Election 2016

Engage in discussions about news, politics, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36770
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Election 2016

Post by Jorge »

No, it wasn't fun! Actual fun trivia: Sloths often grab their own arm thinking it's a branch and they fall to their death. Haha!
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
User avatar
LetMeSleep
Posting (live)
Posts: 18005
Joined: Wed February 06, 2013 2:47 am
Twitter: https://twitter.com/
Location: Scooby Doo

Re: Election 2016

Post by LetMeSleep »

theplatypus wrote:No, it wasn't fun! Actual fun trivia: Sloths often grab their own arm thinking it's a branch and they fall to their death. Haha!
You monster.
User avatar
knee tunes
for those who
are not...shall be
Posts: 8509
Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 7:30 am
Location: nothing

Re: Election 2016

Post by knee tunes »

theplatypus wrote:No, it wasn't fun! Actual fun trivia: Sloths often grab their own arm thinking it's a branch and they fall to their death. Haha!
ha ha! ha ha! those dorks. they sound like argo
Vitalogist wrote:As a hotel manager, you can imagine the amount of beige I’ve seen in my career.
User avatar
LetMeSleep
Posting (live)
Posts: 18005
Joined: Wed February 06, 2013 2:47 am
Twitter: https://twitter.com/
Location: Scooby Doo

Re: Election 2016

Post by LetMeSleep »

knee tunes wrote:
theplatypus wrote:No, it wasn't fun! Actual fun trivia: Sloths often grab their own arm thinking it's a branch and they fall to their death. Haha!
ha ha! ha ha! those dorks. they sound like argo
You monster
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by Green Habit »

theplatypus wrote:
Birds in Hell wrote:
Why Trump Is Right About Immigration

In his blunt and imprecise way, Trump has shifted the Overton window on immigration, borders, and national security. The fact that he did so insensitively and that his approach lacked nuance does not make his deeper observation and critique erroneous, however.
I was excited to read something that made me question my own views, especially since me and most of my family are immigrants, but IMO this article makes a really poor argument for why "Trump is right" about immigration; it's mostly concerned with making a bunch of obvious points about why "the US doesn't HAVE to do anything, the US doesn't HAVE to help anyone" with Constitutional and (frankly very flimsy) philosophical arguments. Then when it finally does start addressing specifics (like the study about ethnically diverse US neighborhoods), he offers skin-deep half-truths and doesn't pursue the more interesting line of questioning, like the relationship between ethnic diversity and poverty in US cities, and the causes of it. Also: I've seen this guy around Twitter. He's a Men's Rights Activist and one step short of a white supremacist. While that by itself doesn't invalidate any of the arguments in this article, it does cause me to chuckle at how hard he tries to separate himself from the "Alt Right".
The big thing that I think that article misses is the core reason why high immigration to the US happened late last century: there was work that needed to be done and people that needed work. The ironic thing about Trump harping about this is that since the Great Recession immigration from Mexico has actually been falling. I'm hoping it won't be much longer when this is an exploitable issue on the campaign trail.
simple schoolboy
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by simple schoolboy »

Green Habit wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
Birds in Hell wrote:
Why Trump Is Right About Immigration

In his blunt and imprecise way, Trump has shifted the Overton window on immigration, borders, and national security. The fact that he did so insensitively and that his approach lacked nuance does not make his deeper observation and critique erroneous, however.
I was excited to read something that made me question my own views, especially since me and most of my family are immigrants, but IMO this article makes a really poor argument for why "Trump is right" about immigration; it's mostly concerned with making a bunch of obvious points about why "the US doesn't HAVE to do anything, the US doesn't HAVE to help anyone" with Constitutional and (frankly very flimsy) philosophical arguments. Then when it finally does start addressing specifics (like the study about ethnically diverse US neighborhoods), he offers skin-deep half-truths and doesn't pursue the more interesting line of questioning, like the relationship between ethnic diversity and poverty in US cities, and the causes of it. Also: I've seen this guy around Twitter. He's a Men's Rights Activist and one step short of a white supremacist. While that by itself doesn't invalidate any of the arguments in this article, it does cause me to chuckle at how hard he tries to separate himself from the "Alt Right".
The big thing that I think that article misses is the core reason why high immigration to the US happened late last century: there was work that needed to be done and people that needed work. The ironic thing about Trump harping about this is that since the Great Recession immigration from Mexico has actually been falling. I'm hoping it won't be much longer when this is an exploitable issue on the campaign trail.
Immigration from Mexico fell, but was there a net decrease in immigration from central/ south america? Specifying Mexico as the origin seems to be overly specific, possibly to mislead on overall trends. There may be a net decrease, but the uptick of central american unaccompanied minors seems fairly significant.
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
Birds in Hell wrote:
Why Trump Is Right About Immigration

