Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

It’s because a certain person appears to be taking a break.

TV’s Frink said:

And just to be fair…

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/opinions/trumps-brilliant-choice-of-mcmaster-bergen/

President Donald Trump’s appointment of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to be his national security adviser is a brilliant decision.

McMaster, 54, is the smartest and most capable military officer of his generation, one who has not only led American victories on the battlefields of the 1991 Gulf War and of the Iraq War, but also holds a Ph.D. in history.
McMaster is, in short, both an accomplished doer and a deep thinker, a combination that should serve him well in the complex job of national security adviser.

Except that cannot possibly be true because CNN is fake news.

AA really helped my father. One of the things that impressed me is that the system steers you towards helping others. The groups run everything themselves. It’s not perfect because the members aren’t perfect - they’re struggling to pull each other up by their bootstraps, and making some mistakes along the way. There are groups everywhere, so if you don’t click with one, there’s probably another one a mile or two away.

I read the Vox article and was impressed with how it explained both sides with balance and in good detail.

Many of the arguments posted here for the electoral college are countered by Koza in the debate I posted earlier - in most cases there is data to the contrary. I strongly recommend watching it in its entirety, as many of these arguments - as well as many assumptions posted here about the underlying bases for the EC - are not well founded.

As for the argument that a popular vote would result in some states not having a voice, well, that’s certainly the case now (only it’s a different set of states).

TV’s Frink said:

The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.

Ok, well, there’s someone else whose mind doesn’t apply modus ponens.

I’m not a “pro-gun” person (although I’m not opposed to them if reasonably controlled). But I think that the way that argument goes is that it is easy to get on the “list”, even for very specific issues unrelated to being a threat. And once on the list, it can be hard to get off. Same argument for allowing people on the no-fly list to get guns. Not saying I agree with the argument, just sharing what I’ve heard.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:.

Your solution makes sense but is ultimately just an unnecessary substitute for the real deal: the popular vote.

Unfortunately, I think idea of a popular vote will face too much opposition. Hence my compromise.

National Popular Vote has also proposed a compromise that has already been approved in several states.

An interesting bipartisan organization that has been pushing for the popular vote for many years is called National Popular Vote:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I happen to know about them because its founder happens to be a very famous computer scientist in my area of research, John Koza. When I was a grad student, Koza’s first book on Genetic Programming had just come out (he wrote four). I saw him give technical talks three times, including when he was a guest at our university. Super nice guy who took time with our undergrads and left them quite excited about AI. Koza has in recent years pretty much stopped doing his computer science work to focus on state-by-state popular vote efforts.

There was a wonderful in-depth debate between Koza and James Hulme just two months ago, on c-span. Hulme starts strong, but as it goes on, Koza’s arguments get more and more compelling:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?419679-3/washington-journal-roundtable-electoral-college

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NySAbB2JLII
vs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV0MtVWIN8Y

tough call

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13421/swedish-first-feminist-government-wears-hijab-iran-ben-shapiro#exit-modal

So much for female empowerment.

Yeah, I’m not a fan of that, however any chance I had of reading the full article ended when I got to

fighting for the ability to kill babies in the womb at any stage of pregnancy.

That’s a Ben Shapiro staple. That aside, it’s a good example of how the Swedish government is full of crap on women’s rights.

Puggo has made some posts that argue otherwise and I’m inclined to side with him. His position is certainly better argued than “full of crap.”

The scientific method (of which I am a fan) assures that at any given time I may indeed be “full of crap”. 😃

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

By the same token, I find myself bothered when I see women wearing burqas in the U.S., England, etc. Especially on college campuses… it seems contrary to basic western cultural values, which presumably is part of what attracted them here. For that reason, it seems slightly hostile (even if not their intent) - and exactly how we would be viewed there if our women ambassadors were to refuse to wear a hijab during a visit to their country.

Apparently, you have forgotten that our western culture values freedom of religion and diversity and tolerance for those who do things differently. I have no problem with a woman wearing a burqa as long as she freely chose to do it.

Nonsense - there are many things that “bother” me, and that I view negatively, that I would not want to see banned. Heck, Christianity “bothers” me, but I would never suggest banning it. Both are protected by religious freedom, however kooky I might consider them, and I never would suggest disallowing either (except for adjustments in certain security-related situations, such as boarding a plane or taking a final exam).

Just what kind of adjustments are you talking about?

Usually an accomodation is provided, such as having a female security officer confirm the woman’s face in a private room. At some universities, when they take an exam, their identity is checked by taking them into another room with a female member of staff so they can lift their veil.

Having said that, I still feel that it is somewhat insulting to wear a burqa on a college campus. Colleges are supposed to be about opening oneself, sharing, critical thinking… closing oneself off from all direct interaction, especially since it is just one gender doing it (and one gender with whom they cannot interact), seems anathema to a basic tenant of higher education.

How does wearing a burqa equate to closing oneself off from all direct interaction? Burqas don’t prevent conversation. If Colleges are supposed to be about opening oneself, then be open to those who dress differently than you.

In many cases, the point of the burqa is to eliminate direct interaction with any men who aren’t the husband.

I’m not proposing any policy, just sharing my impression. Perhaps my view will change over time, although that usually requires some sort of discourse, and it is difficult for such discourse to occur since I’m a man and their religion doesn’t allow them to interact with me (which also seems anathema to higher education).

I wasn’t aware that their religion barred them from talking with non-Muslims. If so, how do they ask the professors any questions?

It doesn’t bar interaction with non-muslims. It bars interaction with men. As for your last question, that is exactly my point… and you can extend that to interacting with male students in the same classroom. Many classroom experiences are supposed to be interactive and include group work with diverse students. I think this should apply to everyone. Religious beliefs that bar interacting with certain groups (or genders) are in my opinion inconsistent with the college experience.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

By the same token, I find myself bothered when I see women wearing burqas in the U.S., England, etc. Especially on college campuses… it seems contrary to basic western cultural values, which presumably is part of what attracted them here. For that reason, it seems slightly hostile (even if not their intent) - and exactly how we would be viewed there if our women ambassadors were to refuse to wear a hijab during a visit to their country.

Apparently, you have forgotten that our western culture values freedom of religion and diversity and tolerance for those who do things differently. I have no problem with a woman wearing a burqa as long as she freely chose to do it.

Nonsense - there are many things that “bother” me, and that I view negatively, that I would not want to see banned. Heck, Christianity “bothers” me, but I would never suggest banning it. Both are protected by religious freedom, however kooky I might consider them, and I never would suggest disallowing either (except for adjustments in certain security-related situations, such as boarding a plane or taking a final exam).

Having said that, I still feel that it is somewhat insulting to wear a burqa on a college campus. Colleges are supposed to be about opening oneself, sharing, critical thinking… closing oneself off from all direct interaction, especially since it is just one gender doing it (and one gender with whom they cannot interact), seems anathema to a basic tenant of higher education. I’m not proposing any policy, just sharing my impression. Perhaps my view will change over time, although that usually requires some sort of discourse, and it is difficult for such discourse to occur since I’m a man and their religion doesn’t allow them to interact with me (which also seems anathema to higher education).

A hijab, however, is nowhere near that. I have had many students who wear a hijab, and I have yet to observe any sign of religious oppression, or stifling of discourse therein.

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13421/swedish-first-feminist-government-wears-hijab-iran-ben-shapiro#exit-modal

So much for female empowerment.

I have mixed feelings about this. A hijab isn’t a burqa. On one hand, to many westerners it is a symbol of oppression. But in many religions it is a symbol of respect - including many non-Muslim (even some Christian) religions. Since we are their guests, being respectful of their culture (within reasonable bounds) is simply being polite. Again, they aren’t wearing burqas, it’s simply a scarf and it doesn’t cover the face. Many religions believe that it is disrespectful to show the top of one’s head to god - that is even true for men in many religions.

A colleague of mine frequently visits Saudi Arabia to do accreditation visits for their all-women colleges. These institutions are wellsprings of female technical education and carry the hopes of a better and more empowered future for Saudi women. While she is there, she wears a scarf over the top of her head. Everyone does, including activist women - it’s like wearing a shirt.

As an analogy, consider if in some mythical country, men normally went nude. If their ambassadors came to visit the U.S., would we be OK with that on their visit? Or would we expect them to dress according to the norms of our culture while they are here?

By the same token, I find myself bothered when I see women wearing burqas in the U.S., England, etc. Especially on college campuses… it seems contrary to basic western cultural values, which presumably is part of what attracted them here. For that reason, it seems slightly hostile (even if not their intent) - and exactly how we would be viewed there if our women ambassadors were to refuse to wear a hijab during a visit to their country.

thejediknighthusezni said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

From the article…

Many who do not file tax returns still have taxes deducted from their pay checks. Out of that $11.64 billion total, undocumented immigrants pay $6.9 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes and about $1.1 billion in personal income taxes. ITEP estimated that if America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants were granted citizenship allowing them to work legally, current state and tax contributions would be boosted by over $2.1 billion a year.

How do they get taxes deducted from illegal pay checks? How do fill out tax withholdings forms without a social security number? Also aren’t a lot paychecks to illegal immigrants done under the table, via cash?

I have no problem believing state and tax contriibutions would be boosted by a lot if they were legalized.

I am more interested in the reverse… how would an undocumented worker ever get a refund on their taxes withheld, such as for legitimate work expenses? One article I read said that the average effective state and local tax rate for undocumented workers is 8%, whereas it is only 5.4% for the top 1% of all taxpayers. Another article said that it is likely that the majority of undocumented workers each paid more taxes last year than did Donald Trump.

They don’t pay a fraction of what they cost US taxpayers in welfare, health care, education for their children, criminal justice expenses, the expenses of the US citizens displaced in the job market…

That is an opinion that economists debate, with wildly diverse conclusions.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

From the article…

Many who do not file tax returns still have taxes deducted from their pay checks. Out of that $11.64 billion total, undocumented immigrants pay $6.9 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes and about $1.1 billion in personal income taxes. ITEP estimated that if America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants were granted citizenship allowing them to work legally, current state and tax contributions would be boosted by over $2.1 billion a year.

How do they get taxes deducted from illegal pay checks? How do fill out tax withholdings forms without a social security number? Also aren’t a lot paychecks to illegal immigrants done under the table, via cash?

I have no problem believing state and tax contriibutions would be boosted by a lot if they were legalized.

I am more interested in the reverse… how would an undocumented worker ever get a refund on their taxes withheld, such as for legitimate work expenses? One article I read said that the average effective state and local tax rate for undocumented workers is 8%, whereas it is only 5.4% for the top 1% of all taxpayers. Another article said that it is likely that the majority of undocumented workers each paid more taxes last year than did Donald Trump.

Warbler said:
They do not pay taxes, yet…

That simply isn’t true. They pay a huge amount of taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/10/06/how-much-tax-do-americas-undocumented-immigrants-actually-pay-infographic/#4abfc75f640e

I found the IMDB forums useful for looking up obscure information. Unfortunately, many forums are shutting down as they are becoming a less and less justifiable cost and liability to moderate with so many trolls and bots.

The whole immigration debate is over-simplified. It’s so easy to lay it all on the undocumented worker - he/she broke the law. But the U.S. is totally complicit. There are enormous financial incentives for them to come, and for big agribusiness to hire them, and to maintain this as the status quo. Heck, it’s our nation’s breadbasket – and what politician is willing to incur the political fallout of rising food prices and angry big growers, by fixing a broken immigration system and stemming the steady stream of cheap labor that provides so much low-cost skilled farm labor?

People don’t realize how skilled these migrant workers are, and how much they get done for such low pay. They don’t just pick. They do the pruning, and care for the orchards. And just try picking grapes - you’ll be lucky to last one day (I know this first hand).

I hate seeing these struggling people used as political fodder. The politicians huff and puff, and act all big deporting some mother from the midwest, all to cheering followers who’ve been convinced they are the cause of all of our nation’s ills. All while doing nothing of substance. Why else do every one of our presidents end up granting amnesty to thousands of undocumented workers? It’s a sick game and the most unfortunate are the pawns, IMHO.

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Even when that’s the case, it’s not the kids’ fault and it’s shitty to take their parents away if the parents did nothing illegal beyond coming to this country.

It’s such a grey area. I’m really not sure where I come down on the topic myself. It’s a terrible thing, but illegal is illegal… but at the same time, the kids shouldn’t lose their parents… but you can’t deport the kids… but you can’t just be letting people come in illegally and have kids and stay and take precedent over those people who are working their way through legal channels because that encourages it…

It’s a really complex topic that there’s really no right answer for, to be honest. Personally, what I think is that we need to focus on is working on making our immigration system more expedient, and more importantly, helping to elevate Mexico into a country that people don’t feel the need to flee), for a start.

I agree that it’s complicated in many ways, but not for this particular point…I just don’t believe it’s right to separate mother or father and children if that’s the only crime they’ve committed, full stop.

I fully agree that deportation and separation would cause more problems than it would “solve” but also there can’t be no consequences in my mind, not deportation, but something to make it unattractive to future immigrants. Call it cruel, but laws is laws.

agreed. I like my idea of a hefty fine.

And then what? Pay a fine every time she checks in?

I agree with Trump on this one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-israel-settlement-growth-not-good-peace-104054406.html

Of course, he had previously berated Obama for saying the same thing. But I’m glad he’s considering a more nuanced approach.

Jetrell Fo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Jetrell Fo said:

http://joeforamerica.com/2017/02/lady-death-sniper-branded-a-terrorist-after-fightin-jihadis/

Difficult article to read… the author has such enthusiasm but there is lots of missing info. What is her home country? Which “travel ban” is it talking about? Who exactly is calling her a terrorist? Would Trump’s ban allow her into the U.S.?

I believe Denmark is calling her a terrorist and I think she is Danish. She broke a travel ban to enter Syria to fight ISIL as the article states.

A more thorough and less simplistic report of the story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/joanna-palani-danish-kurdish-woman-ypg-peshmerga-iraq-syria-fighting-isis-faces-jail-passport-police-a7471266.html

Jetrell Fo said:

http://joeforamerica.com/2017/02/lady-death-sniper-branded-a-terrorist-after-fightin-jihadis/

Difficult article to read… the author has such enthusiasm but there is lots of missing info. What is her home country? Which “travel ban” is it talking about? Who exactly is calling her a terrorist? Would Trump’s ban allow her into the U.S.?

Jetrell Fo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

I just love how anything that makes Trump look bad is automatically fake news.

Trump unabashedly insults people and calls them names. In the very first republican debate, the first words out of his mouth were that all the politicians were “stupid”. Although maybe he was right – name-calling has proven to be effective.

It seems effective here too.

Of course it’s effective here, and many other places. What is new is that Trump has shown it to be a desirable trait in a presidential candidate. We are about to learn if it is a desirable trait in a sitting president of the U.S. It may be, although I fear it won’t be.

TV’s Frink said:

I just love how anything that makes Trump look bad is automatically fake news.

Trump unabashedly insults people and calls them names. In the very first republican debate, the first words out of his mouth were that all the politicians were “stupid”. Although maybe he was right – name-calling has proven to be effective.