Do you have an actual post on a topic or are you going to just troll?
Thanks for the moderation.
I have posted on topic several times, pointing out perceived flaws in your arguments or asking for clarifications. You certainly have had opportunity to prove me wrong in my perceptions or clarify.
Regardless, if you think I am off topic perhaps I am. How about this: with the move toward automation and the increase in jobs in industry demanding more than a highschool diploma why do you believe that Trump can bring back manufacturing similar to the past?
The need for general labor has not gone down. Also most manufacturing jobs can simply be taught by the company. The issue is a multi fold though. First the money from overseas needs to be brought back in a nice way or the companies will choose to leave. If you try to tax them some place like Singapore will gladly take all the headquarters. So companies can't invest in factories or workers. Second we need a complete reform of high school. It should be called high school for a reason. You could teach people basic electrical engineering or mechanical skills needed to maintain robots in high school. 3rd the demand for general labor has not gone down but we have an oversupply. Simply put we have reached peak automation in manufacturing. Most of the automation is going to be for white collar works. Wall street is already getting replaced by computers so will most bankers and even programmers at some point. Ultimately if you are asking long term no one will need to work if we can figure out how to give machines empathy. The problem is in the sort term that all the jobs are leaving. If anything I would be more worried about white collar workers going forward. Automation has run it's course on blue collar workers.
Stopping the drug war would not slow illegal immigration. Mexico had even greater poverty before the drug war. You have to remember the cartel members spend that money locally and employ vast amounts of people. Likely more people would be fleeing crushing poverty. Not to say the Drug cartels aren't brutal or oppressive, but they do buy lots of stuff on US and Canadian money.
I only brought the drug dealers up because you made it seem as though the criminals were a more pressing issue than the non-criminal illegals.
That point undermines your entire argument. It is the issues in there country that brings them here we are letting them across.
Well I am leaving this website after getting a warning for flaming. I hope you all have a nice day.
That is my preference. Obviously the main goal is just to stop them from crossing. If I could do it cheaper and in a nicer way, sure. Would you secure the border. If you don't want to shoot people how far would you go. Also how is building a wall terrible. They simply can't cross if they can't cross the wall. It is certainly nicer compared to the current system where we chase them down on horses and helicopters and tackle them.
As I stated previously no one is saying that we should not secure the border, any further arguing on that line is wasting your breath. Building a wall is terrible because it would be prohibitively expensive and not completely effective. You would still need people on the wall to watch for illegals. Funny thing is this can be done pretty effectively with technology, but the problem won't go away because of increased surveillance and enforcement. So long as people see opportunity here they will come by whatever means they can. Simply cracking down on the businesses that employ illegals and fixing our stupid obsession with the "war on drugs" and the illegal traffic across the border would be severely reduced.
If you fight the symptoms not the source you will never cure what ails you...
Stopping the drug war would not slow illegal immigration. Mexico had even greater poverty before the drug war. You have to remember the cartel members spend that money locally and employ vast amounts of people. Likely more people would be fleeing crushing poverty. Not to say the Drug cartels aren't brutal or oppressive, but they do buy lots of stuff on US and Canadian money.
I am for putting the military along the border so if someone is going to get away, shooting them works in my book. Obviously that is illegal now but it shouldn't be.
?
That is my preference. Obviously the main goal is just to stop them from crossing. If I could do it cheaper and in a nicer way, sure. Would you secure the border? If you don't want to shoot people how far would you go. Also how is building a wall terrible. They simply can't cross if they can't cross the wall. It is certainly nicer compared to the current system where we chase them down on horses and helicopters and tackle them.
The Democrats have never done the same thing. Look at the record of Supreme Court nominations/confirmations. Like so many Republican actions in recent times, the word is 'unprecedented'.
And once a precedent has been set, both sides will happily do it. Look at how the GOP seized on Biden's words to justify their action. Next time the Democrats need to block a Supreme Court appointment, they'll cite this as precedent. And the cycle goes around and around, cycling ever downwards. That's a major reason these antics are such a huge problem.
Concur. What would it take to put some requirements around the 'advice and consent' process, to ensure it takes place in a timely fashion, even if the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties? Given the Appointments Clause is part of the Constitution, does that mean an Amendment to the Constitution would be required?
answer the question. Is it took to have at least 8000 harden criminals enter the USA every year? It is a simple question.
Cut the hyperbole you know the answer and it is beside the point. No one is saying we should not secure our border, but shooting people just for crossing or building a wall are both horrible solutions. Would you care to come up with a reasonable solution?
Answer the question you are dodging a simple yes or no. I said nothing about means.
The number of illegals declining is because the economy sucks.
Wait a second. It all makes sense now. Trump is planning on starting trade wars to get the economy to suck even harder, thereby ending illegal immigration.
If you have less labor available you need to pay them more. You create scarcity. Supply and demand works even with labor.
so we are suppose to let 8000 harden criminals into the US. Let me ask you this. Is it ok to let 8000 harden criminals into the United States?
No one said that, the point is to not go assuming that the entirety of a group of people is made up of murderers thieves and rapists as your friend Trump asserts. I am glad you did some research on the matter perhaps now you have a better understanding on the it than you will even get from Trump.
answer the question. Is it took to have at least 8000 harden criminals enter the USA every year? It is a simple question.
Here are some more stats. " 7,976 illegal aliens “wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape, assault and robbery,” is the number caught in 2013.
20 percent of illegal immigrants caught at the border have criminal records.
So what you are saying is that 80% are reasonable people seeking a better life in America? That really isn't helping your argument that "A large portion of these people are bringing drugs, stolen documents, and weapons across" It would seem that a relatively small portion of them are bad people. Don't you think?
so we are suppose to let 8000 harden criminals into the US. Let me ask you this. Is it ok to let 8000 harden criminals into the United States? Let me remind you 8000 is only number of the illegals we have caught that have previous convictions.
politics. If they win the election they get someone better. If they lose it they can prevent damage. They are doing what they believe is in the best interest of the people that voted for them.
Instead of confirming a person they said was a fine judge, and that Obama should nominate him.
I reckon if they lose in the upcoming elections (an event I imagine to be more likely if they stonewall on the judge confirmation), Obama says 'Well, you had your chance', withdraws Garland and nominates, I don't know, Karl Marx or someone similarly left.
I think the 'establishment' Republicans are facing four possibilities:
1. Confirm Garland at some point (he's a moderate, it could be a lot worse for them)
2. Hang out for the election
2a. A non-Trump Republican wins (their most-desired outcome, but not looking enormously likely)
2b. Trump wins (and they have no control over him, it could be better or worse for them than Garland)
2c. A Democrat wins (and Obama withdraws the nomination and either nominates someone more liberal or lets the incumbent nominate someone themselves, such as Obama; worse than Garland for them)
Did you read the rulings they are very clearly anti 2nd amendment. He would have sent it back to the same panel that voted against it. The best case that can be made is he sided against the 2nd amendment once and maybe didn't once. That is clearly going to be a non starter for republicans.
I'm assuming you mean DC vs Parker, because Garland's name doesn't even appear in the other document you linked. The decision in that case was
Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition.
. Garland voted in favour of rehearing en banc (that's where the case is heard by all the judges, rather than just a panel).
In judicial decisions one person writes the majority opinion and one person writes the dissent.
What I am questioning is why they just do not vote "no".
If they vote no they can be accused of voting no on a reasonable candidate, one which they are willing to approve only if they lose the election in the fall. Meanwhile they can claim they aren't considering it because during an election year the issue will be politicized. They're attempting to make it look like Obama is at fault and that he's being an unreasonable politician by nominating anyone.
But, we can see through that because we pay attention and think about it. The republicans understand most americans don't pay attention and that the media can't spend more than two minutes talking about any one subject so they also won't call republicans out on this. So, republicans may be right that this is a "winning" strategy for themselves. But, that's only because other people let them get away with it or don't have enough time to pay attention.
This is how they've operated for 7.5 years since the dems gained control of all legislative houses and the presidency. By making it look like the democrats can't get anything done, they seek to position themselves as the party that does get things done. It's a morally bankrupt plan, but in war (which is what they view this as), your enemy is your enemy. We don't have to like it, but to change it you have to change both the media and the people around you. That's pretty hard to do.
But others are right that even the republicans can't agree on anything and are fractured, so there's the chance this all falls apart. There's also the chance that they keep this up for another 20 years and the rest of us suffer for it.
Yes lots of illegals are but it is impossible to know the true number because we don't know how many illegals enter the USA every year. They are here illegally.
Unfortunately for your "We don't know, therefore I'm right" argument, just because they're here illegally doesn't mean nobody collects data on them. Wikipedia cites numbers from the DHS, the Pew Research Center, the Center for Migration Studies, and the Center for Immigration Studies. For the past decade, the yearly rate has been declining, and the total population in the country has been stable or declining slightly as the rate of those who are going back home has caught up to the rate of those entering.
Has any of this information made it into Trump's stump speech?
What does the total number declining have to do with drugs going across. The number of illegals declining is because the economy sucks.
Here are some more stats. " 7,976 illegal aliens “wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape, assault and robbery,” is the number caught in 2013.
That is the deficit ran each year you rube. Therefore every year on that chart added to the debt. All of them. Until we run a surplus it is not anywhere near good enough.
You were complaining about the deficit on the previous page. So I was talking about the deficit. I'm aware that the debt went up each year, I even said it. Now, Obama has consistently shrunk the deficit since we were required to increase it to combat a recession. I don't know how you run a surplus without reducing a deficit. So yes, magic-christmas-land didn't happen, it wasn't instantaneously fixed, but it has moved in the direction you would have liked it to at a time when cutting government spending unwisely could have easily sent our country into a depression.
And, I remind you, the last time we ran a surplus was during a Clinton administration. Bush put us on a path which destroyed that, and then he destroyed the economy and we had to spend a lot to fix. Why aren't you supporting the democrats who have overall been better stewards of the economy if you really care about this issue?
Also we do have bigger problems with corporate inversion. The debt can wait. If you can get them to bring the money back you are golden on the debt. That is two trillion pumped in the economy you get to tax.
I agree, but I want to remind you that it was Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who started talking about these problems first. Both are Democrats, yes, Trump has talked about this, but he has also used these laws and abused other laws to profit. I'm unsure why you trust a man whose taken advantage of the system to personally profit to fix it. There are better representatives out there that care about these issues, and they are almost all democrats.
Then don't dodge the issue a deficit is still a deficit. It is better doesn't matter if it isn't good enough. Also Warren and Bernies plan would increase the number for companies leaving. Rich people have options and connections. They can pick any more favorable economy and go there. Their plans don't work because the wealth will just leave if you treat them like that. Moreover the democrats had a super majority for 2 years why did they not pass these wondrous plans?
The bump you see in 2008 is actually because we started counting money from the Iraq war. The bump you see after 2008 is all of the stimulus spending. That tapered off in 2012 and 2013, and more as time went on. But we've returned to 2008 levels of spending which now include the wars. If you took out the wars the numbers would look more like 2005, 2006, and 2007.
If you add all of that up we of course owe more money. But we're actually borrowing less each year since 2009, so we're making positive movement towards getting the deficit in hand. Now, your options moving forward are to vote for Trump who wants to spend a lot of money and cut taxes which will definitely raise the deficit, or to vote for Clinton, whose husband previously actually gave us a surplus. If I were you and I were looking at the graphs and money and trying to reduce the deficit, I'd be asking Clinton if she plans to follow her husband's model and return to a sensible spending plan.
Maybe Trump would be willing to do what the Clinton's did, but currently he's talking about cutting taxes the way Bush did and if he does that then we can expect the deficit to grow, not shrink.
That is the deficit ran each year you rube. Therefore every year on that chart added to the debt. All of them. Until we run a surplus it is not anywhere near good enough. Also we do have bigger problems with corporate inversion. The debt can wait. If you can get them to bring the money back you are golden on the debt. That is two trillion pumped in the economy you get to tax.
But I recall someone asserting that a large portion of illegals were bringing drugs/ stolen docs/ weapons over the border. How could that person make that assertion without data to base the assertion on?
We have been running a deficit for the better part of two decades. That is enough.
It has not been two decades and historically periods between surplus presidencies have lasted much longer yet we are still here.
Bush and obama combined are 16 years...the better part of two decades. Yes lots of illegals are but it is impossible to know the true number because we don't know how many illegals enter the USA every year. They are here illegally.
No... That is not what the Republican base is annoyed about. Exactly the opposite.
100 percent correct. I only need to look at the budget to know they are not doing their job. It is full of pure pork. Just send it back to obama with public letter telling him he is full of **** and we will pass a real budget. If he doesn't pass pound the democracts for being salary thieves and robbing your children.
I mean, I've read this before. It's still largely not true. It's a giant straw man. Republicans are fighting against an evil liberal that doesn't exist. But, if I say that, as I have all I'm going to get back is a "No you". There won't be any examples. Just "I'm rubber, you're glue". This is not surprising. This is what the republican base has come to. The right wing media makes stuff up. The true believers believe it and regurgitate ad infinitude. They work themselves up into a rage. When you've classified the other side as being pure evil you can't work with them.
And maybe it sounds like I'm demonizing the right, but I'll say this. If the right wants to help pass a highway bill, I'd be on board with that. If the right wanted to look at solving our immigration problem in ways that didn't involve spending a lot of money on a wall (lol, fiscally conservative), then I'd be willing to talk about that. If republicans were really interested in governing at all, I'd work with them and so would the rest of the democratic party.
The democrats have moved to the center on every issue since Obama came into office:
1. Obamacare is literally the heritage committee's (right wing think tank) plan from the 90s proposed in opposition to Hillary's attempt to create a single payor system.
2. We worked to make sure none of the laws passed in the last 8 years increased the deficit.
3. The proposed judge for the court is a moderate that many republicans have said in the past was truly a centrist, but still they won't hear from him.
We can go on and on, but its clear. There aren't any negotiators on the right. There are no people there that want to work with people who don't think like them to come to solutions. Democrats have tried, many times, to work together on legislation, to not pass liberal legislation, but to pass moderate legislation. But anything that makes it look like Democrats can get things done ultimately destroys the message that republicans run on.
So, this is not surprising. Its all posturing. And Trump knows this and knows how to feed on it. The interesting thing is he's unlikely to deliver the republicans everything they want. He is after all a deal maker, and deals require compromise. He's likely to sell the republicans out on every issue to get what he wants (who the hell knows what that really is). But, its probably not good for America. It may destroy the republican party, or it may replace it with something so authoritarian that we start to look like some of the worst countries in the world.
Whatever. Republicans have been working towards this for 3 decades. It's impossible to expect people who don't think to stop it start.
Fixed the last of that line for you.
Also, from the responses you received, at least these Trump supporters want all or nothing. As pointed out that is quite strange since they are supporting a deal maker.
However, the conservatives as a whole are suffering from this issue. They cannot even compromise among themselves.
You have things backwards. The Constitution does not require the Senate to vote for anyone in particular. It does require that a nominee be confirmed by the Senate to be successfully appointed.
How does azmod have it backwards? The Senate has been presented with a nominee that would have been acceptable to them at any point in the past three years. Their options are to confirm him, reject him, or stall.
azmod is saying that: if they confirm him, life moves on and nobody wins or loses any political capital. If they do anything else, the Republicans look bad.
azmod isn't saying they're obligated to give an answer, just that doing anything except answering 'yes' is a bad move on their part.
(Apologies in advance to azmod if I've misunderstood his position.)
That's mostly the gist of my argument. The Senate has been given a constitutional responsibility to confirm or reject a nominated candidate. If they vote "yes", then they did their job. If they find fault with the candidate and vote "no" then they did their job. If they just stall and do nothing then they are not doing their job.
Frankly, I do not really understand why the Republicans would choose to stall the confirmation process. They have the power to reject any candidate and they should be able to find a reasonable (or at least a reasonably sounding) reason to do so.
politics. If they win the election they get someone better. If they lose it they can prevent damage. They are doing what they believe is in the best interest of the people that voted for them.
I want the deficit gone. If you are not running a surplus you are doing it wrong.
That's an argument we can talk about. The last time we had a Budget surplus was during Clinton's term. Bush turned around and gave the wealthy (not you) a bunch of tax cuts and started several wars which turned a surplus into a deficit; he was supported by the republican congress. There is absolutely no evidence that republicans when they are in power care about the deficit, but democrats have a track record of at least trying. Why are you a republican if this is your main concern?
And obama made it worse. Both republicans and democracts are to blame on this. Why do you think Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are so popular. The republican leadership are cowards. Trump has also talked about raising tariffs several times. If mexico doesn't want the wall they can stop selling to us.
These are the deficits from the last 4 years. Dems & Repubs passed a stimulus to combat the recession in 2008, but you can see that the deficit has returned to pre 2008 levels.
So explain to me how this has gotten worse?
Also, note that spending on the Iraq & Afghanistan wars was not included in these numbers until after 2008 because the republican government decided that wasn't government spending somehow.
The stat you needed to find was what percentage of illegals bring drugs. We know it happens and thats all your article confirms. What portion of illegals come with drugs/stolen docs/weapons as you claim?
I want the deficit gone. If you are not running a surplus you are doing it wrong.
You cannot always run a surplus. Businesses don't always take in less than they spend, even Donald Trump has run deficits before. Sometimes mandatory things cost more than tax revenue can pay for but they are still things we need. That is part of the reason we have only had a handful of presidencies that saw a budget surplus.
No one takes those stats. Republicans governors don't want to look useless and obama wants to look on the ball. We have been running a deficit for the better part of two decades. That is enough.
I want the deficit gone. If you are not running a surplus you are doing it wrong.
That's an argument we can talk about. The last time we had a Budget surplus was during Clinton's term. Bush turned around and gave the wealthy (not you) a bunch of tax cuts and started several wars which turned a surplus into a deficit; he was supported by the republican congress. There is absolutely no evidence that republicans when they are in power care about the deficit, but democrats have a track record of at least trying. Why are you a republican if this is your main concern?
And obama made it worse. Both republicans and democracts are to blame on this. Why do you think Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are so popular. The republican leadership are cowards. Trump has also talked about raising tariffs several times. If mexico doesn't want the wall they can stop selling to us.
The need for general labor has not gone down. Also most manufacturing jobs can simply be taught by the company. The issue is a multi fold though. First the money from overseas needs to be brought back in a nice way or the companies will choose to leave. If you try to tax them some place like Singapore will gladly take all the headquarters. So companies can't invest in factories or workers. Second we need a complete reform of high school. It should be called high school for a reason. You could teach people basic electrical engineering or mechanical skills needed to maintain robots in high school. 3rd the demand for general labor has not gone down but we have an oversupply. Simply put we have reached peak automation in manufacturing. Most of the automation is going to be for white collar works. Wall street is already getting replaced by computers so will most bankers and even programmers at some point. Ultimately if you are asking long term no one will need to work if we can figure out how to give machines empathy. The problem is in the sort term that all the jobs are leaving. If anything I would be more worried about white collar workers going forward. Automation has run it's course on blue collar workers.
That point undermines your entire argument. It is the issues in there country that brings them here we are letting them across.
Well I am leaving this website after getting a warning for flaming. I hope you all have a nice day.
Stopping the drug war would not slow illegal immigration. Mexico had even greater poverty before the drug war. You have to remember the cartel members spend that money locally and employ vast amounts of people. Likely more people would be fleeing crushing poverty. Not to say the Drug cartels aren't brutal or oppressive, but they do buy lots of stuff on US and Canadian money.
Do you have an actual post on a topic or are you going to just troll?
That is my preference. Obviously the main goal is just to stop them from crossing. If I could do it cheaper and in a nicer way, sure. Would you secure the border? If you don't want to shoot people how far would you go. Also how is building a wall terrible. They simply can't cross if they can't cross the wall. It is certainly nicer compared to the current system where we chase them down on horses and helicopters and tackle them.
you would need to change the constitution.
Answer the question you are dodging a simple yes or no. I said nothing about means.
If you have less labor available you need to pay them more. You create scarcity. Supply and demand works even with labor.
answer the question. Is it took to have at least 8000 harden criminals enter the USA every year? It is a simple question.
so we are suppose to let 8000 harden criminals into the US. Let me ask you this. Is it ok to let 8000 harden criminals into the United States? Let me remind you 8000 is only number of the illegals we have caught that have previous convictions.
In judicial decisions one person writes the majority opinion and one person writes the dissent.
As if the democrats wouldn't do the same thing.
What does the total number declining have to do with drugs going across. The number of illegals declining is because the economy sucks.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/201/~/statistics---drug-seizures
that is the amount seized according to customs.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/01/21/border-patrol-60-percent-of-414-397-illegal-aliens-arrests-along-southwest-border-in-2013-occurred-in-texas/
Here are some more stats. " 7,976 illegal aliens “wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape, assault and robbery,” is the number caught in 2013.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/illegal-immigrants-responsible-for-almost-three-fourths-of-federal-drug-possession-sentences-in-2014/article/2567814
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/20-pct-illegals-caught-border-have-criminal-record/?page=all#pagebreak
20 percent of illegal immigrants caught at the border have criminal records.
Then don't dodge the issue a deficit is still a deficit. It is better doesn't matter if it isn't good enough. Also Warren and Bernies plan would increase the number for companies leaving. Rich people have options and connections. They can pick any more favorable economy and go there. Their plans don't work because the wealth will just leave if you treat them like that. Moreover the democrats had a super majority for 2 years why did they not pass these wondrous plans?
That is the deficit ran each year you rube. Therefore every year on that chart added to the debt. All of them. Until we run a surplus it is not anywhere near good enough. Also we do have bigger problems with corporate inversion. The debt can wait. If you can get them to bring the money back you are golden on the debt. That is two trillion pumped in the economy you get to tax.
Bush and obama combined are 16 years...the better part of two decades. Yes lots of illegals are but it is impossible to know the true number because we don't know how many illegals enter the USA every year. They are here illegally.
Because every single time budget cuts are promised int he future they never happen.
politics. If they win the election they get someone better. If they lose it they can prevent damage. They are doing what they believe is in the best interest of the people that voted for them.
The amount of money owed has gone up not down?
No one takes those stats. Republicans governors don't want to look useless and obama wants to look on the ball. We have been running a deficit for the better part of two decades. That is enough.
And obama made it worse. Both republicans and democracts are to blame on this. Why do you think Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are so popular. The republican leadership are cowards. Trump has also talked about raising tariffs several times. If mexico doesn't want the wall they can stop selling to us.