Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Shutdown Over Border Security?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    She is and she’s already voted on it, namely more than $1.3 billion for new fencing in the Rio Grande Valley and funding to replace secondary fencing in San Diego and other existing fencing.
    As I stated earlier, 1.3 B isn't enough - not by a long shot. And it's not even close to how much BORDER PATROL needs.

    Not so. Pelosi is interested in sensible border security and all the various options available for it. She, along with most Americans, is NOT interested in a “great, big, beautiful” useless wall on its own.
    No she isn't. And nowhere is the wall being pitched "on its own". That's more Dumbocrap lies, which you slurp up like pablum.


    What border patrol say they need is what Pelosi says she’s supporting.
    Lie. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/


    Not just CNN blaming Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for threatening Trump with the loss of core-base support.
    Oh. Well then [/idiot iberal talking point]. Better.


    Strategic new areas of fencing is just one component of what’s required for improved border security.
    No duh Sherlock. That's why Trump is asking for more than the Dems are willing to give. They low balled him KNOWING they needed more for technology and personnel. They don't care.

    It was at least a start. Trump with his unrealistic "all or nothing" strategy looks like getting nothing.
    It's not unrealistic, except to expect Nancy Pelosi to act like a human being and not a disgusting piece of human garbage.
    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 01-15-2019, 08:34 AM.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Yes. Sorry. Adam Silver is the Commissioner of the NBA



      It's a summary of what he said pollsters needed to do.



      He showed the polls were shifting TOWARD Hillary in the last few weeks leading up to his article on Nov 7. He said shortly after the election:

      Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

      There’s a lot we still don’t know. We don’t yet have final margins in many states; we’re using ones from Wednesday afternoon. We also don’t know yet if this miss was really due to systematic problems among pollsters, as opposed to shifts toward Trump after their last polls ended (though polls showed Clinton gaining in the final days, not Trump).

      © Copyright Original Source







      Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

      So did many of the statistical models of the campaign, of course. While FiveThirtyEight’s final “polls-only” forecast gave Trump a comparatively generous 3-in-10 chance (29 percent) of winning the Electoral College, it was somewhat outside the consensus, with some other forecasts showing Trump with less than a 1 in 100 shot. Those are radically different forecasts: one model put Trump’s chances about 30 times higher than another, even though they were using basically the same data. Instead of serving as an indication of the challenges of poll interpretation, however, “the models” were often lumped together because they all showed Clinton favored, and they probably reinforced traditional reporters’ confidence in Clinton’s prospects.

      But the overconfidence in Clinton’s chances wasn’t just because of the polls. National journalists usually interpreted conflicting and contradictory information as confirming their prior belief that Clinton would win. The most obvious error, given that Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, is that they frequently mistook Clinton’s weakness in the Electoral College for being a strength. They also focused extensively on Clinton’s potential gains with Hispanic voters, but less on indications of a decline in African-American turnout. At moments when the polls showed the race tightening, meanwhile, reporters frequently focused on other factors, such as early voting and Democrats’ supposedly superior turnout operation, as reasons that Clinton was all but assured of victory.

      © Copyright Original Source

      So - you have confirmed that you are indeed making Sparko's mistake of confusing a statistical analysis with a poll. A poll says "this percentage of the people are for - and this percentage against - and this undecided. In 2016, the national polls were pretty close to spot on: they had Clinton up by 3-5 points, which is exactly what happened in the election. Note that a national poll is going to be assessing the popular vote. It cannot assess the electoral college, by definition. The state polls provided state by state assessments of the same thing. As I noted before, I knwo of only two states that were outside their margin of error.

      A statement like "Trump has a 3-of-10 chance of taking the White House" is not a poll. It is a statistical probability arrived at by analyzing the polling data and their respective margins of error. There is no choice about this because of our Electoral College model. Someone has to take the polling data from each state, look at all of the possible combinations of states that comprise a "win," derive the probability of each possible outcome, and then roll that up into an overall probability. A probability cannot be validated or invalidated on the basis of a single attempt. We can look at and question the models/math - but that's about it.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • And the erosion of Trump's approval continues unabated. It is even accelerating a bit. And the fact that his disapproval has climbed 4.4 points while his approval has only dropped 1.3 points suggests that some of the undecideds are coming off the fence. I'll be very curious if Trump can managed to exceed his previous "high" for the gap. In December 2017 he hit a gap of -21. He's currently at -14.5 after hovering between -7 and -10 for months.

        Go, Trump, go!
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          As I stated earlier, 1.3 B isn't enough - not by a long shot. And it's not even close to how much BORDER PATROL needs.
          It’s a start.

          No she isn't. And nowhere is the wall being pitched "on its own". That's more Dumbocrap lies, which you slurp up like pablum.
          A “wall system in strategic locations”, in agreement with what Border Patrol wants, is what she supports.

          In “the NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found … 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.

          But that language doesn’t distinguish between existing sections of wall and the wisdom of what Trump wants to build going forward. Most members of the Democratic caucus in Congress believe that a “wall system in strategic locations” is necessary.”

          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...p-nbpc/580237/

          This is what Pelosi is advocating.

          Oh. Well then [/idiot iberal talking point]. Better.
          Do you deny that Trump was about to vote for the bill before Coulter and Rush Limbaugh threatened Trump with the loss of core-base support? it is not a Trump shutdown or Pelosi shutdown. It is a Rush Limbaugh shutdown, an Ann Coulter shutdown. Right-wing minority rule is now holding the country to ransom. And you are supporting it.


          No duh Sherlock. That's why Trump is asking for more than the Dems are willing to give. They low balled him KNOWING they needed more for technology and personnel. They don't care.
          Trump doesn’t care…he is only concerned, as always, in pandering to his base.

          It's not unrealistic, except to expect Nancy Pelosi to act like a human being and not a disgusting piece of human garbage.
          You’re confusing the principled Pelosi with the sexist, racist, lying disgusting piece of “human garbage” you voted for, namely Trump.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • It sounds like some freshman congressmen on the Democrat side are breaking rank with the establishment and demanding that Pelosi and her gang enter serious negotiations with the President.

            https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...al-with-trump/
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              It sounds like some freshman congressmen on the Democrat side are breaking rank with the establishment and demanding that Pelosi and her gang enter serious negotiations with the President.

              https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...al-with-trump/
              Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Rep. Max Rose (D-NY), Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY), Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA), Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ), Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), and Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) are named as those who have openly spoken out about needing to compromise with several explicitly expressing a willingness to provide funding for a wall (with some even acknowledging a need for it). And they aren't all rookie back-benchers. The last two named are the chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Vice Chair of the Democrat conference respectively.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • They should know Trump is stubborn enough not to give in. In a game of chicken, they will lose.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  They should know Trump is stubborn enough not to give in. In a game of chicken, they will lose.
                  That and the fact that Republican voters don't care about the shutdown as much as the media likes to think, so there's no pressure on the President to end it.

                  I think it's also serving as a wake-up call to a lot of people that the average citizen really doesn't depend on the vast majority of the Federal government keeping its doors open.

                  National security, and, related to that, protecting our free market economy. That's pretty much all I want from the feds.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    They should know Trump is stubborn enough not to give in. In a game of chicken, they will lose.
                    Right now it seems Trump can choose between lowering his approval rating further or giving in. In the last case it as also going to lower his approval rating. Trump is yet to realize that this is not a simple chicken game. If he ever understands it, it is probably going to be too late.
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      That and the fact that Republican voters don't care about the shutdown as much as the media likes to think, so there's no pressure on the President to end it.

                      I think it's also serving as a wake-up call to a lot of people that the average citizen really doesn't depend on the vast majority of the Federal government keeping its doors open.

                      National security, and, related to that, protecting our free market economy. That's pretty much all I want from the feds.
                      The stock market seems to love the shutdown.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cuckles View Post
                        Right now it seems Trump can choose between lowering his approval rating further or giving in. In the last case it as also going to lower his approval rating.
                        That might be a bad thing if approval ratings were worth a hill of beans.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                          Right now it seems Trump can choose between lowering his approval rating further or giving in. In the last case it as also going to lower his approval rating. Trump is yet to realize that this is not a simple chicken game. If he ever understands it, it is probably going to be too late.
                          What you don't seem to realize is that

                          1. Trump doesn't care about approval ratings. He never has.
                          2. Trump is a narcissist. An ego maniac. He literally CAN'T give in unless he can save face and make it look like it was his idea and he won.

                          So the only way this is going to end, is if the democrats give in, the supreme court steps in somehow, or someone can sweet talk him into giving in and that he would be a hero if he did so.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            And the erosion of Trump's approval continues unabated. It is even accelerating a bit. And the fact that his disapproval has climbed 4.4 points while his approval has only dropped 1.3 points suggests that some of the undecideds are coming off the fence. I'll be very curious if Trump can managed to exceed his previous "high" for the gap. In December 2017 he hit a gap of -21. He's currently at -14.5 after hovering between -7 and -10 for months.

                            Go, Trump, go!
                            Margin of error...
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              So - you have confirmed that you are indeed making Sparko's mistake of confusing a statistical analysis with a poll. A poll says "this percentage of the people are for - and this percentage against - and this undecided. In 2016, the national polls were pretty close to spot on: they had Clinton up by 3-5 points, which is exactly what happened in the election. Note that a national poll is going to be assessing the popular vote. It cannot assess the electoral college, by definition. The state polls provided state by state assessments of the same thing. As I noted before, I knwo of only two states that were outside their margin of error.

                              A statement like "Trump has a 3-of-10 chance of taking the White House" is not a poll. It is a statistical probability arrived at by analyzing the polling data and their respective margins of error. There is no choice about this because of our Electoral College model. Someone has to take the polling data from each state, look at all of the possible combinations of states that comprise a "win," derive the probability of each possible outcome, and then roll that up into an overall probability. A probability cannot be validated or invalidated on the basis of a single attempt. We can look at and question the models/math - but that's about it.
                              That's what I said to begin with. Nate basically said they needed to re-evaluate their math and models because they "missed".
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                That's what I said to begin with. Nate basically said they needed to re-evaluate their math and models because they "missed".
                                A lot of people "missed". That's why we saw so many glum faces on election night.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                19 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                192 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                275 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X