Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

Really shocked at those Indiana numbers, thought Cruz would be comfortably 10+

Living here, I'm not. It's a state where Trump's free trade rhetoric is going to play well, just like Michigan.

Cruz is getting the devout religious of course though.

 

[Fenderputty]

To help clarify my position, when I see these discussions I think about Pollan's exegesis in The Omnivore's Dilemma about the "NPK mentality."

When scientists first got around to studying plant growth, they identified rapidly that plants need three things in large quantities to grow -- nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. So that's how fertilizers were designed -- to give large quantities of these three things, because those are the things that correlate with plant growth.

But of course, the things that make plants grow fast and large aren't necessarily the things that grow plants that are best for human consumption! By reducing your focus to the wrong set of metrics we fail to identify the full set of factors that we might be concerned about.

So that's kind of my concern about GMOs. I am not necessarily concerned about the GMO foods themselves -- like they're probably not any more dangerous than the medication I take or the office building I work in or the tiny radio device I carry around and stare at to read the Internet -- but I am concerned by the mentality that we know all about them, because we don't even know all about the plants we were planting BEFORE we genetically modified them. Complex systems are complex! Reductionist analyses have limited effectiveness in managing them.

The reason I bought up cross pollination and how that might effect the environment is because I understand your concern about ecological systems and how GE Foods could affect these systems in unknown ways. The context of the conversation is for labeling of foods though. We currently don't label foods with how each effects the environment. I don't go into a supermarket and buy beef with a label that says "per OZ of beef = x carbon footprint and y water consumption." We don't even label our foods with "FDA says eating X carbs is bad for your health". The only reason we would label these foods is due to dangers of consumption. If you don't want to eat GE foods, buy organic. No need for labels that could lead to unneeded fear of GMO's and and inorganic foods. In the meantime we continue to study and refine.

 

[metalslimer]

The argument is not the same. Labeling a GMO food as a GMO food is stating a fact. There is no known relationship between autism and vaccinations.

But going back to the crux of the argument we have been genetically modifying foods for so long that there is no way to say what isn't genetically modified. It's just an appeal to people's fears. The overall use of labeling it is about as useful as labelling vaccines.

 

[gutter_trash]

looks like the news of Ted Cruz being mathematically eliminated is having its impact in Indiana polls

lying Ted gonna get it worse come Tuesday night in the rest of the Atlantic states

 

[brainchild]

But going back to the crux of the argument we have been genetically modifying foods for so long that there is no way to say what isn't genetically modified. It's just an appeal to people's fears.

I'd say it's an appeal to people's preferences, but whatever. It's still nothing like the anti-vaxx argument.

 

[metalslimer]

I'd say it's an appeal to people's preferences, but whatever. It's still nothing like the anti-vaxx argument.

But why do people have those preferences? We already have an organic label. It all leads back to skepticism with no scientific evidence and is honestly the same as giving people warnings about vaccines with no proven link. Based on your argument about climate change, you do believe we should be skeptical about the effects of vaccines correct?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'd say it's an appeal to people's preferences, but whatever. It's still nothing like the anti-vaxx argument.

It absolutely is. Do we know that vaccinations don't cause long term genetic changes that will cause neurological conditions over hundreds if not thousands of years? No? Then slap a warning on them, same with GMOs. Sure the evidence we have now says it's safe, but who knows what it might do to us later on.

Why are you trying to silence scientists who believe in a connection? I thought science was supposed to allow for disagreement and inclusion of all views.

Are scientists not allowed to have disagreements on how scientific topics should be communicated?

 

[eBay Huckster]

woo boy, this is quite the post

not the least of which because 08 was effectively 58-42 as well

 

[PBY]

looks like the news of Ted Cruz being mathematically eliminated is having its impact in Indiana polls

lying Ted gonna get it worse come Tuesday night in the rest of the Atlantic states

It literally just has to be a nudge of a couple of points.

 

[brainchild]

But why do people have those preferences? We already have an organic label. It all leads back to skepticism with no scientific evidence and is honestly the same as giving people warnings about vaccines with no proven link. Based on your argument about climate change, you do believe we should be skeptical about the effects of vaccines correct?

It absolutely is. Do we know that vaccinations don't cause long term genetic changes that will cause neurological conditions over hundreds if not thousands of years? No? Then slap a warning on them, same with GMOs. Sure the evidence we have now says it's safe now, but who knows what it might do later on.

Why are you trying to silence scientists who believe in a connection? I thought science was supposed to allow for disagreement and inclusion of all views.

Are you guys serious? You don't understand the difference between categorizing food and listing side-effects? Really?!

 

[ugaboga232]

There are super causing cancer products that if you were evil and stupid enough you could put into GMO's somewhat easily (there is that crazy fungal stuff like aflatoxins that if you were conniving enough im sure you could introduce) but that was never the problem. We know enough genetics/molecular biology that (ASSUMING you arent acting in bad faith and actually do the due diligence which perhaps some GMO companies may not do) you can predict what problems will arise thanks to fancy new tools.

And there probably will be more research on vaccines and neurological/psychiatric problems given the intimate link between brain, GI tract, microbiome, and immunity that we are just piecing together (but probably not in the vaccine -> autism route).

 

[gutter_trash]

guys, please stop taking about GMOs. It's not entertaining

 

[Crocodile]

I'm not going to starting diabolosing about GMO foods until I see continued and repeated studies and publications that point to issues in their cultivation and/or their use. The discussion feels a lot like asking to prove a negative ("prove they aren't bad!") which is not something we tend to do with a lot of other recent (and even then GMO aren't actually recent products) scientific developments. To push for labeling legislation in absence of definitive evidence that they are problematic or dangerous to one's health is an argument I feel someone can only make if they are somehow ignorant of human nature and psychology. None of us are Martians who just arrived on Earth a week ago. It should be clear, in absence of actual evidence of danger, why labeling would be counter-productive and basically a scare tactic. I feel we can be reasonable skeptical, keep an open mind and acknowledge the limits of Human knowledge without giving into fear or scientific fallacies ("natural is defacto better"; "longer is better than shorter time wise"; "organisms strive towards perfections", etc.)

 

[Fenderputty]

guys, please stop taking about GMOs. It's not entertaining

Infinitely more entertaining than polls at this point. I also enjoyed the brief break with small econ talk yesterday.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Hmm, okay. Let's talk about IVF kids and their risk of genetic disorders. I think we should probably brand them.

 

[Aaron Strife]

not the least of which because 08 was effectively 58-42 as well

yup Hillary did better than she did in 08 percentage-wise

Bernie did better than Obama 08 percentage-wise as well, but that was with Biden, Edwards and Richardson still on the ballot

 

[ApharmdX]

It's kind of remarkable that despite Bernie's loss in NY, which reduced his long string of pledged delegate gains from 109 to 78, he beat Obama's result in 08, by two points (58/42 vs 60/40), despite his lack of support from African Americans, who largely supported Obama in 08.

Bottom line: I'm not sure Bernie supporters should give up all hope just yet, but next Tuesday could indeed be decisive.

P.S. If it is indeed true that some polling station opening times were, just the other week, switched from 6 A.M. to noon, thus reducing the voting opportunities for some hard working voters, that is fuckery of the highest order. I also saw reports of stations that were supposed to open at 6 A.M., opening after 8 A.M., so again, likely preventing some who work from voting...

P.P.S. How is it that in this year's Democratic primaries, when exit polls are consistently nothing like the actual result, only Bernie supporters are crying foul, and the probability of this compounded level of a discrepency is massive?

The race is over, and I say that as a Bernie supporter. We've run out of road. You'll want to accept that now. That said, I think our message can still do positive work for the Democratic Party, and I hope that Bernie stays in it until the convention.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I feel we can be reasonable skeptical, keep an open mind and acknowledge the limits of Human knowledge without giving into fear or scientific fallacies ("natural is defacto better"; "longer is better than shorter time wise"; "organisms strive towards perfections", etc.)

You know what's really natural? Dying young from disease, malnutrition, exposure, being attacked by animals. Yay! Nature!

Nature is trying to fucking kill us. We fight it with science and tech.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Are you guys serious? You don't understand the difference between categorizing food and listing side-effects? Really?!

There is no difference in function if the purpose of a food label is to warn of deleterious health impacts resulting from consumption. Saying cigarettes contribute to cancer is the same kind of warning as saying eating under cooked meat can give you salmonella, it's utterly irrelevant to note that cigarettes are not a food because that's not the point, the purpose of the label is the point. Similarly, some people want a warning for vaccines causing autism just in case. It's no different than people wanting a label on GMO food just in case.

Acting as if a GMO label would function as anything but a health warning is ignorance or willful disbelief.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm not going to starting diabolosing about GMO foods until I see continued and repeated studies and publications that point to issues in their cultivation and/or their use. The discussion feels a lot like asking to prove a negative ("prove they aren't bad!") which is not something we tend to do with a lot of other recent (and even then GMO aren't actually recent products) scientific developments. To push for labeling legislation in absence of definitive evidence that they are problematic or dangerous to one's health is an argument I feel someone can only make if they are somehow ignorant of human nature and psychology. None of us are Martians who just arrived on Earth a week ago. It should be clear, in absence of actual evidence of danger, why labeling would be counter-productive and basically a scare tactic. I feel we can be reasonable skeptical, keep an open mind and acknowledge the limits of Human knowledge without giving into fear or scientific fallacies ("natural is defacto better"; "longer is better than shorter time wise"; "organisms strive towards perfections", etc.)

This is more or less what I came in to say. Continue reviewing the data? Sure, absolutely. But the rigorous tests so far don't indicate any problems and I don't think we need to label them while we continue to run more tests waiting for the one that comes back proving that they're harmful. We've done our initial diligence, now we just need to keep an eye on things

 

[brainchild]

It seems that there is a fundamental disconnect in logic here.

GMO label != listing potential side effects by consuming GMOs

In order to make the same argument for vaccinations, you'd have to be secretly putting vaccinations into food. In that case:

Labeling foods with vaccinations != listing potential side-effects by ingesting vaccinations

 

[Mael]

You know what's really natural? Dying young from disease, malnutrition, exposure, being attacked by animals. Yay! Nature!

Nature is trying to fucking kill us. We fight it with science and tech.

Nature is way less efficient than us, don't worry about Nature at least it's nothing personal.

 

[metalslimer]

It seems that there is a fundamental disconnect in logic here.

GMO label != listing potential side effects by consuming GMOs

In order to make the same argument for vaccinations, you'd have to be secretly putting vaccinations into food. In that case:

Labeling foods with vaccinations != listing potential side-effects by ingesting vaccinations

What is the purpose of the label besides if there is no evidence of anything wrong? Companies shouldnt be forced into labeling something that's not harmful.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Cruz is legitimately terrified of transgender people, omg:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/04/21/trans-teen-ejected-from-cruz-rally/

 

[Mael]

What is the purpose of the label besides if there is no evidence of anything wrong? Companies shouldnt be forced into labeling something that's not harmful.

There's a label on milk products if they use growth hormone on the cow, the FDA also state that there's no difference in taste or health between a cow having it and a cow not having it.
I don't see cheese from growth hormone cows getting retired from the shelves because no one want to buy it.

 

[Daniel B·]

1. Hillary is suing Arizona, not Bernie, so Bernie people aren't the only one "crying foul."

2. The polling has been very accurate. Michigan being the only real outlier. Hillary has mostly won by about how much she was predicted to win. Sometimes she's overperformed in wins, sometimes she underperformed in losses...which is expected.

I thought Bernie also joined the Arizona bandwagon.

On the exit polls, I believe the anomaly is much more widespread, and includes states such as Massachusetts. I must say, if Bernie hasn't devoted any resources on this, he is potentially missing a big opportunity, because, if it could be conclusively shown that even a single primary was stolen from him, due to fraud, the public backlash would be quite something.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Oh god, everything is terrible. Also, I wonder if mutation breeding deserves a label under this same "informational only" reasoning.

That's not a watermelon. That's a drymelon. And that Ur-Banana looks like one of those lotus seed pods that freak people out. Man, so much work over thousands of years to breed and increase the output of what we consume.* Funny how people can call themselves "progressive" but when it comes to science they get regressive.














*Can we just keep doing this to our food and stop doing it to dogs and cats? Today's GMO bulldogs can barely breathe.

 

[The Technomancer]

It seems that there is a fundamental disconnect in logic here.

GMO label != listing potential side effects by consuming GMOs

In order to make the same argument for vaccinations, you'd have to be secretly putting vaccinations into food. In that case:

Labeling foods with vaccinations != listing potential side-effects by ingesting vaccinations

What's the utility of the labeling though? Its not letting people make a "more informed decision" since we don't have information that GMOs are harmful, it just presents them with the illusion of more information

 

[brainchild]

What is the purpose of the label besides if there is no evidence of anything wrong? Companies shouldnt be forced into labeling something that's not harmful.

Because many people feel that if a category of foods have been changed from their original state, they have a right to know about it and make that distinction public. It's something that's actually based in fact, not speculation, unlike any potential side effects from said changes.

 

[metalslimer]

There's a label on milk products if they use growth hormone on the cow, the FDA also state that there's no difference in taste or health between a cow having it and a cow not having it.
I don't see cheese from growth hormone cows getting retired from the shelves because no one want to buy it.

If there has been rigorous scientific research that shows no difference I don't see the point in that either.

Because many people feel that if a category of foods have been changed from their original state, they have a right to know about it and make that distinction public. It's something that's actually based in fact, not speculation, unlike any potential side effects from said changes.

Once again, what should we consider the original state?

 

[Hazmat]

What is the purpose of the label besides if there is no evidence of anything wrong? Companies shouldnt be forced into labeling something that's not harmful.

I agree. The label inherently begs the question "If this isn't harmful, why did the government require them to label it?" After that people fall down the poor food science rabbit hole and get convinced that something's wrong with the food.

 

[The Technomancer]

There's a label on milk products if they use growth hormone on the cow, the FDA also state that there's no difference in taste or health between a cow having it and a cow not having it.
I don't see cheese from growth hormone cows getting retired from the shelves because no one want to buy it.

Because people are pushing for GMO labeling for marketing reasons, quite frankly. The impetus for the requirement is business driven; not by conscientious consumers but by companies who want to use it (or the lack of it) to their advantage

http://civileats.com/2015/09/30/gmo-labeling-fight-is-there-big-spending-on-both-sides/

Pro-labeling funding is coming from various organic interest groups. The relative spending is different, but the people on the labeling side of the argument all share common interest

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It seems that there is a fundamental disconnect in logic here.

GMO label != listing potential side effects by consuming GMOs

In order to make the same argument for vaccinations, you'd have to be secretly putting vaccinations into food. In that case:

Labeling foods with vaccinations != listing potential side-effects by ingesting vaccinations

But what function do those labels serve? Information? Well why not tell me every single person who came in contact with my food before it was packaged and put on a grocery shelf. That's information too, but it's pointless information, because it doesn't actually affect the product in any material way. The only people calling for the mandatory labeling of GMO products are people who are under the impression that it is possible that they pose some form of health risk. It's the only possible argument to make for requiring a label. And that's an argument that has no basis in science.

If you want non-GMO foods, go into Whole Foods or Trader Joe's and be dazzled by all the products that will proudly announce on their label "made from non-GMO ingredients!" There is a market for this and producers have been targeting it for quite some time. Taking the next step to say that the government should get involved and require these labels is a solution looking for a problem. It pre-supposes that there is an important distinction between GMO and non-GMO and that simply isn't scientifically supported right now.

 

[Mael]

What's the utility of the labeling though? Its not letting people make a "more informed decision" since we don't have information that GMOs are harmful, it just presents them with the illusion of more information

There's a label on milk products if they use growth hormone on the cow, the FDA also state that there's no difference in taste or health between a cow having it and a cow not having it.
I don't see cheese from growth hormone cows getting retired from the shelves because no one want to buy it.

We do it on milk based products and no one seem to care, we could do an experiment to see if this affect behavior.
I guess Vermont will be the experiment.

 

[gaugebozo]

This is the same argument that came up last time and it's still just as incorrect. There is in fact a meaningful difference between direct genetic modification, agricultural breeding, and evolutionary action, and that difference is timescale. It is a difference in kind as well as degree because removing timescale removes lots of processes that naturally act to prevent counterproductive mutations. That is literally how evolution works, so I am surprised that people don't seem to grasp that taking out the "survival of the fittest" part of the system actually meaningfully changes the results you may get from the system.

To me, saying that being concerned about GMOs is dumb because of evolution is approximately equivalent to saying that being concerned about climate change is dumb because winters are still cold.

I am not necessarily saying that we should be regulating GMOs, but I think it's bizarre and unfortunate that it seems like it's considered crazy or dangerous to be skeptical.

Skepticism is not simply being contrary. Skepticism is doubt applied to unempirical ideas. So far, the vast bulk of credible evidence is on the GMO side. None of the activists on the anti side are against them because they have a large body of peer-reviewed papers that provide (even weak) evidence that they are dangerous, but because of how the term "genetically modified" makes them feel.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Because many people feel that if a category of foods have been changed from their original state, they have a right to know about it and make that distinction public. It's something that's actually based in fact, not speculation, unlike any potential side effects from said changes.

Human psychology dictates that they will make that connection in their minds, you don't have to explicitly spell it out. If I put a big "VACCINE CONTAINS TETANUS TOXOID" you bet your ass parents are going to freak out even if it's just describing what the vaccine literally is.

 

[StopMakingSense]

On the exit polls, I believe the anomaly is much more widespread, and includes states such as Massachusetts. I must say, if Bernie hasn't devoted any resources on this, he is potentially missing a big opportunity, because, if it could be conclusively shown, that even a single primary was stolen from him, due to fraud, the public backlash would be quite something.

Exit polls can be very inaccurate due to the initial weighting of results essentially being a guess. It's a problem of the sample set not being random in a very diverse polling situation that you don't get from randomized phone-based polls.

 

[Armaros]

Human psychology dictates that they will make that connection in their minds, you don't have to explicitly spell it out. If I put a big "VACCINE CONTAINS TETANUS TOXOID" you bet your ass parents are going to freak out even if I'm just describing what the vaccine literally is.

All products with liquid need to be labeled with "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE"

 

[The Technomancer]

But what function do those labels serve? Information? Well why not tell me every single person who came in contact with my food before it was packaged and put on a grocery shelf. That's information too, but it's pointless information, because it doesn't actually affect the product in any material way. The only people calling for the mandatory labeling of GMO products are people who are under the impression that it is possible that they pose some form of health risk. It's the only possible argument to make for requiring a label. And that's an argument that has no basis in science.

If you want non-GMO foods, go into Whole Foods or Trader Joe's and be dazzled by all the products that will proudly announce on their label "made from non-GMO ingredients!" There is a market for this and producers have been targeting it for quite some time. Taking the next step to say that the government should get involved and require these labels is a solution looking for a problem. It pre-supposes that there is an important distinction between GMO and non-GMO and that simply isn't scientifically supported right now.

This, also, I feel gets overlooked. The standards for labeling your products as organic already exist. If as a consumer non-GMO is important to you you can rest easy knowing the FDA rigorously controls what's allowed to be marketed to you as organic. I don't believe there's a demonstrable burden placed on those who wish to avoid GMOs

 

[plagiarize]

I'll just leave this here:

Fact: Hillary Clinton has won most of her delegates from Primaries where independents were eligible to vote too (814). Bernie Sanders has not (563).

Fact: Hillary Clinton has won a higher percentage of delegates from such states, 59.1%, than she has overall, 54.4%.

 

[brainchild]

Bah, we're talking in circles now. I feel that this discussion has run its course.

 

[Mael]

Because people are pushing for GMO labeling for marketing reasons, quite frankly. The impetus for the requirement is business driven; not by conscientious consumers but by companies who want to use it (or the lack of it) to their advantage

http://civileats.com/2015/09/30/gmo-labeling-fight-is-there-big-spending-on-both-sides/

Tons of pro-labeling funding is coming from various organic interest groups

And?
In Europe, we have lobbyist groups for pesticides that go the other way and are also pushing back against safety measures to avoid making spraying agricultural pesticides illegal close to where people live and school.
The same groups are pushing for lifting GMO bans for obvious reasons.
I don't really see why 1 group should be vilified over the other.

This, also, I feel gets overlooked. The standards for labeling your products as organic already exist. If as a consumer non-GMO is important to you you can rest easy knowing the FDA rigorously controls what's allowed to be marketed to you as organic. I don't believe there's a demonstrable burden placed on those who wish to avoid GMOs

As you would have guessed I'm not from the US and moved there relatively recently.
This is a label that is rigorously enforced or it's crap marketing like farm fresh labels?

 

[Black Mamba]

I thought Bernie also joined the Arizona bandwagon.

On the exit polls, I believe the anomaly is much more widespread, and includes states such as Massachusetts. I must say, if Bernie hasn't devoted any resources on this, he is potentially missing a big opportunity, because, if it could be conclusively shown that even a single primary was stolen from him, due to fraud, the public backlash would be quite something.

Exit polling is notoriously inaccurate for every election.

Nothing wrong has gone on. Exit poling isn't reliable enough to use as a counter to whatever vote totals came in.

Pre-election polling has been quite good so far outside of Michigan. But 1 out of 50 states (eventually) being wrong makes total sense!

 

[Brawndo Addict]

To be fair I only got back into it because of Pigeon quoting me after I said was dropping it. I can't resist, I have poor impulse control, I had to respond, my ego demands it.

 

[hawk2025]

Inaccurate polling is not evidence of tampering with elections. It's evidence of incorrect sampling.

Because many people feel that if a category of foods have been changed from their original state, they have a right to know about it and make that distinction public. It's something that's actually based in fact, not speculation, unlike any potential side effects from said changes.

Ok, which facts are we using to label these food products in this way?

What's the standard?

What happens if we actually find a harmful effect of a particular modification? Label it again, label it differently?

You keep addressing this fact from the shallowest of shallow platitudes: More information is better.

This is categorically false. Your whole premise is false.

 

[The Technomancer]

And?
In Europe, we have lobbyist groups for pesticides that go the other way and are also pushing back against safety measures to avoid making spraying agricultural pesticides illegal close to where people live and school.
The same groups are pushing for lifting GMO bans for obvious reasons.
I don't really see why 1 group should be vilified over the other.

My point is primarily that there are people with vested financial interest in GMO labeling beyond just "concern for the public"

As you would have guessed I'm not from the US and moved there relatively recently.
This is a label that is rigorously enforced or it's crap marketing like farm fresh labels?

