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 04 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote: I woudnl't entirely agree with that parku; if hillary gets indicted (unlikely) I don't see a reason why the delegate pledge to her should have to go to bernie. I'd expect them to go free agent, and make their own judgment or somesuch. I suspect most people who voted hillary over bernie would also prefer biden over bernie. and he's been vice president for 8 years, so i'ts not like he needs ot campaign for us to know who he is and what he's like.
Problem is nobody voted for him. If the DNC demonstrates that kind of arrogance there is absolutely no chance of trump losing. The DNC bet their money on Clinton. If they wanted that kind of power than they should have put it on the ballot: 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Bernie Sanders 3. DNC's choice
They didn't. If your candidate is out, you're out. You don't get two votes. If the DNC is desperate enough to pull this move you will see the vast majority of Bernie supporters voting for Trump because he will be the best option. A vote for Trump is at that point a vote against both the DNC and the RNC and would be strategically sound because the DNC will have proved that their system is rigged and the will of the people means nothing. We take a lot of pride in our democracy: Pushing a candidate that NOBODY voted for will have far more implications than you think.
On June 04 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote: I woudnl't entirely agree with that parku; if hillary gets indicted (unlikely) I don't see a reason why the delegate pledge to her should have to go to bernie. I'd expect them to go free agent, and make their own judgment or somesuch. I suspect most people who voted hillary over bernie would also prefer biden over bernie. and he's been vice president for 8 years, so i'ts not like he needs ot campaign for us to know who he is and what he's like.
Problem is nobody voted for him. If the DNC demonstrates that kind of arrogance there is absolutely no chance of trump losing. They bet their money on Clinton. If they wanted that kind of power than they should have put it on the ballot: 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Bernie Sanders 3. DNC's choice
They didn't. If your candidate is out, you're out. You don't get two votes.
On June 04 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote: I woudnl't entirely agree with that parku; if hillary gets indicted (unlikely) I don't see a reason why the delegate pledge to her should have to go to bernie. I'd expect them to go free agent, and make their own judgment or somesuch. I suspect most people who voted hillary over bernie would also prefer biden over bernie. and he's been vice president for 8 years, so i'ts not like he needs ot campaign for us to know who he is and what he's like.
Problem is nobody voted for him. If the DNC demonstrates that kind of arrogance there is absolutely no chance of trump losing. They bet their money on Clinton. If they wanted that kind of power than they should have put it on the ballot: 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Bernie Sanders 3. DNC's choice
They didn't. If your candidate is out, you're out. You don't get two votes.
nobody voted for him because he wasn't in the race. What to do if a candidate dies/is indicted is a question with no clear answer, and many reasonable possibilities. There's also nothing notably arrogant about saying that if a candidate ceases to be an option, their delegates become free agents to make their own best judgment on the matter.
The vast majority of the violence is coming from the left right now. Every violent threat and action is coming from the far left.
Systemic violence is bodily violence. We're all being pretty violent right now.
On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote: One thing I don't get is why people attack Drumpf on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing?
I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck.
But there are legal ways of getting into a country.
Needed tens of thousands of dollars in a three year process to get a green card when I came to the US and I'm middle class, have a degree, speak English as a first language etc. It's a bitch.
To be fair, that didnt even work for me because of the lottery cap. I spent 3 years on an OPT with a stem and my firm spent around 12-15k (thank god they did) in lawyer shit and premium H1 processing only for the lottery cap to screw me over everytime because a recovering economy means Tata and Reliance HR consultancy et al will start spamming apps that hit H1-B requirements with 100 apps per position (which I know because my company did it too).
Now I reside happily in Canda with 0 money spent. I earn alot less. But whatever, US system broken for people who are actually paying taxes and contributing to SS and 401K's they will never be able to benefit from lel.
The vast majority of the violence is coming from the left right now. Every violent threat and action is coming from the far left.
Systemic violence is bodily violence. We're all being pretty violent right now.
On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote: One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing?
I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck.
But there are legal ways of getting into a country.
Needed tens of thousands of dollars in a three year process to get a green card when I came to the US and I'm middle class, have a degree, speak English as a first language etc. It's a bitch.
It's supposed to be a bitch. It's not supposed to be for any dude who just wants to walk into the country. Countries aren't homeless shelters for the world's poor. Oh no! Canada's economy has crashed! I'd better pack up and go to Japan that'll really work out well for the Japanese.
