The national poll's were inaccurate, they were within 4-5% which is not saying much because voting nationwide doesn't change more then 5% per political party from one election to the other.
You can literally guess the vote percent will be the same as last year, and you'd come out as more accurate then the actual polls and within 3%.
You can say this all you like, but it doesn't make it true.
If you want to discredit polling methods done by trained professionals, then get yourself a degree in statistics and show why they're wrong - not occasionally (which is an understood risk - "Poll is accurate to +/- 3%, 19 times out of 20"), but intrinsically. If you come up with a viable alternative for modern polling methods, you will also live a very, very comfortable life.
Nate Silver called 49 out of 50 states correctly in 2012 (and accurately predicted who would win and that it wasn't a "toss-up" or even close, unlike most pundits). You don't do that by guessing, and if you think you can - see above about how you can make all of the money.
And Nate silver got it disastrously wrong for this election.
Also 2012 election is nothing, 2012 result is nearly identical to 2008 in terms of which States remained Democrat or Republican, only one or two States flipped.
To put it another way, if i guess 2012 result is the same as 2008, I would be as accurate as Nate Silver.
And yes i do have a degree that involves statistics.
And Nate silver got it disastrously wrong for this election.
No he didn't. He predicted that it was likely Hillary would win, but that there was a 20-30% chance (depending when) that Trump would win. A 20-30% chance is not zero. It is to be expected to happen about 20-30% of the time.
He also explained, before the election happened, why it was less certain than 2012 and had a wider variance of outcomes.
Meanwhile, many pundits who didn't rely on rigorous statistical data gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning.
And yes i do have a degree that involves statistics.
Then, as I said, overturn the entire field and make all the money. It should be easy to do - all you have to do is be more accurate than polling, which you say is no better than guessing anyway. And if you don't have a better system, then you should at least be able to easily statistically prove that polling companies are frauds and their results no better than guessing. This sort of thing is done to prove claims about alternative medicine outcomes are frauds pretty frequently, for instance.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue on an internet forum about it when they could instead be publishing papers that would lead to worldwide fame, lifelong employment, and a place among the most distinguished statisticians in history.
The national poll's were inaccurate, they were within 4-5% which is not saying much because voting nationwide doesn't change more then 5% per political party from one election to the other.
You can literally guess the vote percent will be the same as last year, and you'd come out as more accurate then the actual polls and within 3%.
You can say this all you like, but it doesn't make it true.
If you want to discredit polling methods done by trained professionals, then get yourself a degree in statistics and show why they're wrong - not occasionally (which is an understood risk - "Poll is accurate to +/- 3%, 19 times out of 20"), but intrinsically. If you come up with a viable alternative for modern polling methods, you will also live a very, very comfortable life.
Nate Silver called 49 out of 50 states correctly in 2012 (and accurately predicted who would win and that it wasn't a "toss-up" or even close, unlike most pundits). You don't do that by guessing, and if you think you can - see above about how you can make all of the money.
And Nate silver got it disastrously wrong for this election.
Also 2012 election is nothing, 2012 result is nearly identical to 2008 in terms of which States remained Democrat or Republican, only one or two States flipped.
To put it another way, if i guess 2012 result is the same as 2008, I would be as accurate as Nate Silver.
And yes i do have a degree that involves statistics.
If it's from Trump University it doesn't count as an accredited university or college. Trump University was a scam that did not confer college credit, grant degrees, or grade its students.[
No he didn't. He predicated that is was likely Hillary would win, but that there was a 20-30% chance (depending when) that Trump would win. A 20-30% chance is not zero. It is to be expected to happen about 20-30% of the time.
He also explained, before the election happened, why it was less certain than 2012 and had a wider variance of outcomes.
Meanwhile, many pundits who didn't rely on rigorous statistical data gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning.
So a person who's job it is to model and forecast reality, got it wrong. Therefore I see no reason to trust this person.
Then, as I said, overturn the entire field and make all the money. It should be easy to do - all you have to do is be more accurate than polling, which you say is no better than guessing anyway. And if you don't have a better system, then you should at least be able to easily statistically prove that polling companies are frauds and their results no better than guessing. This sort of thing is done to prove claims about alternative medicine outcomes are frauds pretty frequently, for instance.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue on an internet forum about it when they could instead be publishing papers that would lead to worldwide fame, lifelong employment, and a place among the most distinguished statisticians in history.
I can't imagine why you would criticize Government on the internet forums instead of doing a better job then Government either.
But of course you don't take your own advice do you?
So a person who's job it is to model and forecast reality, got it wrong. Therefore I see no reason to trust this person.
So what you're arguing is that if someone forecasts that an election has a 70% chance of going one way, and a 30% chance of going the other, that that person "got it wrong" if the 30% chance candidate wins?
I guess, by that standard, statistics ceases to exist every time someone wins a hand at poker.
So what you're arguing is that if someone forecasts that an election has a 70% chance of going one way, and a 30% chance of going the other, that that person "got it wrong" if the 30% chance candidate wins?
I guess, by that standard, statistics ceases to exist every time someone wins a hand at poker.
Hillary did not have a 70% chance of winning, she lost.
This means that Nate Silver's conclusion and/or date was inaccurate by far.
If you don't understand statistics, you may not understand that statement.
And no, it is ridiculous that Nate Silver can be 'justified' in his inaccurate forecast because his 70% estimate was wrong.
What if it was 99% Hillary? can i excuse Nate Silver because there is a 1% for Trump?
There is a difference between "criticising" and "saying the entire field is invalid and it's completely obvious why this is so".
It's a wonderful thing then i merely criticized the accuracy of modern polling in this circumstance as it has been long criticized even by Gallup as being questionable today.
Evidently you've been arguing against a strawman.
If you can exactly quote where i said the entire field is invalid, go ahead.
@vanatos: You didn't say the entire field of statistics was bogus, but you did repeatedly say that polls, and predictions based on them, were unreliable--in fact, that they were no better than guessing. And any form of prediction that's no better than guessing is, by definition, 100% worthless.
That said, let's not spend our time dissecting each other's comments, lest we spiral into semantics.
Mis-characterizing someones position is a sign of a losing argument.
No, i said Polls and predictions around this American Political area is inaccurate and questionable, as Gallup also agrees.
Nor did i say it was 'no better then guessing' in general terms, but that specifically if you had 'guessed' the 2012 State results as being identical to 2008, you'd be as accurate as Nate Silver.
The focus on Nate Silver for 2012 results and his disastrous performance in 2016 is laughable, because it shows he is not good at it.
If you look at American election results, you see a very firm pattern, first that Statewide results don't change much (1-3 States flip) on sitting Presidents and this has been the way for the last 3-4 Presidents, so anyone with half a brain would just say 2012 result will be near identical to 2008, and presto Nate Silver.
You get significant changes in results if you have a disaster (War), you get significant but not as great changes in results when sitting Presidents Leave (or generally after every 2 terms for a Political Party).
Despite this, Nate Silver's forecast was that 2016 was pretty much be 2012 State-wide. This does not agree with history in any fashion.
Triggering article 50 was the last unilateral step for the UK. Now the vice closes. According to the wonders of opinion polling 40% of the UK people believe that they can have their cake and eat it by getting immigration control and free trade. The UK government will have extreme problems satisfying such high expectations, particularly with a relatively inexperienced and understaffed negotiating team.
You do realize that you can lose even if you have a 70% chance of winning, right? Only if you have a 100% chance would be no lose.
Hillary had a 100% chance of losing, because reality affirms that, she had, in this forecasters mind at the time, 70% chance of winning.
Forecasts by statistics doesn't show you factual reality, it shows you what someone guesses the future to be on the basis of probability and whatever data and methodology they use.
The only real defense for Nate Silver is 'Is this a reasonable conclusion based on the available information at the time'? Thats entirely subjective, To people who only listen to the media, Sure sounds reasonable, I would say No because American Political History would show Nate Silvers forecasts on the States to be an anomaly.
You do realize that you can lose even if you have a 70% chance of winning, right? Only if you have a 100% chance would be no lose.
Hillary had a 100% chance of losing, because reality affirms that, she had, in this forecasters mind at the time, 70% chance of winning.
Forecasts by statistics doesn't show you factual reality, it shows you what someone guesses the future to be on the basis of probability and whatever data and methodology they use.
The only real defense for Nate Silver is 'Is this a reasonable conclusion based on the available information at the time'? Thats entirely subjective, To people who only listen to the media, Sure sounds reasonable, I would say No because American Political History would show Nate Silvers forecasts on the States to be an anomaly.
Ummmm.....every outcome is a 100% certainty after it's already happened. And unless this is Back to the Future 2 and someone has the Almanac that's the way it will always be. You can say any event in human history had a 100% chance of taking place in hindsight, because that's what took place. Polling and statistics give us a reasonable, educated assumption of what the outcome will be. Advertisers rely on such data. So do many other industries. For shits and giggles I guess??
Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error to any poll quoting public opinion, just to be safe.......that would put Trump at a max of 40%, but it would also put him at a minimum of 30%. And, for the 14th of 15th time, the polling aggregate at 538 and other places put the popular vote win for Hillary at around 2-3%, and not only because of the margin of error. Those were the final national predictions based on all the data. Hillary won it by 2.3%. Less than 100,000 people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania do not discredit the entire practice of public polling.
Ummmm.....every outcome is a 100% certainty after it's already happened. And unless this is Back to the Future 2 and someone has the Almanac that's the way it will always be. You can say any event in human history had a 100% chance of taking place in hindsight, because that's what took place. Polling and statistics give us a reasonable, educated assumption of what the outcome will be. Advertisers rely on such data. So do many other industries. For shits and giggles I guess??
For politics? Yeh for shits and giggles, and to shape public opinion. Why would i trust anything around politics? Because it helps my sides narrative?
its interesting you talk about industry reliance, USA Today ended their partnership with Gallup because of their inaccuracy during the 2012 elections.
Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error to any poll quoting public opinion, just to be safe.......that would put Trump at a max of 40%, but it would also put him at a minimum of 30%. And, for the 14th of 15th time, the polling aggregate at 538 and other places put the popular vote win for Hillary at around 2-3%, and not only because of the margin of error. Those were the final national predictions based on all the data. Hillary won it by 2.3%. Less than 100,000 people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania do not discredit the entire practice of public polling.
National vote for political party candidates by percentile does not change much per election, at most 4% for any given party.
Even without polling, if you assumed it was the same as last election you'd be just as close as the poll aggregations.
I'll explain another way, Polls can just take 2012 results, change it less then 5% and they are as accurate as what you see today, It's not a credible phenomena because anyone can do it.
"Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error" is just an exercise in playing around with numbers, Rasmussen differs from Gallup by a significant margin.
I'll give an easy flaw for Gallup's methodology, they interview people directly, which was proven in this election to tend to understate Trumps numbers because of the media climate, most people will give you an answer that is not truthful.
Ummmm.....every outcome is a 100% certainty after it's already happened. And unless this is Back to the Future 2 and someone has the Almanac that's the way it will always be. You can say any event in human history had a 100% chance of taking place in hindsight, because that's what took place. Polling and statistics give us a reasonable, educated assumption of what the outcome will be. Advertisers rely on such data. So do many other industries. For shits and giggles I guess??
For politics? Yeh for shits and giggles, and to shape public opinion. Why would i trust anything around politics? Because it helps my sides narrative?
its interesting you talk about industry reliance, USA Today ended their partnership with Gallup because of their inaccuracy during the 2012 elections.
Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error to any poll quoting public opinion, just to be safe.......that would put Trump at a max of 40%, but it would also put him at a minimum of 30%. And, for the 14th of 15th time, the polling aggregate at 538 and other places put the popular vote win for Hillary at around 2-3%, and not only because of the margin of error. Those were the final national predictions based on all the data. Hillary won it by 2.3%. Less than 100,000 people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania do not discredit the entire practice of public polling.
National vote for political party candidates by percentile does not change much per election, at most 4% for any given party.
Even without polling, if you assumed it was the same as last election you'd be just as close as the poll aggregations.
"Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error" is just an exercise in playing around with numbers, Rasmussen differs from Gallup by a significant margin.
I'll give an easy flaw for Gallup's methodology, they interview people directly, which was proven in this election to tend to understate Trumps numbers because of the media climate, most people will give you an answer that is not truthful.
So Gallup's numbers are just flat-out wrong, because you've decided the "media climate" is causing them to be off, and my question is "playing around with numbers". Well, I guess we've figured it all out then.....
So Gallup's numbers are just flat-out wrong, because you've decided the "media climate" is causing them to be off, and my question is "playing around with numbers". Well, I guess we've figured it all out then.....
Your lack of addressing my points is noted, I'll take that as a concession.
U.S. House committee approves bill to increase scrutiny of Fed A Republican-controlled committee of lawmakers approved a bill on Tuesday to allow a congressional audit of Federal Reserve monetary policy, a proposal Fed policymakers have opposed and which faces an uncertain path to final approval.
Democrats uniformly spoke against the proposal during a meeting of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, suggesting the bill would face stronger resistance than in the past.
"We should not in any way hinder their independence," said Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, echoing the sentiment of Fed policymakers who say they could come under political pressure to avoid making unpopular decisions such as raising interest rates to slow growth and control inflation.
The next step for the bill would be a floor vote by the entire House, where Republicans hold a solid majority.
Just a general testing of the water here. In Australia we have a violent, bigoted, racist, mindless old fool for a prime minister at the moment. Although you might say for a politician, "That sounds a bit over qualified" most Australians seem to be growing tired of him rather rapidly
I couldn't disagree with you more!
Australians (and the rest of the world it seems) are growing tired of the socialist, politically correct, SJW, far-leftist, refugee-swamping, pro-feminist, pro-globalist, white-hating, segregating, greens aligning leaders. This is why Tony Abbott won Australia and why Brexit, Trump and the rise of Le Pen followed.
Unfortunately both Australian liberal and labor are just as bad as each other as both Rudd and Abbott got backstabbed by their own party. I no longer trust my votes to the mainstream right or left parties. I will only vote the "alt-right" or the "alt-left" so to speak.
On a side note.... GO PAULINE HANSON AND DAVID LEYONHJELM!
Ivanka now has an official White House position. Anyone who has ever worked at any job anywhere can recognize this kind of blatant nepotism. His 3 most trusted advisors are his daughter, his son-in-law, and a white nationalist. That seems healthy.
Also, Trump has not provided a single shred of evidence that his promise to not accept or donate his salary is actually taking place.
Spouses and family members can serve in the White House with the president ever since Bill gave Hillary the official job for working on health-Care, Federal Judges ruled in his favor.
Also JFK had his younger brother work in Government too, it seems not many people are familiar with older American Presidential history before Obama. Washington must help the Navajo Nation prevent the loss of coal jobs The Navajo Nation is made up of strong and resilient people. Our community has overcome great challenges to ensure that we are able to live on our homeland and continue our Navajo traditions.
Now, our nation is faced with an impending economic disaster after the owners of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a power plant on Navajo land, have threatened to shut down the facility by 2019. The Navajo Generating Station is the largest coal power plant in the Western United States, and is a critical economic engine for both our reservation and the state of Arizona.
We are also optimistic about working with the Trump Administration on this issue given the President’s unwavering support for coal jobs and mine workers. President Trump ran on a pledge to “bring back coal” and provide economic opportunities for workers who have been left behind by coal’s declining fortunes. President Trump has an excellent opportunity to deliver on this promise by using the bully pulpit to help our people keep this plant open long enough to find new, high paying jobs. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/324318-washington-must-help-the-navajo-nation-prevent-the
I didn't realize the Navajo community was so reliant on coal jobs.
The difference of course is that #1 Hillary was going to be around as First Lady regardless, he just made her the point person on health care #2 Clinton specifically campaigned on how having Hillary at his side on policy issues like health care would be a net positive and #3 Trump and Ivanka said EXPLICITLY no more than 2 months ago this was not going to happen.
I don't think any of your points really addressed your own criticism of nepotism, either its wrong to you on principle or you have rather subjective levels of acceptance.
Brexit: UK sets out plans to replace all EU laws Thousands of EU laws on everything from workers' rights to the environment are to be transferred into UK law as the country gears up for Brexit. Brexit Secretary David Davis said the Great Repeal Bill would allow the UK Parliament and Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland administrations to scrap, amend and improve laws. It would also end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39439554
I truly hope the Best and Brightest work on this Brexit because it sounds like a painful process of transferring laws.
Trump hiring his daughter and son-in-law is clearly a violation of the federal nepotism statute.
Unfortunately, the only penalty is that the appointee receives no salary. Not a big deal for Trumpette.
That is such BS. A technicality.
The law is meant to stop Trump (or whomever) from appointing friends and family to government positions they are not qualified for and don't deserve. The salary is not the issue, the favoritism and nepotism is the issue. So Trump sucks so bad he can't find qualified crazy people he has to appoint his own family, gee I feel better.
And didn't Trump tweet something that Ivanka stops him from doing bad things. Lol what. He needs his daughter to stop him from doing bad things otherwise watch out. Oh yeah that was when he was using the Presidency to attack a company that dropped Ivanka's brand. This is so ridiculous, 3rd world banana republic dictator stuff.
And also she sucks at her job apparently because he keeps doing bad things - look at his ridiculous budget to get an idea of his priorities. We need someone else to keep him from doing bad things, I hear prison guards are good at that.
Spouses and family members can serve in the White House with the president ever since Bill gave Hillary the official job for working on health-Care, Federal Judges ruled in his favor.
Also JFK had his younger brother work in Government too, it seems not many people are familiar with older American Presidential history before Obama. .
Both Kennedy and Clinton had strong legal backgrounds that fit their respective positions. Both (especially Kennedy) had the appropriate qualifications to do their job.
Ivanka has at most, a strong business sense, but nothing that says she understands the way politics and law crafting work. The lack of appropriate qualifications is where nepotism comes in.
That said, I personally think she knows more than the current president, so...
Also Kennedy was the reason the nepotism law was introduced in the first place. Back then this was still legal. So much for not knowing history.
Speaking about not knowing history Trump reportedly gave Angela Merkel a fake bill for what Germany supposedly owes for NATO when they met the other day. This is dumb and tacky on a few levels . For one thing historically the Treaty of Versailles gave a huge bill for costs incurred in WWI to Germany that led to the political atmosphere that helped usher in Hitler who promised to make Germany Great Again in light of the bad stuff the crushing debt was causing. For another thing NATO costs are due to NATO which Germany is a part of, not due to the United States.
BUT, the anti-nepotism law is superseded by the following goofy statute that allows Presidents to hire anybody to work in the White House. As long as only 25 of them are paid as much as the Secretary of the Army.
Comments
Also 2012 election is nothing, 2012 result is nearly identical to 2008 in terms of which States remained Democrat or Republican, only one or two States flipped.
To put it another way, if i guess 2012 result is the same as 2008, I would be as accurate as Nate Silver.
And yes i do have a degree that involves statistics.
He also explained, before the election happened, why it was less certain than 2012 and had a wider variance of outcomes.
Meanwhile, many pundits who didn't rely on rigorous statistical data gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning. Then, as I said, overturn the entire field and make all the money. It should be easy to do - all you have to do is be more accurate than polling, which you say is no better than guessing anyway. And if you don't have a better system, then you should at least be able to easily statistically prove that polling companies are frauds and their results no better than guessing. This sort of thing is done to prove claims about alternative medicine outcomes are frauds pretty frequently, for instance.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue on an internet forum about it when they could instead be publishing papers that would lead to worldwide fame, lifelong employment, and a place among the most distinguished statisticians in history.
Therefore I see no reason to trust this person. I can't imagine why you would criticize Government on the internet forums instead of doing a better job then Government either.
But of course you don't take your own advice do you?
I guess, by that standard, statistics ceases to exist every time someone wins a hand at poker. There is a difference between "criticising" and "saying the entire field is invalid and it's completely obvious why this is so".
And the only way you can see that is through an accurate forecast of significant change.
This means that Nate Silver's conclusion and/or date was inaccurate by far.
If you don't understand statistics, you may not understand that statement.
And no, it is ridiculous that Nate Silver can be 'justified' in his inaccurate forecast because his 70% estimate was wrong.
What if it was 99% Hillary? can i excuse Nate Silver because there is a 1% for Trump? It's a wonderful thing then i merely criticized the accuracy of modern polling in this circumstance as it has been long criticized even by Gallup as being questionable today.
Evidently you've been arguing against a strawman.
If you can exactly quote where i said the entire field is invalid, go ahead.
That said, let's not spend our time dissecting each other's comments, lest we spiral into semantics.
No, i said Polls and predictions around this American Political area is inaccurate and questionable, as Gallup also agrees.
Nor did i say it was 'no better then guessing' in general terms, but that specifically if you had 'guessed' the 2012 State results as being identical to 2008, you'd be as accurate as Nate Silver.
The focus on Nate Silver for 2012 results and his disastrous performance in 2016 is laughable, because it shows he is not good at it.
If you look at American election results, you see a very firm pattern, first that Statewide results don't change much (1-3 States flip) on sitting Presidents and this has been the way for the last 3-4 Presidents, so anyone with half a brain would just say 2012 result will be near identical to 2008, and presto Nate Silver.
You get significant changes in results if you have a disaster (War), you get significant but not as great changes in results when sitting Presidents Leave (or generally after every 2 terms for a Political Party).
Despite this, Nate Silver's forecast was that 2016 was pretty much be 2012 State-wide. This does not agree with history in any fashion.
Forecasts by statistics doesn't show you factual reality, it shows you what someone guesses the future to be on the basis of probability and whatever data and methodology they use.
The only real defense for Nate Silver is 'Is this a reasonable conclusion based on the available information at the time'? Thats entirely subjective, To people who only listen to the media, Sure sounds reasonable, I would say No because American Political History would show Nate Silvers forecasts on the States to be an anomaly.
Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error to any poll quoting public opinion, just to be safe.......that would put Trump at a max of 40%, but it would also put him at a minimum of 30%. And, for the 14th of 15th time, the polling aggregate at 538 and other places put the popular vote win for Hillary at around 2-3%, and not only because of the margin of error. Those were the final national predictions based on all the data. Hillary won it by 2.3%. Less than 100,000 people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania do not discredit the entire practice of public polling.
Why would i trust anything around politics? Because it helps my sides narrative?
its interesting you talk about industry reliance, USA Today ended their partnership with Gallup because of their inaccuracy during the 2012 elections.
So by your logic, Gallup is indeed questionable. National vote for political party candidates by percentile does not change much per election, at most 4% for any given party.
Even without polling, if you assumed it was the same as last election you'd be just as close as the poll aggregations.
I'll explain another way, Polls can just take 2012 results, change it less then 5% and they are as accurate as what you see today, It's not a credible phenomena because anyone can do it.
"Let's say I give DOUBLE the amount of the regular margin of error" is just an exercise in playing around with numbers, Rasmussen differs from Gallup by a significant margin.
I'll give an easy flaw for Gallup's methodology, they interview people directly, which was proven in this election to tend to understate Trumps numbers because of the media climate, most people will give you an answer that is not truthful.
I believe the technical term for this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Or ex post facto or something.
U.S. House committee approves bill to increase scrutiny of Fed
A Republican-controlled committee of lawmakers approved a bill on Tuesday to allow a congressional audit of Federal Reserve monetary policy, a proposal Fed policymakers have opposed and which faces an uncertain path to final approval.
Democrats uniformly spoke against the proposal during a meeting of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, suggesting the bill would face stronger resistance than in the past.
"We should not in any way hinder their independence," said Representative Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, echoing the sentiment of Fed policymakers who say they could come under political pressure to avoid making unpopular decisions such as raising interest rates to slow growth and control inflation.
The next step for the bill would be a floor vote by the entire House, where Republicans hold a solid majority.
Republican President Donald Trump expressed support for audits of the U.S. central bank during his election campaign, but it remained unclear whether the White House would back the proposal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-congress-idUSKBN16Z2GJ
Auditing the Federal Reserve is long overdue.
Australians (and the rest of the world it seems) are growing tired of the socialist, politically correct, SJW, far-leftist, refugee-swamping, pro-feminist, pro-globalist, white-hating, segregating, greens aligning leaders. This is why Tony Abbott won Australia and why Brexit, Trump and the rise of Le Pen followed.
Unfortunately both Australian liberal and labor are just as bad as each other as both Rudd and Abbott got backstabbed by their own party. I no longer trust my votes to the mainstream right or left parties. I will only vote the "alt-right" or the "alt-left" so to speak.
On a side note.... GO PAULINE HANSON AND DAVID LEYONHJELM!
Also, Trump has not provided a single shred of evidence that his promise to not accept or donate his salary is actually taking place.
Also JFK had his younger brother work in Government too, it seems not many people are familiar with older American Presidential history before Obama.
Washington must help the Navajo Nation prevent the loss of coal jobs
The Navajo Nation is made up of strong and resilient people. Our community has overcome great challenges to ensure that we are able to live on our homeland and continue our Navajo traditions.
Now, our nation is faced with an impending economic disaster after the owners of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a power plant on Navajo land, have threatened to shut down the facility by 2019. The Navajo Generating Station is the largest coal power plant in the Western United States, and is a critical economic engine for both our reservation and the state of Arizona.
We are also optimistic about working with the Trump Administration on this issue given the President’s unwavering support for coal jobs and mine workers. President Trump ran on a pledge to “bring back coal” and provide economic opportunities for workers who have been left behind by coal’s declining fortunes. President Trump has an excellent opportunity to deliver on this promise by using the bully pulpit to help our people keep this plant open long enough to find new, high paying jobs.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/324318-washington-must-help-the-navajo-nation-prevent-the
I didn't realize the Navajo community was so reliant on coal jobs.
Brexit: UK sets out plans to replace all EU laws
Thousands of EU laws on everything from workers' rights to the environment are to be transferred into UK law as the country gears up for Brexit.
Brexit Secretary David Davis said the Great Repeal Bill would allow the UK Parliament and Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland administrations to scrap, amend and improve laws.
It would also end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39439554
I truly hope the Best and Brightest work on this Brexit because it sounds like a painful process of transferring laws.
Unfortunately, the only penalty is that the appointee receives no salary. Not a big deal for Trumpette.
The law is meant to stop Trump (or whomever) from appointing friends and family to government positions they are not qualified for and don't deserve. The salary is not the issue, the favoritism and nepotism is the issue. So Trump sucks so bad he can't find qualified crazy people he has to appoint his own family, gee I feel better.
And didn't Trump tweet something that Ivanka stops him from doing bad things. Lol what. He needs his daughter to stop him from doing bad things otherwise watch out. Oh yeah that was when he was using the Presidency to attack a company that dropped Ivanka's brand. This is so ridiculous, 3rd world banana republic dictator stuff.
And also she sucks at her job apparently because he keeps doing bad things - look at his ridiculous budget to get an idea of his priorities. We need someone else to keep him from doing bad things, I hear prison guards are good at that.
Ivanka has at most, a strong business sense, but nothing that says she understands the way politics and law crafting work. The lack of appropriate qualifications is where nepotism comes in.
That said, I personally think she knows more than the current president, so...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
BUT, the anti-nepotism law is superseded by the following goofy statute that allows Presidents to hire anybody to work in the White House. As long as only 25 of them are paid as much as the Secretary of the Army.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/105
It's good to be the King.