Slashdot Mirror

Are you really saying that low skill people shouldn't be hired full time? Is it ok if they work two part time jobs?

No. I'm saying that the salary paid for work must be enough to be livable if worked full time.

98% of full time worker earn more than minimum wage. The other 2% are almost all entry level workers in their first 6 months of employment. So obviously employers are nearly all paying more than they have to.

You are lying by omission. This is the number of workers earning exactly the federal minimum wage and most of states have local wages that are higher. If instead you raise the cutoff to $10.10 per hour (still below the livable wage) to account for the state-specific minimum wages then you get an appalling picture: https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... - 30% of all workers are paid less than $10.10 per hour.

Go to the Home Depot parking lot at 7 AM and try to hire an illegal Mexican for less than $10 per hour. Good luck. Even desperate people know the market value of their labor.

I will never do that, I value the labor. That being said, domestic help is often illegally paid less.

Costs. We spend about $600 billion a year on income security (welfare, unemployment insurance, etc) at the Federal level. There are about 217 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 - UBI recipients. Give each of them $630 per month (the equivalent to 560 Euros - as in this experiment), and we'd spend around $1.6 trillion - an increase of 173% in income security spending. We just added another $1 trillion to the national debt, every year.

Is making sure everyone feels good about themselves (with dubious benefits from that) worth blowing another $1 trillion annually in spending?

Hate to damage your arrogance, but about 80% of the US votes in the way you described. The other 20% bought expensive machines that they haven't replaced yet. But they are being replaced.

I thought you were wrong, but not really it is slightly over 25%

I'm not condoning employee theft, but I understand where they're coming from. With stagnant wages, it should be no surprise to anybody that more employees are committing petty larceny. But the bigger cost is "time theft" when non-smoking workers take smoke breaks too, long visits to the bathroom with a smart phone in the pocket, or the frequent extended lunch break. Employees with stagnant wages will seek just compensation one way or another.

In fact the country of origin with the most number of illegal aliens in the US is.... Canada.

How do you convince yourself of such retarded shit? Is this like some new meme on the far left which I'm not aware of? Or did you just make it up on the spot and hope that nobody would question it?

Mexicans make up half of all illegal immigrants, at around 5 million:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

The entire population of Canada is just over 30 million. Did you really expect people to believe that 15% of the Canadian population had illegally immigrated into the USA?

Citation provided with a single Google search providing a link to a reputable research center. Please consider my statement in context to the story - The IBM CEO is urging employers to consider skills over degrees, what is traditionally consider a formal education. Inb4 this boils down to a "young people are soo st00pid" thread.

who only panders to non-rich voters by promising to harm "those people".

Every year that goes by, that becomes less and less of a winning strategy. The republican party has not been friendly to either women or minorities, and I can't imagine that they're all going to suddenly forget the party's history at some point in the coming decades and vote republican.

Awww, that's so cute! You believe that people vote based on well-informed reason. They won't remember a thing when the next election cycle is in full swing. They'll be bombarded from all sides with appeals to emotion & vilifying anyone they identify as "other." All of this will be enthusiastically reinforced by the main stream media and especially social media. After all, that's what social media is designed to do; keep people's eyes on their web pages by promoting indignant outrage inducing comments, headlines, & memes.

who only panders to non-rich voters by promising to harm "those people".

Every year that goes by, that becomes less and less of a winning strategy. The republican party has not been friendly to either women or minorities, and I can't imagine that they're all going to suddenly forget the party's history at some point in the coming decades and vote republican.

Which is further evidenced here

Maybe America doesn't actually have an immigration crisis

In your opinion, how many illegal immigrants are too much?

1 of 1?

1 of 10?

1 of 100?

1 of 1,000?

In 2016 in the US, it was approx. 1 of 30. source

I'm sorry that people can't ride their bikes, hike and camp right now.

Actually people can still do all of those things. Thanks to the "partial government shutdown", there aren't any official government representatives available to prevent people from doing those things. There also isn't anyone available to empty the trash. If people would just take care of their own wastes instead of expecting their mommies and nannies to do it for them, this wouldn't be a problem.

But border security has been one of these everpresent "talking points" for DECADES now. ... And this is both sides of the aisle.

Definitely agree with that. I'm not convinced a "wall" (by some definition) will make any significant difference in practice, though it might make a difference politically. A wall won't prevent people from coming into the country legally and then overstaying their visas, for example. Any kind of border protection also makes it harder for people to commute illegally, such as working part of the year in the US, leaving, and coming back. If they can't go back and forth, once they're in, they have to stay in.

Factoid: according to estimates from the Pew Research Center, the number of "unauthorized immigrants" in the US peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million and has declined since then to 10.7 million.

Border security *is* important. But a wall doesn't help that much to stop illegal immigration. Because more of them are arriving by plane and overstaying their visas, than are arriving by foot. Source: http://cmsny.org/publications/...

I want to see the law enforced when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS spent on a waste of money like a wall. And by the way it's not 5 billion, it's more than that, eg projected to be at least $21.6 billion over three and a half years (same source).

Also, the number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007. Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... So why this should be the most important issue right now, worth shutting down the government for? Answer: Trump's ego.

And as a final irony, the shutdown itself has resulted in immigration agents being furloughed, so actual number of deportations is down now. Good job Trump.

So one border is responsible for well over 40% of illegal immigrant traffic,

No, it doesn't. That 40% number is for all illegal immigrants. That's it. Not illegal immigrant "traffic". It's counting people who are already here and wall does nothing about them.

If you want to talk border crossings, it's already been going down during the Obama years (and this is with Obama offering DACA). The total number of illegals peaked in 2007.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Only 14% of the people already here arrived in the last 5 years (and again, this 14% is for all illegals, it doesn't mean all 14% of them came through the southern border, nor does it mean they all illegally came in)

https://www.npr.org/sections/t...

And the moment Trump showed up, arrests for illegal border crossings dropped to a 46 year low in 2017, without the need for any wall.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05...

Let me get this straight.... One million per year is tens of millions from being too excessive? We don't have enough housing for our current citizens (thanks to liberal NIMBYs). And you think that we have the resources / infrastructure for tens of millions more?

You must not know that the number of illegal immigrations has been decreasing for a decade. I'm not sure where you are getting your figure of a million more migrants per year from, but it is probably just a lack of knowledge on the subject. This is common, almost required, for someone to fall for the rhetoric that excessive immigration is a problem for the US.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Eat Shit yourself fucktard. The level of how much you "like" something, has zero impact on its validity.

Unless you want the country to be even more run by the media than it is already. Because all you'd get with direct democracy and people voting on everything is that the "news" (I'll use the word very broadly here) will be even more an instrument of public opinion swaying than they are already.

We can implement a simple process change to fix that.

For a bill to become law, it must:
1. Be voted on twice, with the second time more than 2 years after the first
2. Pass with a majority in the first round
3. Pass with a super majority in the second round, e.g. 60%

Alternatively, if a bill passes with an even higher super-majority, e.g. 75%, then the 2nd round can be skipped.

I believe at least 30% of the country are conservatives (with a small c) who like things exactly as they are. Combined with the folks who distrusts MSM, they'd be more than enough to stop news-driven policies.

Take the Iraq war for example. It happened in 2003 and began with 70% support. That is not enough to be passed immediately. So it would be voted on again in 2005, but by then support has fallen to less than 50%, which is not enough to pass. So this huge expense that the vast majority of people now agree was a mistake could've been avoided completely under a direct democracy.

Your anti-cannabis attitude, whether troll or not, is in the minority here. Both at /. and in the United States as a whole. in the United States as a whole.

the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.

Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.

Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)

Maybe you should read your own links; from your link, "Survery of muslims in 39 countries" (Chart "median % of population who favour enshrining sharia"):

South Asia: 84%

South East Asia: 77%

Middle East/North Africa: 74%

Sub-saharan Africa: 64%

Southern Eastern Europe: 18%

Central Asia: 12%

Most Muslims, worldwide, want sharia law. That link of yours agrees.

the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.

Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.

Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)

Please compare wages to inflation rate over the past couple of decades.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Obama deported three million people [source], and although changes in statistics gathering make it hard to compare precisely with prior presidents, that's a lot of people. He also proposed a bipartisan solution for Dreamers, which was torpedoed at the last minute by the Tea Party caucus. That's hardly Obama kicking the can down the road.

Obama's deportation policy focused on troublemakers and people who commit crimes -- the very people Trump campaigned for throwing out. When Trump came in he took more of a bottom-feeder approach, going for the vulnerable, low hanging fruit and making examples of them (asylum-seekers, parents with children). As a result deportations are down, because immigrant communities distrust law enforcement and minority communities don't want to cooperate with immigration.

