It's high time for a big awareness campaign for things like this: cleaning up our water should be an immediately funded government project. Needs a interactive map with historical data, sort of like https://app.electricitymaps.com/map does for historic grid energy cleanliness.
Surely, clean water—something we all need—should be an apolitical bipartisan issue, right? ...right?
We've barely figured out how to even detect a tiny portion of PFAS, and even then can't quantify it, we don't have any way of removing PFAS specifically, the best general purpose technology we have is reverse osmosis which is not economical. If it's in the ground water it will be in the drinking water.
What we need to do (as in the human race because this stuff just propagates around the globe), is to stop manufacturing them, immediately, because this stuff accumulates. The mentality of "shoot and ask questions later" in the name of industry, technological progress and "my wallet" needs to stop. Prevention is the answer, not more technology to fix a technology that should have already have been deprecated over a decade ago - and to be clear i mean all PFAS, until individual formulas can be proven ecologically and biologically safe.
To prevent history from repeating itself new chemicals beyond the thousands of PFAS should go through ecological and biological testing before allowing them to be manufactured at scale and released into the environment. In the same way we test products for human consumption, we need to learn that the environment is an extension of us, and if we disregard it, it will come back to bite us.
What we need to do is to prevent such occurrences from happening by enforcing regulations that require companies to demonstrate the safety of their products before manufacturing them for extended periods, instead of concealing data and facing minimal consequences.
> concealing data and facing minimal consequences.
Yes, the delay in punishment is a huge problem. 3M is facing fines easily pushing them into bankruptcy... so even when the punishment is severe enough, it's too late, huge damage has already been done.
The problem is that even this is not a disincentive, whether or not they know it, executives use these artificial constructs "companies" as vehicles to extract money, the smart ones play hot potato to prevent personal liability once they see what's ahead, instead of blow the whistle - it's immoral, I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps the only way is education, even MBAs need to be made to appreciate the value of environment and the potential ecological and biological consequences of their negligence - I think most of them probably down play it even in their own mind, as a kind of "gotta break some eggs to make an omlet" mentality, that there is always an environmental cost, but lacking the historical knowledge and imagination of how such costs can vary qualitatively and quantitatively with orders of magnitude in separation.
And even lawyers get away with far far more than they should without losing their license to practice. It seems like accountability is at an all time low everywhere and we're all paying the price.
Fluoride is an actual chemical, and the Alex Jones "turning the frogs gay" comment was about a study that linked the presence of atrazine (a pesticide legal in the US but banned in the EU) in a water supply with the demasculinization of frogs
(FWIW there's been replication issues when other people ran the same experiment).
Tyrone_Hayes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Hayes) and his research is a wild rabbit hole to get lost in. You can view his talks on youtube. The guy turned down a lot of cash to get the word out about atrazine. We could use a lot more scientists like him.
> fluoride intake levels (0.93 [0.43] vs 0.30 [0.26] mg of fluoride per day; P = .001).
> Children had mean (SD) Full Scale IQ scores of 107.16 (13.26), range 52-143, with girls showing significantly higher mean (SD) scores than boys: 109.56 (11.96) vs 104.61 (14.09); P = .001.
The average IQ of people in the UK is 99.12 and in Canada 99.52 [3]. Let us suppose that the hypothesis is true; it is expected then that in a country with higher average consumption of fluoride, we would, consistently, see lower average IQ.
> Above-average consumption of tea, as recorded in Great Britain, could result in fluoride intakes as high as 8.9 mg per day [4];
We observe that the average consumption of Fluoride is about an order of magnitude larger in the UK, yet, IQs are almost identical. Which hints that if such a relationship exists, it is not as pronounced (5 IQ points) as the article claims.
Maybe somehow women in the UK consume 20x less Fluoride when they are pregnant (what's the prob of this?), maybe people in the UK are just built different and their superior genes compensate and without the Fluoride they'd be at 104-105ish. Given history and similarity between societies, this looks unlikely.
So until a causal mechanism is found, I am inclined to disagree over the "proven fact" statement.
> We observe that the average consumption of Fluoride is about an order of magnitude larger in the UK, yet, IQs are almost identical. Which hints that if such a relationship exists, it is not as pronounced (5 IQ points) as the article claims.
