2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,001 to 5,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | next > last >>

Scythia wrote:

So, I've seen the same political ad (OMG, Bill Clinton said something about Obamacare! Vote Trump!) about 40 times in a row now on YouTube, sometimes as many as five times in the same video.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a plot of the DNC, to sour more people on Trump through annoyance, or a plot by YouTube to sell Red (ad free) subscriptions.

I'm going with pushing Red subscriptions on this one. When all else fails, go with the obvious money grab.


So... looks like there's some Wikileaks stuff from Goldman Sachs speeches. Is there anything horrible? Let's find out!

Quote:
"There was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing."

Note the use of the word "also", implying it's not the only reason - but yes, that you do in fact have to act when bad things happen to the people who vote you in. XD Not exactly incriminating material.

CNN's interpretation is that the transcripts are broadly in line with her public views.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Wow is that misleading.
First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

"Payroll taxes are federal, state and local taxes withheld from an employee's paycheck by the employer."

It is my understanding that the employer collects that tax for the government out of your wages, but is not the one who pays it. I could be wrong, I have been a freelancer for a long time, so it isn't my bag. Perhaps the employer has to match your payments?


thejeff wrote:

You know, I was going to debate some of those points, but if you really believe that last bit, what's the point.

If our entire government is just a conspiracy against us, then none of this matters. It's all a sideshow. What's the answer? If that's really what's going on, what do you think we should do? Join the militias and start blowing up government offices? Short of violent rebellion (which would likely just be coopted by the elites anyway) is there anything to be done?

I think the quote BigNorseWolf brought up was perfect:

Quote:

While the quote is frequently listed as, "“Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex," I could find no primary source. It appears to contradict the actual quote from a 1987 interview with Keyboard magazine where he is decidedly pro-government but anti-b+$+@*+% politics.:

Question: Perhaps many musicians simply aren't concerned with political issues.

Frank: Well, I think it behooves them to have political thoughts, but let me make a definition clarification here. I say politics is the entertainment branch of industry, and government is what we need. We have a diverse population in the United States, with all kinds of different needs that have to be taken care of. That is the righteous function of government. Politics is bullsh*t (sic), basically. Politics is involved with salesmanship. Government is involved with statesmanship. And I do make a distinction between these things. If you are making a political statement remember, you are not addressing the real needs of government. You're just talking about the Madison Avenue aspect. So think about that difference. Just a friendly reminder, in case somebody does decide to speak up.

[emphasis added]

He expanded in his autobiography:

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Politics Is The Entertainment Branch of Industry. C-SPAN's coverage of governmental proceedings is wonderful. Caution! Buffoons on the Hill! Wallowing in blabber and spew, regiments of ex-lawyers and used-car salesman attempt to distract us from the naughty little surprises served up by deregulated corporate America."

Has it become impossible to govern the U.S. by reason or logic? America under Reagan saw the rise of governance by trickery, fear, disinformation and superstition. Oh Jesus! Here comes those f*#+ing balloons again."
[emphasis in original]

The point is to tell the difference between s!%# and Shinola. Once you do that, you may still decide that it is your best option to vote for Hillary, or anyone else. That is fine. Do what you gotta do. Vote your conscience, vote your interests. Just don't expect it to be anything more then it is. One candidate isn't objectively improved, just because another is worse.

You are welcome to join a militia, but it is not okay to blow up federal buildings.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh, I'm pretty tired of arguing with the Leftier-than-Thou crowd. They start from the conclusion and work backwards, pretty much the same MO as the far-righters. If they ever decide that imperfection is okay and want to join the coalition I'll happily welcome them, but until then they can moulder in ideologically pure irrelevance. We workers are gonna work.

CrystalSeas wrote:
In addition to Federal equipment and Federal hiring grants, they also can seize any private citizen's property. If they want your car, they can take it. You don't even have to be charged with a crime, much less found guilty. So yeah, funded locally simply by deciding what assets (cash, home, car) they want from you and then conducting a raid on your home.

I'm extremely pleased to note that my home state implemented civil asset forfeiture reform this summer! CAF is now illegal prior to a *conviction*.

Hopefully this fall we also eliminate the death penalty permanently!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Onion: "The Donald Trump In These Allegations Is Not The Complete Monster I Married"

Honestly, I really hope Melania has been covertly consulting with some good divorce attorneys, if not for her sake but at least for her young son.

Edit: A non-sequitur, but vodka isn't bad with a mixture of Verner's ginger ale & Squirt grapefruit soda.

Edit 2: Loved this tweet from Will Saletan (of Slate.com): "I love these lectures that women molested by Trump should have spoken up earlier, from Republicans who lack the guts to stand up to him now."

Edit 3: And this tweet:
TRUMP: i grab women by the p*ssy
A DOZEN WOMEN: yeah that's true he did it to me
TRUMP: this is a global conspiracy

Edit 4: And #TrumpDrSeuss


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fergie wrote:
It is my understanding that the employer collects that tax for the government out of your wages, but is not the one who pays it.

There are some taxes that the employer alone pays, such as unemployment insurance and their share of your social security/medicare. If you are a freelancer, you don't pay any of the other taxes, but you do pay both the employee AND the employer share of social security/medicare.

So, no, the employer is not just a tax collector. They are also paying separate taxes related to their employees.

Scarab Sages

Misroi wrote:
I dunno, doc, the Leave faction for Brexit had similar nationalist rumblings and they still got their way. It basically meant the end of several political careers (I liked it better when Nigel Farage was the UK's problem, not ours), but they also blamed foreigners for the problems of the homeland. All they were missing were Union Jack hats that read "Make Britain Great Again".

Here you go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Wow is that misleading.
First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

"Payroll taxes are federal, state and local taxes withheld from an employee's paycheck by the employer."

It is my understanding that the employer collects that tax for the government out of your wages, but is not the one who pays it. I could be wrong, I have been a freelancer for a long time, so it isn't my bag. Perhaps the employer has to match your payments?

There are two parts to payroll tax. The part the employer withholds from your paycheck, and the part your employer pays to the government. For example, they have to withhold 6.2% of your pay for Social Security. They also have to pay 6.2% of your pay into Social Security (for a total of 12.4%). Employers also pay into employment insurance, which is used to fund unemployment benefits.


Irontruth wrote:
Fergie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Wow is that misleading.
First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

"Payroll taxes are federal, state and local taxes withheld from an employee's paycheck by the employer."

It is my understanding that the employer collects that tax for the government out of your wages, but is not the one who pays it. I could be wrong, I have been a freelancer for a long time, so it isn't my bag. Perhaps the employer has to match your payments?
There are two parts to payroll tax. The part the employer withholds from your paycheck, and the part your employer pays to the government. For example, they have to withhold 6.2% of your pay for Social Security. They also have to pay 6.2% of your pay into Social Security (for a total of 12.4%). Employers also pay into employment insurance, which is used to fund unemployment benefits.

More importantly, since we've nicely derailed - Fergie is trying to paint as bad for raising taxes on the working poor/middle class when the "tax increase" in question was just a temporary stimulus always intended to expire. Most likely, if it had been left in place, Obama'd be attacked for undermining Social Security.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Running Subtheme: Standing Rock

Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Should Scare Us All.

The using-a-different-browser trick works fine. Die, print journalism, die!!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I might have, but recently, the entire biased and control she has over the media reminds me almost of the old USSR days when they controlled the media in the same way.

Not only the US media. She apparently controls the media in (at least) Britain (I read the BBC on a regular basis) and up here in Canada too.

I mean, they all report the same things as the US media does.

Heck, even Fox News mostly reports the same things :-)

Well, the USA is the most powerful English-speaking nation on Earth. It's only reasonable that the English-language press would all be under the control of the same (US-based) cartel.

The conspiracy extends even to France (and other European countries) where most Not-Far Right media support Clinton.

