[ IMAGES: Images OFF turn on | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 140 of 279 « First‹ Previous 138  139  140  141  142 Next ›Last »
Topic LOCKED
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/26/2016  3:55 PM
holfresh wrote:
gr33d wrote:
holfresh wrote:
gr33d wrote:
holfresh wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:

Open up your ears and listen

Michael Moore has been crying from the rooftops to liberals trying to explain the Trump phenomenon and warning that he could certainly win. But he isn't endorsing Trump. He endorsed Clinton.

Maybe hsi words will resonate with people who btch about the status quo but also ACCEPT the status quo. I mean whats a world like without 20mm illegal immigrants sitting in our hospitals driving up health care costs and not paying taxes. Whats a world like with less drugs poring into the Southern border so our children can consume them. Yeah go vote for Hillary and well--dont btch about anything else cause I cant here ya and that goes for 1/2 the nation. Go fck with the upper middle class and elitists--theyre helping everyone else our right. :)

Illegal immigrants not paying taxes???..They are paying more tax than Trump, who wants to deport them..But please, educate yourself, look at the numbers...Just looking a the courts, it would cost between 400 billion to 600 billion to deport 11 million illegal immigrants...And the hit to our economy???..Glad you asked...

"Overall, removing all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector output to decline by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion. This translates to a 2.9 percent to 4.7 percent reduction in total annual output from the private sector."

http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants-study-2016-5

This article is just focusing on dollars lost from the output of illegal workers...


What is the cost of illegal immigrants in terms of health care?

Illegal immigrants who have (free of charge) anchor babies in the US are also entitled to free formula, medication, foods stamps.

Then comes education- which is completely free, as well as lunch programs, after school care, etc.

Were any of these costs factored into the article? No chance.

Wait until these undocumented immigrants have papers and now want access to unemployment, federal/state tax refunds and social security that they were previously not entitled to...

Undocumented(illegal) workers don't have access to healthcare outside the emergency room...There are various studies out there that skew the numbers based on party politics...Conservatives say the cost to the US economy is 100 billion per year...But they say it's because of healthcare, which illegal immigrants don't have and they say it because they don't pay taxes, which 50% of them do indeed pay taxes..So the figures you get depends on the source...

Let's be honest though...

How can anyone say illegal immigrants don't have healthcare, when they use hospitals as though they're primary care physicians?

The healthcare to provided to their children- is 100% free.

And let's say we all agreed that 50% pay taxes... How many of those 50% paying, are filing with correct amount of deductions because there is no consequence?

Furthermore- money used from Obamacare to help fund the healthcare of undocumented immigrants is a slap in the face.

Wait until these undocumented immigrants have papers and now want access to unemployment, federal/state tax refunds and social security that they were previously not entitled to...

If we are going to be honest, then you can't get unemployment unless you accrue unemployment and you are paying unemployment insurance, you can't get a federal or state refund unless you are paying taxes and you can't get social security unless you have accrue a social security payment...

In terms of health insurance, they use the emergency rooms of the hospitals..They can't get further treatment without health insurance...

And it's not like that's just for illegal immigrants. If you're vacationing from another country and you have no insurance, you get emergency room care. We as a country have decided that we want to save human life whenever possible in cases of emergency under all circumstances.
AUTOADVERT
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081
10/26/2016  3:58 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
holfresh wrote:
gr33d wrote:
holfresh wrote:
gr33d wrote:
holfresh wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:

Open up your ears and listen

Michael Moore has been crying from the rooftops to liberals trying to explain the Trump phenomenon and warning that he could certainly win. But he isn't endorsing Trump. He endorsed Clinton.

Maybe hsi words will resonate with people who btch about the status quo but also ACCEPT the status quo. I mean whats a world like without 20mm illegal immigrants sitting in our hospitals driving up health care costs and not paying taxes. Whats a world like with less drugs poring into the Southern border so our children can consume them. Yeah go vote for Hillary and well--dont btch about anything else cause I cant here ya and that goes for 1/2 the nation. Go fck with the upper middle class and elitists--theyre helping everyone else our right. :)

Illegal immigrants not paying taxes???..They are paying more tax than Trump, who wants to deport them..But please, educate yourself, look at the numbers...Just looking a the courts, it would cost between 400 billion to 600 billion to deport 11 million illegal immigrants...And the hit to our economy???..Glad you asked...

