Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65,000 to 325,000 annually

[The Rabbi]

What? So if I havent met anyone on an H1b then I dont know about it, but if I have then I do?
How fucking stupid are you, s0n?

The chances that you know more about H1-B than someone who works in the tech industry is nil. obviously.

Clearly you are wrong.

You know you're making a fool of yourself, don't you?

You claim to know all about the H1b visa program because you work next door to a guy who holds one and you think I'm making a fool of myself?
You have made claims almost every post that are wrong, stupid, foolish and just plain dumb. The uS did not cut off immigration in 1930. H1b visa holders are not paid substantially less. And sitting next to someone's office doesnt qualify you for shit.

Rabbi I knew lots of business owners and at least 2 of them has several h1 people. H1 are paid substantially less. That I can tell you is 100% correct. Otherwise what is the point. That part you already lost.
I mentioned to you in other post that the economy is booming but you flatly in denial. Let me repeat what I said in 2014 I added 80 employees then 2015 I added147 more employees 80% of which are high paying job. You completely rejected the economy is booming. Then you blame Obama with your miserable life. And here you are supporting foreign workers taking American jobs.

You have more money in your bank account so the economy is booming, right?
Yeah your personal experience is pretty much irrelevant. The statistics tell a different story. Household income is flat. Household wealth is flat. Consumer spending is down. Business investment is down.
Where is the boom?

 

[The Rabbi]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Polling for the GOP field, at current, is essentially showing the same clusterfuck that it showed four years ago at this time, only in this case, instead of a candidate like Romney, who was perpetually stuck at right around 23%, no one is really getting much over 18%, because there are just so many of them.

The point I made on a number of other threads still remains: it is very, very possible that no clear frontronner will emerge, even as late as the mega-primary date of March 15th, 2016, when Florida, Ohio and Missouri (all WTA states) will be up for grabs. With Florida looking to be a major battleground between Bush (Jeb) and Rubio and if Kasich announces, then he has an easy shot of taking his home state of Ohio, that leaves Missouri as prime pickings, especially for another candidate from the South, like Huckabee or Graham (don't laugh, it could happen, but I consider it highly unlikely). Santorum, a Pennyslvanian, swept Missouri in 2012, in lieu of the lack of a Southern candidate, but in 2008, McCain just barely edged out Huckabee by about 1 point. In 2000, Bush easily won Missouri, with about the same topline percentage and the same margin as Santorum won in 2012. In 1996, Buchanan won Missouri - back then, it was a set of caucuses and not a primary. So, the pattern we see in Missouri is that it tends to go with the GOP candidate it considers the more Conservative of the bunch for that particular year. In 2000, Bush was considered more Conservative than McCain, but in 2008, McCain was considered more Conservative than Romney. Ditto in 2012, where Santorum was considered more Conservative than Romney. And there is no doubt that Buchanan was far more to the Right than Bob Dole in 1996, a year where Dole swept almost all of the primaries save Missouri, New Hampshire (also for Buchanan), the Louisiana Caucuses (also for Buchanan) but not the Louisiana primaries, and Arizona (Forbes won in Arizona).

So, it's very possible that March 15th brings the GOP no front-runner at all.

And there there is the 2nd-3rd tier candidate factor: A Carly Fiorina type of candidate can play the role of spoiler, especially in a huge state like California, rich in delegates.Ben Carson could maybe take Michigan or tilt it to a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz quite unexpectedly. Even to Marco Rubio.

So, right now, in my book all bets are off. Ted Cruz is raking in money and is the odds-on favorite in Texas, regardless of the Bush family standing there. Rand Paul is very likely, in spite of a sputtering campaign, to win his home state of Kentucky and should do well in Tennessee, also in very Libertarian-leaning states like the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska and Vermont, maybe Washington State or Oregon - not enough to win a nomination, but enough to keep anyone else from getting a majority of delegates.

More than ever before in my lifetime, I see a REAL possibility of a hung convention on the GOP side.

