You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Vote Blue... Bitches!!🇺🇸🔵🔷💙 pic.twitter.com/vciYbuvWpt
— Axl Rose (@axlrose) October 29, 2018
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Vote Blue... Bitches!!🇺🇸🔵🔷💙 pic.twitter.com/vciYbuvWpt
— Axl Rose (@axlrose) October 29, 2018
[/embed]
I was going to vote based on whom I thought was the best candidate. But now that Axl opined, I obviously have to do what he says.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:YOUR numbers show an increase in Republican votes and a decrease in Democratic votes. Those are your numbers dude and they say exactly what I said.
No they don’t....outside of one state. There is no significant difference difference in voters who voted republican...the same assholes who voted for Romney voted for Trump. The minor differences from 2012 to 2016 could be easily explained by slow population growth and eligible voters in each state.
It’s no wonder you believe everything trump tells you...your analytical skills leave much to be desired.
Your definition of significant is way off. It doesn't take a lot when one side increases a little and the other side decreases a little and the state is close. Those "insignificant" numbers to you got Trump elected.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Trump wants to end birth right citizenship now...really baiting his base. Where are all the constitutional scholars on here who believe and law and the word of the constitution.
Oh that's right...you only believe in it when it supports your agenda.
I wish we can some of the knuckle draggers back where they came from.
See, this is the kind of shit I like to discuss.
Trump is wrong to use an EO here, just as Obama was wrong on DACA. But there’s a key distinction here.
Congress already established who could legally reside and be employed in the US. Obama lacked the authority to change that and confer legal status to potentially millions of illegals.
The 14th amendment doesn’t guarantee unrestricted birth right citizenship. It’s certainly the common view, but no court has ever ruled that, and the authors of the amendment certainly didn’t think it would apply to the children of non-citizens.
So IF Trump actually signs this, it will immediately be stopped by a federal court. Not just the 9th circuit, but any court. Because the stakes if Trump is wrong are too great. So it’ll work it’s way through the system to SCOTUS, who will once and for all settle the debate.
I don’t think any rational person can believe the 14th amendment applies to Chinese women who fly here a day before their due date on a tourist visa to get an anchor baby. But SCOTUS, and SCOTUS only gets to decide that.
Anyone claiming the matter is settled or pointing to a law or verdict is a liar or grossly misinformed.
Agreed. People don't understand how the legal system works at all...Congress makes laws, the SC interprets the laws. Frankly the SC shouldn't be political like it is...that's where a lot of our problems come from. The laws shouldn't be political.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Also trumps platform is nothing but hate....i won’t get behind it and i hate my president with a passion. I can’t wait til someone knocks his ass down.
Is mitch the only one that doesn't see the irony in this?
Mitch is incapable of posting anything meaningful. Even when he tries, he posts nonsense. Case and point him arguing Republicans are a monolithic group that always votes the same, and post numbers and his own personal story that completely disprove what he just wrote.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:Also trumps platform is nothing but hate....i won’t get behind it and i hate my president with a passion. I can’t wait til someone knocks his ass down.
Is mitch the only one that doesn't see the irony in this?
Mitch is incapable of posting anything meaningful. Even when he tries, he posts nonsense. Case and point him arguing Republicans are a monolithic group that always votes the same, and post numbers and his own personal story that completely disprove what he just wrote.
Haha wtf ever man...and you spew meaningless Fox News doctrine.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:Also trumps platform is nothing but hate....i won’t get behind it and i hate my president with a passion. I can’t wait til someone knocks his ass down.
Is mitch the only one that doesn't see the irony in this?
Mitch is incapable of posting anything meaningful. Even when he tries, he posts nonsense. Case and point him arguing Republicans are a monolithic group that always votes the same, and post numbers and his own personal story that completely disprove what he just wrote.
Grasping at straws here with your interpretation. Do your own research for christsake...
You're too wrapped up in this notion of 'American Democracy' and hooray for America. There is copious amounts of literature out there that show what I'm talking about.
Your opinion about what is statistically significant and what a statistics calculation will show you are quite different. Your opinion about what is statistically significant in differences shows how ignorant your analysis has been.
Hillary didn't get the vote out, Trump received pretty much the same support Romney did with the exception of one state in our sampling.
I can't make it any clearer for you than that.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Is mitch the only one that doesn't see the irony in this?
Mitch is incapable of posting anything meaningful. Even when he tries, he posts nonsense. Case and point him arguing Republicans are a monolithic group that always votes the same, and post numbers and his own personal story that completely disprove what he just wrote.
Grasping at straws here with your interpretation. Do your own research for christsake...
You're too wrapped up in this notion of 'American Democracy' and hooray for America. There is copious amounts of literature out there that show what I'm talking about.
Your opinion about what is statistically significant and what a statistics calculation will show you are quite different. Your opinion about what is statistically significant in differences shows how ignorant your analysis has been.
Hillary didn't get the vote out, Trump received pretty much the same support Romney did with the exception of one state in our sampling.
I can't make it any clearer for you than that.
Yea, Mitch. I’m totally going to take advice from you on statistics. When Trump won some states by 30k votes, swings of 100-300k votes matter.
It’s an objective and self evident fact. Hillary lost 100k voters Obama got in 2012. Trump gained over 2 million from Romney.
But I agree with your larger point. So I won’t expect you to be commenting on mass shootings with an ar-15 or the next time some gang banger gets dropped by police for going for his gun. Because these events are incredibly rare and represent the statistically insignificant deviance you’re trying to apply to our last election.
We’ll see how consistent you are. Or if you’ll continue to make posts calling Trump a hate mongerer and tell us how much you hate Trump in the next sentence.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Mitch is incapable of posting anything meaningful. Even when he tries, he posts nonsense. Case and point him arguing Republicans are a monolithic group that always votes the same, and post numbers and his own personal story that completely disprove what he just wrote.
Grasping at straws here with your interpretation. Do your own research for christsake...
You're too wrapped up in this notion of 'American Democracy' and hooray for America. There is copious amounts of literature out there that show what I'm talking about.
Your opinion about what is statistically significant and what a statistics calculation will show you are quite different. Your opinion about what is statistically significant in differences shows how ignorant your analysis has been.
Hillary didn't get the vote out, Trump received pretty much the same support Romney did with the exception of one state in our sampling.
I can't make it any clearer for you than that.
Yea, Mitch. I’m totally going to take advice from you on statistics. When Trump won some states by 30k votes, swings of 100-300k votes matter.
It’s an objective and self evident fact. Hillary lost 100k voters Obama got in 2012. Trump gained over 2 million from Romney.
But I agree with your larger point. So I won’t expect you to be commenting on mass shootings with an ar-15 or the next time some gang banger gets dropped by police for going for his gun. Because these events are incredibly rare and represent the statistically insignificant deviance you’re trying to apply to our last election.
We’ll see how consistent you are. Or if you’ll continue to make posts calling Trump a hate mongerer and tell us how much you hate Trump in the next sentence.
You're talking about a low probability/low risk of incident of voting and a low probability/high risk of incident?
I don't see how you can compare the two.
One there's almost zero risk of dying, the other there's a quite high risk.
