sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Nov 12, 2016 21:55:06 GMT -5
many months BEFORE the convention, when the DNC had already decided the candidate would be Hillary).
Actually I think the reason hc dropped out of the 2008 campaign was that bama promised her the Sec of State position and major help with the 2016 campaign.
IMHO the DNC candidate for 2016 was picked in 2008
Unfortunately not knowing classified from not classified made her unqualified for Sec of State ...... and cost her the 2016 election
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 12, 2016 22:02:09 GMT -5
many months BEFORE the convention, when the DNC had already decided the candidate would be Hillary).
Actually I think the reason hc dropped out of the 2008 campaign was that bama promised her the Sec of State position and major help with the 2016 campaign. IMHO the DNC candidate for 2016 was picked in 2008 Unfortunately not knowing classified from not classified made her unqualified for Sec of State ...... and cost her the 2016 election Actually, personally I don't mind that the Dems have super delegates ....making it harder for some candidates to get the nomination..still better then the smoke filled rooms that went before. If Pubs had them probably Donald wouldn't be the future President..just saying.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 12, 2016 22:07:42 GMT -5
Stop and Frisk, the wall, etc. I have a hard time seeing those things actually implemented. S&F is unconstitutional, and the President wouldn't have much power to implement that in state police departments anyway.Trump will do all he can to get the wall. We have been promised border security since Reagan's first amnesty and even if he can't get it done due to the Dem do nothing congress he has to give it his best shot. S&F was ruled unconstitutional as applied. It is legal when applied as intended. i.e. In a fair and equal manner. Supposed cost for the wall was $10 Billion I believe and no Mexico not going to pay for it..don'tb think tea party folks would ok that either and dems definitly not so unless no pubs switcj sides on this it will be all on the pubs except for a occasional one in one of those border states..don't see wall being built and actually..when he sees folks still crossing..think he'll propose kill zones..MG lines...mines?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 12, 2016 22:09:12 GMT -5
thanks, but like the polls, i was off by 3%. How many standard deviations is that?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,846
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2016 22:17:11 GMT -5
thanks, but like the polls, i was off by 3%. How many standard deviations is that? Don't know. Survey says we didn't have standard deviants.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 13, 2016 8:10:51 GMT -5
How many standard deviations is that? Don't know. Survey says we didn't have standard deviants. If pollsters were pension fund managers: "Oh come on! Fired? My portfolio only missed the target rate by 3%." If pollsters were NASA engineers: "OK, yes, we missed the landing site by 68 million sigma, but that's only like... 3% of the distance between Earth and Mars." If pollsters were pharmacists: "Ma'am, calm down. I know you were supposed to get 100 pills, but the 97 you got is only 3% error."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 13, 2016 8:12:01 GMT -5
thanks, but like the polls, i was off by 3%. How many standard deviations is that? wrong question. seriously, though- would it surprised you to learn that the polls this year were MORE accurate than 2012? and before you answer it with a mocking, jeering rant about polling and "standard deviation", the error was not from the math. besides, it turned out that all four of the last polls conducted were within error, and IBD basically got it spot on (again). but if you want to go on pretending it is no better than guessing, that is fine with me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 13, 2016 11:19:18 GMT -5
How many standard deviations is that? wrong question. seriously, though- would it surprised you to learn that the polls this year were MORE accurate than 2012? and before you answer it with a mocking, jeering rant about polling and "standard deviation", the error was not from the math. besides, it turned out that all four of the last polls conducted were within error, and IBD basically got it spot on (again). but if you want to go on pretending it is no better than guessing, that is fine with me. I wouldn't say it has absolutely no value above guessing, no. That's why I congratulated Ms. Clinton's supporters before heading off last Sunday. I trusted the polls enough that a victory for Mr. Trump would have shocked me. What is reasonable to conclude is that i) nobody should give a damn what the polls say until, at most, two weeks before the election, and ii) if the candidates are anywhere near even in these final two weeks, the election outcome is determined by the likelihood of various demographics turning up to vote--something the pollsters' models are obviously lousy at predicting, and whose variance dwarfs the sampling error--and the pollsters' conclusions are little better than a wild guess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 13, 2016 11:30:07 GMT -5
wrong question. seriously, though- would it surprised you to learn that the polls this year were MORE accurate than 2012? and before you answer it with a mocking, jeering rant about polling and "standard deviation", the error was not from the math. besides, it turned out that all four of the last polls conducted were within error, and IBD basically got it spot on (again). but if you want to go on pretending it is no better than guessing, that is fine with me. I wouldn't say it has absolutely no value above guessing, no. That's why I congratulated Ms. Clinton's supporters before heading off last Sunday. I trusted the polls enough that a victory for Mr. Trump would have shocked me. What is reasonable to conclude is that i) nobody should give a damn what the polls say until, at most, two weeks before the election, and ii) if the candidates are anywhere near even in these final two weeks, the election outcome is determined by the likelihood of various demographics turning up to vote--something the pollsters' models are obviously lousy at predicting, and whose variance dwarfs the sampling error--and the pollsters' conclusions are little better than a wild guess. wild guess about what? the current state? no, i disagree. wild guess about the FUTURE? well, sure. the future is uncertain. the polls were not meaningless along the way. for example, between the Comey Letter, i think that Clinton's lead probably was 3% higher, and had she held that lead, she would have won easily. in other words, there was a pathway that Trump took, and the polls showed that path- but if you are ONLY interested in the destination, then sure, tune out until the last few DAYS. i would not even say weeks. to put it differently, some people only watch the 4th quarter of basketball games. others enjoy the game itself.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,559
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 13, 2016 11:38:12 GMT -5
Can we post on topic videos again?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 13, 2016 12:03:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't say it has absolutely no value above guessing, no. That's why I congratulated Ms. Clinton's supporters before heading off last Sunday. I trusted the polls enough that a victory for Mr. Trump would have shocked me. What is reasonable to conclude is that i) nobody should give a damn what the polls say until, at most, two weeks before the election, and ii) if the candidates are anywhere near even in these final two weeks, the election outcome is determined by the likelihood of various demographics turning up to vote--something the pollsters' models are obviously lousy at predicting, and whose variance dwarfs the sampling error--and the pollsters' conclusions are little better than a wild guess. wild guess about what? the current state? no, i disagree. wild guess about the FUTURE? well, sure. the future is uncertain. the polls were not meaningless along the way. for example, between the Comey Letter, i think that Clinton's lead probably was 3% higher, and had she held that lead, she would have won easily. in other words, there was a pathway that Trump took, and the polls showed that path- but if you are ONLY interested in the destination, then sure, tune out until the last few DAYS. i would not even say weeks. to put it differently, some people only watch the 4th quarter of basketball games. others enjoy the game itself. Spreads matter in sports. A basketball team down by 40 points at halftime has negligible odds of winning the game. In US politics, for as long as I've been alive, the "path" invariably converges to near parity by the time late October rolls around regardless of anything it's done before that point. I once suspected it was a strategy TPTB used to keep citizens riveted on the dialectic until the bitter end, but it seems just as reasonable to assume there's negative feedback in the system (through what action, I don't know) that pulls it into equilibrium as undecideds take sides. This makes the path you speak of, which mathematicians call a filtration, of very little value in predicting the final outcome--unlike sports. Re my only being interested in the destination: guilty as charged. Even in sports, where filtrations are highly relevant and athletic prowess is on exhibition, stadiums will empty out pretty quickly when a game is one-sided and the outcome a foregone conclusion. For an election, I daresay no reasonable person (excepting those with an academic interest in polling itself) has any stock in polls apart from what they can tell us about the destination.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,846
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 13, 2016 21:52:23 GMT -5
Speaking of spread, I decided to look back at the Presidential elections and the party of the winner. The last time a party held the Presidency three terms in a row was by the Republicans in the run of 1980, 1984, and 1988. Before that the next run of three or more ends in 1948 with Truman a Democrat.
We all expected Hillary to do better, well most of us, but given the prior six elections there seemed to be a trend of two term party control max. Not sure if that means the electorate craves more balance or that parties have gotten better at the game of elections and the electoral college math. I'm not sure when it started but I also think a big factor was the pre-campaign chumming of the waters before any candidates announced. I think a handful of RW pundits started trash talking the establishment and deciding that the Bush family and the Clintons by themselves were similar equal dynasties that needed to be stopped. I was a little annoyed by that comparison because I didn't see a total of three Presidential terms by a father and son equal to two terms by Bill and shutting out Hillary's run, just because, as fair.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 14, 2016 12:41:54 GMT -5
wild guess about what? the current state? no, i disagree. wild guess about the FUTURE? well, sure. the future is uncertain. the polls were not meaningless along the way. for example, between the Comey Letter, i think that Clinton's lead probably was 3% higher, and had she held that lead, she would have won easily. in other words, there was a pathway that Trump took, and the polls showed that path- but if you are ONLY interested in the destination, then sure, tune out until the last few DAYS. i would not even say weeks. to put it differently, some people only watch the 4th quarter of basketball games. others enjoy the game itself. Spreads matter in sports. A basketball team down by 40 points at halftime has negligible odds of winning the game. In US politics, for as long as I've been alive, the "path" invariably converges to near parity by the time late October rolls around regardless of anything it's done before that point. I once suspected it was a strategy TPTB used to keep citizens riveted on the dialectic until the bitter end, but it seems just as reasonable to assume there's negative feedback in the system (through what action, I don't know) that pulls it into equilibrium as undecideds take sides. This makes the path you speak of, which mathematicians call a filtration, of very little value in predicting the final outcome--unlike sports. Re my only being interested in the destination: guilty as charged. Even in sports, where filtrations are highly relevant and athletic prowess is on exhibition, stadiums will empty out pretty quickly when a game is one-sided and the outcome a foregone conclusion. For an election, I daresay no reasonable person (excepting those with an academic interest in polling itself) has any stock in polls apart from what they can tell us about the destination. well, i am interested in the path. so, knowing that, you can choose to ignore my threads in the future, if you wish. edit: oh, and you are making the right choice ignoring the polling until the final days, as it is little to no indication of OUTCOME until then.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2016 13:58:47 GMT -5
Spreads matter in sports. A basketball team down by 40 points at halftime has negligible odds of winning the game. In US politics, for as long as I've been alive, the "path" invariably converges to near parity by the time late October rolls around regardless of anything it's done before that point. I once suspected it was a strategy TPTB used to keep citizens riveted on the dialectic until the bitter end, but it seems just as reasonable to assume there's negative feedback in the system (through what action, I don't know) that pulls it into equilibrium as undecideds take sides. This makes the path you speak of, which mathematicians call a filtration, of very little value in predicting the final outcome--unlike sports. Re my only being interested in the destination: guilty as charged. Even in sports, where filtrations are highly relevant and athletic prowess is on exhibition, stadiums will empty out pretty quickly when a game is one-sided and the outcome a foregone conclusion. For an election, I daresay no reasonable person (excepting those with an academic interest in polling itself) has any stock in polls apart from what they can tell us about the destination. well, i am interested in the path. so, knowing that, you can choose to ignore my threads in the future, if you wish. edit: oh, and you are making the right choice ignoring the polling until the final days, as it is little to no indication of OUTCOME until then. You've piqued my curiosity. If we exclude what the current state of the "path" says about the outcome of the election, why take such a keen interest in it? The only thing I can think of is that you're interested in the short- to mid-term effects of various revelations on the public's (admitted) willingness to vote for particular candidates. But I don't know why this would be of interest to anybody outside an academic setting, and even in an academic setting, the data's only real value is as a predictor of outcome. Don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't one, but: poll-watching is a really weird hobby.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2016 14:34:23 GMT -5
well, i am interested in the path. so, knowing that, you can choose to ignore my threads in the future, if you wish. edit: oh, and you are making the right choice ignoring the polling until the final days, as it is little to no indication of OUTCOME until then. You've piqued my curiosity. If we exclude what the current state of the "path" says about the outcome of the election, why take such a keen interest in it? The only thing I can think of is that you're interested in the short- to mid-term effects of various revelations on the public's (admitted) willingness to vote for particular candidates. But I don't know why this would be of interest to anybody outside an academic setting, and even in an academic setting, the data's only real value is as a predictor of outcome. Don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't one, but: poll-watching is a really weird hobby. I wouldn't talk, mon ami. You have some pretty weird hobbies yourself.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 14, 2016 15:01:58 GMT -5
ABO won't be able to see my request for a link on that assertion.
I do know that illegals with phony SS #'s pay in and don't get a pay out. Same holds true for any that have W-2 employment.
It is also quite hilarious that repos make so much noise about this when they have controlled the House and Senate and SCOTUS for the last 6 years and in the eight years previous to Obama had the same plus the POTUS for eight. Obama has been the deporter in chief in the meantime. Why have the Repos done zilch if it's such a hot button for them.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2016 15:04:44 GMT -5
Supposed cost for the wall was $10 Billion I believe and no Mexico not going to pay for it..don'tb think tea party folks would ok that either and dems definitly not so unless no pubs switcj sides on this it will be all on the pubs except for a occasional one in one of those border states..don't see wall being built and actually..when he sees folks still crossing..think he'll propose kill zones..MG lines...mines? our ANNUAL cost/drag on the US governments is 131B per year. So I think eating a one time, 10B charge is chicken feed to reduce the 131B annual cost The cost of the wall will be about $25 billion. The cost of deporting all illegals will be anywhere from $100 billion to $300 billion. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, he promised to lower taxes. I guess he'll pull the money out of his bloated ass. time.com/money/4566401/trumps-deportation-immigration-plan-numbers/
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 14, 2016 15:05:02 GMT -5
ABO won't be able to see my request for a link on that assertion.
I do know that illegals with phony SS #'s pay in and don't get a pay out. Same holds true for any that have W-2 employment. And compare that to what it costs us to educate their children, provide health insurance and other subsidies...or are you going to claim that illegals somehow land high level jobs making 6 figures??
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2016 15:05:59 GMT -5
You've piqued my curiosity. If we exclude what the current state of the "path" says about the outcome of the election, why take such a keen interest in it? The only thing I can think of is that you're interested in the short- to mid-term effects of various revelations on the public's (admitted) willingness to vote for particular candidates. But I don't know why this would be of interest to anybody outside an academic setting, and even in an academic setting, the data's only real value is as a predictor of outcome. Don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't one, but: poll-watching is a really weird hobby. I wouldn't talk, mon ami. You have some pretty weird hobbies yourself. Weird doesn't have to be bad. You have weird taste in pets. That's not a bad thing (at least until one of the critters you take in gives you rabies), it's just a thing. Take it as a compliment. In this day and age, everyone yearns to be special and unique. To be special and unique, you have to be weird. Anyone who thinks they've got a unique "style", unique talent, or skill, or passion, but who isn't widely regarded as weird, is deceiving themselves.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 14, 2016 15:06:31 GMT -5
our ANNUAL cost/drag on the US governments is 131B per year. So I think eating a one time, 10B charge is chicken feed to reduce the 131B annual cost The cost of the wall will be about $25 billion. The cost of deporting all illegals will be anywhere from $100 billion to $300 billion. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, he promised to lower taxes. I guess he'll pull the money out of his bloated ass. time.com/money/4566401/trumps-deportation-immigration-plan-numbers/And estimates that I have seen say that the illegals cost us over $100B a year...do you think a 3 year payback isn't good (at the high end)?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2016 15:07:32 GMT -5
ABO won't be able to see my request for a link on that assertion.
I do know that illegals with phony SS #'s pay in and don't get a pay out. Same holds true for any that have W-2 employment. And compare that to what it costs us to educate their children, provide health insurance and other subsidies...or are you going to claim that illegals somehow land high level jobs making 6 figures?? Their educated children probably will.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2016 15:21:02 GMT -5
I wouldn't talk, mon ami. You have some pretty weird hobbies yourself. Weird doesn't have to be bad. You have weird taste in pets. That's not a bad thing (at least until one of the critters you take in gives you rabies), it's just a thing. Take it as a compliment. In this day and age, everyone yearns to be special and unique. To be special and unique, you have to be weird. Anyone who thinks they've got a unique "style", unique talent, or skill, or passion, but who isn't widely regarded as weird, is deceiving themselves. Nah, there's no rabies in Montreal. Or in Quebec, for that matter. I'm more concerned about catching something from humans.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2016 15:28:04 GMT -5
I'm guessing you don't work in business? a 125B cost for a 121B annual return is just short of a 100% rate of return on your money. it's a tremendous, awesome, amazing investment that anyone would jump on. plus, aren't you constantly complaining about the migrants to Canada and what a drain they are on your social systems? why is it ok for us to suffer this, but not Quebecians I have no problem with Mexicans. We're preparing for a massive influx. They don't want to abide by sharia law, they aren't shrouded, are hard workers, don't sue at the drop of a hat, and their values are compatible with ours. Our Syrian refugees weren't vetted at all, and I think it's a huge mistake.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 14, 2016 15:37:10 GMT -5
And compare that to what it costs us to educate their children, provide health insurance and other subsidies...or are you going to claim that illegals somehow land high level jobs making 6 figures?? Their educated children probably will. So...instead of building a wall to Mexico we should just ship the illegals to Quebec since you think it is such a great idea.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 14, 2016 15:38:59 GMT -5