Ecological comparisons are towards the bottom of the evidence hierarchy because there are any number of cofounders at play.
For example you could accidentally conclude that smoking is healthy because smoking tracks with affluence in poorer countries.
So I would reject the notion that we should or shouldn’t see IQ differences in very different populations which is why you want to do controlled research on different cohorts in the same population.
Finally, a causal mechanism is only a cherry on top but it’s not necessary for strong causal inference. Our mechanistic explanations are repeatedly wrong and/or inexhaustive. Fortunately, we can perform good quality studies instead like mendelian randomization.
At this point I think fluoride falls firmly into the category of "needs more research", but if you're pregnant it seems like actively trying to reduce your intake of fluoride is a sensible precaution since that's unlikely to have any negative effect on you or the kid, but if fluoride does cause problems you could dodge a bullet before the science catches up.
Your bar for "proven facts" is very low - you might want to reconsider what you read as truth and put a bit more of a filter on. I say this for your own benefit - as nothing you do bears on my life.
Life on earth is a highly interconnected system, otherwise, what's the point of educating people on issues like pollution, climate change, alcohol, etc.?
It is connected however my advice for this individual has no direct bearing on my life and am merely hoping for their own benefit they are more discerning about their ability to comprehend information. Yes you can argue that a society that is more discerning has an impact - though that's a bit too hand wavy.
Right, I could say some nonsense about how your politically polarised mindset blinds you to obvious facts. It'll be very persuasive I'm sure. Instead I'll believe a bunch of dentists who have no expertise in neuroscience to put aside their egos and come to a consensus. Just a couple more decades no worries. It's like some Idiocracy thing where some group convinces a population to put a neurotoxin into the water supply. Art imitates life I guess, the movie did come out later than this.
I want to understand dose-dependency on the relationship between fluoride and IQ. Why do we have to put fluoride in the drinking water to "protect kids' teeth"? Wouldn't it be better to simply provide toothpaste and toothbrushes for free to school-age children?
Because putting fluoride in water leads to demonstrably better outcomes than just expecting parents to get kids to brush their teeth. Fluoride has no empirical impact on anything other than positive health outcomes. It would be dumb not to use it. If you are worried about what's in your water a reverse osmosis system will remove things much more harmful than fluoride and you can get rid of your horrible fluoride while you're at it.
I don't understand your holier-than-thou tone about fluoride. Sadly, the fluoride stuff is still up for discussion. Why is it a "taboo" to discuss this? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-020-0973-8
That isn't what the article says. It isn't even evaluation of other people's research, let alone novel research in itself. It's a "perspective" article commenting on human behavior.
Meanwhile researchers who have conducted proper meta-analyses of the literature have come to a negative conclusion on this topic:
In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.
There have been a lot of studies done, dose-response studies too. It gets ignored in the US because of left-right polarization. Here are a few below. Believe what you want I guess but this is basically overwhelming evidence to me.
Thanks, and you can believe what you want as well.
That said, let's note please that these are all associational, rather than cause-and-effect findings. The matter should definitely be explored further - but in my book I would need significant evidence of a causative relationship to check the "overwhelming evidence" box.
Flouride doesn't need conspiracy theories to be considered dangerous.
That debate is definitely going on and has no consensus as evidenced by the fact that some cities are still removing flouride from their water and some are adding it.
There is no evidence that fluoride is remotely dangerous in reasonable quantities, only in ridiculous quantities that are impossible to reach under normal circumstances.
> There is no evidence that fluoride is remotely dangerous in reasonable quantities, only in ridiculous quantities that are impossible to reach under normal circumstances.
This is the internet and you could be a Phd whose researched flouride your entire life but the internet, and some very respectable sources at that, just straight up disagree with you.
> Four high-quality, prospective birth cohort studies5,8,18,19 show that fetal exposure to fluoride is associated with diminished cognitive abilities.
> In November 2019, the National Toxicology Program released a draft report on fluoride concluding that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard.
The turning frogs gay is about endocrine disruptors [0]. I'm not aware of fluoride being on that list though.
Clearly fluoride has health risks if my local water municipality had to get federal assistance building out a fluoride removal plant to treat its ground water supplies, but as always the dose makes the poison...
