or it means being replaced by people that don't believe in the American value. Ever thought about that?
Two words to look up. I'll even do the searching for you. You just have to read. statistical or scientific evidence vs. anecdotal evidence The classic example for anecdotal evidence is the automobile seat belt. If you ask enough old people you'll eventually find someone whose Great Aunt Mildred was in a car accident driving 120 MPH down the road. When the crash occurred, the windshield was knocked from the car by a recently defrosted Antarctic Pterodactyl that happened to be flying by at the exact moment of the crash. Dear Auntie Mildred was thrown 500 feet from the car onto the flatbed of a truck hauling Tempur-Pedic mattresses, which cushioned her fall. Concurrent with dear old Auntie's amazing escape, the car collided with an old WWII 500lb bomb that was a dud and had been left burred in the side of a mountain for 60+ years. That bomb decided to do what it was unable to accomplish back then - explode. Auntie's car was turned to ash, while dear Auntie was only saved by the fact that she wasn't wearing a seat belt. The story then usually will end with, "And that's why I'll never wear a seat belt!" That little bit of evidence can in no way be used to make a valid determination about the relative safety of wearing a seat belt or going without. Anecdotal evidence sounds great. It's really colorful and vividly sticks in your mind. The problem, however, is that the only thing you can confirm via anecdotal evidence deals with events which occurred in the anecdote. So if you wanted to prove that at the time the video you posted was made, three boys out of 43.3 million total immigrants living in the USA were not studding Calculus 3 at that exact moment in time, good job. But is says bupkis about the general habits of immigrants that aren't in the YouTube video you posted. Statistical, empirical evidence, on the other hand, is drawn from the accident stories of a hundred or a thousand Aunt Mildred. From those stories, one can make broad generalizations about the population in that study. If you want to make those sorts of blanked statements about immigrants in general, that is what you need. You can't make valid general statements about an entire population of people from the actions of a couple of people at a very specific time. You need a large data set. If you want to see an empirically determined bit of statistical evidence, on this subject, the story below is a good place to start:
If you believed in real American and Christian values, you wouldn't have voted for nor support Trump.
And Ford will move the jobs there and anything that can't be moved like construction, well we will just stop building ****
If you aren't willing to acknowledge the real issues and continue to blame others, you might hurt others along the way, but you are not solving anything. What you are doing is pulling everyone down with you. Stop blaming. Look for solutions in yourself and look to leaders that understand the issues and provide solution for all of you. As an example - trickle down economic has failed miserably yet so many continue to vote in that policy. Another example - Immigrants is a strong backbone of the US economy, and you vote in leaders to destroy that. Wake up.
In our latest installation of What Exactly ARE the Boundaries of Commodore's Ignorance?, we learn that our hero has no idea that Bret Stephens is the the token right wing idiot on the paper's staff of columnists. Indeed, his fairly recent hiring was widely and loudly criticized by people who take issue with Stephens' climate denial, his unbridled Islamophobia, his neo-con hawkishness, etc.
Spot on article. It's merely far to simple to point at the people who look different and speak different and exclaim, "they are the problem". It worked well capturing the mid west and parts of the northeast where the natives essentially watched the world passed them by.
Bret Stephens (and the rest of the NYT editorial board) is largely immune from the effects of low skilled immigration
I doubt picking a rural state senator, with a state GDP of merely $95 billion, is going to do you any favors. Does Sen. Cotton go on to say that the low regulations and low minimum wages invites low skilled immigration? And NYC is not largely immune from the effects of low skilled immigration as it is still very much an entry point and home for the masses yearning to breath free, they just don't live in Manhattan where NYTimes is located.
I meant the "world" colloquially, as a lot of those affected by low skilled immigration vote for "personal responsibility" but don't practice it.
Despite what some imbecile like Cotton might want to be true, low-skilled immigrants increase the wages of low-skilled American workers (one could argue that Stephens belongs in this category), and they increase quality of life across the board, even for intellectual elites making a global impact writing for the Times. And also for Bret Stephens.
LOL! I seriously doubt immigrants (of any variety) are clamoring to settle down in the Union's 49th-ranked state by per capita income. I also think by "immigrants," these imbeciles really secretly mean of the 18th and 19th century variety (who are not from Europe). Funny all these xenophobes are from all the **** states that no one who has a choice would move to or even visit.
How does increasing the supply of labor raise the price of labor (wage)? This is certainly true for Stephens, who can hire cheap labor to cook his food, watch his kids, maintain his home, etc. He benefits without needing to worry about personally being displaced in the labor market. But for Americans competing to perform those tasks, their employment/wages are negatively impacted.
