Politics

[HereComeTheIrish]

We have already addressed this and its in their financials. Go to the SEC site and read all you want on it. All three of the Big3 are exiting the majority of their foriegn portfolio. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you when you have no background knowledge of the situation, nor any actual desire to learn about it.

Seriously, there is a ton of info out there on it. This wasn't outsourcing because the jobs didn't/wouldn't have existed without the move. Go read about for yourself and then come back with a logical argument instead of a bunch of hyperbole.

Settle down, Socrates... Ph is good people.

Welcome to the Off-Season everyone....

 

[Buster Bluth]

Maybe we should compare and contrast our immigration laws to the home countries of some of those people crossing our borders illegally. Check out what Mexico and some others do down there...some pretty tough stuff.

Regardless of the debate/ ideas/ practice/ how we handle this...those people came knowing well they were breaking the law and their families might come in contact with some sort of American law enforcement. Could be worse...remember the American hiker in Iran?

What does this have to do with literally anything?

You dodged the question, do you think it'd be wise to attempt to round up 20 million illegals?

What do you have against giving them citizenship, outside of them being Democrats. If the Republicans would actually lead the charge, Hispanics would be Republicans.

That's the real reason none of this gets done, the party that doesn't "lead the charge" loses, and with the elections being so close, introducing millions of voters would throw it off. That's why Puerto Rico will always be in limbo.

 

[woolybug25]

What does this have to do with literally anything?

You dodged the question, do you think it'd be wise to attempt to round up 20 million illegals?

What do you have against giving them citizenship, outside of them being Democrats. If the Republicans would actually lead the charge, Hispanics would be Republicans.

That's the real reason none of this gets done, the party that doesn't "lead the charge" loses, and with the elections being so close, introducing millions of voters would throw it off. That's why Puerto Rico will always be in limbo.

I've always said that Republicans are missing the boat with latinos. Here you have the fastest growing segment of our population, who also happens to be resoundingly pro-life catholics. Not to mention they have large populations in states like California, Colorado and Texas (all swing states). Meanwhile, Republicans have chose to instead champion the strictest stance possible on the one item of the agenda that means most to them, immigration.

It's hard to gain ground with the fastest growing demographic if the party is seen as the one that wants to round up many of their friends and family and deport them. Oftentimes separating them from their family and/or taking away the only way they know how to provide for themselves (at least that is how it looks to them).

 

[drayer54]

Republicans don't have a latino problem, they have a problem that is much larger. They have an image problem. They are/were seen as an intolerant bunch of pricks who say incredibly stupid things. It's like Gov. Jindal said last week, they need to quit being the stupid party. They need to pick candidates who don't talk about rape babies or anything that makes sense to Michelle Bachmann. The dumbest people on the GOP network and the party extreme have been defining the party for years now. Immigration is the first of many things they need to revisit if they are going to win big again.


It appears Obama is going to be operating from the left this term and not the center where he was able to sit last term. This should allow an excellent opportunity for the GOP to gain back the center. They might not gain ground with an immigration bill if it is perceived that it is an "Obama Success"........

 

[chicago51]

What does this have to do with literally anything?

You dodged the question, do you think it'd be wise to attempt to round up 20 million illegals?

What do you have against giving them citizenship, outside of them being Democrats. If the Republicans would actually lead the charge, Hispanics would be Republicans.

That's the real reason none of this gets done, the party that doesn't "lead the charge" loses, and with the elections being so close, introducing millions of voters would throw it off. That's why Puerto Rico will always be in limbo.

I'll post the source when I am at PC but the republicans may not be able to fix the lack of latino votes with just immigration. Can they do better yes. Latinos though are polling liberal on a large variety of issues (again I'll post when I get the chance). Also latino's membership in labor unions is growing fast which is a big part of democratic infrastructure.

Now opinions on the issues can change as this country swings its opinions all the the. time. Just fixing immigration won't make GOPs issues with Latinos go away. Now you add ten million more voters. It is risky for the GOP but they are going to get hammered for sire if they don't.

 

[chicago51]

You want to know want to know what is wrong the republican party?

36 of 45 republican Senators voted against hurricane sandy relief today.

The vote passed the Senate 62-36 and will now go to the POTUS to be signed.

These are the same Senators some the same individuals that have requested for disaster for their areas; rather it be Katrina, tornados in Missouri, flooding, drought relief, you name it. All those causes were well deserved. To me politics should not exist in cases of natural disaster.

 

[Downinthebend]

You want to know want to know what is wrong the republican party?

36 of 45 republican Senators voted against hurricane sandy relief today.

The vote passed the Senate 62-36 and will now go to the POTUS to be signed.

These are the same Senators some the same individuals that have requested for disaster for their areas; rather it be Katrina, tornados in Missouri, flooding, drought relief, you name it. All those causes were well deserved. To me politics should not exist in cases of natural disaster.

How much do you know about that bill?

 

[phgreek]

You want to know want to know what is wrong the republican party?

36 of 45 republican Senators voted against hurricane sandy relief today.

Dude, really? Did you ask each why the "no" vote, and each said..."No relief!"

You recon maybe there was something else in the bill that caused the no votes?

I doubt very many would vote against relief...they would however vote against adding things not related to relief spending...yes?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Am I the only one here who thinks Chicago51 touts the Democratic party line pretty firmly? He's got all of their talking points down haha

 

[Redbar]

Republicans don't have a latino problem, they have a problem that is much larger. They have an image problem. They are/were seen as an intolerant bunch of pricks who say incredibly stupid things. It's like Gov. Jindal said last week, they need to quit being the stupid party. They need to pick candidates who don't talk about rape babies or anything that makes sense to Michelle Bachmann. The dumbest people on the GOP network and the party extreme have been defining the party for years now. Immigration is the first of many things they need to revisit if they are going to win big again.

It appears Obama is going to be operating from the left this term and not the center where he was able to sit last term. This should allow an excellent opportunity for the GOP to gain back the center. They might not gain ground with an immigration bill if it is perceived that it is an "Obama Success"........

Republicans do have an image problem and that is because they have policy problems. This appears to stem from some ideological problems. Gov. Jindal will say anything his people tell him will get him national exposure and a chance at the White House. He is an empty suit, that has termed out here in Louisiana (thank God), and I promise you he has no conviction other than his ambition. This is the same guy that rushed to be the first to endorse Rick Perry who was the poster boy for dumb Republicans. But when Perry first announced he looked like he could win. Now Jindal sees the light.

Secondly, I am not sure that the GOP has any interest in staking out the middle. They had the power to drag Obama to the middle and when he went there they wouldn't deal. No position was reasonable enough. The GOP's obstinance has resulted in a more liberal Obama. There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal by a guy named Friedman that said the problem is there are no moderate Republicans, if there were, Obama would have to have wheeled and dealed.

Until Republican moderates can make common sense governing decisions without having to look over their right shoulder for an attack from their right flank they will continue to have an "image problem".

 

[Black Irish]

I'll post the source when I am at PC but the republicans may not be able to fix the lack of latino votes with just immigration. Can they do better yes. Latinos though are polling liberal on a large variety of issues (again I'll post when I get the chance). Also latino's membership in labor unions is growing fast which is a big part of democratic infrastructure.

Now opinions on the issues can change as this country swings its opinions all the the. time. Just fixing immigration won't make GOPs issues with Latinos go away. Now you add ten million more voters. It is risky for the GOP but they are going to get hammered for sire if they don't.

If the GOP is smart, they'll try to re-frame the immigration debate in a way that'll outflank Obama & company. I suggest not tying the bill to increased border security. It sounds crazy, but the problem is that, with this stance, immigration reform just sounds like code for "what to do with all these illegal Mexicans?" Illegal immigrants from Mexico & other parts of Latin America are the current face of illegal immigration, but there are substantial numbers of illegals from Africa, Asia, and even Europe. The GOP needs to make it seem like the Democrats are pandering to Latino voters while they are trying to bring illegals of all stripes out of the shadows and integrating them into society.

The other issue the GOP should focus on is taxes, that is, widening the tax base by getting illegal immigrants temporary work visas with minimal fuss so that more tax revenue gets collected. They can use that as a counter for the Left's "we need more tax revenue, so raise taxes" refrain.

Finally, play to the law-and-order crowd by advocating stricter penalties for those who come into this country illegally. After you've made it easier for immigrants to secure short and long term work visas as well as a path to permanent residence, imposing stiff penalties on border violators doesn't seem so hard-hearted. If people are still too dumb or lazy to try to gain a (now much easier to obtain) work visa, then screw 'em. 5 year minimum sentence for first time violators. 10 years if you get caught again.

Like it or not, you can't start with the punitive action first in this case. The GOP has to play nice and lay out the welcome mat for those immigrants worth having. Then after that, the can play hardball with those who continue to flout our laws.

 

[Black Irish]

Republicans do have an image problem and that is because they have policy problems. This appears to stem from some ideological problems. Gov. Jindal will say anything his people tell him will get him national exposure and a chance at the White House. He is an empty suit, that has termed out here in Louisiana (thank God), and I promise you he has no conviction other than his ambition. This is the same guy that rushed to be the first to endorse Rick Perry who was the poster boy for dumb Republicans. But when Perry first announced he looked like he could win. Now Jindal sees the light.

Secondly, I am not sure that the GOP has any interest in staking out the middle. They had the power to drag Obama to the middle and when he went there they wouldn't deal. No position was reasonable enough. The GOP's obstinance has resulted in a more liberal Obama. There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal by a guy named Friedman that said the problem is there are no moderate Republicans, if there were, Obama would have to have wheeled and dealed.

Until Republican moderates can make common sense governing decisions without having to look over their right shoulder for an attack from their right flank they will continue to have an "image problem".

Republican moderates keep getting burned by Democrats because, to the Left, it's all about "what have you done for me lately?" Remember when John McCain was the Democrat's favorite GOP senator because of his independence and willingness to buck the establishment? Then McCain got the GOP presidential nomination and suddenly he was a warmonger, a high society jet-setter with a rich wife, and a doddering old fool who couldn't use a computer. Moving to the center just gets Republicans closer to the left wing where it's easier for the Democrats to smack them down.

 

[woolybug25]

If the GOP is smart, they'll try to re-frame the immigration debate in a way that'll outflank Obama & company.

What have the leaders of the GOP done over the last decade that makes you so confident in their intelligence and ability to "outflank" Obama? The last four years in particular, have been a comedy of errors by anyone's standards for that party.

I'm not asking this in jest, I am honestly interested. Do you see a major leadership change coming in the party (ie guys like Christie and Jindal taking lead) that makes them capable of stopping the hemorrhaging of political gaffes? Whether people like Obama or not, it is unquestionable that he has taken the Republicans behind the proverbial woodshed politically.

 

[RDU Irish]

Who exactly passed the last amnesty bill?

 

[chicago51]

Source from yesterday. Latinos are polling liberal and favor big government.

Why Immigration Reform Won't Cure the GOP's Struggles with Hispanics - NationalJournal.com

Immigration Reform and Electoral Advantage - By Andrew Stuttaford - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[Downinthebend]

What have the leaders of the GOP done over the last decade that makes you so confident in their intelligence and ability to "outflank" Obama? The last four years in particular, have been a comedy of errors by anyone's standards for that party.

I'm not asking this in jest, I am honestly interested. Do you see a major leadership change coming in the party (ie guys like Christie and Jindal taking lead) that makes them capable of stopping the hemorrhaging of political gaffes? Whether people like Obama or not, it is unquestionable that he has taken the Republicans behind the proverbial woodshed politically.

I agree with you completely. It is my belief that the GOP will continue to be outpaced until they adopt a more liberal social policy, and a less warmongering (although, this policy is shared by both parties) foreign policy.

It seems to me that the majority of "young" informed people's views are fiscally conservative (you want my money to do WHAT?) and socially liberal (You want to tell me to do WHAT?) and more anti-war (You want me to die, or want others to die for WHAT?) and also throw in some civil liberty stuff (You want the government to be able search my internet stuff all the time?) (You want to be able to kill American citizens without trials? Or hold American citizens without trials?)

A saying I am fond of by some Ron Paul-like people is this: You are a libertarian, You just don't know it.

I think there are some people in the GOP that are along these lines, used to be Ron Paul, now it appears to me that Rand Paul and Justin Amash are leading the charge (at least in the federal government).

 

[Downinthebend]

Source from yesterday. Latinos are polling liberal and favor big government.

Why Immigration Reform Won't Cure the GOP's Struggles with Hispanics - NationalJournal.com

Immigration Reform and Electoral Advantage - By Andrew Stuttaford - The Corner - National Review Online

(Directed at any admins): Can we just get a uh, politics area, and have multiple topics there that cover various relevant topics rather than just using the guns thread and this thread to talk about anything. Like, I'd love to have a thread where I can see whiskey's (or whoever, I don't remember who's) ideas about city planning reform and high speed rail, rather than having to dig this thread or w.e. thread it was that it was posted.

(Directed at chicago51) If I came to this country with the expectation that one party hates me, and the other one likes me I sure as hell would poll the party that likes me.

 

[chicago51]

Am I the only one here who thinks Chicago51 touts the Democratic party line pretty firmly? He's got all of their talking points down haha

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[chicago51]

There was suggestion that the GOP should make a new wing of itself. Kinda of how the Dem in slavery days had southern Dems very pro slavery and Northern Dems who were slavery neutral; fyi republicans at the time were the most liberal party and were anti-slavery expansion.

I think this idea can work for the republicans were they would be more of a coalition than an actual party. Basically you would have the tea party wing in the rural and southern areas. Then in the northeast midwest and west coast you would have more moderate wing that believes in limited government but not an abolishment of all non defense government tea party view. I think Chris Christy would a view effective leader of the more moderate GOP. Although I disagree with a decent number of his views he has been an effective leader in state that has a fully controlled democratic legistlature.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'll take that as a compliment.

You certainly shouldn't.

 

[Buster Bluth]

There was suggestion that the GOP should make a new wing of itself. Kinda of how the Dem in slavery days had southern Dems very pro slavery and Northern Dems who were slavery neutral; fyi republicans at the time were the most liberal party and were anti-slavery expansion.

I think this idea can work for the republicans were they would be more of a coalition than an actual party. Basically you would have the tea party wing in the rural and southern areas. Then in the northeast midwest and west coast you would have more moderate wing that believes in limited government but not an abolishment of all non defense government tea party view. I think Chris Christy would a view effective leader of the more moderate GOP. Although I disagree with a decent number of his views he has been an effective leader in state that has a fully controlled democratic legistlature.

One problem: The 19th century has regional issues (slavery), today doesn't. I think you just consider southerners backward (who doesn't?).

 

[Downinthebend]

There was suggestion that the GOP should make a new wing of itself. Kinda of how the Dem in slavery days had southern Dems very pro slavery and Northern Dems who were slavery neutral; fyi republicans at the time were the most liberal party and were anti-slavery expansion.

I think this idea can work for the republicans were they would be more of a coalition than an actual party. Basically you would have the tea party wing in the rural and southern areas. Then in the northeast midwest and west coast you would have more moderate wing that believes in limited government but not an abolishment of all non defense government tea party view. I think Chris Christy would a view effective leader of the more moderate GOP. Although I disagree with a decent number of his views he has been an effective leader in state that has a fully controlled democratic legistlature.

