On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a “useful idiot” serving Russian interests. That may not be exactly right. After all, useful idiots are supposed to be unaware of how they’re being used, but Mr. Trump probably knows very well how much he owes to Vladimir Putin. Remember, he once openly appealed to the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Still, the general picture of a president-elect who owes his position in part to intervention by a foreign power, and shows every sign of being prepared to use U.S. policy to reward that power, is accurate.
But let’s be honest: Mr. Trump is by no means the only useful idiot in this story.. As recent reporting by The Times makes clear, bad guys couldn’t have hacked the U.S. election without a lot of help, both from U.S. politicians and from the news media.
Let me explain what I mean by saying that bad guys hacked the election. I’m not talking about some kind of wild conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the obvious effect of two factors on voting: the steady drumbeat of Russia-contrived leaks about Democrats, and only Democrats, and the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.
Does anyone really doubt that these factors moved swing-state ballots by at least 1 percent? If they did, they made the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and therefore handed Mr. Trump the election, even though he received almost three million fewer total votes. Yes, the election was hacked.
By the way, people who respond to this observation by talking about mistakes in Clinton campaign strategy are missing the point, and continuing their useful idiocy. All campaigns make mistakes. Since when do these mistakes excuse subversion of an election by a foreign power and a rogue domestic law enforcement agency?
So why did the subversion work?
It’s important to realize that the postelection C.I.A. declaration that Russia had intervened on behalf of the Trump campaign was a confirmation, not a revelation (although we’ve now learned that Mr. Putin was personally involved in the effort).
The pro-Putin tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election — I wrote about it in July. By midsummer the close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site’s growing alignment with white nationalists.
Did Republican politicians, so big on flag waving and impugning their rivals’ patriotism, reject this foreign aid to their cause? No, they didn’t. In fact, as far as I can tell, no major Republican figure was even willing to criticize Mr. Trump when he directly asked Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. It has long been obvious — except, apparently, to the news media — that the modern G.O.P. is a radical institution that is ready to violate democratic norms in the pursuit of power. Why should the norm of not accepting foreign assistance be any different?
The bigger surprise was the behavior of the news media, and I don’t mean fake news; I mean big, prestigious organizations. Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing more than the fact that Democrats are people.
Meanwhile, the news media dutifully played up the Clinton server story, which never involved any evidence of wrongdoing, but merged in the public mind into the perception of a vast “email” scandal when there was nothing there.
Once SDC tech is mature and commonplace I do see a merging of private ownership of cars and mass transit, combining the strengths of each.
That doesn't mean private ownership goes away necessarily. But "ride subscription services", public and private, I do think are a real possibility, and a result ownership will decrease.
and fact is rush is actually several smaller events that we collectively perceive as one. I get to work ~630am, leaving ~600, along with several thousand other people. but once we're here our vehicles could re-task to pick up the folks who leave home at say 730 and need to be to work by 800 or 830.
that's beauty of a data driven ride dispatch computer, aka, the ultimate evolution of something like Uber: merging the needs of different subscribers to get them all where they need to go. even though im a sharp critic of uber, most for ignoring regs, the place they or someone else will eventually end up will I think ultimately be a boon to society.
how is it not certain? no the risk is not reduced to 0, but no one is calling for that.
what is being called for is for the company to prove to the public, via its regulatory agencies, that they've done all they can to make it as safe as they can, before proceeding to public road testing.
that's what this permit does. and no, ignoring this regulation and potentially endangering people does not put them on the side of morality.
The rules against SDCs, even when there is a human in the driver's seat, do not make the roads safer in any demonstrable way.
Except by ensuring the car has been tested to be as safe or safer than a human operated vehicle.
uber can bring forward the adoption all they want. I applaud the effort.
but before they test the damn things on public roads they absolutely shoul dhave to comply with regulatory rules designed to ensure the car actually is safe to drive on a public road, even as a test vehicle.
This is no different from companies proving safety of drugs to the best of their ability before beginning widespread human trials.
Actually it does, explained previously. And no, liability laws do not.
