Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Hamilton Samuels]

Trump's FOX interview has people nervous:

It underscored why Trump’s legal team has become so determined to stop special counsel Bob Mueller from getting access, specifically demanding that questions related to potential obstruction of justice be off limits in any presidential interview. Trump’s lawyers say they’re afraid Mueller will lay “a perjury trap,” but the Fox hit shows Trump probably doesn’t need to be coaxed like some bear in the backwoods of Maine with doughnuts. He seems perfectly capable of entangling himself in potential legal and political jeopardy with little prompting.

“The headline bounty is proof that Trump is either too clueless or too reckless to understand the implications of his own words,” writes media critic Erik Wemple. “Whatever the case, his interviewer needs only to place topics before him, and let the tape roll.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/08/24/daily-202-fox-fallout-shows-why-trump-s-lawyers-don-t-want-mueller-to-get-an-interview/5b7f32791b326b3f31919d76/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f2d6e9d800f

So, in other words, Trump's lawyers don't want him to sit in an interview with Mueller because he is guilty as hell, and too stupid to not say something that makes that clear.

Got it.

So happy this man is our President.

YES, you are

Your money is in good shape - and you are safer than ever.  You are a citizen of a nation that is about to be built up stronger than it has been in recent memory.

You may even be part of the in the closet democrat wave that votes him in again - or withholds vote for the other side, never admitting it of course as you continue to spout on about how Trump is so bad for your people.

heh

Drunk posting, again?

[kiidcarter8]

How kid and red are defining leadership

http://youtu.be/V6bG-qrcQF0

Thanks

Led me to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe52Tpjo3AE

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taRI4cQO3Ro

[REDSTATEWARD]

I have no preordained vetting philosophy over possible immigrants, only a broad perspective of what they have to offer or could offer. There is very little along those lines that can be predictive based solely on chain migration. I would also favor abolishing the practice of automatically accepting a person as a citizen if the only criterion is they were born here.

[bankshot1]

I have no preordained vetting philosophy over possible immigrants, only a broad perspective of what they have to offer or could offer. There is very little along those lines that can be predictive based solely on chain migration. I would also favor abolishing the practice of automatically accepting a person as a citizen if the only criterion is they were born here.

I'm not at all sure that we can tell what important skills immigrants may bring to our country. For example, little did the entrepeneurs of centuries long gone understand that their role in chained migration would ultimately lead to the foundation of a multi-billion dollar sports industry or the creation of jazz.

Children born here not automatically citizens, on what basis would you deny some children citizenship?

[josh]

---How deporting immigrants from the U.S. increases immigration to the U.S.---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/22/u-s-deportation-policy-prompts-more-people-to-immigrate-to-the-u-s-heres-how-that-works/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f735c9bccfcb

Huh, run that back again. Authors really hate the present immigration policy. Spreading the look inward self-guilt. If the US is such a terrible guilt ridden place governed by a madman just stay out and develop your own societies.

If only we had stayed out of theirs, to start with.

And... the US is a terrible, guilt ridden place governed by a madman, but which happens to be orders of magnitude safer to live in than their own countries.

Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? It's like the folks coming to the US (or to Europe) on rafts, leaky boats, or by dubious smugglers... just how made do you think it has to have been where they were for the parents to prefer these hazards over staying where they are?

I just don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

[josh]

---Anti-immigration, like pro-immigration, is a legitimate political position---

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/06/anti-immigration-like-pro-immigration-is-a-legitimate-political-position

It's a legitimate position. So is pro-slavery.

It's a hugely foolhardy one, given this nation's population projections going forward and our employment situation.

[josh]

Trump's FOX interview has people nervous:

It underscored why Trump’s legal team has become so determined to stop special counsel Bob Mueller from getting access, specifically demanding that questions related to potential obstruction of justice be off limits in any presidential interview. Trump’s lawyers say they’re afraid Mueller will lay “a perjury trap,” but the Fox hit shows Trump probably doesn’t need to be coaxed like some bear in the backwoods of Maine with doughnuts. He seems perfectly capable of entangling himself in potential legal and political jeopardy with little prompting.

“The headline bounty is proof that Trump is either too clueless or too reckless to understand the implications of his own words,” writes media critic Erik Wemple. “Whatever the case, his interviewer needs only to place topics before him, and let the tape roll.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/08/24/daily-202-fox-fallout-shows-why-trump-s-lawyers-don-t-want-mueller-to-get-an-interview/5b7f32791b326b3f31919d76/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f2d6e9d800f

So, in other words, Trump's lawyers don't want him to sit in an interview with Mueller because he is guilty as hell, and too stupid to not say something that makes that clear.

Got it.

So happy this man is our President.

YES, you are

Your money is in good shape - and you are safer than ever.  You are a citizen of a nation that is about to be built up stronger than it has been in recent memory.

You may even be part of the in the closet democrat wave that votes him in again - or withholds vote for the other side, never admitting it of course as you continue to spout on about how Trump is so bad for your people.

heh

You probably even believe that.

The advice I've received is to get my stocks out of the market.

[barton]

My grandparents were immigrants with few skills.   The extended familial group helped them to develop skills, language proficiency and financial stability.   I have yet to hear a compelling case against chain migration.  Congratulations to your wife, WP,  on her RN and bringing a great work ethic.   

It is simply not possible to predict the life trajectories of individuals. 

[josh]

So much for the first lady’s parents...

I have no idea if Viktor or Amalija are "people we need to further our principles and ideals" (or whatever you want to pull out of REDSTATEWARD's word salad) but I do know that I can not think of a single problem the US faces that will be solved by ending chain migration.

And if REDSTATEWARD can, he won't say it.

Already did.
But to spell it out for you.
Chain migration means the immigrants decide who comes next. The multiplier is about 4-1 and the four are  not selected on the basis of their skills or potential to contribute to the well-being of the American people. They come simply because they are related.

Red is opposed to family togetherness and prefers we only bring parts of families in or singles.

[josh]

Why people bother having a rational conversation with you is beyond me.

*try to have

[josh]

I have no preordained vetting philosophy over possible immigrants, only a broad perspective of what they have to offer or could offer. There is very little along those lines that can be predictive based solely on chain migration. I would also favor abolishing the practice of automatically accepting a person as a citizen if the only criterion is they were born here.

You think the criterion of having a parent be a citizen is enough? Both parents?

Both parents be working, upstanding citizens who are not living on welfare? Neither homosexual?

Working, upstanding citizens who are not of the wrong color and not on welfare?

White Christians! I've got it.

I know, I know... you already very sensibly declared that you have no standards in mind to qualify, only reservations about the current qualifications.

But the above reservations are those of many others of your party, if not yours, and it is reason enough to not trust this purely to a democratic process.

[REDSTATEWARD]

---Anti-immigration, like pro-immigration, is a legitimate political position---

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/06/anti-immigration-like-pro-immigration-is-a-legitimate-political-position

It's a legitimate position. So is pro-slavery.

It's a hugely foolhardy one, given this nation's population projections going forward and our employment situation.

we are supposed to open our borders because some Americans prefer to get paid not to work?  Another reason to abolish chain migration and to pass work for welfare legislation.

[josh]

---Anti-immigration, like pro-immigration, is a legitimate political position---

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/06/anti-immigration-like-pro-immigration-is-a-legitimate-political-position

It's a legitimate position. So is pro-slavery.

It's a hugely foolhardy one, given this nation's population projections going forward and our employment situation.

we are supposed to open our borders because some Americans prefer not to get paid not to work?  Another reason to abolish chain migration and to pass work for welfare legislation.

You think "pro-immigration" means open-borders?

No, you misunderstand.

Anti-immigration means closed borders.

I am arguing that the country needs to let some people in. I am not insisting that nobody should be excluded; I'm arguing only that the extreme position in opposition is far more harmful to the country than I would like to brook. I think it is probably worse than open-borders, but I'm not advocating for that, either.

[josh]

[REDSTATEWARD]

I have no preordained vetting philosophy over possible immigrants, only a broad perspective of what they have to offer or could offer. There is very little along those lines that can be predictive based solely on chain migration. I would also favor abolishing the practice of automatically accepting a person as a citizen if the only criterion is they were born here.

You think the criterion of having a parent be a citizen is enough? Both parents?

One is fine

Both parents be working, upstanding citizens who are not living on welfare?

receiving welfare does not negate citizenship

Neither homosexual?

Either or both. (As in any sexual preference that is legal )

Working, upstanding citizens who are not of the wrong color and not on welfare?

I might have a problem with Chartreuse.
Welfare, as I said, I don’t.

White Christians! I've got it.
 

Thankfully your bigotry is not contagious.

Ev