earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:So the proof that Clinton rigged the polls is that she lost, and that she hasn't asked for a recount.

I've heard it all now.

No, more this regarding the fraud:

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

You are concerned about Hillary's phantom voter fraud as Wall Street bankers are turning the revolving doors at Trump Tower hourly today...

Nah, I'm mostly concerned with the voting machines. The illegal alien part will most likely work itself out and was just part of a bigger picture. I'm not into big banks stealing from people, as they have profusely been doing since the Federal Reserve was created, but they recently kicked it into high gear (2008 ish) with QE. I'm gonna give Trump some time as he knows what he is doing. Time will tell. I just want a better America, world actually. If that happens with whomever, I'm happy. Wasn't gonna happen with Hillary though.

Trump isn't even in office and yet things are already getting better (Was it 5 hours after his election Win that TTP was dropped, then TTIP is dropping, then talks with Russia to work together, etc). And yet the hate doesn't stop. How bout him kicking out the lobbyists you complained about? Thought that would make you happy but I get the feeling this board is more about Hillary vs Trump still and not making things in America better. It has gotten personal. Such is politics I guess.

You were concerned about spending, Wall Street and wars in the past but no longer...Good.. Trump aligning with Wall Street bankers helps me personally...Repeal of Dodd-Frank and massive spending will help banks and the stock market...TPP will happen in some form is my bet, Wall Street wants it because 40% of the S&P make a big chunk their money abroad and they have to beat out China to controlling Asia, one of Trump's concerns..Just wanted to point out the your hypocrisy and the people you support...

The little people will find out that Trump can bring their coal mining jobs back soon enough because natural gas is cheaper and cleaner, it's economics...

Welpee wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:So the proof that Clinton rigged the polls is that she lost, and that she hasn't asked for a recount.

I've heard it all now.

No, more this regarding the fraud:

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I asked you if you were illegal on a sports site hidden behind anonymity and you basically accused me of being reckless and asked me why would you incriminate yourself like that and if I was a cop?

So I don't understand this 13% of illegals vote stat. What does it have to do with the 2016 presidential election? The figure assumes you first of all know the number of illegals to begin with, and then these illegals are admitting to pollsters that they not only are here illegally but voted illegally on top of that? I don't get why they would even do that.

The URL you posted refers to this article from the Daily Signal where he asserts this 13% figure: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/

In that article there is a link to the poll: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf The methodology of this poll says: "This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013."

As I've said before, I'm not a stats guy. But I don't understand how the Daily Signal writer is getting this 13% figure. Can you look through that poll data and show me how he's getting that?

So to recap: I'm not sure how an article from 2015 about a poll from 2013 of 800 people can lead you to say with confidence "13% of illegals admit they vote". Because of what 800 Hispanics said on the phone to someone in 2013?

You know that "illegal immigrants" isn't synonymous with "Hispanics".

I'm honestly confused. Help me out earthmansurfer.

I've had too many people in this thread suddenly get friendly and then try to corner me, lol. It started getting old and then you ask me if I'm here legally? lol, seriously?
Hidden behind anonymity? They have my email. I'm not on TOR. Childs play easy; I think you know that...

The point with that article was that if they voted in the past (and since some were caught this last election - Was a video feed on the news online though I don't know which one now, it was live.) that it is likely to continue. There are many many articles out there on illegals voting. I'm not going to do stats now as it is bedtime.

Another quote, but different article and also from the past(but there are many many more.) If it is a concern to you, really, just do a search, the result list is long.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

The big deal is Bev Harris and the voting machines. Even though it is Alex Jones interviewing her, as I told Martin, listen to her words. Don't let the Alex part stop the message. This is a bit of a problem with Mainstream, they have certain boundries due to their deep ties with the establishment. Some things they won't touch till they have to.

So you didn't answer my questions about that 13% stat. I can't figure how a poll of 800 Hispanics in 2013 gives you any insight on the illegal immigrant population as a whole. Do you still want to stand behind it? I'm not going to waste my time following your links until you answer what I think are fair queries about that 13% stat. Did you even take the time to glance at the poll data like I did?

Because that stat is pretty much made up. It's based on somebody's unscientific assumption and somehow it morphed into people thinking its real data. Nobody has explained how somebody came up with this arbitrary number. It makes no sense.

Eh... this is why I shouldn't come back to this thread. I just end up getting a bad attitude and sounding like a dick. When I'm just honestly frustrated.

EMS says, I quote: "13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/"

I visit the page, it's by Stephen Frank of California Political News and Views but basically is light editorializing on a Daily Signal article.

I visit the original article on Daily Signal — a Heritage Foundation project — and visit the poll referenced in the first sentence. Now the author Hans von Spakovsky refers to a poll where he derives this 13% figure. I visit the poll: The Jordan National Hispanic Survey Results Sponsored by John Jordan – Jordan Winery. Hmm, OK, let's accept this is valid for argument's sake and visit the methodology. 800 Hispanics in 2013?

How did this already dubious paragraph from the Daily Signal:

A poll by John McLaughlin confirms again we may have a significant problem with noncitizens participating illegally in our elections. Based on a sample survey of 800 Hispanics in 2013, McLaughlin found that of foreign-born respondents who were registered voters, 13 percent admitted they were not United States citizens.

Turn into this headline?

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote

I feel like I'm going crazy. Then when I point it out, I'm the one who is missing the point. My specific questions about the link shared are ignored, but here's another link before beddy-bye! There is SO much information out there if I just stop being a sheeple.

I mean... I can't. I want to think that elections are won or lost on issues and fact, not with think tank funded click farm hit jobs clouding up the discourse. But it's clearly not the case.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Welpee wrote:How about this: since more than half of the states don't require delegates to vote for a pledged candidate, what if the Trump electors decided to vote for Clinton instead? How would Trump supporters feel? It would be totally legal. Nothing to prevent it from happening other than their conscious. It's how the system is set up. Would they take their own advice and not whine and just accept it? Hmmmmm...this has been an unusual election so far. This election is not finalized YET.

How would you feel if the opposite had happened? Hillary wins only by electoral college and then the Elector voters give it to Trump?

The ones that are protesting are the same groups of people that hounded Trump for saying he "might not" have accepted the results of the election. It seems they should act like adults and accept the results of the election and stop trying to find ways to steal it because that is certainly not democratic.

The USA is a representative republic and the EC keeps everyone's votes as valuable as their neighbors. It works pretty darn well in that way. The framers were pretty smart to design in this way.

I'm going out on a limb here but I think these people are protesting Trump because he is a vile individual and they are saying he doesn't represent the ideals they stand for...So while many Americans may want Trump as their front man, many are saying he is unacceptable as a representative of this great nation...People aren't protesting the outcome...I myself haven't paid any attention to the electoral college until now, and have major, major concerns..But that's entirely another story..But I would have major concerns if Hillary won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote by 2 mil too...But that's just me..I'm concerned about democracy and the individual stake in it..

markvmc wrote:In case anyone is still inclined to take the Soros voting machine nonsense seriously, see here. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

EMS, why don't you apply any of your media skepticism towards the sources you site?

I posted it for him already..He doesnt care..There is an article out about fake election news getting more views than real news..He can't discern the two..

http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/press-center/CR_4862_Journalism-Task-Force_v2.pdf

nixluva wrote:I have to laugh at how Trump is gonna need the Dems in order to do some of the things he wanted in terms of massive Infrastructure investment. The Republicans BLOCKED every single thing Obama and the Dems tried to do pass in terms of Infrastructure Bills. The only thing they want to spend on is Tax Cuts for the Rich and Big Business and the Military!!! Trump doesn't realize that his party has been totally against such things the last 8 years. His party has been in FAVOR of trade deals too. If he wants to redo those he's gonna need Dems again. This is gonna be a crazy 4 years. LOL

I think he will flip his party..I think they will do the massive spending bills and tax cut...It's going to be a massive free for all in Washington the next four years...Romney, former head of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm wants in by being Secretary of State.. Potentially an avenue to huge international relationships...The "fiscally conservative" republicans house said they wanted earmarks back..Pork barrel spending on deck...They said it's an important way to make deals..Music to Trump's ears...

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:The next time that the Knicks lose to the Warriors or the Cavs we should all protest and demand that they immediately remove the three point line because we made more overall baskets than they did so it's totally unfair to our side.

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." Donald J. Trump, 2012

He was righter than he knew.

Interim Update and Comment
By Van Hoisington and Lacy Hunt
Hoisington Investment Management
November, 2016

The outcome of the national election does not change our view on the trajectory of the economy for the next four to six quarters. Markets are repricing because of the assumption that lower taxes, less regulation
and higher deficit spending will provide a positive demand shock, followed by a surge in inflation. The most potentially dynamic component of the Trump plan is the reduction in tax rates. The plan calls for
a $500 billion decrease in taxes over the next ten years. With a tax multiplier of –2, there would be a lift in economic growth of $1 trillion over the next ten years for an economy that is on a growth path of about $5 trillion over that same time frame. As such the annual growth could be boosted from $500 billion a year to $600 billion. This stimulus will take a considerable amount of time to work through the economy and the positive contribution requires that monetary conditions remain favorable, not adversarial. The Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s are quite instructive on this point. That tax cut was far larger in
relative terms than what is being proposed, and since the federal debt was so much less than it is currently, the tax multiplier was more negative, approximating –3. Additionally, the Reagan tax cuts were being
implemented while interest rates were falling sharply. Even with fiscal and monetary conditions working in tandem, the economy was very slow to respond. The Republicans lost control of the US Senate in the 1984
Congressional elections and their numbers in the House were reduced. Also, Fed Chairman Volcker was required to orchestrate a major decline in the dollar under the Plaza Accord of 1985 and interest rates did
not reach their cyclical low until 1986.

Additionally, initial conditions (which is an economics term for all the other factors that influence economic growth) are negative and have become more negative recently. The economy is extremely overindebted,
turning even more so this year. In the latest statistical year, debt of the four main domestic non-financial sectors increased by $2.2 trillion while GDP gained only $450 billion. Debt of these four
sectors (household, business, Federal and state/local) surged to a new high relative to GDP. This will serve as a restraint on growth for years to come. Also, the economy is in an expansion that is 6 1/2 years
old. This means that pent-up demand for virtually all big ticket items is exhausted – apartments, single family homes, new vehicles, and plant and equipment. Rents are falling as a result of a massive apartment
construction boom. Reflecting a huge stock of new vehicles and significant easing of credit standards, the auto market appears saturated. Vehicle sales for the first ten months of this year have fallen slightly below last year’s sales pace. New and used car prices are down 1.2% over the past year. The residential housing market appears to have topped out even before the sharp recent advance in mortgage yields, which will
place downward pressure on this market.

The recent rise in market interest rates will place downward pressure on the velocity of money (V) and also the rate of growth in the money supply (M). This is not a powerful effect, but it is a negative one. Some
additional saving or less spending will occur, thus giving V a push downward. So, in effect, the markets have tightened monetary conditions without the Fed acting. If the Fed raises rates in December, this
will place some additional downward pressure on both M and V, and hence on nominal GDP. Thus, the markets have reduced the timeliness and potential success of the coming tax reductions.

Another negative initial condition is that the dollar has risen this year, currently trading close to the 13-year high. The highly relevant Chinese yuan has slumped to a seven-year low. These events will force
disinflationary, if not deflationary forces into the US economy. Corporate profits, which had already fallen back to 2011 levels, will be reduced due to several considerations. Pricing power will be reduced, domestic and international market share will be lost and profits of overseas subs will be reduced by currency conversion. Corporate profits on overseas operations will be reduced, but with demand weak and current
profits under downward pressure, the repatriated earnings are likely to go into financial rather than physical investment.

The psychological reaction to Trump’s unexpected victory, along with the worsening initial conditions, means that the upcoming tax package may do little more than contain the additional negative momentum
developing within the economy. Additional deficit spending for infrastructure also carries a negative multiplier. This is confirmed by recent scholarly research. Let’s say, for the purpose of argument, that the
multiplier is a small positive. It will take a long time to develop the preliminary engineering and design work to identify the projects and even longer to hire the contractors. So even if the multiplier were not
negative, the benefit seems to be well into the future.

Markets have a pronounced tendency to rush to judgment when policy changes occur. When the Obama stimulus of 2009 was announced, the presumption was that it would lead to an inflationary boom.
Similarly, the unveiling of QE1 raised expectations of a runaway inflation. Yet, neither happened. The economics are not different now. Under present conditions, it is our judgment that the declining secular
trend in Treasury bond yields remains intact.

I used to smile when I saw politics discussed on UK. I'd think, well, some people think rather differently than I do. Some people are completely hoodwinked. Some people just aren't paying attention. But . . . but . . . overall, as a group, Ultimate Knicks folks are a bit more sensible than the rest of the country--maybe just because they are New Yorkers, but I'll take it--and sometimes it sounds to me like people here listen to each other once in a while and maybe, just maybe, in the long run, it will all be okay. Politics that showed up in UK once in a while made me happier than running into politics elsewhere. (And, whoa, since I basically work in politics, I try pretty hard to ignore politics when I'm not on the clock.)

But, okay, I just read the last 50 pages here and . . . I'm not sure I'm going to do that again any time soon. I just waded through some pretty crazy s**t, stuff that makes wonder if anyone in the whole city has a clue about how the city, the state, the nation run. I mean, yeah, okay, we can argue about Trump but, yo!, the level of complaint here makes me wonder if anyone knows, oh, who's on their community board, what the NY state senate voted on this year, or who our lt. governor might be. I mean so, so, so much energy is spent here on the crazy that I wonder if any is left over for the day-to-day politics that effect our lives (well, at least effect mine) in very direct ways. I mean, yeah, okay, we vote every couple of years for president, senator, and congresspersons but that takes, what?, an hour or two of our time every year?

From my point of view, all this extra energy spent arguing over national politics is a waste all around. Spend even a fraction of that energy on local politics . . . and you'll make a difference in a direct way. Yeah, sure, I get wound up over Trump but beyond voting what can I do about him? Protest, yes. Write letters, yes. But . . . if you feel that what's going on with Trump (for or against) is worth days of your time getting bend out of shape about then . . . spend those days getting appointed to a community board and fight him or help him. Campaign for a congressperson who will help him or fight him. I care--I'd fight Trump--but, whew, my energy, what I have left over outside of the office, is spent on politics and politicians and institutions that I can see and hear, at least once in a while, with my own eyes and ears.

Carry on. Just my two cents. I'm sticking with Knicks ball. As sad as the Knicks are, they aren't quite as sad as reading through this thread :)