On the DEM side, it's already decided. More than 2 weeks after Chafee's official announcement and 6 weeks after Sander's announcement, Hillary is still towering over the other three declared DEM candidates, at between 57-60% nationally among Democrats and in most states, excepting New Hampshire. She is the odds-on favorite to sweep the DEM primaries quite easily and it would take a disaster of epic proportions to upend her campaign this time, seeing that there is no Obama-like figure to challenger her on the Democratic side. In a way, we are seeing a 1976-1980 redux, but this time, on the Democratic side, 2008-2016.

I am personally wondering if the first two GOP debates will help to winnow the field, or if will muddy it up even more.

Researching, I see that this is the most crowded GOP field of SERIOUS candidates since 1940, where Thomas Dewey went into the convention having won the most primaries (5 of 12 primaries in that year), but dark-horse Wendell Willkie was nominated on essentially the SEVENTH ballot (called the "6th ballot, after shifts"):

Republican Party presidential primaries 1940 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1940 Republican National Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There were more candidates than in 1940 in 2012, but not all of them were really serious candidates and by the time the primaries came along, a number of them had dropped out.

blahblahblahbullshitbullshit.
No one cares what you think

 

[Statistikhengst]

Polling for the GOP field, at current, is essentially showing the same clusterfuck that it showed four years ago at this time, only in this case, instead of a candidate like Romney, who was perpetually stuck at right around 23%, no one is really getting much over 18%, because there are just so many of them.

The point I made on a number of other threads still remains: it is very, very possible that no clear frontronner will emerge, even as late as the mega-primary date of March 15th, 2016, when Florida, Ohio and Missouri (all WTA states) will be up for grabs. With Florida looking to be a major battleground between Bush (Jeb) and Rubio and if Kasich announces, then he has an easy shot of taking his home state of Ohio, that leaves Missouri as prime pickings, especially for another candidate from the South, like Huckabee or Graham (don't laugh, it could happen, but I consider it highly unlikely). Santorum, a Pennyslvanian, swept Missouri in 2012, in lieu of the lack of a Southern candidate, but in 2008, McCain just barely edged out Huckabee by about 1 point. In 2000, Bush easily won Missouri, with about the same topline percentage and the same margin as Santorum won in 2012. In 1996, Buchanan won Missouri - back then, it was a set of caucuses and not a primary. So, the pattern we see in Missouri is that it tends to go with the GOP candidate it considers the more Conservative of the bunch for that particular year. In 2000, Bush was considered more Conservative than McCain, but in 2008, McCain was considered more Conservative than Romney. Ditto in 2012, where Santorum was considered more Conservative than Romney. And there is no doubt that Buchanan was far more to the Right than Bob Dole in 1996, a year where Dole swept almost all of the primaries save Missouri, New Hampshire (also for Buchanan), the Louisiana Caucuses (also for Buchanan) but not the Louisiana primaries, and Arizona (Forbes won in Arizona).

So, it's very possible that March 15th brings the GOP no front-runner at all.

And there there is the 2nd-3rd tier candidate factor: A Carly Fiorina type of candidate can play the role of spoiler, especially in a huge state like California, rich in delegates.Ben Carson could maybe take Michigan or tilt it to a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz quite unexpectedly. Even to Marco Rubio.

So, right now, in my book all bets are off. Ted Cruz is raking in money and is the odds-on favorite in Texas, regardless of the Bush family standing there. Rand Paul is very likely, in spite of a sputtering campaign, to win his home state of Kentucky and should do well in Tennessee, also in very Libertarian-leaning states like the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska and Vermont, maybe Washington State or Oregon - not enough to win a nomination, but enough to keep anyone else from getting a majority of delegates.

More than ever before in my lifetime, I see a REAL possibility of a hung convention on the GOP side.

On the DEM side, it's already decided. More than 2 weeks after Chafee's official announcement and 6 weeks after Sander's announcement, Hillary is still towering over the other three declared DEM candidates, at between 57-60% nationally among Democrats and in most states, excepting New Hampshire. She is the odds-on favorite to sweep the DEM primaries quite easily and it would take a disaster of epic proportions to upend her campaign this time, seeing that there is no Obama-like figure to challenger her on the Democratic side. In a way, we are seeing a 1976-1980 redux, but this time, on the Democratic side, 2008-2016.

I am personally wondering if the first two GOP debates will help to winnow the field, or if will muddy it up even more.

