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

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/14/investing/stocks-week-ahead/index.html

Don't expect the second quarter earnings season to be much of a party.

Analysts anticipate that earnings growth will be essentially flat compared to last year, just as it was in the first quarter. There's still hope of a rebound in the second half of the year. But that optimism largely depends on guidance from companies in coming weeks.

[LarryBnDC]

Legal is ok. The immigration laws were mapped out to allow a controlled flow.


---In 1924, Congress established national-origin quotas with the Immigration Act of 1924. It awarded immigration visas to just 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It excluded all immigrants from Asia. People were anxious because of World War I and heartily supported limits on immigration. By 1970, immigration had fallen to a low of 4.7 percent of the population. That was down from a high of 14.7 percent in 1910.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress to change immigration policy with the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It eliminated quotas based on nationality. Instead, it favored those with needed skills or who were joining families in the United States. That increased immigration from Asia and Latin America.---

So before WWI all you had to do is get off the boat. Fuck that shit.

[josh]

Legal is ok. The immigration laws were mapped out to allow a controlled flow.


---In 1924, Congress established national-origin quotas with the Immigration Act of 1924. It awarded immigration visas to just 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It excluded all immigrants from Asia. People were anxious because of World War I and heartily supported limits on immigration. By 1970, immigration had fallen to a low of 4.7 percent of the population. That was down from a high of 14.7 percent in 1910.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress to change immigration policy with the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It eliminated quotas based on nationality. Instead, it favored those with needed skills or who were joining families in the United States. That increased immigration from Asia and Latin America.---

So before WWI all you had to do is get off the boat. Fuck that shit.

Nah, Luee's history lesson is a bit skewed.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. That law led to one of the more cited SCOTUS cases in our history, Wong Kim Ark, in which the 14th Amendment upheld his citizenship over his being Chinese.

But,for example, it sounds like Luee supported the law which dictated that if a US citizen woman married a man from Asia, she lost her citizenship. This got worse 25 years later:

In March of 1907, Congress passed the Expatriation Act, which decreed, among other things, that U.S. women who married non-citizens were no longer Americans. If their husband later became a naturalized citizen, they could go through the naturalization process to regain citizenship.

But none of these rules applied to American men when they chose a spouse.

Mackenzie v. Hare challenged the expatriation act, it involved a woman married to a British citizen. When "it reached the Supreme Court in 1915, the justices upheld the law, arguing that the women chose to marry knowing this was a consequence so they weren't being forced to expatriate."

Things were not that simple before 1922.

[josh]

https://350.org/its-official-latin-americas-biggest-shale-reserve-will-never-be-fracked/?fbclid=IwAR2RZPPhKAIOQC0AuJN6pznkhfjf9HCYffOuvTm6V-QDNKRhrvge1tM2YY4

[FlyingVProd]

California exports twice as much stuff to Mexico, as it does to China, and China has over a billion people, China needs to start buying our stuff. The current population of China is 1,420,190,362 as of Thursday, July 11, 2019.

https://advocacy.calchamber.com/international/trade/trade-statistics/

We need fair trade deals.

The trade deficit with China for the USA in 2018 was almost four hundred billion.

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china

Meanwhile we have record numbers of homeless people out on the streets, we need jobs for the homeless, you should be given a huge tax break if you hire a homeless person from a shelter.

California lost over 500,000 jobs to China alone.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-trade-20181023-story.html

And Trump wants to build a wall between us and our best trading partner. Mexico is buying twice as much stuff from California as China.

We also need to create jobs for our new immigrants. We have people coming here from all over the world, and they want jobs. Of course too, many will start their own businesses and will create jobs.

This guy at Yale thinks we should do like Kuwait and allow in immigrants as guest workers but never let them become citizens, he wants to let them know right from the start that they have no hope of citizenship, I disagree with him, and America is not like any other nation on earth, and America is certainly not like Kuwait.

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/does-immigration-create-jobs

We need to make it easy for people to become citizens of the USA, and we need to make it easier for people to legally live, work, and go to school in the USA. We also need special programs for our dying cities and our dying farm towns, we need to welcome our immigrants and people need to be given redevelopment money and business loans, etc.

And we need to balance trade, to bring back an abundant economy. We do not need trade wars or anything, we just need people to be fair and to buy our stuff, your people need jobs, and our people need jobs, and we have new people coming everyday who need jobs. We need new trade deals with everyone, including with China. And we have great stuff to send to the world, Americans produce great stuff that we can export.

Salute,

Tony V.

[facilitatorn]

Thanks Josh & Tony. Good people like you keep this country from completely sliding off the rails into the flaming mess of right wing fantasies.

[luee]

Legal is ok. The immigration laws were mapped out to allow a controlled flow.


---In 1924, Congress established national-origin quotas with the Immigration Act of 1924. It awarded immigration visas to just 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It excluded all immigrants from Asia. People were anxious because of World War I and heartily supported limits on immigration. By 1970, immigration had fallen to a low of 4.7 percent of the population. That was down from a high of 14.7 percent in 1910.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress to change immigration policy with the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It eliminated quotas based on nationality. Instead, it favored those with needed skills or who were joining families in the United States. That increased immigration from Asia and Latin America.---

So, you were/are okay with the exclusion of Asians in immigration.

And you continue to rail against those coming across our southern border but to be silent about the majority of illegal immigrants - the 60% who overstay their visas.

Thank you for removing all doubts about you.

No it was just an historic trip into immigration law from https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-economy-4125413. Your the one who is the anti-American reactionary racist bigot. This is not a race issue but a socio-economic issue. Only the liberal elite need cheap nannies and no one needs ms13 gangs. Yes send them all back.

[luee]

---Ilhan Omar retweets article branding all Trump supporters as racists---

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/14/ilhan-omar-retweets-trump-supporters-are-racists-d/

Just a world of bad racist people and Somalian Muslims. AOC has already branded Nancee as a racist. Deplorable no longer works?

[barton]

zzzzzzzzzz

[josh]

Legal is ok. The immigration laws were mapped out to allow a controlled flow.


---In 1924, Congress established national-origin quotas with the Immigration Act of 1924. It awarded immigration visas to just 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It excluded all immigrants from Asia. People were anxious because of World War I and heartily supported limits on immigration. By 1970, immigration had fallen to a low of 4.7 percent of the population. That was down from a high of 14.7 percent in 1910.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress to change immigration policy with the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It eliminated quotas based on nationality. Instead, it favored those with needed skills or who were joining families in the United States. That increased immigration from Asia and Latin America.---

So, you were/are okay with the exclusion of Asians in immigration.

And you continue to rail against those coming across our southern border but to be silent about the majority of illegal immigrants - the 60% who overstay their visas.

Thank you for removing all doubts about you.

No it was just an historic trip into immigration law from https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-economy-4125413. Your the one who is the anti-American reactionary racist bigot. This is not a race issue but a socio-economic issue. Only the liberal elite need cheap nannies and no one needs ms13 gangs. Yes send them all back.

So long as you only focus on one set of illegal immigrants, its racism.

So long as you keep repeating your inane and bogus claim about "liberal elites" and cheap nannies it's lying.

But as the research says, the most racist tend to be unable to even consider that they might be racist,

[oilcan]

45 has been fanning the flames of racism and ethnic hatred since the 70s.   What adjective should we use for anyone who supports him and his endless racist spew?   If, Luee, there is some other adjective you can suggest for these hypothetical Rpubs who aren't racist but determinedly overlook his racist words and policies, then kindly do so.

It was my impression that someone who supports a racist president and his policies furthering white nationalism is, functionally, a racist.   So instead of mocking Omar, can you demonstrate where she is wrong?   

[Hairy Lime]

---Ilhan Omar retweets article branding all Trump supporters as racists---

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/14/ilhan-omar-retweets-trump-supporters-are-racists-d/

Just a world of bad racist people and Somalian Muslims. AOC has already branded Nancee as a racist. Deplorable no longer works?

Yeah, nothing like a racist objecting to people pointing it out to them. Go back to the shithole country you came from luee.

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/us/puerto-rico-governor-protests-ricardo-rossello/index.html

[facilitatorn]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/us/puerto-rico-governor-protests-ricardo-rossello/index.html

He sounds too trumpy to be in government. Maybe he should try fake reality tv.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.salon.com/2019/07/15/trump-and-pences-racist-weekend-spectacle-was-no-accident-its-the-re-election-plan/

Since he can’t run on the economy or any actual accomplishments.