That just makes it uncertain. Not untrue. There is still evidence that it is the case.
So you conned your mortgage and rental out of individuals? And you borrowed so much money from other people that they decided not to call you on the loan? Are you a billionaire as well, you could actually send a bank under with a bad loan?
How did you accomplish this? Do you plan to create a fake school and write a book about how to fool borrowers like yourself?
Last edited by pgardn; 10-12-2016 at 09:43 PM.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/...-partisanship/
Forsaking values is primarily a boomer phenomenon.As the Pew Research Center has often noted, it is not always the case that younger generations are more Democratic. Two decades ago, the youngest adults – Generation X – were the most Republican age cohort on balance, while the oldest – the Greatest Generation– were the most Democratic. In 1994, 47% of Gen Xers (then ages 18-29) identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party, while 42% identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic. And members of the Greatest Generation (then ages 67-81) — favored the Democratic Party over the GOP (49% to 42%).
As illustrated in more detail in a 2011 Pew Research Center report on generations, the political climate of early adulthood may continue to influence the political tilt of a generation throughout its life span. For example, members of the Greatest Generation, who came of age during the Great Depression and the Franklin Roosevelt administration, carried strong Democratic tendencies throughout their adulthood.
Mr. Trump's brand is looking quite bad right now.
No. By the "surveys" own admission, it makes any extrapolation inaccurate. You're being intellectually dishonest.
Inaccurate in that context means it could miss the mark. It doesn't mean that it cannot show anything. I know you want the blanket dismissal but you don't get to have it, Crayola.
I think they still do get more conservative just not as conservative as the previous generation. The GOP has been slow to realize and adjust to that. I don't think Trump is causing damage because he is too conservative, he's a democrat. It's the ishness that's the problem.
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/17/r_i_...g_realignment/
I don't know if this guys prediction of how realignment will play out is accurate but I do think both parties are in the proccess of a realignment. GOP is just further along than the Democrats.
He was prophetic in terms of what we've seen this cycle though
Whether my guesses prove to be prescient or misguided, one thing is certain: The ongoing erosion of social conservatism in the United States is bound to destabilize and transform American politics, even if present coalitions last through another few election cycles. Gridlock will not last forever. Big change is on the way.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 10-13-2016 at 02:12 AM.
"erosion of social conservatism"
?? people still hate abortion, hate LGBT, want a white Christian theocracy, want to destroy govt and public education, hate Muslims, hate foreigners, hate women, hate knitters and Mexicans, would never vote Dem, esp Macho Men who think voting Dem is for women and knitters.
red/slave states are Repug from Congress down to state down to local, are gerrymandered, voter suppressed, voter obstructed.
"if present coalitions last through another few election cycles."
another 10 or 15 years? Inequality will be much worse, and the power for oligarchy/plutocracy/corporatocracy will be much greater, legislatures will be even more corrupted and insensitive to voters preferences.
Repugs will continue to be strict obstructionists, preserving the rigged economy for the wealthy, BigCorp
1/3 of the workforce has already been forced into the precarious "gig" "day laborer" economy which will only grow bigger, as will people on public assistance.
Student loans at $1T+ and grads forced into throwing money, up to 50% of income down a rent hole, building no equity, no net worth.
The rural states with a few 100K or a couple M will still elect two extremist Repug Senators, enough keep Dems from 60 Senators.
House is 246 Repug to 186 Dem. Dems need to take 32 seats?
House Repugs will keep defunding govt by many $100Ms per year, into inefficiency and dysfunctionality.
It's a bull , airy-fairy article with bull neologisms and with no real path to a realignment.
It does not show anything in the way you want it. The article itself says this is nothing but a collection of anecdotes. If anecdotes are the "anything" you're mentioning, that's swell/no one cares.
Your lack of self-awareness on this is stunning.
The smear campaign is magnificent. It obliterates even the smear campaign I predicted beyond my wildest dreams.
Even that white haired sucker cnn moderator was in on it. By sneaking that question "did you ever do it" knowing exactly what cnn and Clintlers had in their hands. Sickening
one on three
Self-awareness? It means a significant number of teachers believe its a problem. You guessing about "what I want" and thinking you can tell me what that is is a nice bit of megalomania, Crayola.
That literally is not what the "study" says.
It's not a random sample but instead a self-selecting cohort of potentially politically motivated teachers who chose to respond to an online survey. The article indicates that these are nothing more than personal anecdotes -- and -- it would be inaccurate to make an extrapolation -- such as you do -- that a significant number of teachers believe this is a problem.While their findings correspond directly with Clinton’s claim, it’s important to note that this was not a scientific survey, as the report notes. The respondents don’t represent a random sample of teachers, and it’s likely that those who chose to respond to the survey are those who are most concerned about the campaign’s impact on students.
This means it would be inaccurate to extrapolate from the survey that bullying and harassment are generally on the rise across the country. Rather, it is more a collection of teachers’ anecdotal experiences.
We looked for a scientific study that speaks to this same question but couldn’t find one, mostly because there tends to be a lag in this kind of data, meaning data on bullying trends in 2016 won’t get published until 2017 or later. The process of setting up and getting approval to conduct a scientific study is lengthy and bersome, and would not be approved before the election, said Sheri Bauman, a professor at the University of Arizona who researches bullying.
These are the literal words on the page. Why are you having trouble understanding them?
That just means that there could be other teachers that did not self report that have the opposite view. That doesn't mean that it is not a significant number of teachers that reported it. You suck at polling, Crayola.
Sorry I haven't responded - there are just too many threads/posts to read through.
What are you talking about? I use OPM - as in a bank's money (and they in turn use depositors' money) for my mortgage. For my home, I paid handsomely for the privilege (6.75% until I re-financed).
I have not responded because there are too many threads/posts so unless I have time, I limit myself to the ones I find most interesting. See post above for my answer.
No you idiot. That means that the poll results are skewed because the responding teachers are a politically motivated self-selecting group. Which is why the article itself said its not reliable.
Dimwit, if you are going to deduct a possibility you need to show that it is mutually exclusive. That there might be other teachers who were not self selecting that would vote a different way is not mutually exclusive with what you are claiming here. Quite the contrary, frankly. You suck at logic too, Crayola.
This is literally, entirely beside the point and irrelevant. We are not talking about the *possibility* that you mention. We are talking about what sort of "evidence" the "poll" posted presents. At this point, you're just making up and deflecting because you know that the poll is meaningless.
There is a difference between inconclusive and meaningless. Nuance is as much of a struggle you as logic, Crayola.
This is also irrelevant because the word used by the article is "inaccurate," not "inconclusive." And any poll who's resulting conclusions would be inaccurate is meaningless. But please, keep blathering on about nuance,.
It didn't use meaningless either, Crayola.
I tired to discuss the mechanics behind the sampling. He is the one insisting on the blanket dismissal. Have you dealt with Counselor Crayola before? He claims to be an attorney.
In the context of a poll, If any conclusion drawn from said poll is inaccurate, then said conclusion would be meaningless. And not inconclusive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