"Overall, removing all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector output to decline by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion. This translates to a 2.9 percent to 4.7 percent reduction in total annual output from the private sector."

http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants-study-2016-5

This article is just focusing on dollars lost from the output of illegal workers...


What is the cost of illegal immigrants in terms of health care?

Illegal immigrants who have (free of charge) anchor babies in the US are also entitled to free formula, medication, foods stamps.

Then comes education- which is completely free, as well as lunch programs, after school care, etc.

Were any of these costs factored into the article? No chance.

Wait until these undocumented immigrants have papers and now want access to unemployment, federal/state tax refunds and social security that they were previously not entitled to...

Undocumented(illegal) workers don't have access to healthcare outside the emergency room...There are various studies out there that skew the numbers based on party politics...Conservatives say the cost to the US economy is 100 billion per year...But they say it's because of healthcare, which illegal immigrants don't have and they say it because they don't pay taxes, which 50% of them do indeed pay taxes..So the figures you get depends on the source...

Let's be honest though...

How can anyone say illegal immigrants don't have healthcare, when they use hospitals as though they're primary care physicians?

The healthcare to provided to their children- is 100% free.

And let's say we all agreed that 50% pay taxes... How many of those 50% paying, are filing with correct amount of deductions because there is no consequence?

Furthermore- money used from Obamacare to help fund the healthcare of undocumented immigrants is a slap in the face.

Wait until these undocumented immigrants have papers and now want access to unemployment, federal/state tax refunds and social security that they were previously not entitled to...

If we are going to be honest, then you can't get unemployment unless you accrue unemployment and you are paying unemployment insurance, you can't get a federal or state refund unless you are paying taxes and you can't get social security unless you have accrue a social security payment...

In terms of health insurance, they use the emergency rooms of the hospitals..They can't get further treatment without health insurance...

And it's not like that's just for illegal immigrants. If you're vacationing from another country and you have no insurance, you get emergency room care. We as a country have decided that we want to save human life whenever possible in cases of emergency under all circumstances.

Exactly and we would want the same for us should we travel overseas with or without insurance...Well some of us at least...
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  4:24 PM
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I like how you give me homework when you don't answer the questions except to say the source was invalid. Yet, another distraction. his article is sourced a lot.

I promised to return to the topic and here I am. No distraction. Just a pause... not sure why taking a breath to be better informed is problematic.

The NY Times piece was journalism (ironic, given how they'r the pocket of the Clinton campaign). The other two pieces were OP/EDs. I didn't want to have to filter through the conclusions and fill-in-the-blanks of the Huffington Post piece (ironically, another source in the tank of the left wing MSM).

So okay, back to the topic at hand rather than the pointless rhetorical point scoring.

The relative info that I get from this article is the connection between Podesta, the selling of Uranium to Russia, HRC, WJC Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation based on favors done while she was SOS.

The article is about Podesta and the Clintons and the Foundation making money on selling Uranium to a Russia based company. If you are inferring...

What I get from the articles is the inference that the events detailed in the articles are all inter-connected and in fact quid pro quo. The HP piece is pretty clear (but confidently) it is assuming the connection, with the thesis that Clinton agreeing with the intelligence community that Russia is behind the hack is evidence she is trying to cover up the inference he makes, which is dubious logic.

The piece is frankly tough to read if you have any knowledge of journalistic standards.

The Times details the details in far greater, clearer fashion with less editorializing but stops short of drawing conclusions.

That is my take on the articles I was glad to read in order to have a more informed conversation with you.

Do we differ in our takes so far to any significant degree?

Do we yet know the finding of the DOJ-FBI investigation ad reported in the third August piece?

If you're asking me to draw a conclusive as to what did or did not happen, i don't think by now you'll be surprised I remain agnostic. Obviously the FBI and DOJ believe there is enough there to warrant investigating. I wouldn't second guess them.

I can tell you this now, if they do find impropriety or illegal activity, nothing I read just now has convinced me they'll have reached a wrong conclusion.

Similarly, however, I don't think you'll be surprised I'm not going to preemptively reach a conclusion in the other direction sans an investigation based on 3 press articles.

If you've convinced something happened based on the same articles I just read and preemptively reject any conclusion reached by the FBI-DoJ not your own, you and I are going to have little common frame of reference on the topic.

The only way I can explain that in my life my professional life I have come to think and process like the Times reported.

You're free to criticize that as you like.