As a result, deportations are down under Trump. So, yes. There comes a point where people look silly, unless instead they look depraved. And speaking of silly, are you still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall? Isn't that silly?

Oh, and your caravan "army" is fake news. There are a group of mainly Honduran (about half of them women and children) making their way north, and most of the viral images being shared are of different groups of people altogether and from the past. Caravan members haven't been beating up Mexican police or burning American flags. And in point of fact if they do reach the United States they do, under treaties we wrote after WW2, have a right to have their cases heard. If their cases have merit, we don't necessarily have to grant them residency, but we do have to find something humane to do with them. Why? Because we gave our word to do that.

Facebook is listing.

It's stocks liquefying.
https://finance.yahoo.com/char...

Passengers jumping ship in disgust.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Only Yiannis Avranas (Captain of the Oceanus) can save our souls now.

Geographically large countries like Australia emit more carbon per capita than comparable but more compact countries like Austria, which has almost the same per capita GDP. Rich countries like Japan emit more carbon than poor ones like Zimbabwe, which has almost the same land area.

What this means is that there are endless arguments you can make about who is the most carbon-virtuous country on the planet, because every country is a special case.

...

So we shouldn't judge countries by how much carbon they emit, but by the steps they could be taking to reduce their carbon footprint.

You basic point is valid but I do want to point that there useful ways to compare countries. What is most significant is energy intensiveness, the amount of energy used for product each unit of GDP. This automatically levels out differences in wealth alone, and reveals countries that can do better by simply mimicking less intensive, but similarly wealthy countries.

Here is useful map, it was prepared in 2015 from the latest data then available (2011) but since depicts countries in broad intensity categories a map of the world today (if we had one) would most likely be identical.

A very clear pattern is that energy exporting countries, regardless of size, tend to be more intensive than ones that aren't. Thus Russia, Iran, Libya, Canada, Syria, are in the top intensity tier. There are some non-energy exporters that are in the same tier: China, South Africa and Ukraine principally. The U.S. is in the next tier down. Despite what some here like to claim the U.S. in not a net exporter of energy - our net petroleum import has four times the energy content of the coal we export.

The only countries that have less problems with guns than the US are western countries that are less diverse than the US

You think Canada is less diverse than the US? I'm Canadian, and my office resembles the United Nations hosting a gay pride parade.

We do have gun control, though.

It's frustrating (bordering on bizarre) how so many Americans grasp at any straw to explain gun violence, while refusing to concede the one commonality: The absence of gun control.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada. The United States ranks near the middle, slightly more diverse than Russia but slightly less diverse than Spain.

I'm not the previous poster, but you can find a whole bunch of statistics that mostly look like this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

You won't see the "robots" substituting human labor at a given moment, but you are seeing (you've been seeing now from the 70ies, if you've been paying attention) the less-earning people earning less and less.

By "paying attention" you must be talking about your personal anecdotes. Otherwise you would know that wages for most workers (including your "poorest") have remained essentially unchanged for the last 30 years. They declined slightly from the 70s to the mid 90s and have been rising at a similar rate since then.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

The whole subprime crisis in the USA can be seen as an "adjustment" in this direction.

Again, nonsense. The subprime crisis was an adjustment for the fact that housing had become insanely overpriced. It's not wages that were the problem but rather the fact that housing had essentially become a ponzi scheme where each successive buyer knew that he could barely afford the house but firmly believed that he would be able to sell for a profit in a few years.

US has tens of millions of people in poverty

In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016. The US poverty rate has been below 20% since the early 1960's.

But the actual situation is a lot bleaker because "poverty" is measured relative to median income, which is considerably lower in the UK. If measured against US standards, 40% of the UK is low income. On top of that, the US has numerous benefits for people "in poverty" that aren't counted against their income. The upshot is that the US poverty rates actually greatly overestimate actual poverty.

US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news.

Having lived on both sides of the big pond, it's clear that it's Europeans who are brainwashed. You illustrate that with your absurd beliefs.

Brits in particular are so brainwashed that they actually trust the BBC. At least, as the same survey shows, they are not trusting their government anymore.

That's just doubling down on the aforementioned propaganda of claiming a foreign leader has no legitimacy at home, because his constituents must dislike him as much as other countries, because reasons. You don't need to assassinate people or engage in other juvenile 80's action movie plots when you are overwhelmingly popular with the electorate.

During his term, the constitution was amended to change the term of the president to 6 years. Putin took back the presidency in 2012. His second term began this year and expires in 2024, at which point Putin will be 72 years old. At that point, the real fun begins. Will Putin allow someone else to become president as scheduled or will he change the rules again in the next 6 years?

Or just go back to his old office of prime minister, he's done it before. You can tell Chuck Norris he can cancel his plane tickets.

I must admit that I know nothing about "The Express." However, I did a little "Google" magic and found this...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Please don't try to tell me that Pew is "right wing."

However, this IS a thorny issue. "Persecution" has many levels, from simple name-calling all the way to death. So a person who is shunned for their religion is not the same as a person killed for their religion. As I mentioned in the grandparent post, Islam is most likely to kill you for religious violations. Unfortunately, hard, unbiased numbers for actual death an imprisonment for religious reasons is hard to find.

But from the pew article that I linked above, it says:

Among the 25 most populous countries in the world, Egypt, Russia, India, Indonesia and Turkey had the highest overall levels of religious restrictions.

I should like to point out that of these five worst countries, three are Islamic. None have a Christian majority.

Another example of religious "tolerance" is where the movie "Wonder Woman" was banned in Lebanon -- simply because the lead actress is Israeli... https://www.aljazeera.com/news...

But, in all fairness to Islam, some countries are becoming more tolerant. Saudi Arabia just started allowing women to vote in the past few years. Let's all welcome Saudi Arabia to the 20th century. https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

Probably because Muslims are more often the victim than the perpetrator. There's a lot of countries in Africa too where xians are performing ethnic cleansing on Muslim populations.

You might want to research. The west practices tolerance, but in areas that are majority Muslim, not so much.

Here, you can find a list of countries that allow the DEATH PENALTY for apostasy and blasphemy. You will never guess the dominant religion for most of them... http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Well, "blasphemy" laws can be applied to pretty much anybody that you disagree with. In Pakistan, a Christian woman was pretty much railroaded and sentenced to death, despite the lack of any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One telling quote (from the article):

In December 2010, a month after Noreen's conviction, a Muslim cleric announced a 500,000 Pakistani rupee award (the equivalent of $10,000)[7] to anyone who would kill her. One survey reported that around 10 million Pakistanis had said that they would be willing to personally kill her out of either religious conviction or for the reward.

Also, even if you DON'T actually commit blasphemy, here is a list of 13 countries where begin an Atheist can get you killed. You get three guesses about the dominant religion for 12 of these countries (the 13th country, Nigeria, is evenly divided between Christian and Islam). Yes, being the wrong religion (or lack thereof) is LEGAL grounds for execution. https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

Another page with a similar map: https://www.indy100.com/articl...

But as to who is the VICTIM of persecution, I will leave this article (cliff notes: Christians). The source data appears to be Pew (who is generally regarded as unbiased), but you can analyze the data for skew yourself.

https://www.express.co.uk/news...

Not even a household

Yes. Exactly a household.

Stop with the fake news already.

Also, Catholicism and American GOP conservatism don't really align, other than perhaps on abortion.

Not true at all nor that simple. A majority of white catholics have voted republican in every presidential election since 2000 roughly 55-65% so clearly there is alignment there. The hispanic catholics on the other hand vote democrat rather strongly - about 70% of them. This probably has less to do with religion and more to do with race since the republican party has systematically driven away voters who aren't white. Also the majority of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are catholic. (Clarence, Roberts, Alito)

The prosperity gospel is not a Catholic idea.

Really? Have you seen the amount of gold leaf in the Vatican? Not exactly a monument to austerity and modest living. Get real. While I hesitate to paint with to broad a brush in many cases, I feel entirely comfortable saying that they catholic church is VERY comfortable with money. They might not be as gauche about it as some of their evangelical counterparts but make no mistake that they care about money a LOT.

The Catholic Church abhors the death penalty.

That has not been their policy for most of their history nor is it their official position even today. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in certain cases if the "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined". Never mind the crusades, the inquisition, countless religious wars, executions of heretics, etc... The catholic church has a long and storied history of support for capital punishment.

The current Pope is very left-liberal as far as wealth concentration and the environment.

No he is not. He's just not as ridiculously far right as the previous popes but don't make the mistake of thinking he's some left leaning hippie. I know a lot of people like him but let's not pretend he's really changing how the catholic church operates or what they stand for. He's at most shaving off some of the pointy bits.

Our system to hold illegal immigrants accountable for, you know, being here illegally, isnt perfect, but I only hear people complaining and not offering alternative solutions.

Guess what? We have ~12 million illegal immigrants in the US. The US population is about 330m. So approx. 1 in 28 people are here illegally. FUCK THAT.

So which do I care about more? My and your license plate getting photographed, or actually going something about the crazy illegal immigration here? Gee, I fucking wonder.

Get practical.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

In 6 years of ICE arrests, that's something like 150k/yr average = 900,000 arrests. 1400 mistakes.
0.15% error rate...that's between 4-5 sigma.

4 sigma is pretty damned good considering the imprecision of the process.

So no, his immigrant wife isn't in any realistic jeopardy.

In your reference, I find it amusing how they keep calling out "the person repeatedly insisted they were an American citizen"...my guess is that ICE agents hear that in something like 75% of the arrests. It means nearly nothing.

The problem with science in the US is that it has been overrun by MBAs and liberal self-centered asswipes that think they should get money just because they deserve it.

MBA's may be a problem, but you're just shaking your personal marotte when complaining about liberals. Problems for science in the US are mostly on the other side of the aisle. Some of the most powerful Republican politicians can come up with absolute howlers and go on to create legislation related to areas they're so blatantly ignorant about, but the party and their voters have no problem with that. The Republican president is proudly scientifically illiterate, but can and does name leaders of science (or related) agencies - and again, neither the party nor the voters feel there is a problem. The rank and file Republicans are themselves against science funding, while the Democrats are in majority in favor of increased science spending.

So, you're wrong. But then, since you're apparently a Republican, it was probably never about being right, was it?

I mean, I keep hearing that the left is responsible for his election, because we made those on the right feel so disrespected, they had to vote him in. Because they care so much what we think.

Pew research did a poll that found independents outnumbered partisans.

Let that sink in. Not even the majority are partisans for the left or the right, but generally hold the same disdain or indifference for both sides.

So when the left treats people unfairly, acts as cry bullies, purposefully lies and distorts the truth so as to attack Trump for even the most trivial of things, it's noticed. It's judged. That aisle between the parties is wider than you think and it is easy for people to decide they don't like the sour, bitter taste of your kool-aid.

https://www.epi.org/publicatio...
https://www.epi.org/publicatio...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
https://www.epi.org/publicatio...

I bet you even claim to be Christian. And you claim to go to church every Sunday? (Or maybe just at Easter?)

Did you forget the part where your God told you "Thou shalt not kill" ?

Or where your Saviour – Jesus – taught that you should forgive, and turn the other cheek?

Your "visible justice" is working so well; after a few thousand years of it look how much it's cutting down violent crimes. Whoever said it (no, it wasn't Einstein, look it up): the definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

And while we're having that conversation about something that you imagine happens so frequently (raped and urdered daughters? hyperbole much?), let's also have a conversation after finding out we've put an innocent person to death. I really would prefer to err on the side of not killing anyone to prevent ever killing an innocent.

And I don't know why it should cost $150K/year to lock someone up. Maybe someone should try to fix that. Might be other case of keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result. Regardless, it's has almost nothing to do with capital punishment.

A. Forgiveness and justice are two completely separate things. I could choose to forgive my daughter's rapist and murderer, but justice must still be served. Providing the killer with a lifetime of free housing, clothing, food, medical care, even some entertainment and leisure and relative safety, at our expense (and as an oft shared meme suggests, "treating them better than a homeless veteran") doesn't feel like justice to many.

B. If you're going to cite Moses writing the commandment of God "Thou shalt not kill," how about another commandment from God also written by Moses "Thou shalt... utterly destroy them." I won't really get into this, but for one perspective on how this is not actually a contradiction, see: Christian and War, Robert Le Roy Moyer

C. You have no data to prove the death penalty hasn't had any deterrent effect on crime because you cannot compare apples to apples with and without it. There might be some effect or there might not be, however (big shocker to people who pay no attention to actual facts CRIME ACTUALLY HAS BEEN TRENDING DOWNWARD on the whole.

In short, you're full of crap. Be a bleeding heart if you want to, but don't pretend to be in a position to judge others based on misconceptions, false data, and straw man arguments.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Americans can't "wake up". We no longer posses the ability to think for ourselves. By vilifying and subsequently defunding education the GOP accomplished 2 goals:
First - it frees up cash to give back to the oligarchy,
Second - undermine education to remove critical thinking and reasoning skills which harbor the ability to challenge the oligarchy and implement positive change.
Need proof, just look at the US global rankings
http://hechingerreport.org/u-s...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

So, what was the problem again?

From the paper:

to >$1
trillion that would be required to install 12 hours of storage in
the US

Agreeing with your numbers, we would need greater than 1.5 trillion dollars for this system to reach 80% renewable.

The US last year had a GDP of about 19.5 trillion dollars.

However, the total taxable income of the US, taxed at an average rate of just under 30%, brought in 1.66 trillion last year.

That means, to pay for this system within a year all we would have to do is nearly double everyone's income tax. Of course that does not include distribution, maintenance costs, massive expansion of mining, transportation, and manufacturing industry to make the goods necessary for this project nor replacing all EOL equipment equating to total cost turnover every 15-20 years. 100% more taxes now, 6% more taxes later, forever, all of it going to whomever lawmakers choose to give it to.

This in the best-case scenario where there are zero budget overruns, inefficiencies, graft, and notice no mention of profit. All the people working in this monumental effort are not accounted for, only the cost of the goods they produce. We all know how often best-case economics work out.

That is the problem.

AC some news on that age range.
"11% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they?" (March 5, 2018)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Bullshit. All the polls say that Hispanics are much more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Which is why the Republicans want voter ID laws and Democrats say they're racist.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

As Congress debates immigration reform, some political leaders and analysts have speculated that there will be "an electoral bonanza for Democrats" if the nation's estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants -- three quarters of whom are Hispanics -- eventually are granted the right to vote.

While there's no way of knowing if these predictions are accurate, the data provide some insights. In 2012, the Pew Research Center's National Survey of Latinos found that among Latino immigrants who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents (and therefore likely unauthorized immigrants), some 31% identify as Democrats and just 4% as Republicans. An additional 33% say they are political independents, 16% mention some other political party and 15% say they "don't know" or refuse to answer the question.

When one takes party "leaners" into account (i.e., those who don't say they identify with one of the major parties, but in a follow-up question say they feel closer to one party than the other), about half of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants either identify with (31%) or lean towards (23%) the Democratic Party, while about two-in-ten identify with (4%) or lean towards (15%) the Republican Party. About a quarter (27%) do not identify with or lean towards either party.

Comparing unauthorized immigrant Hispanics with other Hispanic subgroups suggests that as immigrants move closer towards citizenship, it is likely that a greater share of them will identify with one of the major political parties. Our survey found that most legal permanent residents (57%) and foreign-born U.S. citizens (65%) are affiliated with one of the major parties.

Our research has also found a correlation between the amount of time Hispanic immigrants (regardless of legal status) spend in the United States and the share that identifies with a political party. While nearly two-thirds (63%) of Hispanic immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 15 years identify with one of the two major parties, that share falls to 38% among those who have been in the U.S. for fewer than 15 years.

The predictions about how unauthorized immigrants will vote stem from the fact that among all Latino immigrants who are eligible to vote (i.e. are U.S. citizens) many more identify as Democrats than as Republicans -- 54% versus 11%. And in the 2012 presidential election, according to the National Election Pool, Latino voters favored Democrat Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 71%-27%. While Democratic candidates have garnered a greater share of the Hispanic vote than Republican candidates in every election over the past three decades, the gap has been narrower in some elections than others. For example, in the 2004 election the gap among Hispanic votes between John Kerry and George W. Bush was only 18 percentage points (58% vs. 40%), compared with the 44 percentage point gap in the 2012 election.

That one is actually straight from Pew:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

It was seen in the last election as well, were pollsters said that latino population would go 8:1 to Clinton. Exit polls were only 2:1.

Why?

Pollsters forgot to ask if people they were polling were citizens, and hence had a right to vote.

So you'd have to be utterly stupid not to try to make such people citizens if you are a democratic politician in US.

Here's the easy solution to this problem. Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously.

Sounds easy at first but impossible in practice.

Imagine an applicant fresh from college. The resume collection system removes the name and gender of the applicant and replaces it with a numeric identifier. Instead of "Jennifer Jones" it puts, "Applicant 79876". There are still schools that accept only men or women, if the applicant attended one of these schools then how can that be hidden? Is any mention of the name of the school removed? The college that people attended is important as some schools have a reputation for higher standards than others. Only removing the names of single sex schools would raise a flag as well.

Hiring managers like to see people that had activities outside of academics, and applicants know this. If someone took up softball or volleyball then the probability is quite high the applicant is female, versus more male dominated sports like baseball or hockey. This isn't absolute but a well known trend.

What of a club like Society of Women Engineers? If an applicant chooses to put that on their resume then would it be acceptable to remove it before a hiring manager can see it? The society does accept men as members but we all know that this is dominated by women. Same goes for societies based on race like Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.

To some degree I think this is partially (among a great many other things) responsible for the rise in what's been called the alt-right and has played a part in why someone like Trump was able to win the election.

I agree. The reason we saw organizations like SWE and SHPE develop was to counteract discrimination. They advocated for fair treatment in society. If white and Asian males see themselves being denied work because of their sex and/or race then would not organizations develop to advocate for fair treatment? What we've seen are these groups that historically called for fair treatment are now asking for special treatment. It's as if "reverse discrimination" is not also a form of discrimination. Trump didn't win the election so much as Clinton lost. She ran on being a woman and that "it's time" for a woman as President. That might get a person a lot of points in an election, which is how I think Obama was able to win, but the person still has to have enough other qualifications to be considered worthy. Clinton was a mediocre senator and a terrible Secretary of State. Trump called for "making American great again", which has broad appeal. Clinton talked of how she'd fight for women and minorities but white men vote too.

Some data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Clinton did win the Latino vote, Black vote, and women, but white men voted too. When you go and campaign on how white men are keeping you down in a nation that is 74% white and 49% male then you should not be surprised that you lose. It's actually amazing she got as many votes as she did. Oh, and it doesn't help to run a campaign on getting a majority of the popular vote in an election that chooses the winner based on state allocation of electors. Trump and his campaign knew this and so campaigned on getting electors, so he won.

Voter turnout was 55.7% (see, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).

It is not a record low, but it is down there with the lowest. People didn't vote "in droves" and that is not Democracy.

When someone can rule a country with about a quarter of the popular vote, that is called a farce.

(And before you say "But anony, other countries also have low voter turnouts", the USA is among the OECD countries with the lowest voter turnouts. see for example: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...)

Try to grow up a little and stop simply relying on the stereotypes

I am not relying on stereotypes. I am relying on the official actions and stated policies of the party and their national leaders:

A majority of the Republican party (74%) supports building the wall.

Congressional Republicans just voted for a budget that adds $1.5 trillion to the national debt.

Several Republicans have been indicted for colluding with Putin and Russian hackers.

Does any of this sound like "classical liberalism"?

Most of us can't afford a home on *ONE* person's salary. I don't see how this is a shocker. You mean it's tough to afford a home in a high demand area with high prices on one persons salary?!? You don't say!

SEE: http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_...

People always talk about the small percentage of Muslims that are terrorists. Less spoken about is, depending on the country, up to 62% of all Muslims say suicide bombings against civilians are often or sometimes justified. Among Muslims in the US and western Europe, 13-35% support suicide bombings at least some of the time. Large majorities of Muslims support Sharia Law to be the law of the land (and large percentages support then having it apply to non-Muslims as well). From country to country, support for stoning as a punishment for adultery runs from 25% to over 75%, and at least 6 countries with large Muslim populations they support the death penalty for leaving Islam.

It's still not fair to paint everyone with the same brush, but support for extremism is a major problem in the Muslim faith, and it's not limited to a small minority. (And no, there's not parity with Christian support for their nutjob fanatics).
And you know what's sad? I think things don't have to be this way, and think we can move past it. But that begins with acknowledging the problem, and for refusing to stick my head in the stand and pretend this issue doesn't exist, I'll be painted as an evil racist.

Provably true from the MSM perspective at least. Bush and Clinton got about 60% negative media coverage and Obama 60% positive. Trump OTOH gets on average 80% negative coverage, with CNN/NBC/CBS over 90% negative (and 98% negative from the German ARD). Fox almost exactly neutral.

Tried to find a similar study from the same people analyzing Fox's coverage of Obama, but the closest I could find was a study from early in the 2008 primaries showing Fox about 2 to 1 negative on Obama (page 32)