Umm, a lot. Poor whites vote R, poor blacks vote D.
Printable View
Umm, a lot. Poor whites vote R, poor blacks vote D.
That's what I just said.
You don't know shit about where we live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Then the whole board doesn't. I'm not saying anything different than dif.
But there are more poor whites than poor blacks. A lot more, depending on the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
In North Carolina, 13% of whites are poor and 34% of blacks are poor. But 71% of the population is white and 22% is black. So that is about 850k poor whites and 670k poor blacks. I did a Google search for "poor people by demographic state" to get those numbers. Those poor whites are not voting for Democrats, unless they are right-wing Democrats which don't really exist anymore (neither do left wing Republicans).
That's a pretty wild ass assumption. That's like saying all of those poor whites are racist or whatever. What about the poor white women? Are they all voting for the GOP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
In 2012, white women voted for Romney about 55-45.
It's actually not saying anything or anyone is racist. This is just how it is. Republicans have a lot of support in the poorest regions of the country.
I don't dispute your last point, but if women are 50+%, and 55% of them voted GOP, then even if every man did too, that's still roughly a quarter of the white population who didn't.
Anecdotally, I would say most of the poor whites aren't bothering to vote at all.
I suspect their motivation to support a New England Mormon was somewhat limited.
What's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Most of TNL probably.
NBC and CBS will not be showing Obama announcing his mistake tonight. I guess hiding it from people might mitigate some of the anger over a hugely unpopular action? I wish I could rationalize that The Big Bang Theory is just more important, and it would be if this idiot weren't spewing about stuff that will negatively impact all Americans.
So what's the problem exactly? It's Dubya's immigration policy with more border control. Obama was the one who ramped up deportations, he didn't need approval of Congress to do that.
So now if Bush did it, that makes it right? That didn't work so well with the bail outs.
The only action that matters is securing the damn border. Until that is done correctly, everything else is a mistake.
Do you think it's a "bad idea" because you don't like the policy and think Obama's prior one is better (a citing of you expressing support of his old immigration policies would be awesome in this case) or because he lacks the authority to implement this?
Neither. Increasing deportation, as he did before, and any kind of amnesty are both mistakes until the border is well secured, because you're just setting money on fire.
Congress should just not fund whatever he proposes, which is absolutely within their authority, until the first issue is resolved.
How do you secure that giant border? What defines secure? If 5 people get through a year, is that secure? I ask because I am pretty sure that a lot less people are crossing from the Mexican border than they used to. Thanks Obummer.
Are you counting those that he flew in?
I believe the decision was likely a business decision and not necessarily a political one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Did you read the article? The White House didn't ask, so they're not showing it. They'd show it if asked.
Right, and isn't that telling? If you were doing something that would impact everyone, why would you not ask that they be informed as widely as possible?
I don't think it's as uncommon as a thing as you're making it out to be. It's generally understood 'muricans don't like their stories to get interrupted, kind of an unpopular thing. They've only done it since they've had to since Reagan, I suspect.
The informed people will be informed, and the uniformed people will watch Fox News like they were going to anyway
That was a good speech.
Well, that certainly made raising the minimum wage even less likely and/or intelligent, as now there will be an even larger pool of quasi-legal, unskilled workers looking to move from agriculture to retail or whatever. Unemployment goes up, and so do food prices for actual Americans, but criminals-by-definition are taken care of!
Oh, blow out your ass.
How is unemployment going up?
How many open, unskilled jobs do we have for people who can now legally work to take? If they get any, they're putting unskilled citizens out of work. If they don't, they'll keep the same jobs they have but now be paid more, increasing everyone else's costs.
edit: Imagine being a kid working a minimum wage job to save for college or to help put himself through it. His employer may now decide some damn illegal is a better long-term investment, since they're unlikely to leave, and the kid is SOL.
:rolleyes: Yea, sure, count it if you want. A lot less people are crossing the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Again I will ask, what defines a secure border?
Because they turk our jerbs!
Get a skill, faggot.
I don't believe anything he said will get done. But I agree with it 100%. If Americans are afraid of immigrants stealing their jobs, we don't need you. The country needs the best workers wether it's Plummer Joe or José.
So, food prices actually go down because of undocumented immigrants. But whatever, not the main point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The real "criminals by definition" are the Americans who hire these people, who arrange for them to come here for work, etc. But I don't see many people talking about locking those job creators up.
For me? When people are legitimately afraid to cross it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I absolutely agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I agree with that as well, but as long as we insist on being a nanny state, we can only afford to wipe so many dependents' asses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
If those applications for work permits are in English and ask for skills, that would be two steps in the right direction.
It's much easier if you just stop caring about any of this.
None of it matters, or affects you.
That's rather obtuse.
Damn that picture looks appealing right now for multiple reasons.
Well then congrats because I won't go near your country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Attachment 75521Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I haven't ruled yours out for a potential global warming-induced invasion. Imagine how nice BC would be 20 degrees warmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
I look forward to the check reimbursing my wife for the thousands of dollars she spent immigrating legally. It would make for an extra sweet Christmas.
I'm serious. I have no issues with this, so long as those of us who did it the right way aren't, in effect, punished for it.
Except these people aren't being made citizens, so stop bitching.
Like I said it really is a return to the immigration policies of Dubya and others, with more of an emphasis on border security. Don't get me wrong, Dubya-era policies were not great, but the idea that this is some sort of unconscionable power grab or Reagan-style amnesty is just wrong. It just has no basis in fact. Not that that matters in today's political discourse.
My wife isn't a citizen, either. It's not about citizenship. It's about being able to enter the country so she can be with her family. In order to earn that privilege, she had to spend a lot of money. Worse than the money, though, was the time spent apart, waiting for the process to move along at the speed of government.
So, yeah. Feel free to bring up something else I didn't mention to defend your standard bearer. It doesn't change the fact that this is a slap in the face to those who respected our nation's laws.
You know, Russia did that. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Embrace heshing.
It's really not a slap in the face to anyone unless they choose to see it that way. These people are still not here legally. Obama tried mass deportations - didn't really work, as a matter of policy, so he is backtracking. He should've done it years ago IMO. He tried to get Congress to reform immigration laws. Heck the Senate passed a bill. It was bipartisan and everything. The same people bitching now didn't even bother to talk about it in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
we could just start killing them. The immigrants. That would probably work. kill people that protest the killing of the immigrants too.
I'm game.
Oh, I'm with you that immigration reform is long, long overdue. I've been grumbling about that through this entire process. Money aside, it's just too complicated and time consuming--and I'm coming from a position of relative comfort and means. I can only begin to imagine how it is for those for whom it's a desperate matter of life and death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I still want to be reimbursed, though.
The problem with this (immigration, or anything else) is that the people who overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress' job performance also refuse to believe that their particular Congressman might be part of the problem. "Throw all the incumbents out!" is all well and good until it's their guy.
Yeah, this always seemed pink elephanty to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
So they're drunks now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Heffalump detected. Very confuzle.
Los Juegos del hambreQuote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
David Cameron is an idiot.
That is my favorite gif in a long while.
State of the Union be like we have to end apartheid, for one, slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.
You actually watched it?
I listened.
I need to listen to this today.
Best thing is when Obama is all "we need to guarantee that women get paid the same amount as men" and only half of the room clapped.
Because it's a bullshit political play. Women do get paid the same as men. The aggregate level delta is driven by difference in experience and other factors that also differentiate men from each other.
edit: Everyone clapping knows it's bullshit too, but they have to keep up the "war on women" act, because their constituents are obviously stupid enough to buy it.
Do you actually believe that?
My wife is paid less than some guy (with less experience) they hired at the same time even though they both do the same job and work the same number of hours per week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Is that what she agreed to when she took the job? Maybe he negotiated. Is there a third person doing the job? Does he or she make a third different amount?
The myth is that there is some magical book that says, "Job X pays Y, period." There are tons of factors, and gender isn't one of them.
and the other side: when I was doing office temp work I was paid more than the female temp (hired at the same time) who had way more experience than me.
He didn't negotiate. He was offered more. Men are offered a higher wage when they're hired there. It really is a thing that happens, Yoshi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
So, the simple explanation is that this is a thousands of companies wide conspiracy against women, supported by women in executive positions and/or HR?
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a simple explanation.
It's probably more of a subconscious thing. The statistics don't lie, but it's not as simple as men just giving other men money but rather men being generally perceived as more valuable.
What statistics don't lie? The macro level ones?
edit: It would be impossible to get accurate data, but I'd love to see the impact quotas and the like have had on this issue. If equality is the goal, then let's have at it. Once we know the person doing each job is the most qualified, it'll be a lot easier to determine if they're compensated equitably.
Now the common number touted is .77 but that is BS. I think when you account for choices, women leaving for motherhood, etc, the pay gap is about .92. So it's not as bad but it's also still a thing.
This analysis puts it at even less than that. They do a pretty good job of limiting the variables, but it's just about impossible to eliminate them all.
Oh, Patrick. How very thoughtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
It isn't simple.
As the old saying goes, 'its a man's world' and that means more than the world is ran by men. The act of business is masculine. In a lot of situations where women feel they are being discriminated against, the truth is the opposite. They are being treated as equals, and failing. They enter the situation and behave in a way that is traditional to women and assume intent on the behalf of men when the rainbows and sunshine don't come their way.
And then there was that study that showed that people perceive the ability of others differently based on appearance, with Handsome men at the top, ugly men and women about even and beautiful women at the bottom.
What happens when it comes time for raises and you were raised to not assert yourself and you're assumed inferior because you have a nice ass and tits?
also, while trying to find that study, I found this
http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-...-around-261269
apparently science has proven that women don't want to fuck attentive guys as much as men want to fuck attentive women.
Childless women under 30 make more on average than men at this point apparently.
Vice POTUS interview surpringly unedgy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a01Rg2g2Z8
Surprising how? He's in the middle of a decade-long free pass. They should have asked him about trading five terrorists for a soon-to-be official deserter as well.
VICE isn't particularly hard hitting or interesting these days.
Yoshi - I think that is too specific. It's like asking Ford why they used a 5 mm bolt on an alternator rather than a 1/4". The SOD should be asked that.
But there are major broad problems like decaying race relations and increasingly binary politics and media fueling societal division which need to be addressed.
Deserter or not, he was still a member of the US military. Get him back and charge him with desertion is 100% the right course of action. I'm pretty sure guys in your crowd were crowing about leaving behind our boys in uniform when he was still captured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
How many members of the US military do you think the five terrorists traded will kill?
Probably none. Probably gonna give that shit up.
Ted Cruz, stop talking about things you have no education on.
1) Galileo was imprisoned for heliocentrism, not 'flat earthers'
2) Galileo was born 42 years after Magellan's crew successfully sailed around the world for the first time (undoubtedly proving it was round)
We're all gone die because feelings about science matter more real science.
There will be an alternative reality that lives on, ruled by communist Russia and nazi Germany. Why? Because commies and nazis believe in science more than Americans.
What does climate change even matter? What happened to not polluting because it is nasty and makes the earth nasty? Are we really arguing about picking up the dog shit in the living room because it might make us sick, ignoring the bigger point that it nasty and shouldn't be in the house?
Shut up, hippie.
Probably zero, since we are withdrawing from Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I mean, were they even "terrorists"? They were Afghanis and former members of the Taliban hierarchy who were fighting the US military in Afghanistan. They weren't blowing up shit in Indiana or whatever. I don't like how "terrorist" has become this stupid word that basically means anyone we don't like.
This is one of those rare moments when the Professor spouts off a buttcheekism that is utterly brilliant!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Cherish it folks, it's like a comet.
Because the goal is legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Their benefit was about more holistic journalism—showing conditions in places other news agencies don't provide insight in to. That's just regular journalism. Plus—how "edgy" do people think an interview with the President will be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/how...n-mississippi/
interesting write up on how and why obamacare failed in Mississippi.
Its kind of a shitty read though. The writer goes off on tangents a lot. Drags. Pretends to be Faulkner, etc. I got about 75% through it and just started to scroll to the end because the writer started ranting again.
They didn't go through with the Medicaid expansion, right? That was probably the key cause. That state has a lot of poor people and they got nothing from the ACA.
Drew, I'm not sure if you pay attention to the news or social media, but race relations are at a forty year low. Slavery is the defining flaw of the United States and the unresolved issue which has persistently fanned the flames. As the first black president, Obama has the opportunity to address the issue from a position no white president has. But he dosen't and he probably gives no fucks about doing so, because he is not a descendant of slaves and has no horse in the race.
Vice, or any media outlet, should question him on this. The problem runs deep and requires action on both sides. But it can be done and needs to be done. Crime and gang activity has to be reduced in the black community and has to do so internally. That can't come from white people or police. It has to come from black community, religious, and family leaders. But those idle hand problems certainly are exacerbated by the unemployment level, which is double that of whites. So, a real effort to implement affirmative action needs to take place until black & white unemployment levels come within points and not 5%/11%. As well banks need to have initiative to loan to black owned small businesses.
It would be a massive undertaking requiring sacrifices on all sides and only the federal government has the power to organize and implement it. But doing so would finally heal the wounds of slavery and give blacks an equal identity and purpose in the nation. If not, we keep on having Fergusons.
It would be easier to just pay poor people to get sterilized.
Obama is doing his damdest to make sure that it won't take 41 more tries before a second black president is elected. That means no angry black man in the white house, no ranting about slavery. He's doing more for blacks in America just by doing that than he ever could by yelling at whitey about race relations.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do. His presidency, or maybe just his inaction on race relations, has antagonized division. Whites think a black man holding the highest office in the land means we're done and equality has finally arrived. Blacks realized it hasn't, and all the issues they face are magnified in the unatainability of being where he is.
EDIT: I would argue one or two more Mike Bown/Treyvon's in the next 20 months of his presidency will do more dameage to the next black candidates than his pandering nice guy routine ever will.