impartialobserver

You should take this up with the court system. The Colorado River allocations were negotiated in good faith before you were born. There is a good reason that desalinization plants have not popped up all over the west coast. Your bias gets in the way of you comprehending this.

That's what she said. You are so bad in bed that you fall asleep masturbating.

Then how do you explain why we are getting so few white candidates. Race is not even a field on the application form. All that is required is that the candidate has a Bachelors in Economics and is a resident of the state of nevada. We have no explicit diversity programs here.

It was on merit alone but certain Conservative types (online and in real life) can't accept that it was. It must be a diversity hire. the fact that we had 19 applicants and only 5 were white must mean that we are looking for non-white candidates. It can't possibly because the white candidates do not apply and are going elsewhere.

Better than with yours.. they would ask why the fan is blowing

Trump was not going to win Colorado even if he was on the ballot so this does not change the eventual outcome. What will impact it is the results of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

I work for a state government in the US. Anyways, its just a matter of bias getting in the way. When we did make the hire, the gentleman was hispanic. If this was 1960, he would have been excluded from the beginning when someone read the name. As it turns out, this person has shown himself to be a bit overqualified. Easily the most adept person in the office when it comes to programming and that is saying a lot. But.. but.. he was a diversity hire says garden variety Id10t who has no idea what we do..

You can lie to yourself but if they came on and listed off a bunch of jobs numbers such as (job up by 1,000 in xyz state) and left it at, you would be bored and move on to something else. You want them to speculate about why and if they were too data driven, you are snoring by the end of the second sentence. "unsupported".. tell me how my number is unsupported?

You including the word, MIGHT, is just you being cowardly and CYA.. Its cool. The internet is full of your types.

If you are hanging on the every word of any pundit and not questioning what they say.. the problem is you. Not the pundit, network, political affiliation, society, etc. Pundits would lose their jobs if all they did was report objective data. They have to put spin on a topic, exaggerate, etc. or their ratings would plummet.

If I did misstate the figure then step up and show how I did.

Hmmm.. the worm wriggling on the hook. So to conclude.. you care enough to respond but not to back up what you say. This is why I have such a low opinion of politicians, their supporters, and most political discussion.

It is more a matter of being a one-trick pony. He does not possess the intellect to expand past this one talking point. We could be talking about a breakfast burrito in Sheridan, Wyoming and his response would be something about CNN.

nevadaworkforce.com... look at the line graph on the home page. "Some will KNOW.." is just your cowardly way of saying that you doubt its accuracy but do not have the knowledge to prove it wrong.

interesting how very, very few have read the book, Das Kapital, but yet they are experts on it and the author, Karl Marx. The internet is a great thing but it makes faux experts who while passionate actually know nothing.

I am not one for explicit "diversity hires". However, I think that folks show their bias/racism when they assume that any hire of someone of color is a diversity hire. Last time.. we ran a recruitment, we had 19 applicants and only five were white. The only requirement is that they have a bachelors degree in economics.. now, tell me where in that requirement that there is anything about race?

So then can you prove definitively that Facebook takes explicit directive from the government.. links to article will not suffice. Lets see something better than subjective opinions that supposedly are truth.

The OP was about the Colorado River allocation. However, it is about to get even juicier. The State of California is now demanding that farmers and ranchers in the San Joaquin Delta prove their water rights and allocations. The farmers are gearing up for a fight.. and yet have openly admitted that they have absolutely no legal proof of their water rights. Some will say that agriculture is the best use of the water so why not let operate freely. The issue is that they draw more than they need and sometimes it is not even close. They do so because they can. The result is that the rivers, lakes run dry and then folks opt for drilling and sucking the groundwater dry. There are consequences to doing such a thing.

I wonder what a certain someone would do if they could not mention CNN.. Not sure, he would know what to do.

how do you know it not accurate? I challenge you to show exact methodological details and where we get it wrong. Now..no copping out and giving me a bunch of opinions and conceptual nonsense. Lets see an exact data-driven formulation..

So you admit that the government does not rule Facebook with an iron fist? So when Facebook bans xyz for whatever reason.. it demands that you do research and know what you are talking about instead of the default conspiracy theory that the government told them to do so.

I love how you dodge the fact that daily life has changed. And yet you expect to be taken seriously

When it comes to state unemployment rates.. we only use the u-3. u-6 is not as reliable for smaller sample sizes hence why it is mostly a nationwide measure. So again, does saying that the seasonally adjusted u-3 unemployment rate for October 2023 for the state of Nevada is 5.4% change depending on who reads it?

Wow... so if I state a fact.. Nevada's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 5.4 for October 2023.. does it matter who reads it? Does the reality change if you read this or I do? This should be good.

Where we differ is that you can't admit that an editorial is by definition subjective. As for distinguishing.. I do not others to think for me. If I care about an issue, I gather the data on my own (if it can be done) and form my own opinion. No need to watch a pundit. BTW.. the validity of the LOGIC is purely subjective. I know that you can't see that.