It is self-preservation mostly :

1) Trump as POTUS would have potentially dire repercussions on the global political scene, and thus impact (unlikely to be good) on every nation on Earth

2) All countries have this kind of extreme nationalistic demagogues in their own backyard. And those (at least in Europe) were already emboldened by the success of the Brexit. No one wants to see them showing Trump as a successful example of giving the power back to the people, to be followed at home too


Fergie wrote:

The point is to tell the difference between s#~& and Shinola. Once you do that, you may still decide that it is your best option to vote for Hillary, or anyone else. That is fine. Do what you gotta do. Vote your conscience, vote your interests. Just don't expect it to be anything more then it is. One candidate isn't objectively improved, just because another is worse.

.

Its hard to imagine the iraq war under president gore.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

I also remember the Clintons in office 20 years ago,. It wasn't anything like what you wrote. Every point you wrote was completely untrue. I mean that literally, everything you wrote was untrue.

Vince Foster scandal

Travelgate scandal
Paula Jones scandal
FBI background scandal
Jorge Cabrera scandal
Monica scandal
1600 Ave scandal
Whitewater scandal
Cattle Money scandal
You know, just to name a few scandals. There's more of u need more.

Bill Clinton signing the Nafta/GATT bill that sent our companies overseas and hence started our economy collapse. U must have remembered our factories and etc being shut down and being sent overseas starting late 90s and early 200 right?

But that's right, none of that EVER happened and isn't true :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

I also remember the Clintons in office 20 years ago,. It wasn't anything like what you wrote. Every point you wrote was completely untrue. I mean that literally, everything you wrote was untrue.

Vince Foster scandal

Travelgate scandal
Paula Jones scandal
FBI background scandal
Jorge Cabrera scandal
Monica scandal
1600 Ave scandal
Whitewater scandal
Cattle Money scandal
You know, just to name a few scandals. There's more of u need more.

Bill Clinton signing the Nafta/GATT bill that sent our companies overseas and hence started our economy collapse. U must have remembered our factories and etc being shut down and being sent overseas starting late 90s and early 200 right?

But that's right, none of that EVER happened and isn't true :)

But the vast majority of those scandals turned out to be nothing, but a determined right wing attempt to smear them with anything that even looked possibly dirty. I mean you start with Vince Foster, which is pure conspiracy theory.

As for NAFTA, I largely agree that it was a bad thing, but it certainly didn't start our factories being shut down - the term "Rust Belt" was coined in the 80s for a reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rate of manufacturing plant closings was the same after NAFTA as it had been before NAFTA.

On the other hand, manufacturing increased faster after NAFTA than it had before.

Low skilled manufacturing is always going to move out of wealthier countries. This will be true regardless of trade agreements, because even with protectionist tariffs, eventually the cost of employment is too high for low skilled jobs.

For example, the only way to keep low wage textile jobs in this country is to pay the workers next to nothing. I'd love to hear the argument that we should keep those jobs here AND only pay them 50 cents a day. Convince me that would be beneficial to our country. Or maybe we should just pay $100 for low quality white t-shirts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Running Subtheme: Standing Rock

Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Should Scare Us All.

The using-a-different-browser trick works fine. Die, print journalism, die!!

Fixed link. :)


Coriat wrote:

GWL, for what it's worth, here in Massachusetts (pretty blue territory) I heard on the morning radio news (NPR) about new hacked Podesta emails coming out.

They didn't quote word-for-word, but then, they didn't play Trump's recordings word-for-word either (at least on that program, I only listen when driving).

Fraid I didn't tune into the more detailed shows on the way home. I had a new (to me) blues CD that needed listening.

I read a story containing direct excerpts from a tranche of Podesta emails recently (I don't remember whether it was yesterday or Thursday) when it popped up on google news. I don't remember what site it was from, but I certainly didn't go to any particular effort to seek it out.

Just 2c from someone who probably listens to different radio/has different regional stations than you.

More stuff for GreyWolfLord.

Since this last post I've been paying a bit more attention to what pops up and have seen a number of stories related to the email hacks.

Moreover I ventured over to Fox and found (as of 10:45 Eastern time) a headline about Wikileaked emails in large-point font splashed over the front page (apparently the lead story?) while all Trump sexual assault stuff was buried in small point further down (though it did exist).

Also heard more mentions on the radio.

Overall I'm completely failing to detect the news blackout you posted about.


