[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The Clinton foundation is a charity that does tremendous, tremendous (to borrow Trump vernacular) work around the world. It’s good that they are able to raise money, even from unsavory characters. Use their money to do good.[/quote]

That’s not the point. The question is whether there was quid pro quo. Did a $100 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation lead to questionable arms sales to evil maniacs in Zanzalbania that was approved by Secretary Clinton.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
I was always under the impression that Vietnamese-Americans were staunchly anti-communists and could not stand even a whiff of socialism. [/quote]

Or it might just be because they pay attention. And they know that Bernie Sanders’ version of democratic socialism has zero resemblance to communism in Viet Nam. So support of Sanders and being staunchly anti-communist are not the least bit mutually exclusive.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Pres. Obama had 341 days or 11 months, 5 days left of his term (less than one year). Are you sure the reason our current Republican Senate won’t confirm any of Pres Obama’s supreme court picks in his last year of office are because he’s Black (or half-Black … as the case may be)?[/quote]

or half-black? really? why is that even worth mentioning? Has any other president ever been required to provide his birth certificate to prove he wasn’t born in Kenya? I didn’t read anything you posted except for the last paragraph. Here’s the deal. No supreme court vacancy occurring in the first 6 months of the last year of any presidents last term in office has ever not been filled by that sitting president. Even McConnell acknowledges that it’s purely political. No former president has ever been treated as poorly as this president has. None has been accused of being a liar DURING a state of the union address. None has ever been denied a hearing on a supreme court nominee.

Have you heard the tea partiers claim “I want my country back”? You know what they’re saying, right?

Yes. I’m sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Haha, I’ll be careful. Jews are an economically prosperous group. I believe that by the American Enterprise Institute, that would make Jews, like Asians “natural Republicans”. But neither groups are. So what do you think the reasons are?[/quote]

I have no idea if your assumption that Jews are economically prosperous is accurate. If true, I suspect it has less bearing on party affiliation than other factors. To the extent that the religion actually plays a part, the religious views on poverty, charity, and education are more consistent with the Democratic party. Those values extend, through family cultural traditions, even absent any organized religion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Btw, another group that should be natural republicans are Jews. But they are not because of education and academia.[/quote]

That’s hilarious. Why should Jews be natural republicans? Be careful. You could step in a big steaming pile of shit you’ll never get out of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=deadzone]These studies are clearly biased in order to promote immigration. But if you want to believe this garbage, then go ahead. If this is true, then we should promote open borders and unlimited immigration since it will improve all of our wages.[/quote]LOL … we already have this, and all of CA’s mayors, county boards of supervisors and all their agencies on up to the governor well know this fact, as well the superintendents of CA public school districts, heads of social service agencies, the US Homeland Security Dept and all of their respective agencies, the US District Courts in CA and their judiciary, the state courts and their judiciary, The head of the CA Dept of Corrections (CDC), etc, etc. CA’s county counsels repeatedly sue the state for operating funds for “unfunded mandates” to service illegal aliens and in turn, the CA AG’s office repeatedly sues the Federal Gubment for same.

And on and on and on it goes. It’s been like this since the mid-eighties and if someone doesn’t get into the highest office in the land to change things around, it will continue to be.

Alas, the truth is that these bureaucrats’ hands are tied … yes even the border patrol. They can do nothing about the sieve of people coming over the border every day. Border Patrol agents in AZ aren’t even allowed to tell their superiors that the groups of people coming over are larger than 20 people. They’re not allowed to apprehend and deport that many people at once, even though they have the manpower and resources to do so. See video in the following link:

http://www.independentsentinel.com/dhs-released-hundreds-of-thousands-of-convicted-criminal-aliens-into-the-u-s/

Now, we have all these thugs making asses of themselves attacking people, kicking in vehicles (incl police vehicles), starting fires and waving MX flags outside of Trump rallies up and down the state on national TV and everyone else in the country with a TV set knows it, too. Sweet! Maybe we won’t have anymore domestic in-migration for awhile until CA’s problems can be addressed by the PTB in Washington DC. It can’t come soon enough.[/quote]

You know none of this is the least bit responsive to the post that originated this piece of the thread, right?

And you know there hasn’t been any net migration of undocumented aliens in around 6 years right? As many are leaving as arriving.

We’ve seen your rants about brown people enough times now. There isn’t any reason for you to post them again and again, particularly when they aren’t the least bit relevant to the discussion.

[SK in CV]

AN and Flu and others….I meant to post this here when it first came out a few weeks ago.

Results of the annual Asian American voter survey…

snipped from the executive summary:

• Asian Americans are shifting in party identification towards the Democratic Party, and
exclusionary rhetoric is a likely cause
o There has been a 12-point increase in the proportion of Asian Americans who identify as Democrats from 2012 to 2016 (pp. 27-28)
o Bolstering evidence from 2014, our survey indicates that Asian American registered voters, including Independents, will punish candidates with antiimmigrant and anti-Muslim views (pp. 17-18)
• On the presidential candidates:
o Hillary Clinton has the most net favorability, while Trump is viewed very unfavorably (pp. 8-9)
o A large proportion still have no opinion of Bernie Sanders (p. 9)
o Many Republican candidates were viewed unfavorably this year, highlighting the challenges for a party trying to attract immigrant voter support amid exclusionary rhetoric by many presidential candidates (p. 10)

The whole report is here:

http://aapidata.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Inclusion-2016-AAVS-may23web.pdf

Curious whether Asians on the board have seen it and have any feedback on the results. My first reaction was that I was surprised at how similar (with some exceptions) the results were across countries of origin. But I’m just a white guy without much insight on the subject, so data is all I have.

[SK in CV]

[quote=deadzone][quote=SK in CV][quote=FlyerInHi]Of course, undocumented immigration does push down wages for legal residents. [/quote]

I know that seems to be conventional wisdom. But is it true? Any research to support the claim? I’ve seen plenty of research that indicates it’s not accurate.[/quote]

Are you serious? there is absolutely no logical argument that can be made for this not to be the case. Do your seriously need to see “research” to prove the theory of supply and demand?[/quote]

I prefer research to gut feelings. Gut feelings are always subject to bias.

From nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Immigration-and-the-Labour-Market.pdf

[T]he impact of immigration [on a nation’s economy] remains small, for several reasons. Immigrants are not competitive in many types of jobs, and hence are not direct substitutes for natives. Local employers increase demand for low-skilled labor in areas that receive low-skilled immigrant inflows. Immigrants contribute to demand for goods and services that they consume, in turn increasing the demand for labor. And immigrants contribute to labor market efficiency and long-term economic growth.

From David Griswold, economist from Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute:

The addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like. The net result is a greater financial reward and relatively more opportunities for those Americans who finish high school.

and from Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute:

Immigration and Wages: Methodological advancements confirm modest gains for native workers

In the ongoing debate on immigration, there is broad agreement among academic economists that it has a small but positive impact on the wages of native-born workers overall: although new immigrant workers add to the labor supply, they also consume goods and services, which creates more jobs .

and from the same source:

A key result from this work is that the estimated effect of immigration from 1994 to 2007 was to raise the wages of U.S.-born workers, relative to foreign-born workers, by 0.4% (or $3.68 per week), and to lower the wages of foreign-born workers, relative to U.S.-born workers, by 4.6% (or $33.11 per week).

No, I don’t need to see research on the theory of supply and demand. That wasn’t the question. The question was whether undocumented aliens push down wages. And I have seen research on that, and the conclusion is that it doesn’t. Do you have actual research on the referenced subject that says otherwise?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]OK, I’m going to research what you’re saying here later tonight.

I’m puzzled though. It was obvious to me that McConnell had some idea of the questions that Tapper was going to ask him. He didn’t waste a second or flinch but answered them straight up, thoroughly and without hesitation. Isn’t CNN considered to be a liberal news media outlet? Why didn’t Tapper call him on his lies if he knew the truth?

Or maybe he didn’t research and therefore didn’t know the “truth” (as you say) … or didn’t have time in the broadcast to delve into the truth :=0

Conversely, ultra Lib Political Correspondent John Dickerson seemed to have no problem inviting Trump into his Beverly Hills home for a “Face the Nation” interview yesterday morning (June 5) for the sole purpose of attempting to make him look stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickerson_%28journalist%29%5B/quote%5D

Absolutely McConnell had it planned. He’s a seasoned politician. He knew the question would come up, and he had an answer ready. No CNN is not liberal. CNN is atrocious. CNN doesn’t have journalists. I don’t think there’s any network that does. There are some decent reporters. But they report what politicians say. They don’t follow up, or call them on BS. The only good follow-up questions come from the white house press pool. And you rarely see any of that on network or cable news.

