|
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. |
On October 04 2015 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote: Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. What wasn't the point of the article?
The goal was to point out a potentiality. It did mention previous years, as needed, with numerous references to the results in many of these closer swing states. The overall EC count wasn't really needed.
|
On October 04 2015 14:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote: Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. What wasn't the point of the article? The goal was to point out a potentiality. It did mention previous years, as needed, with numerous references to the results in many of these closer swing states. The overall EC count wasn't really needed.
Yeah, the point being that they could of pointed out the potentiality without the clickbait title and mentioned the last two elections were blowouts at the EC so the likelihood is practically nil that undocumented residents would make the difference the title suggests.
|
On October 04 2015 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 14:47 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote: Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. What wasn't the point of the article? The goal was to point out a potentiality. It did mention previous years, as needed, with numerous references to the results in many of these closer swing states. The overall EC count wasn't really needed. Yeah, the point being that they could of pointed out the potentiality without the clickbait title and mentioned the last two elections were blowouts at the EC so the likelihood is practically nil that undocumented residents would make the difference the title suggests.
The last two elections being lopsided EC victories isn't relevant.
|
On October 04 2015 15:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 14:47 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote: Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. What wasn't the point of the article? The goal was to point out a potentiality. It did mention previous years, as needed, with numerous references to the results in many of these closer swing states. The overall EC count wasn't really needed. Yeah, the point being that they could of pointed out the potentiality without the clickbait title and mentioned the last two elections were blowouts at the EC so the likelihood is practically nil that undocumented residents would make the difference the title suggests. The last two elections being lopsided EC victories isn't relevant.
A lot more relevant than the 7 EC votes the article was about.
|
The actual problem with the article is that the title is meaningless. If the Republican candidate won California illegal immigrants would be electing them. George Sr managed it, after all. Or if the Democratic candidate won some of the hypothetical states that would be reapportioned seats that went Republican in 2012 (which is absolutely no guarantee they'll do the same thing in 2016, especially Missouri).
Since they don't actually do any real math or probability and are just expressing a possibility the title could be "Illegal Immigrants could elect Trump" and be just as accurate.
I would also argue that 2012 and 2008 margins are completely meaningless for projecting results in 2016 because the Democratic and Republican candidates will be almost completely and utterly different than they were in either year except for the letter next to their name. Certainly using the 2012 margins of an incumbent is just a nonsensical comparison to what the Democratic nominee will be bringing.
|
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The International medical charity Doctors Without Borders said on Sunday it had withdrawn from the northern Afghan city of Kunduz after a deadly airstrike destroyed its hospital and killed 19 people.
The humanitarian crisis in the city, which briefly fell to the Taliban last week before the government launched a counteroffensive, has been growing increasingly dire, with shops shuttered because of ongoing fighting and roads made impassable by mines planted by insurgents.
"All critical patients have been referred to other health facilities and no MSF staff are working in our hospital," said Kate Stegeman, the communications manager for Doctors Without Borders, using the French acronym for the organization.
"Some of our medical staff have gone to work in two hospitals where some of the wounded have been taken," she added.
Investigations are continuing into the bombing of the hospital on Saturday, which killed at least 19 people, including 12 MSF staffers.
The group blames a U.S. airstrike for the death and destruction. Afghan officials said helicopter gunships returned fire from Taliban fighters who were hiding in the facility.
Stegeman said there were no insurgents in the facility at the time of the bombing. AP video footage of the burned out compound in the east of Kunduz city shows automatic weapons, including rifles and at least one machine gun, on windowsills.
President Ashraf Ghani said a joint investigation was underway with U.S. Forces and President Barack Obama said he expected a full accounting of the circumstances surrounding the bombing.
Source
|
On October 04 2015 23:55 TheTenthDoc wrote: The actual problem with the article is that the title is meaningless. If the Republican candidate won California illegal immigrants would be electing them. George Sr managed it, after all. Or if the Democratic candidate won some of the hypothetical states that would be reapportioned seats that went Republican in 2012 (which is absolutely no guarantee they'll do the same thing in 2016, especially Missouri).
