EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6925
| 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. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
In a October 24 blog in The Washington Post, Jessie Richman and David Earnest, two authors of the study, admitted that their "extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty." The authors noted that the non-citizen sample they examined was "modest" and relied on self-reporting, which can create errors, and attempts to verify the accuracy of the self-reporting was imperfect and supplemented by estimates. mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/28/what-other-academics-think-of-the-questionable/201347 Had to dig for more information, I hate giving all these "news sites" any ad money for their arbitrary as fuck reporting. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35163 Posts
On February 20 2017 09:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: snipped stupidity If I'm reading this correctly, the sample size was 800 hispanics and they took the "noncitizen and registed" percentage of that and then extrapolated it across the entire hispanic noncitizen population? This is why we need critical thinking to stay in school curriculum. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 20 2017 06:58 Plansix wrote: These people are like the dumbest version of the 1970s CIA. They plan to overthrow leaders and install puppet dictators, but then send out their master plan regular mail with "Plan to end Russia Sanctions" written on envelope. try 1940s?? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
more like 1933. people in the 40s were too competent. I find it hard to believe he's capable of getting anything done at this point. or at least anything substantial. actually I'm surprised by how many clips work + Show Spoiler + Foreign diplomacy Trump vetting the NSC his view on the courts | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 20 2017 01:59 radscorpion9 wrote: I'm not too sure that the alt-right really has any one figurehead, its not an organized group but a loose confederation of people from all across the political spectrum, from staunch conservatives to disaffected liberals; some like his antics others don't, but that doesn't really do harm to what their cause is about because its generally more nebulous than one person. But also, the alt-right celebrates political incorrectness, because it wants to live in a world free of safe spaces and PC culture, which in their minds has allowed dangerous ideas like thinking there is nothing wrong with Islam, and that any criticism = islamophobia, which ends up working against gay and women's rights activists in muslim majority countries. So people like Milo are an anathema to PC culture which is a big bonus. Particularly because the more extreme elements of the left (at least one of whom actually comments on this very board, I'll let you work out who that person is  ) actually advocates physical violence against elements of the right as a way of solving problems.When they do that of course, it backfires horribly, and the leftists (rightly) appear to be the authoritarians they purport to be fighting. So actually Milo ends up doing a lot of good for the movement, even though his trollish antics are probably pointless and emotionally harmful in and of themselves. You're a breath of fresh air in the thread. Stick around. Milo's type (broadly construed) won't be necessary if and when the pendulum swings back from Berkeley and 2016-PC culture. His schtick only finds purchase with the power his extreme opposites wield in culture and media. The enemy of my enemy is my friend in this case. When blowhards aren't needed because society starts adopting more liberal values, he'll have to find a new act with a diminished audience. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas election officials have acknowledged that hundreds of people were allowed to bypass the state's toughest-in-the-nation voter ID law and improperly cast ballots in the November presidential election by signing a sworn statement instead of showing a photo ID. The chief election officers in two of the state's largest counties are now considering whether to refer cases to local prosecutors for potential perjury charges or violations of election law. Officials in many other areas say they will simply let the mistakes go, citing widespread confusion among poll workers and voters. The Texas law requires voters to show one of seven approved forms of identification to cast ballots. It was softened in August to allow people without a driver's license or other photo ID to sign an affidavit declaring that they have an impediment to obtaining required identification. Even after the affidavits were introduced, voters who possess an acceptable photo ID were still required to show it at the polls. The revelations come as President Donald Trump makes frequent claims that the nation's voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. The president has repeatedly said, without citing any evidence, that he would have won the popular vote if not for 3 million to 5 million immigrants in the country illegally who voted for his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. An Associated Press analysis of roughly 13,500 affidavits submitted in Texas' largest counties found at least 500 instances in which voters were allowed to get around the law by signing an affidavit and never showing a photo ID, despite indicating that they possessed one. Source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 20 2017 13:05 Danglars wrote: You're a breath of fresh air in the thread. Stick around. Milo's type (broadly construed) won't be necessary if and when the pendulum swings back from Berkeley and 2016-PC culture. His schtick only finds purchase with the power his extreme opposites wield in culture and media. The enemy of my enemy is my friend in this case. When blowhards aren't needed because society starts adopting more liberal values, he'll have to find a new act with a diminished audience. milo's type isnt' necessary, needed, or helpful. there's far better ways and people with which to make the case. much like blm, the cause would go better if people were pickier about which cases to push on; it'd make it easier to garner support at least. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12365 Posts
