Democrat presidential debate official thread

reer wrote:

That's what has me worried about Leftist Trump, i.e. Bernie.

Good grief. You Russian Hillary / Trump trolls are ridiculous.

Virginia passed a law to give all of its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

It wouldn’t have changed 2016 but it would have given Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

L L wrote:

Virginia passed a law to give all of its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

That's interesting. So if VA votes heavily for a Democrat, but a Republican wins the popular vote nationwide, they'll ignore the will of their own voters and pick Republican electors?

reer wrote:

L L wrote:

Virginia passed a law to give all of its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

That's interesting. So if VA votes heavily for a Democrat, but a Republican wins the popular vote nationwide, they'll ignore the will of their own voters and pick Republican electors?

That’s what they’re saying.

You know people would go nuts if that swings the election in the opposite choice of the voters of the state. Either way.

The idea is that if each state did this, they can circumvent the electoral college without an amendment.

you like cheaters then? wrote:

Yes, google.

Wait. So you don't see what you wrote is not true?

you like cheaters then? wrote:

Obama deported more immigrants Than any other president.

"According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, more than 12 million people were "deported" -- either removed or returned -- from the US during the Clinton administration. More than 10 million were removed or returned during the Bush administration. Far fewer -- more than 5 million -- were removed or returned during the Obama administration."

Hint, 12 million is greater than 10 million, which is greater than 5 million.

Those numbers depend upon including removed and returned, which makes little sense because to go without any order of removal does not constitute an action by the government, unless I am misinterpreting the definition. The # of removals, a gov't action, was highest under Obama.https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

you like cheaters then? wrote:

Yes, google.

Wait. So you don't see what you wrote is not true?

you like cheaters then? wrote:

Obama deported more immigrants Than any other president.

"According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, more than 12 million people were "deported" -- either removed or returned -- from the US during the Clinton administration. More than 10 million were removed or returned during the Bush administration. Far fewer -- more than 5 million -- were removed or returned during the Obama administration."

Hint, 12 million is greater than 10 million, which is greater than 5 million.

Sanders just can't catch a break! NH much closer than expected, but ekes out the win - and then Booty-Judge still gets as many delegates.

Dude's not just outnumbered, he's unlucky. Bad combo.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Sanders just can't catch a break! NH much closer than expected, but ekes out the win - and then Booty-Judge still gets as many delegates. Dude's not just outnumbered, he's unlucky. Bad combo.

Sanders falls down in an upward trajectory to first place!

The Trump & Bloomberg opposition.

https://i.redd.it/uamx1d9bwpg41.jpg

Trump doesn't look a foot taller than Bloomberg.

you like cheaters then? wrote:

Not Born in the USA wrote:

Rejection rate for H1-B quadrupled under Trump.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/28/18241522/trump-h1b-tech-work-jobs-overseas

This is a good thing. Or maybe you think its good to have IT workers coming over working for peanuts compared to what US citizens would be paid for the same job.

This is anecdotal but my company is owned by a company in Europe. We are the American subsidiary.

Our IT is run overseas but we want to get one of the HQ IT people to work at the US office, to make things easier on us.

The person is being denied a visa to get us to hire American. But the person we want already works for the parent company and would not need to be trained.

Pretty sure it's the new immigration policies that is hurting us.

In this case it isn't someone taking an American job. He'll just do it overseas if we can't get him over.

But he would be paying US payroll tax and buying goods and services in the US if he got the visa.

dunes runner wrote:

L L wrote:

I think Buttigieg has the best slogan:

Medicare for all who want it

It's concise, it conveys a message and it speaks to everyone.

The Buttigieg campaign brought Donuts for all who want them to a rally but only brought 24 donuts. Thus they ran out before most of the crowd could get one. Hopefully this message will speak to everyone.

That's a pretty good metaphor.

I said his slogan was good, not his plan.

For expanded Medicare to work, it has to be ramped up for everyone to get it.

If it's better than what people have, people will flock to it.

And people now don't really have a choice in their healthcare. Mostly their employers are choosing for them.

Employers will choose Medicare if they can and if it's cheaper.

Any change will be difficult and it will have to be slow.

The ACA was passed in 2010 and went into effect in 2014.