Researching, I see that this is the most crowded GOP field of SERIOUS candidates since 1940, where Thomas Dewey went into the convention having won the most primaries (5 of 12 primaries in that year), but dark-horse Wendell Willkie was nominated on essentially the SEVENTH ballot (called the "6th ballot, after shifts"):

Republican Party presidential primaries 1940 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1940 Republican National Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There were more candidates than in 1940 in 2012, but not all of them were really serious candidates and by the time the primaries came along, a number of them had dropped out.

blahblahblahbullshitbullshit.
No one cares what you think

Keep babbling, fake Rabbi. I realize that numbers and facts confuse you terribly.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

Polling for the GOP field, at current, is essentially showing the same clusterfuck that it showed four years ago at this time, only in this case, instead of a candidate like Romney, who was perpetually stuck at right around 23%, no one is really getting much over 18%, because there are just so many of them.

The point I made on a number of other threads still remains: it is very, very possible that no clear frontronner will emerge, even as late as the mega-primary date of March 15th, 2016, when Florida, Ohio and Missouri (all WTA states) will be up for grabs. With Florida looking to be a major battleground between Bush (Jeb) and Rubio and if Kasich announces, then he has an easy shot of taking his home state of Ohio, that leaves Missouri as prime pickings, especially for another candidate from the South, like Huckabee or Graham (don't laugh, it could happen, but I consider it highly unlikely). Santorum, a Pennyslvanian, swept Missouri in 2012, in lieu of the lack of a Southern candidate, but in 2008, McCain just barely edged out Huckabee by about 1 point. In 2000, Bush easily won Missouri, with about the same topline percentage and the same margin as Santorum won in 2012. In 1996, Buchanan won Missouri - back then, it was a set of caucuses and not a primary. So, the pattern we see in Missouri is that it tends to go with the GOP candidate it considers the more Conservative of the bunch for that particular year. In 2000, Bush was considered more Conservative than McCain, but in 2008, McCain was considered more Conservative than Romney. Ditto in 2012, where Santorum was considered more Conservative than Romney. And there is no doubt that Buchanan was far more to the Right than Bob Dole in 1996, a year where Dole swept almost all of the primaries save Missouri, New Hampshire (also for Buchanan), the Louisiana Caucuses (also for Buchanan) but not the Louisiana primaries, and Arizona (Forbes won in Arizona).

So, it's very possible that March 15th brings the GOP no front-runner at all.

And there there is the 2nd-3rd tier candidate factor: A Carly Fiorina type of candidate can play the role of spoiler, especially in a huge state like California, rich in delegates.Ben Carson could maybe take Michigan or tilt it to a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz quite unexpectedly. Even to Marco Rubio.

So, right now, in my book all bets are off. Ted Cruz is raking in money and is the odds-on favorite in Texas, regardless of the Bush family standing there. Rand Paul is very likely, in spite of a sputtering campaign, to win his home state of Kentucky and should do well in Tennessee, also in very Libertarian-leaning states like the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska and Vermont, maybe Washington State or Oregon - not enough to win a nomination, but enough to keep anyone else from getting a majority of delegates.

More than ever before in my lifetime, I see a REAL possibility of a hung convention on the GOP side.

On the DEM side, it's already decided. More than 2 weeks after Chafee's official announcement and 6 weeks after Sander's announcement, Hillary is still towering over the other three declared DEM candidates, at between 57-60% nationally among Democrats and in most states, excepting New Hampshire. She is the odds-on favorite to sweep the DEM primaries quite easily and it would take a disaster of epic proportions to upend her campaign this time, seeing that there is no Obama-like figure to challenger her on the Democratic side. In a way, we are seeing a 1976-1980 redux, but this time, on the Democratic side, 2008-2016.

I am personally wondering if the first two GOP debates will help to winnow the field, or if will muddy it up even more.

