RedDenver

Not for too much longer. Millennial generation already has more voters than the Boomers and it's only going to continue to shift to the younger generations.

Bish?

It's an interesting take, but the part about 60% of the diet coming from carbohydrates runs counter to all the recent findings that carbohydrates should make up a small portion of our diet. The article didn't address this (and I haven't read the full report), but we can't actually switch to an entirely plant-based diet that's sustainable. Currently, the fertilizer to grow those plants comes from natural gas, which contributes to global warming and is a finite resource. The way we should be doing it ecologically (instead of concentrated feedlot operations) is to put the animals back on the farms and let the manure be the fertilizer. It's more complex than that, but basically we need a closed ecological cycle such that all the inputs and outputs from our agricultural system are put back into the cycle, and animals are necessary to do that.

People keep saying this, but I don't hear the same stuff said about Pelosi, Trump, Biden, or Elizabeth Warren. And I don't think any age number is too old, let's see if Bernie (or whoever) still has it during the campaign and then decide.

It really was

No, "being alive" is fairly low bar as everything from single cells to plants to insects and animals is alive. And if the pro-life politics were actually about protecting children and not just fetuses, then I'd consider an argument for banning abortion once brain waves were detected. But we can't even feed, cloth, house, and educate the children that are already born, so it's a ridiculous argument to have. We already have laws against murdering babies. Again, not everyone agrees with your definitions. We aren't talking about gender identity just the freedom or lack thereof for the person who is pregnant.

You know that I was referring to the Nazis, right? I thought the word "swastika" was clear.

No, I never said wearing a MAGA hat is an injustice. You've jumped to that conclusion and run with it as a strawman. I just found it weird to care about the pronoun in the middle of the discussion - not a big deal. I am a he if that matters to anyone.

Except that simply being alive isn't the threshold - it's when does the fetus become a person. And that's not easily defined, which is why there's debate. For me that occurs when they have the ability to form thoughts, so I'd say the threshold is once the fetus has brain waves. However, that still doesn't address the point that there's still the rights of the woman and under what circumstances we as a society should be able to force her to do something. Given the contradiction in the pro-life arguments and I think we need to give people as much personal freedom as reasonable, I remain in the pro-choice group politically.

Sure, but you'd think they were a Bernie supporter, no? @teachercd trying really hard to twist my words to fit his narrative. Except I was talking about a different analogy I had made. Here's the quotes in order (emphasis mine): It's also really weird that teach would try to guess my gender in this discussion.

That you're supporting the Trump, or at the very least the Trump campaign if the hat is a few years old. The same ones that come with supporting any political symbol - those associated with that symbol. Imagine you see someone wearing a Bernie shirt - what would you assume about them?

Except that you're missing the obvious reversal that it might be you that is ignorant. And you're avoiding having to address the contradiction I've pointed out.

No, you're missing the point and making a circular argument. You're making the pro-life argument that we should ban abortion because that protects children by your definition of what are and aren't children. I'm making the argument that by that definition and argument, all the other children that aren't fetuses should also be protected. The contradiction I'm pointing out is that the pro-life group doesn't vote to protect non-fetus children; therefore, that contradiction undermines the entire argument based on morality. The pro-choice argument doesn't have that contradiction because they have a different definition of what is and isn't a child. You're using your own definition to call the pro-choice crowd immoral, but that's not a contradiction for them because they don't agree with your definition.

Except nobody has said either of those things. It's just people setting up a strawman argument.

That doesn't follow from anything I've said. In what way does the pro-choice voters not support already born children?

I'm not sure if you don't understand that you're supporting my point, or if it's brilliant satire in support of my point. Either way: yes, good point.

As are all the children who are suffering or dying of starvation, homelessness, and lack of healthcare, yet the same people that are vote to end abortion also vote for the party that refuses to end these things and even make them worse. And there's no ethical or moral question about whether already born children are a person or alive. If the pro-life crowd wants me to take their politics seriously, then they need to act seriously on issues where there's absolutely no question that children are being harmed. Until then, it just looks like words empty of morality.

Actually teach already showed the exact difference between political and brand symbols in this post. He's clarifying that he didn't buy those brands for all the other reasons you might do so (need pants or shoes to wear) and instead he's doing it for political reasons. (Yes, I realize he's really just trying to be ridiculous.) To put it another way, the difference is between wearing a Nike swoosh (or whatever brand) and wearing a "I support sweatshops" logo. Those are not at all similar.

You're making the argument that all injustices are equivalent, which is obviously not true. Yes, but they make bad analogies when they aren't equally applicable.

You're both missing the most important point here: a political symbol is not at all the same as a brand symbol. You're basically arguing that wearing a swastika is the same as wearing the Mercedes symbol.

Let's see if Schultz can poll above 1% before even worrying about this.

Holy false equivalency, Batman!

I have major concerns with Kamala Harris and her record of prosecuting the poor and letting the rich go free. And I want to get money out of politics, but Harris (and others like Gillibrand and Booker) has been making the rounds at Wall St to get money. We don't need another President in the pocket of Wall St.

It's also common to the US Navy as well.

I see an EMP attack (which would require many EMP's to take out any significant portion of the grid as the power decreases with the cube of the distance or would require detonating a megaton nuclear device which would result in a nuclear retaliatory response from the US) as being similar to a hurricane or other natural disaster that destroys infrastructure. And the EMP wouldn't take down power lines like a storm can - the damage would be more centralized. (And would be mostly limited to electronics as most analog systems like transformers, power lines, circuit breakers, etc. wouldn't be damaged except by nuclear EMP's.) The power companies (and the government including FEMA, the military, national guard, etc.) would then start fixing things. It might take months in some places, but more like days in most places is what I expect. Yes, it would be devastating, but not like a nuclear attack or other sustained conventional bombing attacks would be, which is why an EMP attack against the US is dumb. The US military would be unaffected and would retaliate with physically destroying the infrastructure and military power of the attacker, which will be LOTS more things than just electronics and power grid. And that's assuming the US doesn't respond with a nuclear attack. P.S. Additionally, an EMP is defeated (or strongly minimized) with a Faraday cage. If we're really worried, then we could put a metal cage around sensitive infrastructure (like a server rack could protect the servers inside). And many buildings with metal roofs, metal siding, or closely spaced metal rebar in the concrete will act as a Faraday cage and limit the effectiveness.