(08-20-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

I wonder what would have happened if a Republican had made this joke about Obama.

Actually, I don't wonder - I know the MSM would have made a big deal of it, would have made a racial thing of it, and certainly would not have ignored it as they will do to the this one. You want to kill somebody? You want them dead? Horrible, unless you are talking about Trump.

A quick Google search shows that MSM services have picked up this story.

Heck, WashPo goes into detail about some of the other crazy things he's said in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...f40c86b3e0

And let's not forget what happened to Kathy Griffin when she stepped over the line - CNN even booted her from her NYE hosting gig...

Ah, poor Kathy...so unfairly maligned...I wonder what she is doing these days...

https://www.attpac.org/on-sale/2018/kathy-griffin/

I actually liked kathy when she was on on Suddenly Susan.

Comparing the coverage on Hastings to what would have happened if some Republican had told the same joke about Obama is like comparing a soft summer rain to Katrina.

Have you looked at the video above yet?

(08-20-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

I wonder what would have happened if a Republican had made this joke about Obama.

Actually, I don't wonder - I know the MSM would have made a big deal of it, would have made a racial thing of it, and certainly would not have ignored it as they will do to the this one. You want to kill somebody? You want them dead? Horrible, unless you are talking about Trump.

A quick Google search shows that MSM services have picked up this story.

Heck, WashPo goes into detail about some of the other crazy things he's said in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...f40c86b3e0

And let's not forget what happened to Kathy Griffin when she stepped over the line - CNN even booted her from her NYE hosting gig...

https://www.attpac.org/on-sale/2018/kathy-griffin/

yeah, must be tough being a hero to millions.

(08-20-2018 09:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm actually somewhere between agnostic and pro- biannual reporting vs. quarterly reporting.

The drive for 'numbers' on an ongoing rolling 3 mos. basis really tends to cut against the ability to 'long term operate'. But, it is also imperative in any publicly available security for as much transparency as possible.

That being said, perhaps the 6 mos rolling window wouldnt be such a bad thing, as it tends to give more equivalent weight to the two (sometimes competing) goals. But the 'drive' for quarterly numbers is such a short cycle that when one ends the next just fills it up.

I have really come to appreciate the companies that are owned at the hedge fund basis -- the drive for numbers is still there but the hedgies actually understand the long term view very well.

I'm a bit more for changing to biannual reporting, but I think you did a pretty good job summarizing how I feel. Thank you.

(08-20-2018 01:45 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm actually somewhere between agnostic and pro- biannual reporting vs. quarterly reporting.

The drive for 'numbers' on an ongoing rolling 3 mos. basis really tends to cut against the ability to 'long term operate'. But, it is also imperative in any publicly available security for as much transparency as possible.

That being said, perhaps the 6 mos rolling window wouldnt be such a bad thing, as it tends to give more equivalent weight to the two (sometimes competing) goals. But the 'drive' for quarterly numbers is such a short cycle that when one ends the next just fills it up.

I have really come to appreciate the companies that are owned at the hedge fund basis -- the drive for numbers is still there but the hedgies actually understand the long term view very well.

I'm a bit more for changing to biannual reporting, but I think you did a pretty good job summarizing how I feel. Thank you.

Good, I think the initial response to the post is more driven not by the subject, but by posting on a Sunday.

I think that by Saturday all the piss and vinegar that gets generated in this sub-forum needs to be cleansed out by the participants. Sundays is really dead around this subbie (probably for good reason... )

Will be interesting to see the Trump Administration spin on the Cohen plea. Wow.

(08-21-2018 04:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Will be interesting to see the Trump Administration spin on the Cohen plea. Wow.

I’m wondering what details of the deal will be released.

We do now know that Cohen said that he was directed to make the payments by a candidate running for federal office. Not sure who else that could be besides Trump.

I see that Avenatti (sp?) is giddy as a school child on Twitter over this result, as he says it means he will be able to depose Trump about the payments.

Manafort’s trial results were also just announced with 8 guilty verdicts and 10 hung counts. News said that he’s looking at 80 years for the 8 guilty verdicts, and that prosecutors will decide soon if they will retry the remaining 10 charges.

Loved Trump's speech at the rally in West Virginia tonight. Absolutely perfect, and great to see and hear a President who actually cares about the average American citizen again.
He effectively gave a pretty good summary of a lot of the good things he has done so far for our country and its citizens.
I love how quiet the giant arena got as he candidly spoke about how the back and forth with negotiations with leaders of other countries went. Trump sound very pragmatic and common-sensical in those moments.
He also took time to correctly point out the absolute unnecessary tragedy of the young girl's death reported today by yet another illegal border-crosser who has been in this country so long, Obama's people couldn't even say when he illegally crossed. Maybe instead of sending him back, they could put him under guarded house arrest at Nacy Pelosi's house for a while, before regular prison.

(08-21-2018 08:37 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Horrible story about that woman in Iowa.

Turns out the guy was being employed on a farm for a few years. Part of me wonders why we don’t also more aggressively pursue/punish businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants if we are going to step up border enforcement as well. If people know that it will be difficult to find jobs here illegally, won’t that reduce the number of people coming on?

Plus, if those businesses don’t want to pay a wage that attracts American workers, why should they be allowed to benefit from illegal, cheap labor?

My nephew manages a department of a financial services company in Austin. His analyst/assistant has an undergraduate degree from Northeastern and an MBA from Columbia. She left the country last week and was forced to return to China although she hadn't lived there in 12 years. She was devastated and he is struggling to find a replacement....lots of sides to this story.

The general theory is that the entrenched political class (on both sides) supports unfettered immigration precisely to save on labor costs for big business (at the direct detriment to lower to middle class workers already here). Why upset that apple cart when the lower class voters generally support unfettered immigration? Keep in mind that most unauthorized workers obtain fraudulent SSNs (ie they commit identity theft) in order to jump through the widespread use of e-verify.

(08-22-2018 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Part of me wonders why we don’t also more aggressively pursue/punish businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants if we are going to step up border enforcement as well. If people know that it will be difficult to find jobs here illegally, won’t that reduce the number of people coming on?

Plus, if those businesses don’t want to pay a wage that attracts American workers, why should they be allowed to benefit from illegal, cheap labor?

I actually agree with all of this part of your post, Lad--the key word being also. We have created a culture equivalent to "don't ask, don't tell" among businesses who oftentimes get away with enabling this crap with their illegal behavior then feign ignorance. The simple truth is that no jobs here for illegal border-crossers means far less reasons for illegal border-crossers to cross the border. Same for social services, charities and county health departments that are rife with enabling these folks. No legal citizens ID or green card, no soup for you.

If you want to help these unfortunates, then help them in their own countries--help them change their own countries from within by staying there and overcoming the obstacles/evils that are holding them back. We have done a terrible disservice to world stability and fairness by letting those who might be their nation's future leaders and problem-solvers come here illegally and keep the problems going in their home countries.

I'd also like to repair the out-of-control H1-B visa program. There is no good reason to import lower-salaried people from other countries without requiring equivalent training of present American citizens for those same jobs and then when they are ready, replace the H1-B people and send them back. We have created both upper and lower class plantation systems, neither works to the interests of American citizens, and we are shooting ourselves in both feet at once. It all needs to stop.

(08-22-2018 07:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I'd also like to repair the out-of-control H1-B visa program. There is no good reason to import lower-salaried people from other countries without requiring equivalent training of present American citizens for those same jobs and then when they are ready, replace the H1-B people and send them back. We have created both upper and lower class plantation systems, neither works to the interests of American citizens, and we are shooting ourselves in both feet at once. It all needs to stop.

+1 to both this post and the one above it.

H1-B is being abused to a massive extent. And, the key word to Lad's post is "also". Calling for a 'wall' (whether explicit or rhetorically for stronger border enforcement) is meaningless when coupled with a policy of 'non-enforcement' vis a vis employers.

I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branch's parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the immigrants to comply, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branches' parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the legal immigrants to get and show theiID, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

Totally not compromised by the Russian mob.

(08-23-2018 11:34 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Totally not compromised by the Russian mob.

Not following the, um, logic there.

Disagreeing with the practice of pressing charges for the purpose of compelling testimony from witnesses = working for the Russian mob?

ETA: where has Cornyn been all his life? Plea-bargaining for testimony has always been controversial.

(08-23-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am in favor of the rhetorical wall. I oppose the physical wall, A physical wall is impractical. If I still had my importing business, the wall would run through two of my branches' parking lots. It would also wall off my cousin's cattle from their water source, the Rio Grande. Granted, my cousin's ranch is often used for illegal crossings. Every month a couple of bodies are found.

As to the employment, it is a good idea. But it is not giant industry that benefits most from the cheap labor. I knew a guy who had a roofing business, ran about 10 crews. Every crew was 100% Hispanic. (no idea of the split between American citizen, legal immigrant, and illegal immigrant) he said he had never had a black or white person apply.

The illegal I sold the house to had been employed for 16 years at a lumber yard.

In lieu of employer penalties, I would have a requirement that for any worker that could not show American citizenship or proof of legal residence, the employer would be required to withhold 25% of their gross. If he did not, he would be liable for the shortfall + other $$$ penalties. That would encourage the employers to comply, encourage the legal immigrants to get and show theiID, and get the income from the illegals. It would also encourage the legals to file a tax return to get their refund.

If money is the attracttent, use loss of money as the deterrent.

My feelings are quite mixed on this issue.

I think we should hold employers liable if they knowingly and willingly do something illegal. If they are not willing to pay a wage that will encourage an American citizen to apply, then they need to rethink their business model. And if enforcement is stepped up, then all employers will be dealing with the same issue. I don't have much sympathy for someone who complains they can't find citizens to do their job - I've worked with too many American non-O&G drillers that break their back, but do it because they make a decent, to believe that there are no Americans willing to do the work, it's just that they aren't willing to do the work for the current pay.

But from a pragmatic perspective, the easiest answer is to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to be working here legally. You could make seasonal worker visas more prevalent and easier to obtain. And if a check-in component is added, we'd likely see a decrease in people over staying their visas. I listened to a great podcast that talked in depth about how seasonal migration used to effectively result in a net-0 permanent illegal immigration flux, but once it became more dangerous and difficult to cross the border, the migrants that would come for seasonal work stayed because there was too great of a risk of getting caught the next season if they went back home. This could help increase the supply of people willing to work a lower wage, reducing the economic burden on the employer.