The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You really think high-tech loves the liability of hiring students with skills that overstay?

Yes, I work in this field. Why pay some American $120,000 when you can get the work done for half that from someone who overstayed their visa? They don't hire them directly, just use a service that takes the risk. Happens all the time.

The tech industry is the one pushing as hard as possible for more H-1B visas. You don't think Zuckerberg is passionate about immigration because he cares about their plight? He wants that cheap labor.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cargill, Del Monte, Tyson to name a few.

Cargill.

I did a google search on "cargill illegal workers" and "cargill undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

A couple articles about some unauthorized at a Cargill plant etc. Nothing much. If you have links that shows this systemic abuse, please link it.

Del Monte

I did a google search on "del monte illegal workers" and "del monte undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

Raid in 2007 on Del Monte plant that netted 170 undocumented. 2013 article on Del Monte paying a $1.2M fine for human trafficking of Thais in Hawaii.

If you have links that shows this systemic abuse, please link it.

Tyson

I did a google search on "tyson illegal workers" and "tyson undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

Tyson had the most articles on violations etc. But they were old, saw this from a 2011 post. And keep in mind that the Tyson has been charged, fined etc. so the government is doing something about it.

Pressing employers won't fix the problem of undocumented workers

TYSON FOODS, one of the world's largest food processing firms, has a checkered past when it comes to employment practices, specifically the hiring of undocumented workers. A decade ago, the firm faced federal charges that it conspired to smuggle undocumented workers into the country to operate its production lines. A jury acquitted Tyson, but the damage to the company's name was done.

So it was notable this week when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that Tyson had received a federal seal of approval for its hiring practices, which it has improved over the past five or six years. After months of scrutiny by officials, who combed through employment records for virtually every one of Tyson's 100,000-plus workers in this country, ICE and Tyson signed an agreement certifying that the firm and its workforce were on the right side of immigration law.
:
:
To its credit, the Obama administration has more than tripled the number of ICE agents assigned to check hiring practices. The agency has targeted several thousand employers with stepped-up audits of their workforces, arrested hundreds of company officials and levied fines amounting to millions of dollars against companies hiring undocumented workers. Recently, ICE announced that it is beefing up its ability to go after larger companies that may employ undocumented workers. All that is a sensible shift from Bush administration policy, which emphasized raids on factories featuring mass detentions of the workers themselves.

Bottom-line, I still don't see it.

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The federal government could make e-verify mandatory. They could improve the service by making it easier, cheaper, and more accurate. They could arrest and prosecute business owners for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants (instead of just fining them paltry amounts).

Here's the answer to your e-verify question from at least one source
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ma...ion-2016-11-02

Why isn’t E-Verify already in use nationwide? Politics. Democrats in Congress have held E-Verify hostage to amnesty; they consider it a bargaining chip. But the source of the public resistance to amnesty is the belief — the certainty — that it would simply be a replay of 1986, with the promises of future enforcement dropped as soon as the amnesty was complete.

I read this as - the democrats in trying to help the unauthorized immigrants (e.g. amnesty) is preventing required, nationwide use of e-verify. I am sure if all the unauthorized people told the democrats to stop opposing it, it would go through.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ask yourself why the federal government doesn't go after the source for why people cross the border?

I think this is a fair question. If you have better research that tells you why, link it.

Here are my thoughts & suspicions as to "why the federal government doesn't go after the source for why people cross the border".

1) But they do in many occasions. Look at the Tyson example above, there's plenty more examples I'm sure
2) Its not just a "demand" thing, its also the "supply". We haven't been able to stop the supply. Do you think the small businesses would actively smuggle in unauthorized if we had a full clamp down? No, they are just using whats available (e.g. supply) to them. Re: All recent presidents want to go after the supply, they all had their ideas on immigration reform. Nothing has passed because of the state of our politics, the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies.
3) Because there are plenty of ACLU and unauthorized advocates that put up alot of resistance
4) Not enough money in the budget

Probably others but this is what comes to mind.

[Thomkal]

Mueller asks to delay Flynn sentencing for another two months-third time he's asked for a delay:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/polit..._source=twCNNi

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, I work in this field. Why pay some American $120,000 when you can get the work done for half that from someone who overstayed their visa? They don't hire them directly, just use a service that takes the risk. Happens all the time.

The tech industry is the one pushing as hard as possible for more H-1B visas. You don't think Zuckerberg is passionate about immigration because he cares about their plight? He wants that cheap labor.

I work in IT also. I have not seen this, please provide a link that details this?

I have seen where high-tech companies use other vendors, no doubt. But I've not seen where these vendors use students that overstayed their visa (or at least not in a systemic way). It will be an interesting read if this really does happen.

Zuckerberg just wants the best labor, he's not going after low cost.

[cuervo72]

I'm not sure who'd want to do the work to supply links, you're not going to believe them anyway.

("Triangle shirtwaist fire? I fail to see how that had any relevance to workplace safety.")

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm not sure who'd want to do the work to supply links, you're not going to believe them anyway.

("Triangle shirtwaist fire? I fail to see how that had any relevance to workplace safety.")

I provide links to support what I say and help clarify (like the burqa vs hijab link). But they don't believe me anyway so I guess you are right.

No idea about your second paragraph.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, I work in this field. Why pay some American $120,000 when you can get the work done for half that from someone who overstayed their visa? They don't hire them directly, just use a service that takes the risk. Happens all the time.

The tech industry is the one pushing as hard as possible for more H-1B visas. You don't think Zuckerberg is passionate about immigration because he cares about their plight? He wants that cheap labor.

Yes I am a technology C-level (CISO) for a global 100 and this is absolutely the case.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How would "the people" know if a business owner/restaurant is hiring undocumented workers?

For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye.

For small business, how would one know?

Using my Tyson/Perdue example, I suspect there is probably some unauthorized workers there but, on the other hand, I would also think the government is watching them. There are probably some one-off chicken farms that contract to them that uses unauthorized but is Tyson/Perdue doing this en-masse now?

The majority of people do care about and are against "unauthorized immigration". There is a substantial hard-core % as evident by the Trump supporters.

I feel like you are being purposely obtuse, for some reason. Many posters have said the same thing, many different ways, all to be met with a stubborn refusal to hear any of it.

I’m not sure what you are looking for, you have your beliefs seemingly based on your own observations and your gut, which is fine, we all do.

Americans like cheap food. Meat and vegetables, we love our dollar menus. Cheap food happens because of cheap labor on the farms, in processing plants, and in the kitchens. Domestic/child care help by undocumented people are everywhere. Gardner’s and construction workers (roofers) are everywhere. So, here we have what we eat, where we live and who looks after our children all done, in some parts, by millions of undocumented people. If Americans were truly against this “invasion” then there are plenty of industries we could focus on. It would mean however, a fundamental shift in our purchasing power and lifestyle. I don’t doubt most people are against immigration, I just think in most cases they are purposely turning a blind eye to their own purchases.

Not sure what else to say about the rich and powerful making the rules to stay rich and powerful. I mean, wealth is becoming more concentrated right? Uber rich are getting richer right? So, wouldn’t it make sense that they would want to keep the current political and economic environment? Look who gives the money, none are talking about immigration, rather they all want less government oversight.

[JPhillips]

The big corporations have learned how to maintain deniability. They contract work and make statements about their serious desire to work within immigration law. When their suppliers are busted they vow never to work with them again and move on to new suppliers doing the same thing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I feel like you are being purposely obtuse, for some reason. Many posters have said the same thing, many different ways, all to be met with a stubborn refusal to hear any of it.

I’m not sure what you are looking for, you have your beliefs seemingly based on your own observations and your gut, which is fine, we all do.

Americans like cheap food. Meat and vegetables, we love our dollar menus. Cheap food happens because of cheap labor on the farms, in processing plants, and in the kitchens. Domestic/child care help by undocumented people are everywhere. Gardner’s and construction workers (roofers) are everywhere. So, here we have what we eat, where we live and who looks after our children all done, in some parts, by millions of undocumented people. If Americans were truly against this “invasion” then there are plenty of industries we could focus on. It would mean however, a fundamental shift in our purchasing power and lifestyle. I don’t doubt most people are against immigration, I just think in most cases they are purposely turning a blind eye to their own purchases.

Not sure what else to say about the rich and powerful making the rules to stay rich and powerful. I mean, wealth is becoming more concentrated right? Uber rich are getting richer right? So, wouldn’t it make sense that they would want to keep the current political and economic environment? Look who gives the money, none are talking about immigration, rather they all want less government oversight.