No it isn’t supposed to be a nightmare to get a visa to work here. Employers for both skilled and unskilled labor have been beating the drums for years that there are not enough visas and are too costly. The issue isn’t addressed because immigration is a political football.
The vast majority of the violence is coming from the left right now. Every violent threat and action is coming from the far left.
Systemic violence is bodily violence. We're all being pretty violent right now.
On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote: One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing?
I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck.
But there are legal ways of getting into a country.
Needed tens of thousands of dollars in a three year process to get a green card when I came to the US and I'm middle class, have a degree, speak English as a first language etc. It's a bitch.
It's supposed to be a bitch. It's not supposed to be for any dude who just wants to walk the country. Countries aren't homeless shelters for the world's poor. Oh no! Canada's economy has crashed! I'd better pack up and go to Japan that'll really work out well for the Japanese.
Please reconcile that with an economy that needs low skill low pay fruit pickets every harvest.
The US either needs to stop needing immigrants or to have a functioning immigration system. This "have a completely dysfunctional immigration system while also needing a shitton of immigrants" system is a recipe for illegal immigration.
On June 04 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote: I woudnl't entirely agree with that parku; if hillary gets indicted (unlikely) I don't see a reason why the delegate pledge to her should have to go to bernie. I'd expect them to go free agent, and make their own judgment or somesuch. I suspect most people who voted hillary over bernie would also prefer biden over bernie. and he's been vice president for 8 years, so i'ts not like he needs ot campaign for us to know who he is and what he's like.
Problem is nobody voted for him. If the DNC demonstrates that kind of arrogance there is absolutely no chance of trump losing. They bet their money on Clinton. If they wanted that kind of power than they should have put it on the ballot: 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Bernie Sanders 3. DNC's choice
They didn't. If your candidate is out, you're out. You don't get two votes.
nobody voted for him because he wasn't in the race. What to do if a candidate dies/is indicted is a question with no clear answer, and many reasonable possibilities. There's also nothing notably arrogant about saying that if a candidate ceases to be an option, their delegates become free agents to make their own best judgment on the matter.
The only judgement they have is whether or not they're voting. There will be one option left: Bernie. You cannot change people's votes just because you are losing. That would be a slimier move than ANYTHING Trump has pulled in this election. The the RNC isn't even dumb enough to do that. When Cruz dropped out they accepted the will of the people because they're not stupid enough to spit in the face of their constituents.
On June 04 2016 02:10 Plansix wrote: No it isn’t supposed to be a nightmare to get a visa to work here. Employers for both skilled and unskilled labor have been beating the drums for years that there are not enough visas and are too costly. The issue isn’t addressed because immigration is a political football.
In places like Canada or Australia if you are willing to spend 60 percent of your time in a truck driving in winter woods or the outback they will let unskilled labour in + Show Spoiler +
(but no one wants to fuckin do that)
on specific immigration provisions.
Basically policy varies on the "we need people willing to do X job" requirement.
In this US there is literally to no demand for legal unskilled labour in the US because its being covered by people crossing the southern border,
Skilled labour has very specific requirements that employers circumvent by pretending they are bringing in an accountant from Bangladesh or India or the Phillipines or wherever + Show Spoiler +
(and technically you have to prove in the petition no one else can do the work they do or it would require the firm to spend way to much time training and sunk investments to replace them, which is sort of a checklist any run of the mill immigration law firm can hit rather than an actual investigative process.)
and pay them 20odd percent below the base requirement of the Visa itself, but no one ever checks and the employed are more than happy to come so the oversight is shit and the process is shit. Everything is shit.
They want people, but they also dont want people. It doesnt make any sense.
On June 04 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote: I woudnl't entirely agree with that parku; if hillary gets indicted (unlikely) I don't see a reason why the delegate pledge to her should have to go to bernie. I'd expect them to go free agent, and make their own judgment or somesuch. I suspect most people who voted hillary over bernie would also prefer biden over bernie. and he's been vice president for 8 years, so i'ts not like he needs ot campaign for us to know who he is and what he's like.
Problem is nobody voted for him. If the DNC demonstrates that kind of arrogance there is absolutely no chance of trump losing. They bet their money on Clinton. If they wanted that kind of power than they should have put it on the ballot: 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Bernie Sanders 3. DNC's choice
They didn't. If your candidate is out, you're out. You don't get two votes.
nobody voted for him because he wasn't in the race. What to do if a candidate dies/is indicted is a question with no clear answer, and many reasonable possibilities. There's also nothing notably arrogant about saying that if a candidate ceases to be an option, their delegates become free agents to make their own best judgment on the matter.
