|
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. |
well this is not a smart thing to say.
President Donald Trump’s efforts to bolster relations with historically black colleges erupted in controversy Tuesday after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released a statement equating the history of the schools — founded during an era of racial segregation — to “school choice” policies.
“HBCUs are real pioneers when it comes to school choice,” DeVos said in the statement, released Monday night in advance of Trump’s planned signing of an executive order giving the schools more clout. “They are living proof that when more options are provided to students, they are afforded greater access and greater quality. Their success has shown that more options help students flourish.”
The executive order, which Trump is scheduled to issue Tuesday afternoon, was supposed be an easy bit of outreach on the final day of Black History Month to the black community that soundly rejected Trump on Election Day. It is expected to move a federal initiative focused on the colleges from the Education Department to the White House and set an aspirational goal for government spending at the schools.
But the goodwill was quickly overshadowed by DeVos’ statement, which came on the heels of a Monday meeting between Trump and presidents of the schools that left some dissatisfied. Some experts on historically black institutions panned the statement as ignorant, while others said she was inadvertently praising segregation.
Marybeth Gasman, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Minority-Serving Institutions and an expert in historically black colleges and universities, told POLITICO the statement is "inaccurate and a whitewashing of U.S. history.”
Robert Palmer, an education professor at Howard University, said the schools weren’t a matter of choice. They were mostly created in a segregated education system after the Civil War and were for decades the only choice for black students — especially in the South, he said.
DeVos also seemed to reject one thing the schools are really hoping to get from the administration: More money. One school president told POLITICO that the colleges had asked the White House to back a $25 billion investment in infrastructure improvements on their campuses in their meeting with DeVos Monday. They also advocated for year-round Pell grants and to maintain or increase funding that goes to schools that serve low-income students.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/betsy-devos-hbcu-historically-black-colleges-235498
|
United States44439 Posts
On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started.
She got three million more votes and lost by tens of thousands of votes in key swing states. If I roll two dice and it comes up 12 then that doesn't mean all the people thinking 7 was the most likely outcome were wrong.
|
United States44439 Posts
On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that.
This is the stupidest thing I've read all week.
They had a statistical model that gave her 86%. That meant in 86% of the weighted scenarios they ran she won. Going "well the model said that she had a 14% of losing so it could still happen so they should just give her 60%" is about as clever as going "10 is a pretty low number so let's just call it 2". Numbers don't work that way.
|
On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter.
Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion.
Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned.
|
On March 01 2017 02:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:10 farvacola wrote:That's nonsense, the popular vote has literally always played a role in determining the extent to which the executive is considered under a mandate of the people relative to its agenda directives. Edit: Ok, so that may have not been the case in 1824 for weird reasons, but the point remains  So it has plated a role in public perception of a position that doesn't have to really worry about public perception for almost three years. The popular vote meaning anything more then a nonsense press issue in the current system is just a petty and pointless argument against executive power.
Do yourself a favor and watch the C-Span coverage of the House wrestling with Trump's budget. It should then become clear why you are not accurately describing the role of the popular vote in shaping the process through which the President pushes through his agenda.
|
Clinton's 99% chance was the result of throwing a normal distribution over the polls results. If you're 4%-5% behind in polls and you assume a standard error that's what you end up with. One can argue that people underestimated the risk and uncertainty in state polls, but nobody can do it retroactively.
We can saw now that state polls were very inaccurate , but only because we know better. You can get right predictions from wrong assumptions, the results don't redeem anybody who just predicted a Trump win because they felt it deep in their guts.
|
When it comes to winning the election, the popular vote does not matter. The same cannot be said for governing after the election is over. Winning is easy, governing is harder.
|
On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned.
Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense.
The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you.
|
United States44439 Posts
On March 01 2017 01:07 SoSexy wrote:
Acrofales how many strawmen do you wanna use? Just answer this question: did the NYT do a good job in predicting the 2016 US elections? Yes or no. The rest are just cheap insults that you like to throw to strengthen your ego. I argue that it did terrible.
Jesus Christ! Dude, you need to just stop. The NYT prediction said that Trump could win. It said he won in 14% of their simulations. He won, just like they said he could.
The argument "they said he had a 14% chance but he won so the chance was actually 100% so they were wrong" is equally valid in the case of a Clinton win "they said she had a 86% chance but she won so the chance was actually 100% so they were wrong".
In both cases it fails. Any probability assigned to any event that is not 100% would be judged as wrong using your outcome based shit tier logic. You're making a fool of yourself.
|
Kwark slowly reacting to the terrible discussion earlier is just what I need on this lunch break.
|
United States44439 Posts
On March 01 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:
Kwark slowly reacting to the terrible discussion earlier is just what I need on this lunch break.
Fucking "86 is lower than 100 so they should just play safe and call it 60". Like seriously what the fuck kind of counting is that? This is why Italy doesn't have a space program.
|
On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you.
Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment.
|
On March 01 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:
Kwark slowly reacting to the terrible discussion earlier is just what I need on this lunch break. Fucking "86 is lower than 100 so they should just play safe and call it 60". Like seriously what the fuck kind of counting is that? This is why Italy doesn't have a space program.
Let me translate for you:
"I want to shit on the NYT because they have a liberal bias. How can I accomplish this goal? Wait, I know!" and then bad math happens.
And this is coming from a guy who celebrated taking his last math class well over a decade ago.
|
On March 01 2017 02:13 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:11 MyTHicaL wrote:
How did this thread go back to why or by how much the polls were wrong? Is it not more pertinent to discuss this absurd accusation of Obama now orchestrating the protests around the US/Globe in response to this moron's policies? Or are you guys just sick of that too now since he seems to spout some random BS every other day which takes head line news world wide by storm? I suppose polling is easier to understand than Trump logic..
Just because you missed your check doesn't mean there's a reason to get all mad at everyone else who did get their protest check.
I can believe if there was payment to the organizers, but I find it hard to believe that the rest of the bulk of the protesters could be paid. The cost doesn't seem sustainable with the size and frequency of some of the protests. Anecdotally, I have friends who have participated in these protests, and they weren't paid.
|
A 15% upset is an underestimate, but not a large one, of Trump's win chance. The real people to criticize are Sam Wang "99.9% Clinton" PhD.
And the utterly electable winner they chose to run who opened the door to losing by being utterly terrible and rationalizing it after the fact with a Putin-Comey-Duke conspiracy.
|
I want a paid protesting job. Apparently they pay $1500 weekly according to conservatives. I just need to know what the benefits are like.
|
On March 01 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you. Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment.
The mandate is a made up term to argue about how much political capital the president has. India has almost never had a real executive mandate but they're not a tire fire country. It has no real effect on anything in the president's power and the president doesn't have to care beacuse the world will be different in 4 years when he's up for office again.
Clearly public support for a political agenda is what the fuck gets them into office. No law passed 51 49 is any different then a law passed 98 2.
The whole concept is simply for the minority to try and take away power by saying "well you only won by 2 points so clearly it doesn't matter as much as this other time someone won by 20"
|
On March 01 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:
A 15% upset is an underestimate, but not a large one, of Trump's win chance. The real people to criticize are Sam Wang "99.9% Clinton" PhD.
And the utterly electable winner they chose to run who opened the door to losing by being utterly terrible and rationalizing it after the fact with a Putin-Comey-Duke conspiracy.
I have BINGO. Where do I go to collect my prize?
|
On March 01 2017 02:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you. Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment. The mandate is a made up term to argue about how much political capital the president has. India has almost never had a real executive mandate but they're not a tire fire country. It has no real effect on anything in the president's power and the president doesn't have to care beacuse the world will be different in 4 years when he's up for office again. Clearly public support for a political agenda is what the fuck gets them into office. N o law passed 51 49 is any different then a law passed 98 2.
Pretty sure those numbers have impacts on the midterm elections and so on.
|
On March 01 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:
A 15% upset is an underestimate, but not a large one, of Trump's win chance. The real people to criticize are Sam Wang "99.9% Clinton" PhD.
And the utterly electable winner they chose to run who opened the door to losing by being utterly terrible and rationalizing it after the fact with a Putin-Comey-Duke conspiracy. I have BINGO. Where do I go to collect my prize?
go to the nearest american embassy, present your bingo card and say "if we have bingo why can't we use it?"
then you get your prize
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
