I like how the Republican Congress is going to take a 10 day recess while 2000+ children still remain separated and immigration is in a total mess. They break everything then take a break.

(Little bit of poetic license there.) — Baden

You inspired me to start a new project...

The Almighty Trump ( A Rough Draft)

There was a man named Trump,
His skin was oddly orange and
his gut was overly plump.

His hair style stumped all
that viewed it, while his tongue
constantly forked into lies
as he played the back nine.

He decried any blame
that befell his name with
a finger always pointing,
without shame, to the other side.

His words laced with hate left
a venomous stain on the brain, which
made all those who listened a bit insane.
From this madness he grew his fandom
into a new brand of fanaticism.

Against the voice of the many,
he was put into the Oval Office
with the aid of Putin’s mysterious
ways. And history set the stage for him to
write his own presidential page.

He declared he would build a great wall,
for the benefit of all. So he latched onto
fear and hatched his apartheid but
to his dismay, many cried out in pain
as he rounded up children and
locked them all away.

Trump then called to all his sheepeople to follow
him to the pentacle of the steepest steeple.
Where he assured them to greatness they
would all fly, but when they got to top and jumped
out into the sky, all they did was fall down and die.

No one here is asking for open borders which means, such an argument is nothing but a straw man.

It is also fully possible for a president to be a clueless idiot. They are human after all.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection has stopped referring adults with child for criminal prosecution. They claim that Trump's last EO makes it impossible to prosecute these people as children cannot be separated from their parents. So they are doing catch and release.

It is not likely the federal judge will grant a ruling to reverse Flores, and once more the Republican Congress is moving like molasses on immigration reform.

It is a logistical nightmare, because Trump and his goons are clueless idiots.

I'm doing philosophy — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Oh I am doing "philosophy" as well. :wink:

Secondly, please quote me where I suggest you are clueless with regards to the trump immigration situation? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Not at all what I was talking about. What I meant was that I don't need you notes on person to person communicate. I have tons of professional training and experience in that area already. You are not telling me anything I have not already considered. You gave your take, I listened to it, and at that point you were just beating a dead horse. I can only assume that you keep repeating these sentiments because you assume your position in this matter is correct and I am need of your guidance. That is not the case.

Where did I say anything about hardcore racists? You raise a problem here, as that comment there, which follows this one: — Mr Phil O'Sophy

That was a general statement, and not targeted at you, which is why I didn't reference you or quote you in that post.

implies you think anyone who disagree's with us on this whole immigration ordeal and stands on the opposite side of the argument to us is somehow standing with evil and by proxy a hardcore racist. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

That sentence you just quoted refers to this specific aspect of child separation and not immigration as a whole. Just read a little closer, "if you stand with Trump on this one." You are seeing what you want to see, and you are reading too fast.

One of the fundamental reasons that racism is abhorrent is due to its generalising characteristic. By making the claims that you have, you have become just as guilty of generalising, and run the risk of becoming equivalent to the thing you decry so much; while also openly suggesting that none of them are "capable of reasoning", and that you're only intention here is to simply shame those who disagree with us, you show yourself as a completely unreasonable person. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I won't say reason altogether, but when it comes to the matter of their racism, well they won't be racist if they were being reasonable about it. Unless you are trying to argue that racism is a rational position? So I am not really sure what you point was here. I think you have a habit of reading things without full consideration of the context in which they are presented.

Rest assured, I am quite calm as I write this ;) I just truly believe you have completely blinded yourself to your own inadequacies, and that you fail to take valid criticism from people whether they agree or disagree with you; I mean that with all due respect. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Well, rest assured I am also quite calm in writing this and everything else I have written. I am fully aware I am a troll and have already admitted to be one. If you had read back a ways in the thread you would have noticed that. Personally, I think being a bit trollish at certain times is more effective and honestly you have not offered any evidence whatsoever to prove otherwise. You have a notion that your way is better, but really that is just an opinion.

Here is what I know from experience. Hardcore bigotry is not a result of reason, it is a result of emotions, as such trying to reason with them in that respects (read the words there and don't drag it out of context) is inefficient. Their position is founded in an emotional base and that is what they will understand and response the most to; however, when prejudice is ingrained deeply it is unlikely the efforts of a stranger will do much to dislodge it. What is important is to draw out their irrational position so that other people can see the many flaws, as the goal is not to change the hardcore, it is to display their hatred and ignorance, then set a disproving atmosphere of such behavior.

Also I fully admit to being intolerant of racism, because it is actually evil and destructive. I am also intolerant of child abuse and destroying families.

My goal is never to change a hardcore racist, that is generally a waste of time. They are not rational people, and using reason on them typically does nothing. My goal is to shame that behavior.

Please stop trying to sell me. You said your part already and I am simply not interested. I have my own thoughts and views and I am not as clueless in this area as you seem to assume.

Detained Central American migrants who have been separated from their children have been told they can reunite with them if they agree to voluntarily deportations, The Texas Tribune reported Sunday.

The news outlet, citing a detained Honduran man and two immigration lawyers, reported that the migrants have been told they would be reunited with their children at an airport if they agree to sign off on deportations.

The Honduran man, who was not identified, said he gave up his asylum case and signed the paperwork in an effort to reunite with his 6-year-old daughter. He said he’s now trying to rescind his agreement and fight his case in court.

http://thehill.com/latino/393856-migrants-told-theyll-be-reunited-with-children-if-they-sign-voluntary-deportation

Coercion using child hostages.

This is not making America great. America greatness is not about wealth, the job market, or the economy. It is our American spirit, and these policies are poison to that spirit.

This is the passage on our State of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

We are suppose to be a beacon of hope, but Trump has turned us into child snatchers.

And while we are all debating on how nice to be to each other. . . .

Trump goes back to lying about separating families, something which now seems like he and his goons actually may have planned as a way to discourage asylum seekers. And it is working as desperate parents are abandoning their hope of asylum for hope of getting their kids back faster. While on Twitter Trump advocates for denying these people due process of the law altogether.

Somehow, I just don't think the topic of being cordial with each is the pressing matter here. This is not about polarization, this is not about Dem or Rep, or about the Left or Right, if you stand with Trump on this one then you are standing with evil, it is that simple.

I have been doing forums like these for nearly 20 years and one thing I have learned is that in debate we tend to hear things with a touch of subjectivity, this is especially true for written debate. I don't sit here pounding at the keyboard in a flurry, each post actually receives a fair amount of thought and review.

Very likely I do that a lot; however, I am also confident that you are reading what you want to read.

You are on a soapbox, preaching.

My point is simply that if you consume yourself in emotion, it blurs your vision. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Then don't worry, as I can be an ass and not become consumed in the horrible flames of emotional blurriness. Personally, I think you are underestimating my skills to do both at the same time.

So everyone should be like you, seeing how you are better than us all?

You are being dramatic and emotional yourself. The worst burn I could feel here is a form banning, somehow I think I'll live.

There are times to set emotions aside and there are times not to, such as in moral concerns which requires the use of both. This is an emotional topic and if you think reason alone will lead you to truth here then you are mistaken. Also I would like to point out since this is text communication here then you are adding some of the emotion that you are reading. That is the nature of the written word.

That sound emotional to me. I say embrace to flame, it is part of who we are.

Were you feeling feeling irate or emotional when typing that response?

Do you even know what the Zero Tolerance policy is?

You made some racist remarks, live up to your error and stop trying to blame others for your mistakes.

You are wrong. The Zero Tolerance policy belongs to the Trump administration. This is not the same.

Wow, that is a big bucket of crazy.

I want to make this very clear, I do not consider you my intellectual equal and I do not care about your backwards take on "morality. Diversity makes us stronger and what you are aruging for is mobocracy.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

I think you are debating your imagination more so than the other people in this thread.

I said you are racist due to your racist comments.

So i wanted to know if you can find something in my "theory" that is not aligned with physics — Eugenio Ullauri

Physic as a science is based on provable facts. Your "theory", however, is based in speculation.That is inconsistent with physics.

What is my belief system?

one should ask for clarification — raza

You are making your racism very clear.

Yet you are still avoiding the question.

So you are not a victim? At all? See I noticed you talked around that aspect. So do you or do you not think you are the victim here?

Let me see if I understand this, there are still over 2300 children still separated from their families, yet somehow you are the victim here?

Don't be such a cry baby.

I was looking at some data on the two parties after the election that show a noticeable divide in ideologies within the Republican party. I'll see if I can find it in a bit.

You just shoot of in random directions, don't you? What does Time have to do with me? I don't read it.

Actually it reads as if you were comparing an illegal immigrant to a rapist. I am glad you don't think of them in that way, as such hateful thoughts would be a clear sign of extreme racism.

You are are giant hypocrite.

You claim your subjective morally is based on being a team player, but yet exclude Dems and the LGBT community from your team. That is not being a team, all you are doing is egotistically judging people who don't fit into you narrow and very subjective views. The only team you are playing for is your own, and the notion that Trump is trying to help everyone shows a great lack of insight.

Democrats are not your enemy. You claim to be a team player but have these senseless subjective divisions. It is completely backwards.

as you have indicated. — wellwisher

Your own warped views are just that yours. Personally, I think your views are disgusting and you are clearly a judgmental homophobe.

Also statistics is a data science. The key word here being data.

When dealing with binary outcomes you could use a Bernoulli distribution. You should not use a normal distribution unless you have enough data. If you don't want to use a Bernoulli distribution and don't have enough data for the CLT then you should use a nonparametric approach or if your assumptions are met you can use a student t distribution.

Not that using a distribution would apply here, as it is distribution of the population or sample.

That is not a meta-analysis. Furthermore meta-analyses are controversial as people tend to pick and chose the data they include rather then it being selected through an unbiased random approach.

It helps if you think about the probability space as a box. Let’s start with the proposition ‘the dog is nice’. Let’s assume you know nothing about this or any dog then the chance of the dog being nice is 50%. So imagine the probability space cut 50% / 50% ‘dog is nice’ / ‘dog is nasty’.

Now we can add a peice of evidence FOR the proposition. The owner says the dog is nice and we trust him 75%. So we already know that 50% of dogs are nice what about the 50% of dogs unknown? Well we can multiply that 50% by 75% and add it to the 50% we already had for dog is nice: 50% + 50% x 75% = 87.5%. Think of the original 50/50 probability space growing to 87.5/12.5 ‘dog is nice’ / ‘dog is nasty’.

So above is how you compute ‘evidence FOR’. ‘Evidence AGAINST’ is a different calculation:

Starting with dog is nice 50%
Now add a piece of evidence AGAINST: ‘the dog bit me’. 90% chance dog is nasty so that’s a 10% chance the dog is nice. So we take 50% x 10% = 5% chance dog is nice.

NOTICE THE CACULATION IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSITION. — Devans99

When you update a prior with only one sample then the influence of the prior is overwhelming. You are limiting the influence of new data and maximizing the influence of your opinion.

Big Bang is evidence for creator at 60% probability so combining probabilities: — Devans99

You are making up numbers off the top of your head from an imaginary sample space which is not based in empirical evidence at all and yet you are still doing it wrong. You multiple when they are mutually exclusive events otherwise you must use conditional probability.

I read all your post and that is more then enough to know you are completely clueless.