Donald Trump overtakes Hillary Clinton for first time since May in ABC poll
406 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51297128]he literally said he will bomb every single inch
thousands of innocent people will die
[editline]2nd November 2016[/editline]
spanish is the second largest language spoken in america, with over 45 million speakers and 6 million learners. the USA is the worlds third largest spanish-speaking country (after mexico and columbia)
i don't see what the big deal is, because that is a lot of people that the government is obliged to provide translated documents and services to. the USA is no longer a monolithic english-speaking federation - it is full of numerous dialects and languages and to ignore that will become more embarrassing as time goes on. english in the USA is already slowly breaking up into increasingly divergent dialects
spanish is the fastest growing language in america, there is a great deal of media and multilingual services which are growing constantly. like it or not, the future of the USA is going to have to include spanish[/QUOTE]
Do you really think it's a good thing to have a country divided on language? It's how we communicate, we should be on the same page if we're in the same border. I have a Latin friend in the US who's dad only speaks Spanish and he can't find good work and always needs someone who knows english to translate road signs or medical information or various things. It just causes headache in the long run.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51297157]I am a trumpet still looking for my response to this.
[t]https://s22.postimg.org/7ggpw74y7/fact.png[/t]
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540080&p=51293962&viewfull=1#post51293962[/url]
I provide a source and reasonable explanation and people still say people like us don't try to argue.[/QUOTE]
I'm happy to respond to this. I am not a strict liberal when it comes to economic policy, excepting my stance regarding universal healthcare and (to a lesser extent) universal or heavily subsidized higher education. Both of those, I believe, are critical to our growth as a nation.
However, as professional who is heavily involved in local entrepreneurial groups and investment circles, I can appreciate certain aspects of conservative fiscal policy. My stance regarding such policy is to carefully examine the plans put forth by the candidates themselves and apply them to my understanding of our economic machine, and to the expert opinions of economists, entrepreneurs, and investors.
While there are likely to be some conservative economic policy platforms I could abide, if not largely support, Trump's simply isn't one of them. His policy goes beyond conservative, and into the realm of wreckless fantasy. Nearly every economist in the country, including many foremost conservative economists, have agreed that his plan would radically destabilize and depress the economy.
The core problem lies in the fact that Trump's plan isn't merely imperfect, but that it is fundamentally flawed at its most basic, elementary level. He intends to reduce tax revenue (by the largest amount in US history) while simultaneously increasing government spending. Given that we're already running on a national deficit, that is incredibly wreckless. Any businessman worth his salt can tell you what happens if you reduce revenue and raise spending when you're already failing the solvency test. If Trump doesn't understand that, then it's really no wonder why so many of his companies have gone bankrupt.
If you are a fiscal conservative, Trump sure as hell shouldn't be your candidate of choice, because it is almost universally understood that his plan would have a devastating effect on our national economy. While Clinton's plan is less than ideal, it is at least [B]functional.[/B]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51297128]spanish is the second largest language spoken in america, with over 45 million speakers and 6 million learners. the USA is the worlds third largest spanish-speaking country (after mexico and columbia)[/quote]
That's nice? Over 255 million people here speak English as a first-language however (technically, there are more than 316 million speakers if you count the population that has to use it and has learned it as a second language), and we are the world's largest English-speaking country accounting for almost 96% of all English-speakers.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51297128]i don't see what the big deal is, because that is a lot of people that the government is obliged to provide translated documents and services to. the USA is no longer a monolithic english-speaking federation - it is full of numerous dialects and languages and to ignore that will become more embarrassing as time goes on. english in the USA is already slowly breaking up into increasingly divergent dialects
spanish is the fastest growing language in america, there is a great deal of media and multilingual services which are growing constantly. like it or not, the future of the USA is going to have to include spanish[/QUOTE]
The issue is that our society will continue to fracture itself down into, to use your own words, "numerous dialects and languages". This does not allow for effective communication between groups, because they simply cannot understand one another, nor does it allow for people who cannot speak the dominant language to thrive in their new host society. Again, the reason why my dad's family has done as well as they have is because they learned to speak English when they came here, and they learned how to present themselves and use it effectively. And we as their children have been expected to do the same.
