Turks building walls

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Trump administration’s signature proposal promises little or no real benefit for U.S. taxpayers’ money. Realities at the border do not warrant a massive expenditure of money and international goodwill. A secure border is best achieved through smarter, less dramatic means than large-scale wall-building, and WOLA looks forward to discussing them."

GEE... A Latino interest special gruop saying "Na, doing a wall won't have any impact/its not needed"..
Who'da thunk.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have no problem with building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to slow illegal immigration. I do not want taxpayers to pay for it. How many times were we promised that Mexico would pay for "the wall"?

You do know that most illegals now come in on visas and over stay. Most are from China and India. Mexico is actually negative with more people returning and have been for some time

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Mexico is actually negative with more people returning and have been for some time

You do know that people with brown skin aren't necessarily "Mexicans," don't you? Or do you call them "Mescans" if they are brown skinned?

Are you familiar with Central America, South America, and the Caribbean islands (which are not U.S. territories)?

For about 20 years, Mexico has been "inviting" Central Americans to come to Mexico and work .... the one's I have know work their asses off ... and then some. The Government has built housing for them so they'll stay. There will be more who will come North and try to get into Canada like they've done for 30+ years.

The most bizarre thing you said was "most illegals" ... like you, or anyone else in this country know on any given day how many "illegals" are in the U.S.!!!!

How many "nonTexans" are in the Houston Metro area today?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You do know that people with brown skin aren't necessarily "Mexicans," don't you? Or do you call them "Mescans" if they are brown skinned?





The most bizarre thing you said was "most illegals" ... like you, or anyone else in this country know on any given day how many "illegals" are in the U.S.!!!!

How many "nonTexans" are in the Houston Metro area today?

How many Carpetbaggers are here in Texas Mr. LexuLiar?

Oh and you were the one to introduce "Mescan" in the thread.

Btw, have you convinced one single lawyer yet that jury selection is not important?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

You do know that most illegals now come in on visas and over stay. Most are from China and India. Mexico is actually negative with more people returning and have been for some time

I did not know that the illegals crossing the border from/to Mexico was negative. Which, if close to true, is another reason why spending billions and billions on a wall may be counter-productive.

The number of apprehensions at the Mexico border peaked in 2000 and has dropped dramatically since then. What percent are apprehended is a guessing game -- the U.S. border patrol claims about an 80% success rate. Other estimates put it at 40-55%.

Interesting article:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...on-in-the-u-s/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by garhkal

GEE... A Latino interest special gruop saying "Na, doing a wall won't have any impact/its not needed"..
Who'da thunk.

Do you have any data that would suggest people in the U.S. want a wall? From what I can tell there is very little support for it.

Polls suggest that most Americans don’t support building a border wall.



A poll conducted in August by Pew Research found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to “building a wall along the entire border with Mexico,” while 36 percent favor it. Critics of the Pew survey have said Trump’s wall proposal doesn’t intend to cover the entire border.


A more recent Pew survey conducted in late November and early December asked respondents to prioritize eight possible proposals for U.S. immigration reform, and building a wall was the least popular option. Only 40 percent of respondents thought that building a border wall was a very important, or somewhat important, goal.



If you have any data that says otherwise, please post a link to it.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ask them why they are climbing up ladders.

Or ask this guy ...



Since you're a "fruit," I figured you'd figure that out! Nope!

There were trees before walls!!!!!

You are too stupid to figure.

[I B Hankering]

.

[pyramider]

I bet the Turks have Mexicans building their wall.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

You do know that most illegals now come in on visas and over stay. Most are from China and India. Mexico is actually negative with more people returning and have been for some time

That's something i've always been bugged about. I've known plenty of peeps who traveled to Japan or Australia on visas, and within DAYS of their visa expiring they have the govt calling them up to leave..
IF Those countries can do it, WHY THE FARK can't we??

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Do you have any data that would suggest people in the U.S. want a wall? From what I can tell there is very little support for it.

Polls suggest that most Americans don’t support building a border wall.



A poll conducted in August by Pew Research found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to “building a wall along the entire border with Mexico,” while 36 percent favor it. Critics of the Pew survey have said Trump’s wall proposal doesn’t intend to cover the entire border.


A more recent Pew survey conducted in late November and early December asked respondents to prioritize eight possible proposals for U.S. immigration reform, and building a wall was the least popular option. Only 40 percent of respondents thought that building a border wall was a very important, or somewhat important, goal.



If you have any data that says otherwise, please post a link to it.

Speed. Seeing how Pew poll after Pew poll showed Hillary winning, yet were proven TIME AND TIME again to be wrong, how the hell would anyone put a lick of faith in THOSE polls..?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Speed. Seeing how Pew poll after Pew poll showed Hillary winning, yet were proven TIME AND TIME again to be wrong, how the hell would anyone put a lick of faith in THOSE polls..?

You are somewhat right. My faith in polls is not as strong as it used to be prior to the election. However, if you look at the very long history of polling, they have been very accurate in their predictions of presidential elections. Usually within the margin of error. So I will tend to look at the 2016 presidential polls as an anomaly.

Why did the 2016 miss? Many reasons have been suggested.

One likely culprit is what pollsters refer to as nonresponse bias. This occurs when certain kinds of people systematically do not respond to surveys despite equal opportunity outreach to all parts of the electorate. We know that some groups – including the less educated voters who were a key demographic for Trump on Election Day – are consistently hard for pollsters to reach. It is possible that the frustration and anti-institutional feelings that drove the Trump campaign may also have aligned with an unwillingness to respond to polls. The result would be a strongly pro-Trump segment of the population that simply did not show up in the polls in proportion to their actual share of the population.


Some have also suggested that many of those who were polled simply were not honest about whom they intended to vote for. The idea of so-called “shy Trumpers” suggests that support for Trump was socially undesirable, and that his supporters were unwilling to admit their support to pollsters. This hypothesis is reminiscent of the supposed “Bradley effect,” when Democrat Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election to Republican George Deukmejian despite having been ahead in the polls, supposedly because voters were reluctant to tell interviewers that they were not going to vote for a black candidate.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are somewhat right. My faith in polls is not as strong as it used to be prior to the election. However, if you look at the very long history of polling, they have been very accurate in their predictions of presidential elections. Usually within the margin of error. So I will tend to look at the 2016 presidential polls as an anomaly.

Why did the 2016 miss? Many reasons have been suggested.

One likely culprit is what pollsters refer to as nonresponse bias. This occurs when certain kinds of people systematically do not respond to surveys despite equal opportunity outreach to all parts of the electorate. We know that some groups – including the less educated voters who were a key demographic for Trump on Election Day – are consistently hard for pollsters to reach. It is possible that the frustration and anti-institutional feelings that drove the Trump campaign may also have aligned with an unwillingness to respond to polls. The result would be a strongly pro-Trump segment of the population that simply did not show up in the polls in proportion to their actual share of the population.


Some have also suggested that many of those who were polled simply were not honest about whom they intended to vote for. The idea of so-called “shy Trumpers” suggests that support for Trump was socially undesirable, and that his supporters were unwilling to admit their support to pollsters. This hypothesis is reminiscent of the supposed “Bradley effect,” when Democrat Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election to Republican George Deukmejian despite having been ahead in the polls, supposedly because voters were reluctant to tell interviewers that they were not going to vote for a black candidate.

I thought it was the Russians ... with Comey's help!!!!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I thought it was the Russians ... with Comey's help!!!!!

You thought wrong...the reason why Clinton lost was because she never connected with most Americans' and because of her arrogance in thinking Trump could not possibly win, was planning on trying to win over the House so those pesky investigations would go away.

They went away all right but not for the reason she had hoped!

Trump is a horrible President. But then again , he was a horrible candidate.

Thank God for the one Marine Gen he has as Sec of Defense.

All his other cabinets picks are scared shitless of Trump!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are somewhat right. My faith in polls is not as strong as it used to be prior to the election. However, if you look at the very long history of polling, they have been very accurate in their predictions of presidential elections. Usually within the margin of error. So I will tend to look at the 2016 presidential polls as an anomaly.

Why did the 2016 miss? Many reasons have been suggested.

One likely culprit is what pollsters refer to as nonresponse bias. This occurs when certain kinds of people systematically do not respond to surveys despite equal opportunity outreach to all parts of the electorate. We know that some groups – including the less educated voters who were a key demographic for Trump on Election Day – are consistently hard for pollsters to reach. It is possible that the frustration and anti-institutional feelings that drove the Trump campaign may also have aligned with an unwillingness to respond to polls. The result would be a strongly pro-Trump segment of the population that simply did not show up in the polls in proportion to their actual share of the population.


Some have also suggested that many of those who were polled simply were not honest about whom they intended to vote for. The idea of so-called “shy Trumpers” suggests that support for Trump was socially undesirable, and that his supporters were unwilling to admit their support to pollsters. This hypothesis is reminiscent of the supposed “Bradley effect,” when Democrat Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election to Republican George Deukmejian despite having been ahead in the polls, supposedly because voters were reluctant to tell interviewers that they were not going to vote for a black candidate.

basically, Trump flew under the poll radar.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

basically, Trump flew under the poll radar.

It's more "basic" than that, actually.

The primary reasons polls are published by the media friendly to the candidate portrayed in the polls as "winning" is to demoralize the opponents, sway undecided voters to vote for the "winner," and dry up resources for financing campaigns. In other words the poll result interpretations are SLANTED in favor of one's favored candidate to assist in one's favored candidate prevailing.

1. demoralizing Trump?
2. sway Trump's supporters to HillariousNoMore?
3. "dry up" campaign financing?

Dumbass neophytes like Speedo and his retarded, naive media know ZERO about campaign strategies and "bean counting" for outcomes. Trump kept saying he was "pleased" with THEIR POLLING! Dumbass neophytes like Speedo and his retarded, naive media DISMISSED TRUMP AS A KNOW-NOTHING BULLSHITTER. When actually THEIR OWN candidate was AND IS!

So, now that the Russian tampering with the election story is winding to a close, Retarded Speedo whines and cries about the POLLS!!!!

It wasn't the Russians or Comey after all: "It was the polls"!!!! I'm beginning to think he's Chelsea.