|
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 July 12 2016 07:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 04:44 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2016 04:40 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit. This is an often overlooked facet of public protest. There are few ways to more effectively disparage a public movement than to instigate violence at its gatherings, and it seems like most folks are just accepting that BLM is naturally a violent movement without looking too closely at precisely who it is that's starting violence. You aren't actually arguing that right-wing/anti-BLM plants are responsible for BLM's bad acts, are you? All I'm saying is that collective blame is a fickle thing when the collective in question does not have hard and fast identifying characteristics. And no, violence is not an identifying characteristics of BLM
|
5 point lead for Trump in Florida and he's leading Clinton in the Hispanic vote
For the past two decades, Florida has consistently been a competitive state both in its federal and statewide elections, and this year will be no different. This poll was recently conducted by JMC Analytics and Polling to gauge voter attitudes about both the Presidential and the U.S. Senate race.
Currently, Donald Trump has a 47-42% lead over Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race (3% support third party candidates, while 8% are undecided). There are four facets to Donald Trump's lead: (1) Partisan - Despite news reports to the contrary, Republican voters in Florida favor Trump by a 76-12% margin, and this solid support is augmented with 54-33% support from white Independents; (2) Geographic - Florida's geographic regions are fairly predictable in their partisan voting patterns. In this poll, overall geographic patterns of support are similar to those of 2012, with one exception: Mitt Romney only carried Central Florida 50-49%, while Trump has a 51-37% lead over Clinton in this crucial region (also known as “the I-4 corridor”) of the state; (3) Ethnic - While much has been written about the monolithic nature of the Hispanic vote this year, the reality is more complicated in Florida, where the partisan breakdown of likely Hispanic voters is 39-31% Democratic/Republican (30% are not affiliated with the two major parties). Those of Hispanic origin in South Florida (particularly Miami-Dade) are historically Republican, while the growing Hispanic population in Central Florida is Democratic, but not unanimously nor consistently so. In this poll, Trump has a 49-36% lead over Clinton among Hispanics, largely due to a 72-11% lead among Hispanic Republicans; and (4) Gender – there is currently an 17-point gender gap, as males favor Trump 51-36%, while female voters favor Clinton 46-44%.
The race in Florida will remain competitive until Election Day, as Hillary Clinton’s Democratic voter base is solidly behind her as well, with an 84-8% lead among blacks, a 72-18% lead among Democrats (66-23% among white Democrats), a 55-35% lead in South Florida (which voted 62-37% for Obama in 2012), and a 61-17% lead in the “university” counties of Alachua (Gainesville) and Leon (Tallahassee – Obama carried these counties 60- 39%). However, she has to improve upon her showing among Central Florida voters, white Independents, women, and Hispanics if she wants to carry the state in November.
Source
|
Fucking stupid so when Sanders called for Public Option during the primaries why didn't Obama not support him to stop Clinton who now is an embarrassing situation of saying that such an option would not be affordable.
President Obama on Monday called on Congress to revisit the controversial idea of providing a government-run insurance plan as part of the offerings under the Affordable Care Act.
What's been described as the "public option" was jettisoned from the health law in 2009 by a handful of conservative Democrats in the Senate. Every Democrat's vote was needed to pass the bill in the face of unanimous Republican opposition.
But in a "special communication" article published Monday on the website of JAMA, the American Medical Association's top journal, the president says a lack of competition among insurance plan offerings in some regions may warrant a new look.
"Now, based on experience with the ACA, I think Congress should revisit a public plan to compete alongside private insurers in areas of the country where competition is limited," Obama writes.
The president calls on Congress to take more steps to rein in the cost of prescription drugs and make government assistance more generous for those who still cannot afford health coverage; he also urges the 19 states that have not yet expanded the Medicaid program under the health law to do so.
The public option has been a point of controversy from the start. It was included in the version of the health law passed by the House of Representatives, and had support from most Democrats in the Senate, before it was dropped. Many liberals hoped — and conservatives feared — that having the government provide insurance alongside private companies would be a step toward a fully government-run system.