I watched the first few minutes of the Trump interview. I’m not sure what your problem with it is. He’s running for president. Shouldn’t he be called on at least some of this dozens of lies? I didn’t watch the whole thing. Was he asked about when he supported the invasion of Iraq? He’s claimed a dozen times or more than he never supported it. He’s lying.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.

[/quote]

Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.

The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.

You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.

If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.

see at 5:25

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell

That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.

If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.[/quote]

It’s not true. Mitch McConnell is a liar.

Abe Fortas was confirmed as chief justice during Lyndon Johnson’s final year in office. Homer Thornberry was confirmed as his replacement.

Benjamin Cardozo was nominated and confirmed under Herbert Hoover during his last year in office.

Mahlon Pitney was both nominated and confirmed during Howard Taft’s last year in office.

What is true, is not a single vacancy on the supreme court during the first 6 months of the final year of a presidential term has ever NOT been filled by the sitting president. The first time it’s ever happened is right now, because of a rule just invented 114 days ago by Mitch McConnell.

Again, McConnell flat out lied. He made the racist rule and then he lied about it. He’s made it pretty clear he’s comfortable with racism as part of his party’ platform. He’s continuing to support the only racist that is still a candidate. The same racist that you’re supporting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Of course, undocumented immigration does push down wages for legal residents. [/quote]

I know that seems to be conventional wisdom. But is it true? Any research to support the claim? I’ve seen plenty of research that indicates it’s not accurate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]Many blacks are insolent and confrontational.[/quote]

[quote=SK in CV]Many whites are insolent and confrontational.[/quote]

[quote=SK in CV]Many Hispanic kids in south central LA are insolent and confrontational.[/quote]

Not that we all didn’t know this years ago, but by the very logic you’ve used in this thread, your’re the biggest racist on this site.

Oh right – when you make generalizations about a race they are enlightened and for a noble cause. The rest of us are just “racist.”

You really don’t seem to understand the definition of “culture” – or more likely only want to use it when it’s convenient for your argument.

Just because you can point out an individual exception doesn’t mean a culture doesn’t exist.

[quote]And your use of the SJW is revealing. It’s most current origin is punk asshole anarcho-capitalists on reddit post gamergate. It’s worthless. It makes every word you utter on the subject worth dismissing.[/quote]

Wow, you read wikipedia.

Dude, you earned the SJW title. Own it.[/quote]

You make no sense. Nothing I said is racist. Nothing I said attributes anything to race. I made exactly zero generalizations about race. You really should learn what the word means. I thought you were a bright guy. Apparently not.

I doubt most of that is in Wikipedia. You should be ashamed of even using it. I’m quite sure you have no idea of how it’s been used. You think racism doesn’t exist? You think sexism doesn’t exist? You think there’s no real inequality in the world? That’s the ideology of those that created the legend the modern SJW ideology. It’s legend man. It doesn’t exist.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t yet had the chance to research the names on Trump’s “SC nominee” list but I suspect that up to half of them are actually “moderates” and IIRC, at least two of them were women.

As far as “birth control” and early term abortion ever being outlawed, I just don’t see that constellation.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what you suspect. None of them are moderates. All are staunchly right wing along the lines of blatantly partisan Samuel Alito.

The reason you don’t see other things is because you haven’t looked. Republican state legislatures across the country, strongly influenced by the religious right, have passed hundreds of laws every single year in the last decade that limit abortion rights, and put women’s lives at risk. Did you see what I said earlier about the number of abortion providers in Kansas? Zero. Some states have 3 day waiting periods, and require doctors to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals. So women that don’t live near hospitals may have to travel for hours. Their goal? Return women to their biblical role as chattel. That’s what Trump will mean to women. That’s what you’re voting for.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’d love to discuss this with you, but I’ve asked you already 2-3 times on the “Everything Hillary” thread how long YOU think it will take for a (yet unfiled) Federal District Court civil rights case to wind its way to the Supreme Court, get accepted, get heard and obtain an opinion. You can start with a case from our very own (ultra-crowded calendar) CASD/9th Circuit and post your response over there.

[/quote]
Less than 4 years. Maybe as little as 2. And it doesn’t matter how long. What matters is what the makeup of the SC looks like. (and it’s presumptive to say it will be a civil rights case. It may not be.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

Wow, SK, I’ve noticed over the years that plenty of “zonies” know how to find Pacific Beach (SD) just fine. I’m disappointed to hear that your peeps in AZ are as “unenlightened” and ignorant as you say they are.

[/quote]

That’s not Arizona people. That’s the entire country.

[Author]

Posts