2018 mid-term election

[Worm]

Here's a debunking for you.

There are at least 46 million non-citizens in the US.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/

Nope.

"As of 2015, the United Nations estimates that 46.6 million people living in the United States were not born there. " (emphasis mine)

They are immigrants. Not 'non-citizens'

Also.

"The UN’s figure of 46.6 million includes Puerto Ricans and others born in U.S. territories ...[who are]...U.S. citizens at birth"

 

[Foolmewunz]

Here's a debunking for you.

There are at least 46 million non-citizens in the US.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/

Oh, my!

Class! Anyone wanna show Buehler here where he went awry? Hint: It's in the headline of the linked article.


ETA: Dang nab it! Worm beat me to the post by a couple of seconds.

 

[Baylor]

Oh, my!

Class! Anyone wanna show Buehler here where he went awry? Hint: It's in the headline of the linked article.


ETA: Dang nab it! Worm beat me to the post by a couple of seconds.

You broke your promise. You never read the paper.

"It is possible that some respondents
were without any documentation whatsoever (popularly
called “illegal aliens”), though this cannot be confirmed or
rejected with the information available as no respondent
specifically self-identified themselves as illegal or undocumented
(but many did not specifically identify themselves
as having permanent resident status)."

 

[PhantomWolf]

Here's a debunking for you.

There are at least 46 million non-citizens in the US.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/

While it's been pointed out to you that you're wrong, do you realise that if it was 46 million and not 19.4 million then the sample sized used would be even more invalid?

 

[varwoche]

Oh, my!

Class! Anyone wanna show Buehler here where he went awry? Hint: It's in the headline of the linked article.


ETA: Dang nab it! Worm beat me to the post by a couple of seconds.

In the unlikely event I ever find myself teaching Critical Thinking 101, I'll use this example on day one in a lecture titled Don't Be a Sucker. Subtitle: If you are a sucker, don't run that fact up a flag pole on an internet forum.

 

[LSSBB]

While it's been pointed out to you that you're wrong, do you realise that if it was 46 million and not 19.4 million then the sample sized used would be even more invalid?

As an LSSBB, your responses such as this in the thread warm my heart.

 

[Delvo]

Poll: Democratic voters back Pelosi as speaker by wide margin

I saw 39% before rather than 48%, but even 48% is under half, which is not "supporting" her "by a wide margin" or even any margin at all... especially against no particular identified alternative.

Either way, though, without an alternative to even consider against her, we'll end up with her again.

...breaking what ain't broken by replacing a battle-hardened wrangler who can go to toe with Trump and his minions...

First there would need to be somebody like that already in that position to consider replacing. What we have instead is somebody who downtalks the progressive movement as much as possible and responded to the recent Democrat & progressive wins by announcing her support for a couple of anti-progressive measures and blathering about bipartisanship & togetherness.

 

[Craig4]

Even if they can't get legislation passed, by passing laws through the house, they can at least show that they are more than just "anti-Trumpers", that they have policies and ideas that go beyond just being in opposition.

And heck, maybe some of the things they propose might be politically popular, and will cause some embarrassment to the republicans if/when they oppose it.

The Senate map in 2020 will be harder for Republicans than 2018. Susan Collins will have a tough fight and the Republicans are defending in North Carolina, a state that barely went to Trump. We've already seen that this president has no coat tails. Thy are also defending in Colorado, a blue state. There may be enough room to work across the aisle with swing state Republicans.

 

[Delvo]

I forgot to include this in my last post even though this was half of the reason I posted!

There was a letter signed by some Democrats in the HOR saying they would oppose Pelosi being SOH again. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom one might expect to go along with it as a Pelosi critic and a target of Pelosi dismissiveness, had an interesting argument against it. She said the letter didn't talk about their policy ideas or vision, or Pelosi's or how those two things differ, and it didn't give any particular indication that they were doing this from a progressive perspective or a conservative one or any other particular angle. So she wasn't going to go along with something that looked like it was just person-versus-person instead of being about what people plan to actually do.

 

[Minoosh]

You broke your promise. You never read the paper.

