search results matching tag: 180

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (98)     Sift Talk (8)     Blogs (57)     Comments (377)   

Paradise Papers: How Tax Havens Work

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

Agreed more was passed. It should be noted that under Obama the Democrats had more Democrats so getting to the 50 vote was much easy.

Party Breakdown
In the 111th Congress, the current party alignments are
261 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 180 Republicans.
The Senate has 57 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, and 41
Republican


Party Breakdown
In the 115th Congress, the current party alignments as of March 13, 2017, are as follows:
House of Representatives: 239 Republicans and 197 Democrats
and 5 vacancies.


Senate: 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who both caucus
with the Democrat

JiggaJonson said:

Whether you agree with him or not, at least Obama got a piece-er excuse me, several pieces, of major legislation passed.

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
and that's just within the first few months of his presidency
Oh yeah, and the big one, ACA.

It's a shame that you had to find out that business people only want to enrich their own lives this way. The truth is, Trump doesn't care if it passes or not. He only cares if it makes him look bad.

New Rule: The Lesser of Two Evils

newtboy says...

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

MilkmanDan said:

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.
^

John Oliver - Monologue Part 1 Spicer

Your Brain On Edible Marijuana

PlayhousePals says...

OOooOOOoooh ... Rookie move bud! Bet ya never did that again.

Before our currently messed up medical laws changed last July I had my dosage dialed in to perfection. One 180 mg 420 bar [dark chocolate/sea salt was my 'go to'] lasted me an entire day. I'd eat 1/3 every 8 hours for pain/stress relief that kept me functioning and happy. Sigh ...

ulysses1904 said:

I ate a space-cake on arrival in Amsterdam after being up all night on the flight from Boston. And did exactly what I was warned not to do, kept eating more of it because I wasn't feeling any effects. After curling up in the fetal position for 4 hours in my hotel bed feeling like I had the flu I finally felt normal after a few beers in the hotel bar. The rest of my vacation got better after that.

Why I Left the Left

newtboy says...

SJWs are not progressive or the left, no matter how loudly they claim to be.

Odd that he tells us what is not progressive, then forgets that definition to say that progressives now work towards the opposite of his definition and that "progressive" now means oppressive.

Allowing and supporting a small vocal and zealous group co-opting a political party and changing it's platform 180 degrees by giving credence to their false narratives and claims to be 'progressive' is disgusting and disingenuous, and he knows it.
Just stop calling the SJW idiots progressives or the left, since they are neither, and the problem for progressives and the left are solved. SJWs WANT to represent the left, and the right WANTS them to represent the left (because they're easy to argue against), but they simply don't. Pieces like this only serve to support the SJW snowflakes and the false right wing narrative that the left is fascist.

He does also bring up many straw men, like Catholics being forced to pay for abortion causing birth control, they aren't and they never were, they only had to allow their employees the freedom to buy it with federal money if they so chose, but they don't want people to have the choice and apparently think that if they pay you, they have the right to control how you spend that money, what you may believe, and how you choose to live your life.

Sad that he's gone the route of supplying straw men, conflation, misdirection, misidentification, and misinformation in order to rail against something he's helping cause with those actions. It's like calling the tea baggers conservative right wingers, they weren't/aren't either, but they successfully co-opted the right by claiming they were both and the right going along because they needed the idiot vote....lets not let that happen on the left, please.

SJWs aren't on the left, and aren't progressive, they are fascists and cry babies trying to grab control of the left and progressive movements for their own means, not to further the left's agenda. Fight them, don't capitulate and slink off, handing them a political party like the right did with tea baggers.
STAND UP TO THEM.

Donald Trump's refugee ban, explained

bobknight33 says...

There are approximate 180 countries to pick from.

For the next 120 days, pick another.

Stop the sky is falling and there is no whee else to go.

Fern Hill Frenzy

chris hedges-understanding our political nightmare

Michael Moore perfectly encapsulated why Trump won

kulpims (Member Profile)

Bill Maher: Is Globalization Failing Everybody?

kir_mokum says...

Louise Mensch is either lying or grossly misinformed. the brexit was absolutely sold as a way to save money and that money was going to be invested back into NHS (see farage's bus) and the day after the referendum, farage did a complete 180 on that position and lied about saying he would invest it back into the NHS.

Trump Transforms for the General Election: A Closer Look

newtboy says...

Actually, he's said clearly and repeatedly that wages are too HIGH in the US and should go down, so any inkling that he thinks we should raise them in any way is a 180 switch. It's also a total cop out that he could use for any topic....'I'll just leave it all to the states....so I don't have to do a damn thing as president and nothing I say makes any difference.'
It should be no surprise to anyone. He's written about how he operates, and not keeping your word and changing your position by the moment while insisting everyone else follows along with his 'new deals' is a large part of that methodology....as is lying about facts and threatening anyone that contradicts him with lawsuits or just 'taking his ball and going home' (which doesn't work when you are in business or government) etc.
The whole 'self funding' thing was a fraud from the beginning....and a clear one. He LOANED his campaign money, he didn't spend his own money. He ALWAYS planned to pay himself back with private donations, and you can be sure he's paying himself an enormous interest and massive 'fees' on those 'loans', which means he's actually MAKING money on the campaign, not spending a dime of his own. You can be certain he'll get every dime back and then some....no question.

Also....you should note, this is not a news program (not that they're better) so should not be subject to the requirements of fact, honesty, and clarity we SHOULD (but don't) insist on with 'news' organizations.

Barbar said:

He's a bit of a nut for sure, but I'm getting sick of this style of coverage.

He says he wouldn't raise the minimum wage [federally], then he says he thinks it's an issue that should be decided state by state. That doesn't sound like a change in position to me. That just sounds to me like he wants the minimum wage to accommodate local factors.

I don't know much about Trump. I'm not even American. If someone puts together a montage like this to undermine a political figure and the very information they present me with runs against the narrative they're selling, it's shoddy workmanship.

Oregon Cop Kicks Biker in Chest

Mordhaus says...

Wilkens was awarded more than $180,000 in total damages.

Jurors additionally determined that Edwards acted with negligence when his police car rear-ended Wilkens’ motorcycle, but ruled that the veteran state trooper did not violate Wilkens’ rights by pointing a gun at him and using force to handcuff and then pull Wilkens to his feet.

Wilkens suffered a broken left clavicle, a fractured rib and other injuries in the Aug. 3, 2012, incident.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/33955359-75/federal-jury-rules-in-favor-of-speeding-motorcyclist-against-oregon-state-police-trooper.html.csp

Some other nice bits in the article, the officer was driving an unmarked chevy camaro, was unaware that it was equipped with a dash cam, and blamed the rear ending of the bike on 'brake fade' (which a brake expert testified was rare in modern brake systems).

It's a fun read, also the cop was later promoted to captain.

newtboy said:

Really? That broke his collar bone?! It seemed like he barely connected, but if he won in court, I'm sure there was medical evidence.
How much did the jury award him? I hope a lot. Not for the kick, but for ramming him when he clearly only noticed the cop at the light, and then he immediately put his blinker on and even gave an "oh crap" head hang right before he stops and gets rammed.
I wonder if the cop even had his lights and siren on before then, since there's no sound we cant tell. He certainly wasn't up close enough to be heard on a loud motorcycle until the end, nor was he making his presence known before then.
Even if the bike wasn't stopping, he wasn't endangering anyone, so there was no reason to hit him, possibly seriously injuring or killing him, in the first place. Speeding is not a capital offence. Intentional vehicular homicide should be, even if you wear blue pants with a racing stripe.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon