|
|
Post by PatSox on Sept 14, 2017 9:11:25 GMT -5
Both Amazon and Walmart cut the price of Hillary's book by 40% before it was even released. Sales were not what where they expected them to be. Probably because most of the people who voted for Hillary cannot afford to pay $30 for a hardcover book. And those who could afford that would never spend $30 on a book in the first place. Reading? Got no time for that when the white supremacists are around every corner and Nazis are hiding under every Rock. You forgot the Russians, they're all busy looking for the Russians. I can't speak for potential Hillary book buyers But did YOU, a registered superhero, just give normal people shit about not doing something they should do, like read, when you yourself stopped fighting galactic threats so you could host a frivolous talk show so lazy you don't even have your guests live in studio? Or is the universe completely safe now from molten planet terrorists, bomb making mantis creatures and war mongering superior beings? Is it not dangerous to assume the dormant threats are gone forever? Has the main stream media stopped caring, because they're too busy looking at 3:00am tweets from world leaders and ways to blame the opposing political parties for every ill of the world? Do people not care enough to look away from their fantasy football rosters and facebook feeds to notice? And what ever happened to Jan and Jace.....or that fucking monkey? I think getting answers from you on this would be much more interesting than James, a fake black lawyer, answering Tony's obvious trap questions, where there is about 0% chance that Tony would be like, "You know, you have a point there." |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 14, 2017 11:32:45 GMT -5
ocmmafan - thoughts on Trump's tweets this morning on DACA, where he says: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!........They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security" Ann Coulter responded with: At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached? Interested to hear your thoughts on this development. Edit: In light of Tony's post, where he noted that he thought I was trying to be funny... I just threw the Ann Coulter thing in because to me it was a slightly surprising take on this from her. I don't think Ann speaks for any of you. And, oc, I wasn't asking you to weigh in on her comments as well. I was just curious what you thought about Trump's latest tweets. I should have put the "interested to hear your thoughts on this development" immediately under Trump's words, not Ann's. I can see how it came across as me being flip now that I reread it. I need more coffee. I think trump is more PRO legal immigration than people realize, and his ideas on expanding immigration for skilled immigrants makes sense. I think he is stuck in the middle with the legit dreamers and what we need to do with them. The reality with DACA is the majority are not "dreamers" and how DACA is portrayed in the media is total BS. They are not college and high school students, many are far older than people realize (late 20s, 30, 31) many have been arrested, many have no skills and we have 800,000 because the previous administration refused to allow any to be denied, investigated, or even interviewed. It was all paper filings where we had to accept whatever was provided - even schools that you could google and recognize they were fake, didn't exist, were ESL, etc. The gang banger and strawberry picker isn't a dreamer, but now we have half the country thinking this entire population are these innocent students that will benefit the US. Trump knows DACA was a scam and what the prior administration created had nothing to do with students, but now he has to try and save some face for the ones that actually are legit students. A kid that came here as a youth illegally that just graduated from high school and has never been in trouble? Does everyone want that kid deported? I don't think so. Ann Coulter is a single issue (immigration) voter and analyst. She has consistently disparaged anyone weak on immigration and this does look like Trump being a puss and caving to the left. She supported him because he was the only candidate willing to address the problems with illegal immigration (a huge reason I voted for him). I think that if DHS is allowed to deny and in some cases remove the ineligible and criminal DACA applicants, including those that actually were NOT students, lower the age so a 31 year old doesn't qualify and streamline DACA into something legit? I think the country as a whole will be far more supportive and Trump must be banking on that. Has to be something in between blanket admission like the current DACA and removing every single alien who entered illegally or failed to maintain status. We will see what congress comes up with. I will say it's a bit of a gamble for Trump. He could wind up alienating some of his base while he still gets hated by the left when this immigration shit show goes nowhere in congress. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Sept 14, 2017 12:04:42 GMT -5
Russia is not a first world nation. It's economy is the size of Italy's. It's technology is so undeveloped that it had to contract with EXXON to develop its Arctic oilfields. It has a shabby uneducated army unable to operate its outdated war machines. It's remaining nuclear arsenal is so costly that it's nearly unusable and is causing the rest of it's military to whither and rot. The Sochi Olympics put much of this disarray and chaos on full display to the world. It has a shrinking population and is desperately reliant on cooperation with the West to keep its economy functioning. Given these circumstances, why does the West insist on painting Russia as the greatest threat to world peace? In fact, the West has never been in a better bargaining position to obtain concessions from Russia. Instead, the policies of the West have been to demonize Russia and resurrect a "cold war" relationship. One should wonder who the real threat to world peace is. Much like when JFK was moving to get out of Vietnam, there are simply forces in this country that have a strong aversion to normalizing relations and will work tirelessly to prevent it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 12:34:18 GMT -5
ocmmafan - thoughts on Trump's tweets this morning on DACA, where he says: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!........They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security" Ann Coulter responded with: At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached? Interested to hear your thoughts on this development. Edit: In light of Tony's post, where he noted that he thought I was trying to be funny... I just threw the Ann Coulter thing in because to me it was a slightly surprising take on this from her. I don't think Ann speaks for any of you. And, oc, I wasn't asking you to weigh in on her comments as well. I was just curious what you thought about Trump's latest tweets. I should have put the "interested to hear your thoughts on this development" immediately under Trump's words, not Ann's. I can see how it came across as me being flip now that I reread it. I need more coffee. I think trump is more PRO legal immigration than people realize, and his ideas on expanding immigration for skilled immigrants makes sense. I think he is stuck in the middle with the legit dreamers and what we need to do with them. The reality with DACA is the majority are not "dreamers" and how DACA is portrayed in the media is total BS. They are not college and high school students, many are far older than people realize (late 20s, 30, 31) many have been arrested, many have no skills and we have 800,000 because the previous administration refused to allow any to be denied, investigated, or even interviewed. It was all paper filings where we had to accept whatever was provided - even schools that you could google and recognize they were fake, didn't exist, were ESL, etc. The gang banger and strawberry picker isn't a dreamer, but now we have half the country thinking this entire population are these innocent students that will benefit the US. Trump knows DACA was a scam and what the prior administration created had nothing to do with students, but now he has to try and save some face for the ones that actually are legit students. A kid that came here as a youth illegally that just graduated from high school and has never been in trouble? Does everyone want that kid deported? I don't think so. Ann Coulter is a single issue (immigration) voter and analyst. She has consistently disparaged anyone weak on immigration and this does look like Trump being a puss and caving to the left. She supported him because he was the only candidate willing to address the problems with illegal immigration (a huge reason I voted for him). I think that if DHS is allowed to deny and in some cases remove the ineligible and criminal DACA applicants, including those that actually were NOT students, lower the age so a 31 year old doesn't qualify and streamline DACA into something legit? I think the country as a whole will be far more supportive and Trump must be banking on that. Has to be something in between blanket admission like the current DACA and removing every single alien who entered illegally or failed to maintain status. We will see what congress comes up with. I will say it's a bit of a gamble for Trump. He could wind up alienating some of his base while he still gets hated by the left when this immigration shit show goes nowhere in congress. Thanks. That's interesting. I've seen reports that something like 1/400 "dreamers" have criminal records, so just a little over 2000 out of the 800,000 claimed dreamers. Is that inaccurate? If so, can you point me to something that discusses that issue? Or not, I can always google it if you don't have something handy. Can you educate me on the older dreamers? It doesn't surprise me that they exist, but what should they have done? Was there a process in place where, once they reached 18, they should have been applying for citizenship while they stayed here under DACA? Or would the only way for them to have gained citizenship would have been for them to have "returned" to their homeland and then applied? |
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Sept 14, 2017 12:41:43 GMT -5
I think trump is more PRO legal immigration than people realize, and his ideas on expanding immigration for skilled immigrants makes sense. I think he is stuck in the middle with the legit dreamers and what we need to do with them. The reality with DACA is the majority are not "dreamers" and how DACA is portrayed in the media is total BS. They are not college and high school students, many are far older than people realize (late 20s, 30, 31) many have been arrested, many have no skills and we have 800,000 because the previous administration refused to allow any to be denied, investigated, or even interviewed. It was all paper filings where we had to accept whatever was provided - even schools that you could google and recognize they were fake, didn't exist, were ESL, etc. The gang banger and strawberry picker isn't a dreamer, but now we have half the country thinking this entire population are these innocent students that will benefit the US. Trump knows DACA was a scam and what the prior administration created had nothing to do with students, but now he has to try and save some face for the ones that actually are legit students. A kid that came here as a youth illegally that just graduated from high school and has never been in trouble? Does everyone want that kid deported? I don't think so. Ann Coulter is a single issue (immigration) voter and analyst. She has consistently disparaged anyone weak on immigration and this does look like Trump being a puss and caving to the left. She supported him because he was the only candidate willing to address the problems with illegal immigration (a huge reason I voted for him). I think that if DHS is allowed to deny and in some cases remove the ineligible and criminal DACA applicants, including those that actually were NOT students, lower the age so a 31 year old doesn't qualify and streamline DACA into something legit? I think the country as a whole will be far more supportive and Trump must be banking on that. Has to be something in between blanket admission like the current DACA and removing every single alien who entered illegally or failed to maintain status. We will see what congress comes up with. I will say it's a bit of a gamble for Trump. He could wind up alienating some of his base while he still gets hated by the left when this immigration shit show goes nowhere in congress. Thanks. That's interesting. I've seen reports that something like 1/400 "dreamers" have criminal records, so just a little over 2000 out of the 800,000 claimed dreamers. Is that inaccurate? If so, can you point me to something that discusses that issue? Or not, I can always google it if you don't have something handy. Can you educate me on the older dreamers? It doesn't surprise me that they exist, but what should they have done? Was there a process in place where, once they reached 18, they should have been applying for citizenship while they stayed here under DACA? Or would the only way for them to have gained citizenship would have been for them to have "returned" to their homeland and then applied? And just to tac on a question to James' Would you refer to the lactose intolerant ones as non-dairy dreamers? I'll hang up and take your answer off the air |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 14, 2017 12:41:55 GMT -5
Other than the fact that you don't like the most popular candidate, what exactly is preferable about having a candidate who lost the popular by nearly 3 million votes run the country? If you're going to have two diametrically opposed groups vying for power, why should the less popular one run the show? Well HILLARY is the less popular candidate in 90% of counties in the United States. It would take several pages to attempt to educate you on the constitution, but suffice it to say that it's part of the genius of the founding fathers and the federalist system that has so far not been usurped. It mitigates the effects of voter fraud for one thing. Everyone knows, even Trevor Noah, Seth Meyer, and you, that hillarys popular vote "win" was comprised entirely of illegal aliens and voter fraud.
