Author Topic: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)  (Read 100001 times)

PuckChaser and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,577
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,501
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #475 on: February 16, 2017, 23:54:02 »
Always get concerned when I agree with you.  ;D

I personally see nothing wrong with "internationalism" per se but have nothing but disdain for the sorry messes that are representative of "international government" particularly the EU bureaucracy and to a significant extent that of the UN.

For me "internationalism" is better met by bilateral and multilateral agreements.

 :cheers:
I share your concern FJAG.

And your observations.

 :cheers:
I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #476 on: February 16, 2017, 23:55:12 »
I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

FAKE NEWS!
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,006
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #477 on: February 17, 2017, 00:18:37 »
I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

I guess you and I saw different press conferences. This is the one I saw (There's a transcript as well):

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjVAt_mzHXM

Transcript: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/click-for-a-full-transcript-of-trumps-first-solo-press-conference.html

I was thinking that perhaps some of the Trump stalwarts here would be starting to have a little tiny niggling doubt about this administration especially seeing that Vice-Admiral Harward (who I thought was a good candidate for the job of Nat Sec Adviser) turned down the offer after the press conference.

There are already some rumours circulating that the press conference sealed his rejection (no pun intended). While the Admiral said he turned the nomination for professional and personal reasons one would have thought that before the president would have named Harward as his candidate that his staff would have both vetted and received Harward's concurrence to be named. By turning it down after he was named it seems much more likely that he changed his mind today.

I'd put money on the fact that there's zero chance that the press conference won't be the cold open on SNL on Saturday.  ;D

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 09:27:52 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,006
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #478 on: February 17, 2017, 00:22:31 »
I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

We know and we love you for it.  :nod:

 :cheers:

Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,329
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #479 on: February 17, 2017, 06:23:51 »
I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

like FJAG I think I saw a different presser than you did. 

His goal wasn't to speak directly to the American people.  It was to speak to his base.  In that I agree that he accomplished his goal. 

This has been a weird month in US politics.

Optio

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 93,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,808
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #480 on: February 17, 2017, 09:06:22 »
I'd put money on the fact that there's zero chance that the press conference won't be the cold open on SNL on Saturday.  ;D

 :cheers:

I doubt it: No role for Spicer in it!  ;D

BTW, if he comes to Canada for the president's visit (whenever that may be), I think we should "accidentally" refer to Spicer as "Keith Spicer". That would be funny!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 102,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,891
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #481 on: February 17, 2017, 10:27:46 »
like FJAG I think I saw a different presser than you did. 

His goal wasn't to speak directly to the American people.  It was to speak to his base.  In that I agree that he accomplished his goal. 

This has been a weird month in US politics.

Politicians always speak to their base first, about the only time they go beyond that is in an election to convince the undecided to vote for them, generally by offering bribes or belittling the other side effectively.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,216
  • Freespeecher
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #482 on: February 17, 2017, 11:34:08 »
President Trump is taking a page from President Reagan and bypassing the press to speak to his base (and hopefully the rest of the American people as well). President Trump is a very different person from President Reagan, being combative rather than genial, and also has access to suites of tools that President Reagan could only dream about.

The press corps is having a collective seizure seeing their "gatekeeper" role so effectively bypassed, and their hyperpartisanship, which was already openly on display when George W Bush was president and refined through the Obama Administration, simply makes them incapable of acting, but only reacting to President Trump. If they read "The Art of the Deal", they would realize how they are being played and how President Trump is using unpredictability to open new avenues and approaches to achieve his goals. (Of course, that also presupposes the press is self aware and capable of change).

Once again, here is Newt Gingrich explaining how President Trump beat the media, and providing a means of understanding who to look forward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIe95tyHQs4
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,329
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #483 on: February 17, 2017, 12:17:33 »
President Trump is taking a page from President Reagan and bypassing the press to speak to his base (and hopefully the rest of the American people as well). President Trump is a very different person from President Reagan, being combative rather than genial, and also has access to suites of tools that President Reagan could only dream about.