Damnit! Thank you, Comrade Slaad.


thejeff wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

...Bill Clinton signing the Nafta/GATT bill that sent our companies overseas and hence started our economy collapse. U must have remembered our factories and etc being shut down and being sent overseas starting late 90s and early 200 right?

But that's right, none of that EVER happened and isn't true :)

As for NAFTA, I largely agree that it was a bad thing, but it certainly didn't start our factories being shut down - the term "Rust Belt" was coined in the 80s for a reason.

As a reminder, the negotiations and policies in NAFTA were written under George HW Bush:

Wikipedia wrote:
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.

Yeah, NAFTA had a lot of undesirable effects on the U.S. (and Mexican and Canadian economies), but it's unfair to lay all the credit/blame at Bill Clinton's feet.


Irontruth wrote:

The rate of manufacturing plant closings was the same after NAFTA as it had been before NAFTA.

On the other hand, manufacturing increased faster after NAFTA than it had before.

Low skilled manufacturing is always going to move out of wealthier countries. This will be true regardless of trade agreements, because even with protectionist tariffs, eventually the cost of employment is too high for low skilled jobs.

For example, the only way to keep low wage textile jobs in this country is to pay the workers next to nothing. I'd love to hear the argument that we should keep those jobs here AND only pay them 50 cents a day. Convince me that would be beneficial to our country. Or maybe we should just pay $100 for low quality white t-shirts.

Interestingly, with the rise of wages in China "and other countries" (I'm not sure which ones), increasing transportation costs, and more reliance on automation, American textile jobs are returning to the US south.

Textile industry comes back to life, especially in South

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Running Subtheme: Standing Rock

Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Should Scare Us All.

The using-a-different-browser trick works fine. Die, print journalism, die!!

Yep, as scary as Trump is, people are being arrested for journalism right now.


There's another woman, I forget her name at the moment, a filmmaker, who, the headlines said, is facing 45 years for reporting from Standing Rock.

Lessee...

Filmmaker Faces 45 Years in Prison for Reporting on Dakota Access Protests

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I found the racial breakdown of the unfavorability of Clinton and Trump very interesting.

Conclusion: white people are crazy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Redneckdevil wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

I also remember the Clintons in office 20 years ago,. It wasn't anything like what you wrote. Every point you wrote was completely untrue. I mean that literally, everything you wrote was untrue.

Vince Foster scandal

Travelgate scandal
Paula Jones scandal
FBI background scandal
Jorge Cabrera scandal
Monica scandal
1600 Ave scandal
Whitewater scandal
Cattle Money scandal
You know, just to name a few scandals. There's more of u need more.

Bill Clinton signing the Nafta/GATT bill that sent our companies overseas and hence started our economy collapse. U must have remembered our factories and etc being shut down and being sent overseas starting late 90s and early 200 right?

But that's right, none of that EVER happened and isn't true :)

Correct, none of those things actually happened and is not true. Certainly, people made up scandals just as much then as they do now, but they were never true. Also, the whole NAFTA bit is nonsense, as has been pointed out by others. I remember our factories being shut down and sent overseas in the 80's, and it started even earlier. It's also worth mentioning that a lot of them went places we didn't have free trade agreements with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, traveled out to Keene, NH, yesterday, ground zero for the Free State Project, to meet up with our new comrade, peddle socialist newspapers and hand out Jill Stein lit.

We were expecting long arguments with libertarians, but were surprised that we kept getting heckled by Hillary supporters. I took a walk down the street at one point and discovered that we were set up a block away from the Dems' campaign office. Mystery solved.

Recruited another Keene-ite, huzzah!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Recruited another Keene-ite, huzzah!

[non-sequitur] Keeneite sounds like a member in a Family Circus cult. [/non-sequitur]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

The rate of manufacturing plant closings was the same after NAFTA as it had been before NAFTA.

On the other hand, manufacturing increased faster after NAFTA than it had before.

Low skilled manufacturing is always going to move out of wealthier countries. This will be true regardless of trade agreements, because even with protectionist tariffs, eventually the cost of employment is too high for low skilled jobs.

For example, the only way to keep low wage textile jobs in this country is to pay the workers next to nothing. I'd love to hear the argument that we should keep those jobs here AND only pay them 50 cents a day. Convince me that would be beneficial to our country. Or maybe we should just pay $100 for low quality white t-shirts.

Interestingly, with the rise of wages in China "and other countries" (I'm not sure which ones), increasing transportation costs, and more reliance on automation, American textile jobs are returning to the US south.

Textile industry comes back to life, especially in South

That's the other side of globalization. As other countries participate in the world economy and trade with us, they get richer, eliminating their advantage of low wages, which pushes some of the jobs back to us.

This isn't a zero-sum game. We can all benefit from increased global trade. The problem right now isn't global trade itself, the problem is that the benefits of it are being distributed unevenly between the owners and the workers.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

I also remember the Clintons in office 20 years ago,. It wasn't anything like what you wrote. Every point you wrote was completely untrue. I mean that literally, everything you wrote was untrue.

Vince Foster scandal

Travelgate scandal
Paula Jones scandal
FBI background scandal
Jorge Cabrera scandal
Monica scandal
1600 Ave scandal
Whitewater scandal
Cattle Money scandal
You know, just to name a few scandals. There's more of u need more.

Bill Clinton signing the Nafta/GATT bill that sent our companies overseas and hence started our economy collapse. U must have remembered our factories and etc being shut down and being sent overseas starting late 90s and early 200 right?

But that's right, none of that EVER happened and isn't true :)

Correct, none of those things actually happened and is not true. Certainly, people made up scandals just as much then as they do now, but they...

Another thing to consider, moving a plant to Mexico means less immigration from Mexico. This is something that gets lost in the debate on immigration from/through Mexico. If that country were stronger, more stable, safer and prosperous, they wouldn't be trying to cross the borders in such high numbers.

Instead of wasting money on a wall that won't work, improve the lives of average Mexicans and they won't need/want to come here. If instead we just try to make it the battlefield for our "war on drugs", we're going to make things worse there and illegal immigration will continue.


Irontruth wrote:

Another thing to consider, moving a plant to Mexico means less immigration from Mexico. This is something that gets lost in the debate on immigration from/through Mexico. If that country were stronger, more stable, safer and prosperous, they wouldn't be trying to cross the borders in such high numbers.

Instead of wasting money on a wall that won't work, improve the lives of average Mexicans and they won't need/want to come here. If instead we just try to make it the battlefield for our "war on drugs", we're going to make things worse there and illegal immigration will continue.

Though, as I understand it, part of the deal allowed us to dump our more efficient (subsidized?) agriculture on Mexico, disrupting the small farmers there, driving them from the countryside looking for work - first in the cities and maquiladoras and then into the US.

There's always been unofficial border crossings and migrant labor of course, but NAFTA drove it further. Attempts to seal the border also disrupted the old seasonal migrant labor. As it got harder to cross, people who would have gone home after working a while in the past, now stayed and tried to bring family across to join them.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Also, the whole NAFTA bit is nonsense, as has been pointed out by others.

Oh man, listening to Clinton voters justify NAFTA... that brings me back...

Puts on oversized flannel and slides Depeche Mode CD into Discman Velcroed to bicep.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Another thing to consider, moving a plant to Mexico means less immigration from Mexico. This is something that gets lost in the debate on immigration from/through Mexico. If that country were stronger, more stable, safer and prosperous, they wouldn't be trying to cross the borders in such high numbers.

Instead of wasting money on a wall that won't work, improve the lives of average Mexicans and they won't need/want to come here. If instead we just try to make it the battlefield for our "war on drugs", we're going to make things worse there and illegal immigration will continue.

Though, as I understand it, part of the deal allowed us to dump our more efficient (subsidized?) agriculture on Mexico, disrupting the small farmers there, driving them from the countryside looking for work - first in the cities and maquiladoras and then into the US.

There's always been unofficial border crossings and migrant labor of course, but NAFTA drove it further. Attempts to seal the border also disrupted the old seasonal migrant labor. As it got harder to cross, people who would have gone home after working a while in the past, now stayed and tried to bring family across to join them.

