U.S. Politics

[HanoiVillan]

Woah woah woah what's all this 'the government aren't even trying to control non-EU migration' talk?

I can promise you, as somebody currently in the process of applying for a visa for his wife, a lawless free-for-all is exactly what it **** isn't. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Woah woah woah what's all this 'the government aren't even trying to control non-EU migration' talk?

I can promise you, as somebody currently in the process of applying for a visa for his wife, a lawless free-for-all is exactly what it **** isn't. 

I didn't mean it as a "lawless free-for-all".

The numbers aren't going down. It has remained around 300k gross non-EU immigration since 2000, with a few outliers above and below since then. The non-EU numbers actually went up in 2014 by around 50k and have remained there since. IMO It's a very cynical approach by the government. Instead of reducing these numbers, they're attacking EU immigration through the ref and non-EU students. 

Apologies if I offended, I wasn't very clear. But looking at the numbers, it's quite hypocritical for the government to bang on about 'taking back control' when they don't seem to be doing it with the category of immigration they already control. I'm sorry for your own situation also.

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I didn't mean it as a "lawless free-for-all".

The numbers aren't going down. It has remained around 300k gross non-EU immigration since 2000, with a few outliers above and below since then. The non-EU numbers actually went up in 2014 by around 50k and have remained there since. IMO It's a very cynical approach by the government. Instead of reducing these numbers, they're attacking EU immigration through the ref and non-EU students. 

Apologies if I offended, I wasn't very clear. But looking at the numbers, it's quite hypocritical for the government to bang on about 'taking back control' when they don't seem to be doing it with the category of immigration they already control. I'm sorry for your own situation also.

Ta. Don't worry, I wasn't offended. It's just that there are some common misconceptions about migration that people have. The awkward reality for the government is that they have already done all of the 'easy wins'. We now issue absolutely no visas for unskilled migrants. All non-EU migration is now down to either, a] families, or b] skilled migrants that companies want and feel prepared to go through the rigmarole of visa application for, or c] refugees.

Turning 'hundreds of thousands' into 'tens of thousands' has the beauty of sounding simple, but the reality is this country will never again see the levels of migration that we had in the 1990s without a complete economic collapse or some sort of violent conflict. A brave politician would be prepared to say this, but they would have to be brave. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Ta. Don't worry, I wasn't offended. It's just that there are some common misconceptions about migration that people have. The awkward reality for the government is that they have already done all of the 'easy wins'. We now issue absolutely no visas for unskilled migrants. All non-EU migration is now down to either, a] families, or b] skilled migrants that companies want and feel prepared to go through the rigmarole of visa application for, or c] refugees.

Turning 'hundreds of thousands' into 'tens of thousands' has the beauty of sounding simple, but the reality is this country will never again see the levels of migration that we had in the 1990s without a complete economic collapse or some sort of violent conflict. A brave politician would be prepared to say this, but they would have to be brave. 

For me it's even more cynical than that. May has decided to go after non-EU students now, to continue going after the easy win. For me, that's the stupidest attack. They come here, pay huge fees and contribute billions to the economy. Some will stay after their courses (but they will be educated/skilled) but most leave after 3 years.

I digress, the numbers aren't going down at all. Never mind reducing hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands like pledged. Which I why I wanted to clarify so you didn't think I was implying it's a lawless free-for-all. I'm aware it isn't.

Also, as I said in my OP, even with 'controlled EU immigration', I doubt the numbers will go down. We need the EU immigrants to prop up certain industries until we scale back welfare and encourage certain British people to get back into the workforce.

 

This is a few years old now but I think it's a somewhat accurate representation of the attitudes that some hold in this country. You can pretty much safely assume all of these idiots who feel they're above the jobs described voted leave as well.

I'm hugely off-topic so I'll post the same post in the Brexit thread too if you want to continue the discussion.

[OutByEaster?]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'm hugely off-topic so I'll post the same post in the Brexit thread too if you want to continue the discussion.

Thank you! 

 

[StefanAVFC]

http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/#/

This is brilliant and lends credence to the theory that his syntax and temperament isn't a ploy and it's just him. These, in particular, tickled (and terrified me)

I think the hope of a sudden pivot to a more presidential figure is optimistic. 

[Brumerican]

Matthew 5:44

Trump is basically Jesus.

[villakram]

$1.6B Ford plant in Mex cancelled. 

$0.7B invested in Michigan Ford plant.

Reason per the Ford CEO: "Trump is president" a paraphrased quotation! or an actual quotation, "This is a vote of confidence for President-Elect Trump and some of the policies he may be pursuing,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-mexico-idUSKBN14N1EO

[Davkaus]

A vote of confidence, or 'oh shit, he's going to kill our relationship with Mexico'? Either way, it's investment in America, which I guess is a win for the Donald.

[Awol]

36 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

A vote of confidence, or 'oh shit, he's going to kill our relationship with Mexico'? Either way, it's investment in America, which I guess is a win for the Donald.

Hasn't he threatened to slap a big border tax on vehicles that US companies manufacture in Mexico and then reimport? 

So maybe more like 'oh shit, he meant all that stuff about bringing back jobs and it'll be cheaper to make them in the US...'

[Villaphan04]

The house republicans voted to move the office of congressional ethics within the authority of the house ethics committee. However, Trump tweeted his disapproval and they backed down.

Quote

Backlash was swift after it was revealed Monday night that incoming House Republicans voted to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the authority of the House Ethics Committee, which has a Republican chair, during a closed-door meeting.

Republicans abruptly changed course Tuesday morning after that public outcry (as well as a tweet from the President-elect chastising the caucus for not having its priorities straight, rather than for weakening the "unfair" OCE), withdrawing the rules change that would have gutted the independent ethics watchdog.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/office-congressional-ethics-vote-checklist

Quote

Lawmakers from both parties were against the office then, as well as now, and would much prefer to be judged by their peers — politicians currently serving in the House who might be more sympathetic — as opposed to a more discrete board and staff. But in moving ahead with the rules change on a strictly partisan basis, Republicans opened the door to Democrats berating them for the proposal, even though a significant number of Democrats are just as unhappy with the ethics office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/us/politics/in-republicans-ethics-office-gambit-a-spectacle-of-tweets-and-retreats.html

Edited January 4, 2017 by Villaphan04

[StefanAVFC]

34 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said:

The house republicans voted to move the office of congressional ethics within the authority of the house ethics committee. However, Trump tweeted his disapproval and they backed down.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/office-congressional-ethics-vote-checklist

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/us/politics/in-republicans-ethics-office-gambit-a-spectacle-of-tweets-and-retreats.html

That's not entirely true.

1) It's a disingenuous statement. They didn't back down because Trump tweeted his disapproval. Thousands of people called in to complain, both sides criticised it and various watchdogs spoke out about it too.

2) He isn't even disapproving of the idea. He called the Office of Congressional Ethics 'unfair' in the same tweet. He criticised the timing only. Also KellyAnne Conway defended the proposal. As did Sean Spicer.

In other news.

Quote

President-elect Donald Trump has backed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in casting doubt on intelligence alleging Russian meddling in the US election.

Mr Assange said Russia was not the source for the site's mass leak of emails from the Democratic Party.

Mr Trump has now backed that view in a tweet. He wrote: "Assange... said Russians did not give him the info!"

The president-elect has repeatedly refused to accept the conclusions of the US intelligence community.

Several US agencies including the FBI and the CIA believe Russia directed hacks against the Democratic Party and the campaign of its presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The information, released through Wikileaks and other outlets, was intended to help Mr Trump win the election, say the FBI and CIA.

On Tuesday evening, Mr Trump said an intelligence briefing he was due to receive on the issue had been delayed.

"Perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!" he wrote.

But US intelligence officials insisted there had been no delay in the briefing schedule.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38505398

The bolded is **** terrifying. The big question must be, what evidence does he have to trust Assange over 17 US intelligence agencies? He told us he'd tell us yesterday or today, so let's wait and see *snigger*

Edited January 4, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[Villaphan04]

34 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

That's not entirely true.

1) It's a disingenuous statement. They didn't back down because Trump tweeted his disapproval. Thousands of people called in to complain, both sides criticised it and various watchdogs spoke out about it too.

2) He isn't even disapproving of the idea. He called the Office of Congressional Ethics 'unfair' in the same tweet. He criticised the timing only. Also KellyAnne Conway defended the proposal. As did Sean Spicer.

 

yeah i just find it terrifying that congress thinks they should be governed by themselves. I think Trump's tweet was more along the lines of trying to get policies done that he wanted and just pushing this issue back to when he "officially" gets into office. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Villaphan04 said:

yeah i just find it terrifying that congress thinks they should be governed by themselves. I think Trump's tweet was more along the lines of trying to get policies done that he wanted and just pushing this issue back to when he "officially" gets into office. 

I would agree.

[villakram]

46 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

That's not entirely true.

1) It's a disingenuous statement. They didn't back down because Trump tweeted his disapproval. Thousands of people called in to complain, both sides criticised it and various watchdogs spoke out about it too.

2) He isn't even disapproving of the idea. He called the Office of Congressional Ethics 'unfair' in the same tweet. He criticised the timing only. Also KellyAnne Conway defended the proposal. As did Sean Spicer.

In other news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38505398

The bolded is **** terrifying. The big question must be, what evidence does he have to trust Assange over 17 US intelligence agencies? He told us he'd tell us yesterday or today, so let's wait and see *snigger*

Go read some of the excellent coverage on this issue at the intercept and stop with the FBI/CIA are all saying nonsense. It's all anonymous official sources and absent new information being revealed the hacking of a bloody gmail account doesn't exactly require state level resources. Also, Julian Assange has on a number of occasion gone explicitly on the record to deny receiving the leaked material from the "Russians". 

And another thing... 17 intelligence agencies. Sounds impressive right. Go and look them up. Snakes and liars.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

Go read some of the excellent coverage on this issue at the intercept and stop with the FBI/CIA are all saying nonsense. It's all anonymous official sources and absent new information being revealed the hacking of a bloody gmail account doesn't exactly require state level resources.

Have a read also. https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings Excellent and detailed coverage. Here are a few examples of the excellent explanations on this account in case you don't click. I had no idea about it really and found it incredibly interesting.

 

14 minutes ago, villakram said:

 Also, Julian Assange has on a number of occasion gone explicitly on the record to deny receiving the leaked material from the "Russians". 

Well strike me down. We have to believe him then. We have to take Assange's word over the US intelligence agencies' word. You've said it there. Trump supporters will bang on about a lack of proof from the CIA/FBI etc, but where is the proof from Assange? So we go back to this.

The big question must be, what evidence does he have to trust Assange over 17 US intelligence agencies? He told us he'd tell us yesterday or today.

Considering Obama hasn't had his own briefing yet (it's tomorrow), I'm intrigued to hear what he has to say. Although it wouldn't be unlike Trump to delay again.

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

And another thing... 17 intelligence agencies. Sounds impressive right. Go and look them up. Snakes and liars.

Regardless of your opinion, the POETUS publicly attacking his own intelligence agencies on social media and siding with Assange is wrong.

He lied about them, only today saying they rescheduled the security briefing (it was always arranged for Friday) and labelled them "intelligence" using "...".

The POETUS should not be doing this. This isn't a partisan issue.

[Awol]

On balance it wouldn't be surprising if the Russians did it, either directly or by proxy. If so they were probably aiming to weaken the (expected) President elect Clinton, a declared foe of Putin since the Libya debacle.

Despite appearances Trump is anything but stupid and the people he now has around him (Flynn, Mattis etc) aren't going to collude in some Manchurian candidate scenario, so why is Trump making such a big deal about disputing the claims of Russian involvement?

If he acknowledges them then any moves towards a strategic reset of relations with Russia geared towards de-escalation are over before they've begun, preventing the major foreign policy shift that he wants to make a priority of his Administration. 

Until someone drops a smoking gun on his desk he'll continue to obfuscate and keep his options open. That may happen on Friday after Obama receives the briefing on Thursday - as the sitting POTUS. I'd expect 'leaks' to be all over the US media in the period between those two briefings. 

[StefanAVFC]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

If he acknowledges them then any moves towards a strategic reset of relations with Russia geared towards de-escalation are over before they've begun, preventing the major foreign policy shift that he wants to make a priority of his Administration. 

Until someone drops a smoking gun on his desk he'll continue to obfuscate and keep his options open. That may happen on Friday after Obama receives the briefing on Thursday - as the sitting POTUS. I'd expect 'leaks' to be all over the US media in the period between those two briefings. 

In your opinion, what happens if, on Thursday/Friday without doubt it is clear that Russia was behind it? What does Trump? I think he has potentially backed himself into a hole.

Although I agree with your bolded, I think the way he has gone about it is ridiculous. He could have quietly downplayed it, but instead he praises Putin, doubles down by labeling his own services as "intelligence" and sides with Assange. I'd argue he hasn't kept his options open at all. He's 100% denied any Russian involvement.

It makes me really wonder if he's as intelligent as you think or a loud mouth who can't keep it shut.

[snowychap]

19 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The POETUS

It should be PEOTUS, shouldn't it?

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It should be PEOTUS, shouldn't it?

No it's the President of Elect the United States