It's not embarrassing to refuse to cater to these kinds of minorities and to expect some degree of assimilation on their part, especially over something as basic as language. And no, in spite of the fact that Spanish is growing, it's not going to overtake English. It will remain a minority language for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, if a person who speaks Spanish wants to succeed here, they're going to have to learn to speak English as well. That's how it works. Beyond the assimilation aspect, it's also a matter of standardization; you cannot have a cohesive, successful society if you have a bunch of different groups of people who cannot even do something as basic as communicate/understand each other.
Again, why is this still being argued over? The immigrant community itself acknowledges the importance of understanding your host country's language, and most of us don't expect our hosts to cater to us.
A grade school class president would make a better President than any of the clowns currently running.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51297017]Narratives, narratives for everyone. I really hate this election cycle.
[video=youtube;mzWOhzOyVFop]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzWOhzOyVFop[/video]
The video really explains it. I really don't want Trump as President. But I really, really, don't want Hillary as President.
Oh, and Citizens United is not well understood.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC[/url]
You guys should really read into it. Its fascinating. And guess who the case involves? A certain lady running for president. :shh: Shh, don't tell anyone. But I think I know why that certain lady is against the Citizens United decision.[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the wiki article? It shows all the politicians, both democratic and Republican who are against the Courts decision. Even has Bernie against it in 2011.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51293511]Damn! I won't even bother voting, I guess it's over. I'm going to go learn French so I can get into Canada easier.
it was fun guys, don't worry about me. Correct the Record™ has paid me enough to get by for a few years while I find a job.[/QUOTE]
Buddy, you don't even have to speak english to move to Canada. As long as you arent a criminal or a terrorist they pretty much let anyone in eh.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;51297326]Did you even read the wiki article? It shows all the politicians, both democratic and Republican who are against the Courts decision. Even has Bernie against it in 2011.[/QUOTE]
I did read the article and I know how many are against it. Doesn't make them right though. I'm just pointing out that a certain lady running for President has a bigger bone to pick with that case.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51293962][url]http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/clinton-economy-better-under-democrats/[/url]
You and I know both know GDP is not a comprehensive look at a economy[/QUOTE]
And in the next paragraph it mentions that the difference is more than half explained by democratic foreign policy.
"It seems we must look instead to several variables that are less closely tied to U.S. economic
policy. Specifically, Democratic presidents have experienced, on average, better oil shocks than
Republicans (some of which may have been induced by foreign policy), faster growth of defense
spending (if the Korean War is included), and a better record of productivity shocks (which may
relate to many different policies). More tenuously, both in terms of sample size and statistical
significance, Democratic presidents may have also benefited from stronger growth abroad.
These factors together explain up to 56 percent of the D-R growth gap in the full sample,
and as much as 69 percent over shorter (post-1963) samples. The rest remains, for now, a
mystery of the still mostly-unexplored continent. The word “research,” taken literally, means
search again. We invite other researchers to do so."
Aka 60-ish % of the difference between Democratic and Republican presidents is explained by Democrats possibly having better foreign and domestic policy, as well as better conditions in the world market (likely due to a republican president not fucking the world economy lol (this is my own comment not from the paper)) while the rest (40-ish %) is just an unexplained bias towards Democratic presidents just being better.
Sorry I didn't see you respond.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51296748]someone replied to me once when i asked something like that that on twitter showing trump holding an LGBT flag saying hes the most LGBT friendly candidate you could ever vote for
[URL="http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5818b1d9150000d80453109b.jpeg"][B]and then the flag was upside down[/B][/URL][/QUOTE]
Zinger, you sure showed him...
Should he have held it with the text upside down then?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51296995]your trolling is just getting boring at this point cructo
you're too fucking transparent now
we all know you're just having a laugh, basically trolling. You ignore every argument that comes up. You make false arguments based on false info all the time. You make statements that you don't back up. You ignore reality at every opportunity to peddle your own version of events.
