td11 wrote:I find myself agreeing with a lot of the DSA platform. unfortunately due to how far right the GOP has gone, a strong democratic socialist response is one of our best hopes

Grotewold wrote:

td11 wrote:I find myself agreeing with a lot of the DSA platform. unfortunately due to how far right the GOP has gone, a strong democratic socialist response is one of our best hopes

Maybe just call it something different. I think a lot of people would be all for it once they got past "socialist"

td11 wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

td11 wrote:I find myself agreeing with a lot of the DSA platform. unfortunately due to how far right the GOP has gone, a strong democratic socialist response is one of our best hopes

Maybe just call it something different. I think a lot of people would be all for it once they got past "socialist"

have to agree. "socialist" just has a ton of baggage associated with it in this country

CFP wrote:This Rosneft stuff is pretty fascinating

pacino wrote:

CFP wrote:This Rosneft stuff is pretty fascinating

you mean this? : https://twitter.com/gregpinelo/status/8 ... 45/photo/1

(6) Finally, I want to highlight a story that many people haven’t noticed. On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.
Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”
Conclusive? No. But it raises some very interesting questions for journalists to investigate.

pacino wrote:

td11 wrote:

Youseff wrote:would be nice if Obama stood up and took an active role in the resistance.

been feeling the same, but i know he needs (and deserves) time off

hell, where the #$!&@ has hillary been

lots of people told her to go away, so she did

she also just lost a grueling campaign

JUburton wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:I'm generally not a political person, let alone an activist, but I wrote an email to Senator Toomey's office asking him to come out in opposition of the ban. Here's the link for anyone else who wishes to do so:

https://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact

I really don't see how anyone who claims to be an American can do anything BUT oppose it. And as I wrote in my email, silence is tantamount to support.

[Reveal] Spoiler: My email, if you're interested

Senator Tooomey

I am saddened and disheartened to find you still silent on the issue of President Trump's executive order banning entry to the US for those from majority-Muslim countries, particularly Syrian refugees. Such a ban does not reflect the ideals we as Americans profess to uphold. We claim to be strong in the face of adversity and courageous towards a threat of danger. The ban is a clear action showing the opposite. It is an act based on fear of the other and fear of making the hard choices we know to be right. If you claim to represent me, an OIF II Veteran who proudly served when called upon to do so, you will speak out in dissent of this ban. Your silence on the issue is tantamount to your support, and your support will show you to be on the wrong side of history as those who signed The Chinese Exclusion Act or opposed the Jewish refugees fleeing Germany. Please, do the right thing, not the easy or expedient thing.

This is good, (and I don't know if anyone's said this in the following couple of pages) but please call also. I don't know a lot of former staffers but ones that I do say that emails are generally handled by interns and might be cataloged but are not looked at in detail or used for decision near term decision making. They do catalog phone calls and often want reports of them daily/weekly.

Warszawa wrote:Can't get through to toomey's offices

CalvinBall wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Can't get through to toomey's offices

all of them? sheesh.

start flooding them with faxes

CalvinBall wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Can't get through to toomey's offices

all of them? sheesh.

start flooding them with faxes

In fiscal 2013, the U.S. issued nearly 274,000 skilled-worker visas, known as H-1B visas. Citizens from the banned countries received 1,220 of those visas, including 810 to Iranians, 280 to Syrians and 53 to Libyans, according to government data compiled by Ron Hira, a Howard University political-science professor who tracks immigration trends. The 2013 data is the most recent complete data Mr. Hira analyzed.

td11 wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Warszawa wrote:Can't get through to toomey's offices

all of them? sheesh.

start flooding them with faxes

with rubio i usually end up having to call 3-4 offices of his before i get to a non-full vm

PSUsarge wrote:I work in tech and thought it was interesting how much publicity the ban(or whatever you want to call it) is getting specific to tech leaders speaking out.

Obviously tech has been reliant on immigration, and I know the reaction is more to the potential of future bans (especially involving India), but with respect to the current one, it seems to have minimal actual impact. From WSJ:

In fiscal 2013, the U.S. issued nearly 274,000 skilled-worker visas, known as H-1B visas. Citizens from the banned countries received 1,220 of those visas, including 810 to Iranians, 280 to Syrians and 53 to Libyans, according to government data compiled by Ron Hira, a Howard University political-science professor who tracks immigration trends. The 2013 data is the most recent complete data Mr. Hira analyzed.

No real point being made here, just a random observation. Based on the coverage I had assumed Silicon Valley had a much larger influx coming from those countries.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me