When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas.

There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements.

Well there’s plenty of scholarly books and articles on the topic if you are interested in learning about it. I would suggest, however, just googling stuff is probably not the best means.

[Warhammer]

This is what makes me mad. If we can determine where the illegals are, why are we not doing anything about it?

Is it incumbent upon companies to double and triple check identification and employment papers?

If we had a less permeable border, and did not have the cheap labor, these companies would be forced to pay someone domestically more money to do the same job. That would also keep the money here, rather than leaving the country.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas.

There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

There is a quote, if there are two equally valid reasons for the action of government and one of them is incompetence, always assume that is the reason.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well there’s plenty of scholarly books and articles on the topic if you are interested in learning about it. I would suggest, however, just googling stuff is probably not the best means.

Why don't you pick a couple and quote some significant passages from them for everyone here to react to vs. the more general, presumptive statements.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There is a quote, if there are two equally valid reasons for the action of government and one of them is incompetence, always assume that is the reason.

I like it. An Occam's razor variant.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why don't you pick a couple and quote some significant passages from them for everyone here to react to vs. the more general, presumptive statements.

Sigh, ok, 5 days ago. These U.S. industries can't work without illegal immigrants - CBS News

Judging by the pronouncements from the White House, you might think most people don't realize how integral undocumented immigrants are to the U.S. economy. But in fact, polls suggest that Americans do understand this, and also don't believe that immigrants take their jobs.

In a soon-to-be-published poll Cornell conducted in 2017, we asked New Yorkers, "How do you believe undocumented farmworkers impact local communities?"

About 75 percent of those we polled said they have "generally positive impacts," up from 62 percent in 2008. Of those who had a positive impression, most said it was because migrants fill jobs unwanted by citizens or provide essential farm help and keep prices low.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Sigh, ok, 5 days ago. These U.S. industries can't work without illegal immigrants - CBS News

Judging by the pronouncements from the White House, you might think most people don't realize how integral undocumented immigrants are to the U.S. economy. But in fact, polls suggest that Americans do understand this, and also don't believe that immigrants take their jobs.

In a soon-to-be-published poll Cornell conducted in 2017, we asked New Yorkers, "How do you believe undocumented farmworkers impact local communities?"

About 75 percent of those we polled said they have "generally positive impacts," up from 62 percent in 2008. Of those who had a positive impression, most said it was because migrants fill jobs unwanted by citizens or provide essential farm help and keep prices low.

Oh dear, here we ago again with not answering the question.

I read the article. I agree that unauthorized workers are needed (e.g. get them into a guest worker program), please to hear many Americans are happy they do the farm/agriculture bit because they don't want to do it ... but how does that answer the below? I actually didn't see any facts or support details for the cabal?

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas.

There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

[JPhillips]

We just broke the lower barrier of what some economists believed was possible in terms of unemployment. The immigrants aren't taking our jobs, or at least if they are they are creating new jobs that help offset.

And here's a summary of an Emory Law article

One suggested solution could be that meatpacking and poultry companies affected by the fines related to employing undocumented workers would need to increase their lobbying power to influence legislators to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, particularly those working in the meatpacking and poultry plants. However, there is no guarantee that former undocumented immigrants will not lobby for higher wages once they obtain citizenship and are protected under minimum wage law. A simple cost benefit analysis demonstrates how this strategy risks cutting into the profits of the meatpacking companies without certainty that Americans will come to work. This strategy is likely more costly than simply paying the fines for hiring undocumented workers since political capital is difficult to describe in monetary amounts and is subject to change at any time

[JPhillips]

Here's from an executive summary on a study about converting ag to a legal workforce.

Over the past several decades, the farming sector has grown increasingly dependent on a steady supply of workers
who have entered the country illegally, despite the unlimited availability of visas for foreign agricultural guest
workers. is has created a situation where presently half of all crop farm workers are unauthorized and have
annual incomes that are $5,600 less than that of authorized workers working in the same sector.
e agribusiness sector has consistently opposed an immigration policy that would result in a legal workforce.
eir position is that current hiring practices are crucial for the survival of the industry, as Americans are not
willing to do agricultural work and increasing wages to attract native-born workers would result in significantly
higher food prices or a decline in American food production. Agribusiness lobbyist Sharon Hughes says, “We
are either going to have our food produced by foreign workers here in the United States, or the farming process
will move to foreign countries.”
Since 5.7 percent of U.S. farms account for 75 percent of total farm sales, it is clear that the food supply chain
of the country is almost entirely dependent on large-scale agribusinesses. Hence, their economic interests are, to
an extent, linked to national interests and cannot be trivialized when considering immigration issues. But is
what they are saying true?

