patrick.net

Elgatouno says

And STILL hasn't accomplished anything after all those years.

Isn't Capitalism wonderful!

porkchopexpress says

theoakman says

show me one tax return where anyone paid above 70%. I'm not buying it. And if the return shows it, it was because they laundered the other 50%.

Please go research how our progressive tax structure works, and that'll help you understand why someone's effective tax rate will never be their marginal tax rate. A little research and learning goes a long way.

I know exactly how it works. I also know that no one paid those rates at the time. They all had ways of getting around it. That's why the tax code is sixty thousand pages.

Bernie’s Past Common Sense On Immigration Will Haunt Him In 2020

In recent years, Sanders has echoed the talking points of his Democratic colleagues on immigration. He’s called Trump a racist for trying to reform our broken immigration system. He’s supported Amnesty for the DREAMers and wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Bernie Sanders Calls To Abolish Immigration System, Restructure ICE, by Lydia O’Connor, HuffPost, July 3, 2018] .

But Sanders wasn’t always like this. For years, he made the economic case against mass immigration.

He voted against Amnesty in 2007 because he said it would hurt American workers.

“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive waged down even lower than they are now,” Sanders said in an interview with Lou Dobbs in 2007. [Transcript][Why Conservatives Praise Bernie Sanders on Immigration, by Sam Frizell, Time, January 7, 2016]

Sanders didn’t stick to this stance in 2013 when he voted for the Gang of Eight Amnesty. But he still expressed his economic argument against mass immigration.

“It does not make a lot of sense to me to bring hundreds of thousands of those workers into this country to work for minimum wage and compete with Americans kids,” Sanders said in 2013. [Bernie Sanders: Immigration Reform Should Rein In Guest Worker Programs, by Dave Jamieson, Huffington Post, June 20, 2013]

Early on in the 2016 campaign, Bernie said he believes open borders is a “Koch brothers proposal.”

“There is a reason that Wall Street likes immigration reform,” Sanders told a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce audience. “What I think they’re interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor into this county.” [Bernie Sanders criticizes ‘open borders’ at Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, by David Weigel, The Washington Post, July 30, 2015]

Sanders’s conclusion about Open Borders: “It would make everybody in America poorer you’re doing away with the concept of a nation-state…”

Bernie’s insistence on opposing Open Borders and framing it as an evil libertarian plot was reflected in an op-ed written by then-campaign staffer Richard Eskow for the senator’s website.


“[O]pen borders]” is a superficially attractive idea – until it’s subjected to critical thinking, at which point its true nature is revealed. Its proponents attempt to make a “moral case” in its defense. But there is no moral case to be made for sacrificing democratic decision-making and national sovereignty to oligarchic and corporate whims.

That op-ed has since been deleted from Bernie’s campaign page, but fortunately (albeit not for the Sanders campaign) an archived version still exists.[“Open Borders”: A Gimmick, Not a Solution, by Richard Eskow, August 5, 2015]

It’s no surprise Bernie’s past statements drew the ire of professional immigration boosters. Alida Garcia, director of coalitions and policy for Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us told Sam Frizell (above) in 2016 that the senator’s rhetoric was very bad because it “pitted immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment on a number of occasions.”

Of course, while Sanders’ rhetoric is nice, it doesn’t make up for his more recent comments and immigration agenda. Bernie’s 2016 platform read like a wish list for the Open Borders billionaires he claims to despise. It called for the legalization of all illegal aliens, the dismantling of “inhumane deportation programs and detention centers,” reversing “the criminalization of immigrants,” giving free healthcare to migrants, and the expansion of the Diversity Visa system.

But the platform did insist on securing the border and support for e-Verify—two ideas you will not hear from the other 2020 Democratic hopefuls.

Sanders’ 2020 agenda will likely ditch the two bits of immigration patriotism in favor of the Democrats’ current Open Borders preference. However, that quick conversion may not be enough to protect Sanders’ from xenophobia accusations. Identity politics will dominate the campaign cycle, as Bernie knows well as an old white (Jewish) guy struggling to win over an anti-white party. His strong criticism of Open Borders–now the de-facto Democrat position—will embarrass him and likely lead to a clarification that essentially endorses Open Borders.

Pro-worker Democrats now have to pretend immigrants don’t hurt working-class Americans and that the Koch brothers are xenophobic. No criticism of Open Borders will be tolerated and any mention of immigration’s harmful effects on American workers will be prohibited.

Sanders has struggled to master the Democrats’ new standards. Last June, he stood up for ICE and said he opposed its abolishment. He received a ton of flak for that position and was forced to reverse himself a month later. [Bernie Abolishes His Opposition to “Abolish Ice”, by Ethan Epstein, Weekly Standard, July 17, 2018] There’s a good chance he will continue to flub on immigration and trip over the dictates of Open Borders dogma.

Bernie is not the only Democrat who has to atone for their previous bouts of immigration patriotism. Kirsten Gillibrand’s early congressional campaigns touted her firm opposition to illegal immigration and support for a border wall. Gillibrand ran from the Right on immigration against her Republican opponent in 2006 and called for English to be made the official language. [How Kirsten Gillibrand went from pushing for more deportations to wanting to abolish ICE, by Andrew Kaczynski, CNN, January 17, 2019]

In 2019, Gillibrand wants to abolish ICE and insists white women must do more to fight racism. She claims her past immigration hawkishness was due to ignorance and she now knows it was wrong to advocate such positions. [At Sharpton event, Gillibrand pledges to ‘amplify your voices’, by Emilie Ruscoe, Politico, January 21, 2019]

But Gillibrand got her start representing a red-district in upstate New York and she likely adopted her earlier positions to appeal to her conservative voters. It was pure politics; once she realized it was more advantageous to become an Open Borders advocate, she chose that path.

Sanders is different. His past immigration views were supported by his socialist worldview and appeared to reflect his personal views on the matter. He maintained these views even when they began to hurt him politically.

But the Democrats have become so radical and intolerant of deviation from open borders dogma that Bernie has to conform to the party line to survive. His candidacy would quickly die and the young socialists would flee from him if he kept his old immigration views. Democrats care more about foreigners than workers, and Sanders upholds that preference with his current alignment.

I think Sanders is a strong contender in the 2020 primaries. His economic positions are popular, he has high likability and high name recognition, and he has a strong infrastructure in place for his new presidential run.

But he has a vulnerability when it comes to his identity and his old views. Sanders’ main rivals will exploit his past immigration views to paint him as a white racist. And that may well be enough to wipe away the Vermont senator’s advantages in the race.

Open Borders is no longer a libertarian fantasy–it’s the Democratic platform. Bernie will pay the price for failing to embrace it sooner.

http://www.unz.com/article/bernies-past-common-sense-on-immigration-will-haunt-him-in-2020/

If you are going to insult Trump, stop using all those pointy headed, fancy words!

Yeah, any President talking higher than the 6th grade level, is just a big phony. You know, acting all intelligent and shit.

I wonder how big of a factor this is for his success with his base.

Who cares? I didn’t elect him to talk sweetly to me. The last guy was good at that and nearly wrecked the country. Trump speaks like a douchebag but has done a ton for rebuilding America.

I love when the left attacks itself. The great part about this vid isn't because some girl just "ain't feelin the bern", rather it's that the illogical parts of left ideology inherently trips over itself and attacks itself. The Bern may have fought for women's rights many times in the past, but he's still a white male, and the left says it's questionable that a white male could be a good president for a "diverse" nation. Plus, everyone knows that white males are always responsible for all occurrences of sexual assault.

www.youtube.com/embed/s5qgLM4Pmfo

lol!

@APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch Consider that Trump was elected primarily as a revolt against elitists and their corporations who exported millions of manufacturing jobs and imported millions of illegals to further impoverish workers.

Once you see that, you also see that you'll get nowhere talking about Trump's vocabulary. In fact, you'll drive more people to vote for Trump in 2020.

I'm not sure of the right approach, but I can assure you that you're on exactly the wrong track here if you want to fix anything.

That's 3 grades above liberal understanding anyway. Which is why they still don't get him.

Why was the WALL! issue not voted on when R's had Senate, House, and Presidency, that is before November elections last year?

Pakistan which hosted bin ladin n 9/11 terrorist is not only india's problem. Wait till they export nuke into western city.

Islamic terrorism is everywhere. Any nuclear activity will cause world wide radiation.

They want to move ppl in, then claim it as new state. E.g Pakistan n bangladesh, Nigeria, Indonesia, almost all countries besides saudi Arabia.

Fuck Pakistan!

Paki scum trying to tone it down hope India hand wipers role them.

How many nukes does each side have?

OccasionalCortex says

Will this go nuclear, like the 1999 conflict almost did?

Why are the Democrats doing the silly Cohen BS show while this is going on? Talk about fucked up priorities!

Orange man Satan...Orange man Satannnnnnn

That shows nukes can prevent violence between the US and the Soviet Union but maybe not between 2 hateful brothers.

They have more than I thought about 140 each.