Since they don't actually do any real math or probability and are just expressing a possibility the title could be "Illegal Immigrants could elect Trump" and be just as accurate.
I would also argue that 2012 and 2008 margins are completely meaningless for projecting results in 2016 because the Democratic and Republican candidates will be almost completely and utterly different than they were in either year except for the letter next to their name. Certainly using the 2012 margins of an incumbent is just a nonsensical comparison to what the Democratic nominee will be bringing.
I mostly agree other than 08 and 12 numbers being meaningless. I think you underestimate how influential those letters are to millions of voters.
People vote on an issue based on the facts and their ideology, or personal beliefs, but they disregard both the facts and their personal beliefs when they are aware of their political party's position, according to a Yale study.
Moreover, people are not cognizant that they are influenced by their party's position and believe that their stance stems from an objective assessment of the policy's merits.
Source
|
Meaningless is probably the wrong way to say it. ~70-80% of the votes cast overall are going to be the same, you're right.
Relatively uninformative for estimating who is going to win swing states in 2016 is probably more accurate.
|
NATO in Afghanistan says it will lead an investigation into an airstrike in Kunduz this weekend that hit a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital, killing 22 people — an attack that the humanitarian organization, also known as Doctors Without Borders, has called "a war crime."
A U.S.-led airstrike on the northern Afghan city was carried out on Saturday but the circumstances surrounding it remain murky. NATO acknowledges only that the raid occurred near the charity's hospital.
The NATO coalition says it "has directed a preliminary multi-national investigation known as a Casualty Assessment Team." It says that an initial investigation would be complete in "a matter of days."
"Additionally, the U.S. military has opened a formal investigation, headed by a General Officer, to conduct a thorough and comprehensive inquiry," it said in a statement.
But MSF's General Director Christopher Stokes, saying in a statement that the group operates "[under] the clear presumption that a war crime has been committed," insisted that anything less than a fully independent probe of the incident would be unacceptable.
"Relying only on an internal investigation by a party to the conflict would be wholly insufficient," Stokes said.
Source
|
Rep. Jason Chaffetz has officially launched his dark-horse campaign for House speaker, arguing he’s a better choice to unite the fractious Republican conference and that Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy lacks the communication skills and credibility with conservatives needed to succeed in the top leadership job.
In a lengthy interview with POLITICO in his Capitol Hill office this weekend, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee predicted that opposition from conservatives will block McCarthy from securing the 218 votes he needs to be elected on the House floor later this month – and so Chaffetz is pitching himself as an alternative.
“There are very few people who can win the support of our hardcore conservatives and yet be palatable to our more moderate members,” he said. “The question is who can help unite the party and bridge the divide and I hope they see me as the person that will give everyone a fair shake.”
McCarthy has broad support within the House Republican Conference and remains the overwhelming favorite to succeed outgoing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). And it’s unclear how much support Chaffetz can actually garner. Chaffetz, who remarked that he’s “comfortable with losing,” would not say whether he has any pledged supporters.
But until now, McCarthy faced only token opposition in Florida Rep. Daniel Webster; Chaffetz, by contrast, is the head of a major committee and a respected figure among the rank-and-file. At the very least, the Utah Republican’s last-minute entry complicates McCarthy’s path and highlights the uneasiness with which the centrist Californian is viewed among the most conservative members of the GOP conference.
Source
|
Massachusetts is feeling the Bern.
More than 20,000 of its residents turned out for a Bernie Sanders rally at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center on Saturday, no small feat even in a Democratic-leaning state.
The Vermont independent senator who is campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination appears to have broken a record for a primary candidate's audience in the state -- shooting past then-Sen. Barack Obama's rally of 10,000 people eight years ago, according to the Boston Globe.
Sanders' campaign has been swimming in good news lately. Earlier this week, it announced a third-quarter fundraising total of $26 million -- right on the heels of Sanders' rival Hillary Clinton and her $28 million haul.
The senator has also exceeded another Obama marker by becoming the first candidate to reach 1 million online donations nearly five months earlier than the president did.
Source
|
On October 05 2015 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Massachusetts is feeling the Bern.