In my view, they are equally dangerous. He is not POTUS material. She is disqualified to because, at the very least, she had an unsecured email server in her bathroom at home and on that server, classified info was stored. Anybody that classically stupid or arrogant, should not be POTUS.

As I say, binary choice.

As for me, I'll take the candidate who demonstrates the intellectual and temperamental capacity to learn from a bad mistake and whose motivations to be a public servant are clear and documented, as opposed to the candidate who has made it clear she or he is incapable or unwilling to second-guess themselves, to acknowledge and correct mistakes, and whose primary motivating force is nakedly a sense of self.

I'm confident you'll immediately recognize whom I'm referring to, respectively, by those descriptions alone.

Did I get my homework in on time?

I'm certain I spent more time reading the Times article and writing this response than you did finding it. Unless you hadn't already the Times piece, in which case I think I simply helped us both become better informed and better versed in the topic.

So be snarky all you like, I think that's a good thing.
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
10/26/2016  4:37 PM
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
Welpee wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Vmart wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Vmart wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:Hope you and your families stay healthy next year cuz Obamacare is going to double in premiums--you sckers want to pay more in taxes and healthcare while illegal immigrants pay zilch---real F smart.

I agree with you. I don't want to pay more Taxes and definitely Obamacare is horrid.

And this is why Trump supporters get made fun of. Not because we know what your IQ is or your level of education (we don't know or care).

But because of the stupid things you say publicly without realizing they're stupid.

This what Democrates do best jump on a pedestal thinking they know all. Who here likes to pay more taxes. Obamacare is an experience I'm living with so I know it to be horrid. It's the experience I had between my old insurance and this current one. I mentioned nothing about voting for anyone simple put it is a statement.

You replied affirmatively to a statement that clearly indicates a misunderstanding of what the Affordable Care Act is, how it works, and what was just announced.

But if you have firsthand experience with the ACA, why not share your experience? Why did you move from our old plan to 'Obamacare.' I'd be interested in your story.

And not for nothing but who here likes to pay more taxes is a pointless platitude.

What I want is to pay my fair share of taxes (which I actually do want to pay so I can drive over bridges and not swim across rivers and my parents can benefit from medicaid. I don't think I'd like a tax-free society. What also I want is for my taxes to be uses as efficiently as possible.

"Less" simply has no value other than shortsighted self-interest.

I understand it's suppose to be affordable but it's not working for me as my old insurance was as affordable and it cover most everything. The deductibles along are to costly. My insurance covers only 75% my old one covered 80% no deductible.

I assume switching was not your choice?

How come? What forced the switch?

I assume you don't qualify for the subsidies?

Not at all my choice. I was insured through my wife. The company she worked for got sold for $10 billion to another company. She worked in a lab the new company shut the lab down and sent it out to London. Basically putting a lot of people out of work. Our jobs going over seas yeah they are saw it first hand. This is on Long Island.

Needed insurance I'm self employed so Obamacare. She gets an offer in Dallas as a contract worker they don't give insurance to contract workers so Obamacare.

So I'm genuinely asking here. It sounds like before the affordable care act, the options in your situation would be to be uninsured or paying for private health care, and as a former freelancer years ago, I know that is extremely expensive.

I'm sympathetic your plan on the exchange isn't as good as your wife's formerly employer provided plan. But as a matter of policy are you suggesting the ACA should be repealed taking away that option or that it should be improved (or written better originally)?

Yeah, I don't get it either. The comparison shouldn't be between his wife's old insurance and Obamacare. It should be between what his options would've been before Obamacare vs. what's available to him now. I bet if that was examined he'd realize he's better off with Obamacare vs. being out there trying to get insurance on his own without it or just rolling the dice being uninsured.

I don't think you guys are understanding employers now don't have to provide insurance they simply get you to sign a waiver opting out of insurance. Then your basically sent to Obamacare. The comparison between the previous insurance and Obamacare illustrates that it was better when the employer provide the insurance. You got more coverage and no deductibles.

There is an employer mandate provision in Obamacare...Before Obamacare, small business didn' have to provide insurance...

The ObamaCare Employer Mandate / Employer Penalty, originally set to begin in 2014, was delayed until 2015 / 2016. ObamaCare’s “employer mandate” is a requirement that all businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees (FTE) provide health insurance to at least 95% of their full-time employees and dependents up to age 26, or pay a fee by 2016. Below we clarify how each aspect of the mandate affects employees and employers.

