2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Ndaccountant]

I would be very interested in reading that. Does it include or account for productivity increases and stagnant wages for those of us still lucky to have a job?

It really should, only because it isn't comparing a wage amount per se, but rather how the top wager earners compare to the median. So, if the top is rising quicker than the median, it would indicate that inequality is accelerating in that measurement. That is where you would see what you are questioning.

The problem is that even though they are earning more relative to the median, they don't actually have more to spend.....disposable income (I surmise this doesn't get much pub due to lack of widely available information and overall lack of public understanding of what they are really looking at). So the inequality of disposable income is basically stagnant due to the tax laws we have had in place for some time (somewhere in the early to mid 1990's is when that flattened), which really doesn't imply the rich is getting richer. Now, the poor are getting poorer, marginally, but not directly because the rich is getting richer.

I will spend some time looking for it later tonight.

 

[Cackalacky]

It really should, only because it isn't comparing a wage amount per se, but rather how the top wager earners compare to the median. So, if the top is rising quicker than the median, it would indicate that inequality is accelerating in that measurement. That is where you would see what you are questioning.

The problem is that even though they are earning more relative to the median, they don't actually have more to spend.....disposable income (I surmise this doesn't get much pub due to lack of widely available information and overall lack of public understanding of what they are really looking at). So the inequality of disposable income is basically stagnant due to the tax laws we have had in place for some time (somewhere in the early to mid 1990's is when that flattened), which really doesn't imply the rich is getting richer. Now, the poor are getting poorer, marginally, but not directly because the rich is getting richer.

I will spend some time looking for it later tonight.

Cheers and appreciate it.

 

[pkt77242]

Bush on 'anchor babies': It's more related to Asian people - CNNPolitics.com

 

[phgreek]

Bush on 'anchor babies': It's more related to Asian people - CNNPolitics.com

To me it is just an additional issue/cost associated with failing to enforce existing law. Talking about it separately, and then further parsing it is evidence Mr. Bush cannot avoid the easiest of traps.

Now, we all know what he was saying is that he draws a line between those who come here for survival, and have a kid and those who are perfectly solvent and living well who use our system in order to hedge their bets. He got suckered into the identity game...and that is not ground conservatives get to tread...

 

[pkt77242]

To me it is just an additional issue/cost associated with failing to enforce existing law. Talking about it separately, and then further parsing it is evidence Mr. Bush cannot avoid the easiest of traps.

Now, we all know what he was saying is that he draws a line between those who come here for survival, and have a kid and those who are perfectly solvent and living well who use our system in order to hedge their bets. He got suckered into the identity game...and that is not ground conservatives get to tread...

Do you ever not make excuses for Republicans?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Go for it. As low as Hillary has sunk, Dems still prefer her over Sanders. And all this is before Biden jumps in.

Bernie. Will. Not. Make. It.

I never said he would.

Sanders has real problems with name recognition among minorities, it's hard to win a Democratic nomination without that backing.

He's done nothing but rise in the polls, so I'm not ruling him out. I think he'll be rock solid in the debates too, so there's a lot left to do.

Regardless, I think the Dems could walk just about anyone out there and beat the GOP in the general.

 

[phgreek]

Do you ever not make excuses for Republicans?

Do you ever fail to seize on semantics to paint them poorly?

yea...like I never encountered what you are accusing me of here...Holy shit!

Do you really think Mr. Bush was attempting to hate on Asians? I think we all know stories regarding Asians who fly in, have a kid and leave...in fact there were residences established for such. He offhandedly referenced that phenomena...I'm sure Asians aren't the only ones...but if you simply seize on a short statement w/o the overall context...there ya go.

I think his intent was not to hate but to actually clarify what he considers anchor babies...just screwed it up.

 

[BGIF]

Are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest, or do you honestly not see the difference between IMMIGRATION and what's happening at the Mexican border? One of them consists of following the laws of a country in order to become a citizen. The other involves willfully breaking the law to sneak into said country in order to receive benefits not due to you.

That braindead argument is akin to equating a bank robbery to a guy going to the bank to use the ATM.

