Moderator: Jon Estes
Bruce Gourley wrote:Why did Trump win? Here is an interesting analysis based on data.
And economic angst is not the answer.
Sandy wrote:Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.
The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.
Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.
KeithE wrote:Bruce Gourley wrote:Why did Trump win? Here is an interesting analysis based on data.
And economic angst is not the answer.
Real DATA strikes again!
And your Myths and Realities of Islamic Terrorism article in Nurturing Faith (May-June edition) started out with some DATA from the CATO Institute as well. Not available to non-subscribers but those of you that get Nurturing Faith can read it.
Here is more of the CATO Institute DATA (not in Bruce's article) on the cause of deaths in America (read http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1)
Minimize screen to see whole chart. You will discover that there is a 1 in 45,808 lifetime chance of being killed by any foreign-born terrorist. There are 33 other causes of death more potent than foreign born terrorists - none of which were campaigned on by Trump.
Race and fear of foreign-born terrorism were the “Trump” cards (false though they be).
Sandy wrote:Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.
The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.
Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.
Jon Estes wrote:
Take out the ways people die that are not directly caused by the specific choice of another to kill someone. It is dumb to use such data when most of these deaths are clearly oranges to the apple of terrorism.
Oh, such data will not make the point you want to make... I understand why it is used.
Jon Estes wrote:Sandy wrote:Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.
The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.
Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.
When does the whining stop. Trump didn't make or break the system to win. The seasoned... best candidate since sliced bread... the unbeatable / unsinkable / political "how to play the game superior" thought more votes was enough. ROFL. If that is the best the Dems had, good thing Trump won.
I bet Clinton would have graciously received and even honestly thanked every racist the article is trying to paint as evil, if she would have gotten their votes.
How many "we want cops dead now" ... "fry them like bacon" votes did HRC get? All of them.
I guess each candidate got votes from people we politically, socially and culturally disagree with.
Trump is President.
Sandy wrote:On the other hand, it's getting more difficult to explain to students why a couple of disciplinary write-ups prevents someone from being inducted into the national honor society of their Christian school, but it's OK for adults who claim to be Christians to vote to put an adulterous, corrupt, potty-mouthed, genital grabbing, strip club and casino owning jack*** in the White House.
Sandy wrote:Jon Estes wrote:Sandy wrote:Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.
The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.
Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.
When does the whining stop. Trump didn't make or break the system to win. The seasoned... best candidate since sliced bread... the unbeatable / unsinkable / political "how to play the game superior" thought more votes was enough. ROFL. If that is the best the Dems had, good thing Trump won.
I bet Clinton would have graciously received and even honestly thanked every racist the article is trying to paint as evil, if she would have gotten their votes.
How many "we want cops dead now" ... "fry them like bacon" votes did HRC get? All of them.
I guess each candidate got votes from people we politically, socially and culturally disagree with.
Trump is President.
If you've got some data on the "fry cops like bacon" vote, I'd like to see that. I don't think that's a large enough constituency to target for votes, or even a large enough group to use as a valid comparison in this discussion, but since you claimed they all voted for Clinton, then let's see the data.![]()
Sandy wrote:Yeah, the buffoon is President, for now. But there's an FBI investigation going on, that has already discovered evidence confirming Russian interference in the election on behalf of Trump, and that investigation has already discovered connections to officials in the Trump campaign. As was suggested elsewhere, I've got my popcorn out, I'm kicking up my feet and enjoying the show. The attempted diversions and distractions by the administration are confirmation of what must be a mounting pile of evidence against them. So he should probably enjoy spending millions of our tax dollars on his split living arrangements, and his four day weekends at his resorts while he can, because he might not be there very much longer. This isn't going away, and it is far worse than anything Nixon ever did.
Sandy wrote:On the other hand, it's getting more difficult to explain to students why a couple of disciplinary write-ups prevents someone from being inducted into the national honor society of their Christian school, but it's OK for adults who claim to be Christians to vote to put an adulterous, corrupt, potty-mouthed, genital grabbing, strip club and casino owning jack*** in the White House. I have to wonder how that preaches from pulpits on Sunday morning.
KeithE wrote:Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways? .
Jon Estes wrote:KeithE wrote:Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways? .
Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?
To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.
Apples and oranges...
KeithE wrote:Jon Estes wrote:KeithE wrote:Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways? .
Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?
To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.
Apples and oranges...
In terms of punishment, there is a difference. No one person to blame/punish for cancer; though there may be industries to blame and attempt to regulate for cancer.
But in terms of national priority, it makes sense to spend more on what is the greater problem in terms of human life and well-being. It is true that cancer may never be eliminated; but neither is terrorism likely to be eliminated. We should not expend "all we can" on factors that rarely afflict us (1 in 45,808) when there are many other harms that are much more prevalent. That is plain, dispassionate logic based on DATA.
In terms of fruit size, I'd say we are comparing a watermelon (cancer) to a watermelon seed (terrorism).
It is a matter of perspective. I try to not be influenced by media/political hype; more by data/logic of what would lead to a "more perfect union" for the "common good". Think about it.
Peace.
Jon Estes wrote:KeithE wrote:Jon Estes wrote:
Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?
To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.
Apples and oranges...
In terms of punishment, there is a difference. No one person to blame/punish for cancer; though there may be industries to blame and attempt to regulate for cancer.
But in terms of national priority, it makes sense to spend more on what is the greater problem in terms of human life and well-being. It is true that cancer may never be eliminated; but neither is terrorism likely to be eliminated. We should not expend "all we can" on factors that rarely afflict us (1 in 45,808) when there are many other harms that are much more prevalent. That is plain, dispassionate logic based on DATA.
In terms of fruit size, I'd say we are comparing a watermelon (cancer) to a watermelon seed (terrorism).
It is a matter of perspective. I try to not be influenced by media/political hype; more by data/logic of what would lead to a "more perfect union" for the "common good". Think about it.
Peace.
I think about it a lot. I see no reason based on what you share to even consider changing my position.
To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.
Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.
Jon Estes wrote:To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.
Jon Estes wrote:Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.
Sandy wrote:Jon Estes wrote:To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.
The US has had such a vetting system in place for decades. Like any system, it has required upgrading and adjusting to new threats, technological advances, and shifts in responding to changes in potential terrorist activity. There are quotas in place, and different sets of requirements for people coming from countries that are higher risks. It takes between 18 months and two years to clear. Given the number of terrorist attacks in the US committed by individuals here as refugees, I'd say it is highly successful in keeping out terrorists.
There are over 6 million Syrian refugees now. The largest number of them are in Turkey, with almost as many in Lebanon, and over a million in Jordan. The highest number proposed by Clinton during the campaign was 65,000, not "hundreds of thousands." Under the current program, they have to be self-sufficient in 90 days, so it isn't feasible to bring a large number.Jon Estes wrote:Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.
I agree with that, to a certain extent. Medical research and health care is not an economic commodity to be exchanged for profit based on a market motivation created by the pain and suffering of people. It is a basic human right, and it is as significant an aspect of the sanctity of human life as protecting the unborn. I could write a book on the immorality of medical research (almost all of which, in this country, is funded by contributions and not-for-profit institutions) discovering a cure for cancer, and then "pricing" the cure on the free market, because you are putting a price on the value of a human life. If you believe in the sanctity of human life, then health care is a basic human right, provided by the gift of knowledge given to those who have it by God.
KeithE wrote:Real DATA strikes again!
Race and fear of foreign-born terrorism were the “Trump” cards (false though they be).
Jon Estes wrote:So if they have that right and yu want the government involved, let's just send all; who need healthcare and have no insurance to the VA hospital. Change the name and make it noticeable. Lets promote it as government provided healthcare...high quality... quick service... years of experience... So good we created oit for our veterans, the soldiers who keep our freedoms frfee.
Yeah. Government should oversee the health system, they have it figured out so well
Sandy wrote: If you want to discuss health care, then it needs to be a basic human right, and is as essential a component of the sanctity of human life as protection of the unborn. Otherwise, there's no context for discussion.
Sandy wrote:If you can justify health care as a privilege only for the affluent, especially from a Christian perspective, go ahead.
Sandy wrote:If you can justify health care as a privilege only for the affluent, especially from a Christian perspective, go ahead.
Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests