Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The psychology of political correctness
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 309 (782120)
04-17-2016 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Rrhain
04-16-2016 9:49 PM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
While Removals are up, Returns are down and the combined numbers are down in total. And in recent years, Removals are at major low (from ICE)
Illegal immigration in to the United States is also at historic lows.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Rrhain, posted 04-16-2016 9:49 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 302 of 309 (782122)
04-17-2016 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by LamarkNewAge
04-16-2016 6:14 PM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
LamarkNewAge writes:
...the CIA's Inspector General said that 60 CIA agents (and the FBI) knew about Khalid Muhammad Abdallah al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Muhammed Salim al-Hazmi being in the USA for over a year (and their plans).
And their plans? No.
Trump knows that ISIS is CIA funded...
Trump "knows" many things.
...(he is good friends with Jesse Venture as he has been since WrestleMania 4 on March 27 1988)...
You say that like it's a good thing.
...and he is surely aware of Scott Bennett tracing the ISIS funding to over 1000 CIA Swiss bank accounts.
Trump is "aware" of many things.
Trump might be sincere in his anti-free trade views, but he isn't sincerely anti-immigration.
If he's not anti-immigration then he's a liar. Which we already knew, just not about that.
(truthfully the wall is almost there already and there is no practical difference).
A 30-foot wall? I don't think so. Or is he lying about wanting a 30-foot wall, too.
Trump is simply a Pro-Life liberal (with libertarian anti-war views) IMO.
You do realize, don't you, that your supposedly pro-Trump message is full of revelations about Trump lies?
I'll admit that I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but he is really awesome in my estimation.
He has an awesome schtick that shouldn't be let loose on the national stage, let alone the international.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-16-2016 6:14 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-18-2016 3:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 303 of 309 (782150)
04-18-2016 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Percy
04-17-2016 8:29 AM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
quote:
[Lamark New Age]
"Trump might be sincere in his anti-free trade views, but he isn't sincerely anti-immigration."
[Percy]
If he's not anti-immigration then he's a liar. Which we already knew, just not about that.
A New York Times reporter said that Trump, on March 1 (?), made him take an answer to an interview question about deportation "off the record" where Trump then said that the deportation "wasn't going to happen".
Considering that (an already fully developed and relatively newly extreme) Trump had 3-4 years earlier criticized Romney's anti-immigration views as too harsh, this NYT revelation had been the iron-clad evidence conservatives were looking for to "expose" him.
Right wing radio (as well as Trump's already suspicious opponents) went wild, but Rush Limbaugh cautiously said that he suspected Trump simply had the same response as he already had given to (hostile conservative interviewer)John Fund - "not until I build the wall".
In open camera interviews (and debates) Trump simply said, "Not until I build the wall" when asked about the amnesty issue.
Here is a Politico report.
quote:
In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday night, Trump responded to a question about a recent claim, first introduced by BuzzFeed earlier in the day, that he told The New York Times editorial board in an off-the-record tape-recorded meeting that he may not follow through with his proposed immigration measures if he is elected president.
The New York Times is claiming today that they had an off-the-record conversation with you in January, Hannity started.
We had a board meeting, it was off-the-record, suddenly they leak it, it’s all over the place, Trump said.
They said it’s negotiable on the wall, Hannity said in reference to Trump’s stance on Mexican immigration and his oft-stated promise to build a border wall.
By the way it is negotiable. Things are negotiable, Trump said. I’ll make the wall 2 feet shorter or something.
Trump was quick to add that the negotiation does not include nixing the idea altogether.
Building it? Not negotiable.
Would it be negotiable about the 11 million? Hannity pressed. Maybe let some people stay if they register in a period of time?
I would say this, Trump answered. We will work out some system that’s fair, but we either have a country or we don’t. We need a border. We need a wall.
Trump’s leading Republican rivals, Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, have both urged the Manhattan mogul to release the audio tapes of his conversation with the Times from Jan 5. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney tweeted his call that the billionaire front-runner share the contents of the recording.
Trump: My immigration plans aren't set in stone - POLITICO
Trump knows that the angry elements of the populist/center-right consider immigration a problem. He wisely choose this as an issue to win votes from a somewhat energetic segment of the population (or at least a large part of the GOP voting population). But he knows that he can rant and rave about "the wall" (as if it isn't already there BECAUSE RIGHT WING RADIO SAYS IT ISN'T) while not doing anything practical to make life harder for immigrants. In a general election match-up, Trump will simply say to Hillary "I want immigration but I don't want them to have to risk their lives coming over. Let's have a nice big door (on a nice big wall) so they don't have to risk their lives as a price of entry and it can be done LEGALLY."
As for the war issue, Trump can just sound some anti-PC sound bites like "what's wrong with torture" then argue against overseas agitation for a foreign policy. His anti-war views will be much more intense in a general election (not to mention undiluted with the sound bite stuff that he knows is so pleasing to conservative GOP primary voting ears).
Trump is a master politician. He knows how to target a GOP primary like a marketing genius.
(he does seem to be getting tired of the GOP primary though. He wants to take on Hillary real bad. He is only trailing her by 7 to 10% in polls. Not bad considering all the GOP voters that are telling pollsters they will be voting for Hillary NOW but will switch later on. He will also get 20% black support when all is said and done. Most younger black males I know support him over Hillary.)
Here are the 2 latest national polls.
quote:
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 48, Trump 41 Clinton +7
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 45, Cruz 44 Clinton +1
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton FOX News Kasich 49, Clinton 40 Kasich +9
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders FOX News Sanders 53, Trump 39 Sanders +14
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders FOX News Sanders 51, Cruz 39 Sanders +12
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders FOX News Sanders 47, Kasich 43 Sanders +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CBS News Clinton 50, Trump 40 Clinton +10
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton CBS News Clinton 45, Cruz 42 Clinton +3
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton CBS News Kasich 47, Clinton 41 Kasich +6
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders CBS News Sanders 53, Trump 36 Sanders +17
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders CBS News Sanders 50, Cruz 38 Sanders +12
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders CBS News Sanders 46, Kasich 41 Sanders +5
realclearpolitics.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Percy, posted 04-17-2016 8:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 304 of 309 (782152)
04-18-2016 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Rrhain
04-16-2016 9:49 PM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
Rrhain.
Thanks for those revealing charts.
Though, somebody correctly pointed out that in-migration is quite low.
Real "Unemployment" (not reflected in the headline number) is very very high for poor and lower-income groups.
More like 40% than 5%.
Trumps stated immigration (not to mention trade) policies won't help to even dent the employment troubles (in the long term will actually make them much worse) but that is another story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Rrhain, posted 04-16-2016 9:49 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Rrhain, posted 04-20-2016 3:13 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 305 of 309 (782153)
04-18-2016 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Hyroglyphx
04-17-2016 1:59 AM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
quote:
Trump comes across as mentally unstable and the kind of guy who would absolutely use the military as his personal mercenaries to settle scores with anyone that crosses him. He's a megalomaniac and an attention whore who will take part in anything that gets his name put up in lights.
He hates ISIS but remember that he will be groundbreaking as a successful primary (?) candidate with the (otherwise) anti-war views he has. He attempts to come across as something more hawkish, but that is background noise to muddy the GOP primary waters.
quote:
All that tells me is that, on top of being a monumental piece of shit, he's also a lying piece of shit who panders for votes.... but he wants us to believe that he's not a "politician?"
I'm angry at him "buying" votes with his support of the $100 billion home-mortgage deduction but most voters are homeowners.
Politicians are those who win elections. You have to appeal to the least common denominator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-17-2016 1:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 306 of 309 (782189)
04-20-2016 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by LamarkNewAge
04-18-2016 3:54 PM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
LamarkNewAge responds to me:
quote:
Thanks for those revealing charts.
You're welcome. Though I have to ask why you didn't know about them when you made your original post. You made quite a lot of claims, very few of which were true and were easily determined to be untrue through simple research.
You continued your errors in your response (see below)
quote:
Though, somebody correctly pointed out that in-migration is quite low.
That doesn't help your claim. Your claim was that Obama has "deported" more than all other administrations combined. That simply isn't true.
quote:
Real "Unemployment" (not reflected in the headline number) is very very high for poor and lower-income groups.
More like 40% than 5%.
You're probably referring to the U6 numbers. There are many "unemployment rate" statistics. From the BLS:
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
As noted, the "official" unemployment rate is U3. However, the U6 numbers refer to all people even vaguely related to the labor market who aren't working.
That number is 9.8% (seasonally adjusted) as of March 2016 (http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate though you can go through the cross-tabs at http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm). If the U6 numbers for "poor and lower-income groups" is 40%, that means all the unemployed are for poor/low-income jobs. And since the U6 number has been cut nearly in half since 2010 (26M total to 16M total), your claim doesn't pass the sniff test.
Now, the BLS doesn't really break down the numbers like that. After all, how does one determine "poor and lower-income groups" with regard to unemployment. After all, if you don't have a job, how do you distinguish someone who doesn't have a "high-end job" from someone who doesn't have a "low-end job."
We can do a proxy by using disadvantaged groups such as by race or sex or by job sector such as service, mining, etc., but I'm having a hard time finding U6 numbers broken down by demographic.
The only U3 number that I can find that is anywhere near "40%" is for black males aged 16-17 (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm). Indeed, the March 2016 U3 number (not the U6) for black males aged 16-17 is at 45.2% (not seasonally adjusted). And that's bad. It's an increase of 10 percentage points compared to last year and whites and Latinos both showed decreases for that demographic of male 16-17-year-olds (things are more complex for women where whites saw a decrease while both blacks and Latinos saw an increase...no data exists for Asians.)
But to be complete, all other demographics for blacks saw a decrease in the U3 number save for black males 35-44 (7.8% to 8.0%...black women saw a decrease in the U3 numbers).
So while I can't find U6 numbers, your claim doesn't appear to be true given all the other data I can find. As I stated, the only way it could possibly be true is if the entire unemployment crisis was concentrated in a specific area and that isn't true.
Where did you get your information?
Edited by Rrhain, : Clarified a number

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-18-2016 3:54 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-21-2016 4:50 PM Rrhain has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 307 of 309 (782257)
04-21-2016 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Rrhain
04-20-2016 3:13 AM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
I was looking at the labor fore participation rate of around 62% for those over age 16.
I was looking at the even worse numbers for large cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.
"Poor people" have a hard time getting a job. I'm not sure how to classify people exactly.
My 40% number can't be too far off.
IMMIGRATION
Immigration numbers might be different than what I have heard though. China has a purchasing power of 25% of the USA per capita income, and Mexico 33%, which is a good ways higher than decades past. I assumed immigration was stalling, but perhaps it isn't. The "undocumented" / "Illegal" population is down to around 11 million, and there have been headlines of "record deportations" , so perhaps I have gotten confused along the way.
I'm not so sure now, but I still think the lower income folk from Mexico and China have a better chance getting a job in their native countries than here. Wages might be smaller perhaps (though the poorest segment there might not have all that lower purchasing power than here). There are many factors that cause immigration though. It's only a small number of a given country's population that leaves for the USA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Rrhain, posted 04-20-2016 3:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2016 5:06 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 309 by Rrhain, posted 04-21-2016 11:12 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 309 (782261)
04-21-2016 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by LamarkNewAge
04-21-2016 4:50 PM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
I was looking at the labor fore participation rate of around 62% for those over age 16.
Hmm. What are the circumstances under which a 16 year old, at least in the US, should consider his status 'unemployed' rather than 'student'? I don't think that 62% number works as a viable measure of a poor economy.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-21-2016 4:50 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 309 of 309 (782287)
04-21-2016 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by LamarkNewAge
04-21-2016 4:50 PM


Re: My take on Donald Trump.
LamarkNewAge writes:
quote:
I was looking at the labor fore participation rate of around 62% for those over age 16.
That isn't unemployment.
The participation rate refers to the entire population of potential workers and only breaks it down by those who either have a job/are looking for work and everybody else.
This means those who are discouraged (the U6 minus the U3 numbers) are part of the non-participants group.
But it also means those who have retired and those who are engaged in non-employment pursuits such as education are in that non-participants group. You will never have 100% participation nor should you. That means nobody can go to school, nobody can retire, nobody can leave the workforce for other things such as taking care of family members.
For the past 40 years, the labor participation rate has been in the mid-60s. Going back to 1948 (which is where the BLS's data starts), the participation rate has increased from 58.6% to 63%. We do need to care about the participation rate. But part of the reason it has gone down is due to the aging of the population. More people are retiring (the Baby Boom) and leaving the labor market.
That isn't the only reason and discouragement is an important thing to look at, but that's where U6 numbers come in.
quote:
My 40% number can't be too far off.
But it is. The participation rate is not a measure of unemployment.
And your comments about immigration have no bearing on your claim that Obama has "deported more immigrants than all other administrations combined."
That simply isn't true.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-21-2016 4:50 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024