You're wrong

For starters, the grammar and orthographic rules for Spanish are dictated by the RAE. As for what constitutes correct Spanish, of course it evolves with time, and RAE listens, but at the end of the day, they're the official source.

If you think otherwise, good luck writing to any official Spanish speaking institution. Or university. Or school.

Sorry, but that is wrong. I've been reading this nonsense comments for a while, so I guess it's time to spread some education

Latino by itself means something that derives from Latin, the roman's language (which is called like that because it was originated in Lacio, a region of Italy). By that extension, all countries which had their languages and cultures descending from Latin, are called "latinas". This includes Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and possibly others in the Mediterranean sea.

Now, when Spain and Portugal conquered South America, the part under their influence was generally called Iberoamerica, as it was linked to the 2 countries that formed the Iberian Peninsula. But politics came in: France didn't like that Spain and Portugal had such influence, and hence proposed the term "LatinoAmerica", because they had small colonies on the continent as well. France had the support from England at that time, as they saw in the rebranding an opportunity to lower Iberia's influence (Portuguese and Spanish empires were already starting their decadence) and so, english speaking countries (USA) adopted LatinAmerica and Latinos as a default for anyone coming south of their country. But Hispanoamerica (and hispanos) was able to keep being used as the people from spanish speaking countries.

All this to explain that Latino does not refer only to the americas :)

Btw, Latinx is nonsense in spanish. There is an official institution that dictates what's proper spanish and not (France has a equivalente one). I don't know of anything similar in english, so I suppose you can do whatever the hell you want. For that reason I guess that people with hispanic origins born in the US could feel more comfortable with it, while people from actualy spanish speaking countries will react mostly differently.

I mean, reddit is basically a forum, right? that would make more sense for me....

At least in Spain (and I'm pretty sure France as well), it's compulsory to study philosophy, and it's part of the nation-wide exam that grants access to the university regardless of what you want to study later. I'm an engineer and had to study it as well for a couple years. The exam normally asks you about a particular philosopher, and you have to explain in detail his (as they were normally men) doctrine. I loved it.

A good introductory novel for people that are not familiar with philosophy is "Sophie's world". It's aimed at young adults, easy to read, and you end up learning quite a bit.

If I had moderator points, you'd be insightfull.

But the truth is that TODAY, most republicans are against of additional public healthcare

and why not, again? Ever took a look at the NHS (england)? Or securite social (France)? or Krankenversicherung (Germany)? what part of your "absolutely not" is failing there? All citizens have access to a system that provides unversal healthcare in different ways, independently of their age and pension. AND if they want a premium service (faster attention, better infrastructure), they can allways pay it by themselves. In spain, if you want to have surgery on your knee (non vital), you might have to wait 6 months. You can pay a private surgeon and get it done faster, but you would get your service in either case. In france, the rehabilitation system covers the generic personal rehab (with an official title). You want the most famous guy? the goverment will only reimburse you the official quota.. Both this countries have a dramatically less cos-per capita on healthcare, and better healthcare outcomes (expectancy of live, child decease rates, quality of live on elderly people. Both taking into consideration median and average values. And this applies to Italy, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Uk... It's objective and measurable that the US has the worst investment-outcomes in healthcare in the whole world. Don't try to defend a broken system. One thing is true, though: Everytime I have healtchare assistance on the US, I feel like a prince. It does not compare to the service on the NHS, (for example).

funny thing is: all the political systems that provided "free food" (I never talked about free, I talked about payed by taxes), by being commnunist, ended up pretty wrong. Now take a look at the countries with a public healthcare system. Yes, every single developed country on the world EXCEPT the US. If you don't want to see the reality, it does not matter how many proofs we have for you. Yours is a good example of being a fanatic taliban...

That you have to pay "cash" to get medical attention strucks me as hard as if you'd had to pay to have the police assiting you, or that if you had to pay to get your children into the school. All of those are basic rights that any development country considers "essential". Of course you pay for them, but you do so in your taxes... and if you want a premium service, then yes: you can use your cash as much as you want, and have hot blonde nurses for all I care. American republicans are fucked up around private healthcare. Why don't they ask for only-private police? that only serves and protects those that can afford it? or only-private education?

er.. yes,sure. Go tell that to Sarkozy (recent president of France), Berlusconi (recent president of Italy) and Aznar (recent president of Spain). All 3 of them were significantly below their countries average. Yup. Your comment is full of insight...

well, that is not true AT ALL. I've been living in 4 different countries so far, with mobile phones bought in the 4 of them (spain, france, england and germany so far). Pretty much each country does different: in some of them the higher the forfait you agree to pay monthly, the cheaper the phone is, in others there is not such an agreement (well, allways a 5 euros or so), but I've NEVER seen paying money just for the line (and with that I mean money that does not come, or can not be spent in calls) The parent is shimply lying.