Lol, Dodd-Frank did shit for preventing derivatives of subprimes to reappear.
Dodd-Frank did and continues to do a lot of good, actually. It's also far from anything Wall Street supports.
You got the head of the FBI saying they would investigate further if the AG would ever indite her.
You have it reversed.
And that's not even relevant, she didn't secure national security documents, everyone knows that's a fucking felony.
Secretary Clinton didn't send or receive any information marked classified on her server.
As usually defined, no. Real wages keep decreasing, though.
It is true wages are stagnant, but that's not a recession.
Yes, because the enormous increase in pesticide usage that has paralleled GMO production is totally "beneficial" for the environment and will definitely be "world-saving."
As for GMO crops themselves, they are almost always pesticide-laden and have done much more harm for people's health than good. As for the "benefits," there have not been any long-term studies about how ingesting GMO products affects your health, but the short-term studies (independent, unbiased ones) have shown nothing but a negative impact on your health.
There is no evidence that GMOs have any negative effect on one's health. Also, the presence of GMOs is actually positively correlated with the use of fewer pesticides, in addition to a reduced need for land and other resources. I suggest you research how most GMOs actually work.
As I implied, me and others have presented the facts to you a million times before, only for you to ignore them. Because of this, I knew that it would be a waste of time.
First, you make a quip that I respond to everything. Now you're saying I ignore things? Which is it? Because I'm pretty sure I've directly responded to each
fact that I've been presented.
You must be in bed with Monsanto and company. I honestly cannot think of any other reason why someone would want people to be kept in the dark about this.
I shouldn't even respond to such a disingenuous and desparate comment.
did. During the Democratic National Convention, I saw a bunch of pictures and videos on Twitter of how the anti-Hillary people were being mistreated and censored. And lo and behold, very little of the content from those pictures and videos made its way to reports from the mainstream media.
Can you demonstrate causation? If not, you're spewing non sequitur nonsense.
Blocking Bernie supporters from the view of mainstream media's cameras. White noise machines to try to cancel out the chants of dissenters. Bernie supporters being kicked out and being put behind a wall outside. A Craigslist ad for hiring "actors" to "cheer and show their support for Hillary."
Half of what you've listed is unsubstantiated nonsense. A simple check on Snopes for most of this would have stopped you from embarrassing yourself. You're so emotionally invested in this particular narrative that you're not even bothering to fact-check anything that you think supports it.
Relatively small? Volumetrically, sure, but in potential for devastation? Hardly. And where do you get the idea that it's easily contained? Because we put it in a container that's rated for less than one half-life of the substance when it takes about ten for it to become inert? Because we store the container underground where it hopefully won't fall victim to earthquakes and other natural disasters or terrorists?
The EPA has rules that require a nuclear waste storage facility, such as Yucca Mountain, to be able to withstand the effects of hypothetical earthquakes. It's really not that much waste to manage, it's not that difficult to manage, the environmental effect of it pales in comparison to the negative environmental effect of things like the construction of solar panels, and the nuclear waste will very likely have a use in the future.
When looked at objectively, nuclear energy is a very viable source of green energy that has the potential to produce great amounts of energy with very little downside. Most of the people I've talked to about the issue, yourself included, seem to be against it because it feels bad or feels dangerous, but these kinds of decisions aren't based on arbitrary feelings; they're based on facts.
Putting aside our sharp disagreements on economics I must ask this.
Assuming I am like you and support a mixed capitalist system (rather than anarcho capitalism or socialism) with sensible government regulations because without them it would be awful. Under that system wouldn't you argue that it is a sensible regulation to require companies that use GMO to label them? On the company's side it is not that hard to comply to and on the consumer's side it is something they should know about even if it is not harmful. Most industrial nations and the EU require them. Plus I do not feel that GMOs are bad personally but requiring them to be labeled =/= thinking they are bad since you could argue there is a right to know what is in the products.
In principle, I don't mind the idea of mandatory labeling. However, in practice, since there's no reason to think GMOs are any worse for a person than their non-GMO counterparts, and since the labeling realistically creates an undue burden on the GMO manufacturers due to the anti-GMO propaganda, I can't support it. I think the state has a vested interest in incentivizing the use of GMOs.
Because of how I view it in principle, the issue of labeling isn't one I'm particularly passionate about. What I am passionate about is stopping the spread of all this misinformation and anti-GMO propaganda.
lets look at some recent examples
It doesnt exactly take a brain surgeon to know mass media is manipulating people's thought's and actions, and it not just the huff post, pretty much all major news outlets
another one where pbs censored jill steins interview that were comments against clinton
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/770076410882949124
cnn removing part of trumps tweet
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...crubbing-crooked-moniker-to-describe-hillary/
yet another but more extreme example of cnn censoring
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-milwaukee-victims-sister-sherelle-sm/
Govt control of media censorship isnt new by any means but this by the far the worst anyone has seen (at least in the usa)
Turn on any news channel or vist their website and you will most likely find pro-clinton news, and negative trump news, most of which are made up and claimed as "internal sources" but its the equivalent of "CNN told CNN".
Even just recently trump said he would release his media records if clinton would too (because a certain media outlet called him out on his health trying to downplay and coverup clinton's health reports) mass media went full damage control yet again and covered it up and we get trash like this instead
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-mental-health-mika-brzezinski-227492
This doesn't demonstrate any sort of government or Democrat-controlled media. For some of these, you've highlighted some poor decision-making on the part of certain media outlets (CNN is often times an idiotic news outlet). For others, you've highlighted perfectly rational decisions. Trump and his campaign say and do so many controversial things that there's obviously going to be a perceived bias in coverage. Just because a particular candidate is more outlandish than the other and gets negative news coverage because of it doesn't mean the media is biased. In fact, one could argue a bias against Clinton when there are misguided attempts to equalize negative coverage.
