• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
And then you post data that around only 1-2% of poor people move to a different state, some being college students and military.

Per year. And note that I've added a response to your prior post in the post you quote here.

And, since my argument is that the poor and others enjoy a similar rate of interstate migration, I'd say it's pretty well supported by the evidence I've provided.
 

Trouble

Banned

from the same seattletimes

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ge-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/
The claim: Recent Seattle restaurant closures may have been linked to the city’s new $15 minimum wage.

What we found: False.
Renee Erickson is closing Boat Street Cafe, her first restaurant, but she runs three others and is in the process of opening two more. Asked in an email about the closure being associated with $15, she replied: “That’s weird, ha. No, that’s not why I’m closing Boat Street. Would have said so.”

Erickson continued, “I’m totally on board with the $15 min. It’s the right thing to do … Opening more businesses would not be smart if I felt it was going to hinder my success.”

Little Uncle proprietors Poncharee Kounpungchart (who goes by PK) and Wiley Frank are closing one location, having found the space unsuitable after two years, while remaining open on Capitol Hill and considering new opportunities.

“We were never interviewed for these articles and we did not close our … location due to the new minimum wage,” Kounpungchart and Frank said in an email. “We do not know what our colleagues are doing to prepare themselves for the onset of the new law, but pre-emptively closing a restaurant seven years before the full effect of the law takes place seems preposterous to us.”

Frank went so far as to send a note to the author of the Washington Policy Center post saying: “Our business model is conducive to the changing times and we would appreciate it if you did not make assumptions about our business to promote your political values.”

Shanik proprietor Meeru Dhalwala, who is also mentioned by Seattle Magazine, said in a Facebook message, “My closure is strictly due to location — nothing to do with wages.”

Sharon Fillingim, the owner of Grub, the final restaurant referenced, said on Facebook that Grub was “a huge success.” In fact, the restaurant was sold and is reopening imminently under new ownership as Bounty Kitchen.

stop reposting conservative tweets
 

Chichikov

Member
First of all, the Seattle food scene is now better than it have ever been, and if anything causing closures it's Amazon and the general influx of high tech people into the city which gentrify parts of the city and raise rents.
The Seattle Times is generally terrible.
 

pigeon

Banned
Per year. And note that I've added a response to your prior post in the post you quote here.

And, since my argument is that the poor and others enjoy a similar rate of interstate migration, I'd say it's pretty well supported by the evidence I've provided.

Sure, but the actual point at issue is whether poverty is a barrier to interstate migration. For this it is not sufficient to determine that poor people move at the same rate as others, because they might be more predisposed towards moving -- after all, the whole point of the discussion is that people move to look for better jobs, so poor people are probably more likely than others to want to move, whether or not they can actually manage it financially. To answer the original question, you need to determine how many people wish to move but are prevented financially from doing so.
 
Per year. And note that I've added a response to your prior post in the post you quote here.

And, since my argument is that the poor and others enjoy a similar rate of interstate migration, I'd say it's pretty well supported by the evidence I've provided.

This is not what you said. You said your argument is: "poor people can move interstate as easily as not poor people,"

You have not provided any data to substantiate this claim. The census data provided to date does not support this argument.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
This is not what you said. You said your argument is: "poor people can move interstate as easily as not poor people,"

You have not provided any data to substantiate this claim. The census data provided to date does not support this argument.

You're right, and I thought earlier of correcting my response to you saying that. It has not been my claim--and my other posts confirm this--that the poor can move "as easily" as others. What I meant (but did not say) when I said that that was my argument was that my argument involved comparing the rates at which poor people and others move between states; my argument was not that poor people moved between states at some objectively high rate, though that seemed to be how you interpreted it.
 
If you want to argue "poor people can move interstate as easily as not poor people," then that is a different argument.

That is, actually, my argument, and has been since I first presented the Census data.

It has not been my claim--and my other posts confirm this--that the poor can move "as easily" as others.

lol. Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds this funny.

What I meant (but did not say) when I said that that was my argument was that my argument involved comparing the rates at which poor people and others move between states

What does this tell us that's useful to this discussion?
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
lol. Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds this funny.

What does this tell us that's useful to this discussion?

Of course my two statements are contradictory. One was incorrect, which I recognized, and which anyone who read my arguments (with the intention to understand them, not to contradict them in any event) prior to it would have recognized. This is why I considered correcting the earlier post. It should have read something more like this:

Metaphoreus' said:
This is closer to my argument than what you seem to think it is. Using "especially" or "particularly" (as I did in later posts) is an accepted way of speaking comparatively. "It is especially cold today" can mean that it's 60 F when it's normally 80 F, even though 60 F isn't really all that cold.

But by the time I re-read your comment and thought to correct the error, I decided I'd just deal with it if anyone called it out.

Regarding your question, it tells us the very thing I've been saying it tells us since my very first presentation of the data: the poor are not especially immobile. They move between states in rates similar to other groups. If they suffer some disadvantage in interstate relocation, the Census data do not bear that disadvantage out.

The better question would be, "Why has Black Mamba spent the last page contradicting what is obviously true if his real criticism was that he considered the obvious truth irrelevant?"
 
If they suffer some disadvantage in interstate relocation, the Census data do not bear that disadvantage out.

This is what everyone here has been trying to tell you. The data you posted is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it does not bear out the disadvantage.

That the rates are similar doesn't prove that there's no disadvantage.

The better question would be, "Why has Black Mamba spent the last page contradicting what is obviously true if his real criticism was that he considered the obvious truth irrelevant?"[/QUOTE]

You just told me you claimed your argument wasn't what your argument is and then proceed to complain about how much I spent arguing about it?

Well, maybe if you'd state what your argument actually is, accurately, that's wouldn't have happened.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Dude.

My argument, from the very first post discussing the Census data:

[D]ata compiled by the Census Bureau indicates that the poor are not especially immobile

I repeated that argument multiple times. StopMakingSense and pigeon identified potential flaws in my argument in their very first posts on the subject. Meanwhile, you thrashed about trying to contradict it on whatever flimsy basis sprang to mind: most people moved intrastate, the military and students were throwing everything off (a claim for which you have adduced no evidence), I forgot to ignore moves from those living on a border (because moving across state borders is different from interstate or something), let's not forget about Hurricane Katrina, there are so many factors, fewer people with incomes below $50,000 moved interstate between 2005 and 2010 than those with incomes above $50,000, people have debt so there, people don't even want to move (especially wealthy people--another claim not supported by evidence), somehow the minimum wage changes the entire analysis, people were going to die if they didn't flee New Orleans, poor people rarely move interstate (which proves me wrong because I claimed they especially moved interstate), I can't interpret data, poor people are especially immobile because everyone is immobile, the data don't show that the poor are no more immobile than others (it only shows that everyone is equally immobile!), I have to provide an explanation for why people earning less than $50,000 moved less than others during 2005 - 2010 or else, and not very many people cross state lines anyhow. Yet, you now claim that, this whole time, you've (secretly, maybe?) been making the argument that StopMakingSense and pigeon made?

And this entire discussion is far afield from the topic at hand, which is that the plain language of the ACA prohibits the federal government from distributing tax credits with respect to purchasers of insurance from an FFE.

EDIT: I ended up doing some of your homework with respect to the figures from 2012 - 13. If we assume that everyone who moved to attend or leave college made an interstate move, and if we assume that every member of the military who moved and gave as a reason for the move "New Job or Job Transfer" or "Other Job Related Reason" made an interstate move and had income of less than $50,000, and if we omit such people from our calculations, then the numbers look like this:

Interstate movement < $50,000: 1.12%
Interstate movement > $50,000: 1.28%​
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
How about one showing that the conservative talking point is bullshit?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...e-restaurant-ragnarok-not-actually-happening/

Edit: This article is actually a response to the exact two articles that PD posted. Also worth noting is that the minimum wage in Seattle hasn't actually gone up at all yet. The first bump is in April.

Wait up. The $15/hr wage is not even enacted yet, and won't be for SIX YEARS, and conservatives are already whining about its job killing capabilities?
 
Dude.

My argument, from the very first post discussing the Census data:

And the data does not show that. How many times must I keep pointing this out?

Yet, you now claim that, this whole time, you've (secretly, maybe?) been making the argument that StopMakingSense and pigeon made?

My only main argument this whole time was that the Census data does not support your argument. Most everything was trying to explain to you why that is the case.

As for my first post, it was two fold: to intentionally move the discussion to interstate mobility and then show that even that number doesn't capture the true picture within the topic at hand. In your post, you simply posted a data chart and your claim was "the poor are not especially immobile." You didn't say anything about interstate travel. Because intrastate travel was so high, it made sense to make this specific distinction that you didn't (you gave basically no context to what part of the chart mattered to you) given the context of the topic. After that, I wanted to explain why the interstate move rate isn't exactly accurate in terms of the discussion regarding moving for competitive jobs because it includes military, college students, Katrina, and potentially other unrelated people. That is all.

Yet, you now claim that, this whole time, you've (secretly, maybe?) been making the argument that StopMakingSense and pigeon made?

If anything, all the data shows is that all people are fairly immobile

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=156492103&postcount=2030

In fact, if it says anything concretely it is that everyone is immobile

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=156496063&postcount=2039

Dude, seriously, just stop. I literally made the same claim SMS made 30 minutes later...so similarly that you could have said I copied him (in fact, I did not read his post, yet). Yet, I was secretly making the same claims? Does your phone/tablet/pc display my sentences in code?

This isn't the ACA and an argument of opinions. You're factually wrong on this one. Move on.
 
Man seeing conservatives revel in "Bibi beating Obama" is hilarious. How did he "beat" Obama? I wasn't aware that they were running against each other. There's a story on the right about a 5 man Obama campaign team that worked to oust Bibi but I don't see any legit sources.

By this same logic, did Obama "beat" Bibi in 2012?
 

Trouble

Banned
"Hello, fellow kids! We're the House Judiciary Committee and we're totes down with GIFs and BuzzFeeds and other hip stuff that cool kids like!"

4hE8xsA.gif
 

The gops attempt at doing stuff like this is so horrible and misses why those things work for liberal causes.

I guess it was bound to eventually happen.

NYT: Netanyahu&#8217;s Win Is Good for Palestine

Bibi to @mitchellreports: "I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution."
@JakeSherman
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's Netanyahu says still committed to Palestinian statehood if circumstances improve.

lol, you can't keep saying something when you said the other and your actions don't support it.
The comment during the election should be what the world reacts to. Even his walk back says his government isn't interested in pursuing a peace deal or negotiating now.

On Obama's options

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.647859
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
So, do you guys think Obama will start speaking candidly once he's out of office?

He seems to already be speaking more candidly now that he simply has no more elections to run. I'm guessing he'll be even more candid a bit after he leaves office.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Should Bush overcome intraparty opposition to win the nomination, the GOP may suffer from turnout problems with part of the base, even if the base likes the eventual vice presidential nominee. Moreover, Bush may be exactly the Republican the Clinton campaign desires. Her people are well rehearsed and they all say, &#8220;The candidate we&#8217;d least want to face is Jeb Bush.&#8221; In actuality, this suggests that the candidate the Clintonistas may really want to run against is Bush, knowing that most of the outsider candidates won&#8217;t be able to win the nomination and other serious contenders such as Walker or Rubio could make a strong future-versus-past argument. And with Bush, Hillary Clinton can run against two Bush recessions and two Bush Middle East wars, asking &#8220;do you want a third?&#8221;

If it makes her effort to win an easier path then okay. I can buy the past vs the future argument if anybody but bush is the nominee.
 
If it makes her effort to win an easier path than okay. I can buy the past vs the future argument if anybody but bush is the nominee.
I think they can but they'd run into the problem of being far-right nutjobs. It is true that Bush's last name is a peculiarity exclusive to him though.

The best thing for the GOP would be for them to run someone other than Bush - Bush losing tells them nothing. If he were the nominee and lost they very easily have a scapegoat, that the US rejected the Bush family, not necessarily Republican ideology. Someone like Walker is as big an ideologue as you can get. If he lost to Hillary his tea party supporters would have to own up to the fact that they got one of their own and blew it.

Or - more likely - they would rationalize the victory away by saying he moved too close to the center during the general election (regardless of what he actually does) and this means they just need to nominate someone more conservative in 2020.

If you want to pull your hair out read the comments section of this Daily Kos Elections article.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
If the GOP holds the senate and wins the presidency in 2016, this insane budget proposal would become reality, wouldn't it?

Bush wasn't able to handle the backlash for similar proposals when he was president, and so they didn't happen, but it seems like GOP voters don't give a crap about social security and medicare anymore (as long as the baby boomers are grandfathered out of the consequences).
 

Ecotic

Member
I wonder if going forward, there's going to be a correlation between the challenger party's chances and how early/late the average candidate announces they're running for President. I know that in recent times the schedule has moved up, so there's no way to get a 1:1 sample over the past few decades, but since John Edwards announced in December 2006 and Obama in February 2007 then the 2008 election would be a good starting point to measure going forward (since you really can't get any earlier than that, the midterms prevent it).

I feel like in 2008 Bush was so unpopular that everyone was eager to get into the ring. It stands to reason if the party's chances are low candidates might not start announcing until summer.
 

Gotchaye

Member
So, why is the President "choosing which parts of the immigration law" to enforce different from "We won't fund DHS so it can't do what the President is asking"?

The objection is that it's unconstitutional, not that it's dickish. It's unambiguously constitutional for Congress to fund or not fund DHS for practically any reason it pleases. But it's pretty plausible that at some point a president choosing not to enforce part of a law he doesn't like goes from regular executive discretion to unconstitutional.
 
Man seeing conservatives revel in "Bibi beating Obama" is hilarious. How did he "beat" Obama? I wasn't aware that they were running against each other. There's a story on the right about a 5 man Obama campaign team that worked to oust Bibi but I don't see any legit sources.

By this same logic, did Obama "beat" Bibi in 2012?
You are talking about neocon punditry. They have no internal logic. They make up "wins" as they go along.
 

HylianTom

Banned
A few random giggly thoughts about the "nuke Charleston" lady:
- she's the Republican primary voter version of Wolowitz's Mom - off-screen, screeching, absolutely hilarious. Lots of folks have familiarity with the Overbearing Jewish Mother archetype, and here we get to see the Republican Primary Voter archetype reinforced. I'm sure that donors/establishment guys were cringing at this, as this is exactly what they want to avoid over the next year.

- her rant needs to be auto-tuned and turned into a song STAT
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
The objection is that it's unconstitutional, not that it's dickish. It's unambiguously constitutional for Congress to fund or not fund DHS for practically any reason it pleases. But it's pretty plausible that at some point a president choosing not to enforce part of a law he doesn't like goes from regular executive discretion to unconstitutional.

Quite right. The president has a Constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." In contrast, Congress has no obligation to fund the government. As I've said before, Congress has the power of the purse, not the duty of the purse.

I finally read the actual text in the Judiciary Committee's "GIF Op-Ed." I think they're onto something with that bill, though the name's a bit unwieldy.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Looks like this is Ben Carson's ubibekibekibekistanstan moment:

As the Politico report noted, Hewitt asked a perfectly fair question: does Carson believe the United States should be prepared to go to war if Russia encroaches on Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania – the way Putin entered Ukraine.

The unannounced candidate said the U.S. must “convince them to get involved in NATO and strengthen NATO.”

It fell to Hewitt to remind Carson that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are already in NATO.

...

Eventually, the Republican candidate conceded “there’s a lot of material to learn,” but insisted that “we spend too much time trying to get into these little details that are easily within the purview of the experts that you have available to you.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/carson-stumbles-little-details

That last bolded sentence is amazing.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Man, come on! It's too early for him to flame out! He's gotta at least last until the first debate.

If that quote happened during the thick of it, he'd be done, but it might fly under the radar this early with relatively little talk about the election.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
If that quote happened during the thick of it, he'd be done, but it might fly under the radar this early with relatively little talk about the election.

Yes but if he keeps doing this shit people will notice and he won't last long enough to give us our laughs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom