Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Deletedaccount1]

Uhm... you posted this comment on the internet. Trump hasn’t banned online books or encyclopedia due to their liberal bias... yet... their window to update them all with Trump being the most persecuted, with the most accomplishments, stable genius of a president... ever... is closing soon.

Stupid liberal bias wants you to think other presidents did more or were better than Trump... sad.

I don't know about all that but I'm pretty sure I had to read Howard Zinn's shitty Marxist history book back in high school or college so a little less bias would have been appreciated.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhm... you guys posted the same exact data, in two different graphs.

Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.


Infracted.

[Deletedaccount1]

Always entertaining when the racist claims to have a read a book.

what if I was reading racist books

[Nellise]

Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.

They show exactly the same thing. Look at the data points, they match exactly. What are you trying to say? Yours just uses a blue line instead of bars.

[Deletedaccount1]

They show exactly the same thing. Look at the data points, they match exactly. What are you trying to say?

A line graph is much more scary than a bar graph. I'm just trying to save some face here.

[Felya]

I don't know about all that but I'm pretty sure I had to read Howard Zinn's shitty Marxist history book back in high school or college so a little less bias would have been appreciated.

If you can’t even remember when you were supposed to read it... does it really mater?

Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.

No, dude... take a look at the data points. Both graphs go with 40 million vs 12.9% for 2010... They are exactly the same. The distinction you are suggesting, doesn’t exist in the two graphs. Yours goes to 2020, while his stops at 2010. His is also using 10 year increment, while yours at 20. Otherwise, the data is the same. It doesn’t make any sense that you two are disagreeing...

- - - Updated - - -

They show exactly the same thing. Look at the data points, they match exactly. What are you trying to say? Yours just uses a blue line instead of bars.

It took me so long to reply, because I was triple checking... I thought I was being dumb, but nope... there is no reason for them to argue.

[Deletedaccount1]

If you can’t even remember when you were supposed to read it... does it really mater?

No, dude... take a look at the data points. Both graphs go with 40 million vs 12.9% for 2010... They are exactly the same. The distinction you are suggesting, doesn’t exist in the two graphs. Yours goes to 2020, while his stops at 2010. His is also using 10 year increment, while yours at 20. Otherwise, the data is the same. It doesn’t make any sense that you two are disagreeing...

Because what I said is factually correct and both charts show it. After Hart-Celler, immigration sky rocketed. Before that it was low and before that it was higher. Forming what you might call... a cycle.

[Endus]

It would help if you knew the difference between "foreign born population" and "number of immigrants entering the country in a given year"



My point stands. You can almost see the very moment the melting pot died.

That's the same graph. Kudos for that.

Mine manipulates the data in a way that is more favorable to my argument.

Admitting to bad faith in multiple distinct ways, on top of that.

The data's the same. The facts are that immigration in the USA is not particularly high right now, historically speaking. Despite your claims otherwise.

[Deletedaccount1]

Admitting to bad faith in multiple distinct ways, on top of that.

The data's the same. The facts are that immigration in the USA is not particularly high right now, historically speaking. Despite your claims otherwise.

How does either graph show that? You know when the line or bar goes up that means the number of people has gone up right?

[Endus]

Because what I said is factually correct and both charts show it. After Hart-Celler, immigration sky rocketed. Before that it was low and before that it was higher. Forming what you might call... a cycle.

Again, if you're seriously going to claim that data shows a "cycle", then you're going to have to admit that it's a 50-70 year "cycle", and the USA is just entering a higher-immigration cycle period, meaning you should expect immigration to step up even more and remain at that high for the next half-century or so, before declining again.

I assume you're making this argument to argue for significant increases to immigration, then?

[Deletedaccount1]

Again, if you're seriously going to claim that data shows a "cycle", then you're going to have to admit that it's a 50-70 year "cycle", and the USA is just entering a higher-immigration cycle period, meaning you should expect immigration to step up even more and remain at that high for the next half-century or so, before declining again.

I assume you're making this argument to argue for significant increases to immigration, then?

No, right now it should be entering a low-immigration period.

