|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 7:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Ultra liberals are just as much about their constituency as any other type of politician, and that includes Sanders. You think Sanders would give a flying **** about me? He would be to busy supporting immigrants with other cultures, Allah bless them all. I would have to take my place in society, what ever place was deemed acceptable for me by the ultra flakes, but with his constituency that's different. There is no difference between Sanders and the others in fact he might be worse. |
Dude, what the hell did Saudi Arabia do to you? You've become a very bitter person the last couple years... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. |
That's almost 10 years ago. Sanders is in favor of legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants, and also voted in 2013 for a bill that would have at least doubled the number of H-1B visas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. |
That's almost 10 years ago. Sanders is in favor of legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants, and also voted in 2013 for a bill that would have at least doubled the number of H-1B visas. |
| Quote: |
But even though he ultimately voted for it, Sanders wasn’t too keen on guest-worker plan in 2013, either.
The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision.
Sanders ultimately secured a sweetener in the final days of the 2013 immigration battle: a $1.5 billion youth jobs program that, on its face, appeared to have little to do with immigration.
It would dole out that money to states to help 16- to 24-year-olds in the United States become employed, which Sanders proclaimed would help more than 400,000 young people. He argued that his youth jobs program was necessary to offset the immigrants coming here to do jobs that Sanders said the young Americans would otherwise do.
“Like any piece of complicated legislation, there are aspects of this bill which I strongly support and others I disagree with,” Sanders after he voted to pass the 2013 bill. “One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guest-worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bitter-clinger Bernie Sanders
| Quote: |
"We’re also fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party, whether the Democratic Party remains dependent on Wall Street contributions or whether we move in the direction"
. . .
Members of Democratic establishment, he said, are "not enthusiastic about my candidacy and are certainly not overjoyed by the fact that we have now won 19 states and are poised to win even more."
. . .
"Do we fight for working families, do we work with working families, do we bring them into the Democratic Party or do we remain more dependent than we should on big-money interests?” |
It is still that minor detail about politicians taking bribes from Wall Street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 6:04 pm Post subject: RE: Bernie Sanders . . . |
|
|
| . . . is old. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Three Policy Reasons for Sanders to Hang On
| Quote: |
Israel and the Palestinians – Clinton, the former secretary of state, understandably has a stake in preserving the status quo in U.S. relations with Israel and the Palestinian authority since she helped to negotiate them, including the November 2012 cease fire between Israel and Hamas. The Democratic Party’s current policy calls for a “just and lasting” Israeli-Palestinian accord that would eventually produce a two-state solution.
However, the platform is silent on the issue of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the conduct of Israeli troops in cracking down on violence. Here, Sanders wants a more “even handed” approach to Israeli occupation of land that the Palestinians claim for a future state. Sanders insists that Israeli’s response to the uprising and violence in Gaza and missile attacks on their villages in 2014 was “disproportionate and led to unnecessary loss of innocent life.”
Clinton says that Israel had no choice but to defend itself from missile attacks from the terrorist organizations that control the Palestinian territory. “So, I don't know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attacks, rockets coming at you,” she said during an April Democratic debate. “You have a right to defend yourself.” |
Clinton is wrong on Israel.
| Quote: |
National Health Care -- Sanders and Clintons have repeatedly dueled over the future of the Affordable Care Act and other federal health programs, with Sanders pressing for a “single-payer” national health care program to supersede existing programs while Clinton has argued for incremental improvements to gradually extend coverage to all Americans.
Sanders complains that the U.S. is the only major industrialized country without a national health insurance program, and has promoted a Canadian-style national health and long-term care program that would cost an additional $13.8 trillion over the coming decade, according to some estimates. Clinton has been adamant in her support of Obamacare and has dismissed Sanders’s plan to guarantee all Americans health care as too costly and impractical.
However, amid mounting pressure from Sanders and liberal Democrats, Clinton signaled recently that she would be open to allowing some people under the age of 65 to buy into Medicare, the federal health care plan for seniors. Clinton for years has been open to changes and improvements in Obamacare. More recently, she has proposed a number of methods for expanding health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and lowering the price of prescription drugs. So clearly there is plenty of room for compromise heading into the national convention this summer. |
Clinton resists Universal Healthcare.
| Quote: |
Breaking up the big banks – There is probably no more politically sensitive issue in the Democratic race than what to do to avert another banking industry crisis and meltdown, if for no other reason than Sanders has relentlessly hammered Clinton for being too cozy with Wall Street and accepting $2.9 million in speaking fees from a dozen banks including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Sanders and Clinton both stressed during their mid-April debate that they were more than willing to break up big banks that continue to pose a systemic risk to the U.S. and international economy. However, they differed significantly in how they would approach mitigating “too big to fail.”