The only judgement they have is whether or not they're voting. There will be one option left: Bernie. You cannot change people's votes just because you are losing. That would be a slimier move than ANYTHING Trump has pulled in this election. The the RNC isn't even dumb enough to do that. When Cruz dropped out they accepted the will of the people because they're not stupid enough to spit in the face of their constituents.
I disagree, and find your stance unreasonably restrictive. Nobody said anything about changing people's votes, so that's a strawman, and it has nothing to do with because losing, because they weren't losing. also, the cruz comparison is TOTALLY not on point, as that was a VERY different situation. I don't think there's anything more between us to say.
On June 04 2016 01:42 zlefin wrote: I woudnl't entirely agree with that parku; if hillary gets indicted (unlikely) I don't see a reason why the delegate pledge to her should have to go to bernie. I'd expect them to go free agent, and make their own judgment or somesuch. I suspect most people who voted hillary over bernie would also prefer biden over bernie. and he's been vice president for 8 years, so i'ts not like he needs ot campaign for us to know who he is and what he's like.
Problem is nobody voted for him. If the DNC demonstrates that kind of arrogance there is absolutely no chance of trump losing. They bet their money on Clinton. If they wanted that kind of power than they should have put it on the ballot: 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Bernie Sanders 3. DNC's choice
They didn't. If your candidate is out, you're out. You don't get two votes.
nobody voted for him because he wasn't in the race. What to do if a candidate dies/is indicted is a question with no clear answer, and many reasonable possibilities. There's also nothing notably arrogant about saying that if a candidate ceases to be an option, their delegates become free agents to make their own best judgment on the matter.
The only judgement they have is whether or not they're voting. There will be one option left: Bernie. You cannot change people's votes just because you are losing. That would be a slimier move than ANYTHING Trump has pulled in this election. The the RNC isn't even dumb enough to do that. When Cruz dropped out they accepted the will of the people because they're not stupid enough to spit in the face of their constituents.
I disagree, and find your stance unreasonably restrictive. Nobody said anything about changing people's votes, so that's a strawman, and it has nothing to do with because losing, because they weren't losing. also, the cruz comparison is TOTALLY not on point, as that was a VERY different situation. I don't think there's anything more between us to say.
If Clinton gets indicted, they have lost. When your horse is out of the race you have lost. You can't switch your bet mid race when your horse goes lame. You also can't just throw another horse in the middle of the race and be like "yeah my money's on him now". It's ridiculous. People voted for Clinton. They did not vote for the DNC. If the DNC wants that kind of power they should have put themselves on the ballot.
The vast majority of the violence is coming from the left right now. Every violent threat and action is coming from the far left.
Systemic violence is bodily violence. We're all being pretty violent right now.
On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote: One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing?
I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck.
But there are legal ways of getting into a country.
Needed tens of thousands of dollars in a three year process to get a green card when I came to the US and I'm middle class, have a degree, speak English as a first language etc. It's a bitch.
It's supposed to be a bitch. It's not supposed to be for any dude who just wants to walk the country. Countries aren't homeless shelters for the world's poor. Oh no! Canada's economy has crashed! I'd better pack up and go to Japan that'll really work out well for the Japanese.
Please reconcile that with an economy that needs low skill low pay fruit pickets every harvest.
The US either needs to stop needing immigrants or to have a functioning immigration system. This "have a completely dysfunctional immigration system while also needing a shitton of immigrants" system is a recipe for illegal immigration.
But even then it is hugely inefficient.
Literally arguing for a near slave class that gets paid less than minimum wage yet still needs to live off welfare because they clearly aren't paid the cost of living.
Pretty sure the president needs to send some able bodied men from their own unemployed class to do the jobs. There's plenty of them. It'll be like mandatory military service in SK. Conscription for the fruit gods. Everyone gets shipped to California, lives in a barracks, picks some fruit. Everyone wins.
The vast majority of the violence is coming from the left right now. Every violent threat and action is coming from the far left.
Systemic violence is bodily violence. We're all being pretty violent right now.
On June 03 2016 17:35 NukeD wrote: One thing I don't get is why people attack Trump on his position on illegal immigration. I mean its ILLEGAL, why on earth would you defend it. I think most of us here in europe don't understand the outrage on the idea of deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. What am I missing?
I defend very many things that are illegal. Sometimes laws suck.
But there are legal ways of getting into a country.
Needed tens of thousands of dollars in a three year process to get a green card when I came to the US and I'm middle class, have a degree, speak English as a first language etc. It's a bitch.
It's supposed to be a bitch. It's not supposed to be for any dude who just wants to walk the country. Countries aren't homeless shelters for the world's poor. Oh no! Canada's economy has crashed! I'd better pack up and go to Japan that'll really work out well for the Japanese.
Please reconcile that with an economy that needs low skill low pay fruit pickets every harvest.
The US either needs to stop needing immigrants or to have a functioning immigration system. This "have a completely dysfunctional immigration system while also needing a shitton of immigrants" system is a recipe for illegal immigration.
But even then it is hugely inefficient.
Literally arguing for a near slave class that gets paid less than minimum wage yet still needs to live off welfare because they clearly aren't paid the cost of living.
Pretty sure the president needs to send some able bodied men from their own unemployed class to do the jobs. There's plenty of them. It'll be like mandatory military service in SK. Conscription for the fruit gods. Everyone gets shipped to California, lives in a barracks, picks some fruit. Everyone wins.
During the Italian elections in 2013, one false rumour was spread in a post on Facebook and shared more than 35,000 times in less than a month. It was a story that said: The Italian Senate voted (257 in favour and 165 abstentions) for a law proposed by Senator Cerenga that aimed to give policymakers €134 billion (£112 billion) to find jobs in case they are defeated by the competition.
There were four things wrong with this story: there is no Senator Cerenga, there were more votes than members of parliament, the amount of funding is implausible at ten percent of GDP and the law itself did not exist. Despite this, the false rumour has been used to fuel protests in a number of Italian cities and is commonly cited as an example of political corruption in Italy: a striking example of what happens when misinformation is spread at scale.
The internet does not filter reality vs fantasy that looks like reality.
Then again, NYT really didn't do their credibility any favours after their hit piece on Trump that backfired wonderfully.
On June 04 2016 02:50 Plansix wrote: The internet does not filter reality vs fantasy that looks like reality.
You still haven't given me your list of top intellectuals that beat the likes of Hitchens but you felt very comfortable with discrediting Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins etc. "lul those guys r just tryin to sell u bookz dood". I'm not even a major fan of any of them. But I'd be hard pressed to call them pseudo-intellectuals.
Biden suffers from the "most popular guy in town is the backup QB" effect. We like him because he's not running (we liked Hillary when she wasn't running too), but once he does it's gaffe machine, slightly creepy Uncle Joe with all his uglies out.
It's interesting to read about a 11 year old pamphlet as it should be relevant today, but anyways, did you read the pamphlet ?
- It basically tells people how to stay safe in case they decide to be an illegal. Instead of, i don't know, letting them in the complete mercy of coyotes or giving them some information and tips to not fucking die, or get arrested because they were cheated by someone to carry drugs into USA, and basic the human rights they may have in the USA. Crazy talk i know.
- It also tells inmigrants just work and go home, don't go parties, don't get into fights, don't carry weapons, while they work out their situation to get the legal status. Low profile, therefore being as fucking quiet and less troublemakers as a rock.
From there, to "Trump is right mexico is literally sending..." is a huge road.
I don't understand what's your problem with this people actually being informed on what they are getting into, and some suvirval tips to not die. It also reads as the pamphlet is in reality trying to discourage illegals rather than encourage them with all the problems and dangers it presents.
On June 04 2016 03:15 Godwrath wrote: It's interesting to read about a 11 year old pamphlet as it should be relevant today, but anyways, did you read the pamphlet ?
- It basically tells people how to stay safe in case they decide to be an illegal. Instead of, i don't know, letting them in the complete mercy of coyotes or giving them some information and tips to not fucking die, or get arrested because they were cheated by someone to carry drugs into USA, and basic the human rights they may have in the USA. Crazy talk i know.
- It also tells inmigrants just work and go home, don't go parties, don't get into fights, don't carry weapons, while they work out their situation to get the legal status. Low profile, therefore being as fucking quiet and less troublemakers as a rock.
From there, to "Trump is right mexico is literally sending..." is a huge road.
Why should we be against inmigrants actually knowing what they are getting into ?
Because Mexico is bad and them Mexicans are taking our jobs!
(I find Trump's obsession with Mexico quite interesting given that my father grew up and went to medical school in Mexico City. )
EPT
)
