|
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. |
Looks good to me:
President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line immigration stance was a central part of his campaign message in 2016 -- and he said in an interview airing Sunday that he plans to immediately deport approximately two to three million undocumented immigrants.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”
He continued by saying that after the border is “secure,” immigration officials will begin to make a “determination” about the remaining undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
“After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that,” he said. “But before we make that determination...it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.”
Asked whether he really plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border -- a proposal that served as a centerpiece of his campaign message -- Trump replied, “Yes.”
Since Trump’s election on Tuesday night, the realities of actually building that wall have begun to set in The Mexican government has publicly reminded him that Mexico will not pay for the wall. And asked about the wall, Trump transition co-chair Newt Gingrich said the wall was “a great campaign device.”
Trump also told “60 Minutes” that the border wall, which was one of the centerpieces of his campaign platform, could be part wall and “some fencing,” in accordance with what congressional Republicans have proposed.
“For certain areas I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate,” he said. “I’m very good at this, it’s called construction.”
Source.
|
travis -> it's not just about jobs no tbeing available, it's that when there is an opening, there is a strong trend to not hire people who haven't recently been in work/school. which has the effect that those who've been out of the work force for awhile can find it extremely hard to get back in, and can be kinda locked out of the work-force.
if it were just about there not being jobs then that wouldn't be a facet of the issue.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 14 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I'd argue that the issue is deeper than that, and that it's cultural. There is a far, far stronger undertone of anti-intellectualism in the US than in most other countries, and people who pursue difficult technical work are not respected. They will be compensated with a wage that is more than what a third world worker could ever hope to make at home but it doesn't come with respect or any real consistency (many technical folk are paid pretty poorly these days). I've seen enough to be convinced that the US system is permissive enough that people from any part of the system could rise pretty far up - but that it requires a far above average depth of cultural development that is not common among homegrown Americans but that very well can be among foreigners of more intellectual cultures.
Frankly, the cynic in me says that the US is such a great place for immigrants because the culture of the country dumbs down the competition to make it easier for immigrants to do well. That isn't exactly true but I'm sure there is some truth to it.
Hmmm, funny you say that. From my experience, American universities put too much emphasis on vocational training and any interest in "intellectualism" is rooted in the desire of expertise in the profession. We have a general dearth of respect for anything that isn't a STEM field or "pragmatic".
By anti-intellectualism, do you mean a distrust of education as a good-in-itself or distrust of the intelligentsia?
|
On November 14 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Looks good to me: Show nested quote +President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line immigration stance was a central part of his campaign message in 2016 -- and he said in an interview airing Sunday that he plans to immediately deport approximately two to three million undocumented immigrants.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”
He continued by saying that after the border is “secure,” immigration officials will begin to make a “determination” about the remaining undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
“After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that,” he said. “But before we make that determination...it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.”
Asked whether he really plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border -- a proposal that served as a centerpiece of his campaign message -- Trump replied, “Yes.”
Since Trump’s election on Tuesday night, the realities of actually building that wall have begun to set in The Mexican government has publicly reminded him that Mexico will not pay for the wall. And asked about the wall, Trump transition co-chair Newt Gingrich said the wall was “a great campaign device.”
Trump also told “60 Minutes” that the border wall, which was one of the centerpieces of his campaign platform, could be part wall and “some fencing,” in accordance with what congressional Republicans have proposed.
“For certain areas I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate,” he said. “I’m very good at this, it’s called construction.” Source.
How is the distinction made between criminal illegals and nice guy illegals exactly? Are these 2-3 million people already sentenced and on the record or how are you going to establish which of them are actually criminals?
|
On November 14 2016 05:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Looks good to me: President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line immigration stance was a central part of his campaign message in 2016 -- and he said in an interview airing Sunday that he plans to immediately deport approximately two to three million undocumented immigrants.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”
He continued by saying that after the border is “secure,” immigration officials will begin to make a “determination” about the remaining undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
“After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that,” he said. “But before we make that determination...it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.”
Asked whether he really plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border -- a proposal that served as a centerpiece of his campaign message -- Trump replied, “Yes.”
Since Trump’s election on Tuesday night, the realities of actually building that wall have begun to set in The Mexican government has publicly reminded him that Mexico will not pay for the wall. And asked about the wall, Trump transition co-chair Newt Gingrich said the wall was “a great campaign device.”