Researching, I see that this is the most crowded GOP field of SERIOUS candidates since 1940, where Thomas Dewey went into the convention having won the most primaries (5 of 12 primaries in that year), but dark-horse Wendell Willkie was nominated on essentially the SEVENTH ballot (called the "6th ballot, after shifts"):

Republican Party presidential primaries 1940 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1940 Republican National Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There were more candidates than in 1940 in 2012, but not all of them were really serious candidates and by the time the primaries came along, a number of them had dropped out.

blahblahblahbullshitbullshit.
No one cares what you think

Keep babbling, fake Rabbi. I realize that numbers and facts confuse you terribly.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

We know already you dont understand English. This is a thread about Cruz wanting to increase the number of H1b visas, not a thread about whether the GOP will end up in a deadlock at the convention. And that wont happen anyway, shitbag.
Stay on topic of shut the fuck up.

 

[Kondor3]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

That merely demonstrates to those waiting in the wings, that we lack the will to enforce our own borders and immigration laws and national sovereignty - thereby encouraging the next wave of invaders, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next... ad infinitum, ad naseum.

Enough, already.

 

[The Rabbi]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Polling for the GOP field, at current, is essentially showing the same clusterfuck that it showed four years ago at this time, only in this case, instead of a candidate like Romney, who was perpetually stuck at right around 23%, no one is really getting much over 18%, because there are just so many of them.

The point I made on a number of other threads still remains: it is very, very possible that no clear frontronner will emerge, even as late as the mega-primary date of March 15th, 2016, when Florida, Ohio and Missouri (all WTA states) will be up for grabs. With Florida looking to be a major battleground between Bush (Jeb) and Rubio and if Kasich announces, then he has an easy shot of taking his home state of Ohio, that leaves Missouri as prime pickings, especially for another candidate from the South, like Huckabee or Graham (don't laugh, it could happen, but I consider it highly unlikely). Santorum, a Pennyslvanian, swept Missouri in 2012, in lieu of the lack of a Southern candidate, but in 2008, McCain just barely edged out Huckabee by about 1 point. In 2000, Bush easily won Missouri, with about the same topline percentage and the same margin as Santorum won in 2012. In 1996, Buchanan won Missouri - back then, it was a set of caucuses and not a primary. So, the pattern we see in Missouri is that it tends to go with the GOP candidate it considers the more Conservative of the bunch for that particular year. In 2000, Bush was considered more Conservative than McCain, but in 2008, McCain was considered more Conservative than Romney. Ditto in 2012, where Santorum was considered more Conservative than Romney. And there is no doubt that Buchanan was far more to the Right than Bob Dole in 1996, a year where Dole swept almost all of the primaries save Missouri, New Hampshire (also for Buchanan), the Louisiana Caucuses (also for Buchanan) but not the Louisiana primaries, and Arizona (Forbes won in Arizona).

So, it's very possible that March 15th brings the GOP no front-runner at all.

And there there is the 2nd-3rd tier candidate factor: A Carly Fiorina type of candidate can play the role of spoiler, especially in a huge state like California, rich in delegates.Ben Carson could maybe take Michigan or tilt it to a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz quite unexpectedly. Even to Marco Rubio.

So, right now, in my book all bets are off. Ted Cruz is raking in money and is the odds-on favorite in Texas, regardless of the Bush family standing there. Rand Paul is very likely, in spite of a sputtering campaign, to win his home state of Kentucky and should do well in Tennessee, also in very Libertarian-leaning states like the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska and Vermont, maybe Washington State or Oregon - not enough to win a nomination, but enough to keep anyone else from getting a majority of delegates.

More than ever before in my lifetime, I see a REAL possibility of a hung convention on the GOP side.

On the DEM side, it's already decided. More than 2 weeks after Chafee's official announcement and 6 weeks after Sander's announcement, Hillary is still towering over the other three declared DEM candidates, at between 57-60% nationally among Democrats and in most states, excepting New Hampshire. She is the odds-on favorite to sweep the DEM primaries quite easily and it would take a disaster of epic proportions to upend her campaign this time, seeing that there is no Obama-like figure to challenger her on the Democratic side. In a way, we are seeing a 1976-1980 redux, but this time, on the Democratic side, 2008-2016.

I am personally wondering if the first two GOP debates will help to winnow the field, or if will muddy it up even more.

Researching, I see that this is the most crowded GOP field of SERIOUS candidates since 1940, where Thomas Dewey went into the convention having won the most primaries (5 of 12 primaries in that year), but dark-horse Wendell Willkie was nominated on essentially the SEVENTH ballot (called the "6th ballot, after shifts"):

Republican Party presidential primaries 1940 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1940 Republican National Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There were more candidates than in 1940 in 2012, but not all of them were really serious candidates and by the time the primaries came along, a number of them had dropped out.

blahblahblahbullshitbullshit.
No one cares what you think

Keep babbling, fake Rabbi. I realize that numbers and facts confuse you terribly.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

We know already you dont understand English. This is a thread about Cruz wanting to increase the number of H1b visas, not a thread about whether the GOP will end up in a deadlock at the convention. And that wont happen anyway, shitbag.
Stay on topic of shut the fuck up.

The posting landed in the wrong thread, I have corrected that.

Any other things you want to scream and rant about, you yellow pustule-filled hyperpartisan pissant fuckbag?



Oh, and you have written a lot of nonsensical shit about this visa. Typical fake Rabbi.

 

[Kondor3]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

You really just don't get it. This is about resources. This is about finite supply. This is about finite jobs. This is about erosion of pay scales for the trades, manufacturing, etc. This is about not rewarding lawbreakers. This is about discouraging future waves of millions of invaders. None of that is either absurd nor irrelevant, your gainsay notwithstanding.

 

[bripat9643]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

You really just don't get it. This is about resources. This is about finite supply. This is about finite jobs. This is about erosion of pay scales for the trades, manufacturing, etc. This is about not rewarding lawbreakers. This is about discouraging future waves of millions of invaders. None of that is either absurd nor irrelevant, your gainsay notwithstanding.

Anyone who argues that we should open the floodgates to immigration is either an idiot or a traitor. What do Americans have to gain by allowing hoards of uneducated Mexican peasants into this country? The answer is nothing. We should cut both legal and illegal immigration from 3rd world countries to zero.

 

[Toro]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

You really just don't get it. This is about resources. This is about finite supply. This is about finite jobs. This is about erosion of pay scales for the trades, manufacturing, etc. This is about not rewarding lawbreakers. This is about discouraging future waves of millions of invaders. None of that is either absurd nor irrelevant, your gainsay notwithstanding.

There are neither finite resources nor jobs.

 

[The Rabbi]

Polling for the GOP field, at current, is essentially showing the same clusterfuck that it showed four years ago at this time, only in this case, instead of a candidate like Romney, who was perpetually stuck at right around 23%, no one is really getting much over 18%, because there are just so many of them.

The point I made on a number of other threads still remains: it is very, very possible that no clear frontronner will emerge, even as late as the mega-primary date of March 15th, 2016, when Florida, Ohio and Missouri (all WTA states) will be up for grabs. With Florida looking to be a major battleground between Bush (Jeb) and Rubio and if Kasich announces, then he has an easy shot of taking his home state of Ohio, that leaves Missouri as prime pickings, especially for another candidate from the South, like Huckabee or Graham (don't laugh, it could happen, but I consider it highly unlikely). Santorum, a Pennyslvanian, swept Missouri in 2012, in lieu of the lack of a Southern candidate, but in 2008, McCain just barely edged out Huckabee by about 1 point. In 2000, Bush easily won Missouri, with about the same topline percentage and the same margin as Santorum won in 2012. In 1996, Buchanan won Missouri - back then, it was a set of caucuses and not a primary. So, the pattern we see in Missouri is that it tends to go with the GOP candidate it considers the more Conservative of the bunch for that particular year. In 2000, Bush was considered more Conservative than McCain, but in 2008, McCain was considered more Conservative than Romney. Ditto in 2012, where Santorum was considered more Conservative than Romney. And there is no doubt that Buchanan was far more to the Right than Bob Dole in 1996, a year where Dole swept almost all of the primaries save Missouri, New Hampshire (also for Buchanan), the Louisiana Caucuses (also for Buchanan) but not the Louisiana primaries, and Arizona (Forbes won in Arizona).

So, it's very possible that March 15th brings the GOP no front-runner at all.

And there there is the 2nd-3rd tier candidate factor: A Carly Fiorina type of candidate can play the role of spoiler, especially in a huge state like California, rich in delegates.Ben Carson could maybe take Michigan or tilt it to a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz quite unexpectedly. Even to Marco Rubio.

So, right now, in my book all bets are off. Ted Cruz is raking in money and is the odds-on favorite in Texas, regardless of the Bush family standing there. Rand Paul is very likely, in spite of a sputtering campaign, to win his home state of Kentucky and should do well in Tennessee, also in very Libertarian-leaning states like the Dakotas, Montana, Alaska and Vermont, maybe Washington State or Oregon - not enough to win a nomination, but enough to keep anyone else from getting a majority of delegates.

More than ever before in my lifetime, I see a REAL possibility of a hung convention on the GOP side.

On the DEM side, it's already decided. More than 2 weeks after Chafee's official announcement and 6 weeks after Sander's announcement, Hillary is still towering over the other three declared DEM candidates, at between 57-60% nationally among Democrats and in most states, excepting New Hampshire. She is the odds-on favorite to sweep the DEM primaries quite easily and it would take a disaster of epic proportions to upend her campaign this time, seeing that there is no Obama-like figure to challenger her on the Democratic side. In a way, we are seeing a 1976-1980 redux, but this time, on the Democratic side, 2008-2016.

I am personally wondering if the first two GOP debates will help to winnow the field, or if will muddy it up even more.

Researching, I see that this is the most crowded GOP field of SERIOUS candidates since 1940, where Thomas Dewey went into the convention having won the most primaries (5 of 12 primaries in that year), but dark-horse Wendell Willkie was nominated on essentially the SEVENTH ballot (called the "6th ballot, after shifts"):

Republican Party presidential primaries 1940 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1940 Republican National Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There were more candidates than in 1940 in 2012, but not all of them were really serious candidates and by the time the primaries came along, a number of them had dropped out.

blahblahblahbullshitbullshit.
No one cares what you think

Keep babbling, fake Rabbi. I realize that numbers and facts confuse you terribly.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

We know already you dont understand English. This is a thread about Cruz wanting to increase the number of H1b visas, not a thread about whether the GOP will end up in a deadlock at the convention. And that wont happen anyway, shitbag.
Stay on topic of shut the fuck up.

The posting landed in the wrong thread, I have corrected that.

Any other things you want to scream and rant about, you yellow pustule-filled hyperpartisan pissant fuckbag?



Oh, and you have written a lot of nonsensical shit about this visa. Typical fake Rabbi.

You fuck up and it's my fault. Typical.

 

[The Rabbi]

...Actually that is probably not true either. Alaska wasnt part of the US until much later and with urbanization a lot of previous small towns have been abandoned...

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

...But the point is typically irrelevant and stupid.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

You really just don't get it. This is about resources. This is about finite supply. This is about finite jobs. This is about erosion of pay scales for the trades, manufacturing, etc. This is about not rewarding lawbreakers. This is about discouraging future waves of millions of invaders. None of that is either absurd nor irrelevant, your gainsay notwithstanding.

Do you think resources are limited?
Do you think there is a limit on the number of jobs?

 

[The Rabbi]

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

You really just don't get it. This is about resources. This is about finite supply. This is about finite jobs. This is about erosion of pay scales for the trades, manufacturing, etc. This is about not rewarding lawbreakers. This is about discouraging future waves of millions of invaders. None of that is either absurd nor irrelevant, your gainsay notwithstanding.

Anyone who argues that we should open the floodgates to immigration is either an idiot or a traitor. What do Americans have to gain by allowing hoards of uneducated Mexican peasants into this country? The answer is nothing. We should cut both legal and illegal immigration from 3rd world countries to zero.

H1b visas are for illiterate Mexican peasants? Wow, who knew?

 

[The Rabbi]

This is really easy to understand. We do not have anywhere near as much unclaimed land as we did back in the 19th; therefore, we have far less room for newcomers nowadays. We can (and probably should) continue to accept newcomers; just not on the grand scale that we once did; we no longer need (or can accommodate) that many.

No, it's not. It is integral to the idea that we can no longer sustain immigration at the levels we once did. That is why we established immigration quotas, decades ago. Q.E.D.

We have every bit as much land, more actually with ALaska coming into the Union. But since the number of farmers today represents less than 5% of the population, whereas in the 19th century they represented about 80%of the population , the point is still irrelevant and stupid.

Land = Self-owned Housing, in this context. Nothing to do with farming - other than how many non-farmers the land will sustain.

In this context, you may also view 'land' as a metaphor for Resources.

And land is only one part of the Resources Equation.

We cannot forever continue to accept large-scale waves of New Arrivals.

We don't have the land or the houses or the money or the jobs or the resources to continue that ad infinitum.

And there is no way - no way - that we should be rewarding Illegal Aliens by granting them a path to citizenship.

The vast majority of land in this country is vacant. America is one of the most sparesely populated countries in the first world. Your argument is absurd.

You really just don't get it. This is about resources. This is about finite supply. This is about finite jobs. This is about erosion of pay scales for the trades, manufacturing, etc. This is about not rewarding lawbreakers. This is about discouraging future waves of millions of invaders. None of that is either absurd nor irrelevant, your gainsay notwithstanding.

There are neither finite resources nor jobs.

Amazing how this fundamental precept of conservative values that has been proven still has failed to sink into the minds of some so-called conservatives.

 

[Kondor3]

...H1b visas are for illiterate Mexican peasants? Wow, who knew?

Don't look now, but the conversation had taken a turn towards overall immigration issues, not just the H1B visas mentioned in the OP.

And, within the narrow domain of H1B visas...

Why should we import tech-folk when we should be growing our own right here, from amongst our own, to reduce unemployment?

 

[Kondor3]

...There are neither finite resources...

Tell that to the millions of Americans who cannot afford a house or a car or enough to eat or to send their kids to decent schools and such.

...nor jobs.

Tell that to the millions of American workers displaced by NAFTA and off-shoring of jobs to Asian slave-markets, and to the millions displaced by cheap Illegal Alien labor in the trades and in our remaining manufacturing base, or whose wages have been suppressed and standard of living eroded by same.

 

[The Rabbi]

...H1b visas are for illiterate Mexican peasants? Wow, who knew?

Don't look now, but the conversation had taken a turn towards overall immigration issues, not just the H1B visas mentioned in the OP.

And, within the narrow domain of H1B visas...

Why should we import tech-folk when we should be growing our own right here, from amongst our own, to reduce unemployment?

We should be doing lots of things. But the fact is we do not have enough high tech workers to fill those jobs, so we import them. If we dont issue H1b visas the companies will hire those people anyway and station them in Canada, Ireland, or on a ship in the ocean. There is no issue of American jobs, except that if companies cannot get the skills they need they cannot grow and create other jobs.

 

[The Rabbi]

...There are neither finite resources...

Tell that to the millions of Americans who cannot afford a house or a car or enough to eat or to send their kids to decent schools and such.

...nor jobs.

Tell that to the millions of American workers displaced by NAFTA and off-shoring of jobs to Asian slave-markets, and to the millions displaced by cheap Illegal Alien labor in the trades and in our remaining manufacturing base, or whose wages have been suppressed and whose standard of living have been eroded by same.

Neither one of those examples proves that their are finite jobs or resources.
There are people without electricity. Does that mean electricity is finite?

 

[Kondor3]

...H1b visas are for illiterate Mexican peasants? Wow, who knew?

Don't look now, but the conversation had taken a turn towards overall immigration issues, not just the H1B visas mentioned in the OP.

And, within the narrow domain of H1B visas...

Why should we import tech-folk when we should be growing our own right here, from amongst our own, to reduce unemployment?

We should be doing lots of things. But the fact is we do not have enough high tech workers to fill those jobs, so we import them. If we dont issue H1b visas the companies will hire those people anyway and station them in Canada, Ireland, or on a ship in the ocean. There is no issue of American jobs, except that if companies cannot get the skills they need they cannot grow and create other jobs.

Yes, that is the Standard Argument in favor of H1B.

Trouble is, it never ends.

We never make the investment in our own people.

If we are to reverse that trend, clearly, a different approach is indicated.

And, if that 'different approach' cannot be brought to fruition voluntarily, then perhaps it should be compelled.