But then youre libertarian who, by definition, has not from history when companies, even while constrained (according to you) by liability laws, did cause harm anyway because they calculated how much harm the can afford to actually cause before it affects profitability.
liability laws exist to provide a mechanism for redress of grievance after someone is harmed. permits and licenses seek to prevent the harm in the first place.
again: you are a libertarian idiot, but I repeat myself.
its the same difference between driving with a license and without one:
namely, the license is a statement from the government, or specifically the driving regulatory authority, to the public, who owns, maintains, and uses the roads, that Driver A has passed the minimum rules to be considered safe and not a hazard around other drivers.
that's what licenses do. whether its cars, restruants, or whatever.
and its what the permit for the autonomous cars do as well.
and if you really needed that explained to you, then youre an even more ignorant libertarian than I thought.
yes they do die everyday. and that's with regulations and controls. its worse without them.
and no, no one is calling for 100% safety. what we are calling for is reasonable safety, ie, at least as safe as human drivers. that is the goal, and it will happen one day. and once driverless cars are safer than drivers, they will become the norm.
but we aren't there yet. and while the tech is being tested and developed Uber, and their idiot libertarian supporters like you, need to stfu and follow the law, law created to keep other people safe from idiots like Uber, and you, who would put there lives at risk needlessly.
are the engineers present in the vehicle and ready to take over? no? then stfu.
also, equating cruise control, a device that simply preserves the speed of your vehicle, but not respond to any external stimuli, to an autonomous vehicle only further reveals your stupidity.
"Operator" typically being the physical driver of the vehicle, ie someone who has been trained to drive, already, and has already passed a test wherein they demonstrated as much, not the owner/developer of an autonomous vehicle who's "operator" under this definition is its software.
your argument is specious and you damn well know it. or should. if you don't, more shame and ignorance on you.
Uber wants the public to carry the risk of their testing on public roads, without following the public's rules regarding the threshold the public has set for accepting that risk.
the People = the Government, the People decided they don't want dangerous or risky behavious on the roads and created various rules and regulations therefore. including the new ones regarding autonomous vehicle testing, because if possible we'd rather stop things from hurting people...before they do rather than after.
the IRS targeted multiple groups, on both sides, that appeared to be violating the law concerning 501c status.
the law on 501c is pretty clear. putting the name "tea party" in their name simply made them more visible, more brazen, in doing it.
other keywords investigated included: "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy"
further, no groups actually had their 501c status revoked or denied, and the ones that were delayed the longest were "occupy" related groups.
The inspector general stated that the IRS was [..] protecting democrat groups
no, the IG did not say that. he said:
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.
He also came to the conclusion that ultimately there was no wrong doing, and no specific targeting of a specific political side, but that the investigation gave the impression of impropriety by essentially taking a shortcut, looking at names of groups and policy positions, rather than looking directly for improper campaign involvement, which is the part that is actually illegal. while the names and positions may be an indicator, it isn't a garuntee of violating the 501c rules.
the GI was then criticized by both sides of the aisle, who both read into his report what they wanted to.
oh, and it was revealed that the IG himself had been requested by one Darrel Issa (R-CA) "to narrowly focus [his investigation] on Tea Party organizations" the IRS looked at, rather than all groups (that included liberal groups) the IRS targeted for scrutiny.
Example: North Carolina. a majority democrat state, with a nearly permanently and overwhelmingly GOP controlled legislature, because of how completely gerrymandered NC districts are. and of course, Voter ID on top of that.
Each election since 2008 has seen further and further eroding of peoples ability to vote.
This next session is no different, with several state legislatures, the majority of which are similarly gerrymandered to hell and controlled by the GOP, already considering further voting restrictions and redistrictings.
we are looking at a potentially permanent GOP control of all levels of government, regardless of actual majority status.
to make hiring them unattractive, you need to make the labor not illegal in the first place. ie, remove the fear of deportation. then the MW can apply to them too.
and when they cost just as much to employ as legal workers, and the threat of deportation cannot be held over them, they cease to be attractive hires for the unscrupulous employers. the same concept applies to H1B visa holders who are similarly forced to keep quiet and not complain in order to keep their jobs.
the concept is simple: if you're willing to work, live, and pay taxes into the local system, you should get to, and we should gladly welcome such people. everyone benefits from that arrangement, even if the worker is a non-citizen who may or may not plan to return home someday. no more legal/illegal distinction. and along with it, attach citizenship as a goal/reward at the end of a reasonable period of years.
this leverages the strength of our economy to attract the kind of people we want here: hard workers, smart workers, etc. the kind of people we all are descended from, the kind who built the nation. and easing the ability to gain citizenship (without being rich enough to simply buy it) helps us retain them. its only ever strengthened the country and its past time we got back to that mindset.
1 - the wall is an absurdity. the cost is well north of 25 billion dollars in materials alone, not even counting labor and its associated associated costs. much of the terrain to be covered is extremely remote, so you're not going to be able to send the workers home every day. you're going to have to house and feed them as well. and all that cost, can be defeated by a 30$ ladder from home depot. it's pure idiocy.
2 - and that will require increasing the budget of ICE by ~100x. when you release them, you don't have to provide for them. if you don't, you do. clothing, shelter housing. and because you're talking about families often, you cant be splitting them up, detaining, trying, and deporting them separately, especially the children (8th amendment). so your housing isn't going to be simple prison-esque condition, but something that can keep families together, separated from other families. are you beginning to see why we don't do that?
3 - Obama has deported more people than the previous 4 presidents combined, and with a focus on those who are criminals. Your point is complete BS not at all attached to reality.
4 - You can't. Immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, not cities. You cannot force cities to participate, and if they don't want to spend their resources assisting, they don't have to. They have their own concerns.
5 - What amnesties? This is another BS talking point not grounded in reality. There were no amnesties.
6 - We already do. Yet another BS talking point not grounded in reality
7 - You actually cannot force that. And it can be a bad thing too to do so. We have actually created the current violence and chaos in Honduras by deporting undocumented criminals in such large numbers that the local government was unable to handle the influx. They almost literally just show up in the local airport...and aren't met by anyone, so they're effectively off scot free, to form new criminal enterprises.
8 - $$$$$ Again: how you gonna pay for it? And how are you not going to violate the constitution implementing it? Remember: the Constitution protects all persons subject to the authority of the US Government, not just citizens; the few rights we don't also apply to non-citizens are the exception, not the rule.
9 - So to deter immigration...you're going to hurt American citizens by killing the social safety net? by harming jobs somehow? A social safety net supported in part by immigrant workers, including undocumented workers who contribute more than 11B$ annually into a system they do not get to benefit from? Oh yeah...that's right. you think they just sit on welfare. news flash: that's another BS talking point not grounded in reality. also, immigrants only ever boost the economy, even when underpaid (yes, they should be able to work openly, or at least report bad working conditions that they current cannot because of threat of deportation; but taking away their jobs entirely only hurts things, not helps.) the fact they come here for jobs is a sign of the strength of our economy. you cant actually "turn off the magnet" without harming our own country.
10 - total BS talking point rooted in racism and xenophobia. "historic norms" would be immigration levels far above today's levels. Immigration helps the country, period, and restricting it as we have actually is a drag on the economy. Legal immigration is practically impossible for the majority of those seeking opportunity, ie, poor or poverty stricken. but if you're rich, or semi rich, or connected, it's easy. Hell, the really rich literally get to just buy their citizenship. what was that about "borders" and "not having a country?" oh yeah...just more xenophobic bigotry that ignores the fact that the rich already live in
ok. stop the research, ooloorie has declared we've learned all we need to learn, that there is nothing more to learn. all current questions are answered.
you're so dumb you don't even know what you don't know. danning krunig (spelling) is in full effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sources.
Bush himself.
His literal first question was "can we use this to get Iraq?"
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Someone should have told Bush that.
you are an idiot, ignorant of history, china, the US, and just generally.
Thus will we fall to Thucydides Trap.
you are an idiot.
useful idiots the lot of you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...
On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a “useful idiot” serving Russian interests. That may not be exactly right. After all, useful idiots are supposed to be unaware of how they’re being used, but Mr. Trump probably knows very well how much he owes to Vladimir Putin. Remember, he once openly appealed to the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Still, the general picture of a president-elect who owes his position in part to intervention by a foreign power, and shows every sign of being prepared to use U.S. policy to reward that power, is accurate.
But let’s be honest: Mr. Trump is by no means the only useful idiot in this story.. As recent reporting by The Times makes clear, bad guys couldn’t have hacked the U.S. election without a lot of help, both from U.S. politicians and from the news media.
Let me explain what I mean by saying that bad guys hacked the election. I’m not talking about some kind of wild conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the obvious effect of two factors on voting: the steady drumbeat of Russia-contrived leaks about Democrats, and only Democrats, and the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.
Does anyone really doubt that these factors moved swing-state ballots by at least 1 percent? If they did, they made the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and therefore handed Mr. Trump the election, even though he received almost three million fewer total votes. Yes, the election was hacked.
By the way, people who respond to this observation by talking about mistakes in Clinton campaign strategy are missing the point, and continuing their useful idiocy. All campaigns make mistakes. Since when do these mistakes excuse subversion of an election by a foreign power and a rogue domestic law enforcement agency?
So why did the subversion work?
It’s important to realize that the postelection C.I.A. declaration that Russia had intervened on behalf of the Trump campaign was a confirmation, not a revelation (although we’ve now learned that Mr. Putin was personally involved in the effort).
The pro-Putin tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election — I wrote about it in July. By midsummer the close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site’s growing alignment with white nationalists.
Did Republican politicians, so big on flag waving and impugning their rivals’ patriotism, reject this foreign aid to their cause? No, they didn’t. In fact, as far as I can tell, no major Republican figure was even willing to criticize Mr. Trump when he directly asked Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. It has long been obvious — except, apparently, to the news media — that the modern G.O.P. is a radical institution that is ready to violate democratic norms in the pursuit of power. Why should the norm of not accepting foreign assistance be any different?
The bigger surprise was the behavior of the news media, and I don’t mean fake news; I mean big, prestigious organizations. Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing more than the fact that Democrats are people.
Meanwhile, the news media dutifully played up the Clinton server story, which never involved any evidence of wrongdoing, but merged in the public mind into the perception of a vast “email” scandal when there was nothing there.
and youre going to believe the RNC over the CIA...why?
Useful idiot.
I kinda disagree here.
Once SDC tech is mature and commonplace I do see a merging of private ownership of cars and mass transit, combining the strengths of each.
That doesn't mean private ownership goes away necessarily.
But "ride subscription services", public and private, I do think are a real possibility, and a result ownership will decrease.
and fact is rush is actually several smaller events that we collectively perceive as one.
I get to work ~630am, leaving ~600, along with several thousand other people. but once we're here our vehicles could re-task to pick up the folks who leave home at say 730 and need to be to work by 800 or 830.
that's beauty of a data driven ride dispatch computer, aka, the ultimate evolution of something like Uber: merging the needs of different subscribers to get them all where they need to go. even though im a sharp critic of uber, most for ignoring regs, the place they or someone else will eventually end up will I think ultimately be a boon to society.
how is it not certain?
no the risk is not reduced to 0, but no one is calling for that.
what is being called for is for the company to prove to the public, via its regulatory agencies, that they've done all they can to make it as safe as they can, before proceeding to public road testing.
that's what this permit does.
and no, ignoring this regulation and potentially endangering people does not put them on the side of morality.
The rules against SDCs, even when there is a human in the driver's seat, do not make the roads safer in any demonstrable way.
Except by ensuring the car has been tested to be as safe or safer than a human operated vehicle.
uber can bring forward the adoption all they want.
I applaud the effort.
but before they test the damn things on public roads they absolutely shoul dhave to comply with regulatory rules designed to ensure the car actually is safe to drive on a public road, even as a test vehicle.
This is no different from companies proving safety of drugs to the best of their ability before beginning widespread human trials.
You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle?
Yes,
because that's
EXACTLY
what it does.
relatively safe before they get on the road
No it doesn't. Besides, liability laws do that.
Actually it does, explained previously.
And no, liability laws do not.
