|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2014 09:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 08:19 Doublemint wrote:On November 21 2014 08:14 Sermokala wrote:
I have to hand it to whoever thought up that move by him. Its about cicero exposing a plot by cataline to organize an army to kill much of the senate and shroud it in a made up insurrection making cataline a hero of the republic and a shoe in to win the majority of the new senate.
Ted cruz is no cicero and obama is no cataline, Cicero was the elected leader of the republic and cataline was the one that lost the election. If anything it would be more appropriate if the roles were reversed but its a pretty brilliant way to accuse the president of subverting the legislative process because he doesn't have the votes. no. first part is correct but it's one of 4 speeches against Cataline, who plotted to kill Cicero and subvert the republic. Making it about subverting the legislative process is mental gymnastics of the highest level. who would have thought that having to translate latin in school would pay off one day :p //edit: I mean Obama is the conspirator and tyrant in chief using powers given to him by the consitution. wait what? Well the election was done by the senate who legislated the office of consol which cicero and cataline were fighting over. Hes using powers given to him by the constitution but hes subverting the checks and balances that are the core of the constitution by useing his executive order power to make laws.
consul and senate would have been meaningless if the conspiracy of Cataline had worked out... it's not fighting for the highest position in the res publica at this point anymore. but undoing it and having emperor Cataline.
and there are checks and balances still in place. at best it's a temporary measure if Obama goes through with it.
|
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7253779/obama-immigration-plan-facts
Nice article by Klein about the best arguments for and against Obama's actions, and I like his conclusion that the executive is creeping in extending his powers. I didnt realize Republican presidents actually have done more or less the exact same kind of thing.
also good news for Danglers or Intrevert, I forget which one thinks Mexicans 'destroyed California' and that he would happily leave it if not for the 'nature'
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/immigration-is-changing-much-more-than-the-immigration-debate/
It’s now history,” Dowell Myers, a University of Southern California demographer, said of the immigration wave of the early 2000s. “It’s the peak level of Latino migration.”
As immigration from Mexico has been falling, migration from other countries has continued to rise. In the past five years, the number of new immigrants (those in the country less than a year) from China has risen 37 percent, to more than 70,000. Immigration from India and other Asian countries is also increasing, though at a more modest rate.
Asia accounted for 45 percent of all new immigrants in 2012, compared to 34 percent for Latin America. Mexico is still the largest single country of origin for new immigrants, but its lead is shrinking fast: Mexico accounts for 14 percent of all new immigrants, down from 45 percent in 2000. India, meanwhile, now accounts for 12 percent, and China for 10 percent
|
On November 21 2014 10:13 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7253779/obama-immigration-plan-factsNice article by Klein about the best arguments for and against Obama's actions, and I like his conclusion that the executive is creeping in extending his powers. I didnt realize Republican presidents actually have done more or less the exact same kind of thing.
yep. it's politics as usual. as I read a bit through the whole thing I came a cross this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233
that's pretty messed up. why would you deny people even a minimum of transparency...
|
I don't really understand what else he is supposed to do though. The US system is designed in such a way that both chambers can be controlled by the opposition. Is he supposed to just sit around for the last two years while getting further bad reputation for being a lame duck? I think the system is a little flawed tbh, because if he does nothing it's going to damage his own party, if he tries to enforce something he's going to be "undemocratic".
|
On November 21 2014 10:13 Sub40APM wrote:
also good news for Danglers or Intrevert, I forget which one thinks Mexicans 'destroyed California' and that he would happily leave it if not for the 'nature'
I said the second part, not the first. Besides, CA was once a part of Mexico, it's not like Mexicans in the state are new. So that can't be it. And I don't give two figs about the level of immigration on an ethnic basis, only it's legality and effect on the citizens of the state (primarily as an economic issue). What's destroying the state is left-wing policies that spend spend spend without addressing any real issues, not the number of people with a different skin tone.
On November 21 2014 10:24 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand what else he is supposed to do though. The US system is designed in such a way that both chambers can be controlled by the opposition. Is he supposed to just sit around for the last two years while getting further bad reputation for being a lame duck? I think the system is a little flawed tbh, because if he does nothing it's going to damage his own party, if he tries to enforce something he's going to be "undemocratic".
Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience.
|
On November 21 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:
Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience.
Because the Republican party is known for their moderate positions and common sense approach to politics
|
On November 21 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:13 Sub40APM wrote:
also good news for Danglers or Intrevert, I forget which one thinks Mexicans 'destroyed California' and that he would happily leave it if not for the 'nature'
I said the second part, not the first. Besides, CA was once a part of Mexico, it's not like Latinos in the state are new. So that can't be it. And I don't give two figs about the level of immigration on an ethnic basis, only it's legality and effect on the citizens of the state (primarily as an economic issue). What's destroying the state is left-wing policies that spend spend spend without addressing any real issues, not the number of people with a different skin tone. Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:24 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand what else he is supposed to do though. The US system is designed in such a way that both chambers can be controlled by the opposition. Is he supposed to just sit around for the last two years while getting further bad reputation for being a lame duck? I think the system is a little flawed tbh, because if he does nothing it's going to damage his own party, if he tries to enforce something he's going to be "undemocratic". Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience.
Hilarious.
Also when did you last check economic data on CA and KS? Liberals can't even destroy the states they are running properly ^_^
|
On November 21 2014 10:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:
Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience. Because the Republican party is known for their moderate positions and common sense approach to politics
I just told you one thing he could do. So your comment seems out of place.
On November 21 2014 10:32 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:On November 21 2014 10:13 Sub40APM wrote:
also good news for Danglers or Intrevert, I forget which one thinks Mexicans 'destroyed California' and that he would happily leave it if not for the 'nature'
I said the second part, not the first. Besides, CA was once a part of Mexico, it's not like Latinos in the state are new. So that can't be it. And I don't give two figs about the level of immigration on an ethnic basis, only it's legality and effect on the citizens of the state (primarily as an economic issue). What's destroying the state is left-wing policies that spend spend spend without addressing any real issues, not the number of people with a different skin tone. On November 21 2014 10:24 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand what else he is supposed to do though. The US system is designed in such a way that both chambers can be controlled by the opposition. Is he supposed to just sit around for the last two years while getting further bad reputation for being a lame duck? I think the system is a little flawed tbh, because if he does nothing it's going to damage his own party, if he tries to enforce something he's going to be "undemocratic". Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience. Hilarious. Also when did you last check economic data on CA and KS? Liberals can't even destroy the states they are running properly ^_^
You don't know what has happened in California, do you? Just taking some numbers and comparing those two states is absurd. They are vastly different. We could compare CA to TX, perhaps. But even then it would be wrong to ignore the history of both states, when it comes to how they were/are run. CA is such an impressive state with so many advantages that it takes a long time to kill them all completely. And some of them it will never lose, like the appeal of the coast and the really nice weather.
|
On November 21 2014 10:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:30 Nyxisto wrote:On November 21 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:
Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience. Because the Republican party is known for their moderate positions and common sense approach to politics I just told you one thing he could do. So your comment seems out of place.
Okay, border security. That's one thing in two years. I don't think there is much other common ground. Apart from that the GOP would probably block him intentionally to embarrass him and have a shot at the presidency.
|
Yes one is run by a communist and the other one by a good christian family man. Am I doing it right with that bullshit hyperbole?
|
On November 21 2014 10:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:36 Introvert wrote:On November 21 2014 10:30 Nyxisto wrote:On November 21 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:
Or he could try, I don't know, compromising? Put something in the bill that would actually, for sure, secure the border and he has a much more willing audience. Because the Republican party is known for their moderate positions and common sense approach to politics I just told you one thing he could do. So your comment seems out of place. Okay, border security. That's one thing in two years. I don't think there is much other common ground. Apart from that the GOP would probably block him intentionally to embarrass him and have a shot at the presidency.
I mean, if that actually happened then so many would be open to a "pathway to citizenship." The polls generally support this. People want both. And Lord knows the GOP as a party wants amnesty.
On November 21 2014 10:42 Doublemint wrote:
Yes one is run by a communist and the other one by a good christian family man. Am I doing it right with that bullshit hyperbole?
Well this died quickly. If the first thing you want to do is go to hyperbole then I see no reason to continue. I mentioned spending when talking about CA, so I don't know what you are talking about. Though I could add taxing and stupid projects to the list as well. (example: high speed rail project.)
|
you throw in a sentence like
CA is such an impressive state with so many advantages that it takes a long time to kill them all completely.
and expect me to stay fully on topic and not ridicule that.
yeah the weather is great. like always hot and sunny. and droughts too!
back on topic. jerry brown turned it completely around, after the terminator left a huge mess and/or was unable to fix the mess before.
|
On November 21 2014 10:57 Doublemint wrote:you throw in a sentence like Show nested quote +CA is such an impressive state with so many advantages that it takes a long time to kill them all completely. and expect me to stay fully on topic and not ridicule that. yeah the weather is great. like always hot and sunny. and droughts too! back on topic. jerry brown turned it completely around, after the terminator left a huge mess and/or was unable to fix the mess before.
Don't be dense. I know, heaven forbid I don't write like a robot.
People move to CA for the climate, not sure what you are mocking there.
Arnold was a bad governor, no argument there. And he spent far too much of his time worrying about global warming.
Being as favorable as I can to Brown, I'll say that he has had to adopt some things that, were it not for hard political battles, the Democrats who ran the state would have opposed. This mainly applies to the budget (though there is some trickery there, too). But when it comes to education, poverty, business climate, etc, he has really been ineffective. For instance, he's going to appeal the teacher tenure ruling that happened earlier this year. But he's also refused to sign some of the gun control measures that come across his desk. Honestly he's more moderate than we are used to. He's just a politician. Not the worst, not the best. I wouldn't even say "good."
But this state became the mess it was/is due to the dominant liberal control, not in spite of it.
I don't want to muddy the waters of the national thread with a state debate, but CA has been run by one party for a long time, with little to show for it. That's my point.
|
Obama came to the presidency at his moment in history. His opposition was Bush-era establishment Republicans, not fighting on principals, and their faction that did came in as a minority faction. The country was generally complaisant about his changes, in the "how bad can it be" vein of thought. Some of that changed with Obamacare, promised to keep your old doctors and not raise premiums, but doing both in short order. Some stayed the same. Now these Enlightened Despot measures tap into the same complaisance. He doesn't have the power to do any of it, but there's nobody in power that will prove it by stopping him. As is the case time and time again, when the opposition to brute seizure of power rests, it's all there for the taking.
Court cases for full federal benefits will come, and any of the gibberish about 5 years in the country or must learn English will fall as second class citizenship cases rise to the supreme court level. The torrent of lies in that speech simply was the path of despots, trying to fool the American public that it isn't unprecedented, and he's still doing this out of kindness and good will. If he had the case to make, he would've made that and not these half truths with a hefty side of tear-jerk tangents intended to confuse the issue. I'll leave you with Jeff Sessions, one of the few Senators with balls
Americans defeated President Obama's disastrous amnesty plans both in Congressand at the voting booth. Tonight, President Obama defied an entire nation and declared that he will impose his rejected amnesty through the brute force of executive order.
President Obama's executive amnesty will provide an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants with the exact benefits Congress rejected, in violation of federal law. His order will grant them social security numbers, government-issued ID's, legal status and work permits. Illegal immigrants will now be able to take jobs and benefits directly from struggling Americans in a time of high unemployment and low wages. They will be able to take jobs from Americans in all occupations, ranging from truck drivers to power company workers to jobs with city government. Many illegal immigrants will also be able to obtain green cards and become permanent residents, allowing them access to almost all federal programs, to receive citizenship and sponsor foreign relatives to join them in the U.S.
In addition to providing formal amnesty benefits for 5 million illegal immigrants, President Obama has also eliminated virtually all enforcement with respect to the other nearly 7 million illegal immigrantsin the United States. As the president's own former ICE Director, John Sandweg said: "if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero."
All you have to do is get into the country from anywhere on globe — whether through the border or by overstaying a visa — and you are free to remain, take jobs and receive benefits. This year alone, the White House has released into the United States more than 100,000 illegal immigrants who simply showed up at the border and demanded entry.
And now, with a single pen stroke, President Obama is obliterating what little remains of Americans' immigration protections. Not only will millions of low-wage illegal immigrants rush into the labor market, but they will collect billions in taxpayer dollars as well. These costly government benefits range from child tax credits, to public housing to the likelihood that amnestied immigrants will rely on taxpayers for medical and retirement benefits.
Only a short time ago, President Obama himself admitted this action would be illegal and unconstitutional: "I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own" he explained, adding "that's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written." President Obama also said that: "The problem is that I'm the president of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."
Apparently, America now has its first emperor.
And he has issued an imperial order to dissolve America's borders. Millions more will enter and demand the same amnesty benefits as those who came before. The entire moral foundation and consistency of our laws will have been eviscerated. Law enforcement officials have repeatedly warned that the president's new amnesty will unleash a "tidal wave" of illegal immigration. The impact on our jobs, wages, hospitals, schools, police departments and neighborhoods will be crushing.
A second hammer blow will be dealt by the president's unilateral increase in foreign worker programs for large corporations, including technology corporations. Currently, two-thirds of all new jobs in the IT industry are being filled by foreign workers — and yet the president wants to dramatically surge foreign worker admissions even further. This at a time when the Census Bureau tells us more than 11 million Americanswith science, technology, engineering and math degrees don't have jobs in those fields.
President Obama is auctioning off America's middle class to the highest bidders.
Immigration already stands at record levels and is rising quickly. Between 2000 and 2014 — a period during which the government issued nearly 30 million lawful visas to foreign workers and permanent immigrants — all net employment gains among the working-age went to imported labor. Now the president is planning to unilaterally increase immigration even further — all to placate a few billionaire lobbyists and open border extremists.
The great task before the nation now is to resist this imperial decree and return control of this nation to its own citizens — as our Constitution established.
That task begins with Congress refusing to allow a dime of money to be spent executing this unlawful amnesty. This a routine, constitutional and crucial application of congressional power.
If Democrat lawmakers join Republicans in blocking funds for his unlawful plan, the president will be stopped. Americans must ask their representatives this one question: do you serve the citizens of this country and their Constitution — or not?
|
On November 21 2014 11:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:57 Doublemint wrote:you throw in a sentence like CA is such an impressive state with so many advantages that it takes a long time to kill them all completely. and expect me to stay fully on topic and not ridicule that. yeah the weather is great. like always hot and sunny. and droughts too! back on topic. jerry brown turned it completely around, after the terminator left a huge mess and/or was unable to fix the mess before. Don't be dense. I know, heaven forbid I don't write like a robot. People move to CA for the climate, not sure what you are mocking there. Arnold was a bad governor, no argument there. And he spent far too much of his time worrying about global warming. Being as favorable as I can to Brown, I'll say that he has had to adopt some things that, were it not for hard political battles, the Democrats who ran the state would have opposed. This mainly applies to the budget (though there is some trickery there, too). But when it comes to education, poverty, business climate, etc, he has really been ineffective. For instance, he's going to appeal the teacher tenure ruling that happened earlier this year. But he's also refused to sign some of the gun control measures that come across his desk. Honestly he's more moderate than we are used to. He's just a politician. Not the worst, not the best. I wouldn't even say "good." But this state became the mess it was/is due to the dominant liberal control, not in spite of it. I don't want to muddy the waters of the national thread with a state debate, but CA has been run by one party for a long time, with little to show for it. That's my point.
so he has been ok for a liberal is what you are saying.
poverty is an all American problem, made worse by the GFC. TX is doing not not so good here either. even CA is better!. inconceivable!
and yes, state by state comparison is kinda stupid, I just want you to admit that it's not as easy as Dems bad - Reps good. they both suck, in some instances Dems are better and in other ones Reps. It's no surprise that Congress has got the least favorable poll numbers in like forever. I guess if people knew their state governments better it would be a similar picture.
|
On November 21 2014 10:57 Doublemint wrote:you throw in a sentence like Show nested quote +CA is such an impressive state with so many advantages that it takes a long time to kill them all completely. and expect me to stay fully on topic and not ridicule that. yeah the weather is great. like always hot and sunny. and droughts too! back on topic. jerry brown turned it completely around, after the terminator left a huge mess and/or was unable to fix the mess before.
California is still a mess. The state has been able to fix some problems but a lot of that was on the back of the recent tech boom. Should that turn into another bust or just slow down budget issues will crop back up again.
Edit: Also, if you look at California's poverty rate using census' supplemental poverty measure, the state ranks bottom of the barrel. Cost of living is an absolute nightmare in many parts of California.
|
On November 21 2014 11:39 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 11:13 Introvert wrote:On November 21 2014 10:57 Doublemint wrote:you throw in a sentence like CA is such an impressive state with so many advantages that it takes a long time to kill them all completely. and expect me to stay fully on topic and not ridicule that. yeah the weather is great. like always hot and sunny. and droughts too! back on topic. jerry brown turned it completely around, after the terminator left a huge mess and/or was unable to fix the mess before. Don't be dense. I know, heaven forbid I don't write like a robot. People move to CA for the climate, not sure what you are mocking there. Arnold was a bad governor, no argument there. And he spent far too much of his time worrying about global warming. Being as favorable as I can to Brown, I'll say that he has had to adopt some things that, were it not for hard political battles, the Democrats who ran the state would have opposed. This mainly applies to the budget (though there is some trickery there, too). But when it comes to education, poverty, business climate, etc, he has really been ineffective. For instance, he's going to appeal the teacher tenure ruling that happened earlier this year. But he's also refused to sign some of the gun control measures that come across his desk. Honestly he's more moderate than we are used to. He's just a politician. Not the worst, not the best. I wouldn't even say "good." But this state became the mess it was/is due to the dominant liberal control, not in spite of it. I don't want to muddy the waters of the national thread with a state debate, but CA has been run by one party for a long time, with little to show for it. That's my point. so he has been ok for a liberal is what you are saying. poverty is an all American problem, made worse by the GFC. TX is doing not not so good here either. even CA is better!. inconceivable! and yes, state by state comparison is kinda stupid, I just want you to admit that it's not as easy as Dems bad - Reps good. they both suck, in some instances Dems are better and in other ones Reps. It's no surprise that Congress has got the least favorable poll numbers in like forever. I guess if people knew their state governments better it would be a similar picture.
Depends on the metric
Otherwise, I agree. I don't like either party, though presumably for different reasons than you, lol.
|
|
|
How is it on the right track (honestly asking)?
|
On November 21 2014 11:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:How is it on the right track (honestly asking)?
unemployment going down, tax surplus. from where it was that's pretty much the right track
don't make it so hard, my initial point was KS vs. CA in regards to liberal/republican policies.
I am done defending an ailing horse I am not even a huge fan of lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
