so; and that some want to give the law a chance to work anyway.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Rubio throws a ton of cold water on Christie's win last night:

Rubio isn't wrong. Christie over-performed, he was practically unopposed. Buono had no name presence or real support. He wouldn't have done as well against a real opponent.

If it makes you feel any better, de Blasio won NYC by an even bigger margin. And that's an office that a Democrat hasn't held in a long time.

That margin was HILARIOUS. It was like 40 or 50 points wasn't it?
 
"Most polls" didn't have him ahead by double digits. The RCP average had him at a 7-point lead, and all but one of the polls in the average had just a single digit-lead:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe_vs_sarvis-4111.html

He did underperform the polls, but not by THAT much.

edit: beaten, ah well
Just to clarify, terry didn't underperform. He hit his raw numbers as predicted. It was cooch who over performed. If you look, a ton of gopers that claimed to to vote sarvis switches back to cooch.

Polls showed cooch only getting 80% of gopers and he got over 90%. They were embarrassed most likely.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Gay people can't vote republican? What if they're conservative.

Classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. Rupublicans doing everything they can to make LGBT individuals seem like second class citizens and concurrently use a musty old book to justify their reasons, yet these people will continue to vote against their social interest? It's not like the Republicans do anything useful financially or economically, either, unless you are already super rich.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. Rupublicans doing everything they can to make LGBT individuals seem like second class citizens and concurrently use a musty old book to justify their reasons, yet these people will continue to vote against their social interest? It's not like the Republicans do anything useful financially or economically, either, unless you are already super rich.

Yeah. Non-rich Republican voting libertarians are probably the most bizarre voting bloc ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom