Support NeoGAF

[KingK]

Is it 'rolling over' so much as it is realizing none of the other Democratic candidates would make anyone feel confident about securing the Presidency for at least another four years? Warren, O'Malley, Cuomo even... none of these people are Presidential material. I'm sorry.

Honestly, had it not been for Obama deciding to run, Hillary would be President right now. Depending on what went down in IL with Obama being a prominent Senator there, he may or may not have been able to hold on to his credibility enough to run in 2016.
Not to mention, had Hillary not employed Mark Penn early on I think she may have very well went on to beat Obama anyway. Also, 'rolling over' for the first black President to be succeeded by the first female President should make any Democrat proud and not feel like a tool. The guys on the right act like tools.

And the clown car of GOP candidates are Presidential material? Obviously no Democrat right now is as electable as Hillary Clinton, but I would still give the edge to any of the talked about Democratic candidates over whoever the GOP primaries spit out.

Also, while I would guess Clinton has a 80+% chance of winning the primary even if she faced a serious challenger, my concern is that without any competitive candidate in the primaries for the liberal Democratic voters to rally behind in the primary, Hillary can just coast through and run a center-right campaign in the general to go for an electoral blowout. I want Clinton to have to move to the left, and if she doesn't have to fight for the nomination at all, then she has absolutely no incentive to do so.

 

[Aaron Strife]

A 400+ EV result would be glorious. 'Mandate' and such.

Edit: You can blame Bob Dole for losing a lot of 'safe' states by today's standards.

The media would never concede a mandate to the Democrats.

Bush won 286 EVs and a 2 point victory in the popular vote in 2004 and that was a "mandate." 8 years later when Obama won a 4 point victory and 332 EVs it was like "LOOK AT HOW DIVIDED OUR COUNTRY IS"

 

[PhoenixDark]

Is it 'rolling over' so much as it is realizing none of the other Democratic candidates would make anyone feel confident about securing the Presidency for at least another four years? Warren, O'Malley, Cuomo even... none of these people are Presidential material. I'm sorry.

Honestly, had it not been for Obama deciding to run, Hillary would be President right now. Depending on what went down in IL with Obama being a prominent Senator there, he may or may not have been able to hold on to his credibility enough to run in 2016.
Not to mention, had Hillary not employed Mark Penn early on I think she may have very well went on to beat Obama anyway. Also, 'rolling over' for the first black President to be succeeded by the first female President should make any Democrat proud and not feel like a tool. The guys on the right act like tools.

Come on. If she didn't hire Penn she would have found another old school, out dated Clinton loyalist to hire and still lost big. Her entire team was bad , it wasn't just Penn. Obama wasn't going to lose that race.

 

[pigeon]

http://www.270towin.com/

Any GOP candidate will get at least 180 EV votes. The best Hillary could do is 347 EV (winning all the 2012 swing states) but I don't see that happening.

You people think the world has changed so much since 1984! Lopsided landslides are not really that uncommon in the electoral college. But to be slightly more clear, my assumption is that a total lunatic will get nominated for the GOP in 2016 and alienate all the party faithfuls except his specific brand of crazy.

It would look something like this: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFLZ

Texas, Arizona, and Alaska are all (slowly) trending blue, so a huge candidate advantage could turn them ahead of schedule. Georgia and South Carolina are New South states that will be blue eventually as well. Indiana is a state full of moderate Republicans -- an evangelical candidacy could easily turn them off enough for another upset. This is actually a conservative "GOP implosion" electoral map -- I didn't take North Dakota!

edit: It's very important to remember that the 2016 candidates are lining up support right now. I remember reading about George W. Bush in Time magazine around this time in 2006. A story like this is a solid indicator that there really is no apparent leader in the invisible primary, and that's a very strong suggestion that the real primary will be a mess. The establishment wants to choose somebody and promote them, but they don't have anybody who they think can win.

It is funny how much the left prides itself on being pro-science, while taking the anti science route when talking about food. It's not science to say that natural = good and unnatural = bad in all circumstances. In fact it's anti science to assume that just because science is involved that makes it unhealthy.

And the biggest problem is that by holding back scientific progress on foods, you're creating inefficiencies which leads to more greenhouse gases and higher food prices.

I don't think it's scientific denialism to observe that "scientific capture" is a thing. Please remember that science used to cheerfully inform us that formula was better than breast milk, processed food was superior to natural food and cigarettes were good for your lungs. Reductionist analysis is only as good as your microscope -- and who's paying for your microscope?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I just don't see a fringe candidate winning. By fringe I mean Cruz, Santorum (who technically is the "next in line" candidate this time), and Paul. The establishment rarely loses, if ever, in republican primaries. The right loves pointing to Reagan but was he truly a fringe candidate in 1979/1980? You could argue he was the anti establishment in 1976 but four years later he was The Candidate.

Cruz has bucked leadership for two years, insulted his colleagues, and is a complete radical. Santorum seethes hatred to the point even evangelicals struggle to support him; they have long preferred candidates who hide their religious nonsense well, like Reagan and W Bush. Paul is on tape suggesting he wouldn't have voted for the CRA of 1964.

I think Scott Walker would be a great establishment pick. The tea party doesn't dislike him, he's loved by corporate barons, and a couple overseas trips will satisfy the hawks. Meanwhile Jeb Bush is hated on the far right for his immigration stance. I think Walker will have the advantage. I expect the race to boil down to Rand Paul v Establishment Pick, and I can't see the GOP allowing Paul to win that.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Coming back to Christie, I gurantee that Wildstein doesn't have any proof that Christie knew about the closures (I do believe he knew about them earlier than he is claiming for sure).

 

[theprodigy]

The media would never concede a mandate to the Democrats.

Bush won 286 EVs and a 2 point victory in the popular vote in 2004 and that was a "mandate." 8 years later when Obama won a 4 point victory and 332 EVs it was like "LOOK AT HOW DIVIDED OUR COUNTRY IS"

"liberal media" amirite *rolls eyes*

 

[Plumbob]

Ooh, is the writer of that blog a teacher at Berkeley? I'm hoping to transfer there from my community college in the fall to Major in economics.

Junior at Berkeley, doing economics and statistics. Great, challenging place. Send me a message if you get in.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.270towin.com/

Any GOP candidate will get at least 180 EV votes. The best Hillary could do is 347 EV (winning all the 2012 swing states) but I don't see that happening.

Well of course we can't discount Romney winning Ohio in a Hail Mary.

Georgia and Arizona are well on their way to being swing states, and Hillary (or any Democrat in 2016) could win them both. Remember that Virginia and North Carolina weren't swing states until 2012 - that Obama won them in 2008 was a legitimate upset. And of course in 2012 he won Virginia by a bigger margin than Ohio or Florida. who until recently were the media-designated conorators of the presidency, whereas Obama could have lost both and still been president.

Texas is a ways off though.

I just don't see a fringe candidate winning. By fringe I mean Cruz, Santorum (who technically is the "next in line" candidate this time), and Paul. The establishment rarely loses, if ever, in republican primaries. The right loves pointing to Reagan but was he truly a fringe candidate in 1979/1980? You could argue he was the anti establishment in 1976 but four years later he was The Candidate.

Cruz has bucked leadership for two years, insulted his colleagues, and is a complete radical. Santorum seethes hatred to the point even evangelicals struggle to support him; they have long preferred candidates who hide their religious nonsense well, like Reagan and W Bush. Paul is on tape suggesting he wouldn't have voted for the CRA of 1964.

I think Scott Walker would be a great establishment pick. The tea party doesn't dislike him, he's loved by corporate barons, and a couple overseas trips will satisfy the hawks. Meanwhile Jeb Bush is hated on the far right for his immigration stance. I think Walker will have the advantage. I expect the race to boil down to Rand Paul v Establishment Pick, and I can't see the GOP allowing Paul to win that.

McCain and Romney were Pyrrhic victories though - they had to say so much crazy shit to win the primary that it became an albatross around their neck in the general election. Who's to say at some point the insane wing of the GOP won't eventually win out?

PD I think your problem with political forecasting is you assume nothing will ever change. No one in the mainstream media thought Obama could beat Hillary, no one thought Obama could beat McCain, and no one thought Obama could beat Romney. The people who did believe that, like Nate Silver were ostracized for pointing out the obvious.

It's a safe assumption - right now - that Hillary will be the Dem nominee in 2016. And it's a safe assumption - right now - that whoever the GOP nominates won't be anywhere near as quality of a candidate as her. Sure, something major could happen between now and then, and the GOP (or the Democrats, for a primary) could find an amazing dark horse candidate like Obama, but I don't think that will happen, people knew about Obama well before the 08 election.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Guys, this is a MUST read article by TA-NEHISI COATES

The Champion Barack Obama :
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-champion-barack-obama/283458/

Barack Obama was not prophecy. Whatever had been laid before him, it takes gifted hands to operate, repeatedly, on a country scarred by white supremacy. The significance of the moment comes across, not simply in policy, by in the power of symbolism. I don't expect, in my lifetime, to again see a black family with the sheer beauty of Obama's on such a prominent stage. (In the private spaces of black America, I see them all the time.)

And this messenger—who is Barack Obama—becomes something more to black people. He becomes a champion of black imagination, of black dreams and black possibilities. For liberals and Democrats, the prospect of an Obama defeat in 2012 meant the reversal of an agenda they favored. For black people, the fight was existential.

Rest of the article is worth a read for anybody remotely interested in conversations about race.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

It is funny how much the left prides itself on being pro-science, while taking the anti science route when talking about food. It's not science to say that natural = good and unnatural = bad in all circumstances. In fact it's anti science to assume that just because science is involved that makes it unhealthy.

And the biggest problem is that by holding back scientific progress on foods, you're creating inefficiencies which leads to more greenhouse gases and higher food prices.

It really is one of the worst trends that belongs exclusively to the left, but if that's the worst we have, that's honestly not so bad.

The science of nutrition is quite complex.
And for that, it can be hard to understand.

I was hungry and wanted cookie dough the other day. I saw the regular cookie dough that Pillsbury typically puts out, and then I saw the natural dough.

The regular dough had a lot of ingredients I never heard of. And then the regular dough was made with wheat, flour, sugar, egg or whatever else.. With virtually no difference in pricing, I went with the natural flavor. It's just more familiar.

 

[pigeon]

I just don't see a fringe candidate winning. By fringe I mean Cruz, Santorum (who technically is the "next in line" candidate this time), and Paul. The establishment rarely loses, if ever, in republican primaries. The right loves pointing to Reagan but was he truly a fringe candidate in 1979/1980? You could argue he was the anti establishment in 1976 but four years later he was The Candidate.

Cruz has bucked leadership for two years, insulted his colleagues, and is a complete radical. Santorum seethes hatred to the point even evangelicals struggle to support him; they have long preferred candidates who hide their religious nonsense well, like Reagan and W Bush. Paul is on tape suggesting he wouldn't have voted for the CRA of 1964.

I think Scott Walker would be a great establishment pick. The tea party doesn't dislike him, he's loved by corporate barons, and a couple overseas trips will satisfy the hawks. Meanwhile Jeb Bush is hated on the far right for his immigration stance. I think Walker will have the advantage. I expect the race to boil down to Rand Paul v Establishment Pick, and I can't see the GOP allowing Paul to win that.

The point is that it's too late for Scott Walker to be an establishment pick. The establishment is picking right now. Where are the column inches and blog posts about Walker? And a coy CNN story about how he won't rule out running isn't sufficient. Who's pulling for him? It's not like he's running ahead in all the polls.

 

[Trouble]

Well of course we can't discount Romney winning Ohio in a Hail Mary.

Georgia and Arizona are well on their way to being swing states, and Hillary (or any Democrat in 2016) could win them both. Remember that Virginia and North Carolina weren't swing states until 2012 - that Obama won them in 2008 was a legitimate upset. And of course in 2012 he won Virginia by a bigger margin than Ohio or Florida. who until recently were the media-designated conorators of the presidency, whereas Obama could have lost both and still been president.

Texas is a ways off though.

That's what made Karl Rove's Fox News Ohio hand wringing so delicious. He was still trying to hold onto hope for Ohio past the point where didn't even matter any more.

 

[PhoenixDark]

PD I think your problem with political forecasting is you assume nothing will ever change. No one in the mainstream media thought Obama could beat Hillary, no one thought Obama could beat McCain, and no one thought Obama could beat Romney. The people who did believe that, like Nate Silver were ostracized for pointing out the obvious.

It's a safe assumption - right now - that Hillary will be the Dem nominee in 2016. And it's a safe assumption - right now - that whoever the GOP nominates won't be anywhere near as quality of a candidate as her. Sure, something major could happen between now and then, and the GOP (or the Democrats, for a primary) could find an amazing dark horse candidate like Obama, but I don't think that will happen, people knew about Obama well before the 08 election.

I'm making the exact opposite argument here though. As Pigeon points out, no one is talking about Walker currently. He practically is a dark horse candidate, if you go by 2016 polls. I expect that to change.

I'd say 2016 is different from past republican fights because there really isn't an heir apparent. The Bush era is over, and everyone connected to him in any way (McCain, Romney, and yes Santorum) are irrelevant. Which means the next primary will completely reset the board, just as the 2000 republican primary reset the board.

There isn't really a defacto candidate yet. Sure, The Hill is reporting that K-Street is warming up to Rubio right now
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...97176-gop-insiders-buying-stock-in-rubio-2016

but I'm just not buying that he's the establishment pick

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm making the exact opposite argument here though. As Pigeon points out, no one is talking about Walker currently. He practically is a dark horse candidate, if you go by 2016 polls. I expect that to change.

I'd say 2016 is different from past republican fights because there really isn't an heir apparent. The Bush era is over, and everyone connected to him in any way (McCain, Romney, and yes Santorum) are irrelevant. Which means the next primary will completely reset the board, just as the 2000 republican primary reset the board.

There isn't really a defacto candidate yet. Sure, The Hill is reporting that K-Street is warming up to Rubio right now
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...97176-gop-insiders-buying-stock-in-rubio-2016

but I'm just not buying that he's the establishment pick

That's my point though. People were talking about Obama in 2004.

Anyone talking about Walker right now is throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks after Christie bombed. No one is legitimately inspired by Walker, they just want another candidate with a similar profile to Christie but without the scandal.

 

[KingK]

I always thought the Republican primary would come down to Rand Paul vs. Christie (with Christie winning out due to establishment support/money). But with Christie imploding, I'm not sure the establishment will have time to groom a replacement for him to beat Paul, and if Rand Paul is the nominee it really doesn't matter who the Democrats pick, and in the likely event it's Clinton, I could see something like Pigeon's map playing out lol. The party and donors are going to pick someone like Walker and pour a shit ton of money into his campaign to get him through the primary, but that strategy barely worked for Romney, and he had been running for 6 years and was the presumed nominee for years.

Also, I saw Bobby Jindal on the news today saying he supports looking into legalizing medical marijuana in Louisiana and reducing sentencing on possession (Louisiana has some of the harshest penalties in the country for small amounts of pot). It really does seem like the War on Drugs is on the verge of ending.

edit: Isn't Walker the guy who was recorded grovelling at the feet of a prank caller pretending to be David Koch? I don't understand how that is not considered just as damaging as Romney's 47% video (I would say it should be more damaging).

 

[Oblivion]

Ann Coulter sez her friend's sister died cause of Obamacare:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/coulter-to-fox-friends-my-friends-sister-died-because-of-obamacare/

 

[RustyNails]

Another Christie Sandygate being reported

$4.8 million in Sandy relief funds went to help build New Brunswick apartment complex

New Jersey’s Housing and Mortgage Finance agency approved the disbursement of $4.8 million in Hurricane Sandy relief funds to help build an apartment tower in New Brunswick, according to an investigation from NBC’s I-Team.

The funding was part of the state’s Fund for Rebuilding Multifamily Housing — a program intended to speed construction of new affordable housing in communities ravaged by the storm.

Only 48 of the 238 apartment units in the New Brunswick apartment building will be classified as affordable housing, the report said. The building will have 8,000 square feet of retail space, a parking deck and a fitness center, the developer, a firm called Boraie, told NBC.

Furthermore, New Brunswick suffered relatively little damage as a result of Hurricane Sandy, the report said. A Rutgers University study ranked New Brunswick 188th on a list of communities that suffered the most damage from Sandy.

Found a relevant quote from the comments in the article:

splainittome
5 Hours Ago
Let's connect some dots. The SL is reporting today that the Director of State Housing and Mortgage and Finance, Anthony Marchetta, is the father of Mayor Cahill's spokesman Russell Marchetta. Anthony Marchetta is also the father of Mary O'Dowd (State Health Commissioner), who just happens to be married to Christy's Chief of Staff Kevin O'Dowd (also Christy's nominee for Atty.Gen.) Sadly the 4.8 million went to a Mayor with political ties directly to Christy's office and not to those that suffered at the hands of the storm. Of course the Mayor and all involved will not be held accountable for feeding on the money trough while so many families still don't have permanent homes and are still required to pay taxes on homes that are either uninhabitable or no longer exist.

 

[Trouble]

Hey! Guys! I just realized something. Chelsea Clinton is old enough to be eligible to be a V.P. candidate in 2016.

Mother/daughter ticket needs to happen. We need all 3 Clintons back in the White House.

 

[Chumly]

Ann Coulter sez her friend's sister died cause of Obamacare:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/coulter-to-fox-friends-my-friends-sister-died-because-of-obamacare/

Shit like that should be criminal. I mean are you fucking kidding me? Why didn't her friends sister get insurance?

 

[Konka]

Bill O'Reilly with the BENGHAZI!!

 

[StopMakingSense]

Bill O'Reilly with the BENGHAZI!!

Seriously, I have the SB on mute, I look up and it's O'Reilly and Obama. WHAT.

 

[WayneMorse]

Hahaha Bill O going at Obama with every dead scandal.

Now the IRS!

 

[Oblivion]

Shit like that should be criminal. I mean are you fucking kidding me? Why didn't her friends sister get insurance?

And why didn't the emergency room make her all better like conservatives claim? Also, I don't know what she's talking about Blue Shield pulling out of Cali. I live there and my co-worker has Blue Shield.

 

[zero shift]

Just finished reading this article http://leighphillips.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/frankenpolitics-the-left-defence-of-gmos/

Pretty damn good defence of GMOs from a left-wing perspective.. anti-gmo hysteria is pretty much my biggest problem with left-wing politics right now, with the best left-wing political party in Australia having a pretty shitty policy on GMOs (if you are familiar with the science) as being evident of how negatively it has impacted on left-wing discourse: http://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-manipulated-organisms

I remember in the GMO thread I asked someone to give me one single peer reviewed study that GMOs were bad. I didn't get one. It breaks my heart that this is put into so much focus while things such as food subsidies, the oligopoly of the food sector, and ridiculous patents tend to be less recognized.

Care must be taken to not go to the other extreme as well, where progress is unambiguously good and that anything natural or traditional is to be discarded with prejudice, basically the kind of fetishistic modernism that Ayn Rand espoused.

The thing is that most GMO supporters aren't in that extreme, they merely think that GMOs as a whole aren't a bad thing because the science supports it.

Yeah, it is not even worth getting excited about those states. Better to focus southern efforts on securing places like Florida and Virginia, getting back North Carolina, and if there were an additional state worth trying to pick up it wouldn't be LA or TN, but Georgia.

People need to be careful. The Solid South isn't fading because the Southerners are changing, but more so that migration from white northerners, latinos, and blacks combined with the higher voter turnout for blacks in the south is leading the south to becoming more left. North Carolina and Georgia have been having tons of migration from the north lately. Louisiana and Tennessee? Not so much.

Also keep in mind that anti-gmo positions people have are a lot of times not about "science" but are actually rooted in their fear for their health and distrust of corporate practices, so I don't often think it's appropriate to look at them like global warming deniers who are reactionary towards the left's position and just parrot whatever fud the energy companies would like them to.

I don't see this as big of a difference. Many of the "anti global warming" people have a rooted fear in government regulations (keyword "government") being the big bad evil.

 

[StopMakingSense]

And why didn't the emergency room make her all better like conservatives claim? Also, I don't know what she's talking about Blue Shield pulling out of Cali. I live there and my co-worker has Blue Shield.

Yeah, Blue Shield of CA totally didn't pull out of CA. Also are a major exchange provider

 

[KingK]

Shit like that should be criminal. I mean are you fucking kidding me? Why didn't her friends sister get insurance?

Ann Coulter is nothing more than a professional troll. Haven't you seen that episode of the Boondocks?

 

[WayneMorse]

Okay so the O'Reilly-Obama interview was basically 20 minutes of BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI

 

[Oblivion]

It's absolutely baffling that Obama demeans himself by offering an interview with fucking BILL O'REILLY.

This is not gonna make teabaggers hate him any less.

 

[Lafiel]

I remember in the GMO thread I asked someone to give me one single peer reviewed study that GMOs were bad. I didn't get one. It breaks my heart that this is put into so much focus while things such as food subsidies, the oligopoly of the food sector, and ridiculous patents tend to be less recognized.

It's the same thing with big pharma really.. people in general should be focusing on the actual shady stuff big pharma does.. instead of making up BS and indirectly give more profit to big pharma.. because contrary to the image of alternative medicine being anti-corporation.. it's actually a million-dollar industry that pharmaceutical companies indirectly profit off.
And let's not get started on the fact that none of this really matters because even if alt-med wasn't tied to that it'd still be a load of crap.

I don't see this as big of a difference. Many of the "anti global warming" people have a rooted fear in government regulations (keyword "government") being the big bad evil.

Well the biggest concern with GMOs and Monsanto is the possibility of the latter having a monopoly on the industry especially with things like patents and suing farmers for having their crops get in contact with GMOS.. the problem is like the above example is people being unable to differentiate between Monsanto and GM technology in itself.. just because Monsanto kind of suck doesn't mean that GM is inherently evil.. just like the fact Big Pharma suck it doesn't mean drugs are inherently evil.

I don't think it's scientific denialism to observe that "scientific capture" is a thing. Please remember that science used to cheerfully inform us that formula was better than breast milk, processed food was superior to natural food and cigarettes were good for your lungs. Reductionist analysis is only as good as your microscope -- and who's paying for your microscope?

Science can be misused.. but were those things ever really the case? as in reached a scientific consensus that was undisputed till new evidence came along proving it to be wrong? not that science can't be wrong though.. the strength about it compared to other knowledge systems is it can be wrong and is willing to correct itself with no dramas unlike people.

 

[Mario]

Ann Coulter sez her friend's sister died cause of Obamacare:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/coulter-to-fox-friends-my-friends-sister-died-because-of-obamacare/

Given the details of the story and a number of anecdotes arising from the right, the situation sounds like "her friend's sister died cause of irrational hatred of Obamacare to the point where a foolish principled stand against it resulted in the ultimate bad outcome against her self interests".

If anyone is killing anybody, it's people driving the misinformation about Obamacare like Coulter herself and the likes of Carlson. The fact Coulter is using this example for an "I told you so" is just shameful.

 

[East Lake]

I don't see this as big of a difference. Many of the "anti global warming" people have a rooted fear in government regulations (keyword "government") being the big bad evil.

I think it's a huge difference. Medical science will at some point fail either you or someone you know. Whether it's an inability to get rid of dry skin or something more serious that threatens your mental or physical health. That is enough to turn people to alternative routes. There is no equivalent in global warming denial where people are ruined if the science isn't advanced enough. With so much riding on their health it's not surprising that a rat study which uses methodology from the social sciences isn't going to calm people's fears.

 

[WayneMorse]

So how do you think Obama murdered Philip Seymour Hoffman?

 

[zero shift]

I don't think it's scientific denialism to observe that "scientific capture" is a thing. Please remember that science used to cheerfully inform us that formula was better than breast milk, processed food was superior to natural food and cigarettes were good for your lungs. Reductionist analysis is only as good as your microscope -- and who's paying for your microscope?

Did all these things have a firm near scientific majority during their times or were they merely split?

I think it's a huge difference. Medical science will at some fail either you or someone you know. Whether it's an inability to get rid of dry skin or something more serious that threatens your mental or physical health. That is enough to turn people to alternative routes. There is no equivalent in global warming denial where people are ruined if the science isn't advanced enough. With so much riding on their health it's not surprising that a rat study which uses methodology from the social sciences isn't going to calm people's fears.

What does medical science have to do with GMOs or global warming? In terms of science can be wrong you can say that about any science. With that logic one could say that gay marriage still isn't proven to not influence children to becoming gay themselves. At some point when the scientific consensus is strong enough you have to make a decision.

Stuff.

I agree with everything you said.

 

[East Lake]

What does medical science have to do with GMOs or global warming? In terms of science can be wrong you can say that about any science. With that logic one could say that gay marriage still isn't proven to not influence children to becoming gay themselves. At some point when the scientific consensus is strong enough you have to make a decision.

1. People have health problems.
2. A lot of these health problems either cannot be solved, or need constant treatment.
3. Scientists promise that GMOs aren't to blame.
4. People still have unsolvable health problems.

Kinda disappointed I have to write this out.

Gay marriage is not a scientific problem it's a social one.

 

[Oblivion]

Given the details of the story and a number of anecdotes arising from the right, the situation sounds like "her friend's sister died cause of irrational hatred of Obamacare to the point where a foolish principled stand against it resulted in the ultimate bad outcome against her self interests".

If anyone is killing anybody, it's people driving the misinformation about Obamacare like Coulter herself and the likes of Carlson. The fact Coulter is using this example for an "I told you so" is just shameful.

I re-read the story and apparently she didn't even bother going to the emergency room because she didn't have insurance. Not the point Ann wanted to make, I'm sure.

So how do you think Obama murdered Philip Seymour Hoffman?

Scimitar to the neck.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Guys, this is a MUST read article by TA-NEHISI COATES

The Champion Barack Obama :
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-champion-barack-obama/283458/





Rest of the article is worth a read for anybody remotely interested in conversations about race.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is an amazing writer. Especially when it comes to race. Thanks for this.

 

[zero shift]

1. People have health problems.
2. A lot of these health problems either cannot be solved, or need constant treatment.
3. Scientists promise that GMOs aren't to blame.
4. People still have unsolvable health problems.

Kinda disappointed I have to write this out.

Gay marriage is not a scientific problem it's a social one.

This makes no sense. If there is a health problem and something was studied and is said to not be the health problem then it isn't the health problem. The four points you laid out just prove the GMOs aren't the problem, but its most likely some other factors scientists haven't looked at yet. You are right gay marriage is a terrible comparison, a better one would be the anti-vaccine brigade that blames the rising rates of certain disorders and illnesses on vaccines despite science time and time again stating that vaccines are not the perpetrator. Regardless it isn't like there is some secret to why we have so many health problems today, its because people are eating like shit now and aren't exercising as often thanks to junk food becoming cheaper and a general shift in lifestyle.

 

[GhaleonEB]

1. People have health problems.
2. A lot of these health problems either cannot be solved, or need constant treatment.
3. Scientists promise that GMOs aren't to blame.
4. People still have unsolvable health problems.

Kinda disappointed I have to write this out.

Gay marriage is not a scientific problem it's a social one.

This adds up to "fear of the unknown" rather than pointing to GMOs as the problem.

Our modern, processed food supply is poisoning us but this isn't a convincing case that GMO's are part of the problem. (Processed wheat and sugar bear much of the blame.)

 

[StopMakingSense]

1. People have health problems.
2. A lot of these health problems either cannot be solved, or need constant treatment.
3. Scientists promise that GMOs aren't to blame.
4. People still have unsolvable health problems.

Kinda disappointed I have to write this out.

Gay marriage is not a scientific problem it's a social one.

Gay marriage is responsible for unsolvable health problems, got it. Hold on, got a Facebook post to write...

 

[Oblivion]

George Snuffleupagus asks Paul Ryan if the Pope would support his budget bill

 

[Avon Barksdale]

SMH at #BoycottCoke trending.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

#ImpeachObama

 

[GhaleonEB]

#ImpeachObama

My wife called this before the ad was even over. I'm to the point where I almost look forward to the eruption of dipshittery after things like this and the Cheerios ad.

 

[fallagin]

Given the details of the story and a number of anecdotes arising from the right, the situation sounds like "her friend's sister died cause of irrational hatred of Obamacare to the point where a foolish principled stand against it resulted in the ultimate bad outcome against her self interests".

If anyone is killing anybody, it's people driving the misinformation about Obamacare like Coulter herself and the likes of Carlson. The fact Coulter is using this example for an "I told you so" is just shameful.

Yep, murderers calling other people murderers.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

#ImpeachObama

I'm going to guess the ImprachObama one was irony.

 

[Dominican Power]

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/john-elway-tells-fox-host-i-dont-believe

lulz

 

[Rhomega Beta]

#ImpeachObama

What was the song?

 

[bananas]

What was the song?

America the Beautiful.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 4m
It’s so much more fun to watch FOX when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked! #SuperBowl

:lol