|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 09 2016 07:29 KwarK wrote:
Surely that table has built in bias in the same way that the average lottery winner tends to have won the lottery. Most white kids are at schools that are mostly white kids because most white kids are there, it wouldn't make sense if most white kids were at schools that were mostly black, the numbers wouldn't add up. It shows that there is a degree of post code segregation which happens when schools are based on geography but the results aren't hugely dramatic or unexpected to me.
Its about the difference in the bars,they should all look the same in a "perfect" situation.
What is worrying a bit is that it seems to increase,based on the numbers mentioned in the post (not visable in the chart I think) If the different demographics where integrating with eachoter then the gap should slowly narrow.
It does not,it has been slowly increasing which suggests that the differences between the different groups are growing larger.
|
The amendment process for bills does seem misused too often.
Some amendment are clear and useful; but attaching politically awkward stuff to tank necessary bills is definitely poor form; shame on the democrats for that instance; and shame to everyone who did it whenever they did it.
Another common issue is the reconciliation process, when the house and senate versions of a bill differ; a lot of sketchy stuff can get snuck in then.
|
On June 09 2016 07:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.
At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton's server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.
"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.
If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.
In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemption as the reason, "Presto — the CIA names just fall off the page," Baker said.
The CIA declined to comment. Source
lmao what a complete mess. Imagine that, a shameful attempt to discredit someone actually ended up endangering the lives of people in the CIA.
|
On June 09 2016 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 07:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.
At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton's server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.
"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.
If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.
In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemption as the reason, "Presto — the CIA names just fall off the page," Baker said.
The CIA declined to comment. Source lmao what a complete mess. Imagine that, a shameful attempt to discredit someone actually ended up endangering the lives of people in the CIA.
Its almost like reviewing the entire security process for government email severs through public congressional hearings was a bad idea to begin with. But didn't slow down the GOP in their hunt for something to discredit Clinton.
|
On June 09 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 07:30 oBlade wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. These links don't seem to isolate illegal immigration, which it looks like he was talking about. Point 9 of the EPI factsheet (first link). Note 15, where they get their "broad consensus" from, links to a 1997 study that in addition to being 20 years old also fails to really isolate illegal immigration. An interesting snippet is this: Show nested quote +Under our baseline assumptions, the average fiscal impact (net present value) of an immigrant with less than a high school education is -$13,000, and that for an immigrant with more than a high school education is +$198,000. My intuition is most illegals aren't highly educated. Since the EPI says that "the present value of the long-run net fiscal impact of unauthorized immigration, at all levels of government combined, is small but positive," I imagine for the impact to be small there would have to be a lot of under-educated immigrants canceling out the contributions of the higher-educated ones, and like I said, illegals are probably concentrated towards the under-educated end of the spectrum. It doesn't seem to add up, especially since they admit that the state/local impact is negative, yet claim the federal impact is positive despite that illegals for the most part don't pay federal taxes, apart from automatic deductions into Social Security (which is how Medicare is funded). The other note, note 16, links to http://khn.org/news/immigrants-medicare-health-costs/ which only seems to talk about healthcare, and also doesn't separate legal and illegal immigration. It says "immigrants" (remember GGTeMpLaR is talking about the effect of illegals) contributed a $14 billion surplus in a year to Medicare (essentially saying "most illegals aren't old retirees). That's great. But it doesn't speak to whether illegals are a net economic plus or minus.
The article in the second link mentions "undocumented immigrants" (they don't use the term "illegal") by referring to a report by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary which estimated that they "contributed a net of $12 billion to the Social Security Retirement Trust Fund in 2007. Since about one-fifth of the federal payroll tax goes to Medicare and four-fifths to Social Security, the estimate suggests that undocumented immigrants’ net contribution to Medicare is about $2.5 billion".
With regards to the first link, yes, I don't get why they didn't link to a literature review article. You can read this one, which is freely accessible. It specifically deals with undocumented immigrants.
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282806-warren-to-endorse-clinton
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) plans on endorsing Hillary Clinton within a few weeks, according to a new report.
Warren is also currently not interested in becoming Clinton’s running mate but has not ruled it out, according to Reuters.
Reuters on Wednesday said Warren could publicly back Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, within a week or two.
Sources close to Warren said the senator has increased conversations with Clinton’s team in recent weeks.
Warren’s support of Clinton, they said, is driven by a desire to keep Donald Trump from winning the White House.