We should have let India retake Pakistan a long time ago. I think Pakistan exists because we meddled.
It was another one of America and the UN's Geopolitical meddling debacles.

Leftist NEWSWEEK: Big surprise: Years of working in television, which has the tendency to speak at a grade school level to people, so everyone understands, that is actually a smart move. He reaches more people that way, and if the few intellectuals left in America hate him, all the better. That's more reason for the hoards to hate them prissy intellectuals. Fuck them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patrick says

I'm not sure of the right approach, but I can assure you that you're on exactly the wrong track here if you want to fix anything.

I'd like to give you two likes for that comment.

Quigley says

The last guy was good at that and nearly wrecked the country

Dubya ?

Recently read an article that said the average Trump supporter can not read a book unless there is a minimum of 5 pictures for each word and words can not be over 6 letters with 4 letters and below preferred.

Now, you wouldn’t know it from some of the things I’ve posted on here over the years, but I like Trump supporters. I do.

I like Trump supporters, but I like them in short bursts. I don’t like them for extended periods of time.

I’m all right with them for a little while, but once you get up, passed around, minute, minute and a half, I’ve got to get the fuck out of there.

And my reason for this, my reason is for one that you may share possibly.

I have a very low tolerance level for stupid bullshit.

And with that I see the attack team is forming - we have Reseda in attendance, Jersey has checked in - not sure who else that is in lurking mode

You guys are swell - really swell. Have a pleasant evening and a pleasant chat experience.

Muuaahh !

Kakistocracy says

I have a very low tolerance level for stupid bullshit.

Interesting, considering the level of bullshit you post here on a daily basis of lefty, liberal sources.

In fact. I believe it's just the opposite.

He’s probably Dans relative. That guy used to post lots of long articles. Sadly lost his shit after Trump won. CNN destroyed his sanity with propaganda. :(

MrMagic says

Kakistocracy says

I have a very low tolerance level for stupid bullshit.

Interesting, considering the level of bullshit you post here on a daily basis of lefty, liberal sources.

In fact. I believe it's just the opposite.

d6rB says

Why was the WALL! issue not voted on when R's had Senate, House, and Presidency, that is before November elections last year?

Because GOPe don't want it.

jazz_music says

Where is the data that says a wall is better than what our military contractors are already providing for other countries?

They've built or are building Walls in Israel with Gaza and West Bank, Jordan with Syria and Iraq (paid in large part by Obama), have built walls between Spanish Cities in North Africa and Morocco, between India and Bangladesh (mostly because of Refugees, not terrorism or national security), all over the India-Pak border, and of course "Peace Walls" in Northern Ireland. All of which are judged to be superior by their maintainers to having an open border.

There's also one Wall few know about.

The Wall between Gaza and Egypt, which is shut tight 99%+ of the time, and when Egyptians shoot crosses nobody gives a shit.

Why? Hamas works with Al Qaeda in the Sinai. Many terror attacks in the Egyptian Sinai, esp. their tourist centers in Mt. Sinai and along the Red Sea.

d6rB says

Why was the WALL! issue not voted on when R's had Senate, House, and Presidency, that is before November elections last year?

I don't claim to really know, but I would guess because they seem to have priorities and very deep, non-obvious strategies in politics, maybe due to back office negotiation. Maybe the wall was lower priority, or something else demanded their focus first.

Tenpoundbass says

We should have let India retake Pakistan a long time ago. I think Pakistan exists because we meddled.
It was another one of America and the UN's Geopolitical meddling debacles.

It does. Goofy Nixon got the Arabs to send planes to Pakistan and told Russia nukes were being considered while India was totally beating the shit out of them.

The ideal outcome is to destabilize Pakistan into 3-4 little states, and take their nukes away in return for market (NOT migration) access and foreign aid.

Best reason to divide Pakistan: So many little states hating and fighting and infighting, little energy left for Jihad.

Interesting twitter hashtag:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/sayyestowar?src=hash
Another: #TerroristNationPakistan

The Indians are mad this time. Looks like the Pakis violated the Geneva Conventions with pics of dead pilots on TV.

Just like with the West and Islam, expect SJWs/Leftists to demand India calm down, even though it's the Pakistanis who fund terrorism and are fanatical Jihadis against India. Funny, Muslims can terrorize endlessly and you are forbidden from being angry, and told only more aid and migration will make them calm and happy.

The India-Pakistan crisis: What we know

NEW DELHI: A string of violent escalations have pushed India and Pakistan to the brink of conflict, sparking global alarm and calls for restraint between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

Here is an explanation of the events so far, and the possible next steps:

WHAT TRIGGERED THE CRISIS?

On Feb 14, 40 paramilitaries were killed in a suicide bomb attack in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, igniting outrage. It was the deadliest militant attack there in three decades, and was claimed by Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).

Kashmir has been a major flashpoint since the end of British rule in the subcontinent in 1947. A ceasefire line divides it between India and Pakistan, but both claim the Himalayan region in its entirety.

Kashmir has seen hostilities during three India-Pakistan wars, as well as a limited conflict in 1999.

India has 500,000 troops stationed in the region to counter an armed insurgency by separatists seeking either independence or a merger with Pakistan.

HOW DID INDIA REACT?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened a "jaw-breaking" response after the bombing. New Delhi demanded action from Islamabad, which it accuses of using militant groups as proxies to fuel unrest in Kashmir and carry out terror attacks in India.

On Feb 26, Indian warplanes crossed the Kashmir ceasefire line into Pakistani airspace, dropping bombs on what New Delhi described as a large JeM camp where militants were preparing to stage more attacks in India.

Islamabad confirmed the incursion and the dropping of payloads in undisputed Pakistani territory, a few kilometres outside the part of Kashmir it controls.

But it said New Delhi's claim of killing scores of militants was "self-serving, reckless and fictitious".

WHAT WAS PAKISTAN'S RESPONSE?

An infuriated Islamabad vowed retaliation after the raid, India's first use of air power on Pakistani soil since the two fought a war in 1971 - when neither had nuclear weapons.

On Feb 27, Pakistani jets flew across the Kashmir ceasefire line in what Islamabad described as a show of strength, hitting open spaces after locking on to military targets.

But there was a dramatic escalation when the Pakistani planes were chased by Indian fighters. In the ensuing fight, both sides claimed to have shot down each other's warplanes.

Pakistan said it downed two Indian jets, and detained one of their pilots. New Delhi confirmed the loss of one of its planes, and said a Pakistani jet was shot down - which Islamabad denied. India has demanded the "immediate and safe return" of the pilot.

As tensions reached a level not seen in years, Pakistan closed its airspace completely.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The crisis has sparked alarm across the world, with major powers urging the two nuclear-armed rivals to act with restraint.

Both sides have sought to play down the threat of war - Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and Indian foreign minister Sushma Swaraj have said they do not want to escalate further.

A lot rests on how India reacts to the Pakistani retaliation and the capture of its pilot, analysts said.

"If India were to ... retaliate again, that could really take things to another level," Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center told Bloomberg TV.

But the fact that Pakistan has one of its pilots "may limit its options and may make it a bit more cautious".

And given limited communication between the two, "there is increased scope for misunderstanding and miscalculation", wrote Rahul Roy-Chaudhury of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

While there is international pressure to avoid a plunge into full-blown war, there may be pressure within India to not let Pakistan have the last word.

"India is led by a government that's very conservative, and has been very tough on Pakistan. There's an election coming up in a few weeks in India ... I find it hard to believe that India would be ready to de-escalate," Roy-Chaudhury said.

"I don't know if we've seen the last of these fireworks on the sub-continent, unfortunately."

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/the-india-pakistan-crisis--what-we-know-11297786

Related: India vs Pakistan: A history of conflict over Kashmir: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/india-pakistan-a-history-of-conflict-over-kashmir-11290320?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_24082018_cna

And who shows up on schedule for comments 16 and 17 but "After" and "Birth" - go figure - but it's all about the "transparency"

OccasionalCortex says

Why are the Democrats doing the silly Cohen BS show while this is going on? Talk about fucked up priorities!

Why was Trump doing a photo op in Vietnam that ended up in a galactic failure...talk about fucked up priorities !

Going to be long humbling 8,000 mile plane ride back to Washington - the 4 & 5D chess player gets check mated - again

Hey what happened to that extreme crisis on the border that needed an executive action - shouldn't Potus have stayed home to see the country thru that crisis and sent Pence to Vietnam ?

Hey what happened to that extreme crisis in Venezuela - shouldn't Potus have stayed home to see the country thru that crisis and sent Pence to Vietnam ?

Hey what happened to that extreme crisis with Iran - shouldn't Potus have stayed home to see the country thru that crisis and sent Pence to Vietnam ?

I'm wondering if this might at some point provide a stock buying opportunity.

Looks like Pakistan is backing down.

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/iaf-wing-commander-abhinandan-be-released-friday-pak-pm-imran-khan-97530

How is that "witness tampering?" The info was put out anyway, not withheld if Cohen did not do as anyone asked.

It is an unbelievable stretch to call his jabs at Cohen "witness tampering," but I will agree that anyone with 7 DUIs belongs in jail.