US Political News and Trump’s China visit
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
SolarWarden
Trusted Member
SolarWarden
Trusted Member
MAGA run cities? Do you just pull claims out of you a**? All big cities are run by democrats you simp! That includes blue cities in red states.
Falcon29
Elite Member
He doesn't understand the law and it doesn't grant him privileges he thinks it does.
MAGA ran , ie MAGA representatives/governors. Many big cities are red cities in red states. Are you trolling ?
Flotilla
Trusted Member
After limiting the right to abortion, now here comes a new good idea.
Love Mad Pete.
He loves Israel but his inclinations are saudi style.
Love Mad Pete.
He loves Israel but his inclinations are saudi style.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposts video of pastors saying women shouldn’t vote
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reposted the video profiling Christian Nationalist Pastor Doug Wilson, who opposes same-sex marriage.
www.opb.org
RabzonKhan
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #9,547
RabzonKhan
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #9,548
You are right, many employers exploit undocumented workers not because of red tape, but because they want cheap labor with no accountability. That’s why I believe it’s time to take the gloves off. Employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants should face serious consequences, not just fines, but jail time. The current penalties are far too lenient, and enforcement is sporadic at best. If we want real deterrence, we need to make illegal hiring a high-risk proposition.
But enforcement must go hand-in-hand with reforming legal pathways. That’s where the H-2A and H-2B visa programs come in. These programs are specifically designed to protect American workers. Employers are required to first recruit domestically and offer fair wages. Only when they can’t find qualified U.S. workers are they allowed to hire foreign labor.
The H-2A program covers seasonal agricultural jobs. Employers must offer housing, transportation, and wages that meet or exceed local standards. They’re also obligated to hire any qualified American who applies during the first half of the contract. The H-2B program works similarly for seasonal non-agricultural jobs like landscaping, hospitality, and construction. Again, the priority is always to hire American workers first.
These safeguards are critical. They ensure that foreign labor is only used as a last resort, not as a shortcut to undercut wages. And in places like Washington State, these programs are essential. Our apple farms, for example, rely heavily on seasonal labor. Many of these workers come in legally through the H-2A program, helping to sustain an industry that struggles to attract domestic labor.
Streamlining these visa processes is key. If we make it easier for law-abiding employers to hire legally, we eliminate the excuse of “too much paperwork.” That strengthens the case for aggressive enforcement against those who still choose to break the law. The goal isn’t just to punish, it’s to reshape the labor market so that legality becomes the norm, not the exception.
We need a system that rewards compliance and punishes exploitation. That means tough penalties for illegal hiring and practical, efficient legal pathways for employers who want to do the right thing.
But, at the end of the day, even the most well-intentioned policies are meaningless without cooperation between both political parties. Presidents can issue executive orders and implement temporary measures, but their power is inherently limited. Once they leave office, the next administration can simply reverse everything, undoing years of effort with the stroke of a pen.
That’s why we need a spirit of compromise and mutual respect. Republicans and Democrats must come together to craft durable, bipartisan legislation. Without that, all the resources, energy, and public trust invested in these initiatives risk being wasted. Real progress demands laws, not just executive actions, that can stand the test of time, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Hamartia Antidote
Elite Member
While it is indeed down…DC is still very dangerous compared to other cities of its size
RabzonKhan
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #9,550
Totally agree that sincerity is fundamental, without it, humor can come off as hollow. But I see it as a both-and, not an either-or. When a leader pairs sincerity with a touch of humor, it deepens connection. Beshear’s sincerity is a strength, but some warmth or levity could make him resonate more broadly.
It reminds me of Bloomberg’s presidential campaign in 2020. I lived in NYC during his mayoralty and admired his law-and-order approach and executive competence. I even backed him early on. But his speeches were painfully dry, and his attempts at humor rarely landed. Voters won’t engage if they can’t connect emotionally. Even the most intelligent, well-reasoned message can fall flat if it’s delivered without energy, warmth, or wit. When speeches lack liveliness, people tune out, no matter how brilliant the ideas may be. He had the intellect and the credentials, but his delivery was so dry and uninspiring. And in politics, if people stop listening, it doesn’t matter how right or sincere you are.
RabzonKhan
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #9,551
Latest:
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today is making public the formerly Classified Appendix (“Durham annex”) to John Durham’s 2023 Special Counsel report. The Unclassified Report and the Classified Appendix form the entirety of Durham’s Special Counsel Report.
The Durham annex contains previously classified information exposing a reported Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie President Donald Trump to Russia.
History will show that the Obama and Biden administration’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump. This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history. The new Trump administration has a tremendous responsibility to the American people to fix the damage done and do so with maximum speed and transparency,” Grassley said.
Thread:
Gabbard’s claims are a repackaging of previously debunked theories, and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee under Rubio already affirmed the legitimacy of the original intelligence findings. So yes, she’s bringing nothing substantively new, and her narrative contradicts the conclusions of her own party’s prior investigation.
RabzonKhan
Trusted Member
- Thread starter
- #9,552
As of now, Rep. Ilhan Omar is not under federal investigation in connection with the Feeding Our Future fraud case, let alone charged, she’s not even a subject of inquiry. The fraud began during Trump’s first administration in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The FBI launched its investigation under Biden, and as of August, nearly 50 defendants have been convicted, with some receiving sentences of up to 28 years.@RabzonKhan
Ilhan Omar latest news....
71 Arrests in FRAUD Case—Omar’s Role EXPOSED
Exposed! A $250 million fraud scheme tied to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s circle has led to 71 arrests. As the legacy media...turleytalks.com
This was a multi-year FBI investigation, independent of political influence. It started under Trump, continued through Biden, and concluded under Trump’s second term, with no direct government interference at any stage.
j_hungary
Professional
To all my fellow non-White, non-Christian American voters, YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS PIECE OF NEWS. Credit to my wife, a constitutional lawyer, who brought this up to me, she was watching the SCOTUS website the other day
Supreme Court is hearing a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais
www.archives.gov
You should read the 3 websites (fromthe Supreme Court of the United States, the National Archive, and the other from Huff Post) to find out what this is about yourself. But to sum up what the case is
The case is about Louisiana redistricting the election map and giving 5 white majority districts (Out of 6) inthe 2020 Census, also known as Racial Gerrymandering (As 1/3 of Louisiana were Black), which is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965, which outlaw State Election Law that discriminate against Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation and Education Level. While Gerrymandering is legal in US, Racial Gerrymandering is not since it violates both 15th Amendment (Equality Act) and the Voting Rights Act.
Now, the SCOTUS is looking to hear a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais, which means if the SCOTUS overturns the case, it will overturn section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which gives specific rights for states to enact policies to hinder voting right for minority. Notice that this does not just apply to Gerrymandering, but ALLOWING ALL POLICIES that is discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so all. The longer-term effect will be the legal status of the 15th Amendment, which gives equal rights to Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation since the backbone of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the 15th Amendment.
Now, my wife said most legal scholar agrees that this is not likely to overturn, since overturning it would mean equality does not apply in voting (that's what Voting Rights Act is all about), which would weaken or may even abolish the 15th Amendment, I mean it's quite straight forward that if you can be discriminated based on race and religion and etc on voting issue, you may not have Equality in the US (I don't see how you can say you cannot be discriminate upon, when they can enact race based voting policy). But the fact that SCOTUS is rehearing the case alone means they are interested in looking into it.
@RabzonKhan @Watandar @PakFactor @FuturePAF @Starlord watch out on this and good luck.
Supreme Court is hearing a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais
Voting Rights Act (1965)
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes, August 6, 1965; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All...
www.archives.gov
You should read the 3 websites (fromthe Supreme Court of the United States, the National Archive, and the other from Huff Post) to find out what this is about yourself. But to sum up what the case is
The case is about Louisiana redistricting the election map and giving 5 white majority districts (Out of 6) inthe 2020 Census, also known as Racial Gerrymandering (As 1/3 of Louisiana were Black), which is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965, which outlaw State Election Law that discriminate against Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation and Education Level. While Gerrymandering is legal in US, Racial Gerrymandering is not since it violates both 15th Amendment (Equality Act) and the Voting Rights Act.
Now, the SCOTUS is looking to hear a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais, which means if the SCOTUS overturns the case, it will overturn section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which gives specific rights for states to enact policies to hinder voting right for minority. Notice that this does not just apply to Gerrymandering, but ALLOWING ALL POLICIES that is discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so all. The longer-term effect will be the legal status of the 15th Amendment, which gives equal rights to Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation since the backbone of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the 15th Amendment.