Source
|
On July 12 2016 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote + A majority of Senate Republicans will be attending the party’s national convention in Cleveland this month, despite the reservations that many of them have about Donald Trump.
A survey by The Hill found that 32 Senate Republicans plan to attend the convention in Cleveland later this month, while 15 will skip it. Five Republican senators said they had not yet decided, and two did not respond.
Ben Sasse (Neb.) — Spokesman: “Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state, all of which enjoy more popularity than the current front-runners.”
SourceHeh. Who can resist the allure of coke and hookers? The national conventions are giant parties.
|
On July 12 2016 07:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2016 04:44 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2016 04:40 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 12 2016 04:34 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:53 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2016 03:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 12 2016 03:48 zlefin wrote: From the research I've seen, 12 hour shifts should really be avoided; it'd be better ot have a larger reserve pool to call upon than to have 12 hour shifts. 130 sq miles, 2,000 officers. 5m ppl in the metro area, 500k in the city proper. pulling a good fraction of the police force to a few sites throws off the entire system. I'm not sure what that's meant to say in response to my point. it'd also help if you could specify a city; the prior post from it only had some text, not the link that text came from, so I can't get more context. Those are the general stats of my city. There's only so much police capacity, and there's not much slack already. You start pulling officers for events like these and you have to compromise on patrols and coverage in other places. then you need more slack; that's the point of having reserves, which was about half of my point. Having reserves is good. Also that doing 12 hour shifts is bad, especially considering the situations that lead to this. Also, if the protests are peaceful, what do you need police presence for? Just because you're being peaceful doesn't mean someone else who disagrees with you can't show up and start shit. This is an often overlooked facet of public protest. There are few ways to more effectively disparage a public movement than to instigate violence at its gatherings, and it seems like most folks are just accepting that BLM is naturally a violent movement without looking too closely at precisely who it is that's starting violence. You aren't actually arguing that right-wing/anti-BLM plants are responsible for BLM's bad acts, are you? All I'm saying is that collective blame is a fickle thing when the collective in question does not have hard and fast identifying characteristics. And no, violence is not an identifying characteristics of BLM  Well, you seem to be arguing in favor of redeeming the BLM. We've fairly endlessly chronicled the BLM's bad acts in this thread, so I don't need to rehash those. Why exactly do you think that the BLM has redeeming value and is not the shit show that most people have concluded that it is?
|
Unfortunately, Coca-Cola already withdrew RNC sponsorship so there'd be no chance of that.
|
yeah and the prostitutes are for clinton #hookers4hillary
|
On July 12 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:5 point lead for Trump in Florida and he's leading Clinton in the Hispanic vote Show nested quote +For the past two decades, Florida has consistently been a competitive state both in its federal and statewide elections, and this year will be no different. This poll was recently conducted by JMC Analytics and Polling to gauge voter attitudes about both the Presidential and the U.S. Senate race.
Currently, Donald Trump has a 47-42% lead over Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race (3% support third party candidates, while 8% are undecided). There are four facets to Donald Trump's lead: (1) Partisan - Despite news reports to the contrary, Republican voters in Florida favor Trump by a 76-12% margin, and this solid support is augmented with 54-33% support from white Independents; (2) Geographic - Florida's geographic regions are fairly predictable in their partisan voting patterns. In this poll, overall geographic patterns of support are similar to those of 2012, with one exception: Mitt Romney only carried Central Florida 50-49%, while Trump has a 51-37% lead over Clinton in this crucial region (also known as “the I-4 corridor”) of the state; (3) Ethnic - While much has been written about the monolithic nature of the Hispanic vote this year, the reality is more complicated in Florida, where the partisan breakdown of likely Hispanic voters is 39-31% Democratic/Republican (30% are not affiliated with the two major parties). Those of Hispanic origin in South Florida (particularly Miami-Dade) are historically Republican, while the growing Hispanic population in Central Florida is Democratic, but not unanimously nor consistently so. In this poll, Trump has a 49-36% lead over Clinton among Hispanics, largely due to a 72-11% lead among Hispanic Republicans; and (4) Gender – there is currently an 17-point gender gap, as males favor Trump 51-36%, while female voters favor Clinton 46-44%.
The race in Florida will remain competitive until Election Day, as Hillary Clinton’s Democratic voter base is solidly behind her as well, with an 84-8% lead among blacks, a 72-18% lead among Democrats (66-23% among white Democrats), a 55-35% lead in South Florida (which voted 62-37% for Obama in 2012), and a 61-17% lead in the “university” counties of Alachua (Gainesville) and Leon (Tallahassee – Obama carried these counties 60- 39%). However, she has to improve upon her showing among Central Florida voters, white Independents, women, and Hispanics if she wants to carry the state in November. Source
Notably this would represent a 9 point swing from two polls with larger sample sizes conducted two weeks ago. Keep in mind JMC is a meh pollster historically and much like Rasmussen had an R bias in 2008/2012. So it's probably not that big a "real" advantage-though it's theoretically possible.
|
One of issues that has made it into the GOP Platform.
|
This was better:
God, they are so in touch with the times.
Edit: Fuck, I be cohabitation. GOP is gunna come for us and take away our right to live with other humans that we also fuck.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
No strong feelings one way or the other; they're both less than desirable habits but also sort of a choice people have. Looks like a pitch to the religious base though.
|
On July 12 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:No strong feelings one way or the other; they're both less than desirable habits but also sort of a choice people have. Looks like a pitch to the religious base though. Living with people that you are not married to, but happen to have sex with isn't desirable?
|
Did I step out of my time machine into the year 1671?
|
Could also just be the defense of the family unit, which is extremely underrated in society at the moment and quite frankly is dismantling. This is probably due to the decline of religion and the values that were attached to it while having endless sexual opportunities in this new information era all at the cost of the nuclear family. Everyone is quick to jump at the existence of white privilege or wealthy privilege, but really there is a really important one people always forget: family privilege.
|
cohabitation has limited effect on pair-bonding and family unit formation. Also nuclear families are a terrible idea and a historical aberration.
|
The nuclear family vastly over rated.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On July 12 2016 09:51 zlefin wrote: cohabitation has limited effect on pair-bonding and family unit formation. Also nuclear families are a terrible idea and a historical aberration. As opposed to what? Extended family/ clan based? I don't know if cohabitation is more likely to create clans.
|
On July 12 2016 09:59 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 09:51 zlefin wrote: cohabitation has limited effect on pair-bonding and family unit formation. Also nuclear families are a terrible idea and a historical aberration. As opposed to what? Extended family/ clan based? I don't know if cohabitation is more likely to create clans. yes, as opposed to extended family/clan based; I should've been clearer about those two points being separate. I was definitely unclear.
|
On July 12 2016 09:47 OuchyDathurts wrote: Did I step out of my time machine into the year 1671? The weird part is people rushing to attack cohabitation just because the GOP floated the idea.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2016 09:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:No strong feelings one way or the other; they're both less than desirable habits but also sort of a choice people have. Looks like a pitch to the religious base though. Living with people that you are not married to, but happen to have sex with isn't desirable? From a societal/demographics standpoint, I'd say it's not. I'll withhold judgment until I see their concrete policy proposals though.
On July 12 2016 09:49 biology]major wrote: Could also just be the defense of the family unit, which is extremely underrated in society at the moment and quite frankly is dismantling. This is probably due to the decline of religion and the values that were attached to it while having endless sexual opportunities in this new information era all at the cost of the nuclear family. Everyone is quick to jump at the existence of white privilege or wealthy privilege, but really there is a really important one people always forget: family privilege. To be fair it doesn't necessarily have to be associated with religion, though the US is a bit of an aberration in that it culturally developed far later than most nation-states and so has religion as a significantly stronger than average cultural element.
|
|
|
|