The chemical is atrazine and it tests it did turn frogs from male to female. We can quibble over whether or not dosage matters but I think it should also be uncontroversial that using a chemical that disrupts hormones like that should not be used on food that we consume.
The company that makes atrazine (an aromatase promoter) knows that it causes increases in cancer in humans. That's why they (under other names) also sell cancer drugs that work by being aromatase inhibitors. They'll sell the poison and then sell you the "cure".
Like with many things the goal may be bipartisan, but how to get there will not be
Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, or taxes businesses
Democrats will reject any funding methods the come with strings attached to reduce or pull funding from other programs, or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich"
My bias is Anti-government. The best government is the smallest government, and I believe in strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8 powers.
That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more...
I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".
Perhaps, but arguing who's political sportsball team is better is a losing strategy in a discussion, no matter who plays. I prefer to go back to the primary topic and discuss from there. It more often than not provides a different path forward, rather than devolving into talking past each other.
And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.
Authoritarians for decades have attempting to expand "general welfare" far beyond its original remit
In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means.
In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein.
It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.
The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers). You might as well be pointing to the NYT Opinion section as your source.
You can't be a strict constitutionalist and also use the words of the Federalist as a way to enhance or modify the constitution. These are contradictory viewpoints.
>>The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers)
What???
While sure it is not legally binding the Federalist are looked to by historians and even the courts to understand the original context and intent of the constitution, No different than when courts look to the debate around a given law when they are attempting to understand what Congress meant when they passed the law.
Further in this case Federalist 41 was written by Madison the person that wrote the general welfare statement, to say that is the same as citing a NYT Opinion is the height of idiocy
Further still I am strict *orginalist*. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.
> Further still I am strict orginalist. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.
Strict originalist, you say?
So, regarding the second amendment, what class of weapons do you consider "Arms"? Weapons from 1776? 1787, when a majority of delegates signed? 1778, when it was ratified? 1779, when it was the law?
The Federalist papers literally argued against what became of Bill of Rights.
> The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.[citation needed]
Yet we have a bill of rights!
Yeah you can absolutely use the papers to get context about what their authors were thinking. However, as I've shown with just one of many examples, you should not use the papers to claim that all the founding fathers think that way.
Even one of the other Federalists, Hamilton, disagreed with your interpretation.
> Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists took a broader view. Hamilton famously argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.” While Hamilton did not advocate a completely unbounded interpretation of “general welfare,” under which Congress could spend money for virtually any object it considers beneficial, he and the Federalists did believe that the Clause authorized a wide range of spending for purposes that go beyond Congress’s other enumerated powers, so long as they were sufficiently “general.”
> The debate between the Madisonian and Hamiltonian views continued throughout much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a general rule, Democratic presidents and members of Congress tended to adopt positions similar to Madison’s, or slightly broader. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, James Monroe, James Polk, James Buchanan, and Grover Cleveland all opposed bills authorizing spending on local infrastructure and disaster relief projects, citing constitutional objections. By contrast, the Federalists, the Whigs, and the Republicans tended to take a broader view of congressional power, closer to Hamilton’s position. Whig leader Henry Clay, for example, argued that the Clause authorized his proposal for a wide-ranging “American System” of canal and roadbuilding.
You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong, since even back then people like Hamilton disagreed with Madison. That's why using Madison as your only guide for interpreting the constitution is, well, not really a great argument at all.
>You're claim that this is what it meant back then is clearly wrong,
Not even in the slightest, you clearly do not understand the position of Hamilton if you believe his statements mean " clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare" which is the original comment I responded to.
All of those things would be spending *Local* not *General* Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive sure but he was still in the realm of things that applied to all States equally, not sending money to particular cities / states that need "clean water" or to individuals that need food assistance, etc.
>Hamilton viewed the General Welfare to be more expansive
So you acknowledge that your original statement was wrong, and that the general welfare statement even at that time was considered more expansive by some of the founding fathers than the Federalist paper you quoted argued?
To be fair Madison personally owned around a hundred slaves and the Constitution in Article 1 Section 2 counted slaves as three-fifths of a free individual, but please tell me again that this guy is the patron saint of defining personal freedom and the Constitution some kind of twelve commandments of freedom "Thou shalt count Black people that you hold in bondages as three fifths human". And of course let's ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead talk about slave owner Madison's feelz on inalienable freedom (◔_◔).