Now, my wife said most legal scholar agrees that this is not likely to overturn, since overturning it would mean equality does not apply in voting (that's what Voting Rights Act is all about), which would weaken or may even abolish the 15th Amendment, I mean it's quite straight forward that if you can be discriminated based on race and religion and etc on voting issue, you may not have Equality in the US (I don't see how you can say you cannot be discriminate upon, when they can enact race based voting policy). But the fact that SCOTUS is rehearing the case alone means they are interested in looking into it.
@RabzonKhan @Watandar @PakFactor @FuturePAF @Starlord watch out on this and good luck.
Starlord
Trusted Member
Hey bud, Thanks for the Tag but not sure how does it effect me (Greencard Holder) as I can't vote already, but I agree with the last part you said although chance are low for such a law to be overturned but the FACT it is being reheard by the SCOTUS is itself concerning.To all my fellow non-White, non-Christian American voters, YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS PIECE OF NEWS. Credit to my wife, a constitutional lawyer, who brought this up to me, she was watching the SCOTUS website the other day
Supreme Court is hearing a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais
Voting Rights Act (1965)
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes, August 6, 1965; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All...
You should read the 3 websites (fromthe Supreme Court of the United States, the National Archive, and the other from Huff Post) to find out what this is about yourself. But to sum up what the case is
The case is about Louisiana redistricting the election map and giving 5 white majority districts (Out of 6) inthe 2020 Census, also known as Racial Gerrymandering (As 1/3 of Louisiana were Black), which is a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965, which outlaw State Election Law that discriminate against Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation and Education Level. While Gerrymandering is legal in US, Racial Gerrymandering is not since it violates both 15th Amendment (Equality Act) and the Voting Rights Act.
Now, the SCOTUS is looking to hear a re-argument of Louisiana v Callais, which means if the SCOTUS overturns the case, it will overturn section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which gives specific rights for states to enact policies to hinder voting right for minority. Notice that this does not just apply to Gerrymandering, but ALLOWING ALL POLICIES that is discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so all. The longer-term effect will be the legal status of the 15th Amendment, which gives equal rights to Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation since the backbone of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the 15th Amendment.
Now, my wife said most legal scholar agrees that this is not likely to overturn, since overturning it would mean equality does not apply in voting (that's what Voting Rights Act is all about), which would weaken or may even abolish the 15th Amendment, I mean it's quite straight forward that if you can be discriminated based on race and religion and etc on voting issue, you may not have Equality in the US (I don't see how you can say you cannot be discriminate upon, when they can enact race based voting policy). But the fact that SCOTUS is rehearing the case alone means they are interested in looking into it.
@RabzonKhan @Watandar @PakFactor @FuturePAF @Starlord watch out on this and good luck.
US is going through a very interesting times in its history, from 9/11 to Obama Presidency to Trump, attack on Capital to here we are, unlike others I don't believe its the downfall of US, I always argue here with Americans who actually believe that US is going towards a ultimate demise is that one thing I admire America for is that they created strong independent institutions which keep working no matter who becomes president or which part is in majority, which keeps US from falling apart or going to point on no return, which is good... even small countries when they go towards chaos has significant affect on world, imagine the effects of US destabilization internally of the world.
I see this as we have a saying in Pakistan, " Pakistan Tareekh ke Naazok tareen daur se guzaar raha hai " which roughly translate to, Pakistan is going through a very critical phase in its history.
Hamartia Antidote
Elite Member
Let’s look at this more pragmatically. Here we have problems with out of control rents pushing people into tents. Lifelong renters (many retired on tight budgets) fearful that they may end up on the streets.
So what bright future does some illegal immigrant have taking those low paying jobs “Americans don’t want to do”. Are we setting them up for a “bright future” or really almost guaranteed doom.
This whole “we should be grateful they are doing these jobs” by illegal immigration supporters is a selfish short sighted “pat myself on the back for helping people in the short term” but an appallingly cruel poverty sentence for them in the long term.
Again the US is an expensive place to live and you won’t be sleeping on golden couches by a long shot
Last edited:
