• 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 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Who cares who meets with the Pope.

He lost the nomination. There's no need to try to pick apart the minutia of his travel plans at this point. It's over.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
How was it not poor judgment to disappear for a day in the kindle of his campaign to give a 5 minute speech and then ambush the Pope?

He could have done more for the cause of global climate change to replace his stump speech for a couple of rallies, and come off as an opportunist.
Click to expand...

If you know anything about his 90+ minute speeches at these rallies, you'd know that he already addresses climate change in each and every one of them.

His stump speech is a sweep of his entire platform.

EDIT:

BTW, he did NOT ambush the Pope. The evening before the Pope left for Greece, Bernie was informed that the Pope would like to meet with him, so they secured a 5-minute meet AHEAD OF TIME. That night, Sanders and his wife, and another couple, spent the night at the Pope's residence and they all met up in the morning.

http://www.politico.eu/article/bernie-sanders-secures-five-minutes-with-pope-francis/

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-sanders-meets-with-pope-20160416-story.html


ivysaur12 said:
Who cares who meets with the Pope.

He lost the nomination. There's no need to try to pick apart the minutia of his travel plans at this point. It's over.
Click to expand...

Apparently this is still a hot topic, so some of you guys must care!
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
If he made climate change the keystone point or used his airtime to put it up front, he could have done way more than that trip accomplished.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The meeting was diplomatic in nature. The point was to draw a consensus from key leaders across the globe. No way he could've done that by just talking about it at a rally.

As for ACTUAL alternatives, he could've done a teleconference, but I'm assuming that he thought honoring the original invitation as requested would have the most impact.
 
M

Maledict

Member
shinra-bansho said:
Also, I was reading the Economist today.

20160423_USP001_0.jpg

I'd build his wall. Or some other innuendo that actually makes sense.
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the economist.

I would be lying if I said I hadn't noticed this picture either... ;-)
 
A

ArkhamFantasy

Member
royalan said:
I just don't understand, if the Bernie Sanders' admiration of the Pope is so big, why he didn't take advantage of the Pope being in the US, or even on this continent, to extol his virtues. As it is, it wasn't until this trip, in the lead up to a major primary, that I had any idea that Bernie Sanders thought much about the Pope.
Click to expand...

I specifically remember Bernie gushing about the pope when he was here. The pope talked shit about the republicans because they dont help the poor/needy. Go back and check his twitter account from whatever date that was.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
royalan said:
I just don't understand, if the Bernie Sanders' admiration of the Pope is so big, why he didn't take advantage of the Pope being in the US, or even on this continent, to extol his virtues. As it is, it wasn't until this trip, in the lead up to a major primary, that I had any idea that Bernie Sanders thought much about the Pope.
Click to expand...

Cuz the only person the media cared about when the Pope was here was Kim Davis.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
What key leaders of major import to climate change accords were at an academic conference hosted by a religious academy... :s

The Presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador. Okay. It wasn't a diplomatic forum. COP21 this wasn't.

There are more key leaders at an Apple board meeting.
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
Jim Waterson ‏@jimwaterson
Obama audience cheers question about advising the next President on "her priorities"
Click to expand...
London is stanning for the Queen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president.html
Hillary Clinton’s advisers and allies have begun extensive discussions about who should be her running mate, seeking to compile a list of 15 to 20 potential picks for her team to start vetting by late spring

While the nomination fight is still fluid, Mrs. Clinton is confident enough of victory that she has described a vision of a running mate and objectives for the search, according to campaign advisers and more than a dozen Democrats close to the campaign or the Clintons.

Among the names under discussion by Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Clinton and campaign advisers: Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, former governors from the key state of Virginia; Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who represents both a more liberal wing of the party and a swing state; former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a prominent African-American Democrat; and Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s labor secretary and a Hispanic civil rights lawyer.

Mrs. Clinton has offered general guidance as her team begins the search: She cares less about ideological and personal compatibility than about picking a winner, someone who can dominate the vice-presidential debate and convince Americans that Mrs. Clinton is their best choice.

She also wants a partner who is unquestionably qualified for the presidency and would help create the strongest contrast with the Republican ticket, which could be dogged by questions about Donald J. Trump’s fitness for the presidency or Senator Ted Cruz’s unbending conservatism, according to those interviewed. And she wants someone who could be an effective attack dog against either candidate.
Click to expand...
Seems like Castro is falling out of favor.
 
D

dramatis

Member
A New Policy Disagreement Between Clinton and Sanders: Soda Taxes
This week, Mrs. Clinton became the first presidential candidate to explicitly endorse a tax on sugary drinks. At a Philadelphia event Wednesday, she said a proposal there to use a soda tax to fund universal prekindergarten was a good idea.

Mrs. Clinton’s framing of the issue as she campaigns in the Pennsylvania primary echoes that of Mayor Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, who has emphasized the soda tax as a way of funding education. Mr. Kenney talks about the tax not as a way to drive down soda drinking, but as one to help fight poverty in his city.
Click to expand...
But there’s another way to view soda taxes: as measures that hit the poor harder. Lower-income Philadelphians, like other lower-income Americans, tend to drink more soda than their richer neighbors. That means that they may get stuck paying a disproportionate share of the bill.

“Making sure that every family has high-quality, affordable preschool and child care is a vision that I strongly share,” Mr. Sanders said, in a written statement. “On the other hand, I do not support paying for this proposal through a regressive tax on soda that will significantly increase taxes on low-income and middle-class Americans. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it should be the people on top who see an increase in their taxes, not low-income and working people.”
Click to expand...
Obviously Hillary was bought out by Bloomberg. More at the link.

By the way, a soda tax worked in Mexico!
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Sounds like she's describing Kaine basically... shocker.

Also, the statement is odd on sugar taxes. Flat payroll tax increases proposed under his plan, regardless of whether one agrees with their purpose, are ultimately pretty regressive in consequence too.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Why do poor people drink more soda? Isn't water cheap or the same price (or free)? Is it an education thing?

My doctor told me I need to drink water and put lemon in it for taste as its good for basically every part of your body.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
I have no problem with soda taxes even if they are regressive. There are healthy and cheap alternatives. And as health care becomes more socialized it seems like a good idea to make people pay for the costs (obesity) that they are passing off onto others.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Y2Kev said:
Why do poor people drink more soda? Isn't water cheap or the same price (or free)? Is it an education thing?

My doctor told me I need to drink water and put lemon in it for taste as its good for basically every part of your body.
Click to expand...

Sugar is addicting

I don't drink any sugar soda besides the odd Mexican coke when I can get one. I try to stay away from diets a well because I find the fake sugar just as addicting for a "sweet fix"
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Y2Kev said:
Why do poor people drink more soda? Isn't water cheap or the same price (or free)? Is it an education thing?

My doctor told me I need to drink water and put lemon in it for taste as its good for basically every part of your body.
Click to expand...

I went through that process. At first plain water tasted terrible, so I was adding a lot of lemon, but now I drink straight water and it tastes fine. I was never overweight but now I'm even thinner.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Y2Kev said:
Why do poor people drink more soda? Isn't water cheap or the same price (or free)? Is it an education thing?

My doctor told me I need to drink water and put lemon in it for taste as its good for basically every part of your body.
Click to expand...

lots of reasons, but much of it comes down to sugar being addictive, soda being convenient and everywhere, and aggressive advertising- not too far off of the reasons why the poor tend to smoke more cigarettes.

A 2L bottle of soda can actually be a lot CHEAPER than water, depending on where you go. The Kmart near where my parents are routinely blows them out for 25 cents on clearance, and the poor will absolutely stock the hell up on these 10 and 20 at a time.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Manmademan said:
lots of reasons, but much of it comes down to sugar being addictive, soda being convenient and everywhere, and aggressive advertising- not too far off of the reasons why the poor tend to smoke more cigarettes.

A 2L bottle of soda can actually be a lot CHEAPER than water, depending on where you go. The Kmart near where my parents are routinely blows them out for 25 cents on clearance, and the poor will absolutely stock the hell up on these 10 and 20 at a time.
Click to expand...

I have a water filtration system in my office that exposes the water to UV light and nyc water tastes amazing so I just buy a bag of lemons for 3 dollars and use that for a week. It's amazing and the water is free and I can have as much if it as I want!

My fat friend drinks Honest Tea. I'm like you're fat. Honest.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Oh and yesterday because it was Passover so everyone was out we all went and had tapas and proseco sangria with frozen bananas in it. I had the shrimp.

Why do poors not just do that?
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Y2Kev said:
Oh and yesterday because it was Passover so everyone was out we all went and had tapas and proseco sangria with frozen bananas in it. I had the shrimp.

Why do poors not just do that?
Click to expand...

all jokes aside, the soda tax is proposed as a means to fund universal pre-K in the city. The previous mayor proposed it to try to close philadelphia's rather severe funding problems with the school district.

Philadelphia is extremely limited by the state in terms of what taxes it's allowed to levy, and the state assembly is notoriously obstructionist in regards to taxation and allowing philadelphia to supervise itself. They only allowed a cigarette tax to pass after strongarming the city into allowing yet more charter schools which of course, it can't actually afford.

There are in theory better options for taxation that would allow pre-k to be funded, but none of them are available to Philadelphia. Sanders is wading into this to draw an easy parallel to himself and clinton and gain yet another pointless soapbox, but he absolutely needed to stay the hell out of this because passing it is hard enough as it is.
 
C

Crayons

Banned
Soda tax...I honestly don't know. Soda is bad and should be discouraged (wow, it has been an insanely long time since I've had soda) but it is a regressive tax. Poor people aren't going to be like oh boy soda is ten cents more, guess I should switch to water. We need more education.

I want to see commercials with people putting cola into a crack pipe and smoking it. Maybe that'll get the point across.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Crayons said:
Soda tax...I honestly don't know. Soda is bad and should be discouraged (wow, it has been an insanely long time since I've had soda) but it is a regressive tax. Poor people aren't going to be like oh boy soda is ten cents more, guess I should switch to water. We need more education.

I want to see commercials with people putting cola into a crack pipe and smoking it. Maybe that'll get the point across.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that the tax is regressive, since the benefit of what the tax is intended to fund is overwhelmingly beneficial to the poor.

Yeah ok, your grocery bill has gone up by $5.00 a week, but now you aren't shelling out $800 a month for private childcare. The labor force is going to expand, families will be able to actually afford to be able to take second jobs or enroll in classes, employers are going to have a more reliable workforce, and children themselves have repeatedly shown to benefit from enrolling in Pre-K and will be better students- leading to higher HS graduation rates.

only insane people oppose this.

There is no amount of education you can do that is going to be more effective than decades of advertising by coke, pepsi, etc. That line of reasoning is nonsense.
 
C

Crayons

Banned
Manmademan said:
It doesn't matter that the tax is regressive, since the benefit of what the tax is intended to fund is overwhelmingly beneficial to the poor.

Yeah ok, your grocery bill has gone up by $5.00 a week, but now you aren't shelling out $800 a month for private childcare. The labor force is going to expand, families will be able to actually afford to be able to take second jobs, employers are going to have a more reliable workforce, and children themselves have repeatedly shown to benefit from enrolling in Pre-K and will be better students- leading to higher HS graduation rates.

only insane people oppose this.

There is no amount of education you can do that is going to be more effective than decades of advertising by coke, pepsi, etc. That line of reasoning is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Calling me insane is pretty out there tbh

We have lots of antismoking and quit smoking ads in NYC. And they've been very effective at lowering the rates of smoking, actually. Young people smoke at much, much lower rates today.

I know that Pre-K is supposed to be really awesome for kids. Not for me because I just ended up crying in a corner by myself but I get the point. I think universal pre-K should be encouraged. I just don't agree with taxing soda without an extensive ad campaign on why it's bad. And if that ad campaign worked it would save a lot of money in healthcare costs. Just with a tax on soda right now the poor people will pay taxes to drink their soda and rich people can sip their Evian water tax free.

Universal pre-k is good. Soda is bad. But I'm not seeing how taxing soda, by itself, will stop people from buying soda.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Crayons said:
Calling me insane is pretty out there tbh

We have lots of antismoking and quit smoking ads in NYC. And they've been very effective at lowering the rates of smoking, actually. Young people smoke at much, much lower rates today.

I know that Pre-K is supposed to be really awesome for kids. Not for me because I just ended up crying in a corner by myself but I get the point. I think universal pre-K should be encouraged. I just don't agree with taxing soda without an extensive ad campaign on why it's bad. And if that ad campaign worked it would save a lot of money in healthcare costs. Just with a tax on soda right now the poor people will pay taxes to drink their soda and rich people can sip their Evian water tax free.

Universal pre-k is good. Soda is bad. But I'm not seeing how taxing soda, by itself, will stop people from buying soda.
Click to expand...

you're missing the point. nothing is going to get people to stop buying soda. Decades of advertising by Coke have ensured that. You could put out an "education campaign" that says Coke causes cancer and people will still drink it.

and that's IF the city of philadelphia could somehow come up with the hundreds of millions it would take to match an ad campaign by Coke/Pepsi/Etc, or break fast food customers of the habit of ginormous cups of soda with their value meals. It can't. Philadelphia can barely fund essential services. The "education" argument is nonsense- the funds aren't there and even if they were it would be useless.

the point is that the benefit of a universal Pre-K system is overwhelmingly beneficial to adults, children, employers, and the school system across the board- so much so that the relatively minor increase in cost of an optional item is irrelevant.

it really is an insane position to oppose, on what grounds? ideology? that somehow you shouldn't tax soda because it's not fair?
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
shinra-bansho said:
I think making prosecco sangria is just too much effort for the poors.
I'm pretty sure Gwyneth has a good recipe for it in her cookbook.
Click to expand...
Gwenyth should be on the $20. I heard they were putting Tubgirl on the $20. Like haven't they used google recently???
 
D

dramatis

Member
Manmademan said:
There are in theory better options for taxation that would allow pre-k to be funded, but none of them are available to Philadelphia. Sanders is wading into this to draw an easy parallel to himself and clinton and gain yet another pointless soapbox, but he absolutely needed to stay the hell out of this because passing it is hard enough as it is.
Click to expand...
If PA is a repeat of NY with the major cities gunning for Hillary and all the rural areas going for Bernie, lol

Crayons said:
Soda tax...I honestly don't know. Soda is bad and should be discouraged (wow, it has been an insanely long time since I've had soda) but it is a regressive tax. Poor people aren't going to be like oh boy soda is ten cents more, guess I should switch to water. We need more education.
Click to expand...
If you read the article, you'd see an example of how a soda tax worked in Mexico: the taxes were actually shouldered by the richer people who continued to drink soda while the poor people cut their consumption the most.

Kristoffer said:
Source?
Click to expand...
My god none of you read linked articles
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Crayons said:
Calling me insane is pretty out there tbh

We have lots of antismoking and quit smoking ads in NYC. And they've been very effective at lowering the rates of smoking, actually. Young people smoke at much, much lower rates today.

I know that Pre-K is supposed to be really awesome for kids. Not for me because I just ended up crying in a corner by myself but I get the point. I think universal pre-K should be encouraged. I just don't agree with taxing soda without an extensive ad campaign on why it's bad. And if that ad campaign worked it would save a lot of money in healthcare costs. Just with a tax on soda right now the poor people will pay taxes to drink their soda and rich people can sip their Evian water tax free.

Universal pre-k is good. Soda is bad. But I'm not seeing how taxing soda, by itself, will stop people from buying soda.
Click to expand...
I think taxing harmful products is good, but I agree that it is regressive on sodas and affects poor people disproportionately. I would rather tax 1947 merlot or whatever the fuck rich people drink more than sodas but of course it has less revenue base.

Maybe we can tax the supersize meals/soda at fastfood more aggressively than buying a can from 7-11 as a compromise.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Crayons said:
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm opposed. It's great for universal pre-K. But it's not fighting obesity.
Click to expand...

the obesity argument is secondary, and Kenney has been pretty up front about it. This bill is to fund pre-K using one of the few legal revenue streams available to the city. See the above comment re: Philadelphia not being able to levy local taxes due to Harrisburg.

If it cuts obesity, great- but no one really expects it to make much of a dent. Behavior simply isn't changed that way.

It took not only increasing the cost of cigarettes several hundred percent, but also removing the tobacco industry's ability to advertise in most media and a de facto ban on showing smoking in tv and movies in general AND a massive "stop smoking it will kill you" campaign to get cigarette use to drop. And those things are WIDELY known to be highly addictive, cause lung cancer and a host of other health problems with no positive benefit.

There is absolutely no possibility you're going to be able to penalize the soda industry this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DOTA2 |OT14| i give up like your pubs do
396 397 398 399 400
20K
922K
gai_shain replied
NeoGAF PlayStation Trophy Thread | 2016 Edition
17 18 19 20 21
1K
111K
Tizoc replied
XCOM: Enemy Within |OT| Your Soldiers Never Asked For This
16 17 18 19 20
959
120K
Nordicus replied
  • Locked
Best Buy to reduce anime inventory in 80% of stores
2 3 4 5
203
21K
djtiesto replied
  • Locked
Top 1000 Internet Searches (short term)
NSFW 2
77
27K
CabbageRed replied
Top Bottom