She also hopes for the chance to advance progressive policy issues like income inequality in a potential Clinton administration, they added.
|
On June 09 2016 05:25 Plansix wrote:I remember when the movie Pacific Rim came out and everyone mocked it for the “sea wall” because it was so stupid and no one would attempt it. That large walls have always failed to effectively keep out invaders or people trying to cross borders. That is just channels the people to another part of the boarder and around the wall. That movie looks spot on right now. That is the exact sort of dumb plan we would come up with to keep Godzilla out over dope giant robots. Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 05:23 KwarK wrote:On June 09 2016 05:18 pmh wrote:On June 09 2016 04:54 ShoCkeyy wrote:
So, a bit on immigration. My father used to be a supervisor for U.S. Customs and Immigration for all of the state in FL a while back. A wall won't stop anything, building a wall is a huge waste of resources. It will definitely stop people from crossing the border through normal means, walking, but it won't stop people from paying cartel to cross underneath, in tunnels they build specifically for coming across illegally. It won't stop people from coming in boats on areas that aren't well heavily guarded (huge problem in FL with the illegal immigrants we receive). It won't stop for people that paid huge sums for fake[real, but stolen and fixed] identifications.
If you really want to control the border, tougher security - invest in the drones, in the extra man power, don't build a fucking wall. Either way, I understand the illegal situation, but what can we really do, it's always going to continue to happen. It's really a fine line to walk, because one, we're all human and everyone should have a chance at living a "happy" life. Two, illegal people in the country do cause some issues.
But then you have these issues rise up to the "top" where there are people that sit there, and say they understand but really don't. Well the thing is, a wall is the most efficient way to do it. Both with costs and results. Drones and tech,that also costs a ton of money. Need train staff to operate it and then in the end you still need guys on the ground to actually stop it. A wall also has the added bonus of being a symbol, It is visible and it marks a clear border. Humanity has a long history of building walls when it comes to protecting borders. Another solution to illegal immigration is to stop making it illegal,and I am quiet confident that the usa will slowly go that route. Just small steps at a time, so to not risk a populist candidate to actually win the election. And then in 20-30 years it will all be said and done. I'm confused. How does the wall stop people who disembark planes in airports and then overstay visas? Whoa, there slow down Kwark. You can’t break their minds with the concept that most illegal immigrants don’t cross the border illegally.
are you really comparing a wall to stop gigantic alien creatures that are larger than a sky scrapper to a wall to keep poor malnourished mexican illegal immigrants? I expect better from you Plansix.
|
Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers.
|
On June 09 2016 11:40 SK.Testie wrote:
Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers.
The wildlings traveled across the wall both ways for at least hundreds of years...
|
That was the extremely seasoned wildlings. The majority of them had to fuck off and it saved the towns from being raped and pillaged. They weren't all godly at scaling the wall.
|
So are we gonna build nineteen castles too or what?
|
Gets men to work, and will be a beautiful marvel of American architecture and civilization. A great tourist attraction that will dwarf the great wall of China. In beauty at least. Then for the communities that are close to the wall, it won't be such an eyesore and can increase tourism. The castles, brothers of the wall, oaths & lord commander stuff can be sorted out at a later date if the people will it.
|
On June 09 2016 11:41 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 11:40 SK.Testie wrote:
Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers. The wildlings traveled across the wall both ways for at least hundreds of years...
Not in hordes of hundreds of thousands.
It severely impaired their ability to do so which would have otherwise been easy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you want to get men to work i got some bridges and roads near brooklyn to assign the people
|
On June 09 2016 12:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 11:41 Jormundr wrote:On June 09 2016 11:40 SK.Testie wrote:
Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers. The wildlings traveled across the wall both ways for at least hundreds of years... Not in hordes of hundreds of thousands. It severely impaired their ability to do so which would have otherwise been easy.
The wildlings barely managed to get 100,000 people together in one place. Mexico has 122 million. To compare proportionally each wildling would represent about 1220 mexicans  .
|
On June 09 2016 12:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 12:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 09 2016 11:41 Jormundr wrote:On June 09 2016 11:40 SK.Testie wrote:
Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers. The wildlings traveled across the wall both ways for at least hundreds of years... Not in hordes of hundreds of thousands. It severely impaired their ability to do so which would have otherwise been easy. The wildlings barely managed to get 100,000 people together in one place. Mexico has 122 million. To compare proportionally each wildling would represent about 1220 mexicans .
