Hillary was right

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Show of hands.

Who watches these things? Other than Dave Schmidt.   

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Don't anyone dare tell me that someone named Axelrod is not in danger from the election of Trump.

I recommended a book to you earlier. Buy two copies. Send one to this idiot.

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Show of hands.
Who watches these things? Other than Dave Schmidt.   

 Cause why watch something that might challenge what they tell you on CNN?  

LOST said:

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Don't anyone dare tell me that someone named Axelrod is not in danger from the election of Trump.
I recommended a book to you earlier. Buy two copies. Send one to this idiot.

 Axelrod will be fine.  He's rich.  He's got access to healthcare.  

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Show of hands.
Who watches these things? Other than Dave Schmidt.   

 Cause why watch something that might challenge what they tell you on CNN?  

 Dear nan,

I have tried your videos. Once, I challenged you on the video's content, pointing out very obvious failings, and you just ignore them and spin away.  (Flint, MI , if you don't remember. Tell you what. I'll watch this video if you read that link. And then you can tell me why I should discount all of the solid facts contained in that article.)

I have yet to be convinced of  damn thing from any of your videos - and I'm easy to convince - show me a good solid fact, and I have no choice but to believe it. That's why I don't follow the conventional wisdom on Flint. The science is the science.

At some point, one has to cut their losses and stop wasting time on watching nonsense. We get it already.

ETA: sorry. I made it 30 seconds in and gave up. He's such an azzhole.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Show of hands.
Who watches these things? Other than Dave Schmidt.   

 Cause why watch something that might challenge what they tell you on CNN?  

 Dear nan,
I have tried your videos. Once, I challenged you on the video's content, pointing out very obvious failings, and you just ignore them and spin away.  (Flint, MI , if you don't remember. Tell you what. I'll watch this video if you read that link. And then you can tell me why I should discount all of the solid facts contained in that article.)

I have yet to be convinced of  damn thing from any of your videos - and I'm easy to convince - show me a good solid fact, and I have no choice but to believe it. That's why I don't follow the conventional wisdom on Flint. The science is the science.

At some point, one has to cut their losses and stop wasting time on watching nonsense. We get it already.


ETA: sorry. I made it 30 seconds in and gave up. He's such an azzhole.

 You were VERY WRONG on Flint, MI.  In fact, the reporter in the video, Jordan Chariton, has returned to reporting and visiting Flint and things there are still a mess.  You said they were fine and believed the EPA just like you believe the Intelligence community.  I posted this videos because it about the topic topic of shaming people who might not have voted for HIllary.  This video is exactly on that topic.  If you don't want to watch it then don't, but stop trying to make that decision for others.  Butt out.  You are over the line here.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Show of hands.
Who watches these things? Other than Dave Schmidt.   

 Cause why watch something that might challenge what they tell you on CNN?  

 Because YOU sent it.  

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

 Show of hands.
Who watches these things? Other than Dave Schmidt.   

 Cause why watch something that might challenge what they tell you on CNN?  

 Dear nan,
I have tried your videos. Once, I challenged you on the video's content, pointing out very obvious failings, and you just ignore them and spin away.  (Flint, MI , if you don't remember. Tell you what. I'll watch this video if you read that link. And then you can tell me why I should discount all of the solid facts contained in that article.)

I have yet to be convinced of  damn thing from any of your videos - and I'm easy to convince - show me a good solid fact, and I have no choice but to believe it. That's why I don't follow the conventional wisdom on Flint. The science is the science.

At some point, one has to cut their losses and stop wasting time on watching nonsense. We get it already.


ETA: sorry. I made it 30 seconds in and gave up. He's such an azzhole.

 You were VERY WRONG on Flint, MI.  In fact, the reporter in the video, Jordan Chariton, has returned to reporting and visiting Flint and things there are still a mess.  You said they were fine and believed the EPA just like you believe the Intelligence community.  I posted this videos because it about the topic topic of shaming people who might not have voted for HIllary.  This video is exactly on that topic.  If you don't want to watch it then don't, but stop trying to make that decision for others.  Butt out.  You are over the line here.

 I'm guessing you didn't read the link I posted.

You realize that you're in the same boat as climate denialists, right? Ignoring the science.

The biggest danger in Flint is erroneously giving the idea to an entire generation of kids that they're mentally damaged .

So, you know, congratulations on that accomplishment.

(By the way, if I was wrong on Flint, tell me why. But that video you posted on the subject was hilarious. And you think Fox viewers have problems with reality.)

ETA: sorry. I made it 30 seconds in and gave up. He's such an azzhole.

 You were VERY WRONG on Flint, MI.  In fact, the reporter in the video, Jordan Chariton, has returned to reporting and visiting Flint and things there are still a mess.  You said they were fine and believed the EPA just like you believe the Intelligence community.  I posted this videos because it about the topic topic of shaming people who might not have voted for HIllary.  This video is exactly on that topic.  If you don't want to watch it then don't, but stop trying to make that decision for others.  Butt out.  You are over the line here.

 I'm guessing you didn't read the link I posted.

You realize that you're in the same boat as climate denialists, right? Ignoring the science.

The biggest danger in Flint is erroneously giving the idea to an entire generation of kids that they're mentally damaged .
So, you know, congratulations on that accomplishment.
(By the way, if I was wrong on Flint, tell me why. But that video you posted on the subject was hilarious. And you think Fox viewers have problems with reality.)

 I am not even close to a climate denialist.   If you go to YouTube under Jordan Chariton and videos there are 56 videos on the Flint Water crisis.  He, and other reporters who work with him, are in Flint directly talking to residents and gathering data.  He is an amazing investigative reporter.  I doubt you will watch even one of these videos before personally attacking me as a nut.  Here's the video from today.  Did CNN, or FOX or MSNBC spend this much time on this crisis and in this kind of depth?  Have some respect, man.

Like I said. Deny the science.

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

 You read one opinion piece in the Times and you think you know better than a guy who has made 56 videos IN Flint in the past six months.   That piece is just some scientists talking about lead poisoning.  They did not go to Flint and see what was happening on the ground.  And lead was just one thing found in the water there.  The article assumes that's the only thing that matters.

For starters, they also had Legionnaire's disease and at least 12 people have died and maybe over 100.  Local officials are on trial for manslaughter.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/was-flint-s-deadly-legionnaires-epidemic-caused-low-chlorine-levels-water-supply

nan said:

For starters, they also had Legionnaire's disease and at least 12 people have died and maybe over 100.  Local officials are on trial for manslaughter.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/was-flint-s-deadly-legionnaires-epidemic-caused-low-chlorine-levels-water-supply

The headline is a question for a reason, which the article makes clear. And “maybe over 100” dead from that outbreak is based on what?

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

For starters, they also had Legionnaire's disease and at least 12 people have died and maybe over 100.  Local officials are on trial for manslaughter.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/was-flint-s-deadly-legionnaires-epidemic-caused-low-chlorine-levels-water-supply

The headline is a question for a reason, which the article makes clear. And “maybe over 100” dead from that outbreak is based on what?

 Here is another article.  It's a big story, but did not get much coverage.  NPR has this to say:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/02/05/582482024/lethal-pneumonia-outbreak-caused-by-low-chlorine-in-flint-water

And finally, two people are being charged with criminal charges.   So far, the governor has not been charged, although many think he should be. 

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532969059/two-top-michigan-officials-face-criminal-charges-over-flint-water-crisis

Here is an introductory piece on Flint talking about what happened at the beginning for anyone trying to catch up:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

 You read one opinion piece in the Times and you think you know better than a guy who has made 56 videos IN Flint in the past six months.   That piece is just some scientists talking about lead poisoning.  They did not go to Flint and see what was happening on the ground.  And lead was just one thing found in the water there.  The article assumes that's the only thing that matters.
For starters, they also had Legionnaire's disease and at least 12 people have died and maybe over 100.  Local officials are on trial for manslaughter.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/was-flint-s-deadly-legionnaires-epidemic-caused-low-chlorine-levels-water-supply

sheesh. It's an "opinion piece" filled with data. If you want to argue against it, you have to prove that the data is wrong.

I'll wait.

And are any of those 56 videos a scientific study? Didn't think so. So what can you possibly learn from them about the effect of a chemical on a human body?

btw - did you even read the article you linked, or do you just read every paragraph that you agree with, and disregard the rest?