Clinton says she supports the broad framework created under the Dodd-Frank Act, while Sanders says he would take a much tougher approach by having Treasury officials set a “hard cap” on the size of assets that banks can legally hold and leaving it to bank officials to decide where to cut back. "What the government should say is, 'You are too big to fail, you have got to be a certain size,' and that the banks have got to figure out what they have to sell off," Sanders said during the debate. "I don't know that it is appropriate for the department of the Treasury to be making those decisions."
Clinton, for her part, would take a more nuanced approach, following the strictures of Dodd-Frank. She said it "has to be the judgment of the regulators" whether the government tells banks what assets they have to sell off or leaves it up to the institutions themselves. |
The Big Banks own Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bleeding heart liberals want to bring over immigrants because, it increases their constituency, and it just makes them look to the public. I was swaying between Clinton and Trump, but the Trump riot in Albuquerque, and Clinton trying to kiss up to the newly arrived Latinos and other immigrant groups about how set upon they are, puts me clearly in the Trump voting group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. |
That's almost 10 years ago. Sanders is in favor of legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants, and also voted in 2013 for a bill that would have at least doubled the number of H-1B visas. |
Unskilled jobs are what a lot of people need when moving between skilled jobs. Giving unskilled jobs to immigrants is selling out the American public. People with money like it because its cheaper to put a roof on a house with immigrants. Liberals like it because like I said above, immigrants provide a constituency for people like Sanders, all the while the US gets dumber and dumber and more corrupt while the liberals and the moneyed run of to their nice homes and lifestyles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. |
That's almost 10 years ago. Sanders is in favor of legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants, and also voted in 2013 for a bill that would have at least doubled the number of H-1B visas. |
Unskilled jobs are what a lot of people need when moving between skilled jobs. Giving unskilled jobs to immigrants is selling out the American public. People with money like it because its cheaper to put a roof on a house with immigrants. Liberals like it because like I said above, immigrants provide a constituency for people like Sanders, all the while the US gets dumber and dumber and more corrupt while the liberals and the moneyed run of to their nice homes and lifestyles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When it comes to foreign policy Hillary is barely any better than the hawkish Republicans who oppose her.
| Quote: |
Bernie Sanders responded to Hillary Clinton's foreign policy speech on Thursday with a hit at her credentials, including her involvement in the Iraq War and so-called "regime change" in Libya.
"We need a foreign policy based on building coalitions and making certain that the brave American men and women in our military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East," he said in a statement. "That's what I will fight for as president."
Earlier Thursday, Clinton gave a speech that laid out her own foreign policy agenda and criticized presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" ideas.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November, we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death," Clinton said. "The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
On that point, Sanders agreed.
However, he added, Clinton wasn't much better.
"I agree with Secretary Clinton that Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are incredibly reckless and irresponsible," he said in his statement. "But when it comes to foreign policy, we cannot forget that Secretary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history, and that she has been a proponent of regime change, as in Libya, without thinking through the consequences."
His comments fell in line with much of the progressive sector's response to Clinton's speech, which included criticism from journalists and policy experts such as Jeet Heer of The New Republic, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, and Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
|
Full Article |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| When it comes to foreign policy Hillary is barely any better than the hawkish Republicans who oppose her. |
Catman's statement would be more correct if it said “… hawkish cuckservatives who are now openly supporting her.”
Because they were both globalist shills the whole time, surprise! Buying into the left vs right narrative means subjecting yourself to endless divide and conquer tactics, and as a result, being unable to understand the true dynamic at play. It's about globalism/internationalism vs nationalism/ethnic identity now, not left vs right.
Hillary is the arch-wench of that elite internationalist class, so of course factions from both sides are now supporting her over Trump, who represents the first major push against that and a return to more nationalist politics.
Berniebros are low-information ideologues who are overwhelmingly young, White, and out of touch with reality. But even they have been forced to realize that their candidate can't contend solely because the demographics are no longer in their favor. There aren't enough White leftist patsies left to influence the situation on the ground – the democratic party is the American Bolshevik coalition of inter-tribal brown people now, and Bernie doesn't do anything for them.
And it's only going to get worse unless the White demographic situation is fixed and we start sending the brown people back to where they belong. Maybe then Berniebros could be allowed to create their socialist fiat sinkhole state and learn the hard way how inviable their ideals always were. But until America's demographic morass is reversed and returned to a state of normalcy, they're better off boarding the Trump train and getting it through their heads that White people of all political persuasions are quickly becoming SOL as far as political representation at the national level is concerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| When it comes to foreign policy Hillary is barely any better than the hawkish Republicans who oppose her. |
Which "hawkish republicans" oppose her? Seems they all explicitly or implicitly support her.
