EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7169
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On March 22 2017 05:28 LegalLord wrote: In the "we love Hillary Clinton" wonderland that this thread is, she seems to poll at about half. Impressive. I loath the idea of her running again, and I still don't think she will. But I would still totally see her as a net positive improvement over what we have now. I see "favorable" as 50.000001% positive, not enthusiasm or a strong desire towards that person/group. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 22 2017 05:32 Mohdoo wrote: I loath the idea of her running again, and I still don't think she will. But I would still totally see her as a net positive improvement over what we have now. I see "favorable" as 50.000001% positive, not enthusiasm or a strong desire towards that person/group. Mind you, 25% favorable would still be an improvement over 10% favorable, even if both are unfavorable. She would probably be better. But not enough better to justify the extreme level of shilling that was done in support of her on the part of the elite. In light of the fact that we no longer need to live the delusion of Hillary vs Trump being our choice for the future, we should see each person for what they are: two candidates who aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On March 22 2017 05:20 KwarK wrote: I talk about New Mexico because I'm most familiar with its history because it's my state. Although given you seem to be happy with the idea that Indians lived in California I could make the exact same argument for bilingual acceptance with their languages. But either way, I only actually need one state to prove the point. As long as the United States decided to willingly incorporate one Hispanic majority Spanish speaking state into the United States of America, and let's be clear, they absolutely did, then there is no argument to be made that being Hispanic and speaking Spanish rather than English, is un-American. When they decided to expand the United States to include that they expanded to definition of being American to include that. Just as when the Plantagenets decided that Wales would be a cool addition to their kingdom they also decided that Welsh speakers would be a cool addition to their subjects. Regarding the population, in 1910 325,000 people lived in New Mexico. About 11% of the current population, so certainly not empty land as you would suggest. The entire country was less populated back then, and the west more so, but people lived here. I used ratios because ratios are the best way to communicate the proportionate relationship between two numbers, not as a way to misdirect. Whereas you are now trying to misdirect from the obvious conclusion of those ratios, that Spanish was the dominant language, by attempting to suggest that the overall number wasn't high. But you don't know the overall number and I do so here we are. 325,000 is a perfectly good sample size from which to draw a conclusion that Spanish was the dominant language. New Mexico is a bilingual state. New Mexico is a part of America. Therefore America is multilingual. I think that we need to add to this the fact that large quantities of the folks that settled the west were not "American" many were first generation european immigrants. I cant cite numbers because I'm at work right now, but it is not an insignificant proportion, and calling them "American" is misleading. See HERE fore some information on the 1900s | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
Many Hispanics who had been living in the former territories of New Spain lost their land rights to fraud and governmental action when Texas, New Mexico, and California were formed. In some cases, Hispanics were simply driven off their land. In Texas, the situation was most acute, as the "Tejanos," who made up about 75 percent of the population, ended up as laborers employed by the large white ranches that took over their land. In New Mexico, only six percent of all claims by Hispanics were confirmed by the Claims Court. As a result, many Hispanics became permanent migrant workers, seeking seasonal employment in farming, mining, ranching, and the railroads. Border towns sprang up with barrios of intense poverty. In response, some Hispanics joined labor unions, and in a few cases, led revolts. Known as the California "Robin Hood," Joaquin Murieta led a gang in the 1850s that burned houses, killed miners, and robbed stagecoaches. Starting around 1859 in Texas, Juan Cortina led a 20-year campaign against Texas land grabbers and the Texas Rangers. Source: Boundless. “The Diversity of the West.” Boundless U.S. History Boundless, 20 Nov. 2016. Retrieved 21 Mar. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-gilded-age-1870-1900-20/the-transformation-of-the-west-149/the-diversity-of-the-west-785-2492/ | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:11 Nyxisto wrote: why on earth would anybody defund meals on wheels. This stuff is keeping people out of the nursery homes and hospitals. It's actually saving you money. no clue. But the administration apparently is living in world where studies don't matter. They argued that after school programs and feeding kids has no effect on academic performance. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:11 Nyxisto wrote: why on earth would anybody defund meals on wheels. This stuff is keeping people out of the nursery homes and hospitals. It's actually saving you money. Paul Ryan is the type of conservative that genuinely believes hurting poor people will motivate them to instead be rich people. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23489 Posts
On March 22 2017 05:18 Nevuk wrote: Just wanted to check in with the thread on a few favorable ratings 61 days after inauguration Opinions on certain individuals/organizations. If no opinion, do not vote. + Show Spoiler + Poll: Bernie Sanders Favorable (25) Unfavorable (9) 34 total votes Your vote: Bernie Sanders + Show Spoiler + Poll: DNC Unfavorable (20) Favorable (8) 28 total votes Your vote: DNC Poll: RNC Unfavorable (24) Favorable (3) 27 total votes Your vote: RNC Poll: Senate Unfavorable (24) Favorable (2) 26 total votes Your vote: Senate lol, if not Bernie, who is it that Democrats should be rallying around? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: lol, if not Bernie, who is it that Democrats should be rallying around? Surely by now you should know the answer to that... We need someone with a long history of being around and doing a mediocre job, of course, | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: lol, if not Bernie, who is it that Democrats should be rallying around? Biden maybe, if he's interested. personally I like Franken (ridiculously smart and pro single payer) but he'd need someone like Bernie to kind of be the face of the party. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35162 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: lol, if not Bernie, who is it that Democrats should be rallying around? If I can't vote for Bernie or Warren, I'd be willing to vote for Biden. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:19 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Biden maybe, if he's interested. personally I like Franken (ridiculously smart and pro single payer) but he'd need someone like Bernie to kind of be the face of the party. Biden will be 78 4 years from now. I dunno man. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: People don't want to pay for things that don't effect them. Look at my uncle. Lifelong conservative lawyer. then what happens? He gets two autistic kids (one somewhat low functioning) and suddenly he realizes holy crap there's no actual services available. He votes democratic now. And people want to create garbage that costs them tons, but makes them feel good. Like drug testing people on DSS, food stamps or other services. A couple states paid out the nose for that and caught like 2 people. But it makes people feel good to be holding those poor people accountable and making sure they are not on drugs. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 22 2017 06:20 Mohdoo wrote: Biden will be 78 4 years from now. I dunno man. well obviously I'm not saying Biden 2020. I'm just saying he's popular and I don't think anyone really has anything bad to say about him. Won't Bernie be 77 in 2020 anyway? | ||
| ||