Since you brought up braindead, where exactly did you see me make an argument in my post? Feel free to quote it from my post.

There a number of facts about Trumps immigrant relatives and there was a little irony or humor but I did not post any reasons in an attempt to persuade anyone.

You immediately went into your pit bull routine berating an "argument" that wasn't there.

 

[wizards8507]

Since you brought up braindead, where exactly did you see me make an argument in my post? Feel free to quote it from my post.

There a number of facts about Trumps immigrant relatives and there was a little irony or humor but I did not post any reasons in an attempt to persuade anyone.

You immediately went into your pit bull routine berating an "argument" that wasn't there.

You linked to an article and that article made an argument. Or at least a "point," if you don't like the word argument. The point being that Trump is somehow a hypocrite because he's speaking out against people who sneak into our country illegally while having been married to women who came through legal immigration channels. To that argument, I maintain my original comments. Brain dead and intellectually dishonest.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[Ndaccountant]

Found the article that I referenced of memory yesterday, then followed it to the actual Fed study and it is linked below. Some really good comparison in the Fed article on the differences in the recovery since 2008/9 versus what happened in the early 80's. Perhaps the most astounding figure on the recovery is this:

So, essentially, everyone is worse off since the Great Recession, both in market income and disposable income compared to the recovery in the 80's. Here is what the article says about that:

In sum, the figure certainly displays stagnation of U.S. spending over the past six years, but it also suggests that the stagnation is accounted for by all segments of the income distribution, including the top 5 percent.15 In essence, then, it appears to contradict the argument that spending declines by the least well-off have contributed disproportionately to the weak economic recovery.

Personally, after reading this again, I am even more inclined to support things like the EIC as a way to redistribute income.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/inequality-recessions-and-recoveries

 

[wizards8507]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...18c2c8-4b4c-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html

 

[EddytoNow]

You linked to an article and that article made an argument. Or at least a "point," if you don't like the word argument. The point being that Trump is somehow a hypocrite because he's speaking out against people who sneak into our country illegally while having been married to women who came through legal immigration channels. To that argument, I maintain my original comments. Brain dead and intellectually dishonest.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

I think the point was being made about how Trump's wives obtained US citizenship expeditiously (Through Marriage to a U.S. Citizen) and the way US born children of immigrants obtain citizenship expeditiously (Through Birth in the U.S.A.).

How long does it take to legally become a US citizen? Did Trump's wives travel on the fast lane to citizenship? Would it have taken them longer to go through whatever process is demanded of a poor Mexican family to enter the country legally and achieve the same citizenship? If the Trump wives somehow traveled a streamlined path to citizenship then the similarities to what Trump calls "anchor babies" becomes more apparent. If Trump's wives entered the country legally and became U.S. citizens prior to meeting and marrying Mr. Trump, then they wouldn't have traveled a shorter path to citizenship, but I don't think that was the case.

 

[connor_in]

 

[kmoose]

I think the point was being made about how Trump's wives obtained US citizenship expeditiously (Through Marriage to a U.S. Citizen) and the way US born children of immigrants obtain citizenship expeditiously (Through Birth in the U.S.A.).

How long does it take to legally become a US citizen? Did Trump's wives travel on the fast lane to citizenship? Would it have taken them longer to go through whatever process is demanded of a poor Mexican family to enter the country legally and achieve the same citizenship? If the Trump wives somehow traveled a streamlined path to citizenship then the similarities to what Trump calls "anchor babies" becomes more apparent. If Trump's wives entered the country legally and became U.S. citizens prior to meeting and marrying Mr. Trump, then they wouldn't have traveled a shorter path to citizenship, but I don't think that was the case.

For regular channels it is 5 years:

here are the basic requirements you need to meet when applying for citizenship in the U.S.:

You already have a green card
You are at least 18 years old.
You have lived in the U.S. lawfully as a permanent resident for at least five years unless you are a spouse of a U.S. citizen, refugee, or received your green card through political asylum.
During those five years, you have been physically present in the U.S. for at least half of the time.
You have not spent more than one year at a time outside the U.S.
You have not established a primary home in another country.
You have lived in the state or district where you are filing your application for at least three months.
You have "good moral character".
You can read, write and speak English.
You can pass a test about U.S. history and government.
You will swear that you believe in the principles of the U.S. Constitution and will be loyal to the U.S.

It takes 3 years for the spouse of a US Citizen:

To be eligible for naturalization pursuant to section 319(a) of the INA, an applicant must:

Be 18 or older
Be a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 3 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
Have been living in marital union with the U.S. citizen spouse, who has been a U.S. citizen during all of such period, during the 3 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application and up until examination on the application
Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
Have continuous residence in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for at least 3 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization until the time of naturalization
Be physically present in the United States for at least 18 months out of the 3 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (also known as civics)
Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law

I don't see what either of these paths has to do with anchor babies. The qualifications for the spouse of a US Citizen are the same, regardless of income. So comparisons to "a poor Mexican family" are irrelevant.

 

[connor_in]

Red Band - NSFW

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hGp7fe1ZlTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BGIF]

I think the point was being made about how Trump's wives obtained US citizenship expeditiously (Through Marriage to a U.S. Citizen) and the way US born children of immigrants obtain citizenship expeditiously (Through Birth in the U.S.A.).

How long does it take to legally become a US citizen? Did Trump's wives travel on the fast lane to citizenship? Would it have taken them longer to go through whatever process is demanded of a poor Mexican family to enter the country legally and achieve the same citizenship? If the Trump wives somehow traveled a streamlined path to citizenship then the similarities to what Trump calls "anchor babies" becomes more apparent. If Trump's wives entered the country legally and became U.S. citizens prior to meeting and marrying Mr. Trump, then they wouldn't have traveled a shorter path to citizenship, but I don't think that was the case.

Melina was in the USA for 10 years before marrying Trump according to the article. She got citizenship a year later but there was no mention of when she initiated the process.

Ivana was married to Trump for 11 years before becoming a citizen. Doesn't sound like a shorter path.

It's tough rhetoric that comes with a twist. Trump's current wife is an immigrant herself.

Melania Trump moved to New York about 20 years ago. The Slovenian born model now has her own jewelry and caviar-cream skincare lines. She married Trump in 2005 in a fairytale wedding that included a wedding gown reported to cost $100,000. And the next year, she became a citizen -- a decade after arriving in America.

"She went through a long process to become a citizen. It was very tough," Trump told CNN recently, adding that Melania agrees with his immigration position. "When she got it, she was very proud of it. She came from Europe, and she was very, very proud of it. And she thinks it's a beautiful process when it works."

And of course, Trump's first wife, Ivana, was an immigrant too. Born in Czechoslovakia, she married an Austrian ski instructor in order to get a foreign passport to leave the communist country, her divorce lawyer has said.

A few years later, she "went to my aunt and uncle in Canada," she has said.

She and Trump married in 1977, but she didn't become an American citizen for another 11 years.

 

[connor_in]

Clinton Camp Says One-Fifth of Delegates Secured for Nomination - Bloomberg Politics

Hillary Clinton 2016: Aims to end Biden talk

Inside Democratic Party, growing concerns about Clinton | McClatchy DC

The Last Days of Hillary | Frontpage Mag

???

 

[IrishJayhawk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

Potential criminal violations arise when officials knowingly disseminate documents marked as classified to unauthorized officials or on unclassified systems, or otherwise misuse classified materials. That happened in two cases involving former CIA directors that are cited as parallels for the Clinton e-mail issue, but are quite different. John Deutch was pardoned in 2001 for using an unsecured CIA computer at his home to improperly access classified material; he reportedly had been prepared to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in April for “knowingly” removing classified documents from authorized locations and retaining them at “unauthorized locations.” Neither case fits the fact pattern with the Clinton e-mails.

 

[RDU Irish]

I would like a reporter to ask Trump why American girls are not good enough for him.

 

[phgreek]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

That server was an unauthorized location where the information was stored...not knowing it was classified is just not likely. And most EVERYTHING she discussed of an official nature meets the definition of classified they will apply here.

That said she won't be prosecuted...we all know that. However, simply because what she did was "different" doesn't make her clean here. She also lied about, and then tried to delete records that belonged to the government, and we know some of those records met the big definition of classified...that conduct would indicate her "Knowing" and her subsequent use (deletion) of the records was more like Petreaus' than folks want to admit.

 

[kmoose]

I would like a reporter to ask Trump why American girls are not good enough for him.

Visit just about any big city in Eastern Europe (I have been to Kiev, Odessa, Sofia, Skopje, Belgrade, Sarajevo, and Prague), and you will never wonder why again....

 

[Wild Bill]

Visit just about any big city in Eastern Europe (I have been to Kiev, Odessa, Sofia, Skopje, Belgrade, Sarajevo, and Prague), and you will never wonder why again....

They don't know enough English to back talk, right?

 

[kmoose]

They don't know enough English to back talk, right?

No. They are exceptionally attractive, and they are perfectly happy to be women and not try to be men*.








*Some former East German swimmers are obvious exceptions...

 

[BGIF]

Chris Christie: Track immigrants like FedEx packages - CNNPolitics.com

By Cassie Spodak and Eugene Scott, CNN
Updated 7:27 PM ET, Sat August 29, 2015

Laconia, New Hampshire (CNN)Chris Christie said Saturday that if elected president, he will track undocumented immigrants like FedEx packages.

"I'm going to have Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx, come work for the government for three months. Just come for three months to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and show these people," the New Jersey governor said at a town hall event here.

Christie added that while FedEx can track boxes, the U.S. can't track undocumented immigrants.

"You go online and at any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is," he said. "Yet we let people come into this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them."

Christie added, "We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in and then when your time is up," he said. "However long your visa is, then we go get you and tap you on the shoulder and say, 'Excuse me, it's time to go.'"

Smith is the father of Samantha Smith, a Christie spokeswoman.

Christie added that conversations about "anchor babies" make the Republican Party look unfairly hostile to immigrants.

"The entire conversation about 'anchor babies' is a distraction that makes us sound like we're anti-immigrant, and we're not," he said. "Our party is not that way. We want people to do it legally. Do it the right way."

Christie is not the first politician to cite FedEx as a model for addressing illegal immigration. Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock and Newt Gingrich have made similar suggestions in the past.

 

[BGIF]

Trump says he will announce third-party decision soon - CNNPolitics.com

By Eugene Scott and MJ Lee, CNN
Updated 7:25 PM ET, Sat August 29, 2015

Nashville, Tennessee (CNN)Donald Trump is going to make a decision "very soon" regarding a third-party run, he said Saturday.

"As far as a third-party run is concerned, the Republican Party has been treating me very, very fairly. All I ask is fairness," he told reporters after addressing the and addressed the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in Nashville, Tennessee. "In terms of victory, that would certainly be the best path to victory, and we're gonna make a decision very soon and I think a lot of people are gonna be very happy."

Trump said his success in the polls has caused Republican Party leaders to respond very well to him.

"I've been treated very nicely, as you know. I've been leading in every poll. I'm leading in every state -- by a lot. And nationally by a lot," he said. "I have a great relationship to the Republican Party -- to the conservatives, to the evangelicals, to the tea party. You probably noticed right across the board."

Trump has until Sept. 30 to rule out a third-party bid if he wants to compete in South Carolina's Republican primary, a key test in the nominating contest.

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out a third-party candidacy, noting that he could use the threat of an independent bid as leverage, but he cannot appear on the South Carolina primary ballot unless he pledges to support the GOP nominee in the general election.

 

[BGIF]

Iowa poll: Bernie Sanders 7 points behind Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com


Clinton 37
Sanders 30
Biden 14

 

[drayer54]

Iowa poll: Bernie Sanders 7 points behind Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com


Clinton 37
Sanders 30
Biden 14

I don't get how Jim Webb, a guy with an incredible resume, broader appeal, and seemingly the most qualified candidate on the left can't get traction.

On the flip side, pure comedy on #TrumpBible