HRC is George Bush in a pant suit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Trump version of the Republican Party is an enormous departure from the Bush/Romney iteration:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/koch-brothers-give-a-megaphone-to-the-anti-israel-fringe
| Quote: |
On Wednesday, the Charles Koch Institute, a think tank funded by one of the conservative movement's most generous donors, will host a conference featuring some of the academy's most virulent foes of Israel.
Charles and David Koch, scions of the Koch Industries fortune, have always leaned libertarian in their political giving and nonprofit work. The two brothers have supported criminal-justice reform and other free-market initiatives in education and labor. In foreign policy, the Kochs have stayed away from the uglier fringes that blame Israel and its supporters for hijacking U.S. foreign policy. That is, until now.
The institute's conference scheduled for Wednesday will feature separate panels with Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, co-authors of the 2006 book "The Israel Lobby." |
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rand-paul-new-defense-think-tank/2016/06/09/id/733130/
| Quote: |
Disciples of Rand Paul and the Koch brothers have come together to form a new defense think tank that will prioritize a strong military but with a focus on "restraint and diplomacy."
Ed King, president and founder of Defense Priorities Foundation, is the former COO of a pro-Paul super Pac; Eleanor May was Paul's campaign press secretary; William Ruger is the vice president of Policy and Research at the Charles Koch Institute, according to the group's website.
Defense Priorities' own foreign policy dictates a strong defense of the country's borders that are responsible.
"These vital interests must be weighed against the prevailing Beltway narrative that obliges U.S. military engagement in so many places and at so many times," Defense Priorities writes on its website. "Too often, these needless and exhausting ventures are undertaken absent thoughtful consideration of the consequences here at home and abroad."
|
The smallest opening and the money moves away from the war party.
No more wars for Israel (from the Republicans). The internationalist revolutionary warmongering is much more at home with progressives, from where they initially came. Adleson will throw money at Trump to ensure he keeps the MAD Israel alliance but there will be no war in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc for Israel, unless HRC wins (which she won't). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus2 wrote: |
The Trump version of the Republican Party is an enormous departure from the Bush/Romney iteration:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-17/koch-brothers-give-a-megaphone-to-the-anti-israel-fringe
| Quote: |
On Wednesday, the Charles Koch Institute, a think tank funded by one of the conservative movement's most generous donors, will host a conference featuring some of the academy's most virulent foes of Israel.
Charles and David Koch, scions of the Koch Industries fortune, have always leaned libertarian in their political giving and nonprofit work. The two brothers have supported criminal-justice reform and other free-market initiatives in education and labor. In foreign policy, the Kochs have stayed away from the uglier fringes that blame Israel and its supporters for hijacking U.S. foreign policy. That is, until now.
The institute's conference scheduled for Wednesday will feature separate panels with Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, co-authors of the 2006 book "The Israel Lobby." |
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rand-paul-new-defense-think-tank/2016/06/09/id/733130/
| Quote: |
Disciples of Rand Paul and the Koch brothers have come together to form a new defense think tank that will prioritize a strong military but with a focus on "restraint and diplomacy."
Ed King, president and founder of Defense Priorities Foundation, is the former COO of a pro-Paul super Pac; Eleanor May was Paul's campaign press secretary; William Ruger is the vice president of Policy and Research at the Charles Koch Institute, according to the group's website.
Defense Priorities' own foreign policy dictates a strong defense of the country's borders that are responsible.
"These vital interests must be weighed against the prevailing Beltway narrative that obliges U.S. military engagement in so many places and at so many times," Defense Priorities writes on its website. "Too often, these needless and exhausting ventures are undertaken absent thoughtful consideration of the consequences here at home and abroad."
|
The smallest opening and the money moves away from the war party.
No more wars for Israel (from the Republicans). The internationalist revolutionary warmongering is much more at home with progressives, from where they initially came. Adleson will throw money at Trump to ensure he keeps the MAD Israel alliance but there will be no war in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc for Israel, unless HRC wins (which she won't). |
To call Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearshiemer of U Chicago fringe is as absurd as calling them virulently anti-Isreal. Their views, realism, have been around and been mainstream for decades. This is hardly a new development or new actors. Koch money has been going to this sort of stuff for awhile, and there have always been places like Cato peddling this view.
Your last paragraph is pure speculation. Trump seems just as likely to do stupid stuff in the Middle East as Hillary is, which is very. It's hopeful thinking and a fantasy. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-he-never-discussed-/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
