|
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 June 28 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:02 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 03:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: ![[image loading]](http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/44xxx/44134-land-ForeignBornPop.png) LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? If I had to guess, it would be part of the "globalization trend." There's also the possibility it's a response to the rent seeking aspect, where employers have more incentive to hire as cheap labor as possible as it increases their own income much more. Third, it could simply be a response to the Civil Rights Act, which reversed discrimination that (unintentionally) affected Hispanics. Then there's a question about Mexico stability at that time and US allowance of immigration. I don't have any clue about either one. On June 28 2013 03:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? Educated immigrants tend to be far and above the kind of education most Americans have. They tend to be MD's or rearch PhD's. They aren't taking our jobs in middle management or even corporate executorship. I think that U shape just has to do with Mexico becoming a less tolerable place to live and the U.S. being more immigrant friendly (despite what the politics would have you believe). Also, with the recent economic crash (albeit that's not a big portion of the U) there's been a surge in demand for unskilled (borderline unpaid) labor that immigrants are willing to meet much more quickly than college educated Americans who have an enormous stigma attached to "flipping burgers." Oh and falling American birth rates inevitably means that immigrants are going to make a higher percentage. What about supply and demand in labor markets? Could a large influx of unskilled immigrants, coupled with a low influx of skilled immigrants put downward pressure on low end wages? If so, wouldn't that play a role in inequality? Depends on employment. If the economy isn't at full employment, the downward pressure is greater than any gains of increased production/consumption. Right NOW, if you introduced a lot of new immigrants, it would put further downward pressure on wages. However, through the 70s-00s, employment was always near full except for very small recessions, and the downward pressure on wages were happening outside of those recessions as well as within. Ideally, each new worker, immigrant or natural born, grows the economy by some degree. As long as new technology comes along and competition is fostered, the average additional worker will add real value to the economy greater than the worker before. Even if there is a disproportionate influx of low skilled workers, the mid and high skill workers will remain unaffected. In this scenario, prices will either fall (signalling deflation) or wages would rise to correspond with the increase in production. Neither of these things happened, so there is some outside variable that forces it to deviate. Well, my understanding is that inequality is mainly being driven by differences in labor income, not a divergence between labor and capital income ( figure 8). So putting downward pressure on the low end of the wage scale (but not the high end) could have a big impact on inequality.
This assumes some things about who/what controls wages and who benefits in what way. If the lower paid workers are not part of the economy in consuming, but only in producing, then they don't add their compensation back to the source economy. This is outsourcing and gives productivity gains without wage gains, jobs are literally being replaced and this puts downward pressure on wages. With immigration, this isn't a problem. There aren't jobs being taken, but instead jobs that are being added (assuming full employment and over the medium term). In the short term, labor shocks can and do lower wages, but that is supposed to reverse with increased capacity in production and increased capacity of consumption (economy grows).
(I'll have to elaborate better later when I'm not studying for a test though.)
|
On June 28 2013 05:13 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX) If Reagan had vetoed amnesty, would he have done better next election? You have to think of this as a whole, as a party effort. You can't offer somebody a dead branch and expect them to glorify your generosity. You have to fight for their support until you drive the other party to either give up, or go so far beyond what's reasonable to gain the support back. Maybe the party's reliance on a fired up radical base prevents that, and a collapse/restructure will ultimately become inevitable.
Party has been pursuing a ghost for years. It's clear fighting for hispanic support is possible if you give up every position you hold. I don't doubt that. If Republicans became Democrats spelled with an R, maybe that would generate enough confusion to get a couple more percentage points next election. McCain was about as RINO-moderate as you can get on the border, and he got 31% of the hispanic vote according to Pew. If Romney had completely captured the hispanic vote, he still couldn't have won the election! At every turn it has been demonstrated that the gain is a phantom and the loss is very real. Hispanics are Democrats and arguing about wavering on major policy issue to lose the hispanic vote by a little less is ludicrous. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group.
Hispanics are no friends to having millions more come in and compete for low-skilled jobs, so let's see what happens if Republicans present a united front on ending future illegal immigration. The Republican base is no big fan of government welfare and entitlement programs like Obamacare; I'm not gonna sign away on big government because of trumped up claims.
