2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[runrussellrun]

tech, we've had this discussion before.
Epstein has a personal beef with Google, and his critique is way outside of his own expertise. You are basing this on what, exactly?
His beef showed how ignorant he really is on technology. Discredited. Who IS knowledgable in your world?

But it's not as if we shouldn't be concerned about the power these systems could have if manipulated, whether internally or by external forces.

Sure, discredited by you and other political hacks. These days they're a dime a dozen.
[/quote]

Well, not sure what qualifies me as a "political hack" but I simply looked at what his dispute with Google was/is and found him rather preposterously dumb about technology. Plenty of academic credentials but as this is an area I actually know something about, his lack of knowledge of this area surely disqualifies taking him seriously. Ask again, WHO is credible when it comes to google filtering (aka CENSORING) searches? Google?

The topic, though, is serious.
[/quote]

WIKI is NOT your friend, DartmouthLAX. Before lambasting someone, best to get out of your baltimore bubble.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -interview

[HooDat]

yep to all this:

Sounds like the primary reason whites don't vote is that they never registered to do so.
Those who do register have a higher turnout than minorities.

Minorities register at higher rate, but turnout at a lower rate.

Poor folks, both minorities and white, turnout less than more affluent folks.

I didn't see this stat, but older folks tend to be more likely to be R than are younger folks, who are disproportionately D.

but I don't conclude this:

So death and coming of voting age dynamic currently tilts D heavily.

So that doesn't mean there are more potential GOP votes to be had country-wide.
The demographics suggest that those more likely to be Dem (in the current alignment) are growing in number faster than those likely to vote R.

for a couple of reasons. The Boomers are disproportionately D, particularly given the historical trend of age moving folks to R (as you note).

The young are ALL OVER THE PLACE. I am seeing a very intriguing shift in political views of what will be the very young voters as we head into 2020. Those just behind the millennials (17-21 right now) are demonstrating their "rebelliousness" by being conservative!

as a side note: I see a lot of folks here lumping everyone that isn't a lily-white Trumpite into the category of "brown". I don't think that will stand up in the ballot booth. There are a lot of Hispanics that are very conservative, and many who do not consider themselves to be "brown" regardless of their political leanings. To lump them all together is to do them a disservice - and if you are a Dem, in doing so you set yourself up for failure (again).

[runrussellrun]

PRetend liberal democrats are PRO war......because they want to sit in airconditioned ocean front condos and live off the M.I.C. dividends. While screaming about climate change, which has happend for eternity.

That's why they didn't use any polls to allow TUSLI in the next debate. But, honeybadger dont give a uknowhat.....she will keep on running and running.

Paid off by Russians no doubt. Not Bernie though.....even though Hillaryous Clinton DID blame Sanders for her loss.

SPeaking of Hillaryous........wonderful when she announces her entering the 2020 election this fall. We have been planning to launch the campaign in Wisconsin.....anyone know where and when? Camp may be a good place, considering all the pretends in Madison. A Brewers game? Harley Davidson?

Why Wisconsin? She gave them the cold shoulder in 2016 (dumb).....but, more importantly, Wisconsin was the FIRST state to ratify the 19th amendment. 100 years ago.

You go Hillaryous, no one really like Liz either, but now the Epstein is out of the picture..........

[Typical Lax Dad]

PRetend liberal democrats are PRO war......because they want to sit in airconditioned ocean front condos and live off the M.I.C. dividends. While screaming about climate change, which has happend for eternity.

That's why they didn't use any polls to allow TUSLI in the next debate. But, honeybadger dont give a uknowhat.....she will keep on running and running.

Paid off by Russians no doubt. Not Bernie though.....even though Hillaryous Clinton DID blame Sanders for her loss.

SPeaking of Hillaryous........wonderful when she announces her entering the 2020 election this fall. We have been planning to launch the campaign in Wisconsin.....anyone know where and when? Camp may be a good place, considering all the pretends in Madison. A Brewers game? Harley Davidson?