One of the things Hillary mentioned in her Goldman-Sachs speech was opening borders for labor, not just goods. Legal migrant workers would give them legal protections, letting them unionize, pay taxes, etc. Legal status would give Mexican and Central American workers greater rights and opportunities.

All this will have consequences and side effects, and we'd need to hold lawmakers accountable for implementing this in a fair way that allows businesses to operate, but protects workers rights.


Irontruth wrote:
All this will have consequences and side effects, and we'd need to hold lawmakers accountable for implementing this in a fair way that allows businesses to operate, but protects workers rights.

HA! Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa! ahhh...

*eyes watering*

Just the lift I needed. Thanks Irontruth


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Remember son, those @#(#*@#*(* may be bullying you now, but eventually they'll grow up to live a shallow, empty life.

"You mean a life where they inherit billions of dollars fly around the world in a private jet marry three supermodel wives and run for president with the same playground insults they're using now?

"... you've been watching politics again haven't you?

"Yeah, I'm gonna go practice my jabs and get my licks in now before serious jailtime can accrue.....


Irontruth wrote:

One of the things Hillary mentioned in her Goldman-Sachs speech was opening borders for labor, not just goods. Legal migrant workers would give them legal protections, letting them unionize, pay taxes, etc. Legal status would give Mexican and Central American workers greater rights and opportunities.

All this will have consequences and side effects, and we'd need to hold lawmakers accountable for implementing this in a fair way that allows businesses to operate, but protects workers rights.

Is that the same one we were discussing before, or another one?

If another one, I haven't seen it, do you have a link?

If the same one, the speech was to Banco Itau in Brazil and it had nothing to do with immigration, but with energy policy, said her campaign.

Clinton Campaign: Hillary’s Previous Support Of Open Borders Is About ‘Energy Policy’


That doesn't seem very likely to me, as I've never even heard someone talking about energy policy needing "open borders" before. To me the excerpt of her speech sounds more like open borders for labor. Maybe that's just me though.

Besides, it's not like you limit your analysis of Clinton to only what her campaign says.


So, I was reading about Donald Trump's little echo chamber, and apparently some of his supporters are claiming Hillary had a "secret microphone" so people backstage could give her all the answers, and that's why she won the first debate.

Nevermind that she's an extremely experienced debater, publicly took time off to prepare for the debate, is self-described as a "policy wonk", and that Trump basically didn't prepare at all for it and has basically no ability to answer any question he's asked, eh?

And the whole drug thing, saying she was "worn down" at the end of the second debate? Maybe that was because, despite her impressive stamina, you'd just spent ninety minutes yelling over her and blaming her for anything and everything that had ever happened. o wo

Silver Crusade

Iron Truth Walls do in fact work. The Wall that Israel built has cut down suicide bombings in by over 95%.

By itself a wall will not end our imagration problems but comined with a national Identity card that must be presented to get a job, vote and get government health care and other government services. BY using a National Identity Card it would allow the US to normalize the undocumented that are all ready here. We could even set up hiring centers in Central Mexico to get ID's for those who want to come to the US to work we could even build a railroad to bring them to the US or contract with a bus company to provide them safe transport to the US so they are not taken advantage by the Cartels.


Irontruth wrote:

That doesn't seem very likely to me, as I've never even heard someone talking about energy policy needing "open borders" before. To me the excerpt of her speech sounds more like open borders for labor. Maybe that's just me though.

Besides, it's not like you limit your analysis of Clinton to only what her campaign says.

I posted that one above when we were talking about it a couple of days ago.

Since then, according to the Miami Herald:

But a campaign spokesman pointed to statements by Podesta and Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook on Oct. 9. Both said the context of that sentence related to green energy -- and wasn’t about people immigrating to the United States.

On Face the Nation, Mook said she was talking about integrating green energy between north and south America.

"But if the question is does Hillary Clinton support throwing open our borders, absolutely not. And she is going to do everything she can to fight to protect the interest of workers in this country. That is actually why she voted against the Central American free trade agreement when she was a senator," Mook said.