But then youre libertarian who, by definition, has not from history when companies, even while constrained (according to you) by liability laws, did cause harm anyway because they calculated how much harm the can afford to actually cause before it affects profitability.
liability laws exist to provide a mechanism for redress of grievance after someone is harmed.
permits and licenses seek to prevent the harm in the first place.
again: you are a libertarian idiot, but I repeat myself.
its the same difference between driving with a license and without one:
namely, the license is a statement from the government, or specifically the driving regulatory authority, to the public, who owns, maintains, and uses the roads, that Driver A has passed the minimum rules to be considered safe and not a hazard around other drivers.
that's what licenses do.
whether its cars, restruants, or whatever.
and its what the permit for the autonomous cars do as well.
and if you really needed that explained to you, then youre an even more ignorant libertarian than I thought.
yes they do die everyday.
and that's with regulations and controls.
its worse without them.
and no, no one is calling for 100% safety.
what we are calling for is reasonable safety, ie, at least as safe as human drivers.
that is the goal, and it will happen one day.
and once driverless cars are safer than drivers, they will become the norm.
but we aren't there yet.
and while the tech is being tested and developed Uber, and their idiot libertarian supporters like you, need to stfu and follow the law, law created to keep other people safe from idiots like Uber, and you, who would put there lives at risk needlessly.
are the engineers present in the vehicle and ready to take over?
no?
then stfu.
also, equating cruise control, a device that simply preserves the speed of your vehicle, but not respond to any external stimuli, to an autonomous vehicle only further reveals your stupidity.
"Operator" typically being the physical driver of the vehicle, ie someone who has been trained to drive, already, and has already passed a test wherein they demonstrated as much, not the owner/developer of an autonomous vehicle who's "operator" under this definition is its software.
your argument is specious and you damn well know it.
or should.
if you don't, more shame and ignorance on you.
Uber wants the public to carry the risk of their testing on public roads, without following the public's rules regarding the threshold the public has set for accepting that risk.
fat lot of good that does the dead person.
hence trying to stop problems before they are problems.
typical libertarian nonsense.
the People = the Government, the People decided they don't want dangerous or risky behavious on the roads and created various rules and regulations therefore.
including the new ones regarding autonomous vehicle testing, because if possible we'd rather stop things from hurting people...before they do rather than after.
more BS from you.
the IRS targeted multiple groups, on both sides, that appeared to be violating the law concerning 501c status.
the law on 501c is pretty clear. putting the name "tea party" in their name simply made them more visible, more brazen, in doing it.
other keywords investigated included: "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy"
further, no groups actually had their 501c status revoked or denied, and the ones that were delayed the longest were "occupy" related groups.
The inspector general stated that the IRS was [..] protecting democrat groups
no, the IG did not say that.
he said:
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.
He also came to the conclusion that ultimately there was no wrong doing, and no specific targeting of a specific political side, but that the investigation gave the impression of impropriety by essentially taking a shortcut, looking at names of groups and policy positions, rather than looking directly for improper campaign involvement, which is the part that is actually illegal. while the names and positions may be an indicator, it isn't a garuntee of violating the 501c rules.
the GI was then criticized by both sides of the aisle, who both read into his report what they wanted to.
oh, and it was revealed that the IG himself had been requested by one Darrel Issa (R-CA) "to narrowly focus [his investigation] on Tea Party organizations" the IRS looked at, rather than all groups (that included liberal groups) the IRS targeted for scrutiny.
The voters will check the powers.
Not if they're disenfranchised first.
Example: North Carolina. a majority democrat state, with a nearly permanently and overwhelmingly GOP controlled legislature, because of how completely gerrymandered NC districts are. and of course, Voter ID on top of that.
Each election since 2008 has seen further and further eroding of peoples ability to vote.
