SANDERS 2016

mirozDisposal is actually a highly engineered solution to a really difficult problem; people think that because the end result is "burying it," it's as simple as digging a hole in your yard. However, millions (if not billions) of dollars have gone into research to understand what canister materials will best contain the waste in the repository, what types of rock and clay best inhibits the movement of radionuclides once released, and how the system performs overall under vast uncertainty. I'm study nuclear waste management, AMA :)

As for meltdowns, yeah, all three were scary, but no, the land isn't uninhabitable. People moved back to the Three Mile Island area, and for most of the area surrounding Fukushima, the radiation levels are near background and rapidly decreasing due to remediation and decay. While future nuclear accidents are inevitable (if you extend time to infinity, everything will eventually happen), nuclear has a wayyyyy better track record for protecting public health than most other energy industries.

Did you know that globally, 1 in 8 people die from health issues related to air pollution? I'm all for green electricity, but realistically, base-load power is still required and nuclear can meet that need now. The enemy is coal, nuclear people and renewables people should be friends.

FrozinballzEveryone against a border wall and strong immigration policies, keep reading.



I challenge you to take down any fence, lock, alarm, or wall you have surrounding your property or home. Everyone deserves to be able to come check out your land that you worked so hard for. Anything else would just be offensive and racist.

Oh and you also need to turn in all your guns, because some guy from another country heard you have a one of a kind property he wants to check out, I'm sure you will invite him over and a gun would only scare him away.

S.J.WIt's not that people think putting up a wall is racist, it's just a really stupid fucking idea.

1. The wall is going to cost obscene amounts of money with no inherent return in investment. At Least with education you have a 6.1 ratio of long term return.

2. Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall. There's a nice little term called sovereignty. But then again, when the fuck did America care about sovereign nations?

3.There's already a lot of militia groups that patrol the border looking for illegal immigrants.

And plenty of other reasons why a wall is stupid. But at the end of the day it's a pointless never gonna happen bullshit political rhetoric used to win votes by the small minded.

onenerdykidAs much as we agree on Islamic ideology and the negative effects of truly believing in such an ideology, luckily there are Muslims (just like Jews or Christians) who don't truly follow every tenant in their holy book. I know some of these refugees (a friend of mine is teaching them German) and they are beyond grateful to be out of their oppressive way of life and into a new life where they can choose to have a drink of whiskey and not fear punishment for having it. There is for sure some culture shock these Syrians are going through (I mean if I had a bit of culture shock moving here, it's 100 times more difficult for these people) but they want to adjust to it and start a new life without a theocracy bearing down on them every second of their lives.

Campeador1. The total cost of the wall is less than the taxpayer cost of supporting all the illegal immigrants in the US for just one year. The wall coupled with deportation sounds like a very solid return on investment.

2. Mexico will pay for the wall, or we can throw taxes on all the remittances sent back to Mexico (around 20-30 billion dollars per year). Tax remittances at 50% until Mexico pays its portion. It's really quite simple, what cards do they hold? Either way, they pay. Granted, I do think it should be funded equally by both countries.

3. This points is just absurd, the border needs a wall with a well-funded and equipped border patrol. Citizen militias are helpful, but largely ineffective, mostly because leftist lawyers are salivating to sue them should they harm any poor illegals.

And are you really sure a wall doesn't work? The barrier wall seems to be working just fine in Macedonia at keeping out the fake refugees. God bless Macedonia.

Not to mention, the Israelis are coming up with all kinds of great tunnel detection technology for spotting the Islamic Sharia scum that are trying to dig their way into Israel.

I have more education than you, and a job that earns more than your mediocrity could ever hope for. Tell me, how does a loser social justice parasite who earns as much as a panhandler have the nerve to call anyone else "small-minded"?

S.J.WSecondly, illegal immigrants contribute 150 billion a year to the GDP. And contribute 11.64 billion a year in payroll taxes
And lastly, deporting all illegals would cost to 400-600 billion.

byuboundI just read through this, and unless I am so dead tired that I am completely missing something, the first article doesn't even talk about GDP.

CampeadorMy guess is that you will not, for fear of your health and your life. And there's no problem with that. But don't then sit there and tell me that there is nothing wrong with these people and their system of beliefs.

.MASSHOLE.For you, THEPROPHET/Whatever you call yourself


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/?ex_cid=538twitter

REGRESSIVELEFTWe have been over this. 538 is owned by ESPN. It is a biased source and essentially a blog. Get real facts.


"Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media2)."


BIAS ALERT!..... Bernietopia? Come on dude find something that wasnt written for a specific agenda.


He is less popular with democrats. if every independent were allowed to vote we would see a much much different picture.
Why not talk about the fact that he is more favorable than any other candidate.

Tell me, what happened the last time the Democratic Party had a contested convention? Your Article only went back to 1972...

stats are nice and all but when they come from a bias baseball blog it's kind of hard to take seriously, even with all the pretty graphs and big words....

.MASSHOLE.Here's a "pro" Sanders piece, is there still bias?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-democrats-are-feeling-the-bern-probably/

REGRESSIVELEFTYes.

.MASSHOLE.So consolidation and analysis of polls is now results in bias? Man, just can't win with you when it doesn't fit into your narrative. FYI, they're not a "baseball" blog....they're an actual statistics analysis site.

If you don't like it, find me a piece that says he actually has a statistical chance. I have yet to find a single one.

"Bernietopia" is probably an accurate statement for social media, given that regular internet users (and Redditors, in particular) are disproportionately white, young, male, city-dwelling, and liberal—all categories which support Sanders more than the Democratic Party at large. Demographically speaking, Sanders is just about the perfect viral candidate.

You don't seem to like demographics do you?

He is the less popular vote among Democrats , and is that not what this convention is dealing with? If he wanted to run as an Independent, he could have.