This is so profoundly ignorant that I am surprised it continues to come up.
Under your premise you would have wanted all Slaves to be counted as whole persons. This is exactly what many slave owners wanted, they wanted to have the slaves counted as whole persons so their states would have more power.
The Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted at all
3/5ths was a compromise and directly lead to the eventual abolishment of slavery completely.
Yes you can clearly see that by the highest quality of life being in countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore.. all countries known for their small government bent.
> and how we always need to tax them more...
Because the wealth gap has been growing ever larger
> I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
Or perhaps they’ve realized a lawyer that earns 300k a year still is working class?
It’s laughable how the same, folds-like-a-lawnchair arguments always keep being trotted out, as if they haven’t been proven wrong a million times over.
The best government is efficient government, whatever the size it needs to be to efficiently and successfully accomplish the tasks it has been given by its citizens.
You're technically right, but it may be that the ideal model of government tends towards a certain size; perhaps size significantly affects the extent of corruption? In any case, the more pressing matter is how to turn an inefficient government into an efficient one, heh. (Or even before that, getting consensus on the fundamental responsibilities to the citizens.)
Small government is a common talking point pulling on the strings of what we all intuitively desire (less intrusion in our lives) without providing context.
I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people. Imagine Germany fighting tooth and nail against teaching about the world wars in school - would be a bit of a red flag, no?
Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive toward us, our children, and I see as interference. Defining government enforcing such protections as “interference” is an obvious sleigh of hand. Another example is extending copyright to longer than 7-15 years and enforcing this insanity for the robbing of the public domain.
People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages.
East access to healthcare and great education makes a strong nation. Encouraging prosperity for all instead of creating moats around the wealth of the richest extractors also makes a strong nation.
I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much.
>>I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people.
I bet I can test your resolve to both of them and show you really do not want more freedom, you just want different government controls than "the other team"
For example Education. Do you support backpack funded school choice, putting the power of what schools people go to in the hands of the parents?
Reproductive Rights.. How about "Financial Abortion" or Default Joint Custody with no support to either parent? Or mandatory DNA validation before entering names on birth certificates.
>Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive
Corporations are a creation of government, the entire purpose of a corporation is to protect them from liberality. That is really the sole reason for their existence. I always love when strong government supports rail on and on about corporations when strong government is the source of power for corporations.
The stronger the government the stronger the corporations. The more centralized the government, the larger the corporations.
Since We have been putting more and more regulation an power under the pervue of the federal government the largest corporations have gone from about 20% market share on average to 80% market share on average.
Strong Central Governments weakens and prohibits competition in the market place, history proves this time and time again
>>People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages.
"A world that is safe for today’s rich will never be safe for the rest of us. Not until the rich’s massive fortunes, and the state power propagating them, is destroyed will we be safe. Smashing the state and eating the rich are two sides of the same coin." [1]
>I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much. I think we’re on the same page, would you agree?
I want to see a Federalist nation of 50 semi-independent States joined in a common economic union under a single National Defense Apparatus where the bulk of out government interactions are at the state and local level, and most people never even think about the federal government who simply ensures we are not invaded from the outside, that States do not fight each other, and that we can trade freely on the world stage.
As someone who was a life-long liberal, but worked their ass off to become a 1%er, I 100% believe that the Democrats are using people like me as scapegoats and it makes me furious. I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it.
But now all of a sudden, because I make over $400,000 I "don't pay my fair share of taxes", according to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden? They can go fuck themselves. Until the Democrats stop vilifying people like me, I'm going to hold my nose and vote anti-Democrat across the board. Everyone that I talk to feel the exact same as me.
I don't know you so can't comment on your position. The fact of the matter is you studied hard and did something your peers did not and as such,and assuming we're going to need people with your learned skills and knowledge, you will get paid a premium as a reward. The question is how much of a reward, it's acceptable until the point it becomes exploitative. In this day and age a lot of that high compensation going around isn't due to increased value add but rather by reducing (exploiting) others compensation. Can you add value without the janitor doing his part? Its getting to the point where people doing necessary jobs are no longer able to live, despite them adding value. Can take it one step further, even if people aren't able to add value (lacking skills etc.), you still live with them in the society you live in, what happens then? Guillotines? Pogroms?
Your success is not yours alone. Society got you to that place and enabled it.
The US and EU country GDP's per capita are very similar like around €60k. The inequality is what is different. $400k is just insane in European country.
But your money is still small fry, billionaires own like 30% of everything in the US. Politicians are probably hiding behind taxing your class, rather than the real issue, billionaires.
That's all besides the point. It sounds like he is making < $1 million / yr which might technically put him in the top 1%, but his wealth is still far from the point of being a target for wealth taxes that some on the left have proposed. He is still in the same boat as the rest of the middle/upper-middle class families in this country but has somehow been convinced that he's in the same boat as billionaire heirs/hedge fund managers/CEOs. Which makes sense if you don't actually know any of those people, some people's level of wealth is just hard to wrap your head around.
I don't want to talk you out of opposition to the Democratic party or to vilification of ANYONE, including the wealthy. But I DO have a perspective you might be missing:
You write:
> As someone who [...] worked their ass off to become a 1%er [...] I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it.
I, like you, work fairly hard and have become quite well-compensated. What I'd like to point out is that there are probably two categories of folks who are NOT "1%ers". There are those who were "partying" and making poor choices and therefore have a lower income. But there are also those who worked VERY hard but never had the opportunity to be rewarded for that work.
It is easy for me to feel entitled about my distinguished-software-engineer-level income if I think only of the first group, but if I compare myself to the second group I have to remember that many of them never had the chance to go to college, never had the opportunities I had and aren't in any way "undeserving". You probably already know everything I am saying here, but I wanted to share that this perspective is one I keep in mind when making statements so I don't come out sounding unreasonably entitled.
I’m retired now after a pretty middle class career, and am well aware of how much of my success was essentially luck. I have a reasonably high IQ (not my doing), was born into a family that, while poor, instilled middle class values (again not my doing), was born with a skin color that matched the majority (do I need I to keep saying not my doing?) I lucked into a career which suited me, in an economy that worked very differently than it does now. And I was lucky enough not to have any major health problems during all of this.
A lot of people seem to think of themselves as self-made, without realizing the number of folks who worked just as hard as they think they did without seeing anywhere near the same success.
Maybe something will happen at some point to make them open their eyes, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
I worked in factories, I worked minimum wage jobs, I paid for my own college through scholarships and part-time jobs. I came from a lower-middle class background, and we never went on trips and we never ate out. KFC was considered a special treat. I manufactured my entire career and where I am in life, the fact that there are some people who weren't able to match me is orthogonal to any of that and I won't feel guilty about it. I don't look down on them one bit, life is tough and unfair, but I also won't feel guilty or self-flagellate myself because I worked hard and took advantage of whatever opportunities I either got or created for myself.
So because some people were mean to you, you just changed all your values about gay marriage, climate change, social welfare, etc?
Honestly I actually don't like the "tax the rich to make them pay their fair share" narrative either because it implies that taxes are what pays for the social programs, which is reductive at best (at least with current US monetary theory). I don't make more than $400,000/year [1], but I have traditionally done pretty well in total comp, and I still vote left because I my viewpoints don't change just because some people were to demonize me.
Also, wasn't Elizabeth Warren's "pay their fair share" tax for people making like more than $10 million?
[1] I actually make $0/year right now due to layoffs.
I think the start of your reply is the bad faith they’re calling out — as that’s obviously not what they said.
They simply prioritize their well-being and not being vilified over the social causes you view as $very_important; and I’d suggest that since you bring up issues such as minority rights, you examine why you think they should accept being othered and vilified, when clearly you object to that behavior in other contexts.
Why is that particular example of social abuse something they need to “sit down and shut up” about?
Because I’m paraphrasing your reply, which aligns with that mentality.
You didn’t explicitly say that because you know your own behavior is inappropriate — and pretend to condemn it in other contexts.
But Democrats are commonly hypocritical — eg, claiming to protect minority rights while being frothing mad they’re told they can’t use 1950s arguments about “too many Asians and Jews” to engage in systemic racism at universities.
Ok, but quotes tend to imply something literal, or nearly-literal, and it's not something I said, nor did I imply it, at least not intentionally.
I've personally always hated when certain groups are "not allowed" to have an opinion on given topics, for whatever reason, and I have pretty actively said as much when people have told others to "sit down and shut up", so in your particular case you're responding to a straw man and assigning attributes to me that are not true.
EDIT:
You edited your response after the fact and didn't disclose that. I'm responding to your edits now.
> You didn’t explicitly say that because you know your own behavior is inappropriate — and pretend to condemn it in other contexts.
Do I know my own behavior is inappropriate? What behavior is that exactly?
> But Democrats are commonly hypocritical — eg, claiming to protect minority rights while being frothing mad they’re told they can’t use 1950s arguments about “too many Asians and Jews” to engage in systemic racism at universities.
I have very mixed feelings in regards to the way that universities do their recruiting, and even in regards to the recent supreme court decision. Again, you're assigning labels to me that don't really apply. I tend to vote left, so I guess it's fair to lump me in with Democrats in a consequentialist sense.
I really think that you're prescribing stuff to me based on stereotypes you have in regards to other lefties. That's fair enough, I do that sometimes as well, but I really just think you're wrong. I do not agree with the statement "sit down and shut up" in really any regard.
I think you could make an argument that you're responsible for the "full package" of the politician you vote for. That's why I conceded that it might be fair enough to lump me in with that group.
I also didn't make "accusations", I said that I thought it was bizarre that someone would change their political positions just because someone was mean to them. I stand by that...I think that's a weird thing to do. If Bernie Sanders personally sent me a message saying "Tombert is a real douchebag", I'm not going to suddenly start going to MAGA rallies, because my political opinions aren't about people liking me.
The reply is that they obviously didn’t: they merely prioritize other issues — just as you prioritize other issues ahead of not supporting organized racism towards Asians.
The inference they changed their opinion on those topics, rather than prioritized something else (eg, not being vilified) is a bad faith inference directly contradicted by their post, which explains why they changed their vote explicitly.
If I were to use your logic, then I’d conclude that you are personally racist towards Asians — because you vote for a party that is. But that would both be incorrect and an act of bad faith.
$400k/yr is not rich in this country. At best it's upper-middle class. In fact it shouldn't even be tied to income. I have some very wealthy friends, i.e. people that just casually have $80 million cash in a checking account not to mention all their other assets. Which I have no problem with.
Elizabeth Warren is not talking about you. Actual rich people are laughing all the way to the bank at people like you for voting for policies for which they will get 99% of the benefit.
Also, "the Democrats" != Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
> But now all of a sudden, because I make over $400,000 I "don't pay my fair share of taxes", according to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden?
Why do you feel the need to lie about the position of politicians when they are so easily available?
> Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)
So unless you're sitting on a fat nest egg, Sen. Warren thinks that you are indeed paying your fair share of taxes. I'm sure Sanders and Biden agree. Stop lying.
Seems like all those corporations should be paying for cleaning up their mess. Why would we pull funding from other programs. That would be socializing the the cost while the few reap the reward.
> Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, or taxes businesses
It goes deeper than that. Much of the narrative rejects the validity of claims, or files solutions in the "woke" category, to be fought out of principle.
What would be more productive, then, would be awareness campaigns for filters that can be bought and used at home to reduce said chemicals and ideally dispose of them in ecologically safe ways.
If those filters are to be subsidized, we're back at the impasse of "how is this funded?". If the filters are not subsidized, whoever approves the campaign will get kicked out for making the disadvantaged drink dirty water and serving the rich who own the filter manufacturers.
At the end of the day I do not believe this is a national matter in the first place, No where in the Constitution does congress have the authority to regulate drinking water in the first place, outside the bastardization of the commerce clause
So it should be left up to state regulators to set what they feel are the best for their states.
EPA could play a role in ensuring One state does not pollute another state, but there are and should be limits on what is a "federal issue" even if people today seem to think everything should be under the umbrella of the federal government.
You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase.
"General welfare" is also a way that the EPA can run, and actually mandate strong changes to reverse massive pollution, and act strongly against climate change. Having high humidity and heat can and will make areas unlivable for humans.
(And I do agree that the commerce clause being used everywhere is a load of garbage in much of its applications.)
Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case
>>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase.
Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase
If private companies profited from these chemicals (after knowing they were dangerous and likely to get into the water supply) they should pay back some of their profits.
Surely, clean water—something we all need—should be an apolitical bipartisan issue, right? ...right?