|
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 January 21 2018 23:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Ah that swamp, what was supposed to be done with that again? I guess it was too viscous to drain so they just gave up or something. Show nested quote +Just days after the House passed its version of the federal tax law slashing corporate tax rates, House Speaker Paul Ryan collected nearly $500,000 in campaign contributions from billionaire energy mogul Charles Koch and his wife, according to a recent campaign donor report.
Koch and his brother David spent millions of dollars to get the tax law passed and are spending millions more in a public relations campaign in an attempt to boost support for the law, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in the nation, operates refineries and manufactures a variety of products. The new tax law — which slices corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, slashes estate taxes and includes a special deduction for oil and gas investors — is expected to save the Koch brothers and their businesses billions of dollars in taxes.
Just 13 days after the tax law was passed, Charles Koch and his wife, Elizabeth, donated nearly $500,000 to Ryan’s joint fundraising committee, according to a campaign finance report filed Thursday.
Five other donors, including billionaire businessmen Jeffery Hildebrand and William Parfet, each contributed $100,000 in the last quarter of 2017, according to the records.
“It looks like House Speaker Ryan is quickly being rewarded for passing this legislation that overwhelmingly benefits the Kochs and billionaires like them,” Adam Smith, spokesman for campaign finance reform nonprofit Every Voice, told the International Business Times, which first reported the Koch contributions.
The Koch donations were paid into Team Ryan, which raises money for the speaker, the National Republican Congressional Committee and a PAC run by Ryan. On the same day, Charles and Elizabeth Koch also each donated $237,000 to the NRCC. source
that is old news. Koch brothers are famously Republican in nature although they are not exceptionally famous otherwise except for through their political endeavors & the stewardship of their rich & successful personal companies they operate.
|
The modern day robber barons have learned to avoid that spotlight as much as possible. Any reporting on them has merit considering how few people know about them.
|
On January 22 2018 04:27 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 23:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Ah that swamp, what was supposed to be done with that again? I guess it was too viscous to drain so they just gave up or something. Just days after the House passed its version of the federal tax law slashing corporate tax rates, House Speaker Paul Ryan collected nearly $500,000 in campaign contributions from billionaire energy mogul Charles Koch and his wife, according to a recent campaign donor report.
Koch and his brother David spent millions of dollars to get the tax law passed and are spending millions more in a public relations campaign in an attempt to boost support for the law, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in the nation, operates refineries and manufactures a variety of products. The new tax law — which slices corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, slashes estate taxes and includes a special deduction for oil and gas investors — is expected to save the Koch brothers and their businesses billions of dollars in taxes.
Just 13 days after the tax law was passed, Charles Koch and his wife, Elizabeth, donated nearly $500,000 to Ryan’s joint fundraising committee, according to a campaign finance report filed Thursday.
Five other donors, including billionaire businessmen Jeffery Hildebrand and William Parfet, each contributed $100,000 in the last quarter of 2017, according to the records.
“It looks like House Speaker Ryan is quickly being rewarded for passing this legislation that overwhelmingly benefits the Kochs and billionaires like them,” Adam Smith, spokesman for campaign finance reform nonprofit Every Voice, told the International Business Times, which first reported the Koch contributions.
The Koch donations were paid into Team Ryan, which raises money for the speaker, the National Republican Congressional Committee and a PAC run by Ryan. On the same day, Charles and Elizabeth Koch also each donated $237,000 to the NRCC. source that is old news. Koch brothers are famously Republican in nature although they are not exceptionally famous otherwise except for through their political endeavors & the stewardship of their rich & successful personal companies they operate.
Also for demolishing people in the wine speculation market.
|
On January 22 2018 01:00 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 11:45 ticklishmusic wrote:
Chelsea Manning is totally a legit candidate, right? Chelsea Manning is a traitor and acted as an agent of the Russian government. I, for one, am going to be consistent in calling out both liberals and conservatives who worked to further Russian interests. "I was going through a lot" is an excuse that might get me to forgive you personally, but this is not the time to be showing lenience toward spies and traitors. We have enough "stupid, unpatriotic, treasonous" stuff coming out of the Trump White House already.
She said she was crashing the event. She clearly wasn't invited as there was universal surprise by her presence. She at least gave lip service to the protesters outside and I haven't seen anything indicative that she was supportive of the right.
There were other unsubstantiated rumors that she was there to find common ground with the people there. A stupid plan if that's what she wanted but that's till not what's being insinuated/claimed.
I just wonder how many times people will have to see (by way of stolen information) the government is outright lying to them with propaganda about domestic and foreign affairs before they stop believing them when they say that exposing their lies was the crime, not what was exposed.
EDIT: I should add I doubt she should be a Senator, but not for the crazy "she's a Russian agent" stuff.
|
|
|
I mean, on Friday Schumer was hammering home he would toss in the wall (especially since what gets put in the bill will almost certainly not be a wall since Trump has backed off the full wall across the entire border).
