Jump to content
270soft Forum

servo75

Members
  • Content Count

    801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by servo75

  1. I do partially agree, in that businesses who hire illegal immigrants should be punished, it isn't even a matter of "exploitation" or not. I wonder, would your mind be changed if the illegal immigrants were getting cushy jobs, paid $60K a year with full benefits? Just curious. The thing I do take issue with is the exploitation part. My biggest pet peeve, being in the computer industry, is the dreaded H1-B visa. These are given out to corporations for the sole stated purpose of hiring cheaper labor from overseas. And I would agree that they are exploited (even though some of them have good whit
  2. Not a bad move but is puzzling to me. Might shave a couple points off his base but could bring in some of the crucial Hispanic vote. I still believe though that most American born and naturalized Hispanics, as well as all naturalized citizens who did things the right way, are strongly against illegal immigration.
  3. Like which ones? I find it hard to believe that Real Clear Politics has a right-wing bias, they seem to have a good and fair mix and are often cited by news media. 538 gives poor grades to Rasmussen, and also to Trafalgar Group which was the only poll in 2016 to correctly predict Trump winning Michigan. Can't help notice that the polls where Trump does better are also the ones graded lower by 538.
  4. Well I'm not trying to convince you I admit I have some bias but I don't think there's anything wholly unreasonable about it.
  5. Not consistently. I took a quick look at OH, PA, FL, AZ, TX, MI, and NC. The RCP averages for those states right now are: 0, -6.5, -5, -3.5, +2.5, -7.5, -3.3 respectively. And only in Ohio is there a recent downward trend. Minnesota, a state I was hoping would turn red this year is at -16.5 but there hasn't been much there and the most recent poll is a month old. Only looking at the polls in the last 30 days, Florida ranges from -6 to even. Ohio has only one poll which is -1. PA and MI do look worrisome, ranging from -10 to -5 and -13 to -1 respectively. Wisconsin is all over the pla
  6. Overcorrection for sure.
  7. Well you had me at 100% agreement there.... Bush? I seem to remember him, 911 response aside, going out of his way to call Islam a "religion of peace." I also abhor racial profiling in general unless it makes sense in a specific situation. If a crime occurs and witnesses give an honest description of the perpetrator, it makes sense to look for someone with that description. If there have been a wave of Islamic terror attacks in an area, and another occurs, investigators would be wise to look at mosques in that area first. As long as it's not based on blanket stereotypes. I'm not
  8. I was only responding to that individual post, not your 14,000 others. If I mis-represented what you were talking about, then I'm sorry. But there are certainly many people who do support stereotypes against conservatives but then get literal when it comes to liberals. That type of hypocrisy does exist out there, even if it's not what you were meaning to convey. Another example: When a white cop kills a black suspect, it's proof that all cops are racist, yet when a radical Muslim slaughters 50 people at a nightclub, we "shouldn't blame all Muslims." I apologize if I implied YOU thought that if
  9. At what rate do blacks kill other blacks? And by the way, blacks commit way more crimes proportionately than whites do and more whites were killed last year by cops than blacks were. I might have a little more sympathy for BLM's cause if they were a little more consistent. They don't care about black babies being aborted. There were black police officers and business owners injured, killed, or ruined during those riots and not a single tear for them. It seems that black lives matter to them only if they're killed by white police officers, then they can use that as a pretext for looting and ri
  10. Well, -4 is a statistical tie, an a tie is not the same thing as a win. I'd be more comfortable with -2 or higher. Also I'm not just betting margin of error. There are other factors that I mentioned. The underpolling and underresponding of Trump voters is worth 3-4, registered vs. unlikely voters is tougher to estimate, but then you have the margin of error of 2-3, so when you add that all up it's about 8 points. Half of 8 is 4, which is where I get that number from. I'm not saying 8 points is a tie, the margin of error could still be in Biden's favor. But until I see multiple polls down by mo
  11. I'm old enough to remember a certain incident where two individual cops kill a black person, and that turns into "all cops in the nation as systemically racist so we need to defund the police", then set cities on fire, and topple statues? Is that the kind of generalization you're talking about? Because two can play at that. That's exactly what the media tried to do to the Tea Party. They found the ONE person wearing a Nazi costume (who incidentally was escorted out by the Tea Party moments later), they find the one or two rednecks and use that as an example of all Tea Partiers or all Trum
  12. I'd love to see many more legitimate (as in winnable) parties in the United States. I'd love to see a Congress where no party has a majority and parties would be forced to reach across the aisle and form coalitions. The two-party duopoly is the biggest thing responsible for bad governance and political disinterest in this country. Or even better yet, abolish all political parties. People wouldn't be able to vote on party lines anymore and might *shocker* actually have to research candidates. I started working on a PMI scenario titled "United States Parliament" where we had 5 or 6 parties compe
  13. Sounds reasonable. I might even settle for just the citizenship exam. I don't think that being on assistance disqualifies someone. Yet we could give all of them free IDs mailed to their homes and that still wouldn't be enough for some.
  14. I didn't say literary tests. I said civics tests. When I see college "educated" kids of all races who are unable to tell us how many states there are, that presents a major problem. How can one make a wise decision who should lead a government if they don't know how that government works? Jim Crow laws were intended to keep blacks from voting at a time when education was "separate but equal." Do you know of some reason in the year 2020 why someone's skin color would prevent them from naming the three branches of government? I can't think of one. The Constitution says voting cannot be denied sp
  15. He and Obama both greatly expanded the practice of spying on U.S. citizens, there's no excuse for either. A new amendment should greatly limit this ability, and make it illegal to collect data on Americans who are not reasonably suspected of a crime. Not sure how to word that. In theory the 4th Amendment should cover that, but perhaps should be updated or clarified.
  16. Exactly right. People like him are the reason that the GOP lost the house (even though he himself is in the Senate). The GOP has, I believe, better principles in theory, but they don't act on them, they cave in way too often, and do a HORRIBLE job in communicating those principles.
  17. Ah there's the rub. When I say everything else, I'm talking about things that people and private enterprise CAN accomplish without government. Of course those hands should be ethical and moral and efficient and competent, and it's possible to have all of those. The way I see it, private control means competition. If you're treated horribly at the DMV, well what are you going to do, go that alternate DMV down the street? Here in Washington the motor vehicle services are run by a public/private partnership and there is a vast improvement from what I experienced in New Jersey. But if a system is
  18. It's not a fee to be allowed to vote. Voting is free. Voter ID costs money and is needed for hundreds of things besides just voting. For example, driving a car, which you have to buy insurance for. So do people pay a fee to drive? I suppose so, yes. Even when offered ways to get free IDs, Democrats still balk at it. "Third; many jurisdictions have made getting an ID difficult with the specific purpose of disenfranchising poor people and minorities." Could you quote some of those laws that have disenfranchisement as their stated and intended purpose?
  19. Because this: It makes voter fraud more likely, and really helps their get-out-the-vote campaign for the dead. This whole "voter ID requirement = racism" is a laughable sham. We need voter ID to do 100 other things in this country, and to say that blacks aren't capable of getting IDs is racist in and of itself. If "getting out the vote" is so important, then you'd find one afternoon a four year period to get off your couch and get down to a motor vehicle agency. These are the same people who were prattling on about "integrity of our election process" when accusing Trump of colluding
  20. I'm okay as long as their legal permanent residents and can pass the citizenship exam. But you must at least show legal permanent status (not visa), pass a civics exam, and be resident in the United States for 5 years or more. At a very minimum. Someone who is not a U.S. national shouldn't have a say in the government of a country that they are only visiting and/or are not in legally.
  21. Well... we could always just have the civics exam. If we find a 16 year old who can name the three branches of government I guess she can vote
  22. While I liked the speech's content I think the problem for Trump is that his speeches like this are great, but he doesn't act on it. It's one thing to say, "Mt. Rushmore will never be desecrated." Never is a strong word, and he can't possibly guarantee that. If his campaign gets that message to the undecideds (I think 90% of people viewing that speech would vote him no matter what, but maybe you're the exception that proves the rule), he's got a good chance of spreading it, but I grow weary of all this preaching to the choir stuff. He needs to SHOW some action against this thuggery instead of
  23. I wouldn't even necessary say that Reagan was a cult President. You also left out JFK though I don't think his cult status was until after he died. Then again, I wasn't alive back then. I really have to question that 33% independent support number. And if you have influential figures in the TV media, news media, Hollywood, sports, schools and colleges constantly telling you how horrible a person is, yeah that person is going to suffer bad ratings because of it. But as we found out in 2004 and 2012, low approval ratings aren't enough to get someone out of office, you have to have someone w
×
×
  • Create New...