|
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 May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country.
From what I understand we actually DO have a quite strict immigration system that takes a long long time to get through. The problem is the illegal immigration. Obama found it politically expedient to try to forgive a lot of the illegal immigrants and give them citizenship, although I don't know the details. From a political standpoint that was a very good move for the democrat party, as those people will very likely vote democrat the rest of their lives, both because it was a democrat that gave them a free pass, and that it's very likely they're on the poorer side and need gov assistance.
I believe part of Obama's executive orders, in essence, stopped immigration enforcement, whereas Trump has now started to enforce the law and may be turning illegals back at the southern US border. Whether this does anything or not, who knows.
|
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Yikes
|
On May 11 2017 19:14 Valter wrote:
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Yikes
He certainly doesn't seem like a stable individual, the bolded part is likely to make things even worse, paranoia.
|
On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country.
You seem to think that having a stricter immigration policy than you already have is going to do anything to stop illegal immigration. Moreover, you seem to think that increased border security will halt migrants from coming across. Let me tell you about Europe. We have this wall, it's the bestest and bigliest wall. Well, actually it's not a wall at all. It's hundreds of kilometers of SEA. Thousands of migrants drown every year trying to cross it in leaky boats. Now what do you think is harder to cross: the mediterranean, or whatever wall Trump promised he'd build?
The problem really isn't stopping them from coming: you can't. It's having a functional return policy. That means working WITH Mexico (and Honduras, Guatemala and other countries the migrants are originally from). And if your starting point is pissing the Mexicans off by telling them they have to pay for your cockamamy penis enlargement scheme, that part is not going to go to well.
Moreover, I think you actually need to make your migration policy more relaxed, so farmers can actually get legal seasonal labor, rather than being almost forced to rely on illegal laborers.
|
On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country.
And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd.
|
On May 11 2017 19:14 Valter wrote:Show nested quote +
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Yikes
When people said "he'll run the government like a corporation", I'm pretty sure they were talking about fiscal responsibility. Not being subject to the whims of a CEO of a private organization.
This is the same kind of attitude that Kim Jong Un has. "He's out to get me, get rid of him". The only difference is that in the US you get fired, in North Korea you get fed to the dogs.
|
On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd.
I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change.
|
On May 11 2017 04:13 biology]major wrote:
ashamed for voting for this dude, not that it even matters but shoulda just stayed at home on election day.
We tried really fucking hard for months to tell you it was a bad idea but respect for admitting it. Errare humanum est, ced perseverare diabolicum est.
|
Rumors have it that laptops will be prohibited in cabin for all US flights from Europe. Seriously, are you trying to end all businesses with Europe? No way I am checking in my laptop and I can imagine the same for people from businesses who actually matter.
|
In bold+italics are the questions asked. just some funny/intresting snippets
[...]
President Trump: And the clock starts ticking. But here you have two people calling saying, “Can we negotiate?” I say yes and I have to wait for a hundred days. I don’t know what a hundred days is going to be like. What’s it going to be like? So NAFTA’s a horrible one-sided deal that’s cost us millions and millions of jobs and cost us tens of billions of dollars. It sounds like you’re imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive. Huge? It’s got to be. It’s got to be. What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?No, it’s gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like? I was all set to terminate, you know? And this wasn’t like…this wasn’t a game I was playing. I’m not playing…you know, I wasn’t playing chess or poker or anything else. This was, I was, I’d never even thought about…it’s always the best when you really feel this way. But I was…I had no thought of anything else, and these two guys will tell you, I had no thought of anything else but termination. But because of my relationship with both of them, I said, I would like to give that a try too, that’s fine. I mean, out of respect for them. It would’ve been very disrespectful to Mexico and Canada had I said, “I will not.” But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?We have to be able to make fair deals. Right now the United States has a 70—almost a $70bn trade deficit with Mexico. And it has about a $15bn dollar trade deficit with Canada. The timber coming in from Canada, they’ve been negotiating for 35 years. And it’s been…it’s been terrible for the United States. You know, it’s just, it’s just been terrible. They’ve never been able to make it. Show nested quote +
Mr President, can I just try you on a deal-making question? If you do need Democratic support for your tax plan, your ideal tax plan, and the price of that the Democrats say is for you to release your tax returns, would you do that?
