**OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:19 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Swashy wrote:
The Dems have a lot of seats to defend in the Senate. Without looking I'm pretty sure it's something like 14 seats meanwhile Republicans have maybe half that number and the majority are in safe Republican states. If Democrats were to actually win majority it would be an upset. I don't know how it would really be quantified but it could provide a gauge to how the country trends towards 2020. To be honest I do not expect much movement in the Senate. The House on the other hand, yeah. No surprise there if it swings Democratic. Like you said, the President's opposing party more often than not gains 2 years after an election.

If they DO take control of the Senate (and I'd say they have a snowball's chance in hell) then the Trump backlash is real. That or the young population is making their voice heard

I won't speculate on final results, but I do expect an above average turnout for millenials who trend left and a below average turnout for boomers who trend right.

The media will spin it any way they want so you have to take it race by race.

Honestly, I'm shocked we haven't gotten into the 2018 election cycle as a discussion here yet. FL governor is on the line and the Bucs are done so...


It's convoluted. If Tampa lawyer John Morgan picks up major traction then the Republicans are gonna retain the governorship because he's slated to run as an Independent. Florida Republicans voting Independent? Voting for a guy who vocally pushed for medical marijuana? LOL!! Yeah ****ing right. He'll split the vote like Ross Perot did in the Clinton elections and it'll be the Dems who suffer for it. But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong
Swashy
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:19 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote: but I do expect an above average turnout for millenials who trend left and a below average turnout for boomers who trend right.

.



What are you basing this on? Past history shows its the old folks who vote more during non-presidential years

Why do you think this trend flips?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:29 pm

Swashy wrote:
RedLeader wrote:Image




Why do we even bother polling 18-29 year olds? ;)


Jesus Christ... The Republican party isn't gonna have a leg to stand on once the boomers kick the bucket. Republicans better pray to sweet baby Jesus that they've all got another 20 years so that there is enough time to reinvent their image. Because the only 18 to 29 year old's they'll have are the ones from the Solid South and Bread Basket that are genetically programmed to cast their vote for the big red elephant and they better start praying that rural America keeps having more and more kids.


So the Boomers we’re voting for Goldwater and Nixon when they were young? Didn’t think so. You do realize people change and mature as they age, right?
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby MJW » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:24 am

Brazen331 wrote:
Swashy wrote:
Jesus Christ... The Republican party isn't gonna have a leg to stand on once the boomers kick the bucket. Republicans better pray to sweet baby Jesus that they've all got another 20 years so that there is enough time to reinvent their image. Because the only 18 to 29 year old's they'll have are the ones from the Solid South and Bread Basket that are genetically programmed to cast their vote for the big red elephant and they better start praying that rural America keeps having more and more kids.


So the Boomers we’re voting for Goldwater and Nixon when they were young? Didn’t think so. You do realize people change and mature as they age, right?


Yeah, this narrative always falls apart. The Boomers were the hippies when they were 18-29. 15 years later, they elected Reagan twice then H. Young people tend to grow up and move right.

That said, the Overton Window means that the "right" of 2040 is going to be pretty far left for the rest of us.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 7292
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:13 am

MJW wrote:That said, the Overton Window means that the "right" of 2040 is going to be pretty far left for the rest of us.

That trend must continue if we're ever going to have a one world government, a la Star Trek. While it won't happen any where near my lifetime, and probably not anyone else's lifetime that posts here, for the long term survival of our species, I think this must happen eventually, regardless of what form of One Government the planet ends up with.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 8366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 744 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:49 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote: but I do expect an above average turnout for millenials who trend left and a below average turnout for boomers who trend right.

.



What are you basing this on? Past history shows its the old folks who vote more during non-presidential years

Why do you think this trend flips?

Call it a hunch.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9808
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:45 am

MJW wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:
So the Boomers we’re voting for Goldwater and Nixon when they were young? Didn’t think so. You do realize people change and mature as they age, right?


Yeah, this narrative always falls apart. The Boomers were the hippies when they were 18-29. 15 years later, they elected Reagan twice then H. Young people tend to grow up and move right.

That said, the Overton Window means that the "right" of 2040 is going to be pretty far left for the rest of us.


The Carter presidency debacle, hostage crisis, not so good economy, Vietnam hangover and 1979 oil crisis had nothing to do with Reagan getting elected in 80? Nor turning the economy by the end of his 1st term to do such a good job that even Democrats voted for him in 1984? H's election had nothing to do with the fact he was riding the high tide of American conservatism and ran against a poorly organized Dukakis campaign? It worked for western boomers fine.

As for the boomers in the Solid South who do you think was filling their heads against the Democrats? Racist southerners left the Democratic party in droves the moment they even started to whisper about civil rights legislation in 1948. And they taught their boomer children not to support them ever. All the proof you need is that a state like Louisiana was carried by FDR all 4 times by an 80% or better popular vote and was won by Eisenhower in 1952. It was their parents MJ. That's why I said "genetically programmed" And the boomers who didn't care about politics sure as **** started to once segregation ended.

The only reason Carter carried the south in 1976 was because there was enough people were still pissed at Ford for pardoning Nixon that the southerners who wanted to see one of their own in the white house squeaked out a majority. And I can promise you MJ, had there been a Wallace or Thurmond they'd have voted for him instead of Carter.
Swashy
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:56 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

What are you basing this on? Past history shows its the old folks who vote more during non-presidential years

Why do you think this trend flips?

Call it a hunch.


I have a similar feeling but I am doubtful. We keep hearing about the millennial vote and the impact it's going to make and I gotta tell you there's more than enough conservative Gen X to offset that. I'm gonna be 30 at the end of November along with the other millions and millions of people my age who are supposedly the most liberal generation yet if it doesn't happen now then I don't know if it ever will.

I mean have you EVER seen a 30 year old get into his Call of Duty game? Not even an election is gonna get him to stop bro. We take that **** seriously.

And yes I jest I know we outvoted the boomers but the satire is that the liberal impact may not be so profound as we are led to believe
Swashy
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:52 pm

Swashy wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Call it a hunch.


I have a similar feeling but I am doubtful. We keep hearing about the millennial vote and the impact it's going to make and I gotta tell you there's more than enough conservative Gen X to offset that. I'm gonna be 30 at the end of November along with the other millions and millions of people my age who are supposedly the most liberal generation yet if it doesn't happen now then I don't know if it ever will.

I mean have you EVER seen a 30 year old get into his Call of Duty game? Not even an election is gonna get him to stop bro. We take that **** seriously.

And yes I jest I know we outvoted the boomers but the satire is that the liberal impact may not be so profound as we are led to believe


Do you have the newest COD?
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:26 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
Swashy wrote:
I have a similar feeling but I am doubtful. We keep hearing about the millennial vote and the impact it's going to make and I gotta tell you there's more than enough conservative Gen X to offset that. I'm gonna be 30 at the end of November along with the other millions and millions of people my age who are supposedly the most liberal generation yet if it doesn't happen now then I don't know if it ever will.

I mean have you EVER seen a 30 year old get into his Call of Duty game? Not even an election is gonna get him to stop bro. We take that **** seriously.

And yes I jest I know we outvoted the boomers but the satire is that the liberal impact may not be so profound as we are led to believe


Do you have the newest COD?


No I don't. I'm sure it's great but online isn't my thing because it seems like you spend more time re spawning than playing
Swashy
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:29 pm

Don’t die so much


:P
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:23 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Don’t die so much


:P


Ha!
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:53 pm

I only ever went up to COD3. But I was the type of player that pissed a lot of people off. I normally played a tactical game like domination or headquarters and I would get a Submachine gun and run straight at the enemy over and over. While some guys would be careful and go like 20-2 or something, I’d end up 50-38. I ruined lots of kill streaks.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:49 pm

Jokes on you I don't play COD
Swashy
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:54 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I only ever went up to COD3. But I was the type of player that pissed a lot of people off. I normally played a tactical game like domination or headquarters and I would get a Submachine gun and run straight at the enemy over and over. While some guys would be careful and go like 20-2 or something, I’d end up 50-38. I ruined lots of kill streaks.


You’re a great teammate. With your kamikaze mentality the enemies can’t fully focus on the task. The only players I hate on Domination are the snipers. Bunch of pansies afraid to get in the action.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:55 pm

Swashy wrote:Jokes on you I don't play COD


What do you play?
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:45 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
Swashy wrote:Jokes on you I don't play COD


What do you play?


Pretty much nothing modern. I kick it old school with quest games like Zelda and Skyrim. I got my fill of war games with the Gears of War franchise. I played some online and I said "alright this just isn't my thing" That was probably about 5 years ago
Swashy
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:25 pm

Swashy wrote:
PrimeMinister wrote:
What do you play?


Pretty much nothing modern. I kick it old school with quest games like Zelda and Skyrim. I got my fill of war games with the Gears of War franchise. I played some online and I said "alright this just isn't my thing" That was probably about 5 years ago


Mrs PM and I play Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Metal Gear Solid V, Fallout (barely bc she doesn’t really care for it) and a couple others. Basically she likes to watch me play any game with a storyline and help solve the missions.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby RedLeader » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:06 pm

‪Words mentioned in Trump’s State of the Union:
‪ ‬
‪Build/building: 14x‬
‪Immigration/immigrants/s: 11‬
Terror/terrorism/terrorist: 9‬
Tax cut/reform: 7‬
N Korea: 7
Jobs: 6‬
ISIS: 6‬
MS-13: 4‬
Trade: 4‬
Russia: 1
Wall: 1‬
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby RedLeader » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:08 pm

Image
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Buc2 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:48 am

RedLeader wrote:Image

OMG! That's it. Impeach him now!
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 8366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 744 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:07 am

RedLeader wrote:Image


oh no, south america, the great bastion of enlightened humanity, frowns upon us :cry:


LOL
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:27 am

I too love pissing off my customers by insulting them. It's funny watching them go elsewhere to buy the things they need.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:44 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
RedLeader wrote:Image


oh no, south america, the great bastion of enlightened humanity, frowns upon us :cry:


LOL



Given why they don’t like our new president, all I can say is I hope it stays like this
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:57 am

Dubya weighs in...

Former President George W. Bush said on Thursday that "there's pretty clear evidence that the Russians meddled" in the 2016 American presidential election, forcefully rebutting fellow Republican Donald Trump's denials of Moscow trying to affect the vote.

While never mentioning President Trump by name, Bush appeared to be pushing back on Trump's attempts to have warmer relations with Russia, as well as his comments on immigration.

The White House did not immediately comment on Bush's remarks.

"There's pretty clear evidence that the Russians meddled," Bush said at a talk in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. "Whether they affected the outcome is another question."

Bush also said that "it's problematic that a foreign nation is involved in our election system. Our democracy is only as good as people trust the results."

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump win. Numerous investigations are under way to determine whether Trump's campaign aided the Kremlin in its efforts.

Trump has repeatedly denied any "collusion" with Russia.

Speaking of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush called him "zero-sum."

"He's got a chip on his shoulder," Bush said of Putin. "The reason he does is because of the demise of the Soviet Union troubles him. Therefore, much of his moves (are) to regain Soviet hegemony."

Bush also stressed the need to back NATO and other alliances the U.S. has with the world.

Putin "is pushing, constantly pushing, probing weaknesses," the former president said. "That's why NATO is very important."

Bush also criticized Trump's decision to scrap a program implemented by former President Barack Obama's administration that allows young immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who were brought here as children to remain in America.

"America's their home," the 43rd American president said. "They've got to get it fixed."

Bush acknowledged that he tried to overhaul America's "broken" immigration system, but failed.

"There are people willing to do jobs that Americans won't do," he said. "Americans don't want to pick cotton at 105 degrees (Fahrenheit), but there are people who want put food on their family's tables and are willing to do that. We ought to say thank you and welcome them."
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9808
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:44 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Dubya weighs in...

Former President George W. Bush said on Thursday that "there's pretty clear evidence that the Russians meddled" in the 2016 American presidential election, forcefully rebutting fellow Republican Donald Trump's denials of Moscow trying to affect the vote.

While never mentioning President Trump by name, Bush appeared to be pushing back on Trump's attempts to have warmer relations with Russia, as well as his comments on immigration.

The White House did not immediately comment on Bush's remarks.

"There's pretty clear evidence that the Russians meddled," Bush said at a talk in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. "Whether they affected the outcome is another question."

Bush also said that "it's problematic that a foreign nation is involved in our election system. Our democracy is only as good as people trust the results."

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump win. Numerous investigations are under way to determine whether Trump's campaign aided the Kremlin in its efforts.

Trump has repeatedly denied any "collusion" with Russia.

Speaking of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush called him "zero-sum."

"He's got a chip on his shoulder," Bush said of Putin. "The reason he does is because of the demise of the Soviet Union troubles him. Therefore, much of his moves (are) to regain Soviet hegemony."

Bush also stressed the need to back NATO and other alliances the U.S. has with the world.

Putin "is pushing, constantly pushing, probing weaknesses," the former president said. "That's why NATO is very important."

Bush also criticized Trump's decision to scrap a program implemented by former President Barack Obama's administration that allows young immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who were brought here as children to remain in America.

"America's their home," the 43rd American president said. "They've got to get it fixed."

Bush acknowledged that he tried to overhaul America's "broken" immigration system, but failed.

"There are people willing to do jobs that Americans won't do," he said. "Americans don't want to pick cotton at 105 degrees (Fahrenheit), but there are people who want put food on their family's tables and are willing to do that. We ought to say thank you and welcome them."


lmao bulllllllllshiiiiit. (the last line)

I love me some pancho wearin, portrait paintin, ranch-livin dubya. but politically, the guy is globalist mouthpiece, toeing the family line, nothing more
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:53 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
lmao bulllllllllshiiiiit. (the last line)

I love me some pancho wearin, portrait paintin, ranch-livin dubya. but politically, the guy is globalist mouthpiece, toeing the family line, nothing more



Indeed, that is a line the pro-illegals love to throw out but I see no basis for it.

But let's say hypothetically that is the case -- we have jobs that Americans aren't willing to do....here are the potential solutions that don't involve people breaking our laws:

1.) Let the free market work --- if there aren't enough illegals to do the jobs because they are getting deported and legal citizens aren't willing to do those jobs for the pay that illegals were, the pay will go up. The jobs have to be done. The only way to get people to do them is to pay more.

2.) Increase legal immigration and give the jobs to legal immigrants willing to work for that wage

3.) Decrease government freebies such that the incentive to take a low paying job rather than being on the dole is greater.


(this assumes the jobs can't be outsourced...if they can be outsourced to another country that could be done as well for option #4)


I'm OK with any or all of those three.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:19 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
lmao bulllllllllshiiiiit. (the last line)

I love me some pancho wearin, portrait paintin, ranch-livin dubya. but politically, the guy is globalist mouthpiece, toeing the family line, nothing more



Indeed, that is a line the pro-illegals love to throw out but I see no basis for it.

But let's say hypothetically that is the case -- we have jobs that Americans aren't willing to do....here are the potential solutions that don't involve people breaking our laws:

1.) Let the free market work --- if there aren't enough illegals to do the jobs because they are getting deported and legal citizens aren't willing to do those jobs for the pay that illegals were, the pay will go up. The jobs have to be done. The only way to get people to do them is to pay more.

2.) Increase legal immigration and give the jobs to legal immigrants willing to work for that wage

3.) Decrease government freebies such that the incentive to take a low paying job rather than being on the dole is greater.


(this assumes the jobs can't be outsourced...if they can be outsourced to another country that could be done as well for option #4)


I'm OK with any or all of those three.

I think #2 is what dubs was going for. I chuckled at the "picking cotton" line.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9808
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:33 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

Indeed, that is a line the pro-illegals love to throw out but I see no basis for it.

But let's say hypothetically that is the case -- we have jobs that Americans aren't willing to do....here are the potential solutions that don't involve people breaking our laws:

1.) Let the free market work --- if there aren't enough illegals to do the jobs because they are getting deported and legal citizens aren't willing to do those jobs for the pay that illegals were, the pay will go up. The jobs have to be done. The only way to get people to do them is to pay more.

2.) Increase legal immigration and give the jobs to legal immigrants willing to work for that wage

3.) Decrease government freebies such that the incentive to take a low paying job rather than being on the dole is greater.


(this assumes the jobs can't be outsourced...if they can be outsourced to another country that could be done as well for option #4)


I'm OK with any or all of those three.

I think #2 is what dubs was going for. I chuckled at the "picking cotton" line.


lol

going to disagree with #2 being a good option. it damages the negotiating stance of current american citizens and drives down the cost of labor

immigration will never solve "the people's problem". Nations have two sets of resources: natural resources that come from the earth, and intelligence. Taking the most intelligent, active, bold, and enterprising humans, who most likely reside in the upper portion of the intelligence pool, and scavenging them from their home countries does nothing but contribute to their home country's long-term demise.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:44 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
lol

going to disagree with #2 being a good option. it damages the negotiating stance of current american citizens and drives down the cost of labor

immigration will never solve "the people's problem". Nations have two sets of resources: natural resources that come from the earth, and intelligence. Taking the most intelligent, active, bold, and enterprising humans, who most likely reside in the upper portion of the intelligence pool, and scavenging them from their home countries does nothing but contribute to their home country's long-term demise.



agree...particularly on the first bit....I don't think it is any coincidence that as we have gotten tougher on ILLEGAL immigration (both through talk and border security) that the unemployment rate for minorities is at an all time low and we are starting to see higher increases in real wages

personally, I think we need to be pragmatic about LEGAL immigration...which I know that is something DC sucks at. The # of legal immigrants we allow should absolutely be tied to unemployment rate and wage growth. As unemployment decreases and wages increase we can marginally increase the #'s allowed to come into the country. When the labor market is already at a surplus we should reduce the #'s.


Nothing can help low income people more than not having to compete against illegals (many of whom are being paid under the table) or a huge influx of Legal immigrants for jobs. The effect will obviously be different in every state...it will be more pronounced here in Texas and maybe Florida then it would impact people in South Dakota or Wyoming.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acmillis and 8 guests