In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 13 2016 07:59 Plansix wrote: Can we get a total number of Hispanic republicans before I am impressed that he was able to obtain their vote?
Not sure how much this contributes/how wide spread this is, but I know several legal hispanics who are very anti-illegal immigrant/anti-Mexican because of how often they are confused for Mexicans/illegals themselves.
I also have to imagine that there is a decent amount of legal Hispanics who are frustrated that they went through the immigration process and there are so many others just walking on over illegally.
I am sure it is a factor. We will have to see how it pans out. I am also not convince by the poll, since it was conducted by some random research group I can find very little information on. And it came from the New York post, which I wouldn't' use to paper train a puppy.
not surprised as ive talked about trump latino strat before
he can still fuck it up of course but basically only good college kids truly detest trump and those are not electorally relevant except for media presence. trump has a lot of potent ways to crack the broad public.
On February 13 2016 08:38 xDaunt wrote: Just wait. Trump is going to have a ridiculously YUGE tent when it's all said and done.
Bigger than any Republican or establishment person expected but still far too small to win a general. I'm looking forward to Trump v Sanders. It will be a true referendum on what America thinks.
There's a saying that goes "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". After the 2016 election, a lot of people are going to need to just get the hell out of the way.
On February 13 2016 08:18 KwarK wrote: To get off the food for the poor topic, do we think there is a confusion within the Hispanic citizen community that when Trump talks about birthright citizenship being changed he means them? Because I can understand how Hispanic Americans born here would have antipathy towards immigrants due to them feeling like they are American (because they are American) but Trump disagrees with that basic premise. To him they're all part of the same problem.
Hasn't he only talked about reforming birthright citizenship for children of people who aren't here legally?
FND: While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation received millions in foreign donations and did not disclose them, despite her promising President Obama that she would do so. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
BANK: Hillary Clinton supported the Wall Street bailout and big banks have given her over $1.6 million dollars in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
On February 13 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote: Obesity is related to shitty food being cheap, while healthy food costs more. I am sure some of that food tastes different.
There's no difference between the food found at Walmart and that at any other average supermarket.
This is completely inaccurate. The vegetables at my local Roch brothers are might higher quality, fresher, but cost more. Same with the Star Market. Same with a lot of the meat. You have to be naive to think that Walmart is offering cheaper food of the same quality based on pure buying power. They are not magic.
Double blind study and get back to me. Humans believe quality changes with price rather than price changes with quality. We're dumb that way. If you don't charge very much for something then the brain will think it's bad before you even start. If you charge much more than the brain will think it'll be good. Instead of going "this is really good, it should be expensive" we go "this is really expensive, it should be good".
There are business models that exist only because of this phenomenon.
Why am I doing a double blind test on wilted, bruised, watery or bad vegies? My Walmart doesn't have a butcher or meat department in it either. Its all pre-froven or packed meat. Are you telling me that meat that was pre-cut and shipped for 800+ miles better than fresh cut meat from a butcher?
Because right now your argument is about as valuable as a religious guy telling me that God told him to. The reason you should try twenty or so identical meals made with components from Walmart/Roch brothers and see if you can identify all 10 of the Walmart meals is so you can actually have something worth saying. I believe that you'll happily sit there paying more for food and going "mmmmm farm to table", I just don't believe you wouldn't still do that if I substituted in some Walmart ingredients.
Right now you're basically going "if Jesus isn't real then who died for our sins". Ante up or shut up.
Kwark, have you considered the idea that your experience and my experience with Walmart are different? That mine has low grade, shit produce and yours doesn't? Its a big story, I am sure that I could create 1 or 2 good meals from it. But in what crazy world do you live in where all stores carry the same quality products, set wildly different prices?
Define "shit produce". If you're talking about less aesthetically pleasing vegetables or something then you are part of the problem. Inconceivable amounts of perfectly good food gets thrown away because it's not pretty enough for the consumer and the food that is sold is graded on appearance and sold to different suppliers for different prices. It's entirely possible you could find fruit from the same branch at hugely different prices in different stores.
An onion is an onion, a banana is a banana. What's more likely, that your anecdotal evidence which you refuse to test is the answer or that your perception of quality is influenced by your knowledge of the price and supplier?
Again, humans are really bad at judging quality without taking into account preconceived judgments. You are not the single objective exception to that rule. As a human you need to be aware of your limitations and accept that "I find it tastes better" is meaningless without a double blind trial.
