bcking

My wife lived in Wokingham, just outside of Reading (Reading itself is rubbish). While we were engaged and living apart I spent a month at a major hospital in Central London so would commute each day. She worked in TVP, which is right next to Sonning on the Thames.

A lot of people "pump and dump" articles here. I've seen 5 or 6 articles posted by the same person in a span of an hour.
 
Even when it isn't clearly "pump and dump", I've tried to have an actual discussion directly on the topic of the thread and get called out for being "off topic", because people want the topic to only be whatever opinion or viewpoint they feel is best.
 
Now I have been gone for a few months so perhaps "legitimate discussion" has become more of a thing here, but it certainly wasn't in the past.

Honestly I would be far more supportive of him if he was professional.
 
We don't know who will be running against him in 2020 but unfortunately for me his professionalism is a HUGE barrier to me considering supporting him, regardless of who his opponent is (unless of course the Democrats end up finding someone equally crass and distasteful).
 
I certainly didn't like Clinton, I find them both (both Clintons) slimey. But they are more "normal politician" slimy, generally speaking. Doesn't excuse it, but Trump is just on another level, in my view. I can't support hate, which is what I see from Trump far too often.

Glad we got here in the end.
 
This thread was made with the purpose of insulting a single person and her constituents. The single person I have less of an issue with because she chose to get into politics, and politics is never nice. Extending the insult to the people that vote is not okay. My original comment was made in direct relation to that. 
 
It happens a lot on these forums. Insults thrown at Trump supporters, Clinton supporters, Left, Right etc... Even this childish "TDS" thing thrown around lately. None of it makes for any intelligent discussion. It only serves to reflect poorly on those that do it.

That I would agree with

Ya I imagine it depends on the field.
 
My wife is in geoscience. It's pretty standard everywhere and people move often. We actually met in Thailand and she was working there.
 
She just frequently brings up how low the standard is here compared to what she is used to. Granted that's only one company.

Apologies for the typo. They are still likely better than unsubstantiated anecdotal opinions on random immigration forums. Do you have specific complaints regarding their methodology or are you just discrediting them because their results aren't in agreement with your unsubstantiated opinion?
 

IRS will flag a name ssn mismatch or if 2 people use the same ssn, or if person is dead etc. 
 
 
You nailed it. No jobs no reason to come 

Yes, unless the supervisors are aware that she is illegal and just don't care. 

Wouldn't both of her IDs need to be stolen? Like the SSN and whatever other ID she used? 
 
Seriously I support everify and whatever else people can propose to keep this from happening. I think cutting out employment and punishing employers is the best way to limit illegal immigration. If they can't get jobs, I don't think they will stick around.

Please elaborate on that.
 
How exactly are going to make them pay for it?
 
It's BS like this that ruins any chance we have for interesting, intelligent discourse and debate on these forums.

This, combined with data to suggest that illegal immigration is already down, suggests there may be many more cost effective ways to fix our problems than build and maintain a wall.
 
I've always believed the best way to do it is take away what makes coming into the US ilegally so appealing. I don't mean arrest everyone (obviously arrest those who are criminals, beyond their illegal entry). I say very strongly go after employers who hire illegal immigrants. If they can't get jobs, they won't stick around. 

Sorry I wasn't trying to talk about the 2016 election here. He brought up that Trump won as evidence that the "Average American" supports him. That's just not true.
 
The majority who voted didn't vote for him
The voters who turned out may not even represent "Average Americans" because it's unlikely a random sampling.
 
The fact that he won has nothing to do with what the "Average American" wants. He won via the electoral college, not an average of American voters.
 
The best we could do is look at polls that take a "random sample", though I realize what people here think about polls so I won't bother to go into much detail. Meta-analysis of polls have fairly consistently indicated that below 50% of people approve of Trump. Is that an accurate account of "Average Americans"? It may not be, but it's certainly better than some random person's anecdotal opinion on an immigration forum.

Sorry I think you entered the conversation part way.
 
I was in no way saying the popular vote was important for the election, and was in no way using it to contest or question the election.
 
I was ONLY using it to illustrate the only objective numbers we have to address the claim that the "average American" supports Trump. Using the term average suggests there are numbers to back it up, and there just aren't. We can't say that the average American doesn't support Trump either, but we certainly can't say they do. They best we have is how Americans voted overall, which was a majority not voting for Trump.
 
You can't "safely say" things like what you said in bold unless you actually have data to back it up. You can safely say it's your opinion, which is fine. But don't confuse your opinion with reality. They may be in line, but they may not.
 

I didn't say Trump was low IQ, but he certainly knows how to capture that audience.
 
He literally tells people he is BSing them to their face at rallies and they still cheer. It's hilarious.

A majority of those who voted (for both House and Senate) voted "Blue". 
 
US Senate Results (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html) - ~52 million voted Democrat, ~35 million voted Republican
US House Results (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html) - ~57 million voted Democrat, ~50 million voted Republican
 
The problem for Democrats is their constituency isn't as well spread out, and since we are representative democracy and not a pure democracy, they may have the majority of Americans in their corner but they need the majority of countries/districts geographically. So while overall more Americans who turned out to vote side with Democrats, they still lost the Senate because of the distribution of voters across America. 
 
Obviously this only captures those who voted (turnout is becoming more and more of a record as the final numbers are tallied), and combines many individual races into one total "party tally". Obviously people can vote one color for one situation and vote the other color for another choice. Given how polarized our nation has become my guess is that doesn't happen very often, but I don't think we can quantify it except with exit polls (if they even asked a question like that).

That or NB confused his right from his left?

I didn't say Trump was low IQ, but he certainly knows how to capture that audience.
 
He literally tells people he is BSing them to their face at rallies and they still cheer. It's hilarious.

There is very little in this forum that resembles debate...

There was a great panel conference a few years back in medicine reviewing why we spend so much, and breaking it down into categories.
 
Would love to see that for our military. Break it down into several categories of waste. Some of it is likely due to paying too much for products etc...

A wall around a complex or a home is very different from a wall between two soverign nations.
 
It is quite depressing how difficult that is for some people to grasp.

I was just joking...
 
Wall, fence etc... Morality has nothing to do with it. The wall is impractical for financial reasons. This whole political topic I find hilarious because Republicans are typically the fiscally conservative ones but he is trying to propose a massively expensive project with very little benefit. Certainly not immoral though.

Literally or figuratively?
 
I believe in immigration laws, respecting them and enforcing them. I think we could do a lot to improve those laws and reduce illegal immigration.
 
I don't think a literally wall along the southern border is going to get us much bang for our buck. It'll end up costing billions of dollars to build, and billions more in maintenance and at the end of the day we'll still have a problem with illegal immigration and we'll move onto the next idea to solve it after a collosal waste of money.

Every one of those cases should have ended with a stint in prison for the parent(s).  

So you don't actually know she is an illegal?
 
You should have made that clear.