Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

thethe said:
Hey now - Fetterman going to be R now?

Smart move
Click to expand...
Not really, he's getting primaried no matter what. He isn't MAGA enough to not get primaried on the R ticket and right wing heel turn after brain damage meant he was going ot get primaried on the D side. He's going to hurt his long term standing as a potential centrist by not staying on the D ticket losing and calling the party looney and running a strong I campaign that's good enough that the Ds quietly bring him into the fold like Sanders.
 
zitothebrave said:
Not really, he's getting primaried no matter what. He isn't MAGA enough to not get primaried on the R ticket and right wing heel turn after brain damage meant he was going ot get primaried on the D side. He's going to hurt his long term standing as a potential centrist by not staying on the D ticket losing and calling the party looney and running a strong I campaign that's good enough that the Ds quietly bring him into the fold like Sanders.
Click to expand...

I think he could win a primary - His voting record and statements paint a very reasonable man
 
sturg33 said:
Doesn't he vote with the lunatics like 90% of the time?
Click to expand...
I can tolerate a lot - I can't tolerate being a lunatic and pushing the kind of things the communists are pushing right now.

If I want society to function I have to give a little of what I don't want in certain areas. We live with too many idealists who don't see the world for what it is.
 
sturg33 said:
Is this data wrong from all the board members who insist there is no reason to screen?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2051492233354916097
Click to expand...
Who said there is no reason to screen? There’s every reason to vet people - the question is which data is most relevant and predictive, and if you have good data on the individual, is their country of origin still a relevant screener?

The particular data in that chart might be “accurate” (it’s being posted by Trump, so I wouldn’t bet my life on it) but it’s also crude and arbitrary. Why do UK and Somalia get broken out as their own nations, but 650 million people get lumped together as North America? Is that really what you’d want to base decisions on?

There’s an active choice being made to either look at Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans as separate and distinct societies, or put them all in the same basket. Why someone makes that choice in one direction or another might just be because they have a preferred narrative in mind and they’re going to twist the data to lead to their preferred conclusions. Both would be able to justify their conclusions with the “data.”
 
acesfull86 said:
Who said there is no reason to screen? There’s every reason to vet people - the question is which data is most relevant and predictive, and if you have good data on the individual, is their country of origin still a relevant screener?

The particular data in that chart might be “accurate” (it’s being posted by Trump, so I wouldn’t bet my life on it) but it’s also crude and arbitrary. Why do UK and Somalia get broken out as their own nations, but 650 million people get lumped together as North America? Is that really what you’d want to base decisions on?

There’s an active choice being made to either look at Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans as separate and distinct societies, or put them all in the same basket. Why someone makes that choice in one direction or another might just be because they have a preferred narrative in mind and they’re going to twist the data to lead to their preferred conclusions. Both would be able to justify their conclusions with the “data.”
Click to expand...
As ive shared, in an ideal world, we allow extremely limited immigration, vet every individual, and accept basically the top 10% of applicants.

Thats not our system. And i dont really see a realistic path to get there.

Absent of that, if it is true that the average Somalia immigrant costs America - a country $40T in debt - $1.1M, than i am extremely comfortable putting a blanket ban on accepting immigrants from Somalia
 
That number account for some of them fleecing us for millions in govt scams or just drawing benefits off American taxpayers the Democratic way?
 
sturg33 said:
As ive shared, in an ideal world, we allow extremely limited immigration, vet every individual, and accept basically the top 10% of applicants.

Thats not our system. And i dont really see a realistic path to get there.

Absent of that, if it is true that the average Somalia immigrant costs America - a country $40T in debt - $1.1M, than i am extremely comfortable putting a blanket ban on accepting immigrants from Somalia
Click to expand...
I think that chart was Netherlands data, not US?

What happens to the country of origin data comparison when you control for martial status, age, skills, education, assets, etc.? I don’t know the exact answers to those question, but my assumption would be they’re significant because they’ve shown themselves to be significant in other contexts. At which point I question what value country of origin still brings to the table.

If the response is we can’t get even that basic level of data on a prospective immigrant, then the door should be closed to that person regardless of country of origin, again rendering it irrelevant.
 
acesfull86 said:
I think that chart was Netherlands data, not US?

What happens to the country of origin data comparison when you control for martial status, age, skills, education, assets, etc.? I don’t know the exact answers to those question, but my assumption would be they’re significant because they’ve shown themselves to be significant in other contexts. At which point I question what value country of origin still brings to the table.

If the response is we can’t get even that basic level of data on a prospective immigrant, then the door should be closed to that person regardless of country of origin, again rendering it irrelevant.
Click to expand...
acesfull86 said:
I think that chart was Netherlands data, not US?

What happens to the country of origin data comparison when you control for martial status, age, skills, education, assets, etc.? I don’t know the exact answers to those question, but my assumption would be they’re significant because they’ve shown themselves to be significant in other contexts. At which point I question what value country of origin still brings to the table.

If the response is we can’t get even that basic level of data on a prospective immigrant, then the door should be closed to that person regardless of country of origin, again rendering it irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Operating under the assumption the data is accurate (just for discussion purposes), it is clear that we are not capable of getting to that level of information bc if we did, we wouldnt let in someone we know to be a massive drain on society.
 
sturg33 said:
Operating under the assumption the data is accurate (just for discussion purposes), it is clear that we are not capable of getting to that level of information bc if we did, we wouldnt let in someone we know to be a massive drain on society.
Click to expand...
if we can do nothing to validate even basic data on individuals, then the border should be closed to all individuals and we shouldn’t let in anyone whether they’re from Norway or Somalia.
 
It feels like in these race discussions there’s a total lack of curiosity to even try to get at that next level of data, and in cases where we’re able to get it, I’m still being told we should ignore it.
 
acesfull86 said:
It feels like in these race discussions there’s a total lack of curiosity to even try to get at that next level of data, and in cases where we’re able to get it, I’m still being told we should ignore it.
Click to expand...
Im saying we very clearly cannot get to that level of data at scale or else we wouldnt have numbers like this.

So absent of getting to that level of individual informatio , cut em off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top