Will Trump be the next US president?

[the-pi-guy]

What does the article mean as "unreliable methodology"? I expected the writers to provide examples of things such as sampling bias or non-blind tests. However, they did not.

Have you ever taken a stats class?

CSP's survey was a non-probability based, opt-in online survey, administered by the conservative group, the Polling Company/Woman Trend, a small Washington-based agency that has collaborated with CSP on other occasions to produce surveys about Islam and Muslims.

In several questions that are asked about shariah, the content of what shariah actually is remains unexamined. Even when Gaffney's survey appears to be more nuanced by asking Muslims how they would "characterize shariah," it only offers options about how broadly sharia—whatever it is—should be applied. Answers ranging from "guide to the personal practice of Islam" to Gaffney's preferred option ("the Muslim God Allah's law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via jihad") still don't allow Muslims to express about what they believe about shariah.

Sixty-percent of respondents agreed that "shariah as interpreted by Islamic authorities is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and other rights," and 51% chose this definition of jihad: "Muslims' peaceful, personal struggle to be more religious." These rare but helpful nuances are not even alluded to in the promotion and coverage of the survey's findings in conservative outlets like Fox News.

These are perfect examples of unreliable.

Are you asking the right people?  Are you asking the right questions?  Do those questions mean what you think they mean?

Asking the right people:
If I ask 30 terrorists if they like the USA, I should not expect those results to be applicable to anyone else.  
If I ask 30 people that killed their wife, if they loved their wife, I should not expect those results to be applicable to anyone else.  

Do those questions mean what you think they mean?  
Asking questions that has a double meaning, one negative and one positive particularly in that group, and trying to pin negativity on that is not exactly a reliable result.  

You and the article also fell into the trap of ad hominem. You must judge people or organizations on a point-by-point basis. Regardless of the CSP's dubious history, does its poll hold up to scrutiny? If it does not, then what makes the poll inaccurate? Unfortunately, neither you nor the article specified the flaws.
Then state claims that you know to be true. "Think" connotes lack of robustness and conclusiveness.

Like I said, the article gave perfect examples of what makes the poll inaccurate.
I don't know what's true.  We're making guesses.  Have you seen any good major studies  that have polled people asking what they think when they hear "radical"?  If you have, please let me know.  

So, if we were to follow your logic (and I'm going to keep an eye on you if you resort to moving the goalposts), then there's is an "incredibly" homophobic culture in the American Muslim community. Over 52% of them oppose same-naughtiness marriage, which is over 40%:

I am so glad you agree with me.  

I don't see two different ways, rather two mistakes. Your first mistake was the red herring fallacy. This response failed to be on topic and actually address my argument. Second mistake, you failed to elaborate on "same". Same in what way and how do you know (and not what you think)?
You fell into the ad hominem trap again. Looks like you only read the titles and felt like you didn't need to do anymore legwork. Did you watch their content and what particular arguments do you disagree with? I am very disappointed that you did not say "I disagree with That Guy T or Top Hats and Champagne on _______ because _______".

Two different ways of avoiding the detrimental effect of "radical Islam"
-Explaining the phrase
-Avoiding the phrase

My response was a response to your "look up", so it's very much on topic.  There wasn't any argument to address there.  

Let's play the question game, that you loved to pull earlier.  

Orlando Gay Club Shooting - The shooter, to no one's surprise, was muslim. The implications.

"Why would you call the video that?"  

"Is it possible that there are other people who immediately go to 'Terrorist=Islam'?"

Besides that, the video is pretty much exactly what I expected.  

Overall, your arguments are vague, failing to dig into the specifics. They are reliant on other people who hold the same positions, but do not elaborate (e.g. failure to explain the "unreliable methodology"). Your arguments are also reliant on fallacies, most notably the ad hominem fallacy. When someone makes a claim, you are dissecting the claim; you are not dissecting the person's background.

Your arguments are equally as vague.  
Like I said above for the 3rd time, the article does go into those things.  