If you're gonna be pulling the 'you only think it tastes better because it was more expensive, science proves it' card (which I agree with - seeing as how majority of actual sommeliers fall for the 'state the wine is better because it was more expensive' trick, I don't see how I or anyone else can really claim to know what percentage of perceived taste is genuine), then you also need to acknowledge that appearance influences taste in the same way. While price does not equate to quality, only perceived quality, appearance actually is part of quality.
FND: While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation received millions in foreign donations and did not disclose them, despite her promising President Obama that she would do so. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
BANK: Hillary Clinton supported the Wall Street bailout and big banks have given her over $1.6 million dollars in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
TAXES: Bernie Sanders says he wants to increase taxes on corporations in order to improve income equality, while other say this money would go to pay for new government spending programs. Does this make you more or less likely to support him?
SPEND: Bernie Sanders has proposed trillions in new government spending, including $15 trillion dollars more for a government run health care program. Does this make you more or less likely to support him?
Your bias is showing
Although, to be fair, there is one extra one for Hillary:
FBI: Recently several news organizations have reported that the FBI could indict Hillary Clinton over her handling of her email server. How concerned are you that she could actually face such an indictment?
Officials suspected a link between the new drinking water source for Flint, Michigan, and a Legionnaires' disease outbreak for months before the public was informed, local news reported as Flint's fire and police chief resigned Friday amid efforts to restructure city management after its water was tainted with lead.
At least six Environmental Protection Agency officials late last March discussed the Legionnaires' disease outbreak in Genesee County and a suspected link to Flint, Michigan's change in drinking water sources, and were told the state would alert the public, the Detroit News reported Friday.
However, no announcements about the outbreak were made then, and two months later a Michigan state health official declared it over, the newspaper reported based on emails by local, state and federal officials it reviewed. The disease would kill four more people in the summer and not be brought to public attention until January 2016.
The predominantly black city of some 100,000 people was under control of a state-appointed emergency manager in 2014 when it switched its source of water from Detroit's municipal system to the Flint River.
Flint switched back to Detroit water in October after tests found high levels of lead in samples of children's blood. The more corrosive water from the river had caused lead to leach out of the pipes into the drinking water, officials said.
Lead can cause permanent developmental delays and learning difficulties in children. Blood lead levels in some children in the city more than doubled, it was found in 2015. Several lawsuits have been filed by parents who say their children are showing dangerously high levels of lead in their blood.
On February 13 2016 10:21 ticklishmusic wrote: it was a push poll
FND: While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation received millions in foreign donations and did not disclose them, despite her promising President Obama that she would do so. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
BANK: Hillary Clinton supported the Wall Street bailout and big banks have given her over $1.6 million dollars in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
TAXES: Bernie Sanders says he wants to increase taxes on corporations in order to improve income equality, while other say this money would go to pay for new government spending programs. Does this make you more or less likely to support him?
SPEND: Bernie Sanders has proposed trillions in new government spending, including $15 trillion dollars more for a government run health care program. Does this make you more or less likely to support him?
Your bias is showing
Although, to be fair, there is one extra one for Hillary:
FBI: Recently several news organizations have reported that the FBI could indict Hillary Clinton over her handling of her email server. How concerned are you that she could actually face such an indictment?
Push polls are really dumb.
haha yeah i considered including those, but the questions definitely read more pushy for hillary imo, if thats the correct way of expressing it. i mean hillary is a shady person vs. bernie is gonna tax you BUT give you healthcare? seems to be the narrative there.
either way, the poll was conducted by what could be accurately be described as a bunch of right wing hacks.
Two huge manufacturing plants closing in Indiana.Loss of 2100 jobs, plant moving to Mexico.
Majority of the workers there were paid $14 an hour.Explain to me how Sanders $15 an hour minimum wage will create jobs again? Maybe he means more jobs for overseas workers as offshoring accelerates.
On February 13 2016 11:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Two huge manufacturing plants closing in Indiana.Loss of 2100 jobs, plant moving to Mexico.
Majority of the workers there were paid $14 an hour.Explain to me how Sanders $15 an hour minimum wage will create jobs again? Maybe he means more jobs for overseas workers as offshoring accelerates.
Make it less profitable for them to do that. They are moving to Mexico and not somewhere else because they want to sell to our market.
Higher wages doesn't necessarily mean more expensive production.
EPT
i considered including those, but the questions definitely read more pushy for hillary imo, if thats the correct way of expressing it. i mean hillary is a shady person vs. bernie is gonna tax you BUT give you healthcare? seems to be the narrative there.