Trump also told “60 Minutes” that the border wall, which was one of the centerpieces of his campaign platform, could be part wall and “some fencing,” in accordance with what congressional Republicans have proposed.
“For certain areas I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate,” he said. “I’m very good at this, it’s called construction.” Source. How is the distinction made between criminal illegals and nice guy illegals exactly? Are these 2-3 million people already sentenced and on the record or how are you going to establish which of them are actually criminals?
During the campaign he said 180 000 illegals have criminal records. I don't know where he's pulling the other 1.8 to 2.8 million, his ass would be a good bet. I somehow doubt over 20% of undocumented immigrants are 'gang members and drug dealers' but even if it were true, the 'how' has always been the question, and he omitted that.
|
The term illegal immigrant would imply they're all criminals, he is just going to choose only a handful to deport.
|
Last time I checked the United States are a state of law, deporting people is something that happens based on Trump's mood now? Like how you pick the colour for the living room curtains, you just go by intuition? Or will this be the next season of the apprentice?
If Trump wants to deport a subset of illegal immigrants he better has some impartial system in place to judge who stays and who doesn't.
|
On November 14 2016 05:33 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I'd argue that the issue is deeper than that, and that it's cultural. There is a far, far stronger undertone of anti-intellectualism in the US than in most other countries, and people who pursue difficult technical work are not respected. They will be compensated with a wage that is more than what a third world worker could ever hope to make at home but it doesn't come with respect or any real consistency (many technical folk are paid pretty poorly these days). I've seen enough to be convinced that the US system is permissive enough that people from any part of the system could rise pretty far up - but that it requires a far above average depth of cultural development that is not common among homegrown Americans but that very well can be among foreigners of more intellectual cultures.
Frankly, the cynic in me says that the US is such a great place for immigrants because the culture of the country dumbs down the competition to make it easier for immigrants to do well. That isn't exactly true but I'm sure there is some truth to it. Hmmm, funny you say that. From my experience, American universities put too much emphasis on vocational training and any interest in "intellectualism" is rooted in the desire of expertise in the profession. We have a general dearth of respect for anything that isn't a STEM field or "pragmatic". By anti-intellectualism, do you mean a distrust of education as a good-in-itself or distrust of the intelligentsia?
I'm going to defer to this piece I linked earlier. Most people who have bought into education and higher education are liberal by nature. But a lot of people who haven't see liberals displacing their jobs, advancing ahead of them, doing "technical" work that they don't understand that doesn't seem "real", etc., and it's not surprising that they are frustrated with their stagnating/declining income growth. At least, that seems to be one part of the picture.
For months, the only thing that’s surprised me about Donald Trump is my friends’ astonishment at his success. What’s driving it is the class culture gap.
One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters…and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.
Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.
Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 14 2016 05:33 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I'd argue that the issue is deeper than that, and that it's cultural. There is a far, far stronger undertone of anti-intellectualism in the US than in most other countries, and people who pursue difficult technical work are not respected. They will be compensated with a wage that is more than what a third world worker could ever hope to make at home but it doesn't come with respect or any real consistency (many technical folk are paid pretty poorly these days). I've seen enough to be convinced that the US system is permissive enough that people from any part of the system could rise pretty far up - but that it requires a far above average depth of cultural development that is not common among homegrown Americans but that very well can be among foreigners of more intellectual cultures.
Frankly, the cynic in me says that the US is such a great place for immigrants because the culture of the country dumbs down the competition to make it easier for immigrants to do well. That isn't exactly true but I'm sure there is some truth to it. Hmmm, funny you say that. From my experience, American universities put too much emphasis on vocational training and any interest in "intellectualism" is rooted in the desire of expertise in the profession. We have a general dearth of respect for anything that isn't a STEM field or "pragmatic". By anti-intellectualism, do you mean a distrust of education as a good-in-itself or distrust of the intelligentsia?
Universities are only one part of a much larger society. Within the undergraduate program, yes it is true that there is a STEM favoritism. But that shortly evaporates. In almost all cases the US culture tends towards encouraging people to do the absolute minimum in getting an education - don't get a Bachelors, don't get a Masters, don't get a graduate/professional degree and go get some work experience instead. The weakness of trade schools have turned universities into a form of trade school in which some technical fields are favored, especially at a lower level. It's kind of a "learn what you need to then don't bother with it ever again." And that's true at all levels of education, to some extent.
By anti-intellectualism I mean an inclination against the academic in most aspects of work (even when such an inclination is unjustified) and a societal lack of respect for the people who do difficult technical work. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't seen what a less anti-intellectual society looks like but the US absolutely does have an anti-intellectual societal tendency.
|
|
|
On November 14 2016 05:45 Chewbacca. wrote:
The term illegal immigrant would imply they're all criminals, he is just going to choose only a handful to deport.
True, but in this case he specifically defined what he meant by criminals ("have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers") and estimated to be 2 to 3 million illegal immigrants that fit that description.
On November 14 2016 05:47 Nyxisto wrote:
Last time I checked the United States are a state of law, deporting people is something that happens based on Trump's mood now? Like how you pick the colour for the living room curtains, you just go by intuition? Or will this be the next season of the apprentice?
If Trump wants to deport a subset of illegal immigrants he better has some impartial system in place to judge who stays and who doesn't.
He wants to deport all illegal immigrants, which is fine. He just wants to start with criminals because it's easier to get support for that, which is also fine. But if he could go an hour without some unnecessary bullshittery that would be swell, no need to lie that a gazillion illegals are gang members and drug dealers. He can calm down with the hyperbole for 2 years until the circus starts again.
|
Im reading on a couple of sites that Trump won the popular vote 62,972,226 to 62,277,750. Haven't found the vote updates in main stream media as all of them are saying there is still more votes to count. Just wanted to ask if you guys have any credible sources on the complete vote?
|
I have not seen any credible sources on the complete vote.
The credible sources do show that there's some places where the results aren't all in. (not enough room for them to change electoral results)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 14 2016 06:10 NukeD wrote:
Im reading on a couple of sites that Trump won the popular vote 62,972,226 to 62,277,750. Haven't found the vote updates in main stream media as all of them are saying there is still more votes to count. Just wanted to ask if you guys have any credible sources on the complete vote?
Snopes says no. In any case it doesn't matter, the electoral vote decides the outcome so no one cares except for bragging/whining rights.
|
On November 13 2016 20:26 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2016 22:26 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 20:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 12 2016 20:10 LastWish wrote:On November 12 2016 19:36 Acrofales wrote:On November 12 2016 19:13 LastWish wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. This is actually what is wrong with the neo-liberals. They are ok bashing white people no problem. They read the history books and white people are the slavers the racists the bigots the sexists... But in fact most of the living white people have nothing to do with this. It's like the inherited sin that some christians believe in. If I now replaced the "angry white people" with "angry black people", "angry women", "angry gays", "angry muslims" then you wouldn't like it. So stop using the form of language you dispise and make yourself a better person in the process. Every time someone writes something like this, I am just going to post this blog, in the hope that some people will eventually read it and have an honest discussion about the topic. If you really believe in what you have just posted then I feel really bad for you. You are an individual just like every other person on earth. If you put someone into some basket according to the place/race/sex he/she has been born then you are in fact the racist, sexist... I think we read that blog differently. I didn't see any mention of baskets. What I saw was it pointing out quite explicitly that while you are an individual, you are very much a product of society and history. And who and what you are today is not exclusively because of you. So far no controversy, I presume? So let's continue. Today's society, shares the responsibility for rectifying the errors of what came before. No blame, no name-calling. Just an admission that not all is right with the world, and that even if you are not personally to blame, as part of the society in which it is wrong, it is your responsibility to help in improving society. Can we agree on this, so far very abstract, argument? Today's society = your society?, the white society?, every society that fucked up its history somehow?. i'd say it should be the later and if so, you know that arabs massively trafficked black people a few centuries ago(an estimated 17millions), right?; yet when they come to you, to your society, you don't have them make amends for their past/history. (so you have there a double standard, a bit of defeatism and racism). The blog explained that a lot better than I did. I'll quote:
I'm going to tell you the weirdest and, yet, most obviously true thing you've ever heard:
You're not a person.
This is going to sound like some real Rust Cohle shit, but bear with me because deep down you already know all of this.
For instance, you already know that you are, to a certain degree, a product of your genes -- they go a long way toward determining if you would be physically imposing or weak, smart or stupid, calm or anxious, energetic or lazy, and fat or thin. What your genes left undecided, your upbringing mostly took care of -- how you were raised determined your values, your attitudes, and your religious beliefs. And what your genes and upbringing left undecided, your environment rounded into shape -- what culture you were raised in, where you went to school, and who you were friends with growing up. If you had been born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would be a different person today. If the Nazis had won World War II, you would be a different person, still.
God knows we would be different.
So, even when personal choices finally come into play, you're still choosing within that framework -- you can choose between becoming a poet or a software engineer, but only because you were raised in a world in which other people had already invented both poetry and computers. That means every single little part of your life -- every action, every choice, every thought, every emotion, every plan for the future, everything that you are and do and can potentially be -- is the result of things other people did in the past.
These mostly dead people shaped every little molecule of you and the world you inhabit. You are the product of what they did, just as they were the product of those who came before them. You are, therefore, not a person any more than a leaf is a tree. It makes far more sense to think of yourself as one part of a whole (the "whole" being every human who has ever lived) than as an individual -- you benefit from the whole's successes, and you pay for its mistakes as if they were your own -- whether you want to or not.
As evidenced by you being the one to read this on your laptop, rather than being the one who paid pennies to assemble it.
This is not abstract philosophy, this is not something you can choose to believe or not believe -- this is a statement of physical fact. Refusing to acknowledge it will only leave you endlessly confused and frustrated. For instance, when you show up at a job interview, or a trial, or the set of a porno, that whole context will walk in the door with you. Everyone in that room will be making certain assumptions about you and will hold certain expectations, based on the greater whole of which you are a part.
That means you can't think of your life as a story. You have to think of it as one sentence in a much longer story ... a sentence that doesn't make any sense out of context. But, understand the context, and you will understand your life.
This is what I tried to shorthand as you being part of society, but when you get down to definition, what I meant is that your life has many factors which are completely outside of your control, many of which are predefined simply by where and when you were born.
the errors of what came before = who gets to define an error and how far back does before go?; monkey times?, neanderthal times?, modern human times?, pre-Columbus/italians/vikings/Biruni times?, american slavery times? ... Adam and Eve?.
Errors are those that mean that someone who was born in the same general area as you (lets limit it to countries, but in the US states might actually be a more useful granularity, and the original blog doesn't actually limit it in any way), are not given the same basic chances as you are. Maybe errors was the wrong word, I was, once again, trying to condense about 10 paragraphs to a single sentence, but I believe the message is clear: We're not attoning for wiping out Neanderthals, or slavery. We should be trying to make it so that the deleterious effects of slavery, and segregation, are gone, and someone born black and called Shaqeel, has the same chances as someone born white and called James, everything else being equal. Now that latter part is a bitch, but statistics and clever experiments show that these two children are not given an equal chance. Also note that this doesn't mean that we should ignore that Jimmy-Bob's chances are not equal either. And it doesn't address how many resources should be spent, or any of the other practicalities, of trying to fix these unequal chances.
and this part - "and that even if you are not personally to blame, as part of the society in which it is wrong, it is your responsibility to help in improving society" it's missing something or you purposely left out "except the ones that are to blame based on their forefathers errors that came before".
somewhere along the line you decided that only white dudes fucked up so only they have to rectify what "they" did before.
Not me. I want talking about white dudes at all. I think the exactly same thing holds in any country anywhere. Shiites in Iraq, Sunni in Iran, Hutus in Rwanda, jews in Saudi Arabia, Roma in most of Europe, Christians in China, etc. etc. It just so happens that I can't think of a single country with a poor white minority. Whites are a minority in plenty of countries, but they are almost always, on average, better off than the majority. Even in countries like Kenya or Zimbabwe, with recent history of racism against whites.
Edit: and as a trivia do you even know how slavery started? - people with goods(arabs, whites, asians, whomever) were going to Africa and were trading said goods for slaves. the slaves were exchanged for those goods by the African king who owned them.
so, black african kings had black african slaves which they traded for goods. have african-americans rectify their errors.
No. That's not how slavery started. There were slaves in Mesopotamia, and Egypt, at the very birthplaces of civilization. EDIT: whoops. This was my 10,000th post. Huzzah.