And that didn't have many changes to what most people did.

Expanded Medicare would be yuge.

L L wrote:

In this case it isn't someone taking an American job. He'll just do it overseas if we can't get him over.

But he would be paying US payroll tax and buying goods and services in the US if he got the visa.

Yeah, but then he brings his wife, her mom, his sister, pretty soon one person becomes 50, Trump hates chain migration.

Yeah, I'm sure there's cases like that where it 'hurts' things. But overall, companies abuse it for cheap labor. Thats why all those job postings with ridiculous requirements and low pay exist. There is no intention to fill those jobs, they say 'look we have all these open positions and no candidates we need more 'high skilled' workers' then they bring in folks from India etc... and pay them half of what their American colleagues make.

Dont get me wrong either, I have no issue with immigration. But pay people what they are worth in the market for which they are working in. Its exploitation to do otherwise. I never really understand people who get angry at immigrants 'stealing jobs' when they should pissed at the companies hiring people for nothing, pushing wages down. I used to work with a lot of people from Mexico/South America etc... and I always encouraged them to ask for a raise at least once a year, explained they have rights as workers etc... most of these people are just happy to have a job they don't understand what they are entitled to as workers in America.

Companies who bring in people from overseas for IT jobs are not doing it because it is cheaper. It's an expensive process to bring someone in.

They are paying them what they worth. They need a living wage in the US.

It would be much cheaper to simply outsource IT overseas.

Tough immigration laws do not prevent that.

I do agree with you that the crackdown needs to be on companies using illegal hiring practices with undocumented workers.

The Trump Organization is the poster company for that exact illegal activity as well as chain migration with Melania's family.

To me the things the two side miss about illegal immigration is this.

1. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is a human rights issue. You might THINK you are helping but what you are doing is allowing these people to be flat out exploited.

The Dems just want to scream RACISM all the time, but what's more racist than allowing some employer to exploit poor immigrants because they don't want to comply with US labor laws??

The GOP misses this because they spend way too much time playing up the crime part, and no time on how these people are being abused and exploited. Most illegals just want to work and better themselves, they aren't rapist drug dealers.

2. You are undercutting small business that try to play within the laws, and you undercut US Labor laws and gains made by Unions.

The Dems used to be the party for labor unions, but you can't be for open borders and unforced immigration laws AND be pro labor. If Construction Company A does it by the book: pays minimum wage (or more), complies with OSHA, complies with SS, complies with the IRS, complies with Obama care etc.. but Construction Company B just pays illegals $X a day and replaces any injured worked with another Mexican- they will out bid Company A every time.

Company A will either go out of business or adopt the same scummy practices as Company B.

NotPC wrote:

The Dems just want to scream RACISM all the time, but what's more racist than allowing some employer to exploit poor immigrants because they don't want to comply with US labor laws??

Where have you seen Democrats advocate for allowing businesses to hire people with improper or no documents?

If anything, they advocate for a process to make their status legal so they can comply with US labor laws. So they can get minimum wage. So they are paying taxes.

L L wrote:

reer wrote:

That's interesting. So if VA votes heavily for a Democrat, but a Republican wins the popular vote nationwide, they'll ignore the will of their own voters and pick Republican electors?

That’s what they’re saying.

You know people would go nuts if that swings the election in the opposite choice of the voters of the state. Either way.

The idea is that if each state did this, they can circumvent the electoral college without an amendment.

This is very misleading way of framing it. Virginia voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That only goes into effect when enough states to make a majority of the Electoral college join. They are not particularly close to that. So its an interesting idea, but not one that is anywhere close to being realized.

Timmy Treadwell wrote:

L L wrote:

In this case it isn't someone taking an American job. He'll just do it overseas if we can't get him over.

But he would be paying US payroll tax and buying goods and services in the US if he got the visa.

Yeah, but then he brings his wife, her mom, his sister, pretty soon one person becomes 50, Trump hates chain migration.

Does he also hate Melania's parents and sister coming here?

He only hates it when nonwhite immigrants bring their families.

BTW, the average wait time for bringing in siblings is about 10 years. Longer if you are Chinese, Indian Mexican or Filipino.