You can keep going, but it's just sad that you try this hard to waste our time.
People are genuinely scared Pence will affect their lives as a member of the LGBT community and you're too fucking ignorant to know that the Trump campaign has made statements saying they'll repeal gay marriage so stop acting like you know fucking anything.
All you do is bitch about people twisting your words, while you spend a great deal of time just twisting the words of those who argue with you so I often wonder, am I watching the mental break down of a person, or is this just some low quality trolling?[/QUOTE]
I got banned for calling him dumb and then he DM'd me a smiley
Def a troll
[t] http://i.imgur.com/SlCTBlK.png [/t]
I want this to just end.
I want this to just end but with Clinton elected to be the next president
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51297562]Zinger, you sure showed him...
Should he have held it with the text upside down then?[/QUOTE]
No I showed him by pointing out how awful Pence is with LGBT issues and how stupid it should be for states decision for gay rights
All I'm doing is showing everyone here how dumb that image is. No zingers here but maybe you can't tell
[QUOTE=KillRay;51297817]No I showed him by pointing out how awful Pence is with LGBT issues and how stupid it should be for states decision for gay rights
All I'm doing is showing everyone here how dumb that image is. No zingers here but maybe you can't tell[/QUOTE]
reminding trump supporters that lgbtq will be fucked by trump's administration never goes anywhere
its the cycle really, they just respond with video clips of him saying he'll protect lgbt people in his rallies but then when you push them to explain how a conservative leaning supreme court or having not a single pro-lgbt policy is protecting the lgbt, they will simply reply with total pivot: "WELP, SHE'LL CAUSE WORLD WAR 3" or stop replying entirely.
[QUOTE=Govna;51297079]The majority "may speak English". The use of "may" in that sentence is very strategic. [/quote]
I honestly didn't try to imply that there was [I]any[/I] doubt about English being the majority language. You're reading too much into my wording.
[quote]Try "overwhelmingly speak English" ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States]80% of the country to be exact[/url]). Our laws are written in English, our Congressional (political affairs in general) are conducted in English, our founding documents were written in English... we were founded by and our original 13 colonies/states were overwhelmingly English. This is an English-speaking country. It always has been, and it's going to be for the foreseeable future.
I find this mentality of "demanding/expecting assimilation is wrong" quite funny myself. My dad's side of the family immigrated here from Iran. We don't speak Farsi in public, nor do we speak it often when we're at home around each other (except when dealing with the older relatives, because they're too old to learn English fluently). We don't speak Farsi at work or in school, we don't expect other people to cater to us on the rare occasions when we do use it publicly.
And I'm sorry, but the immigrant argument is bullshit. If you move to a country with the intention of living there, then you should be expected to assimilate both culturally and linguistically. Linguistically especially, because there's no way you're going to thrive if you can't even speak the dominant language which everybody else is using. I don't go to Germany and expect Germans to speak English to me, I don't go to France and expect Frenchmen to speak English to me; etc. This isn't a "narrow-minded mentality", it's a logical position to take. Know why my family has done as well as they have? It's because they've learned how to communicate and present themselves here in the United States appropriately.