I think that Whitedoge is right insofar as he identifies a lack of a universal system of shared cultural values as the major deficit of the American Democratic left. Some have identified this problem as "liberal smugness." Others have called it plain old condescension. But I think that it is actually just a transformation and remanifestation of that age-old social glue: taboo.
Taboo functions as an important in-group indicator, signalling acceptance of cultural norms and a desire to uphold those norms in return for inclusion. The identity politics (broken down into its various forms, anti-racist, feminist, queer, etc.) that dominates the American left these days all originally started as justifiable critiques of the patriarchal, white supremacist cultural norms and structures of the 20th century. Taboo functioned then, as always, as an in-group signal. For women or minorities to succeed within the terms of American culture they essentially had to abandon their identity as women or minorities and hope to be accepted under the prevailing white male norms of the time. These norms were more or less explicit as civil rights movements started to tear down the structures that functioned to oppress some to the benefit of others. Laws against women in the workplace, miscegenation, and gay marriage have mostly been expunged from the books. And the critiques of how power structures oppressed women and minorities have worked to undermine a lot of the extralegal habits, customs, and unwritten rules made up the cultural milieu of 20th century patriarchal white supremacist culture.
But in a lot of ways identity politics is just a negation of the negation. The justifiable critiques originated as a response to oppressive power structures that erased the experiences of those were not white men. But there was no synthesis. For as much comedic value as Colbert got out of the "I don't see color" joke, it has its basis in the critique of Martin Luther King Jr. who, it should not be forgotten, advanced it unironically as a serious expression of his goals. The joke's substance is bound up in the phrase's co-opting by those who are deaf to the critique that precedes the dream, not the content of the dream itself.
So what happens when an ideology of negation is on the cusp of cultural dominance but still faces opponents? It develops its own set of taboos. The self-policing of the American left, "political correctness" gone amok, operates as an in-group indicator to starkly divide "us" from "them". Rather than an attempt to draw everyone into a positive articulation of values, there is a reactionary pressure to erect and assert new taboos as a way of enhancing social cohesion. It is a transmogrification of patriarchal power structures. I would, however, argue that in many ways this new expression of cultural taboo is "freer" than the old one, even if it cannot escape its original negation.
The task for the left should be to build a "universalizing" culture that enlarges the scope of human freedom. Contemporary identity politics seems, in many ways, to be a dead end to me, in part because it focuses on the essentially "negative" freedoms of being an equal capitalist prosumer.
|
On November 14 2016 06:10 NukeD wrote:
Im reading on a couple of sites that Trump won the popular vote 62,972,226 to 62,277,750. Haven't found the vote updates in main stream media as all of them are saying there is still more votes to count. Just wanted to ask if you guys have any credible sources on the complete vote?
The current tally is 60.3m to 60.9m and it's not possible for 4 million votes to be added from the tiny amount of precincts left. Also the only state with a notable amount of precincts left is WA which is not exactly a republican stronghold to say the least. So I don't even want to guess which sites you're talking about. E: Utah has some as well but we're talking 100-150k votes at most.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Strangely, this source from Wikipedia estimates 131 million voters total in this election.
|
On November 14 2016 05:24 zlefin wrote:
travis -> it's not just about jobs no tbeing available, it's that when there is an opening, there is a strong trend to not hire people who haven't recently been in work/school. which has the effect that those who've been out of the work force for awhile can find it extremely hard to get back in, and can be kinda locked out of the work-force.
if it were just about there not being jobs then that wouldn't be a facet of the issue.
the reason that happens is because employers can be extremely picky when it comes to hiring, because jobs aren't available.
|
On November 14 2016 06:22 LegalLord wrote:Strangely, this source from Wikipedia estimates 131 million voters total in this election.
With 3rd party and blank and invalid votes, I don't think it's strange.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 14 2016 06:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 06:22 LegalLord wrote:Strangely, this source from Wikipedia estimates 131 million voters total in this election. With 3rd party and blank and invalid votes, I don't think it's strange.
Ah yeah, I forgot about that. Though even when we throw in the third parties we're up to only 126m. Blank/invalid could be the rest but there's also a fair bit that are still yet to be counted.
Would be hilarious if it were enough to keep this election result in limbo though, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