A contested convention WIN for Sanders requires that those Super Delegates switch to his side. That means going against the will of the people (who voted in the party Primary) and for a candidate that has shown he frankly cannot win outside of his demographics.

If I recall, you hated these Super Delegates a few pages ago, now you're hoping they are the deciding factor. The irony.

Just an FYI, the reason they used that 1972 date is due to the fact that it is the typical start date for the "modern era" of presidential primaries, after the McGovern-Fraser Commission changed delegate rules to more or less their current form.

(Foot notes are usually given for a reason)

.MASSHOLE.Then as I said, find me works without bias, something reputable. (538 has been the most accurate site with Democratic Primary predictions, does this mean there is bias?!)

REGRESSIVELEFTYou clearly don't know anything about Nate Silver.


In an even playing field where every candidate gets the same amount of public air time, Sanders would win by a landslide, regardless of demographics.


The Democratic Party is going to fear Drumpf and decide that Sanders has a better chance at defeating him. They won't be going against the people because by doing so the Democratic Party will scoop up millions of independent voters, making it even harder for the GOP to win the presidency. They certainly won't lose any votes by nominating Sanders. Hitlary supporters are devout Democrats and will never abandon their party.

REGRESSIVELEFTNah.

.MASSHOLE.I guess I know nothing except his track record. Seems pretty damn good if you ask me though.

That is a tall statement, care to back it up with numbers?

Ah, yes, fear the man who is viewed negatively by 76% of all women, regardless of race. Who has the worst favorability rating in the history in a party that is at its lowest in favorability as well. Fear the man who lacks majority control in a single demographic group. Fear the man who has economic plans that are as asinine as Sanders. The list goes one.

Don't go touting national comparison polls either, they're notoriously inaccurate.


Here, read up.

Voting Demographics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-trumpism.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-deep-dive-who-supports-donald-trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/politics/donald-trump-general-election.html

Economics:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/measuring-trumps-healthcare-plan/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/analysis-of-trumps-tax-plan-shows-big-cuts-in-taxes-federal-revenue-1450807194] http://www.wsj.com/articles/analysis-of-trumps-tax-plan-shows-big-cuts-in-taxes-federal-revenue-1450807194

Favorability:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/28/gops-favorability-rating-edges-lower/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx



Figured.

onenerdykidThe only point I am trying to make is that the absurd jihadist death cult that is Islam does not apply to all Muslims equally, just as the grotesque & vile teachings of the Old Testament do not equally apply to all Christians.

CampeadorYou and I both know that this is an absurd comparison, that completely ignores the realities of both religions. Furthermore, the weight of Christian doctrine originates from the New Testament.

When Pew Research finds that across Islamic countries, over 53% want Sharia law as the official legal system, you know that you're dealing with a colossal mass of retrograde people. It's also absurd to argue the point that not all of them are deranged, but they're all infected with a cerebral virus that can become active at any time.

You're anecdotal evidence doesn't sway anyone, these people that you profess to know (through a friend no less), could go from appearing normal one year, to murdering people in the street in the name of Islam the next year. This had been a reoccurring patter everywhere that Islam is allowed to spread.

S.J.Wand you're ignoring the study by Havard I posted which found that muslims in western countries share the same levels of democratic and sexual values as christians, Your anecdotal evidence from one muslim going cray cray doesn't change that.

S.J.Wmuslims in western countries share the same levels of democratic and sexual values as christians,

CampeadorYou and I both know that this is an absurd comparison, that completely ignores the realities of both religions. Furthermore, the weight of Christian doctrine originates from the New Testament.

Campeador

For good measure.

S.J.WThe niqab is worn by less than 2% of muslims in Canada. Now I don't know about England or America, but i'd the numbers would be the same because both countries have similar cultures. And 34% of woman surveyed said they wear it to express their muslim identity. However it's important to note that from the
survey NO woman said they felt forced to wear the niqab.

Also there's much more to sexual liberation than just wearing no clothes. It mostly prescribes to sex outside marriage which muslim woman have the same amount of sex outside marriage as christians.

http://ccmw.com/women-in-niqab-speak-a-study-of-the-niqab-in-canada/

S.J.WAnd 34% of woman surveyed said they wear it to express their muslim identity. However it's important to note that from the
survey NO woman said they felt forced to wear the niqab.

Campeador

For good measure.

onenerdykidFunny how religion compels people to act a certain way, isn't it? Prior to the Islamic Revolution, the majority of Muslim women in Iran did not wear hijabs nor want to cover themselves. This famous picture of Iranian women protesting the forced hijab in the days after the Revolution demonstrates it:

To say that women are not forced to wear the hijab/niqab/burka is not very accurate. If they aren't living under the threat of physical violence for not wearing one, then they are wearing it due to the simple compulsion inherent in their faith. One cannot voluntarily wear a hijab/niqab/burka if the consequence of not wearing it is spiritual punishment in the afterlife.

.MASSHOLE."Top Sanders adviser Tad Devine shed a bit more light on this question: He conceded that if Sanders does not "significantly" close the current pledged delegate gap with Clinton, it will be borderline "impossible" to persuade super-delegates to switch from Sanders to Clinton."

Sorry TheProphet, even Sanders' top adviser has better grasp on reality than you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/03/a-top-adviser-to-bernie-sanders-makes-a-key-concession-about-the-race/

REGRESSIVELEFTStill talking about me?


It's called optimism. Something you obviously lack.


I'm completely aware of the situation, but thanks for trying to insult me.

.MASSHOLE.Sorry, I am a realist in this situation.

Campeador

For good measure.

.MASSHOLE.I'll do TheProphet a favor and post an article that was written recently and frankly using more than just pure emotions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/05/the-sanders-campaigns-phony-math-on-superdelegates/