The fact we don't have a legally-established national language and so we're left to still have this debate 240 years after our founding is ridiculous. And the fact that there's still people arguing against it when it's a perfectly logical proposition is equally ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that people shouldn't learn the language of the country they move to (I think it's very good idea to do so) - but look at this quote:
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51295538]I live in California (Don't ask why my flag is Canadian, I don't know why either). We have the highest state taxes in order to pay for these illegals. My state alone pays (I think) $20 billion in services out of tax money I pay. Illegals and the children of illegals commit the majority of the crime in my state. I have lost a lot of my friends to drugs because of how easy it is to access them from people who cross the border. Two of those friends got drugs from illegals directly. [B]Almost everywhere I go it feels like a different country because of the lack of people who actually speak English. I'm not just talking about Mexicans either, Vietnamese and Chinese are just, if not more, common to hear than Spanish.[/B] Whether or not you think those are valid reasons is not my concern, those are my reasons. And anyone who will actually do something about closing our border and deporting these people will get my support.[/QUOTE]
Considering the wording, it A) Sounds like he's simply [B]overhearing[/B] people talking different languages, and doesn't actually know whether they speak English as well or not (very few people in the US do not speak English at all), and B) Is it really any of his business whether they speak English or not? It's not the official language, and if their language preference doesn't result in them not getting a job, getting on whatever meager benefits you can get in the US, what right does he have to tell them they have to learn English? And honestly, 80% of the country having English as their main language is less than I thought - more people in Denmark speak English as a [I]secondary[/I] language. Sure, it's by far the largest, but why isn't everyone learning fluent Spanish as well? Just because you're born into a lucky majority of people speaking the unofficially official language of the country doesn't mean you're entitled to not hear people speak whatever language they want.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51293784]A cold war where one country has 9 times the military spending of the other (and that's not including the rest of NATO) is already hilariously lopsided.[/QUOTE]
Not that I think we need more spending,the majority is to cover European costs. We're undermanned because of dumb military policies and billions goes missing for no reason. Clean up the military before we give it more money.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51297278]Nobody will[/QUOTE]
Probably would help if the platform actually said it. I know, I know it's a minor point but imagine actually reading the document being discussed?
Seriously, BlackMageMari, it a rush to attack others didn't even check to see what he was swinging his dick about for. Would it even be a risky guess to assume the people throwing their weight behind him didn't check to see if he was correct either?
This is the dog-piling that Clinton supporters dealt with during the primaries and now the Trump supporters deal with now where discussions go in circles (how many posts were wasted on Wystans torture crap?) whilst nobody steps in to try to make the threads bearable without borderline personal attacks on every page.
I get that its cathartic to act like this but the election threads have been downright terrible and have only driven off people and made good natured posters come across like massive twats.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;51298303]Probably would help if the platform actually said it. I know, I know it's a minor point but imagine actually reading the document being discussed?
Seriously, BlackMageMari, it a rush to attack others didn't even check to see what he was swinging his dick about for. Would it even be a risky guess to assume the people throwing their weight behind him didn't check to see if he was correct either?
This is the dog-piling that Clinton supporters dealt with during the primaries and now the Trump supporters deal with now where discussions go in circles (how many posts were wasted on Wystans torture crap?) whilst nobody steps in to try to make the threads bearable without borderline personal attacks on every page.
I get that its cathartic to act like this but the election threads have been downright terrible and have only driven off people and made good natured posters come across like massive twats.[/QUOTE]
So will you answer the question? Because I'm curious; what do you think of this policies [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-supports-gop-platform-moved-further-right-n608271"]mentioned here:[/URL]
[QUOTE] The committee reaffirmed language under the Title IX section regarding bathroom and locker room use for transgender people that aligns with the sex on their birth certificates.
The committee also passed an amendment by Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, that said parents can prescribe "therapy" for their minor children. It's intention is to give a nod to conversion therapy for gay children. [/QUOTE]
So uh, what was that about not reading the document?
EDIT: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_National_Convention#cite_note-PetersPlatform-77"]More here:[/URL]
[QUOTE]The platform promotes state bathroom bills to restrict the public restrooms that transgender persons can use; stated that "natural marriage" is between a man and a woman and is less likely to result in children who become drug addicts; and expressed support for allowing parents to seek conversion therapy for their gay minor children.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't in a rush to attack others over this: [I]I was talking about this months ago.[/I] I wasn't "waving my dick".
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51298324]So will you answer the question? Because I'm curious; what do you think of this policies [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-supports-gop-platform-moved-further-right-n608271"]mentioned here:[/URL]
So uh, what was that about not reading the document?[/QUOTE]
Lets actually quote the sentence that is causing so much outrage.
[QUOTE=GOP Platform]We support the right of parents to determine the
proper medical treatment and therapy for their
minor children. [/QUOTE]
So they put the conversion therapy in but they didn't actually say it? Didn't you claim it was in the platform? Hell, you aren't even quoting the document we are discussing, instead opting for what NBC says is the intention.
[QUOTE]EDIT: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_National_Convention#cite_note-PetersPlatform-77"]More here:[/URL][/QUOTE]
Your source claims the platform "expressed support for allowing parents to seek conversion therapy for their gay minor children." Well OK, lets say that the wording does support conversion therapy it also supports every other type of therapy ever concocted but I dont see people running around getting their friends worked up about child rehab camps or whatever the fuck else that broad expression of support would cover.
[QUOTE]I wasn't in a rush to attack others over this: [I]I was talking about this months ago.[/I] I wasn't "waving my dick".[/QUOTE]
So for months you didn't even read the platform or understand that the articles used vague terminology in lieu of actual quotes that would surely have come from top Republicans if the platform outright supported what you claimed? Is this your first time to the dance regarding media spin?
If you had left it at the GOP overall not being good for LGBT people I would be in lockstep with you but the GOP has plenty of skeletons in the closet before resorting to falsehoods and half truths.
Reuters poll has her up +7 taken after FBI annoucement
[url]http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1[/url]
[QUOTE=Achilles11;51293460]I can just hear SH's Hillary supporters cry out in a fit of rage with fists shaking and cheeks bulging red with anger. I honestly have a feeling this election's result is going to end like the EU Referendum did: with the unlikely result winning out.[/QUOTE]
"Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a baby!"
The most mind boggling thing about trump supporters is that they think that a man with literally no political experience is going to somehow bring down the system. if he gets elected the system is gonna walk all over him lol
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51301596]The most mind boggling thing about trump supporters is that they think that a man with literally no political experience is going to somehow bring down the system. if he gets elected the system is gonna walk all over him lol[/QUOTE]
Trump has barely shown any initiative in running his own fucking companies. Starting off with his real estate business largely directed and formed from his fathers business and business contacts. The things he himself did are all fucking terrible. His casinos lost him an absurd amount of money because he didn't deal with people actually winning well. He had no concept of economy and would vastly go over his budget to the point that it scared the regulatory committees for gambling sometimes. After all, they just approved this thing expecting some income, but the costs alone made it appear non-viable.
And this is totally skimming over dumb shit like Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, his absurd decision to enter the mortgage market around the time subprime lending was crashing the entire fucking economy.
It's reached the point now where his only way to make money is to ride the cult of personality he has, charging to have his name slapped on things, taking part in reality TV shows (which he doesn't have to run, but will make money from as his brand is all over it), and massively inflating his actual worth when talking about himself (which is all the time) to make his brand look like it's actually worth jack shit. This man cannot run actual businesses well, why the fuck do people think he can manage a more intricate collection of systems like a government?
Both Nevada and North Carolina have now gone grey on 538
[t]http://i.imgur.com/jSG6PU0.png[/t]
Means that out of the 10,000 election simulations in their latest update, Clinton and Trump both won these states exactly 5,000 times
[url]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/[/url]
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51295289]It is what is it. They feel it would be easier to burn it down and start anew.[/QUOTE]
Dude tell that to my kids who would get to live in a turbulent broken dangerous country because people decided that a corrupt candidate was worth burning down the country over.
I know I'm late but this kind of scenario is totally avoidable and should not be pursued.
Some people keep bringing up "shy voters" not being accounted for in most polls, any truth to any of it?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51304194]Some people keep bringing up "shy voters" not being accounted for in most polls, any truth to any of it?[/QUOTE]
Politico/Morning Consult just did two parallel polls, one by phone with a live interviewer and one online, to see whether 'shy' Trump voters would be more willing to come forward in an impersonal online setting. There wasn't a statistically significant difference between the two
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/poll-shy-voters-trump-230667[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.