Trump

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.

OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.

OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.

That's interesting. That's a very articulate statement and not one that Trump would ever normally say. I think it is too nuanced for his fans to be honest.

OffSheGoes35

Do you think your initial gut reaction was incorrect?

josevolution

Yes my gut for sure fuck Trump !

bootlegger10

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.

OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.

I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.

mickeyrat

bootlegger10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.

OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.

I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.

measured by population share.....

mrussel1

bootlegger10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.

"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.

Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.

To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.

We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."

He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.

OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.

I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.

My read as well. I doubt it was a% of the population as that number would be higher.

gimmesometruth27

The leader of the gop is in a Twitter pissing match with the leader of a foreign country and our ally. Diplomacy at work my friends, believe me.

OffSheGoes35

josevolution said:

Yes my gut for sure fuck Trump !

Lol!

HughFreakingDillon

Even if trump gets the white house, there is no way in fucking hell any wall is getting built. I would seriously bet my house on that.

benjs

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Free said:

I have nothing with you personally Halifax. Just trying to figure out the need of being a political apologist. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, I didn't really aim it at you personally but the apologists here. (You. As in "all of you" here).

Glenn Greenwald was on Democracy Now yesterday talking about how Clinton's main opponent is an untenable candidate, which is leaving her in a position where people are reticent to address some serious issues, and to be honest, I agree. Her hawkish tendencies will perpetuate the same "invade until they behave like us or in ways that benefit us", as they have historically in her political tenure (i.e. her support of several military coups in South America, as well as her silence on the topic of the current quasi-coup with the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil). Her commitment to government bailouts, to perpetuating (or growing) the delta between the richest and the poorest in America, and yes, her flat-out denial of any wrongdoings on the topic of her private servers in the White House. Free, I'm doing an about face, and I agree with you. It's time to hold Clinton accountable for her actions - even when her opponent is a cross between mummified foreskin and cotton candy.

Benjs - I'm going to challenge a few statements here. I will cherry pick a few because others I can agree with, so don't read it wrong:

1. Bailouts - which bailouts do you support and which do you oppose? Do you oppose the GM bailout along with the banks? If yes, please explain the rationale. If you opposed both, well then you are a pure capitalist and I give you credit for consistency.

2. Servers - Clinton has apologized MULTIPLE times for setting up the server. Her first specific one was in in Q3 of '15, here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970 She apologized many more times including last week on Morning Joe. What else do you expect of her?

3. Warhawk... that's a tough one. Remember she was executing the policy of Obama. That's not to say she didn't agree with it, but it was the administration policy. I've found it interesting to see the vitriol against HRC for her time at State and the absolute silence to hold Obama to the same standard when, as Harry Truman famously said "The buck stops here."

1. I don't feel that we in the public reserve the right to pick and choose what bailouts to support, especially when corporations like GM so resemble banks. Monthly payments and interest charges effectively provide clients the right to withhold full payments owed in exchange for fees. Of course, there's more to a car company and to a bank, but this is a gist of it. Whether a poor-quality product is provided, or a poor-yielding set of investments is made, both entities responsible ought to be held accountable. That said, mrussell, if you're more well-versed and can add info to this topic, please do!

You are correct that in some ways, an automotive company is similar to a bank (although GM spun off GMAC financing into Ally Bank a few years ago). But they are structured in similar ways and have similar issues. Without getting into the details, I supported both bailouts. And I did so for overlapping reasons. (Disclaimer: During 2008 crisis, I was in senior management at a large bank. We took TARP money because we were forced to do so by the government. The gov made solvent banks take TARP as well so the market didn't destroy the ones that were distressed... different argument though. But anyway, my perspective may be different than others.)

So I supported both bailouts. The reason I supported GM was because of all the people that were employed or connected to GM through the supply chain (truck drivers, parts makers, dealerships, etc.). The resulting unemployment, particularly in the Midwest, would have been fairly substantial and worsened an already sick economy. So the government bought preferred shares of GM (rather than just loaning $, creating more debt for them) and GM recovered. Now we taxpayers lost probably 10 billion on that deal after the government sold its shares, but that's far less than it probably would have paid in unemployment, lost taxes (personal and business), lower GDP, etc. So in all, I think it was a wise thing to do. And think of how many families that the small 10 billion investment saved.

TARP - this is the one people had a bigger problem with, but to me it was essentially the same concept, but the ramifications would have been far worse. Regardless of whose fault it was (that's a whole different discussion), the reality is that Bank provide two essential services in this country. First, they provide not only loans for cars, homes, etc, but they provide essential small business loans that are used to keep these companies afloat through payroll, through slow pay of clients etc. Second, the top six banks in the US employ 800K people. 98% of these people are just like you and me. They are middle class, and earn between 40 and 100k per year. If these banks had failed, how many middle class families would have suffered the same fate as GM families? Untold amounts, particularly since it wasn't the Chase and Citi's that really needed TARP, it was all the regional and second tier banks. And if the gov't let them fail, would the Jamie Dimon (Chase) or Ken Lewis (BAC) be hurt? Hell no. They are ungodly rich already. Letting the banks fail hurts middle class employees, not the C class.
And then you let the banks fail. Then what? Then the credit market tightens because there is more competition for %, so interest rates raise. Who gets hurt there? Consumers and small business's that can't afford the double digit rates. So small businesses close because they can't float their receivable, or can't pay employees. It's a reverberating effect.

And what was the final cost of TARP? Officially the taxpayers made about 15 billion but I suspect it was an even trade because of value of the dollar and inflation. Either way, both investments were wise to me. They were not pure capitalistic, but in many ways humanitarian.

Sorry so long Benjs, but this is something I have thought about for many years.

This is fantastic information, thanks so much for the thorough explanation mrussell! It's frustrating to hear that corporate structures are even allowed to be designed in ways such that if and when they fall, the people on the top are practically unaffected, and stakeholders and employees are left to suffer. How scrutinized are restructuring plans when corporations require bailout money? Should a prerequisite of taking government assistance not be preventative measures to truly hold those on top accountable for their actions? From what you've said, it really does sound like the bailouts are with merit, but it concerns me that they can simply make the same mistakes, and expect the precedent of government assistance - ultimately still at the expense of the taxpayers.

Jason P

HughFreakingDillon said:

Even if trump gets the white house, there is no way in fucking hell any wall is getting built. I would seriously bet my house on that.

580 miles have already been completed (thanks, O'bummer)

The Juggler

unsung said:

The Juggler said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and how is he going to "MAKE" Mexico pay for the wall? send them a bill and then sick a collection agency on them? them claim bankruptcy and then blame them for all the financial ills of 'murica?

This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.

No more foreign aid.

No. That is not how Trump thinks Mexico will pay for his fake wall.

This is how he thinks Mexico will pay for his fake wall. The article also tells you why it absolutely will not work:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

I'm just saying there's a way. It's stupid to think there isnt.

That's your argument?

unsung

No need to argue with those that would prefer to give the country over to third worlders.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

No need to argue with those that would prefer to give the country over to third worlders.

lol...says the anarchist

unsung

You must not lock your doors to your house and car?

ikiT

HOW is it POSSIBLE that we're still talking about Donald J Trump as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States? In September of 2016?
<>
The Presidency. That good for nothing Jets fan.
<>
He'd be a good President of the New York Jets. THAT I could get behind.
I believe he would be a HORRIBLE commissioner of the National Football League , so forget it. but as President of the Jets, he's only going to be making that team suck with his "leadership", not the ENTIRE United States of America. There's a HUUGE difference.

#whatadouche

mrussel1

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Free said:

I have nothing with you personally Halifax. Just trying to figure out the need of being a political apologist. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, I didn't really aim it at you personally but the apologists here. (You. As in "all of you" here).

Glenn Greenwald was on Democracy Now yesterday talking about how Clinton's main opponent is an untenable candidate, which is leaving her in a position where people are reticent to address some serious issues, and to be honest, I agree. Her hawkish tendencies will perpetuate the same "invade until they behave like us or in ways that benefit us", as they have historically in her political tenure (i.e. her support of several military coups in South America, as well as her silence on the topic of the current quasi-coup with the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil). Her commitment to government bailouts, to perpetuating (or growing) the delta between the richest and the poorest in America, and yes, her flat-out denial of any wrongdoings on the topic of her private servers in the White House. Free, I'm doing an about face, and I agree with you. It's time to hold Clinton accountable for her actions - even when her opponent is a cross between mummified foreskin and cotton candy.

Benjs - I'm going to challenge a few statements here. I will cherry pick a few because others I can agree with, so don't read it wrong:

1. Bailouts - which bailouts do you support and which do you oppose? Do you oppose the GM bailout along with the banks? If yes, please explain the rationale. If you opposed both, well then you are a pure capitalist and I give you credit for consistency.

2. Servers - Clinton has apologized MULTIPLE times for setting up the server. Her first specific one was in in Q3 of '15, here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970 She apologized many more times including last week on Morning Joe. What else do you expect of her?

3. Warhawk... that's a tough one. Remember she was executing the policy of Obama. That's not to say she didn't agree with it, but it was the administration policy. I've found it interesting to see the vitriol against HRC for her time at State and the absolute silence to hold Obama to the same standard when, as Harry Truman famously said "The buck stops here."

1. I don't feel that we in the public reserve the right to pick and choose what bailouts to support, especially when corporations like GM so resemble banks. Monthly payments and interest charges effectively provide clients the right to withhold full payments owed in exchange for fees. Of course, there's more to a car company and to a bank, but this is a gist of it. Whether a poor-quality product is provided, or a poor-yielding set of investments is made, both entities responsible ought to be held accountable. That said, mrussell, if you're more well-versed and can add info to this topic, please do!

You are correct that in some ways, an automotive company is similar to a bank (although GM spun off GMAC financing into Ally Bank a few years ago). But they are structured in similar ways and have similar issues. Without getting into the details, I supported both bailouts. And I did so for overlapping reasons. (Disclaimer: During 2008 crisis, I was in senior management at a large bank. We took TARP money because we were forced to do so by the government. The gov made solvent banks take TARP as well so the market didn't destroy the ones that were distressed... different argument though. But anyway, my perspective may be different than others.)

So I supported both bailouts. The reason I supported GM was because of all the people that were employed or connected to GM through the supply chain (truck drivers, parts makers, dealerships, etc.). The resulting unemployment, particularly in the Midwest, would have been fairly substantial and worsened an already sick economy. So the government bought preferred shares of GM (rather than just loaning $, creating more debt for them) and GM recovered. Now we taxpayers lost probably 10 billion on that deal after the government sold its shares, but that's far less than it probably would have paid in unemployment, lost taxes (personal and business), lower GDP, etc. So in all, I think it was a wise thing to do. And think of how many families that the small 10 billion investment saved.

TARP - this is the one people had a bigger problem with, but to me it was essentially the same concept, but the ramifications would have been far worse. Regardless of whose fault it was (that's a whole different discussion), the reality is that Bank provide two essential services in this country. First, they provide not only loans for cars, homes, etc, but they provide essential small business loans that are used to keep these companies afloat through payroll, through slow pay of clients etc. Second, the top six banks in the US employ 800K people. 98% of these people are just like you and me. They are middle class, and earn between 40 and 100k per year. If these banks had failed, how many middle class families would have suffered the same fate as GM families? Untold amounts, particularly since it wasn't the Chase and Citi's that really needed TARP, it was all the regional and second tier banks. And if the gov't let them fail, would the Jamie Dimon (Chase) or Ken Lewis (BAC) be hurt? Hell no. They are ungodly rich already. Letting the banks fail hurts middle class employees, not the C class.
And then you let the banks fail. Then what? Then the credit market tightens because there is more competition for %, so interest rates raise. Who gets hurt there? Consumers and small business's that can't afford the double digit rates. So small businesses close because they can't float their receivable, or can't pay employees. It's a reverberating effect.

And what was the final cost of TARP? Officially the taxpayers made about 15 billion but I suspect it was an even trade because of value of the dollar and inflation. Either way, both investments were wise to me. They were not pure capitalistic, but in many ways humanitarian.

Sorry so long Benjs, but this is something I have thought about for many years.

This is fantastic information, thanks so much for the thorough explanation mrussell! It's frustrating to hear that corporate structures are even allowed to be designed in ways such that if and when they fall, the people on the top are practically unaffected, and stakeholders and employees are left to suffer. How scrutinized are restructuring plans when corporations require bailout money? Should a prerequisite of taking government assistance not be preventative measures to truly hold those on top accountable for their actions? From what you've said, it really does sound like the bailouts are with merit, but it concerns me that they can simply make the same mistakes, and expect the precedent of government assistance - ultimately still at the expense of the taxpayers.

If my memory serves me correctly, TARP money came with some provisions on executive pay. It was a few months after the release but there was an uproar about it so the gov't corrected the oversight. But even with that, the executives were likely wealthy before the collapse so that wasn't a really penal requirement. I don't know if that was the case with GM.

Post TARP, the regulators did two things (among many): 1. Dramatically reduced the fees that could be charged consumers (Card Act) and increased the reserves required (This means you have to have x% of cash on hand for your outstanding loans). This really shored up the banks' balance sheets but ironically it gave rise to all of the high interest lending for subprime customers that you have today. Payday lenders, online lending etc. sprung up because the regulators forced the big banks out of that business and now customers pay a MUCH higher interest rate for loans. It's the law of unintended consequences and a rant for a different day...

Gern Blansten

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12759020/trump-foundation-illegal-campaign-funding

Good article. As much as we hear how the press protects Hillary it is amazing how this story isn't being run 24/7....you can bet if the Clinton Foundation was fined it would be.

Gern Blansten

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/eric-trump-hispanic-surrogates-withdraw-support-227671?cmpid=sf

Eric Trump expressed incredulity Friday in reaction to the disavowal of two of the campaign's Hispanic surrogates in the wake of Donald Trump's immigration speech this week, suggesting that the campaign would try to reach back out to them and clarify his father's position on the issue.
Both Jacob Monty, a member of Trump's National Hispanic Advisory Council, and surrogate Alfonso Aguilar, the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said Thursday that they are no longer supporting the Republican nominee. Other members of the council have suggested that they might also pull their support.

Eric Trump, Professional Dumbass