Slashdot Mirror

Authoritarian governments will march under whatever flag

This. Although, just to note,

It wasn't about the left or the right it was about extreme authoritarianism.

The only numbers I've seen show that the last 20 years, the Republicans have officially put their hat in the ring for title 'the authoritarian party'. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Donald "I can shoot someone in Manhattan" Trump did after all win bigly with the R's.

I know I'll get downvotes for "bias", but I'm sorry, these are just facts. I'm willing to be convinced with opposing numbers, please show them.

Where did the jobs go? It's hardly a mystery: automation.

It's so obvious that people who track this stuff for a living aren't sure.

From the abstract cited: "Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that labor demand factors, in particular trade and the penetration of robots into the labor market, are the most important drivers of observed within-group declines in employment. "

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any data, or just your gut?

You mean, other than what was in the article being discussed? The first one is annoyingly paywalled, but the WP article linked in the summary isn't:

" Robots:
Automation also seems to have cost more jobs than it created. Guided by research showing that each robot takes the jobs of about 5.6 workers and that 250,475 robots had been added since 1999, the duo estimated that robots cost the economy another 1.4 million workers."

Where I work zero jobs were lost to automation. All of our cut jobs just had their duties dumped on someone else, who in 2009 was just happy to still have a job. Unfortunately after a decade, the company, and some employees, have forgotten that what they do used to be three jobs.

(my italics). Nice anecdote. You just told me that each person now does the work that used to be three jobs. Sounds like "jobs cut due to automation" to me.

I have been a pharmacist for many years.

Pharmaceutical companies funding fake scientific journals to create the "look and feel of a peer-reviewed publication to serve as a marketing tool" or to elicit favorable study results is a far more common problem then you think...

https://www.the-scientist.com/...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Physicians prescribing medications because they are getting kickbacks from the pharmaceutics companies is nothing new either...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

And hell, your prescription coverage employs a formulary that is driven just as choosing drugs because they provide cost savings as it is by scientific data showing greater efficacy.

Science isn't magic but neither are scientists omnipotent grand wizards fighting for the side of good. They are just as corruptible as anyone else on this planet. Corporations are still driven by profit above all other concerns, even ones that are staffed by research scientists.

Blind faith in "science" (technology) is just as dangerous, if not more so, then blind faith in religion. Skepticism is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. If you aren't practicing it, your doing it wrong.

See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other.

Mirror, mirror, Is LynnwoodRooster talking about himself again? Why, yes, ironically he is.

You're the one who produced a report that you accepted with blind faith and devotion since it suited your agenda.

When has that happened before?

A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...

Yes, you are preaching your religion, but if you were a true believer, you'd follow its tenets, however being a disingenuous fraud and con-artist, you simply use them as a club to attack others, as you consistently have.

For you, it is not a teaching, it is a weapon used for assault. You fling it against any who disagree with you, but never apply the learning to yourself.

Hence, I preach unto you, and say "Physician, heal thyself!" as I call upon you, and your multitude of sins to be cured of what clearly ails you, and thus make right thine own entry into Heaven.

Really, you know your history, you should know you are tainted yourself. You should reflect on your errors and come clean. It'd be less of a farce if you did.

To put the numbers in perspective.
46 people were killed by terrorism in Europe last year. (Excluding the terrorists themselves.)
That is close to the number of people shot by toddlers in the US the same year. (Although only 17 were lethal.)
Europe have more than twice the population of the US. 741 million vs 323 million.

So, Terrorists in Europe kills about 62 persons per billion and year while US toddlers kills about 52 persons per billion and year.
Now the comparison halts a little since the toddler number includes themselves while I excluded the perpetrator from the terrorist number.
I decided to do so because I think the toddlers lacked intent to kill themselves.
I generally support suicide even among terrorists. I'm fine with people blowing themselves up as long as they doesn't take anyone else with them.

The thing that makes the toddler number interesting is that you can't reasonably use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or the "you need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" argument.
Very few are going to argue that "The parent should have had one more gun so that he/she could have shot the toddler first."

No it wouldn't

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/

The Pinocchio Test

This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy. But Rubio's statement stands up to scrutiny - at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Gun-control advocates often point to the experience in other countries that have enacted gun laws that heavily restrict gun ownership; as we have shown, quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., "mass shooting"), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.

No need for a deep dive here, anyone who knows anything that has been happening in Venezuela for the past decade or so would know this petro thing is just another scam bullshit.

If people are not aware of this, the Maduro proto-dictatorship already "nationalized" (read stolen) a whole bunch of stuff:
Petroleum companies that had a whole ton of American investment:
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/0...
https://venezuelanalysis.com/n...
Toys from private business:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/1...
General Motors factory:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It's just a continuation of Chavez sociodictatorship running the entire country to the ground. Brazil, with some stupid socialist politicians, also lent money for some business there which was promptly stolen and their government already announced they are giving nothing back.
The only hope I have left is that all the people behind those decisions end up in jail, because most of them are likely to receive a corruption sentence in the wave of revelations that have been happening for a good part of the past half decade or so.
And unfortunately, venezuelans are likely to keep receiving the short end of the stick until they can get rid of their so called socialist president who's actually a dictator and his entire ilk, party and everything else.
Because they will keep abusing their power... 'till half the population is dead from famine, mark my words. It's the populist plague that infected a whole bunch of south american countries, including mine. Huge swaths of the respective populations were all swayed into their discourse, with some bullshit talk about humble origins and fighting against the mid to upper class, and we're all now in deep deep shit with huge corruption schemes, and organized crime running the countries. It'll be an entire lost decade or more for several south american countries.

Not really:

I used to think gun control was the answer...

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

It's all a sideshow. Look at the Swiss and the Czechs for the solution. Neither involves banning guns.

anti-Hollywood story (that Democrats hate).

Tell me how many Democrats you count here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Notice they were mentioning movies and TV as well. And during that event, the republicans were saying "It's just a video game." Something they've always been saying, since well before it was considered related to gun control. And this all started because somebody told Joe Lieberman that there was a "scantily clad" woman shown in Night Trap, a game that practically nobody heard of until this, and then most people forgot about it afterwards.

The very progressive state of California passed a law to ban violent video games in 2011, until SCOTUS shot it down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06...

Oh and then there's Hillary's stance on violent video games:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Obama threw a lot of money at the topic when pushing it towards a gun control issue (which is pretty much where this became a gun control topic):

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

And I think every gamer remembers Jack Thompson who tried to get Doom banned after Columbine since the shooters were big fans of Doom and even commented that their spree would be just like Doom. Of course, he didn't stop there.

I kind of doubt Trump's base is pushing towards this. Maybe, but it's most likely that Trump, having been born without a filter, just randomly came up with it, just like everything else he does and says.

and found to have zero effect Studies listed here found an effect from the assault weapons ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Apparently you didn't read your own citation. The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines not the guns themselves. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into that "assault weapon" and how is it different from a semiautomatic hunting rifle?

Your pro-gun researcher also plays bait-and-switch games. "Assault weapons" are actually used for few "mass shootings". According to a recent Mother Jones article 2/3 of such shootings use pistols. As for the remaining 1/3 its evenly split between rifles and shotguns and only some of the rifles are "assault weapons".

and found to have zero effect
Studies listed here found an effect from the assault weapons ban:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This Brady Center study found an effect:
https://www.bradycampaign.org/...

I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should?

No record worse than a couple of traffic tickets. See here.

1) Russian Oligarch story

2) Free Beacon/Fusion/Steel Timelines I'd suggest clicking on some of the "read more" links for better breakdown of each groups involvement.

3) British volunteers working with Hillary campaign.

These were not necessarily my original sources, just ones at the top of the Google results.

You are now thought of as racist hill billies by the international community

That's how you've ALWAYS thought of us. What has changed? We as Americans get bombarded with the message that America is a destructive and evil influence in the world and that the last just war was WWII. The message is that the people who see America as a threat is literally everyone in the world, and our allies are just our allies because they fear us.

We get told by the world that we're racist, sexist, bigoted, uneducated, fat, and pretty much every negative stereotype under the sun. We kill cultures and replace them with McDs, we cause problems by clashing with Russia and China, we support ISIS, we are the bad guys.

Trump took the hatred that was thrown on Americans every day by media both internal and external and fed on that. When you've had it drilled into you that you stand alone and everyone hates you, why would you not turn inwards and let everyone else fend for themselves? All you got from it was hatred.

None of this started with Trump. It's been going on for a long time. Remember how the world hated Reagan? GHW "CIA director" Bush? Bill "rapist" Clinton? Chimpy McBu$hitler? This "you'd better do what we want or we're going to be VERY disappointed in you, America!" bullshit is just that, bullshit. It contains a fundamental incorrect assumption - that Americans give a shit what you think about us. I can assure you your opinions rarely trouble us, and since you hate us anyway, you are hardly worth listening to.

That poll has 14% of Republicans trusting the media

That's a higher percentage of journalists that were Republicans in 2014

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

What's happened is that the media have essentially given up on the pretense that they're objectively report on the news and instead decide to report on stories that fit their narrative as emotionally as possible and ignore ones that don't.

So after a mass shooting CNN will get a bunch of kids on to demand gun control. They don't do the analogous think when an illegal immigrant killed Kathryn Steinle. Or when a Omar Mateen shoot up a gay bar. It's not like they get crying, photogenic kiddies on to demand a travel ban, border wall or an end to sanctuary cities.

And the thing is once you know the double standard it's impossible to take CNN seriously as a news source anymore. That's not to say everything they say is fake, rather there are a lot of true things they will never say. And a lot of the things they do say are are too heavy on emotion and too light on facts.

For example the left wing Washington Post fact checked Marco Rubio's claim that gun control would not have stopped mass shootings and found it was true

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Will CNN present that as a counter point to the kids yelling "Hey, hey NRA! How many kids have you killed today?" ( The answer obviously being "Zero", unlike Planned Parenthood). Yeah, don't hold your breath. The Democrats know this of course which is why they didn't even try to implement gun control when they last had control of all three branches of government.

That poll has 14% of Republicans trusting the media

That's a higher percentage of journalists that were Republicans in 2014

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

What's happened is that the media have essentially given up on the pretense that they're objectively report on the news and instead decide to report on stories that fit their narrative as emotionally as possible and ignore ones that don't.

So after a mass shooting CNN will get a bunch of kids on to demand gun control. They don't do the analogous think when an illegal immigrant killed Kathryn Steinle. Or when a Omar Mateen shoot up a gay bar. It's not like they get crying, photogenic kiddies on to demand a travel ban, border wall or an end to sanctuary cities.

And the thing is once you know the double standard it's impossible to take CNN seriously as a news source anymore. That's not to say everything they say is fake, rather there are a lot of true things they will never say. And a lot of the things they do say are are too heavy on emotion and too light on facts.

For example the left wing Washington Post fact checked Marco Rubio's claim that gun control would not have stopped mass shootings and found it was true

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Will CNN present that as a counter point to the kids yelling "Hey, hey NRA! How many kids have you killed today?" ( The answer obviously being "Zero", unlike Planned Parenthood). Yeah, don't hold your breath. The Democrats know this of course which is why they didn't even try to implement gun control when they last had control of all three branches of government.

it is silly to portray the incident as something that is Uber's fault.

They hired some loon who shot and killed someone. I'd say that's a problem with their screening process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Witnesses told police that the victim had used Uber's food delivery service to order a meal. They said that when the delivery arrived, Thornton met the driver and received his order; then, as Thornton walked away, "words may have been exchanged" between the two men, police said in a statement.

Police said shots were fired from the delivery vehicle, striking Thornton.

Patterson said that Bivines told him that Thornton was agitated by the time Bivines arrived because the driver had issues finding the location. Patterson said that when Bivines gave Thornton his food order, Thornton "jerked it" away and cursed at the driver. Thornton then reached into his jacket pocket and shouted "I'm going to f- you up," according to Bivines's attorney.

Patterson said Bivines thought the customer had a gun and that he tried to defend himself.

An unidentified man who said he was Thornton's uncle told NBC affiliate WXIA that his nephew had recently received a political science degree from Morehouse College in Atlanta and had started a new job. "Ryan was a good boy," he told the station.

An Uber spokesman said that the company is cooperating with investigators in the shooting.

"We are shocked and saddened by this news," the spokesman said in a statement. "We are working with the Atlanta Police Department, and our hearts go out to the families of those involved."

Uber launched Uber Eats several years ago as a food delivery app in which drivers pick up meals from local restaurants and deliver them to customers.

According to Uber, drivers are required to undergo a screening process, which checks driving histories and criminal histories, including the national sex offender registry. In addition, Uber bars both drivers and riders from carrying firearms in the vehicles, "to the extent permitted by applicable law," according to the company's firearm policy.

"Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app," Uber says on its website. The company said that drivers or riders who fail to comply with the policy may be banned from Uber.

Also the general legal lack of civilian access to firearms means that they're incapable of overthrowing their terribly corrupt and authoritarian government. I wonder if Venezuela will devolve into North Korea levels of destitution.

At least people have been relatively free to flee into neighboring countries, but neighboring countries are starting to clamp down on that because it's becoming unmanageable. Colombia is reported to have had 300,000 migrants in the last 6 months on top of those who fled previously. Brazil has probably seen similar numbers.

As if we dont know how this will turn out. 'whats your is mine'.

http://www.laht.com/article.as...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
http://www.scmp.com/news/world...
http://news.abs-cbn.com/overse...

I hadn't heard about this until you mentioned it (yikes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.politico.com/story...

Salon's main article today: Celebrity monomania: Maybe Trump and Oprah aren't as different as we think

The reality about Trump: He is a habitual liar. One article: In 365 days, President Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

Salon's main article today: Celebrity monomania: Maybe Trump and Oprah arenâ(TM)t as different as we think"

In 298 days, President Trump has made 1,628 false and misleading claims.

Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.

Rebuttals

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Author's response which seems to cover them all :

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.

tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.

And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.

It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

In the original article they point out things like

This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens

Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.

Rebuttals

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Author's response which seems to cover them all :

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.

tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.

And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.

It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

In the original article they point out things like

This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens

Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.

Rebuttals

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Author's response which seems to cover them all :

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.

tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.

And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.

It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

In the original article they point out things like

This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens

Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.

Rebuttals

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Author's response which seems to cover them all :

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.

tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.

And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.

It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

In the original article they point out things like

This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens

Right there... in the opening paragraph.

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors.
Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Right there... in the opening paragraph.

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors.
Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Right there... in the opening paragraph.

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors.
Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Or is the author just trying to explain why smartphone sales are slumping? That we have reached "peak smartphone" (that claim isn't new either)?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina's adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

They do say

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

However if you look at their paper

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were "asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office," in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were "allowed to vote using a provisional ballot." Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square 161, p < .001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identifi- cation were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit noncitizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses

I.e. voter ID laws don't work if by voter ID you mean "driving license" and the state gives out driving licenses to non citizens which are indistinguishable from the ones they hand out to citizens. Which is not impossible. E.g.

https://immigration.procon.org...

The law provides driver's licenses to people who filed Colorado state income taxes in the previous year and can show proof of current state residence, or who have an Individual Taxpayer ID and proof of 24 months of state residency, with a passport, consular ID, or military ID. The license will state "Not valid for federal identification, voting, or public benefits purposes."

The paper also contains th

Doesn't really explain women being paid less for doing identical office jobs though.

This is more about women not being able to do math. The using-statistics-correctly gap is much bigger than the wage gap.

The Pentagon calls it Nuclear War. The Brits agree.

We know where the Russians and Chinese hackers are located. It is simply a matter of time before their facilities are razed.

Hmmmm... In the internet craze known as the Tide Pod challenge, Teenagers are ingesting laundry detergent and plastic, yet all the focus is on eating the detergent.

The Trump campaign has since then countered that there's nothing to see, never any outside influence, and the whole investigation should be shut down.

Actually I believe they've only claimed that there's no conspiracy. No overt influence by foreign powers. And that any meddling that's been found thus far is no different statistically than the incidental foreign influence that happens every election. Obviously some foreign influence, whether accidental or trivial, happens every election. So it would be silly for them to counter that there is absolutely no outside influence.

Over a year of investigation by the media, including revelations by some of the biggest social media companies with deep data into the daily personal browsing activities of every American, has turned up less than a million dollars spent by foreigners during "the election cycle" (which by their definition seems to span back into 2015). That's about a half cent per voter, vs the $18.60 spent overall ($2.4 billion spent on 129 million voters), and doesn't even include any of the "free" coverage given by the media as part of their regular news reporting. Trump's campaign is probably correct.

...for accepting campaign contributions from foreign donors?

Me neither.

And they did it again in 2012.

No prosecutions for that, either.

But no, let's talk about some Facebook trolls...

The Washington Post has a better article on this.

One bit of info missing from CNET is that these indictments are the direct result of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation.

Ben Carson: I have no reason to think he's corrupt

Think again.

Under his control, HUD awarded a half-milliom no-bid contract to Carson's daughter's company. He's also allowed his son to use HUD events to promote his own business despite HUD's own ethics office telling him not to.

Did Donald Trump appoint anyone who isn't corrupt, tied to neo-nazis or doesn't beat women?

So far, at least 40% of his cabinet-level picks has had a scandal.

Even the damn Whitehouse Counsel, whose own office is an actual SCIF, hasn't been able to get a full clearance.

Here's a current article about how misleading the Everytown stat is: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Figuring out how many cars are passing

How is this any different than setting up toll booths? Make the company keep count, and make them hire an auditor to do spot checks to keep them honest. Hardly any administrative effort at all.

collecting the fees (taxes)

This is already done. No marginal cost.

disbursing them

Paying private contracts is an existing function of government and this additional check will add almost no marginal cost.

I-66

This is a state-owned route, so while I find our discussion about it interesting, this would serve to reinforce my opinion that the choice of how to toll is a policy issue and not fundamental to the ownership of the road.

Incidentally, since I rarely make it to the Virginia side of the DC area I was not familiar with I-66, so thanks for that. I found this opinion piece which is bullish on the I-66 tolling. Clearly it is contentious.

CNN would NEVER lie.

I would LOVE to see an example of CNN lying. Just one.

Might I suggest you try using that google thingy people talk about using to search for things?

My personal favorite is CNN's Chris Cuomo telling us during the election that it is illegal for us peons to possess or view the Hillary e-mails from Wikileaks - but journalists have different rules so we have to listen to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Given that CNN is suing the shit out of anyone who says anything bad about them, and issued a DMCA takedown for the youtube video of *this* debacle, try this one. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/....

Another one of my favorites is the "White men account for 69% of violent crimes." http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/...

C'mon, you know how to use the internet.

"Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." - Chris Cuomo

Not in print but still damning and highlights CNN deliberately lying. The first amendment applies equally to media and the public. They are not special.

Since you are averse to video (though the below has a video).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The headline is a lie. The Trump Administration hasn't proposed firing anyone. If you look at the story this story is based on, it says "248 forecasting positions". Reading further, the agency currently has more open forecasting positions than that. So basically, if this 5% cut to their budget was fully implemented, they simply wouldn't get to hire as many new people. Oh, the drama!!!

You're worried about where the cuts will happen? Let's read the underlying WP article some more and see if we can figure out how they decided that:

Its justification is the 2016 Weather Service Operations and Workforce Analysis that found “there is a mismatch in some areas [of the Weather Service] between workforce and workload” and “that the current distribution of staff across the country can evolve.”

Oh, you mean they did a study back when Obama was President and looked at where stuff could get streamlined and realigned and are basing this budget proposal on that? How sinister!!!

This is much ado about nothing. The only travesty here is that they aren't proposing to cut more. Why, this proposal will take the NWS almost back down to the budget level they had in 2015, when they couldn't get anything at all done!!!

If "Trump" is proposing eliminating 248 NWS Forecasters, exactly how many are there currently?

Apparently there are 122 NWS forecasting offices

So "Trump" is proposing the elimination of, on average, 2 forecasters per office - that doesn't seem so bad - but how many are there in those 122 forecasting offices?

It seems the NWS may already have over 248 "vacancies" currently in it's organization, so this may be nothing more than "Trump" adopting current staffing levels, rather than actually cutting people from eliminating positions.

For what it's worth, it seems the NWS has nearly five thousand employees, cutting 248 forecasters represents a 5% cut in staffing.

You may have noticed I put the name Trump in quotes - that's because only a fool would imagine that a sitting President has anything to do with actual staffing levels in an organization, but in today's hyper-political environment, many tend to refer to any action undertaken by anyone in an administration to be the responsibility of the sitting President - oddly, just a few years ago no one said things like "Obama illegally blocked tax-exempt applications by conservative groups" or "Obama illegally encouraged/facilitated running guns into Mexico in a program called "Fast n' Furious"" and so on - I wonder why that is?

If "Trump" is proposing eliminating 248 NWS Forecasters, exactly how many are there currently?

Apparently there are 122 NWS forecasting offices

So "Trump" is proposing the elimination of, on average, 2 forecasters per office - that doesn't seem so bad - but how many are there in those 122 forecasting offices?

It seems the NWS may already have over 248 "vacancies" currently in it's organization, so this may be nothing more than "Trump" adopting current staffing levels, rather than actually cutting people from eliminating positions.

For what it's worth, it seems the NWS has nearly five thousand employees, cutting 248 forecasters represents a 5% cut in staffing.

You may have noticed I put the name Trump in quotes - that's because only a fool would imagine that a sitting President has anything to do with actual staffing levels in an organization, but in today's hyper-political environment, many tend to refer to any action undertaken by anyone in an administration to be the responsibility of the sitting President - oddly, just a few years ago no one said things like "Obama illegally blocked tax-exempt applications by conservative groups" or "Obama illegally encouraged/facilitated running guns into Mexico in a program called "Fast n' Furious"" and so on - I wonder why that is?

Yes. This article specifically points out a court making the claim that the racial targeting in a specific voter ID law is intentional.

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.

The story does not read as the headline indicates.

It's "mulling" and reportedly (a) only the Trump team is considering this and (b) *everyone* else in the world -- including Ted Cruz -- thinks it's a monumentally dumb idea. From the original Washington Post article:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said he hoped recent reports of NASA’s decision to end funding of the station “prove as unfounded as Bigfoot.” He said the decision was the result of “numskulls” at the Office of Management and Budget. “As a fiscal conservative, you know one of the dumbest things you can to is cancel programs after billions in investment when there is still serious usable life ahead,” he said.

Boeing, which has been involved with the station since 1995, operates the station for NASA, which costs the agency $3 billion to $4 billion annually.

So far there are *no* private companies that want the expense and responsibility of maintaining the ISS -- especially as there is no business plan for something like this.