Boehner hits brakes on immigration overhaul

[nehalem256]

Yes Nehalem that could be considered a ration first step to have a discussion about. Shooting everyone who crosses the boarder is not a reasonable place to start.

Well the problem is when you refuse to implement common sense steps like I outlined for decades you get people who start agitating for more extreme solutions.

GOP has a lot of almost winning ahead with the way they are treating the biggest growing demographics in the US.

And our country sure has a winning time ahead of it when the only way to win elections is to pander to criminals and other degenerates.

 

[TerryMathews]

It wasn't 2%, it was 4%. Remember, I just broke down how shitty your 2% reasoning was.

Additionally, Obama's approval rating is currently poor (something I haven't argued to the contrary), news at 11.

No, you didnt. You spun why you thought that Obama voters switching to Romney was an impossibility. Which is fine, but I wasn't talking about the likelihood of that event occurring.

It is an indisputable fact that the 2012 election was decided by 2.05% of voters in 4 states. If you need my help with the math I'll be glad to explain it to you. With pictures, if you need them.

Shitty reasoning? GTFO. You dont like the message so you attack the messenger. Standard liburl tactic.

I'm curious though, do you all share a Friends and Family cell phone plan?

 

[Mxylplyx]

So the Republican controlled house does what it has always done...nothing...and Boehner attempts to legitimize the disarray in the Republican caucus by laying it at the presidents feet? Only the most delusional right wingers, ie most of the ones that have posted in this thread, could swallow that load of BS. Anyone who has paid attention as of late knows the reasons why immigration reform was halted, and it has nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with party politics before the election.

 

[First]

No, you didnt. You spun why you thought that Obama voters switching to Romney was an impossibility. Which is fine, but I wasn't talking about the likelihood of that event occurring.

You're confused; it's spin in the first place to say that "just" 2% aka 400K votes needed to all switch to Romney in the top 4 battleground states for him to win. That's spin, as it's an impossibility unless it were a national trend. And the national trend was Obama won by just under 5M votes.

It is an indisputable fact that the 2012 election was decided by 2.05% of voters in 4 states.

No, that isn't indisputable, since that assumes a scenario where every one of those voters switches their votes to Romney, a statistical imposibility based on how American voters actually vote (i.e. they sit out, they vote 3rd party, etc.).

If you need my help with the math I'll be glad to explain it to you. With pictures, if you need them.

Shitty reasoning? GTFO. You dont like the message so you attack the messenger. Standard liburl tactic.

I'm curious though, do you all share a Friends and Family cell phone plan?

lol. Your posts are so predictably bad.

 

[nehalem256]

You're confused; it's spin in the first place to say that "just" 2% aka 400K votes needed to all switch to Romney in the top 4 battleground states for him to win. That's spin, as it's an impossibility unless it were a national trend. And the national trend was Obama won by just under 5M votes.



No, that isn't indisputable, since that assumes a scenario where every one of those voters switches their votes to Romney, a statistical imposibility based on how American voters actually vote (i.e. they sit out, they vote 3rd party, etc.).



lol. Your posts are so predictably bad.

Well logically if say 2.1% of people nationwide switch their votes to Romney, 2.1% of voters in those battleground states would also have switched their votes handing Romney the win. Winning a plurality of the national vote is unnecessary.

Factually Obama won 0.4% more than Bush in 2004.

 

[TerryMathews]

You're confused; it's spin in the first place to say that "just" 2% aka 400K votes needed to all switch to Romney in the top 4 battleground states for him to win. That's spin, as it's an impossibility unless it were a national trend. And the national trend was Obama won by just under 5M votes.



No, that isn't indisputable, since that assumes a scenario where every one of those voters switches their votes to Romney, a statistical imposibility based on how American voters actually vote (i.e. they sit out, they vote 3rd party, etc.).



lol. Your posts are so predictably bad.

I dont think the word impossibility means what you think it means.

Might you mean improbable?

I do still like how you backed right off the math argument (where'd that 4% go?) and switched to insults instead. Keep it classy k?

 

[senseamp]

And our country sure has a winning time ahead of it when the only way to win elections is to pander to criminals and other degenerates.

I don't think GOP can win by just pandering to Wall Street :biggrin:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So the Republican controlled house does what it has always done...nothing...and Boehner attempts to legitimize the disarray in the Republican caucus by laying it at the presidents feet? Only the most delusional right wingers, ie most of the ones that have posted in this thread, could swallow that load of BS. Anyone who has paid attention as of late knows the reasons why immigration reform was halted, and it has nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with party politics before the election.

FYI...171 Bills passed in the House are currently sitting in the Senate with Senate leadership not allowing a floor vote.

 

[ivwshane]

I dont think the word impossibility means what you think it means.

Might you mean improbable?

I do still like how you backed right off the math argument (where'd that 4% go?) and switched to insults instead. Keep it classy k?

Let's see a break down of the election results by state and county of these close states and see how well your math holds up;

 

[TerryMathews]

FYI...171 Bills passed in the House are currently sitting in the Senate with Senate leadership not allowing a floor vote.

Don't you just love the hypocrisy of the left?

 

[hal2kilo]

So the Republican controlled house does what it has always done...nothing...and Boehner attempts to legitimize the disarray in the Republican caucus by laying it at the presidents feet? Only the most delusional right wingers, ie most of the ones that have posted in this thread, could swallow that load of BS. Anyone who has paid attention as of late knows the reasons why immigration reform was halted, and it has nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with party politics before the election.

Stop making sense.

 

[CrackRabbit]

FYI...171 Bills passed in the House are currently sitting in the Senate with Senate leadership not allowing a floor vote.

That's being a bit dishonest and unfair there, of those 171 are complete nonstarter, items like 'repeals' of ACA?
And how many of the remainder of them do you think would actually pass a floor vote to make it into reconciliation?

 

[hal2kilo]

Well logically if say 2.1% of people nationwide switch their votes to Romney, 2.1% of voters in those battleground states would also have switched their votes handing Romney the win. Winning a plurality of the national vote is unnecessary.

Factually Obama won 0.4% more than Bush in 2004.

And yet with those shitty numbers I remember distinctly the RNC mouth pieces coming out of the woodwork declaring that they had a mandate.

 

[nehalem256]

That's being a bit dishonest and unfair there, of those 171 are complete nonstarter, items like 'repeals' of ACA?
And how many of the remainder of them do you think would actually pass a floor vote to make it into reconciliation?

Well if they wouldn't pass what is the harm in allowing a floor vote?

 

[senseamp]

Let Republicans live in their myopia. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[First]

I dont think the word impossibility means what you think it means.

Might you mean improbable?

Statistically 2M people voted for 3rd party candidates in 2012, and voter's behavior statistically would suggest that of an actual 400K sample, not all of them would switch their votes to Romney from Obama, as many sit out when they're undecided/disaffected/etc. You are free to call that improbable, and thereby free to admit your original post citing "just" 400K needing to switch was, well, a pointless scapegoating of Romney's 2012 beating.

I do still like how you backed right off the math argument (where'd that 4% go?)

Nowhere did I back off this, I in fact explicitly cited his 5M margin of victory in the post you just quoted, which is synonymous with the 4% number. But continue said spittle...

and switched to insults instead. Keep it classy k?

Calling your posts bad is more a universally accepted observation than an insult. Potato potatoe. Though ironic given your below statement to me this morning:

If you need my help with the math I'll be glad to explain it to you. With pictures, if you need them.

Shitty reasoning? GTFO. You dont like the message so you attack the messenger. Standard liburl tactic

Oh the ironing.

 

[First]

FYI...171 Bills passed in the House are currently sitting in the Senate with Senate leadership not allowing a floor vote.

lulz. Of the 171, how many were done with any substantial Democratic votes and/or were meant to pass with bipartisan support in the Senate? Note; Senate immigration bill passed with just under one third of Republicans.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Well if they wouldn't pass what is the harm in allowing a floor vote?

What would the Republicans have to filibuster then? :awe:

It could be perhaps that the Senate doesn't want to waste their time on stupid bills, I do agree that they should probably be brought up for a quick vote and then promptly kicked back to the House.

 

[Munky]

Sure, kiddo.

Herp a derp.

That's funny, you think CBO estimates and projections amount to a "study." I was expecting things like research and empirical evidence, but apparently economists don't believe in those.

Fortunately there are people who do actual research on the impact of the 1986 amnesty bill, and the historical evidence is not as rosy as you would like to pretend.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-7.pdf

More specifically, I'm looking at this one -
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/51640/1/665020945.pdf
- where is states:

After the implementation of the amnesty program, employment fell and unemployment rose for newly legalized men relative to the comparison group of already legal U.S. residents. For women, employment also fell and transitions out of the workforce increased among the newly legalized population.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't you just love the hypocrisy of the left?

You mean how congress should be judged on the number of laws it repeals? Or how bhoener a week ago said he was going to pass immigration reform and now he won't because of Obama, as if Obama didn't exist a week ago. Or maybe by hypocrisy you meant how republicans have consistently stated they want to work with the president and just as consistently said, behind closed doors, they will oppose everything he does or wants?
Or perhaps by hypocrisy you meant how republicans now vote against things they have consistently voted for in the past, ie debt ceiling raises, unemployment extension, their own bills.

But please do go on about the hypocrisy of the left and how they won't vote on legislation created by the right.

Btw, do you have a list of those bills and the details of each bill or was that not part of the email you received?

 

[First]

That's funny, you think CBO estimates and projections amount to a "study." I was expecting things like research and empirical evidence, but apparently economists don't believe in those.

I like how you don't accept the CBO's findings as empirical. It shows a certain level of, how you say, ignoramus hubris.

Fortunately there are people who do actual research on the impact of the 1986 amnesty bill, and the historical evidence is not as rosy as you would like to pretend.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-7.pdf

I'll underline my specific statement in this thread since apparently you're confused. I said: "It's already been studied by the CBO and several other legitimate organizations".

Hate to break this to you, but Cato is a libertarian organization, not particularly credible among anyone but fringe right-wingers.

More specifically, I'm looking at this one -
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/51640/1/665020945.pdf
- where is states:

Uh, this is kind of embarrassing for you but you just quoted a statement that has nothing to do with how amnesty affected the total economy (in this study's case, how the 1986 law did or didn't). Your quoted statement explicitly cites the employment impact on newly amnestied/legalized immigrants vs. their control group of U.S. citizens. Based on the study's abstract, nowhere does it claim to measure the impact of the 1986 amnesty on the economy as a whole, as in employment and GDP for the whole country. Unlike the CBO, which does just that.

 

[TerryMathews]

Let's see a break down of the election results by state and county of these close states and see how well your math holds up;

Feel free, I dont have all weekend to dick around with it.

The bottom line is I was very specific about what the number was, represented, and where it came from. Under the calculation I laid out, 2.05%. Simple math.

Claiming the math is wrong or impossible is misstating reality at best, dishonest at worst.

 

[Munky]

I like how you don't accept the CBO's findings as empirical. It shows a certain level of, how you say, ignoramus hubris.

Not nearly as funny as you accepting estimates and projections of the CBO as empirical. That smacks of "bandwagon" and "appeal to authority."

I'll underline my specific statement in this thread since apparently you're confused. I said: "It's already been studied by the CBO and several other legitimate organizations".

Do they also make up favorable projections to fit the narrative? They seem so convinced of themselves too.

Hate to break this to you, but Cato is a libertarian organization, not particularly credible among anyone but fringe right-wingers.



Uh, this is kind of embarrassing for you but you just quoted a statement that has nothing to do with how amnesty affected the total economy (in this study's case, how the 1986 law did or didn't). Your quoted statement explicitly cites the employment impact on newly amnestied/legalized immigrants vs. their control group of U.S. citizens. Based on the study's abstract, nowhere does it claim to measure the impact of the 1986 amnesty on the economy as a whole, as in employment and GDP for the whole country. Unlike the CBO, which does just that.

Ad hominem fallacy. I knew that was bound to come up sooner or later from your ilk.

 

[Matt1970]

That's being a bit dishonest and unfair there, of those 171 are complete nonstarter, items like 'repeals' of ACA?
And how many of the remainder of them do you think would actually pass a floor vote to make it into reconciliation?

Lets just pass them and then see what's in them. 171 bills waiting for the Democrat lead Senate to act on and yet it's the Republican controlled House that gets the blame for stonewalling.

 

[Matt1970]

lulz

Electoral college: 332-206
Popular vote: 65,917,258 to 60,932,235

Right. less than 4%. If 2% of the population changes their mind and votes instead for Romney, he would have got the popular vote. That is not getting your ass handed to you.