Can he I mean republicans have been taking it back since 2010, in fact they gained two seats in 2018 midterms there
Trump winning Minesota
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I am more concerned about losing Texas. Need to stop immigration, and actually try to assimilate the ones we have.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why stop immigration?
Does assimilating mean voting for Republican?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, we should temporarily stop immigration so that we can assimilate them. When you have a rapid flow of immigrants, they are less incentivized to adopt our values. For instance, they create enclaves. They can seek employment and fulfill most of their needs around people from the same culture and country and will have no need to assimilate.
Assimilating would be to learn our language and adopt our culture.
-->
@bmdrocks21
What are American values and who is the authority on this?they are less incentivized to adopt our values
Assimilating would be to learn our language and adopt our culture.
Then what did you mean with:
I am more concerned about losing Texas.
To me I would say you would like Republicans to win but realize the Democratic position in Texas is growing. That is more tangible than American values. Do you disagree and why?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I do think that the end result of assimilation would be for them to vote Republican. For instance, immigrants that learn our language make a ton more money than those who don't. That means they are less dependent on welfare and therefore would put more emphasis on other political issues.
American values are those of personal freedom and the American dream. Well, I don't think that the popularity of an idea makes it more inline with the country's values. I wouldn't say that the Nazis were doing things that aligned with Germany's values.
I would say that, at least for America, that its constitution is what makes us distinct. It embodies the values that we were founded on.
I think that is more indicative of American values than what poor, unassimilated immigrants choose to vote for.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Any specifics and an authority who dictates this?American values are those of personal freedom and the American dream.
I do think that the end result of assimilation would be for them to vote Republican.
At least you are being honest. I don't want that and the example you gave can be attained without stating to them they have some nationalist take on America instead simply value education. Less baggage. More time to spend on what makes them happy.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't know, perhaps a large panel of historians can discuss some defining features of America and its people. These things could then be taught in school in a government class or something.
Yeah, I mean I want people to assimilate because it is good for everyone economically. It would also therefore give more influence to a group that (in my opinion) will let them to be more prosperous.
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you are telling me you want to teach immigrants American values without knowing what it is?I don't know, perhaps a large panel of historians can discuss some defining features of America and its people. These things could then be taught in school in a government class or something.
Yeah, I mean I want people to assimilate because it is good for everyone economically. It would also therefore give more influence to a group that (in my opinion) will let them to be more prosperous.
What do you mean by assimilate?
Would the influence be good if they do decide after the education they still vote Democrat?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I told you what I think American values are. If you want there to be some official authority to come to the same conclusion, then we can make one like I said.
Assimilate is learning our language, economically assimilating (wages becoming the same as native-born workers), and respecting American values(liberty, etc.).
If they voted Democrat after a non-biased exposure to "American values", it would still be a positive impact. It isn't good for anyone when immigrants can't speak English, live on welfare, and hate America so much that they refuse to leave their ethnic enclaves.
Assimilation is good, and I would prefer that they vote Republican, but that can't really be helped.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I told you what I think American values are.
This is not specific:
American values are those of personal freedom and the American dream.
It is like me saying German values are those of personal freedom and the German dream.
I still need to ask what is the German dream. This is comparable because I did ask for specifics. In other words what is the American dream and personal freedom?
Assimilate is learning our language, economically assimilating (wages becoming the same as native-born workers), and respecting American values(liberty, etc.).
Okay learning the language. What do you mean with assimilating with wages? There isn't some equality between wages since people vary depending on their wages. Care to explain this?
If they voted Democrat after a non-biased exposure to "American values", it would still be a positive impact.
Non-biased?
It isn't good for anyone when immigrants can't speak English, live on welfare, and hate America so much that they refuse to leave their ethnic enclaves.
If they hate America so much why would they live here?
Are people hate America which is why they vote Democrat?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Personal freedom is the the ability to express yourself peacefully without the government or another private individual harming you. It is the ability to make a living for yourself without the government or another individual taking your wealth.
Well, a lot comes down to speaking English. This makes you a lot more marketable in terms of jobs. Also, being willing to move out of ethnic enclaves gives a lot more income mobility. Immigrants as they come to the US usually make different amounts than natives, either more or less, and a few generations afterwards, they make nearly identical wages. The process takes more generations if you live in ethnic enclaves, which Mexican immigrants tend to do.
Yes, non-biased. I don't want this whole assimilation thing being politically-influenced if possible.
The largest reason that Latin American immigrants come to America is because they can make more money and we have a robust welfare system. They don't have to care about our country or like it. They have a huge economic incentive to work here.
Well, Democrats are trying to fundamentally change America. Conservatives aren't. So, if you are looking for big, fundamental changes to our country, you generally don't like it, and therefore wouldn't vote for a conservative. (I know you'll ask about 'fundamental'. It is calling to change the Constitution. Strict gun control, censoring speech, nationalizing industries, etc.)
It's certainly possible. While the GOP have never received more than 48% of the vote in the state in this century, the Dems slipped down to 46.5% in the most recent election which certainly places the state in a 'toss up' category had this been a normal election:
The issue though is whether Trump will be playing offense or defense. A lot of Dem initiatives to try to flip states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc have merit behind the new campaigns which could force the GOP to set funds aside to defending its traditional territory, rather then go balls-to-the-wall in swing states and states that lean slightly blue. It ultimately depends on the nominee for the Dems but its certainly not out of the realm of impossibility for the GOP to get the state.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Personal freedom is the the ability to express yourself peacefully without the government or another private individual harming you. It is the ability to make a living for yourself without the government or another individual taking your wealth.
Do you agree this value is shared among other countries?
Well, a lot comes down to speaking English. This makes you a lot more marketable in terms of jobs. Also, being willing to move out of ethnic enclaves gives a lot more income mobility. Immigrants as they come to the US usually make different amounts than natives, either more or less, and a few generations afterwards, they make nearly identical wages. The process takes more generations if you live in ethnic enclaves, which Mexican immigrants tend to do.
What does this got to do with the question I asked about wages?
Yes, non-biased. I don't want this whole assimilation thing being politically-influenced if possible.
What do you mean with non-biased?
The largest reason that Latin American immigrants come to America is because they can make more money and we have a robust welfare system. They don't have to care about our country or like it. They have a huge economic incentive to work here.
Isn't the country made up of their policies they enact so by accepting the welfare system they are accepting the country?
Well, Democrats are trying to fundamentally change America. Conservatives aren't. So, if you are looking for big, fundamental changes to our country, you generally don't like it, and therefore wouldn't vote for a conservative. (I know you'll ask about 'fundamental'. It is calling to change the Constitution. Strict gun control, censoring speech, nationalizing industries, etc.)
Why would an immigrant vote for Conservatives when they are not for fundamental change that can help their lives? As an example public healthcare.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Those values are shared in some other industrialized countries, but not to such a high degree.
I'm not quite sure what your wage question meant, then. People from different countries on average have wages that are largely different from those of natives. People from Mexico make a lot less than Americans for similar jobs. As they live in the country, the gap starts to disappear. "Economic assimilation".
Non-biased means fact-based and not a politically motivated representation of the facts. Think of it like reading a study vs seeing what Fox and CNN have to say about the study.
If you want to go to a country for the sole purpose of leeching off of their tax payer, you obviously don't care about it at all.
It is hard to entice people without offering everything you can imagine for "free".
-->
@bmdrocks21
Those values are shared in some other industrialized countries, but not to such a high degree.
Examples?
As they live in the country, the gap starts to disappear. "Economic assimilation".
Are you saying living in the United States is assimilation?
What do you mean by economic assimilation?
Non-biased means fact-based and not a politically motivated representation of the facts. Think of it like reading a study vs seeing what Fox and CNN have to say about the study.
You do know the facts are on the left right? Public healthcare would be more effective at delivery healthcare outcomes across all people.
Link of the facts
Quote "In terms of quality of care, the U.S. ranked fifth, but came in last place in efficiency, equity, and healthiness of citizens’ lives."
If you want to go to a country for the sole purpose of leeching off of their tax payer, you obviously don't care about it at all.
Leaching off the tax payer can't be done in their country if they moved here to do that so they care care about a policy America has implemented. Tell me how do they not care about America again?
It is hard to entice people without offering everything you can imagine for "free".
This is "politically motivated representation of the facts". If you actually wanted to represent the facts you would say it is taxpayer.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
European countries have decently high freedom indexes, so they share our values to an extent. However, they have strict gun laws and "hate speech" laws.
By economic assimilation, I mean they begin to resemble native-born citizens in terms of their incomes. They assimilate economically as they pick up on skills that we value and adapt to them and learn English.
We are unhealthy because we eat like s***. Everyone agrees that our current system sucks. Republicans want to increase competition, and you want universal healthcare. There isn't much common ground there, so nothing gets done and we get screwed. The facts are not "on the left". What is your definition of "the left"?
When leeching off the taxpayer, what happens? Well, to fund it, you take money from productive citizens and give it to unproductive ones. I don't know why you are pursuing an indefensible semantic argument. They are taking money because they want it, not for the good of our nation or its people. That is selfish. They are coming here to take things from current citizens. Apparently you think that means they care about our country.
Sure it is. But offering people things that they will never pay back is offering free stuff. It is like giving away a pack of gum to a poor person then charging a rich person double for the same thing. It is, for all intents and purposes, "free" to the poor person.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Texas is republican but because of Bush, I mean having homeboys on the ballot every time between 1980 and 2004(Except 96) But texas is a red state, at the end of the day we need to keep the rustbelt, we need to keep at least two of Michigan, Pennslyvania or Wisconsin. Minnesota can be very well added to the column.
-->
@bmdrocks21
However, they have strict gun laws and "hate speech" laws.
This link has the UK at an 8.55 in terms of freedom whereas the US has an 8.39.
This link is to the specifics.
What do you have to say about that?
UK in the second link is at page 365. US's stats are on page 367.
I mean they begin to resemble native-born citizens in terms of their incomes.
Data?
We are unhealthy because we eat like s***. Everyone agrees that our current system sucks. Republicans want to increase competition, and you want universal healthcare. There isn't much common ground there, so nothing gets done and we get screwed. The facts are not "on the left". What is your definition of "the left"?
You didn't actually counter my link instead made by excuses. Excuses are not rebuttals.
The left would be Democrat.
When leeching off the taxpayer, what happens? Well, to fund it, you take money from productive citizens and give it to unproductive ones. I don't know why you are pursuing an indefensible semantic argument. They are taking money because they want it, not for the good of our nation or its people. That is selfish. They are coming here to take things from current citizens. Apparently you think that means they care about our country.
Just like before you are not actually addressing what I said instead have some personal feeling to people leeching off the taxpayer. That is not a rebuttal to my clear and simple statement that people accepting an American policy would be accepting a part of America. If they hated America they wouldn't have moved there in the first place.
Sure it is. But offering people things that they will never pay back is offering free stuff. It is like giving away a pack of gum to a poor person then charging a rich person double for the same thing. It is, for all intents and purposes, "free" to the poor person.
Yet again you are giving a "politically motivated representation of the facts". The truth is the amount they pay would be decided by the policy implemented. Another problem with this statement is that it is emotionally driven. You are not giving me rational arguments instead it is an appeal to emotion. I can't exactly rebut this instead would have to say please stop using anecdotes and lets talk about policy.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, I Ctrl+F "guns" and "speech". So, guns wasn't added to the calculation as far as I can tell. We do, however, have more freedom of expression, which speech would be included in.
We have the second highest rate of fast food consumption. We also have the highest sugar intake. These lead to obesity, which makes us unhealthy. That is a rebuttal to your claim that universal healthcare makes us healthier. There are a lot of more facts involved.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-country-eats-the-most.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-sugar-consuming-nations-in-the-world.html
Well, my data comes from a book I am reading called "We Wanted Workers". I would have to look at their citations.
They can hate everything we stand for, but they will like the free food, money, and housing. If you love your parents, will you leech off them as much as possible, even though they are going into debt to provide for you? Hell no you wouldn't. Did you move in with them because you love them? Probably not considering the aforementioned debt.
I am not basing arguments from emotion. I am using this wonderful tool known as an analogy.
Are you trolling me? lol
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ted Cruz almost lost to that gun-grabbing ex-convict Robert Francis O'Rourke in Texas!
We absolutely need to keep the Rust Belt, but if we lose Texas, we will never win a presidential election ever again.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, I Ctrl+F "guns" and "speech". So, guns wasn't added to the calculation as far as I can tell. We do, however, have more freedom of expression, which speech would be included in.
You didn't actually read it instead you simply said no guns = worse than the US. The problem is that there is more than just guns to talk about when it comes to freedom. To me this sounds like you can't even comprehend a case where a dictatorship allows for guns but another liberal nation without guns can be free.
You even stated another claim "We do, however, have more freedom of expression" which isn't rebuttal of what I said instead is an opinion not supported by evidence. What am I supposed to do, provide evidence to the contrary when you with the burden of making the claim didn't bother to do so?
We have the second highest rate of fast food consumption. We also have the highest sugar intake. These lead to obesity, which makes us unhealthy. That is a rebuttal to your claim that universal healthcare makes us healthier. There are a lot of more facts involved.
This is a non-sequitur. If you actually read what I said you should find out I stated "Public healthcare would be more effective at delivery healthcare outcomes across all people.". Don't strawman my position being "universal healthcare makes us healthier". Next time try to rebut my position not the position you made up.
Well, my data comes from a book I am reading called "We Wanted Workers". I would have to look at their citations.
I find this to be another excuse or a failure to backup your claims.
Either
1) If this opinion was correct there would be more than one place to find evidence for what you said or maybe an actual claim that is sourced.
2) You make claims without actually finding evidence to support it. You stated you read the book without understanding well how can I prove what he/she said was true? You instead simply accepted what they said.
They can hate everything we stand for, but they will like the free food, money, and housing. If you love your parents, will you leech off them as much as possible, even though they are going into debt to provide for you? Hell no you wouldn't. Did you move in with them because you love them? Probably not considering the aforementioned debt.
How is this an argument against mine? All I am seeing is I am not going to challenge your point directly. I will instead give an analogy with a question you answered. You didn't even attempt to discuss about the very simple concept I made. A person accepting an American policy accepts a part of America. What part is forcing you intentionally or unintentionally dodge my statement?
I am not basing arguments from emotion. I am using this wonderful tool known as an analogy.
I am speaking to a person who doesn't even understand how "It is like giving away a pack of gum to a poor person then charging a rich person double for the same thing." is an appeal to emotion. Let me explain why I stated this which you couldn't even do with your own comment.
Appeal to emotion You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
This isn't valid because Warren nor Sanders has specifically stated nor even implied that they would be paying for the gum of a poor person from the wealth of rich people while also taxing it I am assuming. That is your opinion of something that isn't grounded in reality. I wouldn't even know what you stretched to get to that conclusion.
This isn't a compelling argument because you didn't even bother to make claims on reality instead made an analogy which doesn't even fit. I will be repeating myself again that no Democratic nominee has this policy. You are simply making this up.
I wouldn't disagree that this is an analogy but there can be an appeal to emotion to an analogy. It isn't a contradictory for that to happen. I don't know how I would even go about explaining how they are not contradictory when I would have to conform to your view and then somehow see if from your wrong view I can make it right. It is basically asking me a lot from me than what you even bothered to do to explain your stance. Since there can be multiple false interpretations I would have to wait for you to go through why you thought this then hope that I can in some way rebut a commonly agreed upon take that you can use an appeal to emotion in an analogy.
Just to make sure you if didn't understand it is an emotional response because you are applying a dynamic to the rich and the poor in order to connect to some sort of crowd. Instead of being informative or as objective as possible you instead to resort to persuasive rhetoric aimed to pander to a crowd even though there isn't one. This shows a lack of understanding if you think I would agree with you if I read that analogy.
Are you trolling me? lol
I have given evidence when needed and aimed to not be appealing to emotion. You come back with non-sequitur comments, appeal to emotion, unconvincing dis-analogous comments and well I am reading a book so I can't provide evidence instead claims things which I don't know are true. An argument of ignorance essentially.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is really hard to have a dictatorship with an armed populace. Check out Syria vs Venezuela. In Syria, they got guns and could revolt. In Venezuela, they are screwed. I was referring to the Cato Institute source that you provided as my source for us having more freedom of expression.
You said we were fifth in a couple of things, including healthiness. You compared our system to single-payer systems. You said how great their systems were. I said that there are other factors, including diets. Ours is terrible, so that will obviously create more strain on our system and make us unhealthy. Sorry for adding a little nuance instead of pointing out a singular difference between the two and pretending that correlation is always causation.
I will cite my book when I get home from my test.
This was about them having no respect for our country. I have no clue why you are trying to make some incoherent semantic argument about how taking money from us means they accept our country. There is no argument to be made there. Yes, they take money. They "accept" the money.
That was an appeal to justice and fairness, not emotion, but okay.
Yes, the gum example was an analogy. It is a hypothetical to describe a reality in new terms. And technically, through SNAP, many poor people do get free gum....the rich pay for that gum.
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's because we were outspent by a third. People are not at happy with Cruz as Coryn, Trump can get the Texans vote hopefully,
Basically we just need another 2016 but FOCUS on Virginia and the rust belt. The top three Dems in virgina ALL have scandals, we can flip it
-->
@bmdrocks21
Look at my previous problems. You didn't address. Are you going to?It is really hard to have a dictatorship with an armed populace. Check out Syria vs Venezuela. In Syria, they got guns and could revolt. In Venezuela, they are screwed. I was referring to the Cato Institute source that you provided as my source for us having more freedom of expression.
You said we were fifth in a couple of things, including healthiness. You compared our system to single-payer systems. You said how great their systems were. I said that there are other factors, including diets. Ours is terrible, so that will obviously create more strain on our system and make us unhealthy. Sorry for adding a little nuance instead of pointing out a singular difference between the two and pretending that correlation is always causation.
Quote me if you care about not strawmanning me.
I will cite my book when I get home from my test.
I don't want a book unless that book you are reading is citing its claims.
This was about them having no respect for our country. I have no clue why you are trying to make some incoherent semantic argument about how taking money from us means they accept our country. There is no argument to be made there. Yes, they take money. They "accept" the money.
Didn't demonstrate how my point is incoherent or semantic. Are you going to?
That was an appeal to justice and fairness, not emotion, but okay.
Did you just make something up? I clearly showed how this was an appeal to emotion. You instead resort to not even bothering to argue against it instead cite something not even comparable.
It is ironic you say it was based on fairness because from looking at the link you gave they only talk about what would be offered. Nothing talking about doubling the price for rich people I am guessing through taxes and a majority of people buying gum. Tell me again how this is an appeal to fairness instead an appeal to emotion?
Yes, the gum example was an analogy. It is a hypothetical to describe a reality in new terms. And technically, through SNAP, many poor people do get free gum....the rich pay for that gum.
Not technically. You are assuming people are buying gum with that money and to even use this as an argument you would have to demonstrate that most poor people are buying gum that rich people are paying for double the price. If you don't then I can simply say you are using the minority to talk about what the majority of the group doesn't do which means it is unfair and at worst an anecdote. Are you going to drop the paying double the price claim because you know it is indefensible?
Chewing gum with food stamps https://www.tripsavvy.com/arizona-nutrition-assistance-program-2681991
You found a link stating that poor people can buy chewing gum. Not a link to show how many are buying it. Was your an appeal to emotion analogy based on evidence you don't have?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
$13.2 million spent on chewing gum. Not emotions, facts.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ted Cruz almost lost to that gun-grabbing ex-convict Robert Francis O'Rourke in Texas!
I had a friend who was a Beto supporter. She got so cocky on Election Day when Beto was winning for like ten minutes. Half an hour later they call it for Cruz and she gets salty that I’m making the environment “full of hate” against her.
-->
@ILikePie5
Friends with a Beta supporter? Oof.
It is always nice to see a liberal's dreams crushed. Election night 2016 had some nice gems ;)