9/11 Witness on Trump's Well-Intentioned but Mis-Guided Ban

 

Trump's Immigration Plan is Patriotic and Poorly Executed.

Upfront: I'm very liberal socially and have the CV to back that up.And am against Trumps Immigration Plan in its current form. That's my bias. But I saw a pic on Zerohedge worth addressing.

*Please excuse formatting as this was composed on my phone and I asked Soren to add pics and post for me- Vince Lanci*

 

TRUMP MESSED UP
Say what you want about the language, mismanagement, execution, and blanket generalities of Trump's Immigration Plan. Feel free to call him stupid on understanding the branches of government and their roles. He either doesn't know or doesn't care to know. He is interested in pushing until he is pushed back. No different than a trader fishing for stops and resistance. Or a bully. But know this. The immigration reform is a step in the right direction. The execution was 2 steps back however.

Do our schools even teach Civics in class anymore?

h/t DFiles via Paul Kirsch

 

CULTURE CLASH, COMPLEX SOCIETIES AND WHO CONCERTS
It is not easy to create a plan to continue to permit immigration with such a large (20%?) minority of the potential emigres being intolerant of the country they are entering. You can't ban based on religion. You can't based on race. How can we know intentions?
When a group is bent on evangelically spreading its intolerant beliefs, it's not unwise to put the brakes on things while a better filter is created. For example: Prohibit Salafi/Wahabiist which would be like banning hood wearing KKK members from immigrating.

Admitting too many willfully non-assimilating immigrants at one time is unmanageable. Intolerants who infect tolerant systems for recruitment are part of societal collapse.

from Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies

 

ITS NOT %s, IT EXPECTED VALUE STUPID
It is not an easy task. And to those who use statistics to attack Trump's (arrogantly, horribly ham-handed) attempt to address the problem, you are idiots.
It's not about %. It's about VAR. in an age where a single person can be a WOMD, you can't risk a 1% chance of 5000 people dying.

Pic: On probabilities and expected values using imperfect information and insufficient data. Recommended reading for Statisticians, Pollsters, and Fed Economists. Trading Corollary: "If you would wretch to sell it, and cream to buy it, the broker is going to buy it from you. Fade him accordingly"

 

9/11 EXAMPLE: or TERROR STATS ARE USELESS IN SMALL DATA SAMPLES MORON
As a person working in the WTC (WFC) on 9/11 I actually asked myself and my team right after the first plane hit: "What are the odds of a plane hitting a tower?" The odds were low and so I concluded a Cessna.. and then watched as the 2nd plane struck from our window. After the 2nd plane hit: "What are the odds of 2 planes hitting?" Statistically astronomically low RIGHT? But that was the wrong answer. And at that moment I knew it was not plain stats, but Bayesian stats and VAR that mattered. (Yes we actually thought like this as global events happened even to us. Probably to keep sane)
After witnessing 2 hit, my team and I fully expected more and made for egress. We feared the planes had anthrax as cargo too.
And we were right about more planes, but wrong about where they hit.
At one time I could flip a 2 sided coin and make it land on heads 10x in a row.. at what point will you ask yourself "this isn't luck is it?" I practiced it to prove a point to a statistician friend years ago. The point is statistics do not perceive intent. The coin has no memory, but the flipper has intent and skill. Randomness is not so easy to identify with small data.

 

TO MY CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS: ASK SOMEONE WHO LOST LOVED ONES WHERE THEY STAND ON THE BAN
Many of my colleagues lost family and friends that day. 2 people stood inches from me daily that died. Men on the floor lost parents that day. And yet I and most of the ones I still connect with are against this current "ban".
So who are you to be “pro ban” when a guy who stood next to his brother at work for 10 years suddenly comes to work and sees an empty space where his brother used to stand? And yet that survivor remains steadfast in his opposition to the ban. Who the fuck are you compared to that person to judge? Have you even done the work and surveyed those most qualified to make an informed decision from their experience?
Ask survivors, ask military men, ask people who have ground experience. Then decide. This is not a prediction of your results, just a plea to form your own opinion and stop copy/pasting partisan sound bites.
**btw this is why modern polling sucks too**

 

TO MY LIBERAL FRIENDS-LET'S PLAY DICE
Put in a very simple way as it relates to immigration. In "craps" snake eyes is low probability. But in immigration craps, you die if it lands on snake eyes.. want to play?
It ain't so easy is it? 

h/t @zerohedge

 

TRUMP IS A PATRIOT, BANNON IS A RACIST, AND ROSIE IS A SPECIAL KIND OF STUPID

Pic: Rosie is a dead ringer for Bannon and idiot
Trump is a human red-herring who is trying (to his credit) to govern in P2P bottom-up fashion.
To my dismay, his ego is preventing him from recognizing that approach's short comings. Fire Bannon, Donald. Or lose your mandate and risk losing the libertarian wing via Paul Ryan cutting bait on you.

Sincerely, Vince Lanci

(For Chi, Mott, and so many others)

 

On MarketSlant

Free Mike Coscia 

Remember our community rules

4 comments sorted by

+1
-1
-1

Anonymous (not verified)

0

points :

".. and then watched as the 2nd plane struck from our window" REALLY? you watched it hit in person? That's AMAZING, because the videos shown over and over and over on TV of planes striking the towers were faked. Recall Peter Jennings's amazement as the nose of the aircraft penetrated INTACT the far wall. CLEARLY impossible. the nose cones are plastic. no way is the nose going to penetrate insanely thick steel girders, a MASSIVE steel and concrete core, and then another set of insanely thick steel girders to protrude intact from the wall opposite entry. You ARE A TYPICAL LIBERAL. you lie. In this case, you lie very poorly
+1
-2
-1

George R. (not verified)

0

points :

For years I have studied Islam. I have concluded that the majority of Islamic people are good people. There is an interesting caveat concerning Islam itself: The Muslim religion might be more accurately called a "system." Even though Islam is theocratic, it is more importantly a system that is extremely intolerant of most systems or religions whose secular or religious beliefs lie outside its own. Our country is a democratic republic, to which strict Islamic law is incompatible, since Sharia law is also the law of the government, according to Islamic holy books. Thomas Jefferson had a first hand understanding of the Islamic dogma of his day. Read for yourself of America's first war, which was with the the Islamic Barbary Pirates. We know there are many wonderful Islamic people in this country; but the United States doctrine of "separation of church and state" must not be violated by vesting certain Sharia Law rights to Muslims, or any other sect, no matter how noble the people. A perfect example of such a violation is providing special times or places for Muslim students or employees to have prayers during the day. Another violation is to allow Sharia law to ever be substituted for American law, or forcing McDonalds to serve "Sharia food.". Saying "no" to something is not being hateful. A lot of Christians were saddened when the "Ten Commandments" were removed from the courthouse foyers. Separation of church and state means what it says. And anyone who is allowed to live in this country needs to fully accept this. G. O
+1
0
-1

Tom (not verified)

0

points :

You triangle diagram is nice, but it does not apply to national security. The constitution explicitly states that it is the exclusive preview of the exec branch, exception being declaration of war and treaty ratification. The Bill of Rights does not extend to other countries.
+1
+2
-1

Anonymous (not verified)

0

points :

Please tell us why you are not a racist for what you think/say about Bannon for the record hardly supports your thesis.