I just wonder what sort of world it would be to live in where unemployment is very low, record low for various racial groups, tax breaks and great revenue, and companies like apple etc attributing the tax cuts for why they're coming back to USA on multiple fronts... but, somehow, it's all bad and we need to vote for a democrat or the end of America is coming !!!!
Well they've known about the link between mass immigration and unemployment for some time now, and they were for mass immigration anyway. All they're doing now is finally giving their real reasons -- low unemployment is a "labor shortage" that puts big business at less of an advantage in negotiations with labor -- to see why corporate-owned establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pushing open borders this whole time.
What they're hoping is that you care more about your favorite megabrands' quarterly report numbers than you care about the numbers on the paycheck of the typical American worker. They've finally dropped the curtain and they're hoping that instead of being lied into selling out, that you'll sell out voluntarily.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
So about Trump's short list for the Supreme Court. Here's a WaPo article: http://archive.is/mOyO8
My ratings, from worst to best:
Raymond Kethledge: Open borders Republican and sometimes swing-votes over to the Left. Kethledge in is basically as conservative as John McCain. Mindbogglingly terrible choice; WTF is Trump thinking? If you're an anti-Trumper and you want to 4D chess, shill for Kethledge and convince your Dem Senator(s) to confirm him instead of obstructing.
Thomas Hardiman: Also an open borders Republican of the NeverTrump variety, but slightly to the right of Kethledge. Still a bad choice for Trump.
Amy Barret: Only been an appeals judge for 7 months. Not enough experience to discern a legal philosophy. Highly risky/random diversity pick, which puts her in the middle of the pack.
Amul Thapar: Despite being the son of Indian immigrants to the US, Thapar has a consistently Trumpian record on immigration issues, noting in one case that "save for extreme cases implicating constitutional protections[,] it is not for the courts to moderate the choices that Congress has made." The second best pick long-term, and arguably the best pick for Trump in the short term.
Brett Kavanaugh: The best choice. Potential second Clarence Thomas, that is, a writer of epic opinions beloved by conservatives; his Circuit Court opinion on the Second Amendment is already a cult classic. Most likely to ensure my continued enjoyment in reading SCOTUS opinions.
Kavanaugh, Kethledge and Barrett made the short-short list. Let's hope for the best.
Just as he did with Neil Gorsuch, the president has promised to nominate an impartial judge, a wise and seasoned jurist committed to upholding the Constitution at all costs. But no matter the nominee’s background or credentials, progressives will do everything they can to paint her as a closet partisan, if not an outright extremist. They will press, prod, and pry to unearth a radical agenda where none is to be found. They will pull out all the stops to accelerate the politicization of the Supreme Court — but they will have to go through me first.
For my part, I will do everything in my power to keep politics out of the confirmation process. As the senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I will fight to keep jurisprudence as the sole focus of our confirmation hearings. And I will devote all my energies to ensuring that we confirm the kind of Supreme Court justice America needs: a justice who says what the law is, not what she wants it to be; a justice who calls balls and strikes instead of swinging for the fences; a justice whose foremost allegiance is to the American people and to the Constitution.
Too much is at stake to allow politics to corrupt the Supreme Court confirmation process. That’s why in the coming weeks, I will lift heaven and earth to see the president’s nominee across the finish line.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 7, 2018, 4:07:07 PM
It's sort of strange to imagine liberals actually even attempting to attack MAGA's economic successes so far, but attack the greatness democrats do.
I just wonder what sort of world it would be to live in where unemployment is very low, record low for various racial groups, tax breaks and great revenue, and companies like apple etc attributing the tax cuts for why they're coming back to USA on multiple fronts... but, somehow, it's all bad and we need to vote for a democrat or the end of America is coming !!!!
It's so comical.
This Monday, when Trump announces his supreme court pick (second), the meltdown of the democrat party will be truly hilarious.
Make sure to stock up on microwave buttered popcorn.
†
For someone who is clearly so very right wing, and pro capitalism ...
I found it hard to reconcile why you wont spend $20 to buy more stash tabs and instead argue that GGG should freely give you more simply because you play the game. Isn't that a socialist way of thinking?
Cheers,
Matt.
There are 10 types of people. Those that know binary, and those that dont.
It's sort of strange to imagine liberals actually even attempting to attack MAGA's economic successes so far, but attack the greatness democrats do.
I just wonder what sort of world it would be to live in where unemployment is very low, record low for various racial groups, tax breaks and great revenue, and companies like apple etc attributing the tax cuts for why they're coming back to USA on multiple fronts... but, somehow, it's all bad and we need to vote for a democrat or the end of America is coming !!!!
It's so comical.
This Monday, when Trump announces his supreme court pick (second), the meltdown of the democrat party will be truly hilarious.
Make sure to stock up on microwave buttered popcorn.
†
For someone who is clearly so very right wing, and pro capitalism ...
I found it hard to reconcile why you wont spend $20 to buy more stash tabs and instead argue that GGG should freely give you more simply because you play the game. Isn't that a socialist way of thinking?
Cheers,
Matt.
I explained this in full 100% on the other threads but it's ok you didn't read my posts entirely, as they got sort of wordy trying to respond to everyone at once.
Quick summary:
GGG I respected more once upon a time because they created a game that had enough stash to play, and only had tabs for people wanting to support their game.
NOW, the game with just those initial 4 tabs they gave at launch, aren't anywhere near enough.
They intentionally designed the game (later content) around making 4 tabs uncomfortable to play with, big time.
It's not about capitalism, it's about whether or not I want to support such a decision.
This game needs 5 tabs minimum, and 6 would be best to compare with how the game was in the beginning, stash freedom wise.
That's all.
I feel if I give them my money now I in some way am supporting their stash decision.
I refuse, because it's that bad.
I just want to support the old GGG, and hope by commenting from time to time and them seeing people agree (some) they may relent someday.
Had stash been so bad in the beginning, like, had they only given 2 tabs, GGG would have been cast aside and never really taken off as a company.
What they became, is not something I will support.
When they return to an easy going stash situation for all, by adding tabs, I'll give them my money.
I left this game when they only had 3 acts. I planned on returning someday because the game was fun etc etc AND because I respected their game model, including stash freedom for all, paying and non paying players alike.
This current stash model I didn't expect coming back, and I cannot sanction.
I have hope they'll return to their old standards.
See how many words that took? I have to explain it all for people to understand. I can see why you skipped the other posts.
MEANWHILE TRUMP SEEMS TO HAVE ALREADY MADE HIS SUPREME COURT DECISION JUDGING FROM A TWITTER POST I JUST READ...
I assume he'll hold on to it till monday... gonna be a good day :)
I hope he nominates the girl... as democrats seem to hate her so much.
We need her on the bench for another 40 years haha
Last edited by Templar_G on Jul 7, 2018, 1:00:09 PM
Well they've known about the link between mass immigration and unemployment for some time now, and they were for mass immigration anyway. All they're doing now is finally giving their real reasons -- low unemployment is a "labor shortage" that puts big business at less of an advantage in negotiations with labor -- to see why corporate-owned establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pushing open borders this whole time.
Please show this. I doubt that immigration lowers wages because economies are not static forces with like exactly 100 million jobs. They are dynamic meaning could be 50 million or 150 million depending on other factors. Like that communist down in Venezuela killed jobs like Ms Ocasio-Cortez would do.
Trump is growing job market with lower taxes and lower regs. Has nothing to do with immigration - we still allow 1 million immigrants a year legally and wages rising.
Bottom line it's not a zero sum game. Freer Markets are chaotic and scare people but they always grow and demand more labor.
Git R Dun!
Last edited by Aim_Deep on Jul 7, 2018, 1:24:53 PM
Well they've known about the link between mass immigration and unemployment for some time now, and they were for mass immigration anyway. All they're doing now is finally giving their real reasons -- low unemployment is a "labor shortage" that puts big business at less of an advantage in negotiations with labor -- to see why corporate-owned establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pushing open borders this whole time.
Please show this. I doubt that immigration lowers wages because economies are not static forces with like exactly 100 million jobs. They are dynamic meaning could be 50 million or 150 million depending on other factors. Like that communist down in Venezuela killed jobs like Ms Ocasio-Cortez would do.
Trump is growing job market with lower taxes and lower regs. Has nothing to do with immigration - we still allow 1 million immigrants a year legally.
Illegal immigration (and more importantly, employing illegals as a work force) certainly do lower wages. These people are often black mailed into accepting a lower wage or risk denunciation to the immigration. The result is an overabundance of legal workforce that is much more expensive to employ. So to get a job, they have to accept lower and lower wages.
Legal immigration can also do that but only in a situation of 'natural' saturation of the workforce (which can happen without immigration). In general though, immigration prevent wages war between industries to get/keep employees, which lead to hyperinflation of product prices, something no one wants to see.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
Well they've known about the link between mass immigration and unemployment for some time now, and they were for mass immigration anyway. All they're doing now is finally giving their real reasons -- low unemployment is a "labor shortage" that puts big business at less of an advantage in negotiations with labor -- to see why corporate-owned establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pushing open borders this whole time.
Please show this. I doubt that immigration lowers wages because economies are not static forces with like exactly 100 million jobs. They are dynamic meaning could be 50 million or 150 million depending on other factors. Like that communist down in Venezuela killed jobs like Ms Ocasio-Cortez would do.
Trump is growing job market with lower taxes and lower regs. Has nothing to do with immigration - we still allow 1 million immigrants a year legally.
Illegal immigration (and more importantly, employing illegals as a work force) certainly do lower wages. These people are often black mailed into accepting a lower wage or risk denunciation to the immigration. The result is an overabundance of legal workforce that is much more expensive to employ. So to get a job, they have to accept lower and lower wages.
Legal immigration can also do that but only in a situation of 'natural' saturation of the workforce (which can happen without immigration). In general though, immigration prevent wages war between industries to get/keep employees, which lead to hyperinflation of product prices, something no one wants to see.
I don't believe in concept of illegal immigration. First couple 150-175 years this concept did not even exist. You showed up and checked in and got papers. The whole idea is xenophobic when too many dark people showed up IMO.
In general though, immigration prevent wages war between industries to get/keep employees, which lead to hyperinflation of product prices, something no one wants to see.
I want to see it. It'd be glorious.
1) You're telling me that a side effect of a significant increase in wages paid to American labor would create inflation in product prices. Even assuming you're correct, why would wage-earners be worried about that?
2) The pro-immigration era in the United States has been defined by a continually worsening income inequality -- the rich are richer than they've ever been, relative to the median American. This implies those at the top of the corporate hierarchy have been taking larger and larger margins for themselves. Shouldn't you be welcoming any market forces that would promise to reverse that trend?
3) The pro-immigration era has also seen an increasing difficulty in achieving retirement without dependence upon the government via Social Security. This increased dependence is stressing the program beyond its limits and threatens to destroy the solvency of the US government. Increasing the wages of the middle class will afford them greater ability to actually save for their retirement and leave the workforce at an earlier age. This is a feedback mechanism that long-term would reduce the stress upon Social Security such that it might maintain some level of viability -- or might allow our elderly to get by without it.
So no, fuck that "we don't want a 'labor shortage'" noise. May the wage wars commence.
REEEEEEE
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 7, 2018, 2:07:41 PM
