I do think that's a problem. And if you have no idea where it came from or what's driving it, your odds of fixing it by accident are very low. That's why I bothered to correct you, on your paragraph of bs regarding the causes and consequences of the problem. You made several false claims in there, and I showed you how one of them - that "the hispanics" deliberately and preferentially migrated to places with generous welfare benefits and bleed them dry - appears to be wrong. "The hispanics" don't do that, apparently. Apply that standard to the rest of that little blob of ill will and ignorance, and fix it so that it contains true statements and reasonable assertions. No. For example, it is against the law to recruit illegal immigrants to one's chicken processing plant and abuse them for higher profit margins. And it's much easier to cut off this demand for illegal immigrants than to block a supply so well financed and arranged by the rich and powerful in America. Without the economic demand, the corporate recruiting and abusive hiring, the only remaining immigrants would be genuine refugees from the bad stuff American has launched in the south - fewer in number, and morally better entitled. So that would be a good place to start enforcing the law, as you note is very important we do. Mexican labor is more expensive than the labor of China and India, and features a smaller pool of skilled and educated (it's a much smaller country, in population) There is also a drug war, driven largely by US demand and armed largely by US gunrunning, that creates serious problems - risk of kidnappings of executives, violence against employees, etc. And of course the market, in Mexico, is not only much smaller but already acquired. Are these matters unknown to you, unfamiliar?
Back in the nineties, hopeful advocates of NAFTA cited Mexico's strong labor laws. Fun part is I got that from a known racist website, though the article came from F. Ray Marshall, who served as the sixteenth Secretary of Labor, under President Carter. The point being that while there might be less expensive labor right next door, Mexican companies can't do to their factory workers what American tech companies find various Asian firms capable of accomplishing. In this case, the prejudice against Mexico is well-founded: Mexicans are too civilized to meet certain American needs, and therefore just bad for business.
Viewing this interesting discussion from across the pond, and thinking of our own recent Triumph of the Stupid, two things strike me. One is that we do indeed have a lot of people who feel their standard of living has deteriorated or stagnated, that things used to be better, and that government policy is preoccupied with helping people other than them (e.g. the jargon of "identity politics" we are fed so relentlessly these days, in which everyone worthy of interest seems to need to be a victim of some kind). I think this is a real and valuable finding for our societies. It deserves to be a shot across the bows of the both the multiculturalists and those of us who have prospered, somewhat complacently, from the current economic order while others have not. The other thing that strikes me is that society has not yet learned how to use the new information channels wisely and, in particular, that society's grip on the importance of truth seems to have slipped. The lack of editorial control of social media makes it very easy for utter rubbish to be spread around. For example, I see Faecebook is struggling with claims that it facilitated - and then tried to censor? - the spreading of "fake news" during the US campaign. We have now seen the success of an actual, real-life, presidential candidate who speaks like these social media, saying whatever rubbish appeals to his audience at the time, with no regard to its veracity. And yet, people do not care! We had much the same dynamics at work over Brexshit. One has to hope that these two experiences may help our countries learn that truthfulness does matter and that one should be careful about what is told to us by like-minded people on the internet. By the way, one notorious and much repeated cry during the Brexshit campaign was "We've had enough of experts." And now, as a result of not listening to "experts", we get this sort of thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948 . Great!
First, it is well known that employers are just as guilty in hiring illegals but to paint all who come to america are somehow pitiful refugees that are being abused or victims in their home country is bullshit. Do you know them or how much they actually make here or their backstory? I do. Is it unimaginable to you that many jump the border for better opportunities or the american dream? Or does it fit your logic that they must be starving, oppressed refugees from mexico? It shocks you people come for just more money or better pay. Have you seen a skinny mexican? Also the truth is in america they make good money without paying taxes while they collectively draw a large percentage of welfare benefits. You can pretend its not true or ignore it. You seem to think its ill will. Secondly, the statistic is not really accurate because it isnt necessarily the states with most on welfare which is what is usually the focus but those areas that have higher payout. For instance, there may be more numbers of welfare recipients in the southern regions but is not the most generous. Liberal states have higher payout or easier to attain. There are other factors also when it comes to certain demographics such as politics or how welcoming a certain area is vs another, other avenues of services not government documented, cities or towns etc. Bottomline, its about apples not just oranges. Third, the war on drugs is not just because of american demand. Its also because mexico is a corrupt government in bed with the cartels. They recieve kickbacks in the billions from them. You seem to whitewash the corruption of mexican government and corporate all the way down the line in how they do business. Nepotism, bribery, police corruption, lax or un-enforced laws etc are a norm. I suppose the only reason we dont get drugs from canada is because its too cold to grow any, right? Bottomline, you place all the blame on america and its corporations and employers. But reject evasively the idea of stricter penalties for those who knowingly break the law to illegally enter. Employers who hire them do get fined or face penalties in some states but it makes you wonder why you see mexicans as if they have no mind or will but lured as victims. Oh yes, they are recruited against their will? Human trafficking is another issue. It is not the same thing, bleeding heart liberal.
