|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 April 27 2016 09:18 Doraemon wrote:
how do they know who won so quickly?
Exit polls
|
On April 27 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it. Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on? I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question. Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence? We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time. I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
|
Trump takes Rhode Island.
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think the RNC expected Trump victory to be this big. Trump might see 60% plus in Rhode Island alone. He could get as high as 950 delegates tonight...
|
![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/f1/01/eaf101f27383529743ba444f631f1561.jpg)
I saw this pic and couldn't help wondering why it wouldn't be a recommendation for the left to vote for Trump.
|
On April 27 2016 09:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement.
You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it. Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on? I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question. Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence? We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time. I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now. Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
|
On April 27 2016 09:31 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I saw this pic and couldn't help wondering why it wouldn't be a recommendation for the left to vote for Trump.
maybe because you shouldn't vote based on memes
|
What is Bernie blabbing about, saying that Walmart family owns as much wealth as bottom 40% of America. Please tell me how this math works?
I can't take Bernie seriously, 99% of what he says is so grossly exaggerated.
|
|
|
"The six Waltons on Forbes' list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company."
Divide this by 0.4*310million...
And you get a net worth of ??? per person.
edit: I see, wealth. Very misleading info.
|
On April 27 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 09:20 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November.
I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it. Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on? I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question. Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence? We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time. I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now. Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already. It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
|
If it keeps up like this I'm sure Reince Priebus will be on suicide watch.
|
On April 27 2016 07:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 06:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 06:14 Simberto wrote:
I am not convinced that a large percentage of the population actually likes driving that much. Most people drive when they need to go to a place. Only a very small percentage of road traffic is people driving around randomly just for the fun of it.
Some people might enjoy driving more than riding a bike or taking the bus.
A lot of people like the convenience of having a car that takes them where they want to go at the time they want to go there, warm, dry, and with a lot of room to transport stuff without a lot of effort of necessary.
But imagine instead of driving the car, you could just sit there and watch a movie/eat breakfast/read a book/check facebook/get some work done while the car drives itself. Do you really think that a majority of the population would choose driving themselves? (If they think it at least as safe) That's called public transit. In the US, the reason for cars is for a sense of control. A sense that "since I am a better driver/navigator/etc.. I can find the faster/fastest/least obstructed route to _____. Its part of the bootstraps capitalist personality of being the top dog. Having a Siri drive you from place to place will result in people wanting to turn it off and take over the wheel themselves. I dunno. Even in Holland, a tiny country with a highly connected public transit system, people drive cars for convenience. Even if the bus stops at a 5 minute walk from your door, and has a quick route to your work, where you have another 5 minute walk, it puts you in a crowded environment with a risk you have to stand; it doesn't go on demand, but you have to wait on its timetable, and usually its seats aren't as comfy as car seats. You can take a taxi, but what exactly does it matter to the passenger whether the taxi driver is human or an AI, as long as the latter is at least as safe as the former. The only thing an AI driver would not do is the chit chat, but you can whatsapp/facebook/skype with someone instead.
Our public transport ks pretty pathetic though. Even traffoc jams are better than trains.
|
On April 27 2016 09:35 FiWiFaKi wrote:"The six Waltons on Forbes' list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company." Divide this by 0.4*310million... And you get a net worth of ??? per person. edit: I see, wealth. Very misleading info.
what? The guys statement was about wealth how is it at all misleading?
|
On April 27 2016 09:35 FiWiFaKi wrote:"The six Waltons on Forbes' list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company." Divide this by 0.4*310million... And you get a net worth of ??? per person.
This statistic was done in multiple ways in order to highlight how ahead they are.
First you take the statistic on its face which actually makes it really easy to match since about 25% of americans actually have no wealth at all since they have more debt then they have assets (if your mortgage is underwater this is often you).
However later in the article they mentioned that they took out the people with net negatives and calculated without the people dragging it down and the Waltons still had more wealth then 33.2 million families who are not underwater.
|
On April 27 2016 09:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 09:31 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I saw this pic and couldn't help wondering why it wouldn't be a recommendation for the left to vote for Trump. maybe because you shouldn't vote based on memes
The person who made the image presumably wanted it to dissuade people from supporting him.
|
are all these states winner take all or a large proportion?
|
This nice, hefty group of lefty states that no Republican will win in the fall was perfectly timed for Trump. Normally suited to help squish moderates, it helps Trump massively, while he'll get blown out there in November. It's all really funny to think about. Now let's move on to other states, so the media narrative can continue to be wildly all over the place.
edit: and Kasich could go. You did diddly squat in NE, time to leave.
|
On April 27 2016 09:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 09:35 FiWiFaKi wrote:"The six Waltons on Forbes' list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company." Divide this by 0.4*310million... And you get a net worth of ??? per person. edit: I see, wealth. Very misleading info. what? The guys statement was about wealth how is it at all misleading?
Because wealth is independent of standard of living, that's what consumption measures. Before that he was talking about how much money people were making, and in today's society, wealth and income are quite interchangeably used by a lot of people, and thus I assume that's what he meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
