Who's your money on?Follow

Yup, sorry, I'm sick and my reading comprehension is poor right now.

I absolutely think Sanders would offer the veep position to Hill. It's too bad that superdelegates will prevent him from winning the nomination.

Don't you worry about our side of the fence. You go on now and vote for your Cruz or Trump or whoever...

Rubio is saying now that he's staying in even if he loses Florida. Oy vey.

There's no real good outcome in Ohio for the GOP. Either Trump wins it and is pretty much a lock or else Kasich wins it and feels he has a mandate to stick around longer, continuing to fracture the "not Trump" vote. Rubio's pretty irrelevant either way -- his mighty 3% support won't mean much. He hasn't even cleared a delgate in most of the post-Super Tuesday races (aside from DC and Puerto Rico)

Edited, Mar 15th 2016 6:23pm by Jophiel

People don't tend to notice slant in media coverage when it favors them. But you do notice when every time an issue or candidate you favor is mentioned the reporters use a down inflection, and every time an issue or candidate you disagree with is mentioned, the inflection is upwards. Seriously. Pay attention, not to the words people say, but how they say them. Most people react to what they are hearing based more on the verbal cues than the actual words. Body language has an effect on visual media as well. Most people are also not aware of this fact, despite being quite clearly influenced by it.

Rubio just said that we live in a republic. Sounds like the candidate for Twiz!

Lefe is saying that Sanders could offer Hillary the second spot, not that Hillary would offer the job to the Bernese mountain dog.

1. That's a terrible example.
2. According to your own past posts, nobody is being harmed in this scenario.

Try again with a more real-world and, incidentally, less illegal example, please.

Why? You asked for a scenario in which I could randomly act in a way that happens to disproportionately harm one group more than another. I provided a scenario in which I randomly pick numbers out of a hat, which disproportionately harms one group (the 5 blacks in the pool in this case) more than another (the 5 whites in the same pool). I'm not sure what could be more random that picking numbers out of a hat.



Huh? The black guys are losing money and the white guys are winning money. No one's being "intentionally harmed", but that wasn't the condition I was given. Remember that my argument was that for this to be racism, or even racial discrimination, the person had to intend to do harm to someone based on their race. I'm arguing that intent matters. As an example, I'm showing how if someone does something randomly, with no intent to harm anyone based on their skin color, we don't consider it racism. And your response is that it doesn't count, apparently because there was no intent to harm?

Um... You're actually kinda proving my point for me there.



Pools aren't illegal btw. Um... But sure:

You and I are police officers. We each randomly pull over the exact same number of motorists each day. Totally random. As in, every X number of cars driving by, we pull one over. You patrol an upper middle class low crime neighborhood. I patrol a high poverty high crime neighborhood. I will encounter more drivers who are intoxicated than you. I will find more drivers with drugs in their cars than you. I will make more arrests than you. Even though we both use the exact same criteria to pull people over, and search them.

Now. If there's a disproportionately higher percentage of black people living in my neighborhood than yours, what does that do to the race stats? We will see that between the two of us, there's a disproportionately higher percentage of black people being arrested. But neither of us are engaging in any form of racial discrimination at all. The problem isn't with racism on our parts, but on the poverty statistics themselves.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to grasp this.

More like President Clinton. The GOP has saddled itself (well, more like the Republican base has saddled the GOP) with either Trump or Cruz, two terrible choices for November. That and the likelihood of a contested convention where a significant number of primary voters will go away feeling cheated.

Great night for Hillary though.

Trump lost Ohio's 66 delegates but he looks on track to win almost all of Illinois' 69 delegates. States awards some to the overall winner and rest by congressional district and Trump looks like he'll win almost every district.

Trump looks poised to win MO by maybe 2,000 votes.

Edited, Mar 15th 2016 10:06pm by Jophiel

Adding modifiiers is not allowed since it's your gorram statement. Losing a bet is not "harm". (Again, according to like 76767676007654 posts you've made in the past).No You said "If I randomly act in a way that just happens to disproportionately harm one group more than another, that's not racism."

Being assigned to the worst crime area and then arresting minorities is not "random".

Try again, Einstein.

Fuck, you get more desperate every day.

Honestly, that's the candidate I'd most want to win at this point, but we all know that isn't going to happen if he doesn't get the support of a major party, so eff it. Let's burn everything!

Both the president we deserve and need right now. If I wasn't lazy, I'd Photoshop Batman's face orange. Okay, well, I'd use MSPaint. But you know what I mean.

Also, in case you missed it: Anonymous has declared war on Trump.

Looks like both Trump and Clinton will win Missouri by under 2,000 votes each. I suppose the "Well, MY vote wouldn't have made a difference" people are technically correct but, if 2,000 people who'd rather see Cruz over Trump or Sanders over Clinton went and voted, it would have.

Sorta. Dem delegates are proportional so who wins by 0.3% there is just for bragging rights. GOP primary offers extra delegates to the state winner.

Edit: That'll teach me to walk away from my keyboard mid-post for 20min and do work

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 9:19am by Jophiel