More than 20,000 of its residents turned out for a Bernie Sanders rally at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center on Saturday, no small feat even in a Democratic-leaning state.
The Vermont independent senator who is campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination appears to have broken a record for a primary candidate's audience in the state -- shooting past then-Sen. Barack Obama's rally of 10,000 people eight years ago, according to the Boston Globe.
Sanders' campaign has been swimming in good news lately. Earlier this week, it announced a third-quarter fundraising total of $26 million -- right on the heels of Sanders' rival Hillary Clinton and her $28 million haul.
The senator has also exceeded another Obama marker by becoming the first candidate to reach 1 million online donations nearly five months earlier than the president did. Source
I wasn't able to make it to the Springfield rally earlier in the day, even though I live just across the river
But this clip from it is just so cute
+ Show Spoiler +
|
An onslaught of rain battering South Carolina this weekend is shocking both longtime residents and officials who've never witnessed such a powerful storm in the region.
"We haven't seen this level of rain in the low country in a thousand years," Gov. Nikki Haley told reporters Sunday afternoon. "That's how big this is."
In just the last 12 hours before her 3 p.m. press conference, she said, there had been 754 calls for assistance and 320 collisions. Since a state of emergency was declared Thursday, there have been three fatalities.
"It is literally changing by the minute," she said of the number of incidents and amount of rainfall.
More than 20 inches of rain have fallen in parts of the state since Thursday, when Hurricane Joaquin began nearing the east coast, prompting officials to shut down roads, close school districts and enforce mandatory curfews.
The total 24-plus inches of rain in Boone Hall and 18-plus inches near Kiawah are "mind-boggling," the National Weather Service bureau in South Carolina tweeted Sunday afternoon.
Charleston set a new daily record on Saturday when it experienced 11.5 inches of rain, the national NWS reported.
"To put this in perspective, 11.50 inches is 22.5 percent of the annual normal rainfall for the City of Charleston," the NWS wrote in an update.
"I have lived here for over 45 years and I have never seen it this way,” said Mickey Williams of Sullivan’s Island, a seaside town just west of Charleston.
He noted that many parts of the island were completely underwater.
Source
|
so apparently the one person one vote thing is a bigger deal in terms of districts. It's also the only time you'll probably ever see texas aligned with the civil rights movement. ignore cnn title, its a bit clickbaty ish. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts/index.html
Another case targets the issue of "one person one vote," a doctrine dating back to the Earl Warren court when the Supreme Court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.
But the Court never explicitly defined population. Does it refer to the general population? Or to the population that can vote? Or something in between? That is the crux of Evenwel v. Abbott.
Currently most states look to the total population of the district when drawing state lines. But the challengers in this case argue that Texas must primarily look at the total number of eligible voters in the state.
Sue Evenwel, a resident of Titus County, and others argue that their vote is worth less than people in neighboring districts because those districts have fewer residents who are eligible to vote.
In court briefs, Evenwel's lawyers say, "the Texas legislature redrew the Senate map without attempting to ensure that each Senate district has approximately the same numbers of eligible voters."
The case has political implications. It raises questions not only about the representation of children and persons with felony convictions, but also immigrants.
In general, rural districts tend to be more Republican than urban districts that often include more non-voters.
A collection of civil-rights groups has filed a brief in support of Texas.
"The Constitution declares equality before the law, that's the fundamental premise for a representative democracy," says Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez of the Advancement Project, a civil-rights organization.
"Each person should be a whole person, and each person has a right to representation whether you are a child, an immigrant or no matter what your race," she said.
also a random question. anyone knows Sanders stance on gun control?
|
On October 05 2015 09:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:so apparently the one person one vote thing is a bigger deal in terms of districts. It's also the only time you'll probably ever see texas aligned with the civil rights movement. ignore cnn title, its a bit clickbaty ish. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts/index.htmlShow nested quote +Another case targets the issue of "one person one vote," a doctrine dating back to the Earl Warren court when the Supreme Court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.
But the Court never explicitly defined population. Does it refer to the general population? Or to the population that can vote? Or something in between? That is the crux of Evenwel v. Abbott.