Way too silly. Talk about political correctness gone bonkers. There are reasons its bad for business but civility has nothing to do with it and you know it. Did you type that with a straight face?
How labels change. In the past it was liberals who were pro-union and conservatives all about free market enterprise. I dont even think people vote correctly based on a rundown of what their political views are. Many african americans vote democrat sometimes just out of tradition or racial issues even if in reality they are conservative in every other area. Some whites vote republican even if they are liberal except for racial issues, again. For instance, the typical republican is supposedly about free enterprise and expansion but now they are protectionist and pro-union.
The average blue class worker voted for Obama in the last election cycle, over Romney. The blue color vote is not about black or white or about male versus female as the liberal propaganda claims. It is more about change versus status quo. Obama promised change compared to the time of Bush. This cycle, with the fix in for Hillary Clinton, the Democrats only targeted the rich for donations, the poor with freebies, and the youth with tuition freebies, while forgetting about the blue color worker. The blue color worker was left out in the cold, for the other groups that the Democrats chose. This was induced in part by Bernie Sanders who was for the blue color worker, with he and Hillary carving up their party into two. Beyond favoritism by Hillary, it was also PC acceptable to accuse the blue color worker as being backwards for voting Trump. The Democrat base can't grasp the fact, that they created this reality, by their pitting groups against each other, for votes. Under Obama, the wealthy top 10% gained more wealth than even, while more than 50% of the populations in the U.S. are on some kind of government assistance. Meanwhile, Wall St. had a 7-year bonanza. The group that got screwed, in this math, were the middle class, who saw loss of jobs and little in terms of cost of living increase. They were then also getting screwed by constantly rising ObamaCare Premiums, which you are forced to buy. The rich and poor, are buffered from this extra cost. Trump saw this inequality and capitalized on the middle, promising to level the playing field. For example, doing away with Obama Care helps the middle class, only the rich and the poor democrat constituencies cry foul. In the mind of the Trump voter, if there are women's rights, then there should also men's rights. That is called a being fair. If we are all equal why does only one sex have extra rights? But to Democrats, a dual standard is considered valid, since the majority of women tend to vote democrat, only they can have special rights. If men ask for men's rights, PC will call this sexists. Since most blacks vote lock step for Democrats, they also expect extra rights and freebies; quip pro quo. But if the white ask for this same considerations, they are called racist. The Trump voter sees the dual standard, and silently complained. They only wish for a level playing field. Then don't wish to cheat like the Democrat party constituents. They prefer everyone have the same rights. The Democrats were willing to vote for a person like Hillary, who lies and cheats the system, since they also do this. They think they are entitled to a dual standard, like Hillary. It did not matter if she was good person, only the dual standard of her being a woman. This is why the chants, clean the swamp and a corrupt system, resonated with those who were getting screwed. They found a voice and leader. Trump immediately tested the PC waters to make the dual standard stand out. The emotional break down and the temper tantrums of the left, after the election of Trump, are withdrawal symptoms of the spelled child, who sees the prospect of having to play on a level playing field, since corruption was voted down. When Trump is done, the you will not recognize the Democratic party. Without dual standards to divide the country and the promise of freebies to vote Democrats, the party of scams and dual standards will not be able to herd the same zombies. Many of the zombies will awaken to become independent. As an example of the change, I heard that Trump has suggested making abortion the decision of individual states. He is suggesting no federal funding for abortion. Each states gets to deal with abortion as they see fit. This breaks up the Democratic party monopoly on disillusioned women, since some states will change the law locally. What it also does is make Democrats pay for abortion, since most of the abortions will end up occurring in Democrats controlled states, who will vote to keep it. The Democrats will need to pay for its own freebies, which will begin to wear thin and divide the party down money lines. States that don't accept abortion, will save money. They will also have the Democrat states to pay; women will migrate there for abortions. If these states don't pay for all women from other states, who want abortion, this will be called bigotry by propaganda. The extra cost tension will divide the women; women come up for play in the next election.
The fact that you seem to have this delusion that refusing safe abortion will ultimately save money is absolutely fucking terrifying... If you get rid of the ability for women to get safe and effective, medically sound abortions, then a (quite possibly large) number of them will seek alternatives... and let me tell you, coathanger abortions are not only not pretty, but are dangerous... and unless you plan to do away with the Hippocratic Oath and allow Emergency Rooms to start turning away people in need of life saving care, then taxpayers will be paying even more when these desperate folks need emergency medical care to save them from the nasty side effects of these illicit abortions...
The republicans are not going to outlaw abortions, if they did then a significant percentage of their voters would say "mission accomplished" and not show up to vote next time, worse how it would rally the left would be their doom. So instead they will simply pound their fist about dead babies to get the anti-abortion vote, implement laws and regulations that will make abortions harder to get so they can say they did something, yet not too hard to prevent rallying the left... frankly IMHO it is even a higher from of dickishness.
First off, my entire post there was built around the obvious fact that most illegal immigrants come here for the jobs, ambitious for better work and higher pay. That's what recruiting by employers - my suggestion for an initial focus of law enforcement to block illegal immigration - is all about, after all: attracting employees. So where did that go so completely haywire in your head? In the second place, there is an entire crew of skinny Mexicans roofing a house down the street from my housebound friend as I type. Every one of them pays taxes - property, income, and withholding - which the illegal ones will never get to see the benefit of, or the returns from. And abused refugees from the US-hatched ugliness in the south are frequently fat, from bad diets -you have a fairly ugly little dementia fermenting in there between your ears. Of course that doesn't mean the Trump vote was entirely based on racist ignorance and shit-for-brains frustration with the consequences of having voted for Reagan and his heirs, but it does highlight the possibility. My table of statistics was of payouts. It showed that illegal immigrants do not prefer and migrate to the States with higher welfare payouts, as you falsely claimed. The cartels exist to supply American demand. The entire disaster that is the drug scene in Mexico is a consequence of American drug demand and American drug laws - and American gun markets, American involvement in clandestine political operations, etc, of course. Goofy. I merely recommend focusing the initial law enforcement efforts on the larger employers, for obvious reasons: 1) As individuals they are committing bigger crimes for worse reasons, doing more damage and causing worse harm, than the individual immigrants. 2) It is easier and cheaper to take down a couple of major criminals than to round up thousands of minor ones, and probably far more effective as well, because 3) their motives for breaking the law are more easily curbed - the immigrants are very difficult to discourage, but executives of corporations seem to find the prospect of even short stints in jail a significant dissuader. So more bang for the buck, see. Your mass roundup of millions and deportation to somewhere on the other side of the newly built biggest wall in the world seems like it might work, but it's going to take decades and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It would be nice to handle the largest share of the problem a bit faster and cheaper than that, don't you think?
Abortion will not be illegal. The change that is being proposed is abortion will no longer be covered by a one size fits all federal law. Rather it will be up to each state to decide how they wish to deal with abortion. Some states will allow abortion, immediately. Others states will not allow it. The net result is there will be many legal states for women to get state of the art abortions. One problem, the legal abortion states will face is, there will not federal money for abortion, since this will be taken care of at the state level. The result is the legal states will become the mecca for women seeking abortion, from the illegal states. The legal states will have to cover the tab or the women will need to have their own money. The pro-abortion states may need to pay higher taxes, to cover the over flow cost, and/or the rich Democrats, from across the country will need to donate more to abortion charities. The analogy is, casino gambling is not allowed in all states. The Federal government leaves this decision to the states. There is no one size fits all law for gambling. At the same time, it is not illegal to travel to a legal gambling state, if you wish to gamble, legally. I wish to go to Las Vegas, it is not illegal, even if my state does not allow gambling. When I come home, it is back to normal. The new law will create an abortion tourism industry.