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

 You read one opinion piece in the Times and you think you know better than a guy who has made 56 videos IN Flint in the past six months.   That piece is just some scientists talking about lead poisoning.  They did not go to Flint and see what was happening on the ground.  And lead was just one thing found in the water there.  The article assumes that's the only thing that matters.
For starters, they also had Legionnaire's disease and at least 12 people have died and maybe over 100.  Local officials are on trial for manslaughter.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/was-flint-s-deadly-legionnaires-epidemic-caused-low-chlorine-levels-water-supply

sheesh. It's an "opinion piece" filled with data. If you want to argue against it, you have to prove that the data is wrong.
I'll wait.

And are any of those 56 videos a scientific study? Didn't think so. So what can you possibly learn from them about the effect of a chemical on a human body?
btw - did you even read the article you linked, or do you just read every paragraph that you agree with, and disregard the rest?

 I did not discredit the science.  I said it was disconnected from what was actually happening in Flint.  It assumed lead was the only problem in Flint.  It also assumed that all the reports it is based on were accurate.  What about the children that were dramatically changed by this--what happened there?  Are those people faking it?  Your op-ed does not mention that.  I also pay attention to the financial consequences of this tragedy on the people of Flint.  Some of them lost their homes.  They are being forced to pay for contaminated water. Out of the scope of your article but important. You think all you have to do is read this op-ed and the whole story is explained as a non-event and closed.  You discredit the people who are on the ground investigating in favor of some scientists just quoting fed rules on lead levels.  This op-ed piece is not sufficient to say that the children of Flint were not poisoned.

I give up

nan said:

 Here is another article.  It's a big story, but did not get much coverage.  NPR has this to say:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/02/05/582482024/lethal-pneumonia-outbreak-caused-by-low-chlorine-in-flint-water

Thankfully, the article you posted first was the one that noted the legitimate scientific questions.

My own question remains: “Maybe over 100” dead from that outbreak is based on what? 

Here is the trailer for Jordon's upcoming documentary:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

I want to watch when you explain this to the parents of a child permanently damaged by lead poisoning.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 Here is another article.  It's a big story, but did not get much coverage.  NPR has this to say:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/02/05/582482024/lethal-pneumonia-outbreak-caused-by-low-chlorine-in-flint-water

Thankfully, the article you posted first was the one that noted the legitimate scientific questions.
My own question remains: “Maybe over 100” dead from that outbreak is based on what? 

 This Democracy Now report explains the "maybe over 100 dead."

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/26/as_death_toll_rises_in_flint

edited to add:  This is an amazing interview with a doctor who treated children in Flint.  I'd love to hear what she would say about that NYT's op-ed piece.  I'm guessing she'd rip it to shreds.

nan said:

This Democracy Now report explains the "maybe over 100 dead."
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/26/as_death_toll_rises_in_flint

Ah. Legionnaires’ disease and pneumonia combined. Thanks.

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

I want to watch when you explain this to the parents of a child permanently damaged by lead poisoning.

 Do you know that the average "damage" that was done to the most seriously affected of Flint children is on the order of a handful of IQ points? It's highly unlikely that anyone is even going to notice.

However, if the parents of Flint are going around with the idea that all of their children have been irrevocably harmed, that's going to have terrible ramifications on these children's lives.

Flint is a complicated issue - and people like that clown whose video Nan just posted are doing way more harm than good.

btw - did you read the NYT article I linked to?

drummerboy said:

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
Like I said. Deny the science.

 What science are you talking about?  This investigation is comprehensive and multi-leveled. It deals with the findings and how it affects the community.   What science is it lacking?  Are you saying all these people are just making it up--like it's a moon landing thing?

what's been "made up" is the amount of harm that was actually caused by the temporarily elevated lead levels. Consequently, it's made the residents of Flint overly fearful of their water supply.

read the darn article. Learn something.

I want to watch when you explain this to the parents of a child permanently damaged by lead poisoning.

 Do you know that the average "damage" that was done to the most seriously affected of Flint children is on the order of a handful of IQ points? It's highly unlikely that anyone is even going to notice.
However, if the parents of Flint are going around with the idea that all of their children have been irrevocably harmed, that's going to have terrible ramifications on these children's lives.
Flint is a complicated issue - and people like that clown whose video Nan just posted are doing way more harm than good.
btw - did you read the NYT article I linked to?

 Yes, I read it and I think it's elitist and out of touch with the real situation in Flint. The doctor in the last video I posted actually examined people who live there and she was alarmed.  More war on the poor.  The writers in the Times article basically dismiss the people of Flint as ignorant and overreacting then say that the use of the word "poison" is going to make things worse.  This is a city where people are experiencing massive health and financial problems and neglect these jerks, who have not even been there, think the terminology is the problem?  You have got to be kidding.  Seriously?  This insulting opinion piece sucks.

OMG. I watched about 1 minute 45 of that stupid-*** video. (ended up watching the whole thing) He is trying to make the case that because people are running the water before testing it the readings are corrupt.

Except, that if the instruction to residents is that they run the water first before drinking, (which I'm sure it is) then OF COURSE you want to test after running it, so you get the effective level of what the resident might consume. I mean, AYFKM? What the hell else would you test?

I can't even believe how freaking dumb his premise is, and how smug that guy is. How do you stand him? I've now watched two of his videos, and my impression is the same. Decidedly unfavorable and amateurish.

And seriously? Some women is filmed saying that something or other on her arm is caused by the water, and we're supposed to believe her? Like people never got a rash before?

G-D idiocy.

Please, stop linking these videos. They're really not doing your case any good.

Also, these videos make me sad. Sad that there are parts of the left that are as gullible as Fox viewers.

Also, as for the NYT article. Perfect. You have two scientists who present hard data, and you call them elitist, and ignore the data.

Just perfect.

To change the subject a bit - you know, all of the well-meaning lefties who bought into the nonsense from the leaked emails and use it paint a picture of Democratic corruption, are doing exactly what the leaks were intended - which was to fracture the left.

So, you know, good job on being led by the nose.

drummerboy said:
OMG. I watched about 1 minute 45 of that stupid-*** video. (ended up watching the whole thing) He is trying to make the case that because people are running the water before testing it the readings are corrupt.
Except, that if the instruction to residents is that they run the water first before drinking, (which I'm sure it is) then OF COURSE you want to test after running it, so you get the effective level of what the resident might consume. I mean, AYFKM? What the hell else would you test?

I can't even believe how freaking dumb his premise is, and how smug that guy is. How do you stand him? I've now watched two of his videos, and my impression is the same. Decidedly unfavorable and amateurish.
And seriously? Some women is filmed saying that something or other on her arm is caused by the water, and we're supposed to believe her? Like people never got a rash before?
G-D idiocy.
Please, stop linking these videos. They're really not doing your case any good.
Also, these videos make me sad. Sad that there are parts of the left that are as gullible as Fox viewers.


Also, as for the NYT article. Perfect. You have two scientists who present hard data, and you call them elitist, and ignore the data.

Just perfect.

 I think Jordan does a good job as an investigative reporter on a shoestring, but I told you to watch the video of the doctor.  Here it is the again:

 https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/26/as_death_toll_rises_in_flint

We speak to Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the Flint pediatrician who helped expose the dangerous levels of lead in Flint, Michigan’s drinking water after she tested blood lead levels in children. Her new book is titled “What the Eyes Don’t See: A Story of Crisis, Resistance, and Hope in an American City.”

drummerboy said:

 Do you know that the average "damage" that was done to the most seriously affected of Flint children is on the order of a handful of IQ points? It's highly unlikely that anyone is even going to notice.

However, if the parents of Flint are going around with the idea that all of their children have been irrevocably harmed, that's going to have terrible ramifications on these children's lives.
Flint is a complicated issue - and people like that clown whose video Nan just posted are doing way more harm than good.
btw - did you read the NYT article I linked to?

You would freak out if what happened in Flint happened here in Maplewood.  But I'll make you feel better and tell you that the average damage to your child is no big deal.  

nan said:
Here is another view on the futility of "voting for Hillary."  Remember the New York Times article that interviewed people who had voted for Obama twice and then stayed home or wrote in Bernie and they don't regret it?  

So Obama passed, against enormous pushback from GOP, a healthcare plan that greatly expanded coverage. GOP wanted to kill it ever since, and have at a minimum damaged it. And now this fool blames Obama for lack of healthcare coverage. Ah, yeah, sure.