Trump to win?

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Why is it that I, a natural-born American citizen who speaks English such that no one can know my ethnicity just from hearing my voice, must present two forms of identification (two of: birth certificate, driver's license, U.S. passport) to prove that I am legally allowed to work in the U.S. when I join a company?

Is it because I unknowingly am being discriminated against and that the corporations I have worked for are trying to trip me up so they can hire someone else? If so, please provide me with good evidence and the contact information of a good lawyer.

The company that I work for uses a national payroll service to manage employee hiring and paychecks. All prospective new hires, regardless of race, are required to show two forms of ID to prove eligibility to work. It has to do with the fact that companies can find themselves in big trouble for hiring illegals.

EDIT: The way we do it is, if we like a person for a job we ask them for ID so as to run a criminal background check. If that pans out, then the payroll service takes over. They require two forms of ID to pass the "legal to hire" requirement, have the person fill out forms for withholding, simple IRA contributions, direct deposit, etc... The payroll service never even sees the new hire.

[Ellen Z]

Re: Trump to win?

Justin Levitt (Loyola Law School) finds 31 cases of voter impersonation in one billion votes cast between 2000 and 2016. Meanwhile....

+1

[Ellen Z]

Re: Trends Reported by 538.com

Go to:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo
_____ Scroll down the page to see trends over time. It looks as if the first debate had a significant impact.

538.com is not a polling organization; it aggregates polling data from many sources. Recently I read a paragraph by Nate Silver about their methodology... he said they were going to wait a few days after the debate for accurate polling data to roll in.... unfortunately I can’t locate that summary paragraph right now.

The website says they are presenting three models:
_____ Polls-plus forecast.... What polls, the economy and historical data tell us about Nov. 8
_____ Polls-only forecast ... What polls alone tell us about Nov. 8
_____ Now-cast .... Who would win the election if it were held today

The website also includes articles about the Senate race, baseball and NFL, as well as the presidential race. I find it useful for a quick current snapshot.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

in reply to Tn's post below...

+1

huh?
never occured to me Ms Ellen, that you'd be... 'with them' ?
but i guess its going to come down to another 50.1 to 49.9 split decision, tween 'identity groups'

and The Rest of US, eh?

Justin Levitt (Loyola Law School) finds 31 cases of voter impersonation in one billion votes cast between 2000 and 2016. Meanwhile.......
...
The only voter fraud is voter fraud laws.

uh huh....
Riiiight:

Dead People Are Voting In The Key Swing State Of Colorado

Colorado voter fraud investigation finds dozens of deceased citizens voting for multiple years after their death.

• Sep 24, 2016 8:00 PM

and this seems to be contagious?

Meet The Young Virginia Democrat That Registered 19 Dead People To Vote In Virginia

Andrew Spieles had big plans to "help" Hillary win the key swing state of Virginia with a little help from some dead voters...except he got caught...oops.

• Sep 30, 2016 11:55 PM

yeah, that's an Ooops alright

its just gotta be another one of them russian plot/conspiracies ???

naaah... nothing to see there.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary belittles Sander's supporters:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...io-leak-228997

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

"A 2012 Pew Center on The States study said "approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state." Pew said 68,000 people were registered in three states, and 1,807 were even registered in three states."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...elections.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ID-laws-needed


"I see dead people.
In your dreams?
[shake my head no]
While you're awake?
[nod head]
Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?
In voting booths. They don't know they're Democrats."

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

• Unemployment down from 10.1% to 4.9%
• 3X as many jobs created under the Obama administration than Bush
• Forbes magazine says Obama outperformed Reagan in jobs growth

If you make $400,000 a year or more, congratulations and yes, your taxes will most likely go up...as they should.



Bold statement but of course it's pure speculation. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wars in Iraq and Afghanistan massively destabilized the Middle East. We'll continue to pay for that until their oil runs dry and we can sufficiently support ourselves with renewable energy sources and non Middle East energy supplies.

Orwellian is the word I'm always coming back to.

As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.

It's the highest form of Doublethink to praise the status quo while understanding all of it based on the creation of only low pay, part-time, temp and ‘gig’ service jobs with no benefits, and in the face of crushing levels of student debt, escalating rents and health insurance costs under Obamacare, declining savings for tens of millions of retirees after eight years of near zero interest rates by the Federal Reserve, continuing free trade destruction and offshoring of US manufacturing, millions of homeowners still underwater on their mortgages, chronically rising household debt, perpetual wars, intensifying racism and police violence throughout the US, record levels of immigrant deportations, etc.—in other words, this president's legacy, which hangs like a thick political fog over the Clinton campaign threatening key constituency voter turnout in the face of surging support for Trump despite his big mouth and bigger ego, neither of which seem to do anything to slow his momentum five weeks before the election.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

[FONT=&]"A 2012 Pew Center on The States study said "approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state."

I'm sure I'm one. All you have to do is move and get a drivers license and sign up to vote. Do you then go to the trouble of downloading a form and mailing it to your former county? Of course not.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure there are very few fake voters:

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/b...ia-localities/

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure there are very few fake voters:

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/b...ia-localities/

We've got Twitterbots and botnets being used across the range from crude to sophisticated for political shaping/information operations.

'What's old is new", maybe dead voters can be rebranded as "rotbots" and illegal aliens can be rebranded as "nondocbots"

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

The company that I work for uses a national payroll service to manage employee hiring and paychecks. All prospective new hires, regardless of race, are required to show two forms of ID to prove eligibility to work. It has to do with the fact that companies can find themselves in big trouble for hiring illegals.

Sure. The companies don't want to be in violation of a law and therefore verify eligibility to work in the U.S.

However, my question is, why is that not considered racist but requiring a similar type of verification process to get a voter registration card with a photograph on it is?

For whatever reason, people want illegal aliens to vote because it perpetuates and extends policies that are bad for U.S. citizens as a whole but benefit a small number of people.

The talk of racism is largely rubbish. If we're talking about poor Americans, specifically African Americans, I can only assume that they have some sort of government subsidies such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and so on. How did they get these benefits if they were unable to prove themselves American citizens? It seems to me that any American who can get those kinds of benefits probably already proved himself a citizen and thus shouldn't find it difficult to prove citizenship to vote.

And again, I'm not talking about requiring new, photo ID registration cards two days before an election which will obviously exclude a tremendous number of people not in the know. But why not do some sort of massive enrollment in April when there are very few elections? Maybe have a four year grace period where warnings are given at each election for voters without the photo ID voter registration cards until a final cut-off date?

Of course, maybe all this is moot if the "you have no choice" idea is true.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

We've got Twitterbots and botnets being used across the range from crude to sophisticated for political shaping/information operations.

'What's old is new", maybe dead voters can be rebranded as "rotbots" and illegal aliens can be rebranded as "nondocbots"

Hey, corporations are now people, so why not?

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure. The companies don't want to be in violation of a law and therefore verify eligibility to work in the U.S.

However, my question is, why is that not considered racist but requiring a similar type of verification process to get a voter registration card with a photograph on it is?

For whatever reason, people want illegal aliens to vote because it perpetuates and extends policies that are bad for U.S. citizens as a whole but benefit a small number of people.

The talk of racism is largely rubbish. If we're talking about poor Americans, specifically African Americans, I can only assume that they have some sort of government subsidies such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and so on. How did they get these benefits if they were unable to prove themselves American citizens? It seems to me that any American who can get those kinds of benefits probably already proved himself a citizen and thus shouldn't find it difficult to prove citizenship to vote.

And again, I'm not talking about requiring new, photo ID registration cards two days before an election which will obviously exclude a tremendous number of people not in the know. But why not do some sort of massive enrollment in April when there are very few elections? Maybe have a four year grace period where warnings are given at each election for voters without the photo ID voter registration cards until a final cut-off date?

Of course, maybe all this is moot if the "you have no choice" idea is true.

Now I understand what you were getting at. I totally agree.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary belittles Sander's supporters:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...io-leak-228997

Erm, or she was just putting her opponent's supporters in perspective and perhaps giving credence to their perspective. This is ancient history (February).

Read it how you wish.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to win?

Trying to wrap my head around this whole Trump thing and it's been really difficult. I simply can't understand how a thinking intelligent person can see him as a viable president, from my own perspective.


But, I have a lot of family members that I love deeply that support him. And, it turns out, I think it comes down to Scott Adams' determination: it comes down to taxing the rich.


If you believe in "trickle-down" economics, or however you want to phrase it... You support Trump.


If you believe that Reaganomics was a failure, you support Clinton.


So, if you think that the upper end of the income spectrum should get greater tax cuts, thereby creating more capital for investment that will create jobs and raise up the lower classes, then you will support Trump.


If you think that taxes at the upper end should be raised so as to fund government investment in infrastructure or some other federal programs, then you will support Clinton.


(I actually believe it's a bit more nuanced than this, but this basically gets to the point).


So, am I on the right track here?


Are there any Trump supporters here who think that raising taxes on the upper end of the spectrum is a good idea?


Are there any Clinton supporters who feel that it's a bad idea to increase taxes on the wealthy?


I suspect the answer is no in both cases.