McConnell and Ryan are as unsure as everyone else what Trump actually wants, though, so they are terrified of bringing things to the floor when Trump has been so unclear on it.
|
It's possibly a tactic to increase the ability to have negotiations, because to this day nobody really knows how serious Trump is about the wall. Otherwise I see it as the Democrats actually willing to compromise to get somewhere, something the Republicans are allergic to. We'll see if anything comes of it.
|
Strategically, I think offering the wall in exchange for some sort of law for DACA recipients that allows them to stay in the US and gives them some sort of legal status is a good move, because the wall was something Trump's enthusiastic base was very enthusiastic about. It puts some pressure on Republicans to come to the table or risk pissing off Trump's base.
|
i don’t know that the republicans are properly motivated to stop this shutdown. as posters here have shown, they think it’s actually the dems fault. this will be an interesting time.
|
Oops. The FBI is so clumsy. Let’s give them a slap on the wrist.
|
I mean, part of it is that most Democrats are only against the wall insofar as they think would become an ineffectual black hole of money that could be better spent other places. It's not something they want, but it's not something that directly harms their agenda (except insofar as it would be used to justify cuts to programs they might care about and would make us a laughingstock).
|
If it's any consolation, I've thought the FBI was trash for much longer than just the last election cycle.
|
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position.
|
On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position.
Don't you think that, regardless of what immigration policy is today or in a year, people will be dissatisfied with it in 30 years?
edit: To expand a bit, I don't think current or future dissatisfaction with immigration policy is based on reality. I think that people will believe it's bad and needs to be changed regardless of the truth. Some in this thread would argue that no immigration policy that allows non-whites would satisfy some who are currently dissatisfied with policy (though I think that overemphasizes the worst fringe of that group).
It's much easier to rally voters around the fear of "the other" and give some anecdotal person leeching off the "broken system" than to actually have a nuanced discussion of policy pros and cons, and what works and what doesn't. And honestly it seems much more valuable to just talk about the problem than to fix it. It's starting to remind me of abortion in that sense.
I guess I'm a bit depressed about the function (or lack thereof) of legislation and general discourse in the country right now. People applaud some absolutely disgusting things without thinking.
|
On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position.
it doesn't seem like that's the goal; because I'm not seeing much in terms of proposals that actually rigorously accomplish that objective. instead you get trash like the wall which is simply ineffectual. it seems more like the goal from the right is to talk about it (to please that bigoted base) without actually doing anything about (and refusing to admit that there may simply be no good solution to it).
|
On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position.
So long as every service-tier job that can't be outsourced in this country isn't filled with a PoC/robot it's always going to be the position of corporations (and therefore their politicians) to have more immigrants. Ideally, immigrants constantly in fear of being forcibly removed while being exploited.
|
On January 22 2018 06:38 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. Don't you think that, regardless of what immigration policy is today or in a year, people will be dissatisfied with it in 30 years?
What I'm referring to is the presence of illegal immigrants in the country in 30 years. What have the Democrats agreed to that ensures there are no more "Dreamers" ever again? Nothing. The security is lacking the sponsorship incentive still exists.
|
On January 22 2018 06:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. it doesn't seem like that's the goal; because I'm not seeing much in terms of proposals that actually rigorously accomplish that objective. instead you get trash like the wall which is simply ineffectual. it seems more like the goal from the right is to talk about it (to please that bigoted base) without actually doing anything about (and refusing to admit that there may simply be no good solution to it).
They also want to change chain migration, make E-verify mandatory, and beef up border security. All of these are downward pressures and barriers to bringing your kid across the border.
|
On January 22 2018 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:If it's any consolation, I've thought the FBI was trash for much longer than just the last election cycle.
Some of this feels like Hoover reborn. I’m not even talking partisanship, but simply stonewalling any oversight that might hurt their rep.
|
On January 22 2018 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:
The Democrats think the wall by itself is ineffective, so if they can legalize hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of immigrants all while keeping the spigot open for the future they'll take it. Dreamers who can sponsor their whole families to immigrate? Perfect! "Don't blame the child for the fault of their parents, but let the parents and whole family in too" is basically the position.
The goal of these immigration talks from the right side is to make sure we have the right policies and security to make sure we don't have to do this again in another 30 years. The right has learned from the 80s.
The deal must be strong enough that this situation doesn't occur again. The Democrats have an active interest in the opposite position. So long as every service-tier job that can't be outsourced in this country isn't filled with a PoC/robot it's always going to be the position of corporations (and therefore their politicians) to have more immigrants. Ideally, immigrants constantly in fear of being forcibly removed while being exploited.
People forget, many of the pro-dream Republicans are doing so because their donors are fans of it. I thought we were supposed to oppose such things. Why not support policies that stop the importation of exploitable wage labor? Sounds like an argument a lefty could get behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
