A Latino friend pointed out how ridiculous it is that comb, bomb and tomb all have the letter "o" pronounced differently. Same with the "a" in swan and swam.

After studying Spanish for years and helping out latinos who need help with English I"m always glad I grew up speaking it. Never mind the vowels, figuring out the accented syllable in a word can be an ordeal. For example "democrat" and "advocate" both are accented on the first syllable but "democracy" and "advocacy" have different stressed syllable locations.

Spelling and pronunciation are far less complex in Spanish and it's easy to determine the accented syllable in a word. But they make up for it with the subjunctive tense. And the past preterite vs. past imperfect, I still struggle with those.

Sadlly I think you are correct, they have zero capacity to filter bullshit from their talking heads, and zero capacity to refrain from calling anything contradicting their most outrageous fever dreams "bullshit", facts be damned, logic be damned, history be damned, and you better believe Latinos be damned.
Like their chosen president, comprehension is not their strong suit...knowing stuff and actual facts are for liberals, and there's no such thing as an independent. That's where we are.

Sure....then you just get killed in custody or framed and jailed for life.
Even in the highly unlikely event you find an honest police department, you have to fight the charges they think you might deserve with money and lawyers you don't have (the one they give you will have 200 open cases and 3 minutes to work on your case and will tell you to plea guilty), all after sitting in jail for years waiting for trial because you don't have $200k for bail.... sounds great.....after you. (You have to be black or Latino first though).

You know how you fix that, prosecute every small infraction any officer might be guilty of and remove the criminal cops permanently, like once fired for cause you get bared from any law enforcement job for life. We'll have to replace 2/3 of them and retrain the rest, but we still should, the police as they are are a gang of armed thugs that every now and then do a good deed so they can point to helping grandma get home when caught shooting kids in the back and pretend the former excuses the latter.

I also heard trumps attacks on Mexicans / Latinos was making the occupancy rate really low

@bobknight33, because you probably don't know, none of those listed was pardoned before sentencing, or without accepting their guilt and being publicly remorseful.

Arpaio has been defiant from day one when he decided to ignore a federal judge who told him to stop using his office to harass Latinos, violating their civil rights by stopping them for illegal illegal immigration status checks (most were citizens, btw, not immigrants). Arpaio called his own prison a concentration camp, proudly, where the ratio of prisoner death and injury are the highest in the nation, as are suicides and undetermined/uninvestigated deaths. At least 160 have died under Arpaio's supervision, and over $140 million paid to his victims so far, with dozens of lawsuits still pending.
If ever there was a person who deserves prison, and to have to live on rancid balogna in a 115 degree tent, it's Joe.

I'm confused.... who are the white people you're talking about?

Are you saying that white americans shouldn't feel bad that their country is fucking over one of it's own territories?

Or are you classing the latino people of Puerto Rico as whingy white people who should STFU about being fucked over?

Either way, it doesn't make much sense.

@MilkmanDan, as it happens, there was a referendum a few weeks ago and "become a state" won by 97%. This followed on from a 2012 referendum.

I lived in Turkey for four years, and after a while I noticed that Turks didn't respond well to my smiling. They didn't understand it as a friendly signal, and it actually caused friction. I never asked about it, but I somehow caught on that they thought I was stupid. I thought about it, and it made perfect sense to me that it was stupid to smile at things that shouldn't make you happy.

So I stopped smiling in stores and restaurants, with coworkers, and even with Turkish friends. My interactions with people improved noticeably.

After four years, I moved back to Canada, where I continued not smiling for no reason. I've never been able to get back into the habit. I just feel stupid and unnatural smiling for no reason. People smile at me just because they see me, and they smile politely. I can't smile back. I just raise my eyebrows.

People now tell me constantly that I'm too sad, that I should smile more that I'm not happy. Now, there's some truth to that -- I do suffer from depression -- but that predates living in Turkey and it's only since then that anyone's accused me of being sad, or even noticed that I don't smile as much as I should. I've had to train my friends out of referring to me as grumpy.

My job is teaching English as a Second Language to students from all over the world. My Western students -- particularly the Latinos -- tell me daily (literally) that I don't smile enough. My East Asian and Eastern European students have never said a word in that direction. I just realized the divide now after watching this video.

Good stuff. I'm a member of Interpol (Grammar Division) and I notice some Latinos have a habit of misspelling words that have the letters "v" or "b", they use them interchangeably.

Since those consonants sound fairly similar we usually let them off with a berbal warning.

A Frenchman and a Latino are walking down the sidewalk during a windy day. A woman in a skirt is walking towards them and a gust of wind blows her skirt up to reveal she is wearing no undergarments. She covers herself and blushes. As she passes them the Frenchman shrugs and says to her "C'est la vie".
To which the Latino replies "¡Yo también!"
jajajajajaja

@eoe

As ironic as it may be to say this, I think that the Republican Congress will be a strong bulwark against Trump's more nationalistic impulses if it turns out he actually wants to act on them and they weren't just part of demagogic campaigning.

If for no other reason that they know demographics are against them in the longer term. They may have won the election on the electoral college but lost the popular vote - even with all the attempts at voter suppression. In the longer term, winning with their party base becomes harder and harder.

They know if Trump enacts genuine deportation measures against Latinos then the frankly astounding 1/3 of voting Latinos that supported Trump will turn sharply against the Republican party. That group represents the fastest growing demographic in America and they can't afford to lose them for a generation.

In contrast, they will be also act a constraint against any of his ideas on infrastructure spending, congressional term limits or curbing trade. Since it's already clear he's filling his cabinet with establishment Republicans and he has little knowledge of policy, he will likely acquiesce to their suggestions for lack of any other policy advice.

@MilkmanDan

I don't like the notion of free super delegates but they didn't swing the primary. If they were taken out of the equation, Hilary still had a majority. Party favouritism and a media sense of inevitability probably did though.

The main conclusion I drew from the result is that in dire economic times, people will hold their nose and vote their perceived economic interests above anything else. I mean Clinton got 65% of Latinos vs. Obama's 71% in 2012 - Trump got a larger share than Romney. In most of the battleground states Clinton only won 50-55% of women.

Tack onto this the insider vs. outsider narrative, and the desire for a 'change' from government policy associated with Obama / Democrats, and you have a the holy trifecta. In hindsight it's easy to see going after Trump's character was a distraction.

No, this is wrong. Hillary had very strong support from the Black/Latino voters. Saying that Hillary had weak support in that bloc is disingenuous at best when she had something like > 80% of the Black and Hispanic vote. Less than Barack, yes. Absolutely in no way is it 'very weak support'. She had very strong support from that Bloc.

And with reference to Bernie, I'm not so sure his support was there. Hillary did win the popular vote in the in the primaries by 2 million votes. Yes, it's possible the calling of the race for Hillary influenced the people but that ignores the choice/will of the people.

I would say though, this was not a 'whitelash' as he calls it. Fewer white people voted this election than last and Hillary pulled far less of the black and latino vote because she simply assumed that there was no way they wouldn't vote for her. It was only in the last week of the election that her polls showed that she had very weak support from that bloc and she sent out panic attempts to draw them in.

I think Bernie would have given Trump a far stronger challenge, but the Democratic elite hand picked Hillary. We are all going to reap what they sowed.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.