Except it is about black and white and many other cultures and colors. Whether you can understand it or admit it or not, the fact remains, not all blue collar voters vote the same way. The fact is Trump lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes. His win, was due to the very undemocratic aspects of our election process. So let's keep it honest. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows, facts do matter outside Republican Land. The "fix was in for Hillary"? Then why did she lose? The fact is Hillary received more donations from small donors, more in number and in aggregate, that your buddy Trump. You don't think tuition assistance helps middle class families? If you do, that just goes to show how divorced from reality Republicans really are. As you have stated, you think Hillary's promise of a tuition free education was a bribe; while you ignore the huge tax cuts Trump promised America's richest residents. Trump targeted America's richest with huge tax breaks. And your evidence is where? The fact is America's wealthiest always do better no matter who is president. Democrats have fought to change that system. Republicans have fought to keep the status quo. That's why they like to refer to themselves as "conservative". Trump's voters are poorly informed, under educated, gullible, confused, and emotionally bound to an ideology which runs counter to their interests. Ironically, Trump's supporters voted for an unprecedented liar: a man who has taken pride in how well he lies. Analysts have found Trump is the most prolific liar we have seen in American politics. That's quite an achievement. The Trump voter sees nothing and hears nothing Trump doesn't want him/her to see or hear. The irony here is that Trump supporters have elected the most corrupt candidate. In 2 weeks Trump is set to go to trial on corruption charges, and that is just the first of many. People are suing Trump for fraud. That has not happened to any other presidential candidate. So in typical Republican fashion, you believe the guy who is facing multiple law suits for fraud is a saint; while those who have never been charged with fraud and for which there is no evidence of wrong doing are corrupt. Ironically, you only see what you want to see. Any campaign promise a Democrat makes is a bribe, but any campaign promise made by a Republican is totally ignored. You don't see the hypocrisy? You don't think Trump's tax deduction promises are bribes? If you paid attention to your candidate, you would know Trump said no such thing. Trump has said abortion is settled law. It was settled by the US Supreme Court, neither Trump nor Congress can change it. It's one of those constitutional thingies. The law already prohibits federal spending on abortion. Each state cannot decide abortion rights per that Constitution thingy. I'm always amazed at how ignorant Republicans are of the issues they like to complain about.
Nah. Don't pay too much attention to the froth of respectability-mongers the Republican Party keeps on hand to write in the newspaper and go on TV and say big words in imitation of the people who have thoughts. They're all having the faintods over this, but they haven't had any real relevance to the Party since the 1980s. Romney proved that. Seriously: this is W&Cheney again, Reagan redux. Corrected for vulgarity, recalibrated for the modern mouth, Trump talks just like Reagan, W, Limbaugh, Scarborough, Hannity, Coulter, the whole shitpile. The same "Democrats" and those noble "independents" supported him as supported Reagan and W (and McCain, Bush, etc, for that matter). He won the Republican primary by appealing to the core Republican voter, the center of the Party's electoral base, and he won the election the same way - plus "somebody" suppressing the vote and diddling the voting machines here and there, but that's become a kind of a tradition as well (for how many consecutive elections now have we seen the long lines outside the polling places in the Democratic districts, and the machine totals diverging from the exit polls in Republican favor in the key States disproportionately? It's like the clip of the President pardoning the turkey on Thanksgiving - we all know what's going on the table later, but it's somehow heartwarming anyway). It's not that Trump is somehow not the monster he appears to be - it's that the Republican Party is also the horrible thing it appears to be, and has been, increasingly feeling its oats, for decades now. Trump is the latest manifestation of, not aberration from, the Republican Party's constituency and basic nature.
Well, Then Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While the personality cult of Donald Trump already exists, it seems some manner of significant threshold is achieved when the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology goes and says something like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX21) did: In a remarkable Tuesday night floor speech, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, praised the physical and mental powers of President Trump and encouraged people to get "unvarnished" news directly from the president, not from the news media. "Just think what the media would be saying about President Trump if he were a Democrat," Smith said during the evening time reserved for one-minute speeches. "He has tremendous energy. He campaigned for 18 months, puts in 15-hour days, and has the stamina of a bull elephant, like Teddy Roosevelt. He is courageous and fearless. Given the amount of hate directed his way, no doubt he constantly receives death threats, but that doesn't curtail his public appearances or seem to worry him in the least." ‡ The rest of Smith's speech included praise for how Trump involved his children in decisions — a subject of some controversy among progressive legal groups — and a laundry list of accomplishments he credited to the president, including a spike in the consumer confidence index. "The national liberal media won't print that, or air it, or post it," Smith said. "Better to get your news directly from the president. In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth." (Weigel↱) Perhaps, then, the Cult of President Donald Trump begins with the House Science Chairman. In which case, well, of course it does. These are, after all, Republicans. ____________________ Notes: Weigel, David. "House Science Committee chairman: Americans should get news from Trump, not media". The Washington Post. 25 January 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 25 January 2017. http://wapo.st/2jfK1eW
As much as I despise Clinton, she had it right when she called Trump voters "deplorables". They are. And now we will have deplorable governance. It follows.
Of course you don't really think that Lamar Smith actually believes what he said or for that matter actually said it do you? I mean, if we assume that the media is reporting his quote accurately and he did utter those words do you honestly believe that a rational person could utter those words? Indeed Lamar Smith was not speaking but a Trump "clone" was. When stuck in a hive mentality which Trump supporters quickly become, they have no choice but to emmulate the thoughts of their hive queen ( king) So dare I suggest that Lamar as a free-willed entity, was not actually present when uttering those ridiculous words. The thing is, if it is ridiculous then it is actually ridiculous. Not unlike the citizens of Germany "irrationally" supporting Adolf Hitler (pre ww2) in his quest to commit genocide. ( Did I hear someone mention the "occult") So the question remains: Why are normally self willed, self determined persons emmulating someone else s craziness? There is ample evidence around the world of crazy sh*t phenomena that science can not currently explain and given the way science is "Einstein" focused will never be able to explain thus one can only use the word "Paranormal" when attempting to explain the inexplicable. (why are individuals so suddenly so influential when normally they would be considered in more rational ways?) QED and QM are closer to explaining but have a long way to go IMO. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Charismatic leader of ISIL. (Ambition: world Islamic domination) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: Charismatic leader of Turkey ( Ambition: dictatorship of and the reestablishment of the old Ottoman empire) Donald Trump: Charismatic leader USA ( Ambition: Dictatorship, World domination or destruction, which ever comes first) Rodrigo Duterte: Charismatic leader of the Philippines: ( Kill them all) Kim Jong-un: Charismatic leader of North Korea (ambition to extort his way to world leadership) and the list just seems to keep on going... From personal experience, it is able to be determined when someone is under the extreme coercive influence of another by the degree of irrational and absurd things they say, beliefs they hold and actions they perform.. Well the world has many such *extreme examples currently and Trump and his supporters are only one of them. *note: It is quite normal for all humans to emmulate others whilst retaining rational faculty however in extreme cases that rational faculty breaks down because the victims unique (4 dimensional) perspective is being ignored and over ridden by another foreign perspective. In religious circles they would refer to it as "Possession" in psychology they would refer to it as extremely "impressionable" or simply and expeditiously diagnose Schizophrenia and throw meds at it. Trump is a master of deliberately generating "Mass hysteria", of the sort that gets people trampled on in a stampede as they try to escape a perceived threat. So far just about all his actions and utterances have been directed at generating this mass hysteria. BUT Trump is also a victim, and indeed the victim that is "lost" the most.
I might add to my rant by suggesting that there is a very big difference between culpable lying and acting under extreme paranormal influence. The victim does not lie....because the victim is no longer in control. So when you call his lie he/she will fight irrationally and go on supporting an obvious falsehood or simply "run away". Culpability is missing entirely. Because culpability is lacking , forgiveness is almost automatic...(instinctive) and so the problem is thus reinforced. The "run away" reaction is because the victim is attempting to deal with their own inexplicable and deeply embarrassing behavior....
