Sen. Cory Booker is dropping out of the 2020 presidential campaign.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
People are saying that the democratic field is looking pretty white now and I agree. But they treated the last black man that was president so well. I've always said that Donald Trump getting elected was the reaction for having a black man as president for eight years. America is still racist and still sexist, not to metion homophobic, xenophobic and a number of other things.
Last edited:
If this passes I hope it turns everyone on Trump.
The trump administration is proposing a Tariff of 100% on most wines, bubbly, scotches, bourbons and whiskeys from Europe.
What does that mean for pricing? That $15 bottle of wine will now be $30. That $12 glass at your favorite restaurant will now be a $24 glass.
Here in Boston they were interviewing Restaurant and liquor store owners asking them what this would mean for them. And most said it would destroy them. For example, one restaurant says 75% of the wines they server are from Europe and subject to the tariff. And there is no way they can not pass on the price increases to the consumer.
Also included in the new proposed tariffs are olive oils, certain cheeses.
Edit: This tariff is in retaliation on a French tariff on the tech industry.
The trump administration is proposing a Tariff of 100% on most wines, bubbly, scotches, bourbons and whiskeys from Europe.
What does that mean for pricing? That $15 bottle of wine will now be $30. That $12 glass at your favorite restaurant will now be a $24 glass.
Here in Boston they were interviewing Restaurant and liquor store owners asking them what this would mean for them. And most said it would destroy them. For example, one restaurant says 75% of the wines they server are from Europe and subject to the tariff. And there is no way they can not pass on the price increases to the consumer.
Also included in the new proposed tariffs are olive oils, certain cheeses.
Edit: This tariff is in retaliation on a French tariff on the tech industry.
Last edited:
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
But two buck chuck will still be two bucks.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
Read this article about how climate change is communicated. Would put it in the science thread, but what like 5 people hang out in there.
www.forbes.com
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
Climate change is real but it's not the end of the world. And increasingly extreme statements by activists undermine environmental progress, say climate scientists.
www.forbes.com
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Read this article about how climate change is communicated. Would put it in the science thread, but what like 5 people hang out in there.
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
Climate change is real but it's not the end of the world. And increasingly extreme statements by activists undermine environmental progress, say climate scientists.
Yes to all of this. It's frustrating as someone who works in the natural sciences and who has to talk about climate change all of the rhetoric from the people that are supposedly supporting the science. The left and the right have helped make everyone dumber about the issue. The left are usually less wrong but who cares when you are saying things that are not just factually incorrect but misinformation that is dangerous socially, politically, scientifically, aaaand to your mental and physical health.
but HEY! don't poo-poo the science thread - we actually talked about this a bit last year. Please post there. It would be nice if people actually were interested in doing some science learning together.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
but HEY! don't poo-poo the science thread - we actually talked about this a bit last year. Please post there. It would be nice if people actually were interested in doing some science learning together.
I was just saying that the same people in the science thread overlap here, so what was the point.
It seemed like in this article that the person was subtlety laying more blame of the ills of the world on economic inequality.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
I don't know what the point of the article was. Was it simply to point out that fear-mongering is an issue and provide some evidence? or Was it a more subtle argument for the benefits of globalism uplifting the poorest of the poor into some hypothetical middle-class existence? The latter may be true and if so the author is just as guilty of skewing the facts as the climate activists and media outlets he chastises.
The complexities around the poorest of the poor being "uplifted" out of poverty into some western standard of economic and intellectual complacency are too numerous for my brain to try and go through here, but I will say that those global capitalist ideals are approaching the problems from an extremely biased 'moral' agenda of their own.
My feeling is that while Carbon math and economics are not well understood and more complex than most of the pro-people would like to admit, the carbon story is quite simple imo. As long as there are fossil fuels to be used they will be, and as long as there is money to be made from the mining, processing, and distribution of those fuels they will be harvested. It's true that as people become more urbanized and less desperate they tend to breed less, but I think banking on people breeding less (enough) is another foolish idea.... and why should any other country/people/culture develop in the manner that globalism sees fit?
The fact is that even if we turned off the carbon faucet this second (which we won't) the atmosphere will continue to warm for some time. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do so but there are still going to be unavoidable and significant consequences. What is needed is a proper tax structure that discourages negative carbon activities, encourages positive ones, and moves some of the wealth from the oil, gas, and mining industries into adaptation and innovation sectors. These would be very different choices than we have been making.
We also just need to stop thinking only in terms of the next fiscal or election cycle and start to think in much longer terms 25, 50, 100 years or more. If we can consider the future and behave conservatively based on our current understanding we have a shot, but again this is very different thinking than most people employ in their day to day lives.
Humans will continue to exist. The weakest and most desperate among us will be punished the most by the past activities of the privileged..... but this is always the case.
TrainFan73
Frothy
What the hell is european bourbon? They have a Kentucky in Europe?
TrainFan73
Frothy
Also and on a more serious note. Here in NC, restaurants pay the same as the general public for liquor. This means that the $40 bottle of bourbon, also costs them $40, which means a shot is going to be close to $10 to create profit.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Yes to all of this. It's frustrating as someone who works in the natural sciences and who has to talk about climate change all of the rhetoric from the people that are supposedly supporting the science. The left and the right have helped make everyone dumber about the issue. The left are usually less wrong but who cares when you are saying things that are not just factually incorrect but misinformation that is dangerous socially, politically, scientifically, aaaand to your mental and physical health.
but HEY! don't poo-poo the science thread - we actually talked about this a bit last year. Please post there. It would be nice if people actually were interested in doing some science learning together.
So you are saying that the 2 degree celcius rise isn't as important as reported? Because my brother has a degree in this shit and would vehemently disagree while pointing out that the models he was taught 10 years ago have proven too conservative.
Also, this Warren / Bernie thing is obnoxious as fuck and really makes me distrust Warren.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
No
The exact opposite. I have a “degree in this shit” too. A doctorate in earth science if you must know.
If you read what I said and understand the words then I don’t know how you would get that out of myresponse.
What I said was that we are not going to stop warming another 2-4 degrees C, globally, even if we turn off the faucet today, and that faucet isn’t going to be turned off today tomorrow and probably anytime until every profitable fossil fuel is extracted.
Two decades ago we should’ve started investing in adaptation strategies and that’s still where the money should be going. Well there and legitimately uplifting the worlds poorest people who will face the brunt of the damage
That being said the human species is not dying out due to climate change as catastrophists suggest.
I said all of this already
On an other forum I'm following a discussion on the high costs of healthcare.
A growing trend is brand name companies and pharmacy benefits managers (PBM) are working together to generate more sales of brand names and higher checks.
What does this mean? A lot of people are finding that for certain prescriptions, generics are not being covered by their insurance. Only the brand names are. For certain products that is.
One of the most common things listed in the thread is inhalers. Several people have reported in 2020 their insurance no longer covers generic options. They have to either pay full price for the generic, or get the rand name with a high co-pay. For example I saw someone list $50. What's even more infuriating is that same brand name inhaler is $27 with Good RX if they don't go through their insurance. A savings $23 and the generic through Good RX is even cheaper.
These practices are causing us to pay more for our prescription drugs and increase profits for big pharmaceutical and the insurance companies.
Here is an article on the matter. And this also applies to things like Adderall.
www.propublica.org
Edit: I read something that infuriated me in the article. For those Americans with high deductible plans who have to pay the full price of their prescription drugs until their deductible is met, about 28% of Americans, they really are feeling the price of the brand name drug having to pay the full sticker price until they have spend the thousands to reach their deductible. What's more infuriating is if these same people choose to buy the generic instead of the brand name their insurance is requiring them to purchase it counts as a cash purchase like you had no insurance. It will not count towards your deductible.
A growing trend is brand name companies and pharmacy benefits managers (PBM) are working together to generate more sales of brand names and higher checks.
What does this mean? A lot of people are finding that for certain prescriptions, generics are not being covered by their insurance. Only the brand names are. For certain products that is.
One of the most common things listed in the thread is inhalers. Several people have reported in 2020 their insurance no longer covers generic options. They have to either pay full price for the generic, or get the rand name with a high co-pay. For example I saw someone list $50. What's even more infuriating is that same brand name inhaler is $27 with Good RX if they don't go through their insurance. A savings $23 and the generic through Good RX is even cheaper.
These practices are causing us to pay more for our prescription drugs and increase profits for big pharmaceutical and the insurance companies.
Here is an article on the matter. And this also applies to things like Adderall.
Take the Generic Drug, Patients Are Told — Unless Insurers Say No
Faced with competition, some pharmaceutical companies are cutting deals with insurance companies to favor their brand-name products over cheaper generics. Insurers pay less, but sometimes consumers pay more.
www.propublica.org
Edit: I read something that infuriated me in the article. For those Americans with high deductible plans who have to pay the full price of their prescription drugs until their deductible is met, about 28% of Americans, they really are feeling the price of the brand name drug having to pay the full sticker price until they have spend the thousands to reach their deductible. What's more infuriating is if these same people choose to buy the generic instead of the brand name their insurance is requiring them to purchase it counts as a cash purchase like you had no insurance. It will not count towards your deductible.
Last edited:
Prescription drugs are a problem. There is no reason that epi-pens should be as expensive as they are. Or insulin. Or anything, really.On an other forum I'm following a discussion on the high costs of healthcare.