A zero sum vote in a federalist system is as stupid as giving someone who weighs 300 pounds more vote than someone who weighs 200 pounds (that's litrally how dumb you are) It would be like eliminating the end zone in football and simply awarding the win to whatever football team gains the most yards If voter fraud didn't exist, then the democrats would have NO PROBLEM with citizens showing their valid ID's before they vote... It's so god damn coincidental, because it's obviously not a coincidence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 13:11:36 GMT -5
The American spirit ciggie company was doing a promo recently at the 711 right next to where I was taking down some trees at a rental. It was like buy one pack, get one pack free and a free tub of chew...or whatever. And obviously, it was one per person.
So I went in there with my buddy who was helping to get him a second "deal". I don't smoke cigs.
I am 40 years old. He's pushing 47. We both had to go back out to our trucks to get an ID.
I feel that there is no reason in the fucking world why we would not ask for a valid ID if you would like to participate in voting. We don't allow felons to vote. We also don't allow non citizens to vote. Just like we don't allow sales of ciggie to those under 18.
I feel the only reason this is even an issue is exactly the reason Matt is outlining.
The reason we had to show id's is because of the many stings that law enforcement do around here. So, there is no question, you just have to show ID. Perhaps it's time some stings were done just to see if voter fraud is being allowed to go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Sept 14, 2017 13:16:20 GMT -5
The American spirit ciggie company was doing a promo recently at the 711 right next to where I was taking down some trees at a rental. It was like buy one pack, get one pack free and a free tub of chew...or whatever. And obviously, it was one per person. So I went in there with my buddy who was helping to get him a second "deal". I don't smoke cigs. I am 40 years old. He's pushing 47. We both had to go back out to our trucks to get an ID. I feel that there is no reason in the fucking world why we would not ask for a valid ID if you would like to participate in voting. We don't allow felons to vote. We also don't allow non citizens to vote. Just like we don't allow sales of ciggie to those under 18. I feel the only reason this is even an issue is exactly the reason Matt is outlining. The reason we had to show id's is because of the many stings that law enforcement do around here. So, there is no question, you just have to show ID. Perhaps it's time some stings were done just to see if voter fraud is being allowed to go on. The left's big argument against the required ID is that voting is a right (even though it isn't, though I agree it should be a right instead of a privilege), so we shouldn't be forced to pay for a right. The elderly and the homeless, both who often lack resources to get a state ID then are left out of the voting process. Now there is a solution to this, and it has been proposed, but the left has shot it down every time. Free state-issue non-driver's ID to everyone. Gee I wonder why they keep shooting down that idea? (sarcasm) |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 14, 2017 13:22:19 GMT -5
I think trump is more PRO legal immigration than people realize, and his ideas on expanding immigration for skilled immigrants makes sense. I think he is stuck in the middle with the legit dreamers and what we need to do with them. The reality with DACA is the majority are not "dreamers" and how DACA is portrayed in the media is total BS. They are not college and high school students, many are far older than people realize (late 20s, 30, 31) many have been arrested, many have no skills and we have 800,000 because the previous administration refused to allow any to be denied, investigated, or even interviewed. It was all paper filings where we had to accept whatever was provided - even schools that you could google and recognize they were fake, didn't exist, were ESL, etc. The gang banger and strawberry picker isn't a dreamer, but now we have half the country thinking this entire population are these innocent students that will benefit the US. Trump knows DACA was a scam and what the prior administration created had nothing to do with students, but now he has to try and save some face for the ones that actually are legit students. A kid that came here as a youth illegally that just graduated from high school and has never been in trouble? Does everyone want that kid deported? I don't think so. Ann Coulter is a single issue (immigration) voter and analyst. She has consistently disparaged anyone weak on immigration and this does look like Trump being a puss and caving to the left. She supported him because he was the only candidate willing to address the problems with illegal immigration (a huge reason I voted for him). I think that if DHS is allowed to deny and in some cases remove the ineligible and criminal DACA applicants, including those that actually were NOT students, lower the age so a 31 year old doesn't qualify and streamline DACA into something legit? I think the country as a whole will be far more supportive and Trump must be banking on that. Has to be something in between blanket admission like the current DACA and removing every single alien who entered illegally or failed to maintain status. We will see what congress comes up with. I will say it's a bit of a gamble for Trump. He could wind up alienating some of his base while he still gets hated by the left when this immigration shit show goes nowhere in congress. Thanks. That's interesting. I've seen reports that something like 1/400 "dreamers" have criminal records, so just a little over 2000 out of the 800,000 claimed dreamers. Is that inaccurate? If so, can you point me to something that discusses that issue? Or not, I can always google it if you don't have something handy. Can you educate me on the older dreamers? It doesn't surprise me that they exist, but what should they have done? Was there a process in place where, once they reached 18, they should have been applying for citizenship while they stayed here under DACA? Or would the only way for them to have gained citizenship would have been for them to have "returned" to their homeland and then applied? The criminal background issue of a dreamer is a very contentious issue. By criminal record I think you agree that someone convicted of petty theft or DUI is a criminal, right? Trust me, it's FAR more than 1/400 but I don't have the stats handy. When DACA was enacted, there was great consternation on what we could be used as the basis to deny an applicant as a criminal. First it was 3 or more misdemeanors would flag for denial review, but it wasn't an auto denial. It just meant it could be