Why Wisconsin? She gave them the cold shoulder in 2016 (dumb).....but, more importantly, Wisconsin was the FIRST state to ratify the 19th amendment. 100 years ago.

You go Hillaryous, no one really like Liz either, but now the Epstein is out of the picture..........

Oh boy....another year of Jill Stein!

[ggait]

^^^^^^^this is what my gut was/is telling me.

HooDat -- my synopsis. The trend generally goes younger/browner/more Dem as you go from actual voters to likely voters to registered voters to eligible voters to all adults. Which is why (in general) higher turnout is good for Dems and lower turnout is good for GOP.

But one piece ameliorates (but does not reverse) the trend. Which is that the demo of unregistered eligible/citizen voters tends to run a bit more white/uneducated than the other demos of non-voters. Because the demo of younger browner adults includes a lot of non-citizens.

So Trump would benefit most if increased turnout came from getting unregistered to register and vote. Particularly in the strategic rust belt where a lot of those folks are located. Dems would benefit more by getting registered non-voters (younger, browner and usually registered) off their phones/couch and out to the polls.

The data doesn't support your hunch that the electorate would be GOP leaning if all eligible voters voted. The number of additional older whiter uneducated (and often not registered) voters would be overtaken by a much bigger number of younger browner more educated (usually registered) voters.

[ggait]

as a side note: I see a lot of folks here lumping everyone that isn't a lily-white Trumpite into the category of "brown". I don't think that will stand up in the ballot booth. There are a lot of Hispanics that are very conservative, and many who do not consider themselves to be "brown" regardless of their political leanings. To lump them all together is to do them a disservice - and if you are a Dem, in doing so you set yourself up for failure (again).

HooDat -- you need to check the data, man.

Clinton 79 percent to 18 percent for Trump, with 3 percent voting third-party candidate. That's the worst any republican has EVER done with Latinos. Obama Romney was 75 to 23 percent.

Even with the conservative Cuban vote, Florida was Clinton 67 percent and Trump 31 percent. Obama's Florida Latino vote was 58 to 40 percent.

[Typical Lax Dad]

as a side note: I see a lot of folks here lumping everyone that isn't a lily-white Trumpite into the category of "brown". I don't think that will stand up in the ballot booth. There are a lot of Hispanics that are very conservative, and many who do not consider themselves to be "brown" regardless of their political leanings. To lump them all together is to do them a disservice - and if you are a Dem, in doing so you set yourself up for failure (again).

HooDat -- you need to check the data, man.

Clinton 79 percent to 18 percent for Trump, with 3 percent voting third-party candidate. That's the worst any republican has EVER done with Latinos. Obama Romney was 75 to 23 percent.

Even with the conservative Cuban vote, Florida was Clinton 67 percent and Trump 31 percent. Obama's Florida Latino vote was 58 to 40 percent.

There are plenty of white Hispanics. There are even some brown Italians....probably not real ones.

[ggait]

The young are ALL OVER THE PLACE. I am seeing a very intriguing shift in political views of what will be the very young voters as we head into 2020. Those just behind the millennials (17-21 right now) are demonstrating their "rebelliousness" by being conservative!

HooDat -- another data check for you.

2016 18-29 year old vote was 55D, 37R, and 8% third party.

2018. Turnout for 18-29 year olds went from 20% (2014) to 36% 2018 (a record). Still low turnout, but a huge increase -- almost doubled. And that youth vote was 67% D.

Trump motivates his base to vote for him. But he also motivates young people and people of color to come out in droves to vote against him.

[MDlaxfan76]

tech, we've had this discussion before.
Epstein has a personal beef with Google, and his critique is way outside of his own expertise. You are basing this on what, exactly?
His beef showed how ignorant he really is on technology. Discredited. Who IS knowledgable in your world?

But it's not as if we shouldn't be concerned about the power these systems could have if manipulated, whether internally or by external forces.

Sure, discredited by you and other political hacks. These days they're a dime a dozen.

Well, not sure what qualifies me as a "political hack" but I simply looked at what his dispute with Google was/is and found him rather preposterously dumb about technology. Plenty of academic credentials but as this is an area I actually know something about, his lack of knowledge of this area surely disqualifies taking him seriously. Ask again, WHO is credible when it comes to google filtering (aka CENSORING) searches? Google?

The topic, though, is serious.
[/quote]

WIKI is NOT your friend, DartmouthLAX. Before lambasting someone, best to get out of your baltimore bubble.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -interview
[/quote]

Yikes, RRR, you need a chill pill.

Epstein's beef was discussed exhaustively on one of these threads, plenty of specific citations about his beef with Google. He's not at all knowledgeable about technology, but is like a dog with a bone.

Yes, this actually is within my expertise, though there are guys and gals who work for me who know way more about the weeds than I do.

Sheesh, you want to cite the Washington Examiner and it's highly misleading story title as if it's something not fully understood??? Come on, RRR, you can do better.

The issue tech raised is a legit issue. Serious questions are appropriate.
It's just that Epstein is not a reliable critic and his specific accusations are off base.

So, any time you guys actually want to have a serious, fact-based, informed discussion about where and when we should consider these companies merely uncensored pipelines and/or when we should expect them to act like private publications with editorial discretion and/or when we should have concerns about the relative power of these companies... by all means have at it.

Probably deserves its own thread, though.

[runrussellrun]

MDlax ...

[
Yikes, RRR, you need a chill pill.

Epstein's beef was discussed exhaustively on one of these threads, plenty of specific citations about his beef with Google. He's not at all knowledgeable about technology, but is like a dog with a bone.

Yes, this actually is within my expertise, though there are guys and gals who work for me who know way more about the weeds than I do.

Sheesh, you want to cite the Washington Examiner and it's highly misleading story title as if it's something not fully understood??? Come on, RRR, you can do better.

.The wash examiner's story was about an hour long interview with the head of google on CNN.............where he admitted........well, you know what. (but, I seriously don't think you do quite often ) So no, no CHILL pill for this guy. long vacation, many fish caught.....edibles a BIG hit.....and I still get angry this time of year. You?

Why is Tulsi Gabbard suing google? Who else

google THAT and you will get what on google? logic thinking

[runrussellrun]

PRetend liberal democrats are PRO war......because they want to sit in airconditioned ocean front condos and live off the M.I.C. dividends. While screaming about climate change, which has happend for eternity.

That's why they didn't use any polls to allow TUSLI in the next debate. But, honeybadger dont give a uknowhat.....she will keep on running and running.

Paid off by Russians no doubt. Not Bernie though.....even though Hillaryous Clinton DID blame Sanders for her loss.

SPeaking of Hillaryous........wonderful when she announces her entering the 2020 election this fall. We have been planning to launch the campaign in Wisconsin.....anyone know where and when? Camp may be a good place, considering all the pretends in Madison. A Brewers game? Harley Davidson?

Why Wisconsin? She gave them the cold shoulder in 2016 (dumb).....but, more importantly, Wisconsin was the FIRST state to ratify the 19th amendment. 100 years ago.

You go Hillaryous, no one really like Liz either, but now the Epstein is out of the picture..........

Oh boy....another year of Jill Stein!

tRump don't surf........but TULSI does.

Why are you so pro death, war, and funding your warprofiteer neighbors.

[runrussellrun]

PRetend liberal democrats are PRO war......because they want to sit in airconditioned ocean front condos and live off the M.I.C. dividends. While screaming about climate change, which has happend for eternity.

That's why they didn't use any polls to allow TUSLI in the next debate. But, honeybadger dont give a uknowhat.....she will keep on running and running.

Paid off by Russians no doubt. Not Bernie though.....even though Hillaryous Clinton DID blame Sanders for her loss.

SPeaking of Hillaryous........wonderful when she announces her entering the 2020 election this fall. We have been planning to launch the campaign in Wisconsin.....anyone know where and when? Camp may be a good place, considering all the pretends in Madison. A Brewers game? Harley Davidson?

Why Wisconsin? She gave them the cold shoulder in 2016 (dumb).....but, more importantly, Wisconsin was the FIRST state to ratify the 19th amendment. 100 years ago.

You go Hillaryous, no one really like Liz either, but now the Epstein is out of the picture..........

Oh boy....another year of Jill Stein!

tRump don't surf........but TULSI does.

Why are you so pro death, war, and funding your warprofiteer neighbors.

[Typical Lax Dad]

PRetend liberal democrats are PRO war......because they want to sit in airconditioned ocean front condos and live off the M.I.C. dividends. While screaming about climate change, which has happend for eternity.

That's why they didn't use any polls to allow TUSLI in the next debate. But, honeybadger dont give a uknowhat.....she will keep on running and running.

Paid off by Russians no doubt. Not Bernie though.....even though Hillaryous Clinton DID blame Sanders for her loss.

SPeaking of Hillaryous........wonderful when she announces her entering the 2020 election this fall. We have been planning to launch the campaign in Wisconsin.....anyone know where and when? Camp may be a good place, considering all the pretends in Madison. A Brewers game? Harley Davidson?

Why Wisconsin? She gave them the cold shoulder in 2016 (dumb).....but, more importantly, Wisconsin was the FIRST state to ratify the 19th amendment. 100 years ago.

You go Hillaryous, no one really like Liz either, but now the Epstein is out of the picture..........

Oh boy....another year of Jill Stein!

tRump don't surf........but TULSI does.

Why are you so pro death, war, and funding your warprofiteer neighbors.

Not sure.

[MDlaxfan76]

MDlax ...

[
Yikes, RRR, you need a chill pill.

Epstein's beef was discussed exhaustively on one of these threads, plenty of specific citations about his beef with Google. He's not at all knowledgeable about technology, but is like a dog with a bone.

Yes, this actually is within my expertise, though there are guys and gals who work for me who know way more about the weeds than I do.

Sheesh, you want to cite the Washington Examiner and it's highly misleading story title as if it's something not fully understood??? Come on, RRR, you can do better.

.The wash examiner's story was about an hour long interview with the head of google on CNN.............where he admitted........well, you know what. (but, I seriously don't think you do quite often ) So no, no CHILL pill for this guy. long vacation, many fish caught.....edibles a BIG hit.....and I still get angry this time of year. You?

Why is Tulsi Gabbard suing google? Who else

google THAT and you will get what on google? logic thinking

RRR, you're picking a fight with me again with a quite offensive tone.
That's what deserves a chill pill.
I'm not your enemy.

Epstein is a guy with a personal beef and no knowledge of technology.

The Wash Examiner article, especially its title, misrepresents the content and context of what Google is doing (which isn't a surprise for them), but in no way am I dismissing the subject as an unimportant one, nor the larger question of how these tech giants should be regulated.

Are they just 'pipelines' or are they 'publications' with editorial discretion and responsibility (=liability)?
Fair questions.

The "free speech" argument is frequently misunderstood as requiring private businesses to provide a forum for any point of view simply because they own a means to transmit that point of view. That only holds water if they are the only means for one to 'speak'. It's pretty debatable that any one of these platforms is the only way for you and me to 'speak' publicly. My free speech rights are only infringed if the government doesn't let me say what I want. But if the WSJ doesn't want to publish what I have to say, it's not infringing on my right to speak. and they needn't explain their decision.

But it's an interesting argument as the tech giants often would prefer to be thought of as merely 'pipes' rather than making editorial judgments.

Frankly, I want these enterprises to get way, way tougher on what sorts of stuff gets pumped out virally. Way, way too much false identity garbage getting disseminated. Seems to me that's societally very harmful.

[runrussellrun]

wow, MD lax, who knew .........So you must have wanted fiction banned....and all the tabloids. MAD magazine too. Silence D good letters are junk.

Who is kidding who, you just admitted that YOU want more of what GOOGLE admits to doing already.... censorship.....and out of the other side of your mouth you claim that no such censorship exists in the first place.

Can you list any websites that are constantly embellishing or outright lying? And NOT from one guy in his basement, labeling websites, news outlets, etc.

(remember, it's the news that is NOT covered that is a problem for YOUR msm. Case in point, AOC helping raise funds for those arrested in Boston (antifa) google it and you get no MSM hits. Hmmm....why is that. It is very true. Just check her twitter feed. TLD said it was a lie. But, it's NOT)

You also never answered why Tulsi Gabbard was suing google. Hmmm, again, why is that?

You are very much like wife 1, passive aggressive cause N effect denier. I'm very much like Lars, HIT FIRST. Your ivory tower rants are legend.

I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news.

[youthathletics]

Truth: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2U5npJHXsH/

[youthathletics]

Joe is struggling...HRC should be here anytime now: https://www.instagram.com/tv/B2VQAMpn-A ... 2uf9vmb9jn

[runrussellrun]

Joe is struggling...HRC should be here anytime now: https://www.instagram.com/tv/B2VQAMpn-A ... 2uf9vmb9jn

Got more hints from sister in laws. Camp Randall will probably be the place. Homecoming

But, hillaryous clinton WILL be running for President in 2020, announcing in the first state that ratified the 19th amendment, exactly 100 years ago. After all, hillaryous has been accused of many things, but lying about being a minority and oppressed, ney murdered, peoples, as your ancestors.
Hillary's got that over Warren. Yale versus Rutgers law school? Lizzie is literally the ONLY non-Ivy league law school grad, or top 20, "teaching" at Harvard. She's only there because they wanted her husband.

[ardilla secreta]

Jack Russell sez: Got more hints from sister in laws. Camp Randall will probably be the place. Homecoming

We don’t need no stinkin’ Badgers. Go Hawkeyes.

[MDlaxfan76]

wow, MD lax, who knew .........So you must have wanted fiction banned....and all the tabloids. MAD magazine too. Silence D good letters are junk.

Who is kidding who, you just admitted that YOU want more of what GOOGLE admits to doing already.... censorship.....and out of the other side of your mouth you claim that no such censorship exists in the first place.

Can you list any websites that are constantly embellishing or outright lying? And NOT from one guy in his basement, labeling websites, news outlets, etc.

(remember, it's the news that is NOT covered that is a problem for YOUR msm. Case in point, AOC helping raise funds for those arrested in Boston (antifa) google it and you get no MSM hits. Hmmm....why is that. It is very true. Just check her twitter feed. TLD said it was a lie. But, it's NOT)

You also never answered why Tulsi Gabbard was suing google. Hmmm, again, why is that?

You are very much like wife 1, passive aggressive cause N effect denier. I'm very much like Lars, HIT FIRST. Your ivory tower rants are legend.

I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news.

True, I don't use Youtube to get my news at all.

I prefer journalism.

I never said that Google isn't screening out content they deem undesirable. Nor do I suggest at all that such power isn't enormous.

But they are a private business, so your personal rights of free speech aren't infringed because they screen out porn and hate speech. You're welcome to publish elsewhere. Yell it from the roof tops. Your roof top preferably.

This is a way more complicated issue, which I suggest is worth discussing...but not by hurling insults.

Re Tulsi, I had a recollection of what happened and why she was PO'd at Google but couldn't recall the exact details...so I googled it.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4 ... hip-claims

Frankly, what Google claims happened sounds a heck of a lot more plausible to me than that someone had animus to Tulsi and pulled the plug to mess her up. I suspect that she can prove damage was done, but she'd need to prove either negative intent or negligence that caused that damage. I doubt that's in the cards and Tulsi probably knows that the case, but she got some press for doing the lawsuit. As I'm not inside the campaign I dunno, but that'd be my bet.