If I think I'm right about something based on an analysis of reality (as opposed to a belief), and you can't make an argument that shows (or hints at the possibility) that I'm wrong, is it authoritarian to expect that this specific view should become the norm? | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35163 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45108 Posts
So hundreds = millions and Texans = Hillary voters? I don't understand. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45108 Posts
On February 20 2017 13:39 Nebuchad wrote: I'd like to submit a question for posterity (or this thread). If I think I'm right about something based on an analysis of reality (as opposed to a belief), and you can't make an argument that shows (or hints at the possibility) that I'm wrong, is it authoritarian to expect that this specific view should become the norm? I wouldn't think that hoping people accept facts over faith-based beliefs would be authoritarian, at least certainly not in any of the negative connotations the word is frequently used. I'd rather refer to it as... optimism for humanity. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 20 2017 13:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So hundreds = millions and Texans = Hillary voters? I don't understand. Dunno but I think the people of more conspiratorial views here will be on board with parroting our president's vanity project of pretending he won the popular vote. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 20 2017 13:39 Nebuchad wrote: I'd like to submit a question for posterity (or this thread). If I think I'm right about something based on an analysis of reality (as opposed to a belief), and you can't make an argument that shows (or hints at the possibility) that I'm wrong, is it authoritarian to expect that this specific view should become the norm? I don't think so; took a while to parse the question and ponder it. there's also a slight difference between expect, as in to predict, and expect, as in to demand and feel it should be and would be improper not to. though I think in either case it wouldn't be properly speaking authoritarian to do so. hard to be sure though on questions such as this. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45108 Posts
On February 20 2017 14:00 LegalLord wrote: Dunno but I think the people of more conspiratorial views here will be on board with parroting our president's vanity project of pretending he won the popular vote. I hope not. Fortunately, I think we have a disproportionately low percentage of conspiracy theorists on TL, compared to the American population. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Russia intends to stick to international climate commitments, though it may not argue with President Donald Trump if he decides to weaken U.S. adherence to the Paris accord, according to a senior Russian lawmaker. “We will support all the efforts that lead to progress in this area,” Alexei Pushkov, a member of the Russian upper house’s defense and security committee, said in an interview in Munich on Saturday. “But I don’t think we will choose to have it as a topic of contention with President Trump.” It is not clear when and if Trump will make good on his frequent campaign promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, a 2015 United Nations agreement to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions that was adopted by nearly 200 countries. Since he took office, the administration has rolled back U.S. rules to combat climate change and eased restrictions on fossil-fuel companies. For Russia, the world’s biggest energy exporter and a signatory to the Paris convention, there are more important bilateral challenges than climate to tackle with the U.S., Pushkov said during an international security conference. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Russia over President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Climate change “is an important issue,” but “there are other issues more important for us,” the Russian lawmaker said. “I don’t think we will argue with President Trump.” Source Trollin' the Europes for funsies. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On February 20 2017 14:00 LegalLord wrote: Dunno but I think the people of more conspiratorial views here will be on board with parroting our president's vanity project of pretending he won the popular vote. All I got was complicated systems have holes. Ironically they might have made more voter fraud than they had. Of course no way to know how much actual voter fraud there was. But it seems like it could turn into a cycle unfortunately. super complicated system leads to errors. ah ha voter fraud. Let's make it more restrictive. It's sort of like when the pentagon brought in efficiency experts who cost more than they saved or how Florida drug testing of people on welfare cost more than it saved the program. Or like how putting warnings on depression medication on how they can lead to suicide actually increased suicides since people got scared and stopped taking it. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/mar/17/greg-abbott/light-match-greg-abbotts-claim-about-rampant-voter/ | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On February 20 2017 14:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just in time for CPAC: https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/833405993006616576 too be fair a lot of highly regarded French intellectuals once tried to push for a removal of age of consent laws. although I'm pretty sure they would all laugh milo out of the building if any of them were still around. Derrida would probably explain how Milo is just a reaction of to the deconstructive reversal and an attempt to further marginalize though's who were merely trying to show how irrational the center and the marginalized system that was in place was. Then he'd probably go back to getting in a long arguing match with Searle that never got resolved because they did not like each other at all. Then he'd go back to arguing that a dude who wrote in a pro Nazi newspaper in the 1930s/40s wasn't actually a Nazi. (He was a complicated guy.) age of consent stuff gets tricky if you're really trying to analyze it too hard. In terms of Milo I see it more as being edgy then actually going through the entire argument that the postmodernists went through. It'll probably come back to backfire on him at some point. Usually does. | ||
| ||