The press corps is having a collective seizure seeing their "gatekeeper" role so effectively bypassed, and their hyperpartisanship, which was already openly on display when George W Bush was president and refined through the Obama Administration, simply makes them incapable of acting, but only reacting to President Trump. If they read "The Art of the Deal", they would realize how they are being played and how President Trump is using unpredictability to open new avenues and approaches to achieve his goals. (Of course, that also presupposes the press is self aware and capable of change).

Once again, here is Newt Gingrich explaining how President Trump beat the media, and providing a means of understanding who to look forward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIe95tyHQs4

I have to agree that he is indeed beating the media but I don't think he's merely bypassing them, he's confronting them and unfortunately he's delegitimizing free press as a result.  But he's shown a few weak points.

The inability to understand the system.
- This why his executive order was rejected and he's back to drawing board
- I suspect his wall building project will meet the same sort of resistance from congress on both sides of the house as "who" exactly will pay for it comes up

His team. He needs to work on that. 
- Spicer is becoming Bagdad bob.  He's lost credibility and I predict will be gone sooner rather than later.
- Already a resignation/firing in scandal in under a month, and a few stepping down from the nomination process

His reaction to any criticism. 
- As partisan as some people think the media is, he is giving them plenty to attack him on.

Flip Flops
- Confusing rambling statements contradicted later by his people or himself.  Contrast what he said about Israel one state solution versus what his ambassador to the US said at the UN about the two state solution as just one example.  Or the fact that leaks are true but the news about them is fake  :dunno:

I for one want to give him a chance to see what he is going to do.  I actually try an make an effort to sift through the noise and get some of the facts but I have to tell you that my impression is that his administration looks chaotic, disorganised and uncoordinated.  But I'm in not even in the stadium to watch the show, I'm at the local bar down the street watching and discussing it.  As a Canadian looking from the outside my opinion is limited to armchair discussion like this thread. 

People mention biases and partisanship.  If you truly think he's had a good first month, take a hard look at what lenses you are using.  It hasn't been a good first month by any measure.  Resignations, international flaps, scandals and a cornerstone executive order successfully appealed doesn't make for a good track record so far.



I doubt it is ALL bad, but the bad is indeed bad and the good is meh.

And for good measure I'll list the things that I find good so far.

-Keystone approved.  Great for us IMO
-A clear answer on NAFTA and Canada.  Again good for us.
-Council of women entrepreneurs.  Got very little attention south of the border but still a good endeavour.
-James Mattis.  probably his best appointment.
-Taking NATO to task on its spending of GDP

 
Optio

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,841
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #484 on: February 17, 2017, 12:32:26 »
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-author-of-dodgy-dossier-accuses-uk-of-systematic-failure-a7123136.html

This is not directly related to US politics ...... but it is.   

It concerns what the Brits call Blair's "Dodgy Dossier": the presentation of intelligence used to justify Britain's intervention in Iraq in 2003.  The Chilcot Inquiry determined that the intelligence services were something less than adequate in their ability to inform anyone of much of anything.    Apparently a key element in the dossier was information gleaned, and plagiarised from, a thesis prepared by a muslim master's student studying in California.  That then found its way, through MI6, into Iraq intervention justification.

Chilcot was just published on July 6, 2016 or two weeks after the Brexit vote on June 23.  It was intentionally delayed to minimize its impact on the Brexit vote.

Now, MI6 apparently was associated in the Trump Dossier on Russian Watersports.  Which managed to find its way into the US press via US intelligence services.  The same US route currently used to reference Trump's fitness to govern.

My curiousity is about how "the press" finds credible the sources that they excoriated over the Iraq war (and a few other incidents going back to Mossadegh and Allende). 

An equally fascinating observation is how "the press"  (is that just the "quality" or is the "tabloid" variety included?) spends so much time trying to convince us, the consumer, that they are "the news you can trust."  or are "Canada's trusted news" and that their "narrative" of events is the "true", the "correct" or the "right" one.  Doesn't that suggest that they recognize that there might be another opinion and that they are fighting for their "narrative" to dominate?