I really don't see how Obama care (under any president) can work. I am living in Germany and they have a mostly-social medical system. It works here but the costs for trips to the doctors, treatments, drugs, etc. are probably half that of those in the States (I know doctors are much more expensive in the States and that the pharmaceutical industry sort of sells drugs for whatever price they choose - I'm exaggerating but relatively speaking, America is a different beast). To have everyone get the same healthcare with double plus the cost one finds in America, would bankrupt the system. I just don't see how it can work.

I love the idea of everyone having healthcare, but we have to fix the cost side of the equation first. Obamacare seems like a great idea of a Trojan Horse which will bankrupt the system.

Also, more affordable but natural medicines and care should be more of an option.

While we reel in the cost side (I have no idea how that gets done), what are the 20 million without healthcare suppose to do? Just keep waiting similar to trickle down economics?

I think we have more than those 2 options? What have they been doing? What were they doing before Obamacare? I mean, if you throw an absolute argument like you did out there, what is the point?
But the government generally foots the bill for those at the poverty level.

TBH - I don't understand how so many have no healthcare. Here in Germany, the average cost is probably around 300 Euro per month per person. When I was living in America, I could get basic healthcare for 1/2 that easy. Not sure where costs have gone though.


You say the above to one poster that you can get healthcare in the US for half the price in Germany easily then say it cost double than in Germany.
To have everyone get the same healthcare with double plus the cost one finds in America, would bankrupt the system. I just don't see how it can work.

I said "I could get basic healcare for 1/2 that easy." So, not as fully covered but at least if you have an accident or the like you are somewhat protected, higher deductables, etc.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  4:40 PM
BRIGGS wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:

Open up your ears and listen

Michael Moore has been crying from the rooftops to liberals trying to explain the Trump phenomenon and warning that he could certainly win. But he isn't endorsing Trump. He endorsed Clinton.

Maybe hsi words will resonate with people who btch about the status quo but also ACCEPT the status quo. I mean whats a world like without 20mm illegal immigrants sitting in our hospitals driving up health care costs and not paying taxes. Whats a world like with less drugs poring into the Southern border so our children can consume them. Yeah go vote for Hillary and well--dont btch about anything else cause I cant here ya and that goes for 1/2 the nation. Go fck with the upper middle class and elitists--theyre helping everyone else our right. :)

Briggs, it is you who linked to Moore's words but either didn't understand them or more frighteningly ... did.

Moore is describing how Trump is purposely radicalizing these people. He is talking Trump feeding into and stoking extremism for his own gain.

Radical extremism is supposed to be one of our biggest threats as a nation.

Moore is accurately talking about Trump leading this movement, and you're endorsing it.
reub
Posts: 21836
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2016
Member: #6227
10/26/2016  4:43 PM
The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  4:48 PM
earthmansurfer wrote:I don't see Trump as wanting to get into politics, I see him as being forced into politics due to the levels of corruption he has witnessed and he see's the country slipping away.

Riiiight... because he didn't run for President in 2000 and because his selfless motivation to seek was held in check and not all that compelling to him for another 16 years.

Alrighty...
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
10/26/2016  4:50 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/26/2016  4:54 PM
reub wrote:The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?

Actually, not a coincidence at all.


The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  4:57 PM
reub wrote:Why isn't he POTUS material? Because he hasn't been in the government his whole life? To me that's a good thing. He has run multi-billion dollar businesses and has the energy of 1000 Hillarys.

I feel like this is a like a deaf and a blind person trying to discuss film.

Both can do so but their frame of reference is to radically different there is not common vernacular.

Some of us see Trump and see someone with the intellect and temperament of a ill-behaved child. I'm not exaggerating or embellishing. He is a literal buffoon and worse, mentally unhealthy.

How others can see him and not see this is foreign to us. That through someone else's eyes he appears as a respectable, competent figure is literally inconceivable.

It's like watching someone hysterically laugh at a Larry the Cable Guy direct-to-video movie. I can the film and see the person having an utterly different reaction than me, but trying to see what they are seeing is impossible. It's playing different in their heads.

That aside, when you simply regurgitate a talking point like he has more "energy" than Clinton (because he says so), it is difficult not to ridicule it.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/26/2016  5:15 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/26/2016  5:17 PM
reub wrote:The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?

I'm not seeing any evidence for this. What polls are you referring to?! The last TWENTY polls listed in real clear politics 4-way race have Hillary with a lead - with just a couple of them within the margin of error.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/26/2016  5:19 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/26/2016  5:24 PM
Associated Press Poll has Hillary at +14!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  5:23 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:Associated Press Poll has Hillary at +14!

Sorry, I'm equal opportunity when it comes to stuff like this.

Don't quote one poll like it means something. Like it makes a good point.

Clinton is not going to win by 14 points.

This just makes the poll deniers case for them.

Next favorable poll for Trump they'll do the same.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/26/2016  5:28 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:Associated Press Poll has Hillary at +14!

Sorry, I'm equal opportunity when it comes to stuff like this.

Don't quote one poll like it means something. Like it makes a good point.

Clinton is not going to win by 14 points.

This just makes the poll deniers case for them.

Next favorable poll for Trump they'll do the same.


Yeah, I was posting it just for fun but you're right. I wasn't saying she'd actually win by 14
reub
Posts: 21836
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2016
Member: #6227
10/26/2016  6:46 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/26/2016  6:46 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?

I'm not seeing any evidence for this. What polls are you referring to?! The last TWENTY polls listed in real clear politics 4-way race have Hillary with a lead - with just a couple of them within the margin of error.

Remington Research Poll

Ohio Trump +4
NC Trump +3
Nev Trump +2
Fl Tied
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  6:56 PM
reub wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?

I'm not seeing any evidence for this. What polls are you referring to?! The last TWENTY polls listed in real clear politics 4-way race have Hillary with a lead - with just a couple of them within the margin of error.

Remington Research Poll

Ohio Trump +4
NC Trump +3
Nev Trump +2
Fl Tied

Or...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Which accounts for all 4.
meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801
10/26/2016  7:01 PM
It's actually a 3 way race between Billary (two people who act like one) and the Trumps (one person who acts like two)

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/26/2016  7:03 PM
reub wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?

I'm not seeing any evidence for this. What polls are you referring to?! The last TWENTY polls listed in real clear politics 4-way race have Hillary with a lead - with just a couple of them within the margin of error.

Remington Research Poll

Ohio Trump +4
NC Trump +3
Nev Trump +2
Fl Tied


A few points:
-None of those are states Hillary needs. They have her leading in Colorado, PA, VA, and Wisconsin, which would be plenty for her to win the election.
-If a race has stayed roughly the same over the past few weeks, just by chance you'll have a few states where each candidate is gaining momentum. It's likely random fluctuation.
-There's growing consensus among statisticians that it makes much more sense to look at national polling than state polling, for a few reasons. 1 - It's pretty rare (like once a century) that the winner of the popular vote loses the election. 2 - the methodology, sample sizes, and number of available polls are much better at the national than state level. (You're relying on one polling organization in just a few of states. That looks like cherry picking.) The obsession with a couple of states is just the media's attempt to create more excitement. If Hillary really is up nationally by anywhere near the polling average of 6 points, there's no way she'll lose the electoral college. Even if she's up by just 2 points, there's no way.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
10/26/2016  7:05 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/26/2016  7:06 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
reub wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:The polls are starting to become more accurate and less biased as usually happens near the end. And Trump is starting to take the lead. Coincidence?

I'm not seeing any evidence for this. What polls are you referring to?! The last TWENTY polls listed in real clear politics 4-way race have Hillary with a lead - with just a couple of them within the margin of error.

Remington Research Poll

Ohio Trump +4
NC Trump +3
Nev Trump +2
Fl Tied

Or...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Which accounts for all 4.


And in case reub or anyone else doesn't know, Nate Silver (who runs that site) got all 50 states right in 2012.
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
10/26/2016  7:15 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/26/2016  7:16 PM
Bonn1997 wrote: 2 - the methodology, sample sizes, and number of available polls are much better at the national than state level. (You're relying on one polling organization in just a few of states. That looks like cherry picking.)

And in case reub or anyone else doesn't know, Nate Silver (who runs that site) got all 50 states right in 2012.

Silver actually puts greater emphasis on state polling, or actually more accurately, demographic polling. As I linked to and detailed yesterday. His model looks for states that have historical demographic voting similarities. He uses correlation, smoothing out areas where there isn't a lot of polling.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
10/26/2016  7:19 PM
58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

RIP Crushalot😞
Page 140 of 279 « First‹ Previous 138  139  140  141  142 Next ›Last »
Topic LOCKED
Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy