Trump Approval Rating Plummeting Even Among White Voters In Fox News Poll

[TreeFrogTrader]

If you think Democrats own Agro-corp, I still have that bridge for sale.

And I said that where?

Apparently your wife is not speaking to you so you are making up conversations in your mind.

sheesh. No wonder she is not speaking to you.


Also, Trump put mandatory e-verify into his budget plan so it is good to get assurances from you that the dems will also support border security and immigration control enhancements- OR NOT.

 

[Cuddles]

And I said that where?

Apparently your wife is not speaking to you so you are making up conversations in your mind.

sheesh. No wonder she is not speaking to you.


Also, Trump put mandatory e-verify into his budget plan so it is good to get assurances from you that the dems will also support border security and immigration control enhancements- OR NOT.

Yeah, I'm sure he also expects a wall to be paid by Mexico and a blowjob from the hottest Victoria's secret angel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/24/dreamers-immigrants-republicans-senate-244082?lo=ap_f1

And in case you cry fake news, this tabloid rag, aka Republican Bible, agrees.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-employers-to-continue-hiring-illegal-aliens/

 

[UsualName]

If you think this is how government works then you clearly have zero understanding of government.

First off, the "majority" hails from about 3 states. Under your lackadaisical logic 3 states should be governing 47 states. Hence, the reason for the electoral college. No one wants socialist retards in California governing America when they can't even govern their own budget and have an infrastructure crisis of epic proportion brewing.

Second, you might need to brush up on your understanding of civics. The "Democratic Republic" is not ruled by the "people". It is ruled by a handful of political professionals who sell their votes to the highest bidder. This is why you have the current state of affairs where RINO's sell out to the open borders advocates, big Pharm, and Big banking industry. This is why they are currently at odds with Trump, because his agenda is going the opposite direction. Reducing cheap/ illegal immigration hurts big business. That's just one of many reason.

Boiling it down to a retarded discussion of "the people and their will" when it is actually TPTB shows an incredible amount of naivety.

I’m always willing to learn new things but the “multiple streams” theory of the political process tells us there is only a short window of opportunity to pass major legislation. Without public support politicians are hard pressed to get their ideas through the agenda phase.

You’ll notice the popularity of the affordable care act is at an all time high as republicans failed to repeal it. Their failure is not an accident.

If you are actually interested in political science I suggest the following book, you may look at our political system differently:

https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/agen...ogue-on-health-care-john-w-kingdon/1100058073

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Yeah, I'm sure he also expects a wall to be paid by Mexico and a blowjob from the hottest Victoria's secret angel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/24/dreamers-immigrants-republicans-senate-244082?lo=ap_f1

And in case you cry fake news, this tabloid rag, aka Republican Bible, agrees.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-employers-to-continue-hiring-illegal-aliens/

Right, there are various republican immigration reform plans that are at odds with the house at odds with other republicans in their same chamber and at odds with the presidents plan. Nothing new there.

But I said that Trump wants e-verify and has included that in his budget plan. So, now that you have had your little fun pointing out some republicans oppose it, are you saying that democrats are ready to support it?

DIDN'T THINK SO. So don't play the game of pretending that it is something the republicans killed- not the dems becaused dems could vote for it too unless they were against it- which would override some republican opposition.

You guys want amnesty and open borders and do not want anything that distinguishes between citizens and illegals in any way.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Right, there are various republican immigration reform plans that are at odds with the house at odds with other republicans in their same chamber and at odds with the presidents plan. Nothing new there.

But I said that Trump wants e-verify and has included that in his budget plan. So, now that you have had your little fun pointing out some republicans oppose it, are you saying that democrats are ready to support it?

DIDN'T THINK SO. So don't play the game of pretending that it is something the republicans killed- not the dems becaused dems could vote for it too unless they were against it- which would override some republican opposition.

You guys want amnesty and open borders and do not want anything that distinguishes between citizens and illegals in any way.

E-Verify has been applied across multiple states and industries. It has had serious inaccuracy issues which are slowly improving however even last year it was up to 2% off. That is millions of false positives for existing employees.

Maybe by 2020 (a friend tells me) it will be a tool that is sufficiently de-bugged and can be applied across the board but until it not fit for purpose as it will hurt a lot of honest and legal people.

So what is there to support and how broadly applied? That it be made law of the land before it is fit for purpose?

 

[UsualName]

Right, there are various republican immigration reform plans that are at odds with the house at odds with other republicans in their same chamber and at odds with the presidents plan. Nothing new there.

But I said that Trump wants e-verify and has included that in his budget plan. So, now that you have had your little fun pointing out some republicans oppose it, are you saying that democrats are ready to support it?

DIDN'T THINK SO. So don't play the game of pretending that it is something the republicans killed- not the dems becaused dems could vote for it too unless they were against it- which would override some republican opposition.

You guys want amnesty and open borders and do not want anything that distinguishes between citizens and illegals in any way.

E verify was part of the bipartisan immigration reform legislation that came out of the senate in 2013. The bills sponsor was Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

E verify was part of the bipartisan immigration reform legislation that came out of the senate in 2013. The bills sponsor was Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York.

Good. So Trump can count on Schumer's support even if some republicans in the senate are not with him on it. Damn, that's good to hear.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

E-Verify has been applied across multiple states and industries. It has had serious inaccuracy issues which are slowly improving however even last year it was up to 2% off. That is millions of false positives for existing employees.

Maybe by 2020 (a friend tells me) it will be a tool that is sufficiently de-bugged and can be applied across the board but until it not fit for purpose as it will hurt a lot of honest and legal people.

So what is there to support and how broadly applied? That it be made law of the land before it is fit for purpose?

How are you defining a "false positive" here? Someone who falsely shows up as eligible or ineligible.

 

[Slartibartfast]

How are you defining a "false positive" here? Someone who falsely shows up as eligible or ineligible.

As I understand the issue is eligible showing as ineligible. Any initial glitch is often too much time he hazarded for say a new hire shift worker who would lose out to an alternate. It still results in a fraction of a percentage (still too many) legit citizens who would be refused jobs and worse after final checking. Source data errors I imagine, I expect stronger promotion of self-verify could help a lot.

My friend who owns a large company was of the opinion that the reported accuracy of the company behind the system is usual gov contractor BS in his personal experience. He believes in the system, the virtual "wall", just more time required as until it is mandatory it has too many circumvents.

Koch's CATO institute has some stuff. https://www.cato.org/blog/serious-problems-e-verify

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

As I understand the issue is eligible showing as ineligible. Any initial glitch is often too much time he hazarded for say a new hire shift worker who would lose out to an alternate. It still results in a fraction of a percentage (still too many) legit citizens who would be refused jobs and worse after final checking. Source data errors I imagine, I expect stronger promotion of self-verify could help a lot.

My friend who owns a large company was of the opinion that the reported accuracy of the company behind the system is usual gov contractor BS in his personal experience. He believes in the system, the virtual "wall", just more time required as until it is mandatory it has too many circumvents.

Koch's CATO institute has some stuff. https://www.cato.org/blog/serious-problems-e-verify

Alright, good. The Cato report was a good read. It places the false positive number quite a bit lower than you suggested but - whatever- it laid the issues out in an organized way.

Roughly 0.15 percent of all E-Verify queries result in a false “final non-confirmation.”

Looks like there is even a greater problem too with ineligibles coming back as eligible. People shovel a bunch of false documentation into the system but once they are branded as eligible, e-verify then becomes their go-to friend for the rest of their life.

Be interesting to see how it goes in the states that are starting to link the photo from the dmv over to the database.

Part of this dilemma is that both the conservatives and the liberals oppose a national identity card which would put an end to a lot of this bullshit. The conservatives don't want it- not all, some are 100% in favor- because it is allegedly a Big Brother thing. But then they end out supporting all this incremental big brother database stuff in the background which attempts to accomplish the same thing. The libs of course oppose it because lots of their folks are illegals and they would not qualify for a national identity card.

Full disclosure: I am 110% in favor of a national identity card. And yes I know what libertarians say about that but if I want a friend, I will get a dog.