The other observation that fascinates is how, especially in the English speaking world, how intertwined the press has become.  And I think, in this instance that is a good thing.  Because it means that British style newspaper warfare is appearing in the US press.  The phenomenon has not yet appeared in Canada but it is readily apparent in the US where the US press cites British sources and British opinion fairly frequently.  I offer Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail and Piers support for Donald Trump as an example.  And the associated attempts to ensure that the Quality press maintains its advantage over tabloids like New York Post or Washington Examiner or Washington Times.  Or CNN-BBC-MSNBC vs Fox. Hmmmm.  Rupert Murdoch - Agent of Change, Democrat and Profiteer?

But more importantly I sense that I am seeing an intra-mural match that spans the Anglosphere ... the nature of the fight and the sides are kind of amorphous because often it seems it is both sides against the middle with all parties willing to argue that black is white on Sunday and that cheese is chalk on Monday.

I am enjoying the disruption. 

Have you ever considered why, when the stock market collapses, how it can collapse? On its worst days, when it loses hundreds of billions of dollars of value over night, trades happen.  For every share sold at a discounted value somebody has bought that share.  Somebody is seeing different information, or is seeing the same information and interpreting it differently, or is seeing the same information and interpreting it the same way and is betting that they can use the situation to their advantage.  And sometimes they will be right.   And sometimes they will be wrong.

The only idiots out there are the people that believe they understand what is going on - and those that believe them.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,216
  • Freespeecher
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #485 on: February 17, 2017, 12:44:40 »
Another speech by Newt Gingrich. It seems he is doing a series about President Trump and Trumpism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzEnwohFmQI
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #486 on: February 17, 2017, 13:27:28 »
... Now, MI6 apparently was associated in the Trump Dossier on Russian Watersports.  Which managed to find its way into the US press via US intelligence services.  The same US route currently used to reference Trump's fitness to govern.  My curiousity is about how "the press" finds credible the sources that they excoriated over the Iraq war (and a few other incidents going back to Mossadegh and Allende) ...
My understanding is that ONE person who USED TO BE with MI6 did that report, first for a Republican team, the for a Democrat team (and, as always, I stand to be corrected).  That's a pretty broad & inclusive definition of "MI6 association" with said document.

If my understanding is correct, are you suggesting every person who's ever worked for an organization must be suspect because they worked an organization that's made mistakes?  #FallacyOfComposition

<tangent>If you want to watch a funny movie about war, politics and dossier "management" -- by the Brits and Americans -- "In The Loop" is for you!- hilarious, scarily close to what is probably happening @ high levels, but too sweary for younger kids to watch.</tangent>
An equally fascinating observation is how "the press"  (is that just the "quality" or is the "tabloid" variety included?) spends so much time trying to convince us, the consumer, that they are "the news you can trust."  or are "Canada's trusted news" and that their "narrative" of events is the "true", the "correct" or the "right" one.  Doesn't that suggest that they recognize that there might be another opinion and that they are fighting for their "narrative" to dominate?
As businesses, I think they're likely fighting more for their outlet to dominate re:  clicks/viewers/readers/listeners.
The other observation that fascinates is how, especially in the English speaking world, how intertwined the press has become.  And I think, in this instance that is a good thing.  Because it means that British style newspaper warfare is appearing in the US press.  The phenomenon has not yet appeared in Canada but it is readily apparent in the US where the US press cites British sources and British opinion fairly frequently.  I offer Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail and Piers support for Donald Trump as an example.  And the associated attempts to ensure that the Quality press maintains its advantage over tabloids like New York Post or Washington Examiner or Washington Times.  Or CNN-BBC-MSNBC vs Fox. Hmmmm.  Rupert Murdoch - Agent of Change, Democrat and Profiteer?
I think you & others have mentioned this before re:  if a media outlet has a preference/bias/fave team, it makes more sense to say it outright.  Agreed 110% - to stretch the cliche a bit, better the devil you know ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,841
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #487 on: February 17, 2017, 14:22:26 »
Quote
If my understanding is correct, are you suggesting every person who's ever worked for an organization must be suspect because they worked an organization that's made mistakes?  #FallacyOfComposition

You don't, then, get to cite the organization's employment of a particular individual in defence of the quality of his or her work or other actions.

And I am glad you agree that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CTV, Macleans, Globe and CBC should just come out and declare their political affiliations and disavow any pretence of neutrality.

Sir.   :)

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #488 on: February 17, 2017, 15:13:00 »
You don't, then, get to cite the organization's employment of a particular individual in defence of the quality of his or her work or other actions.
Hmmmm ... got me on that one. 

Maybe the answer's more in the middle of the two, then.
And I am glad you agree that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CTV, Macleans, Globe and CBC should just come out and declare their political affiliations and disavow any pretence of neutrality.
Never happen (esp. w/CBC), but that WOULD be more transparent and consumer friendly like the Brit (and Italian) media system.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 15:23:13 by milnews.ca »
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #489 on: February 18, 2017, 11:54:13 »
>I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone has a problem with globalization and internationalism. How is it any different than federalism?

Without doing any kind of historical survey, it seems to me entities are more interested in breaking away, than entities are in coming together.  And when entities do come together, it often is in the context of escaping a greater entity.

I've concluded that federalism is workable at a moderate scale, just as socialist policies work more effectively and generate less partisan rancour as the size of the political jurisdiction decreases.  (It is natural to care about and share a sense of fellowship with - and obligations toward - your neighbours more than strangers on the other side of a continent.)  "Federalism" across what are now nation states is too tempting to "majority rules" abuses.  Pushed to the wall, what might 1,000 million people in region X vote to extract from the better-off 100 million people in region Y?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 102,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,891
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #490 on: February 20, 2017, 12:10:17 »
Federalism works because people share roughly a common goal, heritage and economic status. When you attempt to combine wildly different cultures and economic status, things start going off the rails.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,841
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #491 on: February 20, 2017, 13:21:45 »
Agree with both Brad and Colin.

Here's a thought with regard to social organization.

In the US, population 318.9 million - 80% of the population, or 255 million, sorts themselves into some 350,000 congregations of all sorts: Protestants, Catholics, Saints, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Jews.  That makes the average congregation - or social organization - a unit of some 750 people.

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#numcong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Agnosticism.2C_atheism.2C_and_humanism

A propos of little - of the other 20% some 70% believe in a god/spirit/deity/agency.  Only 6% of the population believes in the absence of a deity of any sort.

I am inclined to suggest that the seculars - both deists and atheists - find their "congregations" in their universities and colleges.  The division is not clean as their are religious universities and atheists that don't go to university  but - as an organizing principle that would reach a fair portion of those that do not self-sort by religion - universities and colleges would make an interesting addition.

There are 4140 degree granting institutions in the US with a combined enrollment of 17,487,475 for an average "congregation" of 4224.

I suggest that any society that organizes a levels much above the 1,000 to 10,000 range, increasingly loses contact with, and the trust of the individuals in that society.

If I assume a 7,000 person unit and I form a council of reps from 10 such units - 70,000 people represented by 10

Next level up 10 councils grouped - 700,000.  Now there are either 100 councilors in a single committee or 10 representatives, one from each council. 

7,000,000 - 1000 or 100 or 10

70,000,000 - 10000 or 1000 or 100 or 10

700,000,000 - 100000 or 10000 or 1000 or 100 or 10

7,000,000,000 - 1000000 or 100000 or 10000 or 1000 or 100 or 10

Or in all of the above cases the irreducible 1 individual claiming to work for all.

At some point in that growth the individual in the congregation loses contact with the person(s) doing the deciding.  And trust breaks down.  I believe that the individual can manage the compromises necessary to live with people they interact with but have great difficulty accepting the need to compromise with people they never see, they never meet - that are not part of their lives.

They are focused on making sure their kids have good lives.  That takes priority over whether or not  the kids of parents on the other side of the world have good lives.

They can sympathise or even empathise but ultimately it is their own kids eyes they are looking into.

Top down governance, large scale governance cannot work.  I believe that that just creates friction. The best that can be hoped for is to accommodate multiple small congregations and manage them with a loose rein and aim for harmony, not order.

Besides I like a lot of colour - and that comes from being able to identify individual colours (and I'm not talking about race here - at all).




"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,841
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #492 on: February 20, 2017, 13:59:08 »
Tone Deaf Defined?

From The Washington Post

Quote
“If he hadn’t gotten into office, 70,000 miners would have been put out of work,” Patricia Nana, a 42-year-old naturalized citizen from Cameroon. “I saw the ceremony where he signed that bill, giving them their jobs back, and he had miners with their hard hats and everything — you could see how happy they were.”

The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side, according to a government report — an example of the frequent distance between Trump’s rhetoric, which many of his supporters wholeheartedly believe, and verifiable facts.

So the counter to the Miner's plea to retain their jobs is to say they would be replaced by College Kids - with good environmental and Democratic credentials?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,216
  • Freespeecher
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #493 on: February 20, 2017, 16:01:31 »
President Trump has manoeuvered the media into a kill box. After spending a great deal of time screeching that there is no evidence of massicve voter fraud, this comes out:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpJd1pEaGtaall4TUdVeCIsInQiOiJKM3BhSmJNNDUyRGZxQXNHMTNwMzV3bXFOeUpiM1BGNzlZM0k4VEdWeVFodzdtbGw4WGpyZ01tQmFPbEppMkFSWmw2SWNTQmRmMmdoVHpycjNIVTVKek5rRkxFV1lqdERYQUFKNWpnTDVYQU8zYk40Y2QraDVzaXJtWDdTbzlrWSJ9

Quote
Nearly 2 million non-citizen Hispanics illegally registered to vote
Survey bolsters analysis by professors
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 15, 2017

A large number of non-citizen Hispanics, as many as 2 million, were illegally registered to vote in the U.S., according to a nationwide poll.

The National Hispanic Survey provides additional evidence for use by anti-voter fraud conservatives and bolsters an analysis by professors at Old Dominion University who say non-citizens registered and voted in potentially large numbers.

President Trump has announced he will appoint a task force on voter fraud headed by Vice President Mike Pence. He says he wants the investigation to focus on inaccurate voter registration rolls, which are maintained by the states and the District of Columbia.

“It is a fact and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote,” White House adviser Stephen Miller told ABC News. “That is a scandal. We should stop the presses.”

The little-noticed Hispanic survey was conducted in June 2013 by McLaughlin and Associates to gauge the opinions of U.S. resident Latinos on a wide range of issues.

Inside the poll is a page devoted to voter profiles. Of the randomly selected sample of 800 Hispanics, 56 percent, or 448, said they were non-citizens, and of those, 13 percent said they were registered to vote. The 448 would presumedly be a mix of illegal immigrants and noncitizens who are in the U.S. legally, such as visa holders or permanent residents.

A 1996 federal law, and other statues, makes it a felony for non-citizens to register. The poll did not ask if they voted.

But James Agresti, who directs the research nonprofit “Just Facts,” applied the 13 percent figure to 2013 U.S. Census numbers for non-citizen Hispanic adults. In 2013, the Census reported that 11.8 million non-citizen Hispanic adults lived here, which would amount to 1.5 million illegally registered Latinos.

Accounting for the margin of error based on the sample size of non-citizens, Mr. Agresti calculated that the number of illegally registered Hispanics could range from 1.0 million to 2.1 million.

“Contrary to the claims of many media outlets and so-called fact-checkers, this nationally representative scientific poll confirms that a sizable number of non-citizens in the U.S. are registered to vote,” Mr. Agresti said.