"It is possible that some respondents
were without any documentation whatsoever (popularly
called “illegal aliens”), though this cannot be confirmed or
rejected with the information available as no respondent
specifically self-identified themselves as illegal or undocumented
(but many did not specifically identify themselves
as having permanent resident status)."

It must be very liberating to be wrong, not care, and double down with irrelevant verbiage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All this prattle about a majority of Democratic voters not wanting Pelosi as Speaker smells just like Russki [the usual GOP] disinfo success...

And why any newly elected cherubs in the House would entertain the notion of breaking what ain't broken by replacing a battle-hardened wrangler who can go to toe with Trump and his minions is the height of naivete.

ftfy

 

[smartcooky]

Even if they can't get legislation passed, by passing laws through the house, they can at least show that they are more than just "anti-Trumpers", that they have policies and ideas that go beyond just being in opposition.

And heck, maybe some of the things they propose might be politically popular, and will cause some embarrassment to the republicans if/when they oppose it.

Not to mention the "Power of the Purse"

"If you Republican Senators don't pass piece of legislation 'A', you won't be getting the money for programme 'B' that you want."

 

[CapelDodger]

It must be very liberating to be wrong, not care, and double down with irrelevant verbiage.

Hence the popularity of cocaine.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not to mention the "Power of the Purse"

Hearts and minds will follow.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It must be very liberating to be wrong, not care, and double down with irrelevant verbiage.

But there had to have been voter fraud! There just had to!

 

[Minoosh]

But there had to have been voter fraud! There just had to!

I wish I could find a post I did about a year ago, which I spent 1-2 hours researching. I read the whole of a database on voter fraud incidents by the Heritage Foundation IIRC, and also a study from which wild extrapolations were made based on flawed methodology ... and that according to the paper's author. If I can get the search terms right I'll re-post.

What I found is that many incidents:
- Involved a handful of voters or less.
- Involved very local elections - e.g., for town council in Kentucky.
- Involved fraud on the GOP side as well as the Dems.

I can't remember that any tipped an election, except maybe at the very local level.

I notice Democrats have announced health care as a big agenda item which is great - especially if they can spell out a reasonable transition from a re-crafted ACA to Medicare for all, phased in gradually. But I think election integrity is something else they should tackle. That might include requiring social media platforms to vet political advertising.

It's doubtful they could anything passed, but having some very solid legislation in place would tell the country they mean business.

It's fine to do some Trump investigation but only if they're looking for facts vs. getting their names in the news.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Poll: Democratic voters back Pelosi as speaker by wide margin

The vitriol against Pelosi is manufactured by the GOP because she's effective and good at her job.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I saw 39% before rather than 48%, but even 48% is under half, which is not "supporting" her "by a wide margin" or even any margin at all... especially against no particular identified alternative.

The figures to compare are those Democrats that support her and those Democrats that oppose her, same as the Presidential Approval rating. those figures are 48% and 22% respectively, so she has a +26 point margin. That is indeed pretty wide.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The vitriol against Pelosi is manufactured by the GOP because she's effective and good at her job.

Exactly.

And the inexperienced Democratic legislators, some who came from the Bernie disaster and they are more than welcome, appear to be the most susceptible echoing the propaganda message that the Democrats need to bring in a fresh speaker.

No, they/we don't. The party can and will move toward progressive without dumping effective.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Exactly.

And the inexperienced Democratic legislators, some who came from the Bernie disaster and they are more than welcome, appear to be the most susceptible echoing the propaganda message that the Democrats need to bring in a fresh speaker.

No, they/we don't. The party can and will move toward progressive without dumping effective.

The signatories of "the letter", as already noted are not the surging progressive newbies that people are envisioning. The progressives are generally behind having Pelosi stay where she's of the most use. I went through the names of about half of the signatories and you find achievements (on various individuals, not all the same) like

> Voted most bipartisan Democrat.
> Republican Prosecutor turned Dem.
> Member of the New Generation Dem Caucus (or something like this)
> Ran unsuccessfully for House leadership position

This is just "changing of the guard" people as I've iterated already. Unless someone sees a "big change" to moderate/conservative coming it's only a story because there's nothing else happening on the legislative front.