Think so?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did Trump back down?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Think so?
Sorry, I was mistaken.....so are you.
37% do not show up.
Plus "...almost a million deportation orders issued by federal immigration judges - 953,506 to be exact - have not been enforced by ICE. That is a 58 percent increase since 2002. Bottom line, immigrants who are here illegally believe that they can stay here illegally even when they have been ordered removed. Why? Because the federal government has in the past chosen to ignore these orders."
And "... the Department of Justice has been manipulating the statistics it reports to Congress to cover up the staggeringly high failure-to-appear rate. When DOJ reported statistical data on the percentage of illegal immigrants who failed to appear in court, they made the number look misleadingly smaller by including detained aliens in the total number."
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/no-more-catch-and-release-illegal-immigrants 4/9/17
DOJ, not ICE and the number I was referring to was the retention rate for court for those enrolled in ISAP.
So true to your namesake, you're stretching.
It does? Is there a statistically-provable causality between the political affiliation of the POTUS and "employment numbers"
So now that you got info that you don't like, your next attempt is to gaslight everything because that way, you don't have to own up to anything.
Bitch move, Nazi.
Is there a statistically-provable causality between political affiliation and "jobs and the economy"
If employment statistics don't bear that out enough for you, then it's clear you're gaslighting it because it ruins your narrative and makes you feel worse about yourself.
So as usual, it all comes back to you and your precious snowflake feelings.
What a Nazi baby.
If employment statistics don't bear that out enough for you, then it's clear you're gaslighting it because it ruins your narrative and makes you feel worse about yourself.
Think so?
Does it seem probable that if such a statistically-provable causality between political affiliation and "jobs and the economy" existed that anyone would ever vote GOP?
Think so?
There's that Nazi code we talked about..."I can't refute your argument, but I can't say that because it makes me feel bad about myself".
Does it seem probable that if such a statistically-provable causality between political affiliation and "jobs and the economy" existed that anyone would ever vote GOP?
Thomas Frank wrote a whole book about it called What's the Matter with Kansas?
Maybe you should read that book to find out why Conservatives continually vote against their best interest.
Oh wait - who am I kidding? You don't read books.
Does it seem probable that if such a statistically-provable causality between political affiliation and "jobs and the economy" existed that anyone would ever vote GOP?
You work from the assumption that GOP voters are informed and aren't driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment.
There's that Nazi code we talked about...
You mean the "Nazi code you talked about."
If someone writes a book stating a thesis, does that make it true, in your opinion?
Where is the rest of your attempt to provide statistical evidence for your sweeping generalization?
In case you suffer from what I call 'libnesia', this was your claim:
typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.
You work from the assumption that GOP voters are informed and aren't driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment.
I do?
Isn't it true that some DEMOCRAT voters vote GOP from time to time? Why would they do that if they believed that vote to be "driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment".
Conversely, some GOP voters vote DEMOCRAT from time to time, don't they? Does that indicate that the DEMOCRATS are the party that represents "unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment"?
f someone writes a book stating a thesis, does that make it true, in your opinion?
Ah, so now you're trying to backtrack and justify your own garbage posts from before.
HARD PASS.
Where is the rest of your attempt to provide statistical evidence for your sweeping generalization?
So I gave you employment figures that show better job growth under Democrats than Republicans. You refused to accept that because it confirmed my argument. So now you're doing the typical Nazi tactic of refusing to admit when you're wrong.
I even posted video of Trump himself saying that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
Ah, so now you're trying to backtrack and justify your own garbage posts from before.
How so?
I'll understand if you can't explain.
When can I expect to see some statistical evidence to prove your sweeping generalization; to wit:
typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.
So I gave you employment figures that show better job growth under Democrats than Republicans. You refused to accept that because it confirmed my argument.
I don't recall rejecting the statistics.
I rejected your unsupported extrapolation of them.
Isn't it true that some DEMOCRAT voters vote GOP from time to time
Not really, no.
Why would they do that if they believed that vote to be "driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment".
In order for this to be true, you'd need to establish your previous assertion, which isn't.
Conversely, some GOP voters vote DEMOCRAT from time to time, don't they? Does that indicate that the DEMOCRATS are the party that represents "unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment"?
If you're not voting for the GOP, then you're not a GOP voter.
How so?
I'll understand if you can't explain.
When can I expect to see some statistical evidence to prove your sweeping generalization; to wit:
I already provided you with employment numbers directly from BLS that you refused to accept because it confirmed my argument.
So now comes the part where you offer a counter-argument.
I'll understand if you can't.
I rejected your unsupported extrapolation of them.
What is there to extrapolate and how is it unsupported?
Democratic Presidents created more jobs than Conservative ones since 1981, FACT.
Therefore, Democratic Presidents are better for job growth, and job growth improves when Democrats take over.
Not really, no.
Are you sure? DEMOCRAT voters never vote GOP from time to time?
In order for this to be true, you'd need to establish your previous assertion, which isn't.
I'm not the one who asserted that a vote for a Republican is "driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment".
You work from the assumption that GOP voters are informed and aren't driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment.
The burden of proof is not mine, therefore. It is yours.
Are you sure? DEMOCRAT voters never vote GOP from time to time?
Not really, no.
I'm not the one who asserted that a vote for a Republican is "driven primarily by unearned entitlement complexes and white racial resentment".
That's exactly what drives it; it's certainly not economic self-interest since Trump himself said Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans, and Democrats created more jobs in less years than Conservatives since 1981...and if you include Carter in that, it's even worse for Republicans because Carter created about 10,000,000 jobs in 4 years.
The burden of proof is not mine, therefore. It is yours.
You're the one who made the claim that Democratic voters vote Republican "from time to time"...and "from time to time" is left deliberately vague by design. That way you can wiggle around in the parameters later on in the debate.
Like I said; I've seen this playbook before, executed by far more clever people than you.
What is there to extrapolate and how is it unsupported?
Democratic Presidents created more jobs than Conservative ones since 1981, FACT.
Therefore, Democratic Presidents are better for job growth, and job growth improves when Democrats take over.
The imputation that presidents of either party "created" jobs is an extrapolation of the statistics you quoted.
The unsupported assertion that a statistically-proven causality exists between the party affiliation of a POTUS and his supposed ability to "create" jobs is an extrapolation of the statistical evidence you cited.
Nowhere does the BLS data state that political affiliation was a determining causative factor in employment rates.
You arrived at a false premise by an illogical determination.
You have a lot of ground to cover if you're going to try to prove this:
typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.