Mmm. Shrimp sound good.
Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #00
Siren.Mosin said: » you've got a lot of work to do if you're to fill those shoes, bubba. Mmm. Shrimp sound good. Ramyrez said: » I'm just waiting for you to die you and me both sister... /reclines in flavin's lawnchair Started taking a superficial look at some candidates that are less talked about over here. I'm coming to the conclusion that Cruz might be the biggest nutjob of the lot, even worse than Trump lol.
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Started taking a superficial look at some candidates that are less talked about over here. I'm coming to the conclusion that Cruz might be the biggest nutjob of the lot, even worse than Trump lol. He's like Trump if Trump also decided to go batshit God crazy. Which is why Trump is now playing the "I'd appoint judges who would repeal gay marriage rights" card. He's trying to tickle the deity-obsessed closed-minders from Cruz. He's basically American ISIS. That may sound harsh, but they're terrorists, and I'm terrified of a man like him having any more power, so... Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Deez Nuts '16! Asura.Kingnobody said: » Restaurants could get new filing requirements Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Restaurants could get new filing requirements A male server makes 2.13/hr plus tips in Texas. A female server makes 2.13/hr plus tips in Texas. There, I just covered every restaurant (not fast food) in Texas. Big whoop. How does that solve anything? What is this report supposed to do or what information is it supposed to convey? Tips cannot be included because service is dependent on the type of restaurant and the server themselves. It's just another step towards solving nothing but making more problems for people/businesses. And I guarantee you, there will be an additional cost to make these filings. tl;dr version - the government shouldn't force people to report for reporting sake, especially if the information isn't relevant for the intended purpose. Collecting more data is a way to reduce the influence of confounding factors (the things you listed last page). If some kind of discrimination exists, then knowing the payroll information breakdown would be essential. I'm not sure why that reporting would be considered irrelevant.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Collecting more data is a way to reduce the influence of confounding factors (the things you listed last page). If some kind of discrimination exists, then knowing the payroll information breakdown would be essential. I'm not sure why that reporting would be considered irrelevant. Let me ask you this: What sort of information can be obtained by collecting the data of the number of toes an average human has? What purpose would that serve? Most restaurants pay pretty much the same price for labor. Sure, you will get discrepancies between states, due to state law, but if an industry is paying $X.XX amount per server, regardless of color or sex, then what's the point in forcing restaurants to report what the industry does? I would understand if the government would require other industries, such as professional service industries, to report said wages, but even then, that information would be irrelevant as there are many other factors involved besides the notion of sex or race. And the government just wouldn't get it. As far as the government is concerned, there is no other outlying differences between two accountants other than sex, race, religious preference, sexual habits, or any of the protected classes created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You're making the assumption that pay is equal regardless of race or sex. That's why data is collected - to see if that is true or not.
And I literally just said that collecting more data helps reduce the influence of confounding factors (variables unrelated to the ones of interest that confuse results). Now that these agencies will be able to look at this data more easily from payrolls outside of the government, it'll provide a more complete picture of what is actually happening. Looks like Cruz is going to win Iowa by about 5k votes over Trump, who is about 3k ahead of Rubio, then a dramatic drop to Carson in 4th, Rand Paul in 5th.
Clinton is ahead of Sanders by 1%, 50-49 with 82% reporting. O'malley is dropping out of the race after today. He will make a good running mate and set himself up to run again in later elections. Offline
Posts: 4394
Surprised Rubio is doing so well. The only half sane democrat is getting 1%.. Hilarious!
Rubio was projected to finish no less than 3rd. I'm surprised Carson had such a good showing, and not surprised at all that Fiorina did not.
Getting word now that Huckabee is finally dropping out. I would expect Santorum to follow.
Offline
Posts: 4394
It's the strong 3rd that is surprising. He almost got as many votes as Trump. Also noting that the Repubs are showing how many people voted while the Dems are only showing percentages.
Because all of the votes have been tallied on the GOP side while they are still counting on the Dem side. They will show the totals when all precincts are reporting.
Altimaomega said: » It's the strong 3rd that is surprising. He almost got as many votes as Trump. Also noting that the Repubs are showing how many people voted while the Dems are only showing percentages. They still haven't figured out how many dead people need to vote to give them the results they want. Give it a few hours. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » President Rubio. Get used to saying that. Offline
Posts: 4394
So what am I missing here?
Republicans had 175k voters turn out. With 99% in Democrats had 1.3k voters as far as I can find. With 95% in Plus headlines like this. Quote: High turnout at a Des Moines college leads to a ‘ridiculously crowded’ and ‘crazy’ caucus. Sanders has emerged as Clinton’s top rival, after climbing in the polls. Heading into caucus day, he was within striking distance of Clinton. Officials announced that, after the initial alignment, Sanders was in the lead, with 248 supporters. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley was in second place, with 108 supporters, and Clinton in third with 107. 463 is ‘ridiculously crowded’ and ‘crazy’ caucus, for the Dems.. WTF! The Iowa caucus is a strange event, its nothing like a regular primary where you just go to a booth and punch in your vote. Its actually a huge pain in the ***, and I don't know why they don't reform it.
This is a summary of the event for the Dems: Quote: As soon as the meetings open, attendees must declare a preference for a candidate. Typically, backers of each presidential hopeful physically stake out positions around the room. People who still can't make up their mind join a group known as "uncommitted." This is where it gets complicated. In order to be considered "viable," a group must clear a certain threshold -- usually around 15% of the entire caucus turnout in each precinct. Once first-round votes are tallied, anyone stuck in a group that is not "viable" has the chance to align with a candidate who has passed the threshold. But it's one of the cruel realities of the caucuses that if the O'Malley pack is too small, all the determination in the world won't be enough, and his supporters will have to decide whether to join backers of either former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during a second count -- known as a "re-alignment period." You have to get there at 7 pm, its basically in a gym, and they break you up into groups, for the Dems it was either Clinton or Sanders, so all the Clinton supporters go stand over there, and the Sanders voters go stand over there, and they count the heads and thats the caucus in a nutshell. Its bizarre and its why there is such low turnout in Iowa, if you can't make it on time (7 pm) you can't caucus. Edit- That 463 number is from one precinct, so one gym basically. Offline
Posts: 4394
Yes, I know. But the highest number I've seen showing up for the Dems altogether is 1.3k, and I am rounding up.
Thats obviously not the total number of votes, it is probably the highest turnout at any one precinct.
Offline
Posts: 4394
Ah, Okay. Could make sense that way. I guess.
Offline
Posts: 4394
Quote: Sometimes, Iowa Democrats award caucus delegates with a coin flip Here’s what happened, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus: A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable). Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned. Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations. Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss. A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate. Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss. Quote: DES MOINES, Iowa — The room at Bernie Sanders' rally here turned ice cold when Hillary Clinton's speech took over the televisions here. The crowd booed loudly at first, then cheered when the sound cut out. The sound soon returned and Clinton was drowned out by further boos when she said "I'm a progressive who gets things done." It escalated from there: Chants of "She's a liar!" took over the room before the campaign just entirely shut off the stream, cutting away from MSNBC entirely. Here I am thinking the Republicans are hard on each other. Like I said the Iowa caucus is strange.
Altimaomega said: » Surprised Rubio is doing so well. The only half sane democrat is getting 1%.. Hilarious! Iowa tends to be a heavily liberal state, also don't base Republican nomination predictions on the result of the Iowa Caucasus, it tends to be wonky at the best of times. We'll have a more solid idea after the Texas / Florida / Ohio / New York votes are in. She won five coin tosses in a row? I mean sure, that's possible, but at a 3.125% chance....
Bahamut.Ravael said: » She won five coin tosses in a row? I mean sure, that's possible, but at a 3.125% chance.... |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|