All the idea needs to work is a little convincing in the party leadership. All that somebody like Ron Paul would have needed to receive at least (insert the percentage Romney receiver, was it 47%?) is having a cool little R next to his name. Then you add in people that like him for reasons beside that cool little R, and he likely would have won the last election.

 

[Black Irish]

What have the leaders of the GOP done over the last decade that makes you so confident in their intelligence and ability to "outflank" Obama? The last four years in particular, have been a comedy of errors by anyone's standards for that party.

I'm not asking this in jest, I am honestly interested. Do you see a major leadership change coming in the party (ie guys like Christie and Jindal taking lead) that makes them capable of stopping the hemorrhaging of political gaffes? Whether people like Obama or not, it is unquestionable that he has taken the Republicans behind the proverbial woodshed politically.

I'm not saying I'm confident that they can do that, I just believe that this is what they should try to do. You're right, none of the current party leaders seems like they have the guts or creativity to get the GOP back on top. However, I do believe that it can be done, and not by just becoming a more liberal, Democrat-light party. The GOP had their flirtation with left-leaning policy in the seventies, it failed, and the Rockefeller Republicans have gone by the wayside.

I don't think that conservative politics (and I consider myself a conservative first) and out-of-the-box political thinking are at odds. If anything, the liberal Democrats have shown themselves to be the party of calcified thinking in many respects. They just run at the same progressive goals over and over and those who don't fall into intellectual lockstep will be ridiculed as bigots and idiots. The Republicans need to find a fresh approach to presenting their policy and stop acting like predictable foils for the Left.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What does this have to do with literally anything?

You dodged the question, do you think it'd be wise to attempt to round up 20 million illegals?

What do you have against giving them citizenship, outside of them being Democrats. If the Republicans would actually lead the charge, Hispanics would be Republicans.

That's the real reason none of this gets done, the party that doesn't "lead the charge" loses, and with the elections being so close, introducing millions of voters would throw it off. That's why Puerto Rico will always be in limbo.

Think the federal or even state government would be able to enforce the law if 12 million citizens didn't pay their taxes? IRS seems to be on a hiring boom with obamacare right around the corner.

 

[woolybug25]

Think the federal or even state government would be able to enforce the law if 12 million citizens didn't pay their taxes? IRS seems to be on a hiring boom with obamacare right around the corner.

Translated: "I am never going to answer your question, Buster."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Would it be "wise" to round up 12 to 20 million illegals? Hell, I don't know. Define "wise." Achievable? Maybe, maybe not. Goes back to my questions on taxes and the IRS. We have the ability to round up a lot of people (hello, Japense internments). The question is whether we have the political will to do so. I don't have all the answers and fully support legal immigration. I'd say let's start with securing the damn border and implementing current federal law, which our president ordered Eric Holder not to do.

I don't care if they're D or R. I do care about millions of people breaking federal law only to be pandered after the fact by certain politicians with services paid for by others.

It's not sustainable financially.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Would it be "wise" to round up 12 to 20 million illegals? Hell, I don't know. Define "wise." Achievable? Maybe, maybe not. Goes back to my questions on taxes and the IRS. We have the ability to round up a lot of people (hello, Japense internments). The question is whether we have the political will to do so. I don't have all the answers and fully support legal immigration. I'd say let's start with securing the damn border and implementing current federal law, which our president ordered Eric Holder not to do.

I don't care if they're D or R. I do care about millions of people breaking federal law only to be pandered after the fact by certain politicians with services paid for by others.

It's not sustainable financially.

You didn't answer the question.

Should we use our military to round up all 12 illegal immigrations? For reference, that's the entire state of Pennsylvania. You think that the military could forcefully remove 12 million people, many of whom will not go willingly and most of whom have communities supporting them? 25% of the military personnel are a minority, they'll all be down with this?

They interned 110,000 during World War II. Not even comparable to >12,000,000.

You say you support legal immigration, but is that a good system? America's immigration policy has been dreadfully racist for a long time. Read up on the caps on races that could come into the country back in the day, it hasn't been designed to get everyone in for a looooong time. This whole thing is equivalent to someone saying "don't speed on my 25mph neighborhood road, use the damn expressway!!" and the expressway is, well, permanently under construction and traffic jammed from here to Timbuktu. "Implementing current federal law" is a cop out.

Let's talk about taxes, do you think that removing the 12 million illegals would be beneficial to the state, which now has to take care of all of their children. If you think costs are bad now (they certainly are), what will happen when you have millions flooding the foster homes who need 100% care from the state. What if they take their children back home with them? What if they do! Now you have American citizens dying in the streets of Mexico, and/or joining Mexican drug cartels. Under current Federal law (see what I did there?), we'd be obliged to do something about that.

And just as much as they have been pandered to, the other side vilifies them for political reasons, knowing full well that it'd be a miracle to get their vote after citizenship. It's better for the GOP to have 12 million illegals rather than 12 million new Democrats.

 

[chicago51]

You didn't answer the question.

Should we use our military to round up all 12 illegal immigrations? For reference, that's the entire state of Pennsylvania. You think that the military could forcefully remove 12 million people, many of whom will not go willingly and most of whom have communities supporting them? 25% of the military personnel are a minority, they'll all be down with this?

They interned 110,000 during World War II. Not even comparable to >12,000,000.

You say you support legal immigration, but is that a good system? America's immigration policy has been dreadfully racist for a long time. Read up on the caps on races that could come into the country back in the day, it hasn't been designed to get everyone in for a looooong time. This whole thing is equivalent to someone saying "don't speed on my 25mph neighborhood road, use the damn expressway!!" and the expressway is, well, permanently under construction and traffic jammed from here to Timbuktu. "Implementing current federal law" is a cop out.

Let's talk about taxes, do you think that removing the 12 million illegals would be beneficial to the state, which now has to take care of all of their children. If you think costs are bad now (they certainly are), what will happen when you have millions flooding the foster homes who need 100% care from the state. What if they take their children back home with them? What if they do! Now you have American citizens dying in the streets of Mexico, and/or joining Mexican drug cartels. Under current Federal law (see what I did there?), we'd be obliged to do something about that.

And just as much as they have been pandered to, the other side vilifies them for political reasons, knowing full well that it'd be a miracle to get their vote after citizenship. It's better for the GOP to have 12 million illegals rather than 12 million new Democrats.

Holy crap! I agree with everything Buster just said here.

 

[chicago51]

Apparently cutting spending can hurt the economy. Not saying the cutting spending is wrong. We need some cuts so the decifit doesn't keep growing faster than GDP. Unlike what some say government spending does help the economy and the deficit at least right now is what is hurting the economy.

Government is hurting the economy — by spending too little

I also though I would post a study on taxes and jobs. Study basically shows that taxes on the wealthy have not been shown to create or destroy jobs. Taxes have been shown to be job neutral. This was done by the US Congressional Research Committe, they are a non partison and simply exist to do research for Congress.

High-End Tax Hikes Would Have 'Negligible' Impact On Growth, Revised CRS Report Says

Actual Study:
http://democrats.waysandmeans.house...use.gov/files/Updated CRS Report 12:13:12.pdf

 

[chicago51]

We extended the debt ceiling temporarily. Now both houses have to pass a budget.

I'm interested to see how much Paul Ryan's budget proposal screws poor people. I'm also interest to see if the Senate budget proposal will actually have tax reform that takes away loopholes that are only available to the wealthy like they say it will.

US Senate Passes 'No Budget, No Pay' To Extend Debt Ceiling