I'm guessing you don't work in business? a 125B cost for a 121B annual return is just short of a 100% rate of return on your money. it's a tremendous, awesome, amazing investment that anyone would jump on. plus, aren't you constantly complaining about the migrants to Canada and what a drain they are on your social systems? why is it ok for us to suffer this, but not Quebecians I have no problem with Mexicans. We're preparing for a massive influx. They don't want to abide by sharia law, they aren't shrouded, are hard workers, don't sue at the drop of a hat, and their values are compatible with ours. Our Syrian refugees weren't vetted at all, and I think it's a huge mistake. So because you don't have a problem taking in illegals we shouldn't either? Well your liberal friends don't have a problem taking in Syrian refugees into the US so therefore you shouldn't either. See how that works
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2016 15:41:52 GMT -5
I'm guessing you don't work in business? a 125B cost for a 121B annual return is just short of a 100% rate of return on your money. it's a tremendous, awesome, amazing investment that anyone would jump on. plus, aren't you constantly complaining about the migrants to Canada and what a drain they are on your social systems? why is it ok for us to suffer this, but not Quebecians I have no problem with Mexicans. We're preparing for a massive influx. They don't want to abide by sharia law, they aren't shrouded, are hard workers, don't sue at the drop of a hat, and their values are compatible with ours. Our Syrian refugees weren't vetted at all, and I think it's a huge mistake. Oh, and we haven't had Mexicans trying to blow up railways and shopping centers. We haven't had Mexicans threaten to kill the Prime Minister. We haven't had Mexicans killing policemen by plowing cars into them and we haven't had Mexicans shooting soldiers in Ottawa.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 14, 2016 16:00:56 GMT -5
Here is an interesting link about that: www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes
Your typical Illegal with a W-2 job pays more in income taxes than Trump.
I do know that illegals with phony SS #'s pay in and don't get a pay out. Same holds true for any that have W-2 employment.
And compare that to what it costs us to educate their children, provide health insurance and other subsidies...or are you going to claim that illegals somehow land high level jobs making 6 figures?? The only illegals that are supposed to be able to access gov services are those with a child born in America, Doesn't mean there aren't any that don't. But we should draw the line at educating
their children! I mean really, that is just going too far.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 14, 2016 17:35:39 GMT -5
our ANNUAL cost/drag on the US governments is 131B per year. So I think eating a one time, 10B charge is chicken feed to reduce the 131B annual cost The cost of the wall will be about $25 billion. The cost of deporting all illegals will be anywhere from $100 billion to $300 billion. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, he promised to lower taxes. I guess he'll pull the money out of his bloated ass. time.com/money/4566401/trumps-deportation-immigration-plan-numbers/The above is a great link for those really interested in the economics and feasability of the Donalds proposed deportation planand not to read and understand costs involved means one is really not interested in doing the deportations or are so anxiouse that they really feel no matter what costs and follow up problems ..just deport em. I also was wondering about the world publicity as reporters document the roundup squads doing their job in rounding familys up..say seperating children who are legal from parents and grand parents who are not...showing the roundup of senior folks..been here a while but still illegal, say in 80's being handcuffed and rounded up..all in real time and yes the reporters will be there.. The clothing, furniture, tv's, automobiles businesses being seperated from these illegals..all being documented, basically stolen, similer to what happened to the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Just a few years ago ,after years of litigation, so many of the principals no longer with us, a pittence paid those families..$20,000 I believe for their stolen properties , years ofconfinement.. What about pictures of the dead..I am sure there will be a few of young children similar to that little boy on the beach that went viral recently..Oh yes, there will be deaths..possible because of physical struggles with authorities....more likely from shock..illness..poor care in custody...pictures going around the world ... We have the internet, facebook and other social media..no secrets anymore... now and unless the USA is going to isolate ourselves from Asia, Europe, Africa..the middle east..all points East, West , North, South.. the problems mentioned and I guarantee there will be much greater problems and worse ones then those mentioned..it seems any possible gains for the country will be more then easily wiped out with such a program that the Donald is contemplating..in the #'s that are being bandied around...
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Nov 14, 2016 18:40:12 GMT -5
The only illegals that are supposed to be able to access gov services are those with a child born in America,
IMHO ....... children born in this country should have the same legal status as the birth mother.
No more anchor babies
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 8:34:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 21:32:13 GMT -5
The only illegals that are supposed to be able to access gov services are those with a child born in America,IMHO ....... children born in this country should have the same legal status as the birth mother. No more anchor babies I could get on board with a variation on that... just add in "or the verified, DNA matched, father". Either parent should be able to confer citizenship.
|
|