In that case the wall was extremely effective.
|
On June 09 2016 11:25 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 05:25 Plansix wrote:I remember when the movie Pacific Rim came out and everyone mocked it for the “sea wall” because it was so stupid and no one would attempt it. That large walls have always failed to effectively keep out invaders or people trying to cross borders. That is just channels the people to another part of the boarder and around the wall. That movie looks spot on right now. That is the exact sort of dumb plan we would come up with to keep Godzilla out over dope giant robots. On June 09 2016 05:23 KwarK wrote:On June 09 2016 05:18 pmh wrote:On June 09 2016 04:54 ShoCkeyy wrote:
So, a bit on immigration. My father used to be a supervisor for U.S. Customs and Immigration for all of the state in FL a while back. A wall won't stop anything, building a wall is a huge waste of resources. It will definitely stop people from crossing the border through normal means, walking, but it won't stop people from paying cartel to cross underneath, in tunnels they build specifically for coming across illegally. It won't stop people from coming in boats on areas that aren't well heavily guarded (huge problem in FL with the illegal immigrants we receive). It won't stop for people that paid huge sums for fake[real, but stolen and fixed] identifications.
If you really want to control the border, tougher security - invest in the drones, in the extra man power, don't build a fucking wall. Either way, I understand the illegal situation, but what can we really do, it's always going to continue to happen. It's really a fine line to walk, because one, we're all human and everyone should have a chance at living a "happy" life. Two, illegal people in the country do cause some issues.
But then you have these issues rise up to the "top" where there are people that sit there, and say they understand but really don't. Well the thing is, a wall is the most efficient way to do it. Both with costs and results. Drones and tech,that also costs a ton of money. Need train staff to operate it and then in the end you still need guys on the ground to actually stop it. A wall also has the added bonus of being a symbol, It is visible and it marks a clear border. Humanity has a long history of building walls when it comes to protecting borders. Another solution to illegal immigration is to stop making it illegal,and I am quiet confident that the usa will slowly go that route. Just small steps at a time, so to not risk a populist candidate to actually win the election. And then in 20-30 years it will all be said and done. I'm confused. How does the wall stop people who disembark planes in airports and then overstay visas? Whoa, there slow down Kwark. You can’t break their minds with the concept that most illegal immigrants don’t cross the border illegally. are you really comparing a wall to stop gigantic alien creatures that are larger than a sky scrapper to a wall to keep poor malnourished mexican illegal immigrants? I expect better from you Plansix.
Haha oh wow talk about Hyperbole.
Doesn't Israel have a wall?
Doesn't Hungary have a fence that reduced migrant flow by 99%?
|
Now that the primaries are over, we are reduced to discussing walls throughout history.
|
On June 09 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to get men to work i got some bridges and roads near brooklyn to assign the people
That won't be forgotten. You have the greatest president in the world who's willing to look into the camera and tell young men everywhere, "get your ass to work". And they'll do it, and be proud to do it. And you'll have your infrastructure, the south will get the wall, and life will be beautiful. You have a whole new class of men eager to do the work. Free them. Give them their dream and stop pretending globalism will grind to a halt because of it.
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 09 2016 12:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that the primaries are over, we are reduced to discussing walls throughout history.
The wall will be discussed until you all capitulate and begrudgingly accept that the residents along the border want the wall. Why do you deny the brothers in your country what they've had dangled infront of them for years. At least pressure Hillary to build the wall.
Everyone along the border wants it.
(this isn't an "along the border" poll, just a "in general poll)![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/UIgZaQ.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The Clinton Foundation had “overwhelming disclosure” regarding its donations, Hillary Clinton said Wednesday, defending herself against Donald Trump’s latest attacks on the nonprofit while also acknowledging that “one or two instances” may have “slipped through the cracks.”
Trump on Tuesday accused the former secretary of state of turning the State Department into a private hedge fund, arguing that “the Russians, the Saudis and the Chinese all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return.”
Asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether Bill Clinton would divest the Clinton Foundation should the former first lady win the White House, Hillary Clinton demurred.
“We’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it, but let me just try to set the record straight. We had absolutely overwhelming disclosure,” she said. “Were there, you know, one or two instances that slipped through the cracks? Yes. But was the overwhelming amount of anything that anybody gave the foundation disclosed? Absolutely.”
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://socialnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/greatwalloftrump.jpg)
