| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
defeating trump just involves getting back those few states in the midwest. run some ex-military populist sounding guy. btw i do think a high tariff spike would hurt trump supporters. it's just more due to the general economic disruption. so something of a crash due to smoot hawley esque tariffs could happen, but i don't think trump would be up for it. bannon might be up for it. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10641 Posts
A buffoon got elected and strangely, after being sworn in, still acts like one. Sorry to all buffoons | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud. Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion. Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15473 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:26 oneofthem wrote: btw i do think a high tariff spike would hurt trump supporters. it's just more due to the general economic disruption. so something of a crash due to smoot hawley esque tariffs could happen, but i don't think trump would be up for it. bannon might be up for it. So does elimination of a lot of social programs. But the key thing is that these poor whites don't see themselves as poor. Many people who would be eligible for food stamps do not want them because they would see it as labeling themselves as poor and unable to care for themselves. They are angry at the elite for making them struggle financially, and yet, they do not consider themselves poor. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:30 Mohdoo wrote: So does elimination of a lot of social programs. But the key thing is that these poor whites don't see themselves as poor. Many people who would be eligible for food stamps do not want them because they would see it as labeling themselves as poor and unable to care for themselves. They are angry at the elite for making them struggle financially, and yet, they do not consider themselves poor. yea, it's just a shadowplay of evil elites vs them. this scenario serves as the universal explanation of all ills. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10641 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:29 NukeD wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/ That "study" is ridiculous beyond belief. Just google for it. Its beyond cringeworthy, its so bad, you don't even need a math/statistics/whatever degree to just "see" it. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21528 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:30 Mohdoo wrote: So does elimination of a lot of social programs. But the key thing is that these poor whites don't see themselves as poor. Many people who would be eligible for food stamps do not want them because they would see it as labeling themselves as poor and unable to care for themselves. They are angry at the elite for making them struggle financially, and yet, they do not consider themselves poor. There are no poor people in America. Just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:36 Velr wrote: That "study" is ridiculous beyond belief. Just google for it. Its beyond cringeworthy, its so bad, you don't even need a math/statistics/whatever degree to just "see" it. I did and you are right! | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17919 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:36 Velr wrote: That "study" is ridiculous beyond belief. Just google for it. Its beyond cringeworthy, its so bad, you don't even need a math/statistics/whatever degree to just "see" it. I think this piece here gives a pretty good view of the whole issue: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/ In other words, there's people who say the whole study is wrong (internet poll + non-citizens shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, and the sample size is too small). But if we assume that the study is methodologically sound, then Trump is still using it completely wrong (and the real number of illegal votes would be ~800,000, which is still a lot). My own gut feeling says that the data cannot be trusted, because of the reasons above, and thus any conclusions drawn from that data should be highly mistrusted. Moreover, it shows how difficult an issue this is to even gather data on. EDIT: okay, I take that back. The study is methodologically bollocks. A sample size (from an INTERNET poll) of 94 non-citizens. That's about 1/4 the size you'd need to say much of anything about a population of 20,000,000 (their estimate of total non-citizens in the US) if you had a true random sample. So... nope. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote: There are no poor people in America. Just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. alternative rich people. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
Rofl | ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
I don't know how common this one is, but I laughed quite hard when an estonian pundit today called the American consumers likely to pay for the wall "alternative mexicans". | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On January 28 2017 02:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think it's great that a bully is being told to fuck off, and I hope every other country follows suit when Trump inevitably tries to strongarm them without any diplomacy or consideration for other people. The mexican president has a cartel gun to his head and his approval ratings are down to something like 12% What the mexican president did is neither brave or good for mexico. All it does is save the president some face while Trump gets to do whatever he wants. Now he can say that mexico excused themselves away from the negotiation table, and then later say that "Mexico wasn't willing to negotiate." Not to mention the fact that he can point to human rights violations, and evidence of political corruption to start the process of inflicting sanctions on them. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 28 2017 03:30 Madkipz wrote: The mexican president has a cartel gun to his head and his approval ratings are down to something like 12% What the mexican president did is neither brave or good for mexico. All it does is save the president some face while Trump gets to do whatever he wants. Now he can say that mexico excused themselves away from the negotiation table, and then later say that "Mexico wasn't willing to negotiate." Not to mention the fact that he can point to human rights violations, and evidence of political corruption to start the process of inflicting sanctions on them. Frankly, I think that what Nieto did was exceedingly selfish. His saving face is not going to translate into a decent outcome for Mexico given Trump's agenda. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 28 2017 03:30 Madkipz wrote: The mexican president has a cartel gun to his head and his approval ratings are down to something like 12% What the mexican president did is neither brave or good for mexico. All it does is save the president some face while Trump gets to do whatever he wants. Now he can say that mexico excused themselves away from the negotiation table, and then later say that "Mexico wasn't willing to negotiate." Not to mention the fact that he can point to human rights violations, and evidence of political corruption to start the process of inflicting sanctions on them. Trump's stance is "Mexico will pay for the wall", not "we will have a mutually beneficial agreement with Mexico that will get the US a wall". There is no negotiation with that, stepping to the table tells the US (and Mexican citizens) that you are even remotely considering hurting your own economy for an American vanity project. Importantly, this sets the stage for the US and Mexico in terms of international standing. If the US bullies one country for money, that jeopardizes trade agreements and negotiations with other countries. And if Mexico is put into unfair sanctions by the US, that creates the opportunity for the rest of the world to apply economic pressures on the US in response. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote: I think this is going to be the time when people start to realize that society isn't some divine, given, totally guaranteed, stable framework for humanity. Things have been so stable and decent that everyone started getting spoiled and wanting their dream list. Clinton, Bush1+2 etc kept the lights on and kept things moving mostly forward, on a macroscopic scale. I hope these next 4 years give people a wake up call and start to realize that boring isn't so bad. People just aren't satisfied to see someone keep the lights on. At this point they're going dim and people really want someone to replace them with something more reliable, even if it means we will have to live with candles and flashlights for a while. Because the status quo is simply not willing to be self-correcting at this point - some people just have too much to gain to be willing to help out those for whom it's getting worse. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2017 03:48 mahrgell wrote: Will it turn in a decent outcome for the US, when Trump treats all US allies like this? Probably not, but this isn't Trump's doing alone. He is just the manifestation of what a certain swath of the population has wanted for a while now. Protectionism and isolationism has lots of support here in the states. Obama just offered an alternative vision of it that was less popular than he was. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
Classic vs Reynor
GuMiho vs Maru
The PondCast
RSL Revival
GSL Code S
herO vs TBD
TBD vs Cure
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
RSL Revival
SOOP
HeRoMaRinE vs Astrea
Online Event
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