Another 8.3 million non-Hispanic non-citizen adults were living in the U.S. in 2013, according to the Census.

As the nation’s immigrant population, both legal and illegal, grows, the question of non-citizens voting illegally has caught the attention of more grass-roots conservative groups. Aliens tend to vote Democratic and have the ability to sway a close election.

The focus intensified in 2014 when two professors at Old Dominion University and one at George Mason University collaborated to produce perhaps the first data-driven analysis of non-citizen voting, relying on the biennial Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), headquartered at Harvard University, with polling by YouGov.

Relying on the CCES responses to citizenship questions, ODU team estimated that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election. They presented a range as low as 38,000 and as high at 2.8 million.

The CCES authors at Harvard, Amherst and YouGov reacted with outrage. They said the small number of respondents among a sample of 38,000 people made the answers meaningless. They picked at their numbers, declared them unreliable and concluded that zero noncitizens voted.

Their rebuttal prompted the liberal media to proclaim the ODU study “debunked” even though those professors stick by their work and have filed counter-rebuttals.

The 2013 Hispanic Survey tends to confirm the ODU work and chief defender, professor Jesse Richman. The Hispanic Survey’s 13 percent registration rate is right in line with what the CCES data indicates in multiple elections.

Mr. Agresti said the ODU paper found that in 2008, 2010 and 2012 between 14.5 percent and 15.6 percent of self-declared non-citizen adults were registered to vote.

In other words, the CCES and National Hispanic Survey, done with different sample sizes, align.

Still, the liberal media declares the ODU work “debunked.”

McLaughlin and Associates conducted the Hispanic poll for John Jordan, a winery owner and Republican activist. California vineyards rely on Latino farm workers.

The media’s dismissal of voter fraud has not chased the White House from the issue. Mr. Miller, the senior While House adviser, made the case Sunday on “ABC’s This Week,” angering host George Stephanopoulos.

“An issue of voter fraud is something we’re going to be looking at very seriously and very hard,” Mr. Miller said. “But the reality is, is that we know for a fact, you have massive numbers of non-citizens registered to vote in this country. Nobody disputes that.”

He added, “The White House has provided enormous evidence with respect to voter fraud, with respect to people being registered in more than one state, dead people voting, non-citizens being registered to vote And as a country, we should be aghast about the fact that you have people who have no right to vote in this country, registered to vote, canceling out the franchise of lawful citizens of this country.”

Instead of focusing on the registration issue, an agitated Mr. Stephanopoulos lashed out at Mr. Trump for claiming there were 3 million to 5 million illegals voting Nov. 8 and that voters were bused in from Massachusetts to vote in New Hampshire.

“You have provided zero evidence that the president’s claim that he would have won the general — the popular vote if 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants hadn’t voted, zero evidence for either one of those claims,” the host said.

In his Super Bowl interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Trump veered away from the 5 million prediction and instead said he wants his task force to focus on cleaning up registration.

“It has to do with the registration,” he said “And when you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states, that have voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens and they are on the registration rolls.”

“Look, Bill we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this, it’s really a bad situation, it’s really bad.”

When Mr. O’Reilly reminded the president he has not presented data to show that 3 million illegals voted, Mr. Trump said, “Forget that. Forget all that. Just take a look at the registration and we’re going to do it.”

Reality hits the "Narrative" like a sledgehammer, so doubling down will only make them look stupider or more mendacious when further investigations brings out more and more factual evidence collapsing their preferred narrative. The obvious question Americans will be asking is "why were they fighting so hard to conceal the truth?", which will do wonders for media credibility.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,329
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #494 on: February 20, 2017, 16:55:40 »
President Trump has manoeuvered the media into a kill box. After spending a great deal of time screeching that there is no evidence of massicve voter fraud, this comes out:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpJd1pEaGtaall4TUdVeCIsInQiOiJKM3BhSmJNNDUyRGZxQXNHMTNwMzV3bXFOeUpiM1BGNzlZM0k4VEdWeVFodzdtbGw4WGpyZ01tQmFPbEppMkFSWmw2SWNTQmRmMmdoVHpycjNIVTVKek5rRkxFV1lqdERYQUFKNWpnTDVYQU8zYk40Y2QraDVzaXJtWDdTbzlrWSJ9

Reality hits the "Narrative" like a sledgehammer, so doubling down will only make them look stupider or more mendacious when further investigations brings out more and more factual evidence collapsing their preferred narrative. The obvious question Americans will be asking is "why were they fighting so hard to conceal the truth?", which will do wonders for media credibility.

Really?  It looks more like they are trying hard to find evidence and data.  So a poll conducted in 2013 is evidence? Now I'm not saying that it does not merit a closer look but despite the poll claiming to be scientific with a sample size of 800 people does not seem to be one that would lead to any kind of accurate conclusions.  Also I'm not sure that using that data to state that 2 million people could have registered illegally is a foregone conclusion either. 

For a group of people that distrusts polls and laments fake news this is pushing it.  I'm curious to see if even if that many people registered to vote illegally would still actually be allowed to actually vote.  As in does registration actually equate to illegal votes cast.

Optio

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 55,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,602
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #495 on: February 20, 2017, 17:00:52 »
On new White House National Security Adviser: I wonder if Pres. Trump (hah!) or any of his people have read then-Major H.R. McMaster's book DERELICTION OF DUTY
Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam
?  Point of which is need to give good and honest advice to the White House:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/07/20/reviews/970720.20spectot.html

I've read the book and it is excellent--something that would never be written, for a number of reasons, by a serving Canadian officer.

See also this from 2013 based on then-MGEN McMaster (though my "black swan" has got a whole lot whiter, help):

Quote
No Military Revolution Leading to “Easy War”?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/mark-collins-no-military-revolution-leading-to-easy-war/comment-page-1/

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 17:07:39 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 102,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,891
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #496 on: February 20, 2017, 17:03:06 »
Really?  It looks more like they are trying hard to find evidence and data.  So a poll conducted in 2013 is evidence? Now I'm not saying that it does not merit a closer look but despite the poll claiming to be scientific with a sample size of 800 people does not seem to be one that would lead to any kind of accurate conclusions.  Also I'm not sure that using that data to state that 2 million people could have registered illegally is a foregone conclusion either. 

For a group of people that distrusts polls and laments fake news this is pushing it.  I'm curious to see if even if that many people registered to vote illegally would still actually be allowed to actually vote.  As in does registration actually equate to illegal votes cast.

Without a voter ID system, all you need is proof of residence and you can vote.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,329
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #497 on: February 20, 2017, 17:20:30 »
Without a voter ID system, all you need is proof of residence and you can vote.


Which is not the norm in most states as I understand it but varies state to state. And in those cases, I thought they deferred the ballots until identity could be confirmed later. 
Optio

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 428,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,360
    • The job.
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #498 on: February 20, 2017, 17:22:39 »
I'm not a US taxpayer. For those who are,

Regarding the cost of his security,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/trump-family-security-new-york-palm-beach-taxes
At current estimates, even a four-year Trump administration could be heading for a billion dollars in taxpayer-borne costs – an eight-fold increase of the $97m Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, estimates it cost to protect Barack Obama over the two terms of his administration.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 17:46:07 by mariomike »
Get on the bus. Take a ride with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lSGnPl-ww

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,841
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)
« Reply #499 on: February 20, 2017, 19:11:05 »
I'm not a US taxpayer. For those who are,

Regarding the cost of his security,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/trump-family-security-new-york-palm-beach-taxes
At current estimates, even a four-year Trump administration could be heading for a billion dollars in taxpayer-borne costs – an eight-fold increase of the $97m Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, estimates it cost to protect Barack Obama over the two terms of his administration.

What happens to the costs if the demonstrators stay home?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"