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 24 2016 08:25 Deathstar wrote: It depends on the fruit and vegetable the worker is assigned to, but there are many illegals who make more than minimum wage. They are still hired though because they are the only ones who are willing to tolerate the work conditions of picking cherries during the summer.
This isn't an argument. Our agricultural sector, among others, NEEDS these illegal aliens.
The work is hard — but many jobs are hard. The thing that bothers me more is the low pay. With cherries, you earn $7 for each box, and I’ll fill 30 boxes in a day — about $210 a day. For blueberries, I’ll do 25 containers for up to $5 each one — $125 a day. With grapes, you make 30 cents for each carton, and I can do 400 cartons a day – $120 a day. Tomatoes are the worst paid: I’ll pick 100 for 62 cents a bucket, or about $62 a day. I don’t do tomatoes much anymore. It’s heavy work, you have to bend over, run to turn in your baskets, and your back hurts. I say I like tomatoes — in a salad. Ha. With a lot of the crops, the bosses keep track of your haul by giving you a card, and punching it every time you turn in a basket.
Thats some bull. At the right price, (which would happen,) americans would work those jobs. I grew up around christmas tree farms and we would work summers 8-10 hour days hauling heavy shit in the burning sun. $12an hour
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
No, by the actual definition of xenophobia, it wasn't.
By how xenophobia is used commonly (mainly as a substitute for "racist"), well. You tell me. Main points of trump, constantly, is how chinese are bad people and fuck the US over, hispanic rapists/criminals and better building a wall, brown people in general that should be kept out of the country.
Did i miss any ethnics?
edit: and arguing that at least half his votes are based purely on the fact that he antagonizes different ethnics would be very.. brave.
I seriously doubt that you would not be able to find an American willing to do a shitty job if you paid him something like triple the current wage. There is always a price.
The issue is that at the wages you would need to pay get joe schmoe to pick fruit, fresh food would end up being out of budget for the average consumer.
For a lot of reasons, it's preferable to keep food prices down. Thus, you either have to hire illegals or subsidise legals, directly or indirectly.
It's not about running a business that should have died, it's about running a business where there are serious societal effects if you pass the full cost of production onto your consumers.
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit.
The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations)
The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder.
That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters.
My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate.
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit.
The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations)
The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder.
That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters.
My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate.
Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues.
He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point.
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
No, by the actual definition of xenophobia, it wasn't.
By how xenophobia is used commonly (mainly as a substitute for "racist"), well. You tell me. Main points of trump, constantly, is how chinese are bad people and fuck the US over, hispanic rapists/criminals and better building a wall, brown people in general that should be kept out of the country.
Did i miss any ethnics?
edit: and arguing that at least half his votes are based purely on the fact that he antagonizes different ethnics would be very.. brave.
I wonder very much whether you've listened to Trump himself or just taken the MSM spin on him. For example, when you say "brown people," I think you're talking about his idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US - Islam not being a race. Or when he said illegal immigrants were also criminals, you've twisted that to refer to hispanics, which isn't what he said or meant. And now you're saying "Chinese are bad people" when he's never said a single thing about the Chinese people - one of the only words in his vocabulary is "China" and it's because he's talking about international trade. You're the one making this about race.
or maybe because he retweets stormfront memes, and the 'Islam is not a race' argument is still idiotic, we can stick with racist / bigot if the semantics are so bothersome
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
No, by the actual definition of xenophobia, it wasn't.
By how xenophobia is used commonly (mainly as a substitute for "racist"), well. You tell me. Main points of trump, constantly, is how chinese are bad people and fuck the US over, hispanic rapists/criminals and better building a wall, brown people in general that should be kept out of the country.
Did i miss any ethnics?
edit: and arguing that at least half his votes are based purely on the fact that he antagonizes different ethnics would be very.. brave.
I wonder very much whether you've listened to Trump himself or just taken the MSM spin on him. For example, when you say "brown people," I think you're talking about his idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US - Islam not being a race. Or when he said illegal immigrants were also criminals, you've twisted that to refer to hispanics, which isn't what he said or meant. And now you're saying "Chinese are bad people" when he's never said a single thing about the Chinese people - one of the only words in his vocabulary is "China" and it's because he's talking about international trade. You're the one making this about race.
Just because Trump uses politically correct language to carefully not say anything openly racist doesn't mean that we can't hear and understand exactly what he means. Just ask any Trump supporter at his rallies about what they think about the Mexicans, the Muslims, and the Chinese. Trump has some dastardly policy in mind to hurt each of those groups of people (Wall, Ban, Discriminatory Trade). Trump talks of his policies and their virtues, which is politically correct. But the audience gets that those groups will be harmed.
Edit: Also, don't use "race" as a dodge. Hating and hurting people because of identity group membership is pernicious even if it isn't strictly tied to skin color. Identity group here being: race, religion, country of origin, ethnicity. We don't blame people for those things and treat them as unchangeable. Post WWII it hasn't been morally acceptable to tailor policies to hurt people based on belonging to an identity group.
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit.
The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations)
The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder.
That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters.
My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate.
Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues.
He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point.
My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them.
Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo.
DALLAS (AP) — Antonin Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice's sudden death, according to a letter from the Supreme Court's doctor.
Presidio County District Attorney Rod Ponton cited the letter Tuesday when he told The Associated Press there was nothing suspicious about the Feb. 13 death of the 79-year-old jurist. He said the long list of health problems made an autopsy unnecessary.
Ponton had a copy of a letter from Rear Adm. Brian P. Monahan, the attending physician for members of Congress and the Supreme Court. The letter was to Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara, who conducted a death inquiry by phone and certified Scalia's death.
The letter dated Feb. 16 said Scalia's many "significant medical conditions led to his death," Ponton said.
In the letter, Monahan listed more than a half-dozen ailments, including sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high blood pressure. Scalia also was a smoker, the letter said.
Ponton declined to provide a copy of the letter, saying an open-records request must be made to Guevara, who did not respond to a phone message Tuesday.
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit.
The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations)
The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder.
That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters.
My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate.
Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues.
He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point.
My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them.
Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo.
it is not a party decision to have more parties... it is an unavoidable consolidation outcome of first past the post voting.... you need some proportional elements for a good diverse political landscape
On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote: The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented on Congress, and we're not any better because of it.
maybe there are other factors involved, that you have not accounted for? i am pretty sure that proportional voting elements in elections are not the only difference between the US and Brazil....
On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote: The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it.
Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**.
** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling.
On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win.
You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either.
If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit.
The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations)
The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder.
That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters.
My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate.
Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues.
He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point.
My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them.
Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo.
I know it doesn't, you've been calling the GOP racist (in some form or another) for years.
Isn't Trump doing well with people who normally don't vote? And independents (and lots of people going "Bernie or Trump?").
I'm not sure why you keep going off track. Cruz is still seen as a politician to Trump people.
Trump still talks about having a "big beautiful door." Immigration is just one thing he uses to hammer people. See, I don't start from the assumption of Trump racism, so I don't see that as his appeal. But I could understand for someone like you, who already holds these idea at the start, that you could come to that conclusion.
I thought Trump would fail because there were so many better people running, I didn't anticipate the size of the FU or the moderate appeal.
On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote: The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it.
Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**.
** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling.
Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little.
On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote: The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it.
Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**.
** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling.
Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little.
What about Canada? During the Harper years the 40% Conservative party ruled unopposed over the 20% Greens and 30% Liberals.
EPT
