THE ERA OF TRUMP

[clubgop]

Nixonian is back, baby, but only because the Democrats have trucked out the George McGovern/Adlai Stevenson wing of the party in the face of it, how many times are they going to do that, before they come home to JFK? Maybe one more time if the GOP is lucky, then the hippie dippie shit gets tossed and the Democrats will get serious again.

They sure are slow learners.

It's more of a place holder, the Democrats are like the Liberals, when they are in a down phase, they pander to the kneedippers to keep the ship afloat, once the kneedippers overplay their hands, then PET is large and in charge once again; "just watch me, bleeding hearts"

As long as they focus on Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theories, talking about gerrymandering in fucking Senate races, and talking about voter suppression when they see negative campaigning they don't like, they won't make the necessary connection to chunk anyone under the bus.

[Smitty-48]

They sure are slow learners.

It's more of a place holder, the Democrats are like the Liberals, when they are in a down phase, they pander to the kneedippers to keep the ship afloat, once the kneedippers overplay their hands, then PET is large and in charge once again; "just watch me, bleeding hearts"

As long as they focus on Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theories, talking about gerrymandering in fucking Senate races, and talking about voter suppression when they see negative campaigning they don't like, they won't make the necessary connection to chunk anyone under the bus.

Well, this is the whole point of the Trump effect and why the GOP in congress would never turn on him, because he's got the Democrats hoisting themselves on their own petards, but at the same time, the GOP in congress are ducking everything, Trump soaks up all the heat for them, while they can actually fund raise on saying that they don't agree with him, while they benefit from the Trump show by default.

[clubgop]

Holy shit, ahahahaha.

I'm not tired of winning yet Trump!

Yeah, that was astounding. That right there is Trump derangement syndrome.

I am so not racist and abhor it so much I am going to say the N word without hesitation right to a black mans face on national tv, surely this will go well for me.

[clubgop]

It's more of a place holder, the Democrats are like the Liberals, when they are in a down phase, they pander to the kneedippers to keep the ship afloat, once the kneedippers overplay their hands, then PET is large and in charge once again; "just watch me, bleeding hearts"

As long as they focus on Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theories, talking about gerrymandering in fucking Senate races, and talking about voter suppression when they see negative campaigning they don't like, they won't make the necessary connection to chunk anyone under the bus.

Well, this is the whole point of the Trump effect and why the GOP in congress would never turn on him, because he's got the Democrats hoisting themselves on their own petards, but at the same time, the GOP in congress are ducking everything, Trump soaks up all the heat for them, while they can actually fund raise on saying that they don't agree with him, while they benefit from the Trump show by default.

Fundraising numbers aint that great. Nationally the DNC is on a shoe string until Hillary buys them again in 2020. I am only half joking about that last part.

[Smitty-48]

As long as they focus on Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theories, talking about gerrymandering in fucking Senate races, and talking about voter suppression when they see negative campaigning they don't like, they won't make the necessary connection to chunk anyone under the bus.

Well, this is the whole point of the Trump effect and why the GOP in congress would never turn on him, because he's got the Democrats hoisting themselves on their own petards, but at the same time, the GOP in congress are ducking everything, Trump soaks up all the heat for them, while they can actually fund raise on saying that they don't agree with him, while they benefit from the Trump show by default.

Fundraising numbers aint that great. Nationally the DNC is on a shoe string until Hillary buys them again in 2020. I am only half joking about that last part.

But the RNC is doing great, $129 million to the DNC's $58 million, and that RNC money is a lot of small donors who are stumping for Trump, so Trump has been a yuge boon for the RNC, the DNC isn't making any headway against him at all.

The GOP in congress is dining out on Trump, while at the same time Trump is sucking up all the heat and baiting the Democrats into the ditch, while they don't have to do anything at all.

Anything that works, they can take credit for it, they were with Trump all along, anything that doesn't work, they can just blame Trump, so they can play both sides of the line at the same time, and not take the heat for anything, that's the congressional sweet spot right thur.

[Okeefenokee]

I'll take fakenews, for a thousand.

Really?? After recalling this exact list of US immigration law goals from college, I quickly found a policy paper reference to these exact same goals. Here is about the author:

Otis L. Graham, Jr. was a Professor Emeritus of History at UCSB, and Visiting Scholar at UNC Chapel Hill. He graduated from Yale University (B.A., 1957) and Columbia University (PhD, 1966), and served as an artillery officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was the author or editor of nineteen books and numerous articles on the history of the United States, especially on American reform movements, political economy, and environment and immigration. He was been named a Guggenheim Fellow, a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Center for Advanced Study and Behavioral Sciences, and received the Robert Kelley Memorial Award from the National Council on Public History.

The article was written in 1991, which means this has been in the discussion about immigration for over 25 years at least. And the article is from the CIS, which is actually considered a very conservative organization in terms of immigration policy.

I'm getting the feeling that you are calling it fake news 'cause I said it.

You said,

Our immigration law has traditionally had three stated primary goals: 1) reuniting families, 2) supplying employers and 3) protecting refugees.

What you cited was,

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Since our founding in 1985, we have pursued a single mission – providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.

The Elusive Goals of U.S. Immigration Policy

There is little in the way of clear goals for national immigration policy in the U.S. code where the basic statutes of modern policy are recorded the laws of 1921, 1924, 1952, 1965, 1986, and 1990.1 These statutes begin simply with definitions of terms, usually in numbing detail, then set out their substantive changes in the law. In this respect the immigration laws are quite in the mainstream of U.S. lawmaking. One can find policy goals stated explicitly at the front of some major federal statutes,

but most often both the legislation and even the more voluminous rhetoric of the legislative history have little or nothing to say about precise policy goals. Public law generally begins with definitions of terms, sets out a series of complaints about the state of the union or some part of it, then outlines regulatory or programmatic initiatives.

A rare example of a statute which begins with reasonably explicit goals is the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, which begins with a section entitled "Purpose" followed by a two-page Title I, "Policies and Goals."2

The absence of explicit goals from U.S. immigration statutes does not mean that our nation's immigration policy lacks goals. Immigration laws, as administered by Federal bureaucracies and as interpreted by the courts, produce results. In the absence of explicit goals, these results may be taken as the operative goals of national policymakers. The economists have a useful term, when they speak of the "revealed preference" of buyers, as expressed in the goods and services actually purchased. Lacking explicit statements of national immigration policy goals, we have the revealed goals of policymakers the results their actions (and inactions) actually produced.

Do I need to explain that to you, or can you take it from here?

[TheReal_ND]

Is Trump the king of IRL shitposting?

[TheReal_ND]

GET DOWN HERE AND APOLOGIZE TO MY SPAGHETTI SAUCE ENCRUSTED FACE

RIGHT. NOW.

[StCapps]

Is Trump the king of IRL shitposting?

*yip*

[Okeefenokee]

How long until people are proudly wearing t-shirts proclaiming their shithole nation status?