Currently most states look to the total population of the district when drawing state lines. But the challengers in this case argue that Texas must primarily look at the total number of eligible voters in the state.
Sue Evenwel, a resident of Titus County, and others argue that their vote is worth less than people in neighboring districts because those districts have fewer residents who are eligible to vote.
In court briefs, Evenwel's lawyers say, "the Texas legislature redrew the Senate map without attempting to ensure that each Senate district has approximately the same numbers of eligible voters."
The case has political implications. It raises questions not only about the representation of children and persons with felony convictions, but also immigrants.
In general, rural districts tend to be more Republican than urban districts that often include more non-voters.
A collection of civil-rights groups has filed a brief in support of Texas.
"The Constitution declares equality before the law, that's the fundamental premise for a representative democracy," says Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez of the Advancement Project, a civil-rights organization.
"Each person should be a whole person, and each person has a right to representation whether you are a child, an immigrant or no matter what your race," she said.
also a random question. anyone knows Sanders stance on gun control?
Bernie on guns.
Pretty moderate. Not unexpected from an Independent politician.
|
GREENVILLE, S.C. — With Jeb Bush struggling to connect with some Republican activists, his campaign has begun exploring whether to bring in the person it thinks may be best equipped to give him a boost with skeptical conservatives: his brother George W. Bush.
The 43rd president is a very popular figure among Republican voters and could deliver a needed jolt to his brother’s sluggish campaign.
Advisers to Jeb Bush in this crucial early primary state have asked national campaign officials in recent weeks to send in George Bush, 69, who so far has appeared only at private fund-raisers, to vouch for his younger brother on the campaign trail.
The request for reinforcement underlines the growing urgency that backers of Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, feel as other candidates vault ahead of him by stirring the passions of the party’s base.
But the question of how to use the candidate’s older brother is an agonizing one for the campaign. While dispatching George Bush to a state like South Carolina could shore up his standing with conservatives, and remind voters there of a political family they still admire, it could also underscore the impression that Jeb Bush is simply a legacy candidate at a time when voters are itching for change.
Source
|
On October 05 2015 10:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 09:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:so apparently the one person one vote thing is a bigger deal in terms of districts. It's also the only time you'll probably ever see texas aligned with the civil rights movement. ignore cnn title, its a bit clickbaty ish. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts/index.htmlAnother case targets the issue of "one person one vote," a doctrine dating back to the Earl Warren court when the Supreme Court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.
But the Court never explicitly defined population. Does it refer to the general population? Or to the population that can vote? Or something in between? That is the crux of Evenwel v. Abbott.
Currently most states look to the total population of the district when drawing state lines. But the challengers in this case argue that Texas must primarily look at the total number of eligible voters in the state.
Sue Evenwel, a resident of Titus County, and others argue that their vote is worth less than people in neighboring districts because those districts have fewer residents who are eligible to vote.
In court briefs, Evenwel's lawyers say, "the Texas legislature redrew the Senate map without attempting to ensure that each Senate district has approximately the same numbers of eligible voters."
The case has political implications. It raises questions not only about the representation of children and persons with felony convictions, but also immigrants.
In general, rural districts tend to be more Republican than urban districts that often include more non-voters.
A collection of civil-rights groups has filed a brief in support of Texas.
"The Constitution declares equality before the law, that's the fundamental premise for a representative democracy," says Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez of the Advancement Project, a civil-rights organization.
"Each person should be a whole person, and each person has a right to representation whether you are a child, an immigrant or no matter what your race," she said.
also a random question. anyone knows Sanders stance on gun control? Bernie on guns.Pretty moderate. Not unexpected from an Independent politician.
thanks. I just have someone I know who loves bernie but is a total pro-gun to the extreme case and I was wondering if there was a conflict there.
|
ST. LOUIS — Ibro Tucakovic sees himself in the millions of Syrian refugees fleeing their homeland, pouring into Europe to find safety.
“Everybody deserved a chance for a new life,” said Tucakovic, now an insurance agent in suburban St. Louis after fleeing the Balkan wars and coming to the United States as a refugee. “Especially when people have everything they own taken from them. People should have a chance to sleep without being killed or persecuted.”
In 1993, when Tucakovic was 14, he was forced to leave his besieged hometown of Sarajevo as the former Yugoslavia was ripped apart during a bloody civil war that displaced hundreds of thousands. He was resettled in St. Louis, along with about 8,000 other Bosnian Muslims — part of the beginnings of a diaspora community that has since grown to nearly 80,000 people in the metropolitan area alone.
Tucakovic, 37, is one of more than 1,000 St. Louisans who marched through a popular entertainment district on Sept. 13 calling for the U.S. to accept more Syrian refugees — specifically to St. Louis, one of a handful of “preferred cities” for refugee resettlement. Pro-refugee demonstrations have taken place in other U.S. cities, including New York, and across Europe. Tens of thousands of Americans have signed petitions calling on President Barack Obama to resettle more refugees.
“I think as a nation we really have to look at the largest conflict and largest refugee issue since World War II,” said Rebecca Kehe, 24, who saw the desperate crowds of refugees at the Budapest train station during her recent trip to Hungary. “And see it for what it is, then move forward with policy.”
But that policy is broken, critics say, particularly when it comes to asylum seekers — those who apply for refugee status when they are physically in the United States. A court backlog means that asylum seekers can end up waiting longer for their applications to be reviewed than those who are applying for resettlement from outside the country, often with few services available.
About 1,700 Syrian refugees have been resettled in the U.S. — 29 of them in St. Louis. The State Department announced on Sept. 20 that the total number of refugees taken in from all countries would increase to 100,000 annually by 2017, including 10,000 Syrians to be resettled next year.
Source
|
On October 05 2015 10:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 10:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 05 2015 09:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:so apparently the one person one vote thing is a bigger deal in terms of districts. It's also the only time you'll probably ever see texas aligned with the civil rights movement. ignore cnn title, its a bit clickbaty ish. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/04/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts/index.htmlAnother case targets the issue of "one person one vote," a doctrine dating back to the Earl Warren court when the Supreme Court held that state legislative districts must be drawn so they are equal in population.
But the Court never explicitly defined population. Does it refer to the general population? Or to the population that can vote? Or something in between? That is the crux of Evenwel v. Abbott.
Currently most states look to the total population of the district when drawing state lines. But the challengers in this case argue that Texas must primarily look at the total number of eligible voters in the state.
Sue Evenwel, a resident of Titus County, and others argue that their vote is worth less than people in neighboring districts because those districts have fewer residents who are eligible to vote.
In court briefs, Evenwel's lawyers say, "the Texas legislature redrew the Senate map without attempting to ensure that each Senate district has approximately the same numbers of eligible voters."
The case has political implications. It raises questions not only about the representation of children and persons with felony convictions, but also immigrants.
In general, rural districts tend to be more Republican than urban districts that often include more non-voters.
A collection of civil-rights groups has filed a brief in support of Texas.
"The Constitution declares equality before the law, that's the fundamental premise for a representative democracy," says Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez of the Advancement Project, a civil-rights organization.
"Each person should be a whole person, and each person has a right to representation whether you are a child, an immigrant or no matter what your race," she said.
also a random question. anyone knows Sanders stance on gun control? Bernie on guns.Pretty moderate. Not unexpected from an Independent politician. thanks. I just have someone I know who loves bernie but is a total pro-gun to the extreme case and I was wondering if there was a conflict there.
Vermont is pretty pro-gun as a whole and they've elected Bernie over and over.
|
On October 04 2015 13:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2015 11:59 Introvert wrote: Hardly terrible, the title says exactly what the article says. You misunderstand, the title is terrible because the article is terrible. That they don't mention the previous two electoral college results (blowouts) betrays their intentions. That wasn't the point of the article. But you are right, there will never be a close election ever again. I love how the guy who wasn't concerned at all about voter id laws resulting in hundreds of thousands of people not being able to vote is suddenly extremely concerned about a net difference of four electoral votes due to the presence of illegal immigrants in blue and red states. Could it be because in this case the impact does not favor Republicans?!
|
|
|
|