You seem to think that there is this wonderful correct answer out there that is available.  When it comes to people that is hardly ever the case.  There is no magical study that just proves your point.  People have a ton of variety, what works for some people, does not work for others.  Trying to find an answer that works for everyone is not going to work out, so excuse me for not being certain that I have an answer, because I feel that one does not exist.  

You've become increasingly negative about me the past couple posts, we are certainly not going to agree; so excuse me but I'm done with this conversation.  

[Aura7541]

These are perfect examples of unreliable.

Are you asking the right people?  Are you asking the right questions?  Do those questions mean what you think they mean?

Asking the right people:
If I ask 30 terrorists if they like the USA, I should not expect those results to be applicable to anyone else. 
If I ask 30 people that killed their wife, if they loved their wife, I should not expect those results to be applicable to anyone else. 

Do those questions mean what you think they mean? 
Asking questions that has a double meaning, one negative and one positive particularly in that group, and trying to pin negativity on that is not exactly a reliable result. 

Fair enough.

Like I said, the article gave perfect examples of what makes the poll inaccurate.
I don't know what's true.  We're making guesses.  Have you seen any good major studies  that have polled people asking what they think when they hear "radical"?  If you have, please let me know.   

Not for the US, but there are two worldwide studies on Muslims from Pew Research that I can suggest for you to look at.

The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society | Pew Research Center
The Divide Over Islam and National Laws in the Muslim World | Pew Research Center

Dr. Layman also made a video on statistics on Islamic violence:

Two different ways of avoiding the detrimental effect of "radical Islam"
-Explaining the phrase
-Avoiding the phrase

My response was a response to your "look up", so it's very much on topic.  There wasn't any argument to address there. 

Let's play the question game, that you loved to pull earlier. 

Orlando Gay Club Shooting - The shooter, to no one's surprise, was muslim. The implications.

"Why would you call the video that?"

"Is it possible that there are other people who immediately go to 'Terrorist=Islam'?"

Besides that, the video is pretty much exactly what I expected. 

Avoiding the phrase won't prevent the detrimental effects because there will always be people who will prod for answers and will not rest until the truth reveals itself. Also, censorship violates the civil liberty of free speech. If you want to prohibit the mention of "radical Islam", then you do not advocate for free speech and it's rather reminiscent of communist & fascist governments that crack down on certain types of speech. There's no "I'm for free speech, except for ______". Free speech is free speech.

That's also a rather flawed question game, especially when the last couple of major attacks have been done in the name of Islam: St. Bernandino, Molenbeek, and Paris. I can also add the Cologne sexual assaults from New Years Eve. The pattern is apparent. If you disagree, then you should have no problem showing me four shootings/bombings motivated by Christianity from November 2015 - June 2016. In fact, when I Google "Christian shootings", I get links to articles of shootings targeted at Christians.

You also once again failed to address any specific points from the videos you watched. I want specificity, not slippery slopes. And oh hey, even David Pakman, a progressive Bernie-supporter, acknowledged the Orlando shooting as Islamic terrorism. He even criticized the left for suppressing discussion of Islam and terrorism.

Your arguments are equally as vague. 

Proof by assertion. Countering my argument by aiming it back at me without specificity doesn't work, I'm afraid.

Like I said above for the 3rd time, the article does go into those things. 

You seem to think that there is this wonderful correct answer out there that is available.  When it comes to people that is hardly ever the case.  There is no magical study that just proves your point.  People have a ton of variety, what works for some people, does not work for others.  Trying to find an answer that works for everyone is not going to work out, so excuse me for not being certain that I have an answer, because I feel that one does not exist. 

You've become increasingly negative about me the past couple posts, we are certainly not going to agree; so excuse me but I'm done with this conversation. 

"You seem". What did I tell you about these types of statements?

This is also a strawman fallacy. This conversation began because you got upset over me agreeing with Trump over a statement, in which he said that the Orlando shooting was motivated by Islam. That is true because he pledged allegiance to ISIS prior to the shooting. Orlando also had a mosque that invited a homophobic Muslim scholar that called for killing gay people. Furthermore, Omar's father had ties to extreme Islamic groups. Despite of all these puzzle pieces, you refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room and instead call for censorship because feels-over-reals.