I don’t know. That’s a very interesting question. I doubt it. I doubt it. Because they’re not going to…nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Oh, at some point I’ll release them. Maybe I’ll release them after I’m finished because I’m very proud of them actually. I did a good job.
Hope Hicks [White House director of strategic communication]: Once the audit is over.
President Trump: I might release them after I’m out of office.
[...]
Can I ask you about the focus of the tax cut because you’ve spoken about a massive tax cut for ordinary workers…
Right, this would be the biggest tax cut in the history of the country.
But the biggest winners from this tax cut, right now, look as though they will be the very wealthiest Americans.
Well, I don’t believe that. Because they’re losing all of their deductions, I can tell you.
But something like eliminating the estate tax.
I get more deductions, I mean I can tell you this, I get more deductions, they have deductions for birds flying across America, they have deductions for everything. There are more deductions…now you’re going to get an interest deduction, and a charitable deduction. But we’re not going to have all this nonsense that they have right now that complicates things and makes it…you know when we put out that one page, I said, we should really put out a, you know, a big thing, and then I looked at the one page, honestly it’s pretty well covered. Hard to believe.
Will you keep interest deduction in the corporate tax? Will corporate interest payments…
Do you want to answer?
Mr Mnuchin: We’re contemplating it. We’re contemplating it.
Contemplating getting rid of it?
Mr Mnuchin: No, we’re contemplating keeping it. That’s our preference. But we’ll look at everything.
So what would your preference be Mr President? You know about that very well.
No, I would say probably…I think we’re contemplating is the word. And it hasn’t been determined yet, but we’re contemplating.
Contemplating…
We’re contemplating various…I have to say, we’re contemplating various things, but one of the things that’s very important is simplicity. We want to keep it as simple as possible. Because even if you do, it’s complicated. I mean even if you keep it simple with taxes it gets complicated.
And are you contemplating things outside of corporate income tax? For example a VAT, which many countries have?
Well, you know, a lot of people consider the border tax a form of VAT.
Source
I don't like that they publish stuff unedited. Makes him unreadable.
|
On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change.
Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide.
|
On May 11 2017 21:13 Artisreal wrote:In bold+italics are the questions asked. just some funny/intresting snippets Show nested quote +[...]
President Trump: And the clock starts ticking. But here you have two people calling saying, “Can we negotiate?” I say yes and I have to wait for a hundred days. I don’t know what a hundred days is going to be like. What’s it going to be like? So NAFTA’s a horrible one-sided deal that’s cost us millions and millions of jobs and cost us tens of billions of dollars. It sounds like you’re imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive. Huge? It’s got to be. It’s got to be. What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?No, it’s gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like? I was all set to terminate, you know? And this wasn’t like…this wasn’t a game I was playing. I’m not playing…you know, I wasn’t playing chess or poker or anything else. This was, I was, I’d never even thought about…it’s always the best when you really feel this way. But I was…I had no thought of anything else, and these two guys will tell you, I had no thought of anything else but termination. But because of my relationship with both of them, I said, I would like to give that a try too, that’s fine. I mean, out of respect for them. It would’ve been very disrespectful to Mexico and Canada had I said, “I will not.” But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?We have to be able to make fair deals. Right now the United States has a 70—almost a $70bn trade deficit with Mexico. And it has about a $15bn dollar trade deficit with Canada. The timber coming in from Canada, they’ve been negotiating for 35 years. And it’s been…it’s been terrible for the United States. You know, it’s just, it’s just been terrible. They’ve never been able to make it.
Mr President, can I just try you on a deal-making question? If you do need Democratic support for your tax plan, your ideal tax plan, and the price of that the Democrats say is for you to release your tax returns, would you do that?
I don’t know. That’s a very interesting question. I doubt it. I doubt it. Because they’re not going to…nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Oh, at some point I’ll release them. Maybe I’ll release them after I’m finished because I’m very proud of them actually. I did a good job.
Hope Hicks [White House director of strategic communication]: Once the audit is over.
President Trump: I might release them after I’m out of office.
[...]
Can I ask you about the focus of the tax cut because you’ve spoken about a massive tax cut for ordinary workers…
Right, this would be the biggest tax cut in the history of the country.
But the biggest winners from this tax cut, right now, look as though they will be the very wealthiest Americans.
Well, I don’t believe that. Because they’re losing all of their deductions, I can tell you.
But something like eliminating the estate tax.
I get more deductions, I mean I can tell you this, I get more deductions, they have deductions for birds flying across America, they have deductions for everything. There are more deductions…now you’re going to get an interest deduction, and a charitable deduction. But we’re not going to have all this nonsense that they have right now that complicates things and makes it…you know when we put out that one page, I said, we should really put out a, you know, a big thing, and then I looked at the one page, honestly it’s pretty well covered. Hard to believe.
Will you keep interest deduction in the corporate tax? Will corporate interest payments…
Do you want to answer?
Mr Mnuchin: We’re contemplating it. We’re contemplating it.
Contemplating getting rid of it?
Mr Mnuchin: No, we’re contemplating keeping it. That’s our preference. But we’ll look at everything.
So what would your preference be Mr President? You know about that very well.
No, I would say probably…I think we’re contemplating is the word. And it hasn’t been determined yet, but we’re contemplating.
Contemplating…
We’re contemplating various…I have to say, we’re contemplating various things, but one of the things that’s very important is simplicity. We want to keep it as simple as possible. Because even if you do, it’s complicated. I mean even if you keep it simple with taxes it gets complicated.
And are you contemplating things outside of corporate income tax? For example a VAT, which many countries have?
Well, you know, a lot of people consider the border tax a form of VAT.
SourceI don't like that they publish stuff unedited. Makes him unreadable.
He has no clue what he wants the deal to look like smh
|
On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change. Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide.
I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14.
|
On May 11 2017 20:35 opisska wrote:
Rumors have it that laptops will be prohibited in cabin for all US flights from Europe. Seriously, are you trying to end all businesses with Europe? No way I am checking in my laptop and I can imagine the same for people from businesses who actually matter.
You aren't allowed to have lithium batteries in your checked luggage either. So you have to leave the laptop at home as far as I can tell.
|
A friend of mine wasn't allowed to take a 30k GHG detector in his personal luggage. it's a backpack in sizer. And he definitely doesn't want it being handled like usual freight. The whole project dies or lives with them getting it to vietnam in proper shape. Oh well. Last minute legislation changes are the best.
|
On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change. Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14.
The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it.
|
On May 11 2017 22:22 Artisreal wrote:
A friend of mine wasn't allowed to take a 30k GHG detector in his personal luggage. it's a backpack in sizer. And he definitely doesn't want it being handled like usual freight. The whole project dies or lives with them getting it to vietnam in proper shape. Oh well. Last minute legislation changes are the best.
My real question with this is why his company didn’t arrange to have the 30K equipment transported to the destination or work something out with the airline.
|
On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change. Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it.
Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system.
|
On May 11 2017 22:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 22:22 Artisreal wrote:
A friend of mine wasn't allowed to take a 30k GHG detector in his personal luggage. it's a backpack in sizer. And he definitely doesn't want it being handled like usual freight. The whole project dies or lives with them getting it to vietnam in proper shape. Oh well. Last minute legislation changes are the best. My real question with this is why his company didn’t arrange to have the 30K equipment transported to the destination or work something out with the airline.
University and public funds with very specific boundaries what to spend it on I'd presume ~~
Also the supposition that transporting it on the lap wouldn't be a problem. But it became one with the airline banning electronics in the cabin. (possibly they switched airlines but it was on very short notice)
|
On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change. Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system.
Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor.
But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