The current status of the debate on immigration reform at the capitol, specifically the bill the Senate just passed, is no more sane. The gall of some of them to throw their hands up in the air and talk about how "We gotta do something," given the conditions that exist. Excuse me, wasn't it always cowardice that prevented action in the past that led up to today? Established representatives made the problem by not enforcing the borders, and then act as if they had no hand in it and somebody shoved it into their lap. That is why you'll hear the conservative base want nothing until the border is secure and been demonstrably secure for a time following the passage. It's a pretty radical position to enforce current laws and secure a country's border, also pretty radical to think open immigration with a welfare state is not a smart idea.
|
On June 28 2013 06:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:13 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX) If Reagan had vetoed amnesty, would he have done better next election? You have to think of this as a whole, as a party effort. You can't offer somebody a dead branch and expect them to glorify your generosity. You have to fight for their support until you drive the other party to either give up, or go so far beyond what's reasonable to gain the support back. Maybe the party's reliance on a fired up radical base prevents that, and a collapse/restructure will ultimately become inevitable. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group.
Yes, the demographics of the United States in the 1980s and in the 2010s are very similar. In Alaska.
|
On June 28 2013 11:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:55 Danglars wrote:On June 28 2013 05:13 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX) If Reagan had vetoed amnesty, would he have done better next election? You have to think of this as a whole, as a party effort. You can't offer somebody a dead branch and expect them to glorify your generosity. You have to fight for their support until you drive the other party to either give up, or go so far beyond what's reasonable to gain the support back. Maybe the party's reliance on a fired up radical base prevents that, and a collapse/restructure will ultimately become inevitable. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group. Yes, the demographics of the United States in the 1980s and in the 2010s are very similar. In Alaska.
That all important moose vote.
|
Senate Republican leaders have sent letters warning six professional sports leagues not to provide the Obama administration any assistance in promoting Obamacare.
The letters, dated June 27, warn the chiefs of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR that partnering with the administration to publicize the benefits of the health care law would damage their reputations.
“Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of this bill, it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX).
The letters come days after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she’s spoken with the NFL about potentially partnering to let people know the benefits of the Affordable Care Act ahead of the implementation of its major components. (She said there was no deal yet.) The Republican senators rattled off a slew of conservative arguments against the law, stressing polls that signal its unpopularity with the public.
Souce
|
On June 29 2013 07:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Senate Republican leaders have sent letters warning six professional sports leagues not to provide the Obama administration any assistance in promoting Obamacare.
The letters, dated June 27, warn the chiefs of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR that partnering with the administration to publicize the benefits of the health care law would damage their reputations.
“Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of this bill, it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX).
The letters come days after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she’s spoken with the NFL about potentially partnering to let people know the benefits of the Affordable Care Act ahead of the implementation of its major components. (She said there was no deal yet.) The Republican senators rattled off a slew of conservative arguments against the law, stressing polls that signal its unpopularity with the public. Souce
Doesn't the divisiveness mostly come from Republicans and hard-right talk shows?
|
I don't know that threatening professional sports leagues is the greatest idea in the world. The NFL especially is a juggernaut of influence among the public.
|
On June 29 2013 07:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Senate Republican leaders have sent letters warning six professional sports leagues not to provide the Obama administration any assistance in promoting Obamacare.
The letters, dated June 27, warn the chiefs of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR that partnering with the administration to publicize the benefits of the health care law would damage their reputations.
“Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of this bill, it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX).
The letters come days after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she’s spoken with the NFL about potentially partnering to let people know the benefits of the Affordable Care Act ahead of the implementation of its major components. (She said there was no deal yet.) The Republican senators rattled off a slew of conservative arguments against the law, stressing polls that signal its unpopularity with the public. Souce
politics is dirty
|
On June 29 2013 11:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I don't know that threatening professional sports leagues is the greatest idea in the world. The NFL especially is a juggernaut of influence among the public.
For a league that pumps out .1% incomes, I don't know that pissing off the party that opposes substantial tax increases on the rich is a great idea.
|
On June 29 2013 11:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 11:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I don't know that threatening professional sports leagues is the greatest idea in the world. The NFL especially is a juggernaut of influence among the public. For a league that pumps out .1% incomes, I don't know that pissing off the party that opposes substantial tax increases on the rich is a great idea.
You think the republicans are going to let substantial tax increases happen just to spite the NFL?
|
DENVER -- A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators is urging the Obama administration to focus more on preventing wildfires.
The administration is proposing a 31 percent cut in funding for fire prevention programs one year after record blazes burned 9.3 million acres. The federal government routinely spends so much money fighting increasingly-destructive fires that it uses money meant to be spent on clearing potential fuels like dead trees and underbrush in national forests.
In a letter to the administration, four senators call the habit "nonsensical" and said it just leads to bigger fires. They also strongly object to the proposed budget cut.
The senators who signed the letter are U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore), U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo), U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and U.S. Senator James Risch (R-Idaho).
Source
|
On June 28 2013 11:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:55 Danglars wrote:On June 28 2013 05:13 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX) If Reagan had vetoed amnesty, would he have done better next election? You have to think of this as a whole, as a party effort. You can't offer somebody a dead branch and expect them to glorify your generosity. You have to fight for their support until you drive the other party to either give up, or go so far beyond what's reasonable to gain the support back. Maybe the party's reliance on a fired up radical base prevents that, and a collapse/restructure will ultimately become inevitable. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group. Yes, the demographics of the United States in the 1980s and in the 2010s are very similar. In Alaska.
Party has been pursuing a ghost for years. It's clear fighting for hispanic support is possible if you give up every position you hold. I don't doubt that. If Republicans became Democrats spelled with an R, maybe that would generate enough confusion to get a couple more percentage points next election. McCain was about as RINO-moderate as you can get on the border, and he got 31% of the hispanic vote according to Pew. If Romney had completely captured the hispanic vote, he still couldn't have won the election! At every turn it has been demonstrated that the gain is a phantom and the loss is very real. Hispanics are Democrats and arguing about wavering on major policy issue to lose the hispanic vote by a little less is ludicrous. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group.
Maybe you forgot, but the similarities are in how the hispanics vote. Take the time to re-read what I wrote in the context of the paragraph that I wrote it. You say the demographics have shifted, maybe you think the way polls broke down hispanics have changed? Reagan won two landslides capturing 35% and 37% respectively, zip forward to the modern era,
Bush '04: 40%
McCain '08: 31%
Romney '12: 27%
You think demographics have changed and this affects the comparison? Reagan won without the hispanic vote (a landslide), Romney lost and still would've lost had he even captured 70% of the hispanic vote. Republicans have a history of losing the hispanic vote and their stances on immigration have had no affect. If hispanics had forgotten how much they love big government welfare (polled as huge support, as I mentioned earlier), it still wouldn't have propped up an already losing candidate. Your changing demographics change very little about the points I'm making.
|
On June 29 2013 15:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 11:19 Sub40APM wrote:On June 28 2013 06:55 Danglars wrote:On June 28 2013 05:13 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX) If Reagan had vetoed amnesty, would he have done better next election? You have to think of this as a whole, as a party effort. You can't offer somebody a dead branch and expect them to glorify your generosity. You have to fight for their support until you drive the other party to either give up, or go so far beyond what's reasonable to gain the support back. Maybe the party's reliance on a fired up radical base prevents that, and a collapse/restructure will ultimately become inevitable. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group. Yes, the demographics of the United States in the 1980s and in the 2010s are very similar. In Alaska. Show nested quote +Party has been pursuing a ghost for years. It's clear fighting for hispanic support is possible if you give up every position you hold. I don't doubt that. If Republicans became Democrats spelled with an R, maybe that would generate enough confusion to get a couple more percentage points next election. McCain was about as RINO-moderate as you can get on the border, and he got 31% of the hispanic vote according to Pew. If Romney had completely captured the hispanic vote, he still couldn't have won the election! At every turn it has been demonstrated that the gain is a phantom and the loss is very real. Hispanics are Democrats and arguing about wavering on major policy issue to lose the hispanic vote by a little less is ludicrous. Reagan won not one but TWO massive landslides and captured 35% and 37% of the hispanic vote in each. Oh man Republicans are shafted ... How about pushing policies good for the country and let the results bolster support, not breaking down positions for this demographic group and that demographic group. Maybe you forgot, but the similarities are in how the hispanics vote. Take the time to re-read what I wrote in the context of the paragraph that I wrote it. You say the demographics have shifted, maybe you think the way polls broke down hispanics have changed? Reagan won two landslides capturing 35% and 37% respectively, zip forward to the modern era, Bush '04: 40% McCain '08: 31% Romney '12: 27% You think demographics have changed and this affects the comparison? Reagan won without the hispanic vote (a landslide), Romney lost and still would've lost had he even captured 70% of the hispanic vote. Republicans have a history of losing the hispanic vote and their stances on immigration have had no affect. If hispanics had forgotten how much they love big government welfare (polled as huge support, as I mentioned earlier), it still wouldn't have propped up an already losing candidate. Your changing demographics change very little about the points I'm making.
In 1980, the total Hispanic portion of the vote was 2%. In 2012, that rose to 10% of the vote. If Obama and Romney had split the Hispanic vote, Romney would have won the popular vote. Their importance in the election process is expected to increase over the next decade. Also, Republicans haven't always done THIS poorly with Hispanics, seeing how Bush got 44% of their vote in 2004.
Source 1
Source 2
|
When you mention McCains positions on immigration (well his current one) you have to remember that he basically reversed that for the republican primary in 2008 and basically held onto that position until after 2012 when he came back to his original position of needing comprehensive immigration reform passed.
|
I just realized we now live in somewhat semi-police state...
"But what we're really talking about here is a localized system that prevents any form of electronic communication from taking place without its being stored and monitored by the National Security Agency," Greenwald continued. "It doesn't mean that they're listening to every call, it means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time, and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon millions upon millions of our phone and email records."
Source
|
On June 30 2013 02:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I just realized we now live in somewhat semi-police state... Show nested quote +"But what we're really talking about here is a localized system that prevents any form of electronic communication from taking place without its being stored and monitored by the National Security Agency," Greenwald continued. "It doesn't mean that they're listening to every call, it means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time, and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon millions upon millions of our phone and email records." Source
we are going back in time,
to the year 1984
|
BERLIN, June 29 (Reuters) - The United States bugged European Union offices and gained access to EU internal computer networks, according to secret documents cited in a German magazine on Saturday, the latest in a series of exposures of alleged U.S. spy programmes.
Der Spiegel cited from a September 2010 "top secret" document of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) which it said fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had taken with him and which the weekly's journalists had seen in part.
The document outlines how the NSA bugged offices and spied on EU internal computer networks in Washington and at the United Nations, not only listening to conversations and phone calls but also gaining access to documents and emails.
The document explicitly called the EU a "target".
A slew of Snowden's disclosures in foreign media about U.S. surveillance programmes have ignited a political furore in the United States and abroad over the balance between privacy rights and national security.
According to Der Spiegel, the NSA also targeted telecommunications at the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels, home to the European Council that groups EU national governments, by calling a remote maintenance unit.
Source
|
On June 30 2013 08:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +BERLIN, June 29 (Reuters) - The United States bugged European Union offices and gained access to EU internal computer networks, according to secret documents cited in a German magazine on Saturday, the latest in a series of exposures of alleged U.S. spy programmes.
Der Spiegel cited from a September 2010 "top secret" document of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) which it said fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had taken with him and which the weekly's journalists had seen in part.
The document outlines how the NSA bugged offices and spied on EU internal computer networks in Washington and at the United Nations, not only listening to conversations and phone calls but also gaining access to documents and emails.
The document explicitly called the EU a "target".
A slew of Snowden's disclosures in foreign media about U.S. surveillance programmes have ignited a political furore in the United States and abroad over the balance between privacy rights and national security.
According to Der Spiegel, the NSA also targeted telecommunications at the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels, home to the European Council that groups EU national governments, by calling a remote maintenance unit. Source
Oh man. Keeps getting worse.
|
On June 30 2013 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 08:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BERLIN, June 29 (Reuters) - The United States bugged European Union offices and gained access to EU internal computer networks, according to secret documents cited in a German magazine on Saturday, the latest in a series of exposures of alleged U.S. spy programmes.
Der Spiegel cited from a September 2010 "top secret" document of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) which it said fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had taken with him and which the weekly's journalists had seen in part.
The document outlines how the NSA bugged offices and spied on EU internal computer networks in Washington and at the United Nations, not only listening to conversations and phone calls but also gaining access to documents and emails.
The document explicitly called the EU a "target".
A slew of Snowden's disclosures in foreign media about U.S. surveillance programmes have ignited a political furore in the United States and abroad over the balance between privacy rights and national security.
According to Der Spiegel, the NSA also targeted telecommunications at the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels, home to the European Council that groups EU national governments, by calling a remote maintenance unit. Source Oh man. Keeps getting worse.
Indeed. I can defend what's been done so far as a relatively even battle between the gains in public and private space. If the NSA is actually spying on governments, I think that's a step too far. Particularly because that should be the CIA if it's done at all.
|
On June 29 2013 11:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I don't know that threatening professional sports leagues is the greatest idea in the world. The NFL especially is a juggernaut of influence among the public.
They weren't threatening them, lol. Obviously the NFL agreed with the Republicans that it was a bad idea, as they refused to do it.
But never fear! Obama and friends will just get your kids to do it!
http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Documents/COVERED CA - Grantee Profiles - 5-14-13.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