reviewed as DACA is an entirely discretionary program (which is another issue because discretion would imply you can approve or deny) but none were ever denied. They were held in abeyance because denials would be bulletin board material for republicans opposed to Obama's executive action. Any felony or significant misdemeanor could lead to denial, but what is a significant misdemeanor? What happens when someone is convicted of domestic violence but enters into diversion? Remember, this is a discretionary program so here we have an applicant we know has say a DUI and a domestic violence arrest and conviction, but he entered diversion on the domestic violence. Approve or deny? Under Obama that was an approval. Today? That will soon probably be a denial. So I am not sure what the 1/400 refers to - maybe the ones triaged for felonies? Old or young dreamers - if you are here illegally there is nothing for you. Further, if you entered without inspection (EWI) and are here over a year and then depart the country, you trigger a 10 year bar to readmission. That was was per the 1996 law passed under Clinton. They have no way to gain anything and that is the case for probably 15-20 million people right now. This is the huge elephant in the room that amnesty once dealt with. A sub section of that group are the "dreamers" that could be considered the innocent children brought here by their parents and now growing into adulthood. Some will argue they are merely collateral victims of their parents illegal act of unlawful entry and shouldn't fall into the same plight. A 25-30 year old Mexican, El Salvadorean, Honduran or Guatamalean that came here to work, didn't come as a child, has never been to school and has zero skills is not a "dreamer". That example is the majority of DACA applicants. The vast majority. What do we do with them? That's the million dollar question. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 13:45:23 GMT -5
Thanks. That's interesting. I've seen reports that something like 1/400 "dreamers" have criminal records, so just a little over 2000 out of the 800,000 claimed dreamers. Is that inaccurate? If so, can you point me to something that discusses that issue? Or not, I can always google it if you don't have something handy. Can you educate me on the older dreamers? It doesn't surprise me that they exist, but what should they have done? Was there a process in place where, once they reached 18, they should have been applying for citizenship while they stayed here under DACA? Or would the only way for them to have gained citizenship would have been for them to have "returned" to their homeland and then applied? The criminal background issue of a dreamer is a very contentious issue. By criminal record I think you agree that someone convicted of petty theft or DUI is a criminal, right? Trust me, it's FAR more than 1/400 but I don't have the stats handy. When DACA was enacted, there was great consternation on what we could be used as the basis to deny an applicant as a criminal. First it was 3 or more misdemeanors would flag for denial review, but it wasn't an auto denial. It just meant it could be reviewed as DACA is an entirely discretionary program (which is another issue because discretion would imply you can approve or deny) but none were ever denied. They were held in abeyance because denials would be bulletin board material for republicans opposed to Obama's executive action. Any felony or significant misdemeanor could lead to denial, but what is a significant misdemeanor? What happens when someone is convicted of domestic violence but enters into diversion? Remember, this is a discretionary program so here we have an applicant we know has say a DUI and a domestic violence arrest and conviction, but he entered diversion on the domestic violence. Approve or deny? Under Obama that was an approval. Today? That will soon probably be a denial. So I am not sure what the 1/400 refers to - maybe the ones triaged for felonies? Old or young dreamers - if you are here illegally there is nothing for you. Further, if you entered without inspection (EWI) and are here over a year and then depart the country, you trigger a 10 year bar to readmission. That was was per the 1996 law passed under Clinton. They have no way to gain anything and that is the case for probably 15-20 million people right now. This is the huge elephant in the room that amnesty once dealt with. A sub section of that group are the "dreamers" that could be considered the innocent children brought here by their parents and now growing into adulthood. Some will argue they are merely collateral victims of their parents illegal act of unlawful entry and shouldn't fall into the same plight. A 25-30 year old Mexican, El Salvadorean, Honduran or Guatamalean that came here to work, didn't come as a child, has never been to school and has zero skills is not a "dreamer". That example is the majority of DACA applicants. The vast majority. What do we do with them? That's the million dollar question. At some point this is going to feel like I'm assigning you homework by asking all these questions, so when it does, feel free to bow out. In looking into it, I think the source of 1/400 was actually Breitbart. And I'm sure they got it from somewhere else. I should have looked further into the source before I referenced it. Breitbart referred to 2139 Dreamers being convicted of crimes, which would be 1/400. But I think that number is not a complete list of Dreamers with criminal records, it probably was never intended to be, and was likely taken out of context. So, forget I mentioned it. But your clarification on this criminal record thing is interesting and helpful. I've seen both the left and the right reference Dreamers "must have a clean criminal record" but it seems the truth is much less simple. As to the old vs. young dreamers... Ok, so a kid gets brought here at age 6, is now 25, has no recollection of his homeland, has lived here forever and gone to school here, friends, jobs, etc. And that person has had no path to citizenship other than leaving the country, waiting ten years, and then applying for citizenship? I'm not sure why that person is less sympathetic than a seventeen year old in the same boat. I definitely understand the distinction between someone coming here illegally of their own choice in their 20s versus someone brought here as a kid. I guess I'm not understanding the distinction between someone who was brought here as a young kid and is now 25 versus someone who was brought here as a young kid and is now 17. If the one is worthy of protection, is there a good reason to say the other isn't? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 13:53:08 GMT -5
I know a few people under daca that are late 20s and a couple don't really speak all that good of Spanish. I don't know where the fuck they would go "back" to.
But of course that is anecdotal and I'm sure doesn't make up anywhere near a decent %.
What would you guys think of a payment to amnesty program? You've been here making money somehow or another, you don't have a criminal record (dui is included here) and we ask X amount of money, one time fee, you get papers and we call it a day. Of course there is much more to it than that but as far as a general path to citizenship, thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 13:59:02 GMT -5
I know a few people under daca that are late 20s and a couple don't really speak all that good of Spanish. I don't know where the fuck they would go "back" to. But of course that is anecdotal and I'm sure doesn't make up anywhere near a decent %. What would you guys think of a payment to amnesty program? You've been here making money somehow or another, you don't have a criminal record (dui is included here) and we ask X amount of money, one time fee, you get papers and we call it a day. Of course there is much more to it than that but as far as a general path to citizenship, thoughts? I'd much prefer we make someone a citizen who has a decade(s) long proven track record of succeeding in this country than, well, basically anyone. Someone who has lived in our country, gone to school, graduated, got a job, paid taxes, avoided serious criminal activity for 15 years? Sign 'em up. Edit: Again, I know nothing about immigration generally, but could we even do that on a probationary basis? Like three years of probation after approval, where citizenship can be revoked if crimes are committed? Something like that? Or maybe citizenship isn't officially granted until that three year period has run, but they get some other intermediary legal status during those three years? |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 14, 2017 14:08:27 GMT -5
Russia is not a first world nation. It's economy is the size of Italy's. It's technology is so undeveloped that it had to contract with EXXON to develop its Arctic oilfields. It has a shabby uneducated army unable to operate its outdated war machines. It's remaining nuclear arsenal is so costly that it's nearly unusable and is causing the rest of it's military to whither and rot. The Sochi Olympics put much of this disarray and chaos on full display to the world. It has a shrinking population and is desperately reliant on cooperation with the West to keep its economy functioning. Given these circumstances, why does the West insist on painting Russia as the greatest threat to world peace? In fact, the West has never been in a better bargaining position to obtain concessions from Russia. Instead, the policies of the West have been to demonize Russia and resurrect a "cold war" relationship. One should wonder who the real threat to world peace is. Much like when JFK was moving to get out of Vietnam, there are simply forces in this country that have a strong aversion to normalizing relations and will work tirelessly to prevent it. One reason it's possible is that the conditions you described fir perfectly to Russia in the 1930's, and in the 1940's they literally came within a hair's breadth of conquering the entire planet. Of course, they needed to completely occupy/co-opt/ control the United States government (and they completely did control it, until FDR died) to (nearly) pull it off, but they outwardly appeared extremely weak. Just like they wanted to. I'm not saying that's happening now, and don't really think it is. Russia could never control a Chinese leader the way they did FDR. Asians are simply not as gullible as Europeans. But suppose they simply... reached an understanding with a few disparate powers? "America has to go. We'll deal with each other afterwards" |
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 14:10:44 GMT -5
Russia is not a first world nation. It's economy is the size of Italy's. It's technology is so undeveloped that it had to contract with EXXON to develop its Arctic oilfields. It has a shabby uneducated army unable to operate its outdated war machines. It's remaining nuclear arsenal is so costly that it's nearly unusable and is causing the rest of it's military to whither and rot. The Sochi Olympics put much of this disarray and chaos on full display to the world. It has a shrinking population and is desperately reliant on cooperation with the West to keep its economy functioning. Given these circumstances, why does the West insist on painting Russia as the greatest threat to world peace? In fact, the West has never been in a better bargaining position to obtain concessions from Russia. Instead, the policies of the West have been to demonize Russia and resurrect a "cold war" relationship. One should wonder who the real threat to world peace is. Much like when JFK was moving to get out of Vietnam, there are simply forces in this country that have a strong aversion to normalizing relations and will work tirelessly to prevent it. One reason it's possible is that the conditions you described fir perfectly to Russia in the 1930's, and in the 1940's they literally came within a hair's breadth of conquering the entire planet. Of course, they needed to completely occupy/co-opt/ control the United States government (and they completely did control it, until FDR died) to (nearly) pull it off, but they outwardly appeared extremely weak. Just like they wanted to. I'm not saying that's happening now, and don't really think it is. Russia could never control a Chinese leader the way they did FDR. Asians are simply not as gullible as Europeans. But suppose they simply... reached an understanding with a few disparate powers? "America has to go. We'll deal with each other afterwards" So, America is the White Walkers? (in before Patsox) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 14:14:11 GMT -5
I know a few people under daca that are late 20s and a couple don't really speak all that good of Spanish. I don't know where the fuck they would go "back" to. But of course that is anecdotal and I'm sure doesn't make up anywhere near a decent %. What would you guys think of a payment to amnesty program? You've been here making money somehow or another, you don't have a criminal record (dui is included here) and we ask X amount of money, one time fee, you get papers and we call it a day. Of course there is much more to it than that but as far as a general path to citizenship, thoughts? I'd much prefer we make someone a citizen who has a decade(s) long proven track record of succeeding in this country than, well, basically anyone. Someone who has lived in our country, gone to school, graduated, got a job, paid taxes, avoided serious criminal activity for 15 years? Sign 'em up. Edit: Again, I know nothing about immigration generally, but could we even do that on a probationary basis? Like three years of probation after approval, where citizenship can be revoked if crimes are committed? Something like that? Or maybe citizenship isn't officially granted until that three year period has run, but they get some other intermediary legal status during those three years? Agreed. Been here and been a productive citizen, worked with what you had, didnt get busted for anything...get them thier papers and let's move on. The probationary thing is a good idea as well. I'd also like to restrict welfare access but I'd like to just do that right across the board. Immigrant or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 14:14:48 GMT -5
You forgot the Russians, they're all busy looking for the Russians. I can't speak for potential Hillary book buyers But did YOU, a registered superhero, just give normal people shit about not doing something they should do, like read, when you yourself stopped fighting galactic threats so you could host a frivolous talk show so lazy you don't even have your guests live in studio? Or is the universe completely safe now from molten planet terrorists, bomb making mantis creatures and war mongering superior beings? Is it not dangerous to assume the dormant threats are gone forever? Has the main stream media stopped caring, because they're too busy looking at 3:00am tweets from world leaders and ways to blame the opposing political parties for every ill of the world? Do people not care enough to look away from their fantasy football rosters and facebook feeds to notice? And what ever happened to Jan and Jace.....or that fucking monkey? I think getting answers from you on this would be much more interesting than James, a fake black lawyer, answering Tony's obvious trap questions, where there is about 0% chance that Tony would be like, "You know, you have a point there." They are obvious because the answers are obvious. And I'm not surprised he didn't answer any of them. Because answering them with the obvious answers makes it pretty clear what's going on. Had he answered any of them in a manner that told me something I didn't already know, I probably would have given him credit for making a point. But we'll never know. |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 14, 2017 14:20:49 GMT -5
The criminal background issue of a dreamer is a very contentious issue. By criminal record I think you agree that someone convicted of petty theft or DUI is a criminal, right? Trust me, it's FAR more than 1/400 but I don't have the stats handy. When DACA was enacted, there was great consternation on what we could be used as the basis to deny an applicant as a criminal. First it was 3 or more misdemeanors would flag for denial review, but it wasn't an auto denial. It just meant it could be reviewed as DACA is an entirely discretionary program (which is another issue because discretion would imply you can approve or deny) but none were ever denied. They were held in abeyance because denials would be bulletin board material for republicans opposed to Obama's executive action. Any felony or significant misdemeanor could lead to denial, but what is a significant misdemeanor? What happens when someone is convicted of domestic violence but enters into diversion? Remember, this is a discretionary program so here we have an applicant we know has say a DUI and a domestic violence arrest and conviction, but he entered diversion on the domestic violence. Approve or deny? Under Obama that was an approval. Today? That will soon probably be a denial. So I am not sure what the 1/400 refers to - maybe the ones triaged for felonies? Old or young dreamers - if you are here illegally there is nothing for you. Further, if you entered without inspection (EWI) and are here over a year and then depart the country, you trigger a 10 year bar to readmission. That was was per the 1996 law passed under Clinton. They have no way to gain anything and that is the case for probably 15-20 million people right now. This is the huge elephant in the room that amnesty once dealt with. A sub section of that group are the "dreamers" that could be considered the innocent children brought here by their parents and now growing into adulthood. Some will argue they are merely collateral victims of their parents illegal act of unlawful entry and shouldn't fall into the same plight. A 25-30 year old Mexican, El Salvadorean, Honduran or Guatamalean that came here to work, didn't come as a child, has never been to school and has zero skills is not a "dreamer". That example is the majority of DACA applicants. The vast majority. What do we do with them? That's the million dollar question. At some point this is going to feel like I'm assigning you homework by asking all these questions, so when it does, feel free to bow out. In looking into it, I think the source of 1/400 was actually Breitbart. And I'm sure they got it from somewhere else. I should have looked further into the source before I referenced it. Breitbart referred to 2139 Dreamers being convicted of crimes, which would be 1/400. But I think that number is not a complete list of Dreamers with criminal records, it probably was never intended to be, and was likely taken out of context. So, forget I mentioned it. But your clarification on this criminal record thing is interesting and helpful. I've seen both the left and the right reference Dreamers "must have a clean criminal record" but it seems the truth is much less simple. As to the old vs. young dreamers... Ok, so a kid gets brought here at age 6, is now 25, has no recollection of his homeland, has lived here forever and gone to school here, friends, jobs, etc. And that person has had no path to citizenship other than leaving the country, waiting ten years, and then applying for citizenship? I'm not sure why that person is less sympathetic than a seventeen year old in the same boat. I definitely understand the distinction between someone coming here illegally of their own choice in their 20s versus someone brought here as a kid. I guess I'm not understanding the distinction between someone who was brought here as a young kid and is now 25 versus someone who was brought here as a young kid and is now 17. If the one is worthy of protection, is there a good reason to say the other isn't? The only way to have a path to permanent residency is via a relative petitioning for you, an employer petitioning for you (in some cases you can self petition if you are an alien of extraordinary ability - Russell Crowe, Elon Musk), via asylum or refugee status, or through the special immigrant processing (religious worker, battered spouse, others). Someone who comes here on say a B-2 visitor visa and never leaves or someone who wanders over our border never has any way to legally immigrate. DACA is being sold as a bunch of traditional students who came here as kids and now shouldn't be forced to leave. But that is NOT what DACA is. Nonetheless, technically and legally, the 23 year old valedictorian of UCLA, the 19 year old high school grad working at a gas station or the 23 year old dude that quit school in mexico in the 3rd grade and is now here picking lettuce - if they entered without inspection (that's 95% of them) then they have no legal means to immigrate. DACA is potentially creating a carve out for the valedictorian and high school grad. In reality, what we have is seven of the 23-30 year old elementary school drop outs for every 1 valedictorian or high school grad. With their application, the lettuce picker or dude standing outside Home Depot submitted an application after paying a notario and gave us a fake transcript showing he completed school and a fake date her entered the country. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 14:21:17 GMT -5
ocmmafan - thoughts on Trump's tweets this morning on DACA, where he says: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!........They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security" Ann Coulter responded with: At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached? Interested to hear your thoughts on this development. Here is the answer key: I can't speak for OC. But did YOU - an attorney (who understands the concept of legal legitimacy and the problem with massively sweeping executive orders) actually think that Trump was overturning DACA because he wanted to throw out the people he is referring to in his tweet? That is how they frame it on "the news". Or is it that legally Congress needs to be the body that enacts a change such as DACA, and then the president is supposed to approve it or veto it? Congress is supposed to be the body that lays out immigration. A president doing so only serves to lead the judicial system to intervene and say it is "not Constitutional".Is it dangerous to allow one individual, especially when that individual is the president of the United States, to circumvent checks and balances? Yes. But we let Obama do it anyway. Now Trump wants to undo Obama's illegal act and is being painted as a monster who hates immigrant babies.
Has the mainstream media addressed the problem with how DACA came into existence in the first place? No, they have not. Have they tried to make it look like Trump hates foreign children who were brought here by their parents illegally? Yes, they absolutely have. Has the last president come up out of his hole to declare that this is a moral issue and not a legal issue? Yes, he sure did. Illegal immigration is not a legal issue? No, illegal immigration is a legal issue, obviously, because it has the term "illegal" as it's first descriptor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 14:26:57 GMT -5
At some point this is going to feel like I'm assigning you homework by asking all these questions, so when it does, feel free to bow out. In looking into it, I think the source of 1/400 was actually Breitbart. And I'm sure they got it from somewhere else. I should have looked further into the source before I referenced it. Breitbart referred to 2139 Dreamers being convicted of crimes, which would be 1/400. But I think that number is not a complete list of Dreamers with criminal records, it probably was never intended to be, and was likely taken out of context. So, forget I mentioned it. But your clarification on this criminal record thing is interesting and helpful. I've seen both the left and the right reference Dreamers "must have a clean criminal record" but it seems the truth is much less simple. As to the old vs. young dreamers... Ok, so a kid gets brought here at age 6, is now 25, has no recollection of his homeland, has lived here forever and gone to school here, friends, jobs, etc. And that person has had no path to citizenship other than leaving the country, waiting ten years, and then applying for citizenship? I'm not sure why that person is less sympathetic than a seventeen year old in the same boat. I definitely understand the distinction between someone coming here illegally of their own choice in their 20s versus someone brought here as a kid. I guess I'm not understanding the distinction between someone who was brought here as a young kid and is now 25 versus someone who was brought here as a young kid and is now 17. If the one is worthy of protection, is there a good reason to say the other isn't? The only way to have a path to permanent residency is via a relative petitioning for you, an employer petitioning for you (in some cases you can self petition if you are an alien of extraordinary ability - Russell Crowe, Elon Musk), via asylum or refugee status, or through the special immigrant processing (religious worker, battered spouse, others). Someone who comes here on say a B-2 visitor visa and never leaves or someone who wanders over our border never has any way to legally immigrate. DACA is being sold as a bunch of traditional students who came here as kids and now shouldn't be forced to leave. But that is NOT what DACA is. Nonetheless, technically and legally, the 23 year old valedictorian of UCLA, the 19 year old high school grad working at a gas station or the 23 year old dude that quit school in mexico in the 3rd grade and is now here picking lettuce - if they entered without inspection (that's 95% of them) then they have no legal means to immigrate. DACA is potentially creating a carve out for the valedictorian and high school grad. In reality, what we have is seven of the 23-30 year old elementary school drop outs for every 1 valedictorian or high school grad. With their application, the lettuce picker or dude standing outside Home Depot submitted an application after paying a notario and gave us a fake transcript showing he completed school and a fake date her entered the country. Thanks for posting this. I'm awaiting a certain someone to pick it apart and tell you where you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 14, 2017 14:29:32 GMT -5
I know a few people under daca that are late 20s and a couple don't really speak all that good of Spanish. I don't know where the fuck they would go "back" to. But of course that is anecdotal and I'm sure doesn't make up anywhere near a decent %. What would you guys think of a payment to amnesty program? You've been here making money somehow or another, you don't have a criminal record (dui is included here) and we ask X amount of money, one time fee, you get papers and we call it a day. Of course there is much more to it than that but as far as a general path to citizenship, thoughts? Maybe. But the only way to do it is to secure the border so this is truly a one time sweeping acceptance of those here. That's basically what we did in the 90s with amnesty but all it did was take care of the then without caring about the future. We are right back in the same place. And, by securing the border it means BOTH the physical barrier and very strict penalties for those caught illegally entering or re-entering. Once we close the door and stop turning the blind eye to our illegal immigration it means we actually do it. We would have to be well set with the military at the border for probably 6 months leading up to enactment because once we say we are offering the golden ticket? We will see MASS migration north from central america and mexico, and every country that can fly into those countries to get here. Millions will come because us creating a path to residency (then citizenship) means us creating a path to a lifetime of free money, free healthcare and free benefits, work authorization to those who want it, safety - basically the most attractive carrot imaginable. It's admitting we are accepting of economic asylum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 14:33:03 GMT -5
I never thought of that last part. Makes perfect sense. Damn right people will be coming. Thanks again for these answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 14, 2017 14:37:41 GMT -5
Here is the answer key: I can't speak for OC. But did YOU - an attorney (who understands the concept of legal legitimacy and the problem with massively sweeping executive orders) actually think that Trump was overturning DACA because he wanted to throw out the people he is referring to in his tweet? That is how they frame it on "the news". Or is it that legally Congress needs to be the body that enacts a change such as DACA, and then the president is supposed to approve it or veto it? Congress is supposed to be the body that lays out immigration. A president doing so only serves to lead the judicial system to intervene and say it is "not Constitutional".Is it dangerous to allow one individual, especially when that individual is the president of the United States, to circumvent checks and balances? Yes. But we let Obama do it anyway. Now Trump wants to undo Obama's illegal act and is being painted as a monster who hates immigrant babies.
Has the mainstream media addressed the problem with how DACA came into existence in the first place? No, they have not. Have they tried to make it look like Trump hates foreign children who were brought here by their parents illegally? Yes, they absolutely have. Has the last president come up out of his hole to declare that this is a moral issue and not a legal issue? Yes, he sure did. Illegal immigration is not a legal issue? No, illegal immigration is a legal issue, obviously, because it has the term "illegal" as it's first descriptor. Agree. I would add that the end of DACA really had nothing to do with Trump. It was already deemed unconstitutional by the courts and rather than more states pursue that, Trump interceded and bought the dreamers time and put it back on congress to come up with comprehensive immigration reform. He did them a favor! If Obama or Hillary had done the same it would be hailed as a thoughtful gesture. |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Sept 14, 2017 14:38:24 GMT -5
I never thought of that last part. Makes perfect sense. Damn right people will be coming. Thanks again for these answers. They came for DACA. |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 14, 2017 14:41:41 GMT -5
One reason it's possible is that the conditions you described fir perfectly to Russia in the 1930's, and in the 1940's they literally came within a hair's breadth of conquering the entire planet. Of course, they needed to completely occupy/co-opt/ control the United States government (and they completely did control it, until FDR died) to (nearly) pull it off, but they outwardly appeared extremely weak. Just like they wanted to. I'm not saying that's happening now, and don't really think it is. Russia could never control a Chinese leader the way they did FDR. Asians are simply not as gullible as Europeans. But suppose they simply... reached an understanding with a few disparate powers? "America has to go. We'll deal with each other afterwards" So, America is the White Walkers? (in before Patsox) I do not get this |
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 14:45:12 GMT -5
So, America is the White Walkers? (in before Patsox) I do not get this I know. It's a pop culture reference. It was meant more for Patsox. I thought you had me on ignore or I'd have put in a disclaimer for you. |
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Sept 14, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5
So, America is the White Walkers? (in before Patsox) I do not get this Come on Garth, you recognize this guy.................it's Jeff Sessions  |
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 14, 2017 14:53:30 GMT -5
Awww man, I was really hoping you'd chime in with "I do not get this."
|
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Sept 14, 2017 14:59:27 GMT -5
Awww man, I was really hoping you'd chime in with "I do not get this." shhhhhhhhhhhhh |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Sept 14, 2017 15:29:04 GMT -5
I figured it was from TV
|
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Sept 14, 2017 15:49:48 GMT -5
|
|
