US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2215

On August 20 2015 04:05 cLutZ wrote:
Also it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with math and government finances.

An increasing amount of research suggests the environment — an issue that has long been seen within the purview of progressive, white liberals — is now increasingly important to Latinos.

A new poll conducted by Latino Decisions (a polling firm focusing on Hispanics in America) on behalf of two environmental nonprofit groups — Earthjustice and GreenLatinos — finds that Latinos are deeply concerned about the environment and its potential impact on their families.

The poll shows that Latinos place a high priority on the personal effects of climate change, particularly air and water pollution. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed said "reducing smog and air pollution is extremely or very important"; compared with 80 percent for comprehensive immigration reform.

"A lot of Latino households in the United States are in locations that are adversely affected by particulate pollution, by poor water quality," said Gary Segura, co-founder of Latino Decisions. " So quality of life, direct exposure to environmental hazards is quite common among the Latino population; we shouldn't be surprised they're concerned about it."

And Latinos, more than other Americans, see climate change as a man-made problem. Sixty-six percent of Latinos in this most recent poll believe human activities are to blame for global warming, compared with 57 percent of the general population, according to a Gallup survey last year.

This particular poll was small — a national sample of just 1,200 registered Latino voters who were interviewed via landlines and cellphones in English and Spanish. The poll has a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.

But the reason it's important is that it confirms a growing a body of research about Latinos and environmental issues.

On August 20 2015 05:37 Introvert wrote:



If "reason" is code for " don't have any proof besides my own, race obsessed mind," then the answer is indeed "no."



Well, ignoring the glaring difference between America and your thought experiment, I wouldn't expect it to be a touchy subject for people who have no reason to make it one. I don't know if Native Americans at the time would be so insulted. They had their own nations and tribes, I'm not sure they even had a word for the entire continent (in any of their various languages).

Also, as a side note, they are called "Native Americans" not "Native New Americans" which is an admission right at the start that they were here first.

On August 20 2015 05:33 xDaunt wrote:

You still haven't given any good reasons for letting everyone in as opposed to a measured approach.

Are you actually saying that the US can financially absorb the burden of anyone and everyone who comes here?

Are you saying that there should be no selection whatsoever?

On August 20 2015 04:44 Simberto wrote:


What you have in the US is not a welfare state in the slightest.

Also, the idea that "immigrants come to leech of our welfare money" is pretty much an urban legend to all my knowledge. They just want to live in a country that is less shit than the one they come from (can you really blame them for that?), and rather often end up working more for less money than the native citizens.

On August 20 2015 05:55 Deathstar wrote:


Compared to the third world countries these illegals come from, US is a welfare state. The illegals know this, and the illegals know they won't be punished for forcing their way into the country, and so they come in swarms.

To your bolded, everyone wants to improve their lives. Illegals are nothing special. What you're saying is that the US is up for grabs by every poor person in the world. A porous border with guaranteed entitlements for everyone. Yeah I don't think so.

The Federal Reserve is inching closer to the first interest rate increase in nearly a decade, minutes of the central bankers latest meeting indicated on Wednesday.

The minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) 28-29 July meeting did not mention any timetable, but did state that most members believed that economic conditions were “approaching” those that would warrant a rate increase.

Most economists expect that rates, which have been held at near-zero since the 2008 financial crisis, will be raised at the Fed’s next policy meeting on 16-17 September. But the recent collapse in China’s stock markets and worries they may spread may slow the Fed, according to some economists.

The minutes said: “Most judged that the conditions for policy firming had not yet been achieved, but they noted that conditions were approaching that point. Participants observed that the labor market had improved notably since early this year, but many saw scope for some further improvement.”

However, other FOMC members continued to be concerned that inflation remains too low. “Some participants expressed the view that the incoming information had not yet provided grounds for reasonable confidence that inflation would move back to 2% over the medium term and that the inflation outlook thus might not soon meet one of the conditions established by the [Fed] for initiating a firming of policy,” the minutes said.

At the last meeting, the committee left interest rates unchanged at near zero but once again signalled that rates will rise later this year.

On August 20 2015 05:56 Acrofales wrote:
Really? I had to get an authorized translation of my driver's license for it to be recognized here in Brazil, but that only makes sense: my license is in Dutch (and English), and not in Portuguese. If your license is already in English (British English is not different enough from American English to warrant translation), then why the hell require an authorized translation? Sounds like really really lazy lawmaking to me.

On August 20 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:

The lady at the DMV told me that she couldn't read my date of birth without it being translated into English. It was written in numbers, not words. And yes, we do speak English in Britain.

I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying these are the barriers you face when immigrating into the United States.

On August 20 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


Your posts reflect a genuine obliviousness. I'm of the camp that thinks only a personal relationship or old age can reconcile people of your perspective with reality, so I won't waste more of our time. This is definitely one of those "dress" moments where I just don't fully understand how you can't see what is right in front of you and clearly being presented in your posts.

For now, federal authorities characterize the Justice Department inquiry into Hillary Clinton's private email server as a security situation: a simple matter of finding out whether classified information leaked out during her tenure as secretary of state, and where it went.

Except, former government officials said, that's not going to be so simple.

"I think that the FBI will be moving with all deliberate speed to determine whether there were serious breaches of national security here," said Ron Hosko, who used to lead the FBI's criminal investigative division.

He said agents will direct their questions not just at Clinton, but also her close associates at the State Department and beyond.

"I would want to know how did this occur to begin with, who knew, who approved," Hosko said.

Authorities are asking whether Clinton or her aides mishandled secrets about the Benghazi attacks and other subjects by corresponding about them in emails.

For her part, Clinton said she did not use that email account to send or receive anything marked classified.

"Whether it was a personal account or a government account, I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified which is the way you know whether something is," she said Tuesday in a question-and-answer session with reporters.

Why is Clinton emphasizing the idea that none of those messages were marked? Because what she knew — her intent — matters a lot under the law. If the Justice Department and FBI inquiry turns into a formal criminal investigation.

Two lawyers familiar with the inquiry told NPR that a formal criminal investigation is under consideration and could happen soon — although they caution that Clinton herself may not be the target.

On August 20 2015 05:55 Deathstar wrote:


Compared to the third world countries these illegals come from, US is a welfare state. The illegals know this, and the illegals know they won't be punished for forcing their way into the country, and so they come in swarms.

To your bolded, everyone wants to improve their lives. Illegals are nothing special. What you're saying is that the US is up for grabs by every poor person in the world. A porous border with guaranteed entitlements for everyone. Yeah I don't think so.

On August 20 2015 06:56 Wegandi wrote:
I'm pro-"open borders" since I don't recognize the legitimacy of these imaginary borders (State) in the first place. It should be up to property owners to decide on issues of residency, employment, etc. However, those who are pro-open border and pro-welfare state are delusional. You can't have a sustainable functioning social welfare state, and be open borders, so eventually one of your interests are going to destroy your other. You people are going to have to decide eventually which matters more to you, because the strain of open borders on the welfare state WILL lead to a majority of the population becoming amicable to the dissolution of either open borders or the welfare state. They simply cannot co-exist. I can't wait for that day to arrive, it'll be joyous to watch the cognitive dissonance crumble to reality.