[JPhillips]

The first three paragraphs from a Pew study on immigrant job screening

Amid the Trump administration’s vocal efforts to crack down on the hiring of undocumented immigrants, little attention has been paid to a federal program that, if used uniformly, could go a long way toward stopping the practice.

E-Verify — which is run by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and matches job applicants and federal immigration data — has been touted as a solution to helping employers determine whether a potential hire is legally entitled to work in the United States. But Congress has spent years struggling to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and the E-Verify program remains voluntary across most of the country.

Although President Donald Trump included mandatory E-Verify use in his 2019 federal budget proposal, some traditionally Republican interest groups, such as agriculture, have concerns about mandating E-Verify without an overhaul to the U.S. guest-worker program.

[JPhillips]

This from a Pro Publica story on Case Farms

When does immigration status count?
“Several times over the course of Case Farms history, these workers -- who one would think would be very fearful -- have managed to come together and protest conditions: 100 people, 200 people walking out of the plant.”

But “almost every time the workers have managed to do that, Case Farms has quickly followed with basically an investigation into the immigration backgrounds, status of the workers. And there were several times where … the workers who had tried to organize the protests were fired for immigration status shortly afterward, or there was a sort of a mass paperwork check that 100 workers sort of lost their jobs as a result of those checks.”

“People kind of compared this to the scene in ‘Casablanca’ where the agent says, ‘I’m shocked, shocked that there’s gambling going on in this establishment.’”

[JPhillips]

From a story on PA fruit and poultry

As much as three-quarters of all the jobs encompassed in the production of those goods was handled by a foreign-born worker.

"We think that is probably undercounted," said Scott Sheely, a workforce development specialist for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. "In general ag very much depends on a foreign-born workforce. That's the big picture. What that means it's not just in production but also in the food the processing industry, and the people processing chicken and making feed...doing all the work in mushroom companies. It's very heavily foreign born workers."

Most of the workers have legal immigration status, but across this vast industry, no one denies that undocumented immigrants work side-by-side to compatriots who are documented.

"We don't really have a good handle on how many people are here under what categories and how many are not," Sheely said. "We believe agricultural employers are making good faith effort to identify people's credentials and identify valid credentials, but in many cases they don't really know. The system is such that people have found ways to slide around those credentials. We have a whole bunch of people in the industry who are foreign born, and another bunch illegal, but still an important part of the workforce."

[JPhillips]

From a story on AL law

“I don’t know what we’re going to do if they run every illegal out of here. It’s going to be hard to stay in business.”

Fellow Blount County tomato farmer Tim Battles planted just 12 of his 25 acres because of uncertainties engendered by the law.

“I’ve got $160,000, $170,000 in my crop,” he said. “Let’s say (immigration enforcement officers) come in July and haul everyone off. I lose it all. What they’re doing down in Montgomery (the state capital) is governing us out of a job.”

[Edward64]

Are these post in response to what I think we are discussing right now?

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas.

There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually didn't see any facts or support details for the cabal?

Cabal is your word you used to a strawman.

I’m done.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Cabal is your word you used to a strawman.

I’m done.

This is why I have started adding quote boxes in what I think is the discussion topic. If not we have a lot of room to say what we want without addressing the topic.

Its fair you do not like the word cabal but don't call it a strawman. You should have said much earlier in the day that "I don't agree with that term, let me clarify what I think it is ..."

Come back anytime when you have those scholarly articles.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Come back anytime when you have those scholarly articles.

Originally Posted by Edward64

No idea about your second paragraph.

Eh...kinda feel like you do.

[miked]

You guys are pretty patient to respond to this fool. You have repeatedly made your point and he's either an idiot or being intentionally obtuse. Maybe jbmagic of politics.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I work in IT also. I have not seen this, please provide a link that details this?

I have seen where high-tech companies use other vendors, no doubt. But I've not seen where these vendors use students that overstayed their visa (or at least not in a systemic way). It will be an interesting read if this really does happen.

Facebook just wants the best labor, he's not going after low cost.

If they graduated and are working off a TIN freelance or through an agency, they're likely past their visa date. There is a reason so many are working through a staffing agency instead of being hired by the company directly. A lot of vendors use those agencies.

As for Silicon Valley just wanting the best, they literally settled a suit for a ton of money for wage fixing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Cargill.

I did a google search on "cargill illegal workers" and "cargill undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

Affidavit: Cargill Knowingly Hired Illegally Documented Workers
IDs Sold To Illegal Immigrants - CBS News
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...35166620070404
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...35166620070405
https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/...2/daily24.html

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bottom-line, I still don't see it.

I'm not sure what your argument. On one hand you talk about how there is a huge problem with illegal immigrants. The next you don't seem to believe any of them are employed.

There are links provided showing industries that are made up of large percentages of undocumented workers. I don't have access to the company records of all the agricultural businesses. I'm simply going off studies done by reputable sources that show illegal immigrants are acquiring jobs with relative ease.

If you don't believe this is taking place, I'm not sure where to go with this.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I read this as - the democrats in trying to help the unauthorized immigrants (e.g. amnesty) is preventing required, nationwide use of e-verify. I am sure if all the unauthorized people told the democrats to stop opposing it, it would go through.

That article is from 2016. The 2018 legislature and Presidency is controlled by the Republicans. They can pass an immigration bill at any time that mandates e-verify.

There are plenty of bright red states with huge Republican majorities that don't touch it. Heck, I posted the article about Florida dropping the e-verify stuff when huge industries in their state fought back. Republican Governor, Republican Senate, Republican House over there. Huge margins too.

The reason it's not mandatory is because a lot of big industries spend a ton of money to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not sure what your argument. On one hand you talk about how there is a huge problem with illegal immigrants. The next you don't seem to believe any of them are employed.

The below are my quotes in response to you and to AENeuman. This is what I thought we were discussing. Is this what you thought we were discussing?

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.

When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas.

There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If they graduated and are working off a TIN freelance or through an agency, they're likely past their visa date. There is a reason so many are working through a staffing agency instead of being hired by the company directly. A lot of vendors use those agencies.

I never knew it was a systemic problem. Okay.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for Silicon Valley just wanting the best, they literally settled a suit for a ton of money for wage fixing.

The Zuckerberg comment you made (which I get is in the larger context of SV) was based on H1-B, immigration and cheap labor.

This lawsuit was about collusion on wages between some of the biggest high-tech companies (e.g. don't hire my person if I don't hire yours) which did suppress wages as a by product. I have actually seen this in some companies early in a new "industry" e.g. (cloud applications) where there was this informal agreement. Maybe my use of "best" is not accurate, let me scale it down to say "top talent".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Eh...kinda feel like you do.

Nope, still don't see how it ties. But RM has a good point, maybe we are talking about different things now as the discussion has evolved into the inevitable tangents?

[RainMaker]

He didn’t even bother to delete the old one pic.twitter.com/A47TuOFfNS

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) June 30, 2018

[cuervo72]

“See, I never just did things just to do them. Come on, what am I gonna do? Just all of a sudden jump up and grind my feet on somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on. I got a little more sense than that.
...Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch.”

.

[JPhillips]

I actually don't think he's lying, because I think the first tweet was written by someone else. It's a national security issue that we don't know who is allowed to pretend to be the President.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I actually don't think he's lying, because I think the first tweet was written by someone else. It's a national security issue that we don't know who is allowed to pretend to be the President.

All caps is something his mini me Stephen Miller would do, crazy how many Presidents we would have.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I actually don't think he's lying, because I think the first tweet was written by someone else. It's a national security issue that we don't know who is allowed to pretend to be the President.

We know who we're allowing to pretend to be president - his name is Donald Trump and hopefully he'll only be there for a few more years

[Edward64]

Maybe the first tweet was from Miller. But there are other examples.

The books analyzing his presidency and his character will be fascinating.

You'll have the historians, news journalists, but also psychiatrists/psychologists writing about him and his pathological lying.

[JPhillips]

Bolton is now saying that Putin said Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election. It simply amazes me how quickly and freely people give up their dignity the moment they step into Trump's orbit.

[JPhillips]

And now Trump says the EU is just as bad as China, just smaller.

It will be a fucking miracle if we get out of this with the post WW2 order still intact.

[Edward64]

Somewhat light but interesting read on the US-China trade war.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...a-tariffs-loom

Judging by the financial markets, investors seem to think the U.S. has the upper hand. The Shanghai Shenzhen CSI 300 Index is down about 14 percent this year, hit by an economic slowdown and rising trade tensions. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, in contrast, is up almost 2 percent, buoyed by a strong economy. While U.S. companies are benefiting from a tax-cut boost to earnings, Chinese firms are suffering as deleveraging dents the supply of credit.

One thing in the U.S.’s favor is that its economy relies more on demand from home than abroad, meaning trade barriers will exert less of a pinch. Exports amounted to almost 12 percent of U.S. GDP in 2016, compared with close to 20 percent for China, World Bank data show.

America also has more to shoot at -- a point made repeatedly by Trump. It imported $505 billion of goods from China last year but sent only about $130 billion in the other direction.

The president is also hoping costlier imports will drive companies to increasingly base their operations in the U.S. rather than low-cost China, supporting domestic demand and providing more jobs for American workers.

In a June 19 paper for the C.D. Howe Institute, economists Meredith Crowley and Dan Ciuriak argued that Trump is “weaponizing uncertainty”: Companies that want to be sure of selling in the U.S. are being compelled to set up shop in America.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bolton is now saying that Putin said Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election. It simply amazes me how quickly and freely people give up their dignity the moment they step into Trump's orbit.

This is the new definition of employment security, if there is such a thing in this admin.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Somewhat light but interesting read on the US-China trade war.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...a-tariffs-loom

As a caveat I am not super well-versed in economic theory. That being said...

Doesn't it seem like really shoddy analysis to base the impact of something that kicked off in March off of year-to-date data?

[RainMaker]

Everyone loses in a trade war but China definitely has more to lose. It does seem like these countries are targeting industries where his base lives though.

[Thomkal]

So Michael Cohen has done an interview on ABC, not Fox that aired this morning. Affirmed he put his family and country above Trump, believes in the FBI, the Mueller investigation not a witch hunt, and he's been wrongly depicted by the media as a villain. I hope Mueller was listening and called his lawyer right after the interview:


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mich...ry?id=56304585

[Thomkal]

FBI announces they foiled a July 4 attack in Cleveland by an American who had been radicalized:


Man arrested in alleged July 4 terror attack plot to hit downtown Cleveland | Daily Mail Online

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Everyone loses in a trade war but China definitely has more to lose. It does seem like these countries are targeting industries where his base lives though.

From a consumer perspective it'll hit Chinese businesses more as they export more HOWEVER ... China isn't a capitalist setup and as such is less affected by profit/loss as the US.

Finally trade wars are a lose/lose scenario really - if the the US wins it'll be by having less of a decline than other countries, that is prices rising 'less' than elsewhere and the country losing fewer jobs than other countries ... not really a great victory really ..

Finally manufacturing jobs will only return to the US if wages decline sufficiently to make it competitive - Republicans have already started action to try to encourage this by weakening unions etc.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

From a consumer perspective it'll hit Chinese businesses more as they export more HOWEVER ... China isn't a capitalist setup and as such is less affected by profit/loss as the US.

Finally trade wars are a lose/lose scenario really - if the the US wins it'll be by having less of a decline than other countries, that is prices rising 'less' than elsewhere and the country losing fewer jobs than other countries ... not really a great victory really ..

Finally manufacturing jobs will only return to the US if wages decline sufficiently to make it competitive - Republicans have already started action to try to encourage this by weakening unions etc.

But it won't be wages declining that brings manufacturing back, because with nascent automation, even declining wages will be "too much" to keep American manufacturing competitive.

The net result is going to be an undermining of the American standard of living in exchange for 5-10 years of those jobs coming back, and then not only will they be gone again, but the folks losing them will find themselves with a worse standard of living than they had before.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So Michael Cohen has done an interview on ABC, not Fox that aired this morning. Affirmed he put his family and country above Trump, believes in the FBI, the Mueller investigation not a witch hunt, and he's been wrongly depicted by the media as a villain. I hope Mueller was listening and called his lawyer right after the interview:


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mich...ry?id=56304585

This seems more like a plea to Trump for a pardon.