On Fox News Sunday, Podesta also said she was referring to clean energy.

"When she was secretary of state, she talked about creating a hemispheric effort to bring clean energy across the continent from the tip of South America to Canada, to invest in clean and renewable energy, to invest in the transmission that would clean up our energy system," Podesta said. "And I think when you look at what she said about immigration, she's for comprehensive immigration reform that takes people out of the shadows, emphasizes family unity, but also has -- modernizes our border security.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Lou Diamond wrote:

Iron Truth Walls do in fact work. The Wall that Israel built has cut down suicide bombings in by over 95%.

I think a proposed wall on the US border...just a hunch...would be a teeny bit larger than any wall Israel currently has (and just a teeny bit more expensive to build/maintain/staff).

Not to mention most illegal immigrants simply overstay their visas. A wall does nothing to stop that.

My number one problem with a wall however is the environmental impact; Building one would destroy the last tropical riverine habitat in USA, and basically wipe out US populations of many endangered species that rely upon habitat along the Rio Grande or which cross back and forth across the border. No more Jaguars...no more Ferruginous pygmy-owls, no more ocelot, etc.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A couple days ago, armed Trump supporters stood all day in front of a Democratic congressional campaign headquarters.

Today a Republican Party County Headquarters was firebombed

It's still three weeks until the election and the violence has begun


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone send me to Mars now please...


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Someone send me to Mars now please...

The Chinese just launched 2 astronauts and the basics of a space station. Perhaps you could quickly learn Chinese and apply to help them construct the larger habitat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:


It's still three weeks until the election and the violence has begun

"He might be pulling out, but we're not pulling out, and I'm going to stand my ground and speak out for what I believe in,"

When you're holding a gun and staring into someone's office all day, THEM shooting YOU is THEM standing THEIR ground against an armed intruder on their property...

Charles darwin is on speedial there.


Fergie wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Also, the whole NAFTA bit is nonsense, as has been pointed out by others.

Oh man, listening to Clinton voters justify NAFTA... that brings me back...

Puts on oversized flannel and slides Depeche Mode CD into Discman Velcroed to bicep.

It should. Like NAFTA, all those things predate the Clinton presidency.

https://www.britannica.com/event/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement

That is not a Clinton signing the NAFTA treaty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... it takes two when the truth is being spoken. One to speak it, and one to hear it.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Charles darwin is on speedial there.

Unfortunately the firebombing in North Carolina just Godwined the whole election.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Also, the whole NAFTA bit is nonsense, as has been pointed out by others.

Oh man, listening to Clinton voters justify NAFTA... that brings me back...

Puts on oversized flannel and slides Depeche Mode CD into Discman Velcroed to bicep.

It should. Like NAFTA, all those things predate the Clinton presidency.

https://www.britannica.com/event/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement

That is not a Clinton signing the NAFTA treaty.

And here's the speech Clinton gave before signing the NAFTA treaty into American* law.

Clinton Signs NAFTA

*Lo siento, "estadounidense".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
That doesn't seem very likely to me, as I've never even heard someone talking about energy policy needing "open borders" before.

It is actually quite common. Suppose that, on a given day, the wind is blowing in Scotland, but not Norway... build a connection between their grids (i.e. the 'NorthConnect' project) and they can transfer power from the areas with excess wind to the areas with not enough.

In the context of Clinton's speech, it would be a huge deal if we connected all the grids of North and South America. Connect areas with high wind and solar power potential to areas with large hydropower resources and you can smooth out the variability of wind and solar by using excess to pump water for the hydro plants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

A couple days ago, armed Trump supporters stood all day in front of a Democratic congressional campaign headquarters.

Today a Republican Party County Headquarters was firebombed

It's still three weeks until the election and the violence has begun

Clinton's response: "The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable. Very grateful that everyone is safe."

Trumps's response: "Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning"

NCGOP's response to Clinton: "Thank you for your thoughts & prayers, Sec. @HillaryClinton."

Democrat's response GoFundMe: "Dems help reopen a NC Repub office" ($13K+ so far)

5,001 to 5,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards