|
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 September 07 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote: So it's a virtual tie right now, and there is supposed to be another email dump from assange. I recall saying a while back trump has no chance, I take it back. He might have the popular vote easy, but the electoral college will probably stick it to him in the end. That does look like a distinct possiblity now, hopefully it doesn't end up with a split between popular and electoral vote, the ensuing drama would be more sad than funny.
|
There's a town hall in a couple days, and if this by Trump is indicative of anything...
EDIT: oh, it's tomorrow! time flies.
|
On September 07 2016 07:36 Sermokala wrote: It does open a significant amount of pressure on mexico. A lot of those transfers are technically illegal money being sent over nation lines. And it is probably does support a ton of families that would go hungry and homeless without it. Without that money for a week or even a month and you'll have riots in the streets. Imagine how bad the situation would go if say $2 billion in welfare stopped being paid out in america.
Its like seizing the steel industry during the Korean war. It doesn't matter that it won't stick it just matters how fast it'll be until someone can reverse it.
Ok so im not sure if you are familiar with informal money transfer networks. But I used them when I was in college because the currency my dad earned in was absolute ass compared to the dollar and he helped me out quite a bit with tuition. I couldn't afford to pay banking fees so we had these guys who were basically word of mouth or a friend of a friend , would take cash charger a significantly smaller fee (im talking peanuts compared to banking fees) not even percent based, just flat fees tiered on various amounts and would take local currency and transfer money into your US bank account at regular joe money changer rates. Again well lower than what banks or a western union would charge. Ofcourse I didnt have a choice and I stopped doing it the second I was able to. I dont think theres anything particularly wrong with it either since having to send money through 4 different banking systems to get it to the US from Pakistan at the time was an absolute joke (its much easier now).
It would be a complete war on drugs problem. If you start regulating banks you will stop nothing. I can guarantee it You will literally cause this informal transfer market to swell like crazy and not even every resource on the planet will be able to litigate and regulate or catch the people doing it. Someone will be making more money and start fleecing those people, its just that it wont be banks or money transfer organizations.
Its a complete lose lose.
|
On September 07 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote: So it's a virtual tie right now, and there is supposed to be another email dump from assange. I recall saying a while back trump has no chance, I take it back. He might have the popular vote easy, but the electoral college will probably stick it to him in the end.
The only way anyone would think it's a virtual tie is if their only source of poll information is Trump's twitter (who, incidentally, think 538 is a pollster, that's how stupid their tweet-person is). It's a dead heat in LAtimes-which has consistently been an outlier towards Trump-and CNN/ORC just revised their methodology for no explained reason and generated a Trump +1.
Until we start seeing equal numbers of Trump +2s and Clinton +2s and Trump is actually leading in swing states, it's not a virtual tie. But Clinton's lead has clearly faded a bit.
|
The Donald Trump campaign Tuesday walked back remarks the GOP nominee made Monday denying any communications with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi before his 2013 donation in support of her campaign.
According to Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks, when Trump told reporters he "never" spoke to Bondi about "it," he meant that he never spoke to her about Trump University, which Bondi was considering suing at the time of the contribution.
“His comments were in reference to any discussion about Trump University — not the donation,” Hicks told Politico.
In a separate AP report Tuesday, Hicks was unable to elaborate on the content of their conversation.
"I don't think this was a lengthy, memorable call," Hicks said. "Mr. Trump talks to a hundred people in any given day. So, I don't know if I will be able to provide that information. That's not exactly a realistic or reasonable request."
The donation in question -- a $25,000 contribution from the Trump Foundation to a political group supporting Bondi's re-election -- was received just days after Bondi announced her office was considering joining a lawsuit led by New York against Trump University.
Trump denied Monday speaking to Bondi.
“I never spoke to her, first of all. She’s a fine person, beyond reproach. I never even spoke to her about it at all. She’s a fine person. Never spoken to her about it, never,” Trump said, according to the Washington Post. “Many of the attorney generals turned that case down because I’ll win that case in court. Many turned that down. I never spoke to her.”
Scrutiny of the contribution was renewed last week by a Washington Post report that Trump paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS for making the donation through his charity, rather than from his own pocket. The Trump campaign blamed the move on a clerical error.
"Mr. Trump paid the fine," Hicks told AP. "All is squared away."
Source
|
|
|
He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else.
|
|
On September 07 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote: He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else.
Well you are in luck! the opposing candidate is a shining example of truth and honesty.
|
On September 05 2016 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 09:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 05 2016 08:41 LegalLord wrote: Bernie Sanders is smart enough to realize that to have any influence in the future, he will need Hillary to win. So he gave her a full endorsement despite the fact that she doesn't really have a platform that is particularly palatable to his supporter base.
Again, it's not really "lesser of two evils" as much as it is "the timing is wrong to make a change." Her platform is incredibly similar to Bernie's. The objections to Clinton aren't based on her platform, they're based off of 1) her controversies (and how controversial one thinks they are) and 2) how trustworthy people view her to be. Holy hell, you all really are that disconnected aren't y'all Did you not see me mentioning she's seeking the endorsement of Kissinger? Not a sole among Bernie supporters said to themselves "I mean if only he could secure the Kissinger endorsement".
The last time someone trusted Bernie supporters to support them, he lost the primaries in the popular, delegate, state, and overall vote count. The more people showed up to vote, the more his opponent won and the only chance that guy even had was to run in caucus states with the lowest voter turnout.
Assuming you believe in math and recent public history.
|
At 4.9 percent, the nation's unemployment rate is half of what it was at the height of the Great Recession. But that number hides a big problem: Millions of men in their prime working years have dropped out of the workforce — meaning they aren't working or even looking for a job.
It's a trend that's held true for decades and has economists puzzled.
In the 1960s, nearly 100 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. That's fallen over the decades.
In a recent report, President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers said 83 percent of men in the prime working ages of 25-54 who were not in the labor force had not worked in the previous year. So, essentially, 10 million men are missing from the workforce.
"One in six prime-age guys has no job; it's kind of worse than it was in the depression in 1940," says Nicholas Eberstadt, an economic and demographic researcher at American Enterprise Institute who wrote the book, Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis. He says these men aren't even counted among the jobless, because they aren't seeking work.
Eberstadt says little is known about the missing men. But there are factors that make men less likely to be in the labor force — a lack of college degree, being single, or black.
So, why are men leaving? And what are they doing instead?
They might be like Romeo Barnes. He lives in District Heights, Md., and his last job as a Wal-Mart greeter ended 11 years ago. He's 30, black, single and has cerebral palsy.
"I have able-bodied friends who can't find work, so it's not just me," Barnes says.
He says he's sought administrative jobs, but says his disability and not having a college degree hold him back.
"Men are traditionally known for labor work. The lower-educated guys have to do stuff like that. And that's being taken away because we have machines," he says.
Indeed, economists say technology and overseas competition is displacing many jobs. The number of people collecting disability insurance, like Barnes, has also increased.
AEI's Eberstadt says criminal records may also play a factor. Some 20 million Americans have felony convictions — the vast majority of whom are men. But, he says, it's hard to know how big a factor that is, because the government doesn't keep data on their employment status.
Source
|
On September 07 2016 11:11 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote: He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else. Well you are in luck! the opposing candidate is a shining example of truth and honesty.
Donald Trump runs his campaign on the basis that Hillary is a liar but as far as I can tell he is at least as dishonest if not more and way less transparent.
|
On September 07 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote: So it's a virtual tie right now, and there is supposed to be another email dump from assange. I recall saying a while back trump has no chance, I take it back. He might have the popular vote easy, but the electoral college will probably stick it to him in the end.
Out of curiosity, where do you see that it is a virtual tie between Hillary and Trump? 538 has Hillary with a 2/3 chance and Trump with a 1/3 chance: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
|
On September 07 2016 11:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote: So it's a virtual tie right now, and there is supposed to be another email dump from assange. I recall saying a while back trump has no chance, I take it back. He might have the popular vote easy, but the electoral college will probably stick it to him in the end. Out of curiosity, where do you see that it is a virtual tie between Hillary and Trump? 538 has Hillary with a 2/3 chance and Trump with a 1/3 chance: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo You need to go to the CNN poll trying to drum up interest after the long weekend. The race is tightening, but Trump has not pulled ahead in any of the states that matter.
|
Its a far wind from saying that its tied in any sense. If the current trends stay I would say its a tie but Hillary only needs one swing state to go her way to win and Trump needs to win every swing state and put something else into play and win for him to win.
|
I seem to remember much longer and stronger get out the vote efforts on both sides in previous elections, is it just a local thing, am I misremembering when those started, or is there notably less GOTV stuff going on?
|
On September 07 2016 11:11 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote: He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else. Well you are in luck! the opposing candidate is a shining example of truth and honesty.
you're in luck! the clinton is one of the biggest charities in the world, and beyond that you can see clinton's personal giving because she released about a decade's worth of tax returns and they have itemized donations.
good god man, it's like you don't know how to internet or something.
|
On September 07 2016 13:45 GreenHorizons wrote: I seem to remember much longer and stronger get out the vote efforts on both sides in previous elections, is it just a local thing, am I misremembering when those started, or is there notably less GOTV stuff going on?
I've been getting GOTV stuff since July, so I am unsure what you're observing.
|
On September 07 2016 13:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 11:11 biology]major wrote:On September 07 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote: He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else. Well you are in luck! the opposing candidate is a shining example of truth and honesty. you're in luck! the clinton is one of the biggest charities in the world, and beyond that you can see clinton's personal giving because she released about a decade's worth of tax returns and they have itemized donations. good god man, it's like you don't know how to internet or something.
I mean she's not as petty with her lies as Trump usually, but it's starting to look crazy to pretend that she's a shining example of truth and honesty.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but does the Clinton foundation list Bill and Chelsea as "independent" board members?
www.clintonfoundation.org
|
|
|
|