I think he was referring to a conference he attended with Pastor Kevin Swanson. Here's the first article that pops up on Google about it. Not that it changes it, but this was way back in November of last year, unless there's something that's happened more recently that I can't find.
When it comes to Immigration Reform you must first go big picture and ask yourself the following question: What does success look like? Only upon answering that question can you even begin to figure out what policies would be effective. Cart before the horse and all that.
Barring that, give employers more opportunity to hire immigrant workers and expand the sponsorship programs. Also, start holding employers accountable when foreign workers are undeclared and their background checks aren't in compliance. Make pathways to citizenship more attainable. For those applying to immigrate give preference to those who already have family stateside. Remove incentives to hire under the table for both immigrants and employers. Fine businesses who's background checks are lacking and after better opportunity is made reality send those back that cheat the system. Simple, hard to implement across the board, but I like it better than what we're dong.
Ok, but to what end? What is the final goal? Making sure everyone is a citizen? Making sure everyone whom is not a citizen is no longer in this country? In America, we have become programmed to believe that arguing over process is the same thing as finding a solution. It is not. This has been intentional, since the advent of the culture wars in politics. We blindly go along arguing over minutia forgetting that there's supposed to be a goal. It is meant to divert our attention from the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that massive amounts of wealth have been transferred from 90% of the population to a chosen few. Don't buy into this paradigm. Ultimately, politics is about the allocation of resources. I've asked the same question in terms of gun control, racism, immigration and many other subjects, and yet no one seems to be able to answer. You (the general) have got to pay attention to what it is that the ultimate goal is. For instance, 'getting money out of politics' - sounds good. But what is the goal? Ultimately, to make sure that our politicians are not coopted by the wealthy. To that end, I drafted an Amendment to the Constitution that would provide for all elections being publicly funded. That is a policy meant to achieve the end result of getting money out of politics. While we can argue about that policy, we can't get distracted from the ultimate goal. I am a conservative. There are liberals. But these ideologies are only tools, not ends to themselves. If I see a goal, and there is a so called 'liberal' method that would achieve a goal that I believe in, so be it. In the end, it's about results. Process is important, but getting bogged down in process for the sake of 'winning an argument' and being a slave to an ideology has been our modus operandi for 40 years. It is time to identify actual goals and demand that policies be put in place to achieve those goals. And further, if those policies don't work, have the intellectual and ideological flexibility to make changes that achieve the goals.
So now a North Korean sub has disappeared under suspect circumstances. Anyone else think this is headed straight for military action of some kind?
General consensus is it just sunk due to a mechanical issue. I have no doubt that the US military could follow a NK sub if it wanted to.
The issue with North Korea is that no one wants those problems. Literally everyone involved (US, Russia, China, SK, Japan) wants nothing to do with reconstruction/reunification. Imagine the billions of dollars to rebuild that country, re-educate that population and deal with the myriad problems of the 20 million people still there. That's the main reason the status quo persisted so long: SK missed their opportunity of reunification in the 90's, and now its an intractable problem. Every spring they do saber-rattling based on the War Games that SK/US conducts specifically designed to dismantle the North Korean military apparatus. To be fair, it's pretty provocative. Also, they play this up to ensure domestic adherence to the policy line, as another hard winter comes to a close.
Dude, this is just dead wrong. SK absolutely does want reunification, and the US would be more than happy to gain a democratic ally on China's border as well as overthrowing a regime that stirs up trouble seemingly every year. Look at the obscene amount of money and resources they dumped into the middle east wars. In Korea they wouldn't even have to take the brunt of the cost. Japan would be happy to get rid of a country so hostile and so near to them. Edit: I shouldn't say dead wrong. SK now has a majority wanting reunification instead of an overwhelming majority they had a couple decades ago. The idea that their problems are a fucking mess and anybody would be justified in wanting to avoid is true, but it's not the primary deterrent.
I respectfully disagree. The US already has several democratic allies on China's borders: SK, Japan, and is even going to make amends with Vietnam. Why expend the immense effort (and cash) to repair relations with North Korea? We have allies in the region that are already being squeezed, what politician would stake a career out of converting NK to an ally that offers us literally nothing but grief? And given our military presence in SK, it wouldn't provide value to our relationship with China. Also, it's not a foregone conclusion that NK could become democratic, especially if imposed by an invading or foreign army. They stir up trouble every year....in the news. Our response? Crickets. Their "nuclear program" is a problem, but it really just cements the fact that they are the Hermit Kingdom and adds to the disincentive for another nation to intervene. Remember, all this saber-rattling they do is to consolidate internal support, not to actually threaten us. The longer they go without Chinese/Russian military support (read: technology) and the more isolated they are from their neighbors, the more noise they make about their military might. Think about the cost to modernize this country in a reasonable and transparent way. Who's footing that bill? The disastrous Kaesong industrial park is a vivid demonstration that NK isn't ready to modernize and can't do it alone. You think Uncle Sam is footing that bill? Or a South Korean economy that is struggling to avoid the collapse that Japan suffered 20 years ago? Or China? SK polls have shown that the majority of the younger generation oppose reunification. Why? Some reasons are they hate how their own government forces them to waste time in compulsory military service, the money involved to reunify and they no longer share any common cultural identity or family relationships. It's been 60 years, most of the ties that bind have withered by now. This country is being torn apart by inter-generational conflict and the real costs of reunification aren't justifiable to them. The small, shrinking group of 80 year olds that have family in NK aren't the dramatic voting bloc that would sway an administration. From all perspectives, except that of the North Korean people, the status quo should be preserved: no one wants 20 million uneducated, unskilled, essentially refugee-status people with a myriad of needs and no realistic way to satisfy them.
It's this weird game of chess they are trying to play to stop Trump. There's a good chance Kasich wins Ohio. He's up over trump in the polls. But only by like 6 points. Trump is winning everywhere else.
Yeah, it's getting downright sad. If they look closely they'll notice the all democrat candidates lead all republican candidates regardless of how you match them up. Trump probably has a better shot than the others (even if he is touch further behind now) because he runs a better campaign. Despite what they're polling I also think Trump vs Clinton is a far better match up for the republicans since there is a lot of Sanders supports who will take Trump over Clinton out of sheer spite for the establishment. Sanders has closed in Ohio and Illinois, but he's still way behind in Florida and North Carolina. He can't have another day where he eeks out a couple wins and gets absolutely crushed in the states he loses. The rest of the map is still very favorable to him, but if he gets further behind this Tuesday it will probably be too much ground to cover. What do you guys think his chances are? I know what the polls say, but remember how far off he was when he won Michigan.
This seems to be the worst possible strategy given that the public is sick and tired of backroom politics. This is becoming surreal.
I know more Sanders supporters than I care to admit. None of them would ever vote for Trump. Trump supporters are, by and large, with him because he is perceived as being from outside the political arena. He's his own man, and pays his own way. Sanders supporters love him because of his politics. The two are diametrically opposed politically.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ters-consider-donald-trump-no-hillary-clinton It's a whole country out there, man. I wouldn't place too much on a few people you know. It's not a large percentage, but I believe it is more than Cruz, currently in second, would get.
For awhile now I've suspected as much and that speaks really, really, poorly for those Sanders supporters. It says they don't actually give a fuck about Sanders' actual platform and are basically just going to vote for whatever candidate is 'trendy'.
I think that the real reason is that she's obviously bought and paid for by wall street, and people would rather have a baffoon in office than a shill.
So instead of voting for the "shill who's been bought and paid for by Wall Street" they'd vote for the guy who literally is Wall Street. If that's really the case, that makes them even worse than what I said about them. That's about as dumb as you can get.