[Felya]

Because what I said is factually correct and both charts show it. After Hart-Celler, immigration sky rocketed. Before that it was low and before that it was higher. Forming what you might call... a cycle.

But... the difference is less than 1.9% from the peak...

[Endus]

How does either graph show that?

Because the immigrant population hovered around a solid 13-14% for decades, then dropped and is now cycling back up. The graph shows immigration being higher than current levels for nearly half the period it covers.

[Felya]

No, right now it should be entering a low-immigration period.

But... it still has 1.9% from the peak... at best you can say it should cycle down soon. But, it has yet to match the previous peak.

[Endus]

No, right now it should be entering a low-immigration period.

If you're claiming it's cyclical, then the graph argues strongly against that claim.

Now, I'd take issue with the idea that it's cyclical, since there's so many other factors, but it being cyclical wasn't my argument. It was yours.

If it's cyclical, immigration will bump higher and stay high for decades. That's what the graph suggests. If you think otherwise, you're going to have to provide data to back it, because this data doesn't support you at all.

[Deletedaccount1]

Because the immigrant population hovered around a solid 13-14% for decades, then dropped and is now cycling back up. The graph shows immigration being higher than current levels for nearly half the period it covers.

But that's just as a share of the total population, the absolute number of immigrants has grown quite significantly and I don't think either graph counts illegal immigrants or second-generation Americans. When you add them into the mix, they account for 28% of the population as of last year even without illegal immigrants. That's a lot of people.

- - - Updated - - -

Weird that Trump’s policies have led to more immigration on that border, not less. It’s almost like Obama was better at his job...

Or they both suck on border policy like the last two generations of US presidents who pay just enough lip service to keep voters happy without actually doing anything or stupidly going after drugs instead of illegal aliens.

[Deletedaccount1]

Let’s try to be less stupid. You go after employers, not the aliens who fill the demand.

The innocent and oppressed corporations of America are just trying to make an honest buck after Uncle Sam skims his giant cut of their profits to pay for boomer healthcare. The illegals are breaking the law, they are the criminals.

[Endus]

But that's just as a share of the total population, the absolute number of immigrants has grown quite significantly

If you're not using per-capita figures in discussing demographic issues, then you're not controlling for total population, which means you're pretty much deliberately biasing your figures to push a false and misleading agenda.

So yes; I was using the honest and defensible approach to demographic statistics, rather than the dishonest and misleading one.

and I don't think either graph counts illegal immigrants or second-generation Americans. When you add them into the mix, they account for 28% of the population as of last year even without illegal immigrants. That's a lot of people.

The census does count undocumented immigrants.

And 2nd-generation immigrants are American citizens and thus not immigrants at all, so you're moving goalposts.

[Felya]

The innocent and oppressed corporations of America are just trying to make an honest buck after Uncle Sam skims his giant cut of their profits to pay for boomer healthcare. The illegals are breaking the law, they are the criminals.

The employers are also breaking the law:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...mmigrants.html

[Deletedaccount1]

If you're not using per-capita figures in discussing demographic issues, then you're not controlling for total population, which means you're pretty much deliberately biasing your figures to push a false and misleading agenda.

So yes; I was using the honest and defensible approach to demographic statistics, rather than the dishonest and misleading one.

The census does count undocumented immigrants.

And 2nd-generation immigrants are American citizens and thus not immigrants at all, so you're moving goalposts.

It does? Even then, I wouldn't trust it because the "official number" is likely quite wrong. And yeah second-generation Americans do matter when anyone's whose water breaks on this side of the Rio Grande now has an American child. Looking at that one metric is an easy of way of dodging that there are at least 90 million people (28% of the population) who are immigrants or children of immigrants. People who may or may not be well assimilated in the US. That's fine, they'll assimilate eventually but let's slow things down a bit until that happens. That's all I'm saying here. Cut low skill immigration, enforce existing border laws, and keep issuing the same number of H1-B visas.

[Deletedaccount1]

The employers are also breaking the law:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...mmigrants.html

Laws don't apply to rich and powerful people. It is known.