In his blunt and imprecise way, Trump has shifted the Overton window on immigration, borders, and national security. The fact that he did so insensitively and that his approach lacked nuance does not make his deeper observation and critique erroneous, however.
I was excited to read something that made me question my own views, especially since me and most of my family are immigrants, but IMO this article makes a really poor argument for why "Trump is right" about immigration; it's mostly concerned with making a bunch of obvious points about why "the US doesn't HAVE to do anything, the US doesn't HAVE to help anyone" with Constitutional and (frankly very flimsy) philosophical arguments. Then when it finally does start addressing specifics (like the study about ethnically diverse US neighborhoods), he offers skin-deep half-truths and doesn't pursue the more interesting line of questioning, like the relationship between ethnic diversity and poverty in US cities, and the causes of it. Also: I've seen this guy around Twitter. He's a Men's Rights Activist and one step short of a white supremacist. While that by itself doesn't invalidate any of the arguments in this article, it does cause me to chuckle at how hard he tries to separate himself from the "Alt Right".
The big thing that I think that article misses is the core reason why high immigration to the US happened late last century: there was work that needed to be done and people that needed work. The ironic thing about Trump harping about this is that since the Great Recession immigration from Mexico has actually been falling. I'm hoping it won't be much longer when this is an exploitable issue on the campaign trail.
Immigration from Mexico fell, but was there a net decrease in immigration from central/ south america? Specifying Mexico as the origin seems to be overly specific, possibly to mislead on overall trends. There may be a net decrease, but the uptick of central american unaccompanied minors seems fairly significant.
Aren't you a free market guy?
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by Green Habit »

User avatar
bart
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4198
Joined: Tue January 08, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by bart »

Green Habit wrote:
Image
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by dimejinky99 »

Harrison ford on Donald Trump is gold:)
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
B
Troglodyte
Posts: 25049
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Twitter: https://bsky.app/profile/rectormsw.bsky.social
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Re: Election 2016

Post by B »

Alright, I'm feeling good. Nate Silver is currently giving Hillary a 78% chance of winning this.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
User avatar
LoathedVermin72
The Master
Posts: 33961
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by LoathedVermin72 »

That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
User avatar
ABNorman
The Beef
Posts: 4475
Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 10:16 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by ABNorman »

I'd quite like if you guys could vote in Trump so that WrestleMania tickets would be cheap when they release in November.
User avatar
Simple Torture
I Have A Third Nipple
Posts: 21690
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Cumberland, RI

Re: Election 2016

Post by Simple Torture »

LoathedVermin72 wrote:That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
Yeah, I mean, especially since her chances have dropped from 80% to 78% in like 3 days, and it's at 76% in the nowcast, and 72% in the polls-plus model. If you read the commentaries published on the site, they constantly remind readers that they're taking big guesses about how polls will move between now and November. If the economy slows or tanks or Clinton gets indicted (not likely), it's only a 20-point swing for it to be 50/50.
McParadigm wrote:lol
User avatar
B
Troglodyte
Posts: 25049
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Twitter: https://bsky.app/profile/rectormsw.bsky.social
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Re: Election 2016

Post by B »

Sure, she dropped some in the last couple days, but that was after climbing from a 65% chance in June. There are surely a lot of "ifs," but it's hard to imagine sitting in a better spot than 78% chance of winning in July.
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Kaius
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
Posts: 11136
Joined: Fri November 15, 2013 6:14 am

Re: Election 2016

Post by Kaius »

Worst election ever.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 46240
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Election 2016

Post by BurtReynolds »

Still paying attention to Nate Silver, huh?
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
Simple Torture
I Have A Third Nipple
Posts: 21690
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Cumberland, RI

Re: Election 2016

Post by Simple Torture »

As usual, only 4-5 states will actually matter anyways. I'd feel much more comfortable if Clinton's lead in Ohio was bigger; Arizona might also be a state to watch.
McParadigm wrote:lol
User avatar
LoathedVermin72
The Master
Posts: 33961
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by LoathedVermin72 »

Simple Torture wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
Yeah, I mean, especially since her chances have dropped from 80% to 78% in like 3 days, and it's at 76% in the nowcast, and 72% in the polls-plus model. If you read the commentaries published on the site, they constantly remind readers that they're taking big guesses about how polls will move between now and November. If the economy slows or tanks or Clinton gets indicted (not likely), it's only a 20-point swing for it to be 50/50.
Yeah, and even if she wins, we'll have Hillary Clinton as our president. How exciting.
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Election 2016

Post by 4/5 »

LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Simple Torture wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
Yeah, I mean, especially since her chances have dropped from 80% to 78% in like 3 days, and it's at 76% in the nowcast, and 72% in the polls-plus model. If you read the commentaries published on the site, they constantly remind readers that they're taking big guesses about how polls will move between now and November. If the economy slows or tanks or Clinton gets indicted (not likely), it's only a 20-point swing for it to be 50/50.
Yeah, and even if she wins, we'll have Hillary Clinton as our president. How exciting.
Obama term III.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

Post Reply