A growing trend is brand name companies and pharmacy benefits managers (PBM) are working together to generate more sales of brand names and higher checks.
What does this mean? A lot of people are finding that for certain prescriptions, generics are not being covered by their insurance. Only the brand names are. For certain products that is.
One of the most common things listed in the thread is inhalers. Several people have reported in 2020 their insurance no longer covers generic options. They have to either pay full price for the generic, or get the rand name with a high co-pay. For example I saw someone list $50. What's even more infuriating is that same brand name inhaler is $27 with Good RX if they don't go through their insurance. A savings $23 and the generic through Good RX is even cheaper.
These practices are causing us to pay more for our prescription drugs and increase profits for big pharmaceutical and the insurance companies.
Here is an article on the matter. And this also applies to things like Adderall.
Take the Generic Drug, Patients Are Told — Unless Insurers Say No
Faced with competition, some pharmaceutical companies are cutting deals with insurance companies to favor their brand-name products over cheaper generics. Insurers pay less, but sometimes consumers pay more.
I use GoodRX even though I have insurance. Because GoodRX is cheaper. My pharmacy keeps asking for my Kaiser card and I won't give it to them. It's messed up that I have to do that.
There was zero point to this point except to scream into the void, dump this here and now it isn't on my shoulders, at least for the moment.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
I was simply double checking especially because you alluded to your degree.
But the headline (haven't read) of that article implies that people who argue we are facing mass extinction are speaking in hyperbole and hurting the cause... and it's not hyperbole. Thus why I was confused.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I think the main point was to point out inaccurate characterizations of the affect of global warming, but in the process of supporting that idea he point to other more damaging factors. Yes the global trends are towards increasing the two commodities he points out food and stability. A major factor in that is capitalism. He does point out problems with that system that result in suffering. And he still places global warming as an important issue.
We have the solutions for global warming. We just need the capital and political will.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
Read the article.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Mass extinction is hyperbole.
Tragic loss of life isn't hyperbole.
We have been in an extinction event for some time. The Anthropocene will ultimately be defined by that extinction... and whatever rocks our trash evolve into.
No one's global climate models or sea level rise estimates predict mass extinction. First of all they're models.
"All models are wrong and some of them are useful."
The climate models I'm working with are based on a range of atmospheric CO2 scenarios, which are ultimately based on our own economic and moral decision making today (that last part isn't modeled btw).
The potential implications of the worst-case scenarios are atrocious. Even the implications of turning off the faucet today are atrocious. There will be loss of life. There is potential for food chains to collapse. Many humans, plants, and animals may perish. That loss of life may be avoidable, at least in some cases. There are and will continue to be climate refugees.
That being said, it seems unlikely that humans will cease to exist in the next millenia. That's not that long of a time geologically speaking but it's many many lifetimes and it's hard to make any of this matter when our thinking is about the next 5 minutes, election cycle, fiscal cycle, etc.
The wealthiest countries and the wealthiest citizens of those countries will be able to insulate themselves, as they always have, imo.
The people who can afford to adapt at because we will be forced to or the oil, gas and coal will be too expensive to harvest or some combination of both.
In the 60 or so years since silent spring was published and the 40 years or so since acid rain and ozone were recognized, and the 30 years or so since human-induced global climate change was widely accepted we have only seen the most incremental progress. Hell I live in a city that still refuses to give up plastic bags and take out containers. In the U.S., may cities have privatized water. Meaning the public doesn't even own their drinking water resource and rely on a profit-making entity for their service... and profits come first in our economic and governmental system.
I'm not saying climate change doesn't matter or isn't a threat. That fact has been evident for decades. I am saying that unless something catastrophic happens to the global profiteering we are unlikely to see any real-change, and there is likely another kind-of loss of life on our hands if taking down that system.
No political candidate is talking about taking down the ethanol industry, Bayer (Monsanto), or modernizing environmental policy to get beyond litigating polluters and incorporate ecological and geological approaches to the issues.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I recently saw a climate denier meme that talked about these two problems. I was taking the chicken little view of these two problem. However they ignored the fact that there were interventions based on science that mitigated the problem. I had a chuckle.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Right - there was specific legislation about those issues. The evidence and mechanisms for ozone depletion and acid rain were clear, just as they are with climate change... the impacts of climate change are somehow less clear for people perhaps becuase they are less predictable.
I think this speaks to the propaganda campaign against science and scientists. It's always been around but I feel that there's been a dedicated effort by the right since the Nixon-era to undermine science politically. They've been very successful and their alignment with the evangelical-sects has helped. The average person now resents academics and thinks science has a political agenda.