Page 231 of 234
Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:52 am
The take away I got out of this, after the obvious “ couldn’t happen to a better guy” of course, was that conspiracy theories are bullshit, unless they play to your point of view.
I'm sure we've all seen the video of president bullshit and epstein boogeyin' on down at a party attended by twenty-six young models (a coincidence, to be sure, right?) with president bullshit and epstein the only males in attendance (another coincidence, to be sure). Trump, himself, must have authorized the hit on epstein. Fits my conspiracy theory like a glove.
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
The two guards who were on duty when Epstein hung himself have been placed on administrative leave. That will teach them to be overworked and understaffed.
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:36 pm
It's not a job I'd want, but this happened in the pre-dawn hours. I don't think the staff at that prison are running around with their hair on fire at 5 in the morning when everyone is locked up. Oh well. Someone had to be thrown under the bus. The warden has also been put on double secret probation.
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:58 pm
I saw that Trump said he doesn't know if the Clinton's were involved in Epstein's death.
I know what he means. It's like I don't know if Trump raped and murdered dozens of women. I don't know anything about it. Maybe he did that. I just don't know. No one knows.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:44 am
Hehe... Trump also said that all he did was retweet something, and since the original tweeter had lots of followers, it was no big deal. I have no idea how his brain works!
In other political news, The New Colossus is getting a lot of ink thanks to Ken Cuccinelli (who makes most conservatives appear liberal) offering his interpretation of the poem; and I am not arguing right/wrong here. If nothing else, at least more regular joe’s now know who Emma Lazarus is and may have read some poetry in the past few hours.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 am
I saw the bit on the poem. I think that guy is fairly disgusting.
That said, inviting people to come to the US who have no means to support themselves is probably not a great idea. It is true that once upon a time millions of very poor people came to this country with no skills, little to no education and no command of English with the dream of making a better life. My paternal grandparents were two of those people. My guess is everyone on this board, and most everyone we know, has an ancestor who was dirt poor who got onto a boat and came to this country hoping for something better. The difference is today it's not so easy to get off the boat and start working. And, we are making it increasingly more dificult to do that. So, these people end up on public asstance, and that is a problem.
There are jobs in this country that require no skills or education. And, the employers for those jobs have a tough time finding help. That's why they often hire illegals - because they will do the work. Forget what you hear about them hiring illegals simply to save money. There are all kinds of studies and evidence that highlight that is generally not true. The issue isn't they are undercutting American's wages by hiring illegals. The issue is they can't find Americans willing to do the job period. And, illegals aren't working as cheap as you would think.
We need to stop demonizing poor people both here and abroad. What we should be doing is creating an immigration policy that looks for people who want to come and work. Maybe start with guest worker programs with a path to citizenship. Help match applicants to employers. Take away the need to hire undocumented workers and you will see the supply start to shrivel up. It won't stop all illegal boarder crossings but forcing people into a legal system by going after employers will have an impact on people coming here illegally looking for work.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:44 am
Well stated, B-Dub! I am all for a better process in legal immigration. If they want (or need) to come here and are willing to work, they should be allowed to joint the club and pay the fees. I have said this many times.
I agree that many are employed simply because, as you said, they are willing to do the work that others might feel is beneath them. I find it odd that many argue that illegals are lazy drains on society one day and claim they are stealing jobs the next.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:35 pm
My (admittedly small sample size) of interactions with immigrants has shown them to be the hardest working people I know. For example, we have a few members of the custodial staff at our school who are immigrants. Without fail, they are the most diligent, hardest working people on the staff, particularly in comparison to their native born counterparts (many of whom are lazy, prone to doing awful bare bones work while complaining, most of whom support Trump).
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:53 am
In the financial thread, _dad said, “It’s not like he’s going to be replaced by Thomas Jefferson” regarding our president and his future.
Knowing that cross threading is a pet peeve of his, I decided to post my thoughts here...
None of the current candidates can hold a candle to the Founding Fathers, in my opinion. Some prefer Trump because he is (was?) and outsider to the political world. Oddly, many of those same people though his predecessor was not qualified because he was a first term senator. Anyway, my main concern with the president is that he can’t or won’t assemble a competent staff of advisors, and he refuses to listen to those with any experience. On top of that, he seems incapable of accepting responsibility when things go south. Sure, he touts the gains in the market as if it is all his doing but on down days he finds others to throw under the bus.
I am not sure if any of the democratic hopefuls are moderately or far superior, but many have governing experience. That counts for something to me.
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:43 am
None of the current candidates can hold a candle to the Founding Fathers, in my opinion.
That's because they all died a long time ago and we've been deifying them for the past 200 years. Examined under an objective light, they were fallible human beings with the same feet of clay our current crop of politicians have. They created a government that consolidated power amongst white, rich land owners, basically continuing the same sort of aristrocacy that existed in England, with some notable differences. The first, and most important, was being the country's executive was not a birthright and there was no king (although they did consider the idea). You served for a limited time and had to be chosen (albeint by rich, white land owners and no one else). That was a revolutionary idea and they absolutely deserver credit for it. But, beyond that, the only other real difference was the right to vote for a representative who would decide what taxes you pay - and that vote was limited to (you guessed it) white, rich land owners.
If Thomas Jefferson were running for office today he would probably come across no better or worse than the current crop of people we have running for office. And, even in his time there were people who were very critical and cynical about Jefferson. The campaign where he first won the presidency was brutal and there was all sorts of smears brought up against him.