US Midterm Election Megathread II: The Stretch Run Begins

[Mystic Warriors]

Surprise, idiocy is bipartisan.

Which side was virtue signalling about the other being violent mobs again?

Conservatives

[Valrifell]

.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politi ... cnn.com%2F


Trump pulls out of nuclear agreement with Russia, no negotiations or anything.

Tbf Russia did apparently violate the agreement first. Suspected ~2014 but only confirmed recently, according to the article. The nonsense about Obama is bullshit, but his withdrawal from the agreement is fine if the Russians won't keep up their end.

[Northern Davincia]

Surprise, idiocy is bipartisan.

Which side was virtue signalling about the other being violent mobs again?

If pounding on a door constitutes violence, I'm afraid there's a large number of women from Kavanaugh's confirmation that need a slap on the wrist.

[Dahon]

.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politi ... cnn.com%2F


Trump pulls out of nuclear agreement with Russia, no negotiations or anything.

Tbf Russia did apparently violate the agreement first. Suspected ~2014 but only confirmed recently, according to the article. The nonsense about Obama is bullshit, but his withdrawal from the agreement is fine if the Russians won't keep up their end.

What's so unreasonable about withdrawing from a treaty they don't follow? Maintaining our side of the bargain would be stupid.

The better option would be staying in the treaty, but performing some acts equal to what the Russians were doing. Maintaining the treaty allows for an easy return to the status quo, but breaking the treaty will basically validate the Russian build-up. In this way, Russia basically won here, because the US gave up trying to bring them in line, and Russia is now totally free to entirely detach itself from the treaty.

See, before, it was in partial non-compliance, but it complied well to other parts of the treaty. Now, the US basically said 'you do you, Putin'.

I find this more convincing, but then again, what use is soft power to idiots and brutes?

[Corrian]

Washingtonians, what're your thoughts on 1631, 1634 and 1639?

Everyone I know is against 1639 and mostly in favor of 1634 but 1631 is causing lots of debate. On paper it sounds like a good idea to tax polluters but there's all sorts of exemptions written into it for some of the largest polluters in the state (Boeing, pulp mills etc etc) and it seemingly only applies to out of state companies and I'm inclined to vote because of that.

1639 I have mixed feelings on, and same with 1634 honestly. I'm pretty big on yes for 1631 solely because I feel the no campaign is biased immediately due to it conveniently being funded by pretty much everything oil and gas, though I'm not a fan of exceptions for anyone. It should be put onto everyone, not just some.

[Dahon]

Taxing polluters is giving them the carte blanche to poison the environment. Slap them with mandatory requirements to clean up their fucking act; if they can't do that, shut them the fuck down.

Couldn't we nationalize them instead?

I'd imagine that'll be extremely difficult, not that I'm altogether opposed.

[Corrian]

Also can Georgia stop being dumb.

[Uxupox]

Taxing polluters is giving them the carte blanche to poison the environment. Slap them with mandatory requirements to clean up their fucking act; if they can't do that, shut them the fuck down.

Couldn't we nationalize them instead?

no.

[Mystic Warriors]

Also can Georgia stop being dumb.

Not likely.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Washingtonians, what're your thoughts on 1631, 1634 and 1639?

Everyone I know is against 1639 and mostly in favor of 1634 but 1631 is causing lots of debate. On paper it sounds like a good idea to tax polluters but there's all sorts of exemptions written into it for some of the largest polluters in the state (Boeing, pulp mills etc etc) and it seemingly only applies to out of state companies and I'm inclined to vote because of that.

1639 I have mixed feelings on, and same with 1634 honestly. I'm pretty big on yes for 1631 solely because I feel the no campaign is biased immediately due to it conveniently being funded by pretty much everything oil and gas, though I'm not a fan of exceptions for anyone. It should be put onto everyone, not just some.

Part of me wants to vote yes but all the exemptions make it feel worthless imo. It's either gotta apply to everyone or there's no point to it, especially when some of the biggest in state polluters are exempt because hey they bring in money.

[Post War America]

1639 I have mixed feelings on, and same with 1634 honestly. I'm pretty big on yes for 1631 solely because I feel the no campaign is biased immediately due to it conveniently being funded by pretty much everything oil and gas, though I'm not a fan of exceptions for anyone. It should be put onto everyone, not just some.

Part of me wants to vote yes but all the exemptions make it feel worthless imo. It's either gotta apply to everyone or there's no point to it, especially when some of the biggest in state polluters are exempt because hey they bring in money.

Wait, you're in favor of environmental regulations over corporations? Who are you and what have you done to WRA?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Part of me wants to vote yes but all the exemptions make it feel worthless imo. It's either gotta apply to everyone or there's no point to it, especially when some of the biggest in state polluters are exempt because hey they bring in money.

Wait, you're in favor of environmental regulations over corporations? Who are you and what have you done to WRA?

This might come as a shock to some but I like trees and cute little critters in addition to my machine guns.

[Corrian]

1639 I have mixed feelings on, and same with 1634 honestly. I'm pretty big on yes for 1631 solely because I feel the no campaign is biased immediately due to it conveniently being funded by pretty much everything oil and gas, though I'm not a fan of exceptions for anyone. It should be put onto everyone, not just some.

Part of me wants to vote yes but all the exemptions make it feel worthless imo. It's either gotta apply to everyone or there's no point to it, especially when some of the biggest in state polluters are exempt because hey they bring in money.

Can you show me the thing where it has the exemptions?

[Valrifell]

Wait, you're in favor of environmental regulations over corporations? Who are you and what have you done to WRA?

This might come as a shock to some but I like trees and cute little critters in addition to my machine guns.

Spoken like a true modern T. Roosevelt.

[Post War America]

Wait, you're in favor of environmental regulations over corporations? Who are you and what have you done to WRA?

This might come as a shock to some but I like trees and cute little critters in addition to my machine guns.

It's not a bad thing, I just mistakenly pegged you as the type to be in favor of lasseiz faire, and by extension against environmental regulations. The more you know I guess.

[Kowani]

Wait, you're in favor of environmental regulations over corporations? Who are you and what have you done to WRA?

This might come as a shock to some but I like trees and cute little critters in addition to my machine guns.

We like not being China, after all.

[Northern Davincia]

Wait, you're in favor of environmental regulations over corporations? Who are you and what have you done to WRA?

This might come as a shock to some but I like trees and cute little critters in addition to my machine guns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Part of me wants to vote yes but all the exemptions make it feel worthless imo. It's either gotta apply to everyone or there's no point to it, especially when some of the biggest in state polluters are exempt because hey they bring in money.

Can you show me the thing where it has the exemptions?

It's somewhere under the stuff the No campaign had. I'm eating dinner otherwise I'd go get the exact wording but they made a pretty good case imo. iirc the Seattle Times also touched on the subject and recommended a No vote.

[Corrian]

Can you show me the thing where it has the exemptions?

It's somewhere under the stuff the No campaign had. I'm eating dinner otherwise I'd go get the exact wording but they made a pretty good case imo. iirc the Seattle Times also touched on the subject and recommended a No vote.

See, I'm gonna be honest, I don't trust the No campaign. It's entirely paid for and sponsored by oil and gas companies.

[Jerzylvania]

.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politi ... cnn.com%2F


Trump pulls out of nuclear agreement with Russia, no negotiations or anything.

Tbf Russia did apparently violate the agreement first. Suspected ~2014 but only confirmed recently, according to the article. The nonsense about Obama is bullshit, but his withdrawal from the agreement is fine if the Russians won't keep up their end.

Once the election is over we might not hear another word about it. It might be a piss poor attempt to distract us from the Saudi's obvious murder/dismemberment explanation fail.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's somewhere under the stuff the No campaign had. I'm eating dinner otherwise I'd go get the exact wording but they made a pretty good case imo. iirc the Seattle Times also touched on the subject and recommended a No vote.

See, I'm gonna be honest, I don't trust the No campaign. It's entirely paid for and sponsored by oil and gas companies.

I was leaning the same way but honestly I felt like No laid out a much better campaign and reasons for why you should vote their way than the Yes campaign did.

[Telconi]

This might come as a shock to some but I like trees and cute little critters in addition to my machine guns.

Spoken like a true modern T. Roosevelt.

WRA the Bull Moose.

[Len Hyet]

Spoken like a true modern T. Roosevelt.

WRA the Bull Moose.

I'd 100% vote for a Bull Moose party if it stood even a snowball's chance in hell of winning

[Telconi]

WRA the Bull Moose.

I'd 100% vote for a Bull Moose party if it stood even a snowball's chance in hell of winning

You and me both...

[Corrian]

Tbf Russia did apparently violate the agreement first. Suspected ~2014 but only confirmed recently, according to the article. The nonsense about Obama is bullshit, but his withdrawal from the agreement is fine if the Russians won't keep up their end.

Once the election is over we might not hear another word about it. It might be a piss poor attempt to distract us from the Saudi's obvious murder/dismemberment explanation fail.

Also not the topic of the midterms.

I was leaning the same way but honestly I felt like No laid out a much better campaign and reasons for why you should vote their way than the Yes campaign did.

I may just have a bias against the oil and gas companies, because of how much money they've poured into it is enough for me to lean heavily towards Vote Yes, even if I may have reservations with parts of it. Like exemptions. It should cover all companies.