This next session is no different, with several state legislatures, the majority of which are similarly gerrymandered to hell and controlled by the GOP, already considering further voting restrictions and redistrictings.
we are looking at a potentially permanent GOP control of all levels of government, regardless of actual majority status.
this is how America falls.
being exempt from the law is not the same as not having a conflict of interest.
to make hiring them unattractive, you need to make the labor not illegal in the first place. ie, remove the fear of deportation. then the MW can apply to them too.
and when they cost just as much to employ as legal workers, and the threat of deportation cannot be held over them, they cease to be attractive hires for the unscrupulous employers. the same concept applies to H1B visa holders who are similarly forced to keep quiet and not complain in order to keep their jobs.
the concept is simple: if you're willing to work, live, and pay taxes into the local system, you should get to, and we should gladly welcome such people.
everyone benefits from that arrangement, even if the worker is a non-citizen who may or may not plan to return home someday.
no more legal/illegal distinction.
and along with it, attach citizenship as a goal/reward at the end of a reasonable period of years.
this leverages the strength of our economy to attract the kind of people we want here: hard workers, smart workers, etc. the kind of people we all are descended from, the kind who built the nation. and easing the ability to gain citizenship (without being rich enough to simply buy it) helps us retain them. its only ever strengthened the country and its past time we got back to that mindset.
JFC you are a moron.
1 - the wall is an absurdity. the cost is well north of 25 billion dollars in materials alone, not even counting labor and its associated associated costs. much of the terrain to be covered is extremely remote, so you're not going to be able to send the workers home every day. you're going to have to house and feed them as well. and all that cost, can be defeated by a 30$ ladder from home depot. it's pure idiocy.
2 - and that will require increasing the budget of ICE by ~100x. when you release them, you don't have to provide for them. if you don't, you do. clothing, shelter housing. and because you're talking about families often, you cant be splitting them up, detaining, trying, and deporting them separately, especially the children (8th amendment). so your housing isn't going to be simple prison-esque condition, but something that can keep families together, separated from other families. are you beginning to see why we don't do that?
3 - Obama has deported more people than the previous 4 presidents combined, and with a focus on those who are criminals . Your point is complete BS not at all attached to reality.
4 - You can't. Immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, not cities. You cannot force cities to participate, and if they don't want to spend their resources assisting, they don't have to. They have their own concerns.
5 - What amnesties? This is another BS talking point not grounded in reality. There were no amnesties.
6 - We already do. Yet another BS talking point not grounded in reality
7 - You actually cannot force that. And it can be a bad thing too to do so. We have actually created the current violence and chaos in Honduras by deporting undocumented criminals in such large numbers that the local government was unable to handle the influx. They almost literally just show up in the local airport...and aren't met by anyone, so they're effectively off scot free, to form new criminal enterprises.
8 - $$$$$ Again: how you gonna pay for it? And how are you not going to violate the constitution implementing it? Remember: the Constitution protects all persons subject to the authority of the US Government, not just citizens; the few rights we don't also apply to non-citizens are the exception, not the rule.
9 - So to deter immigration...you're going to hurt American citizens by killing the social safety net? by harming jobs somehow? A social safety net supported in part by immigrant workers, including undocumented workers who contribute more than 11B$ annually into a system they do not get to benefit from? Oh yeah...that's right. you think they just sit on welfare. news flash: that's another BS talking point not grounded in reality. also, immigrants only ever boost the economy , even when underpaid (yes, they should be able to work openly, or at least report bad working conditions that they current cannot because of threat of deportation; but taking away their jobs entirely only hurts things, not helps.) the fact they come here for jobs is a sign of the strength of our economy. you cant actually "turn off the magnet" without harming our own country.
10 - total BS talking point rooted in racism and xenophobia. "historic norms" would be immigration levels far above today's levels . Immigration helps the country, period , and restricting it as we have actually is a drag on the economy. Legal immigration is practically impossible for the majority of those seeking opportunity, ie, poor or poverty stricken. but if you're rich, or semi rich, or connected, it's easy. Hell, the really rich literally get to just buy their citizenship . what was that about "borders" and "not having a country?" oh yeah...just more xenophobic bigotry that ignores the fact that the rich already live in
again you prove your ignorance regarding basic definitions.
ok.
stop the research,
ooloorie has declared we've learned all we need to learn, that there is nothing more to learn. all current questions are answered.
you're so dumb you don't even know what you don't know.
danning krunig (spelling) is in full effect.