Its pretty rigorous. To use the term "organic" in any customer facing capacity you have to meet various standards, including non-GMO: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling

If you are not certified, you must not make any organic claim on the principal display panel or use the USDA organic seal anywhere on the package*. You may only, on the information panel, identify the certified organic ingredients as organic and the percentage of organic ingredients.

 

[gaugebozo]

Inaccurate polling is not evidence of tampering with elections. It's evidence of incorrect sampling.

Ironically, the strongest argument for tampering is in Michigan.

 

[itschris]

It's been interesting watching Free Republic this election cycle. They're pretty conflicted between Trump and Cruz, and some of Trump's comments today aren't helping (each line is a new reply):

Cruz slams Trump’s ‘PC’ stance on transgender public bathrooms

I agree that Trump is absolutely wrong. He’s got about 24-48 hours to retract this.

How typical. Cruz never leads, he follows. After focus grouping.

Occasionally, Trump let’s the mask slip and reveals the underlying progressive. For example, his “repeal Obamacare” but everyone will still have health care — asked who would pay for it he replied “the government”.

Bone-headed move by Trump. He’s gotta get away from crap like this and keep focused on the big picture.

I like Trump - I would have to hold my nose to vote for Cruz but I would. Now...it’s looking like I’ll have to hold my nose while voting for Trump. It’s like he is going out of his way to fins crap to step in...this was such an easy answer for any Conservative.

Trump is not a conservative and never has been I’m glad some are finally realizing this

The Trumpsters willingly admit they know Donald Trump is not a Conservative. That's what you get with a TransRepublican.

Hey what a shocker. Ted Cruz disagrees with Trump. I’m surprised he was able to refrain from his usual Me too to any stance Trump takes.

Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion

People who still think this man is a conservative...well...

Let the excuses begin........he meant this, he meant that.....he didn't mean Universal Healthcare, he didn't mean increase Hb-1, he didn't mean.........

Those good ol’ New York values ...

Line. Sand. Crossed. Nope.

Keep digging Don you are about to eliminate yourself, glad I didn’t vote for you in primary.

Reagan was for the exceptions too.

No if he does then i drop him end of story

Everyone knows this is Trump’s position. ( I agree with Trump on this) These two issues today is all Cruz has left to gin up voter turnout against the ‘satanic’ Trump...

You’re seeing the True Trump™ today.

Sensible position. Of course many here will scream that Trump is a liberal

Trump is pulling the classic “Nixon”: Run right to win the primary and then run to the middle for the general. Sorry Trumpkins. Enjoy your Romney 2.0.

Trump: You Bet I Support Raising Taxes on the Rich

Fantastic. But to Trumpbots, this won’t matter. They will justify any liberal idea this leftist RINO proposes as if it’s no big deal.

He’s already starting the General Election. So Deceptive Donnie who you really want, huh Trumpbots? Yeah. Wonderful.

Cruz wants VAT which is the poster child for globalist liberal socialist taxation.

Eh, don’t worry. Trump will walk it all back in a few hours. Then it’s all good again, right?

Do you really believe King Trumpy is going to build a wall? Neither party wants a wall and you think King Trumpy is going to just decree it?? Really??

It’s crazy. It is rather amusing to see them tie themselves into really tight knots supporting the Donald, just like Obama supporters did. If tRump wins, conservatives will, once again, have know party and the GOP will go back to being the minority party in both the House and Senate like they were for so many years. The next few months will certainly be interesting.

The Trump campaign death spiral began today.

The Cruz people are hurling insults - again.

The trumpers have put down their torches and pitchforks a little this morning. Celebrated a little too much last night.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Inaccurate polling is not evidence of tampering with elections. It's evidence of incorrect sampling.

And sampling for exit polls is fundamentally incorrect.

 

[hawk2025]

I'll walk that back a bit -- inaccurate polling can be evidence of tampering: If we know that the sampling is reasonably accurate. Which is something that's very hard to do, especially for exit polls that are very unlikely to sample the distribution of voters correctly.