The fear of people all of a sudden persecuting Muslims from the utterance of "radical Islam" is irrational, a phobia (for once, this Latin word is used in the correct context). You cannot suppress curiosity and questions won't stop. Eventually, the truth will have to be put out in the open. Avoiding the mentioning of "radical Islam" is merely an unnecessary delay of the same outcome. Therefore, the best solution is to have an open-discussion and correct people whenever necessary.

[the-pi-guy]

Sanders working with Hillary.
Clinton releases health care plan (in collaboration with Sanders) - NeoGAF

Just like with the college tuition plan that her team worked with Sanders, Clinton released a new health care plan today that was worked on in collaboration with the Sanders team. It can be read in full here.
 In short, Clinton "will work with governors to expand Medicaid in every state" and "launch a national campaign to enroll people who are eligible but not already enrolled". In addition to this, she also wants to expand health care access to all families, despite immigration status.
 She wants to control costs by giving the "Secretary of Health and Human Services... the authority to block or modify unreasonable health insurance premium rate increases". Additionally, she will "will cap prescription drug costs that people have to pay out of pocket, and limit excessive out-of-pocket costs".
 She also wants to "give Americans in every state in the country the choice of a public-option insurance plan" and also "expand Medicare by allowing people 55 years or older to opt in". She committed to "doubling the funding for primary care services at community health centers over the next decade".
 There is more at the link, including mentions of Alzheimer's, addiction, increasing access to dental and mental health care, and so on. Sanders has praised the plan as "extremely important" and a "significant step forward". When discussing his endorsement of Clinton on MSNBC, he said there were more policies that his team and the Clinton team were working on together, so it's possible there will be more collaborative policy proposals like this and the tuition proposal in the future.
 

[Raven]

Sanders working with Hillary.
Clinton releases health care plan (in collaboration with Sanders) - NeoGAF

Nope. Medicare does not need to be expanded. That's for senior citizens. We just made moves to increase retirement age for social security to decrease the stress on it and now they want to LOWER the age of people who can hop on Medicare? I also do not like the idea, at all, of tax money being used to pay for medical treatment even if the person isn't supposed to be here. Furthermore, if you're willing to lower the age for Medicare and you want to expand Medicaid, then what is the point of the public-option? So not only are you requiring me to have some form of health insurance but you're going to increase my taxes so I can pay for Billy Ray who don't work, Haji who isn't even supposed to be here, and Mary Jane who isn't even retired yet but wants free medical treatment.

Why does all of this suddenly need to happen? Wasn't Obamacare working miracles or something? All this amounts to is government expanding its reach, raising taxes, and telling us we have to pay, even for people who aren't putting in, or else. Decouple insurance requirements from companies. You wrote insurance agencies a blank fudgy check when you required businesses of even 50 employees to offer medical insurance. Decoupling forces insurance companies to lower rates because they have to sell to individuals and not companies. With companies now having insurance as optional, insurance agencies have to offer dang good deals instead of forcing the company to suck their sucker. Allow insurance companies to offer their plans across state lines instead of all these restrictions of where they're allowed to sell. Regulate the pharmaceutical industry to ensure fair prices are being charged and then regulate the medical industry to ensure people aren't being gouged by battleship administrative costs. You don't need to force shame on the people to get results.

[the-pi-guy]

Nope. Medicare does not need to be expanded. That's for senior citizens. We just made moves to increase retirement age for social security to decrease the stress on it and now they want to LOWER the age of people who can hop on Medicare? I also do not like the idea, at all, of tax money being used to pay for medical treatment even if the person isn't supposed to be here. Furthermore, if you're willing to lower the age for Medicare and you want to expand Medicaid, then what is the point of the public-option? So not only are you requiring me to have some form of health insurance but you're going to increase my taxes so I can pay for Billy Ray who don't work, Haji who isn't even supposed to be here, and Mary Jane who isn't even retired yet but wants free medical treatment.

The entire healthcare thing that Bernie has been pushing has essentially been an expanded Medicare.  Every country on Earth is spending less on healthcare than we are.  A big part of that is administration, which is much cheaper in a single-payer system.  Basically his goal was: instead of paying 5500$ for healthcare + X$ amount of taxes, why don't we pay 3500 + X$ on healthcare? That'll save everyone an average of 2000$ a year, while managing to expand healthcare.  

Some studies indicate that illegals do often pay taxes, and they are also less likely to take advantage of social programs.  

Why does all of this suddenly need to happen? Wasn't Obamacare working miracles or something? All this amounts to is government expanding its reach, raising taxes, and telling us we have to pay, even for people who aren't putting in, or else. Decouple insurance requirements from companies. You wrote insurance agencies a blank fudgy check when you required businesses of even 50 employees to offer medical insurance. Decoupling forces insurance companies to lower rates because they have to sell to individuals and not companies. With companies now having insurance as optional, insurance agencies have to offer dang good deals instead of forcing the company to suck their sucker. Allow insurance companies to offer their plans across state lines instead of all these restrictions of where they're allowed to sell. Regulate the pharmaceutical industry to ensure fair prices are being charged and then regulate the medical industry to ensure people aren't being gouged by battleship administrative costs. You don't need to force shame on the people to get results.

Obamacare wasn't working miracles, it was a step up.  If you have 2 tumors, and you get rid of one; that doesn't mean we stop and say well it's a miracle.  Bernie and Hillary both have been talking about where to go next after Obamacare because there is still a lot left to go.

[Raven]

The entire healthcare thing that Bernie has been pushing has essentially been an expanded Medicare.  Every country on Earth is spending less on healthcare than we are.  A big part of that is administration, which is much cheaper in a single-payer system.  Basically his goal was: instead of paying 5500$ for healthcare + X$ amount of taxes, why don't we pay 3500 + X$ on healthcare? That'll save everyone an average of 2000$ a year, while managing to expand healthcare.  

Some studies indicate that illegals do often pay taxes, and they are also less likely to take advantage of social programs.  
Obamacare wasn't working miracles, it was a step up.  If you have 2 tumors, and you get rid of one; that doesn't mean we stop and say well it's a miracle.  Bernie and Hillary both have been talking about where to go next after Obamacare because there is still a lot left to go.

There are ways to improve without handing the government more money on top of the trillions it already brings in. When you raise taxes and reduce the buying power of the people you reduce their power, period. The US government is too bureaucratic to effectively handle a single payer system for hundreds of millions of people. Also, Obamacare was a step up if you own an insurance company.

[kitler53]

There are ways to improve without handing the government more money on top of the trillions it already brings in. When you raise taxes and reduce the buying power of the people you reduce their power, period. The US government is too bureaucratic to effectively handle a single payer system for hundreds of millions of people. Also, Obamacare was a step up if you own an insurance company.

this is just a bunch of unrelevant anti-government statements.  i worked for GE and it was more bureaucratic  than my government job.  any organization over 50k people is heavily bureaucratic, they have to be.  but a single payer system (even with bureaucracy) has proven to be more efficient.

small is great when you need to innovate new solutions.  big is great when you need to execute a single solution efficiently.

[Raven]

this is just unsubstantiated anti-government statements.  i worked for GE and it was more bureaucratic  than my government job.  any organization over 50k people is heavily bureaucratic, they have to be.  but a single payer system (even with bureaucracy) has proven to be more efficient.

small is great when you need to innovate new solutions.  big is great when you need to execute a single solution efficiently.

Sure. You wanna hand them more money than they already make from taxing everything under the sun, go ahead. I'm anti-giving the government more money than it needs. I also don't trust our politicians enough to not use money from the single payer system to line pockets and fund shame they're not supposed to. Compulsory anything means you have no choice and little power. I'm already being told I have to have health insurance or get fined at the end of the year. A fine that is increasing each year. That's just a iced up step to reduce my resistance to a single payer system.

[Aura7541]

Why does all of this suddenly need to happen? Wasn't Obamacare working miracles or something? All this amounts to is government expanding its reach, raising taxes, and telling us we have to pay, even for people who aren't putting in, or else. Decouple insurance requirements from companies. You wrote insurance agencies a blank fudgy check when you required businesses of even 50 employees to offer medical insurance. Decoupling forces insurance companies to lower rates because they have to sell to individuals and not companies. With companies now having insurance as optional, insurance agencies have to offer dang good deals instead of forcing the company to suck their sucker. Allow insurance companies to offer their plans across state lines instead of all these restrictions of where they're allowed to sell. Regulate the pharmaceutical industry to ensure fair prices are being charged and then regulate the medical industry to ensure people aren't being gouged by battleship administrative costs. You don't need to force shame on the people to get results.

One thing I noticed is that the pharmaceutical industry is run by corporatism, not by meritocratic capitalism. Not only are high prices the only issue, but the bias in industry-promoted medical research is rather appalling.

[kitler53]

Sure. You wanna hand them more money than they already make from taxing everything under the sun, go ahead. I'm anti-giving the government more money than it needs. I also don't trust our politicians enough to not use money from the single payer system to line pockets and fund shame they're not supposed to. Compulsory anything means you have no choice and little power. I'm already being told I have to have health insurance or get fined at the end of the year. A fine that is increasing each year. That's just a iced up step to reduce my resistance to a single payer system.

lining ones pockets is even worst in the corporate world than the government one because at least government is regulated. 

but this is the fact:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31052665

The US is by far the most expensive place in the world to give birth or to receive any medical treatment as there is no publicly financed health services as in most developed countries.



this is why medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in america, a uniquely american problem.  

so fudge off about your whining about needing insurance.  the laws are written so the hospitals cannot deny someone in need of medical treatment.  so unless you are volunteering to die instead receiving medical care the next time you need it then the system is already compulsory. i pay for your uninsured dog either way i just pay for it in the form of the baby i'm having in a month will cost me about 30-50k dollars instead of the WW average of 5-10k.  that is my "tax" for our currently broken as fudge system. 

america has the absolute shittiest medical system in the world at the moment and it is about time we fix it. 

[Legend]

the baby i'm having in a month

Congrats!

will cost me about 30-50k dollars

Ouch

[Raven]

lining ones pockets is even worst in the corporate world than the government one because at least government is regulated.

but this is the fact:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31052665

The US is by far the most expensive place in the world to give birth or to receive any medical treatment as there is no publicly financed health services as in most developed countries.



this is why medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in america, a uniquely american problem.  

so fudge off about your whining about needing insurance.  the laws are written so the hospitals cannot deny someone in need of medical treatment.  so unless you are volunteering to die instead receiving medical care the next time you need it then the system is already compulsory. i pay for your uninsured dog either way i just pay for it in the form of the baby i'm having in a month will cost me about 30-50k dollars instead of the WW average of 5-10k.  that is my "tax" for our currently broken as fudge system.

america has the absolute shittiest medical system in the world at the moment and it is about time we fix it.

I pay in the form of the fine at the end of the year which grows each year as I opt to not pay the rates my company currently offers but in two years the fine will be so high it'll be cheaper the other way for me. Also, the medical treatment I've received in the past, I paid for myself. So, no, you didn't "pay for my dog". I didn't say our system wasn't in need of repair but forcing everyone to pay in and handing even more of our money over to a government already bringing in tons of money doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather see a system of affordable private options that is also keeping pharmaceutical and general medical costs in check instead of the outrageous prices they charge now.

[the-pi-guy]

so fudge off about your whining about needing insurance. 

Easy there.  It is absolutely not necessary to attack another user to make your point.

[Xevross]

You shouldn't have to pay any money to give birth, never mind that much.

The American health system is awful right now and people have different ideas on how to fix it but there's no need for the argument to get so heated in here

[DD_Bwest]

a fine for not having insurance is kinda iced up.. but you guys do need some system in place to get your system in check.

also, to say its the worst out there is a bit much.  id rather be in the us then say.. Bangladesh lol