Ten oz

I have no idea how long ago she was selected; do you? I have no idea how many people in management changed or how many people are involved in making such a decision; do you? Unless you have more knowledge than me it is fair to say neither of us have enough knowledge to say it was or wasn't racism. That is my point.

I have no real opinion about the story because I have no idea at what level these types of decisions are made at NASA but I see no reason for doubt to be the default position.

I don't know if race was a factor or not. I have no idea which individuals or groups made the decision or why. However the fact that she was there in the first place absolutely doesn't automatically mean race couldn't be a factor. Management isn't static. If there are different people in management today than when she was selected than her race could very well have played a role.

Waitforufo is implying it is costing U.S. citizens something when it isn't. Quite the opposite actually: "Research from both the right-leaning Cato Institute and left-leaning Center for American Progress suggests Trump’s economic and immigration goals may be diametrically opposed. Their research indicates that ending DACA — and deporting the workers who will no longer enjoy legal status — could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by anywhere from $280 billion to $430 billion over the next decade." http://time.com/money/4928394/daca-economic-cost-trump/ Having immigrants in the U.S. helps the U.S. economy. It does cost citizens anything. Trump himself made it crystal clear what this about with his shithole comment. It Crux of his complaint wasn't that we couldn't afford to have immigrants or that having them negatively impacted U.S. Citizens but rather the immigrants weren't from countries he preferred like Norway.

What resources?

Asking me a series of different questions doesn't answer the question I asked you. What price is paid by U.S. Citizens by enabling those protected by DACA to stay? Your questions: focusing on "crimes committed" is leapfrogging backyards. DACA is already policy put in place by a POTUS and numerous local govt have laws on the books offering a variety of protections. The debate is whether or not we should end a program, DACA. What "obligation" are you talking about? What are you purposing? You seem to be implying the individuals protected by DACA cost or burden U.S. citizens somehow but you aren't elaborating as to how.

What price are we (U.S. Citizens) paying by letting people raised and educated in the U.S. stay in the U.S.?

From Tax Cuts to Gorsuch the GOP hasn't had a problem getting around filibusters and getting the things they want badly enough with a simple majority.

There is a widespread that the border wall is a pointless waste of money too. Trump's own cabinet, John Kelly and others, don't want a wall and yet Republicans continue to push for billions in funding for it. There is a widespread belief Trump is an idiot in both house and the senate. In the Senate just off the top of my head Corker, Flakes, McCain, Rubio, Cruz, Graham, have all repudiated Trump numerous times yet hold the party line for him nearly without exception (McCain on healthcare vote the lone exception) over and over again. The nations attention and time. DACA was the only issue that mattered, the only thing to debate. Such singular focus isn't easy to come by 3 weeks from now who knows where our attention might be. A natural disaster, terror attack, or etc could create a situation that pushes DACA to the rear. Lets not forget that Dems were readying themselves for this fight back in late August but then Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Marie hit and a govt shutdown during a national relief effort simply wasn't good for anything or anyone. It is not a given Democrats will be in a position to shut things down again in 3 weeks if Republicans don't deliver. All it would take is increased North Korean tensions and Republicans could easily sell a shutdown as dangerous to the nations best interests,

Yes, if often starts with an anti illegal immigration and then evolves into an anti any immigration position. We are seeing it play out in real time as the Trump administration is both seeking to deport groups here legally and lower the number of immigrant we allow in at all. This isn't new. One only needs to educate themselves on things like Mexican Repatriation or Herbert Hoovers Nationality quotas to understand the long history of racism and the impact it still has on the discussion. "The Mexican Repatriation was a mass deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States between 1929 and 1936. Estimates of how many were repatriated range from 500,000 to 2,000,000,of whom perhaps 60% were US citizens by birth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation Whereas it is provided in the Act of Congress approved May 26, 1924, entitled "An Act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States, and for other purposes," as amended by the Joint Resolution of March 4, 1927, entitled "Joint Resolution to amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of Section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended," and the Joint Resolution of March 31, 1928, entitled "Joint Resolution to amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of Section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended," that-- "The annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1929, and for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin (ascertained as hereinafter provided in this section) bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100." Sec. 11(b). "For the purpose of subdivision (b) national origin shall be ascertained by determining as nearly as may be, in respect of each geographical area which under section 12 is to be treated as a separate country (except the geographical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4) the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 whose origin by birth or ancestry is attributable to such geographical area. Such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable." Sec. 11(c). "For the purpose of subdivisions (b) and (c) the term 'inhabitants in continental United States in 1920' does not include (1) immigrants from the geographical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4 or their descendants, (2) aliens ineligible to citizenship or their descendants, (3) the descendants of slave immigrants, or (4) the descendants of American aborigines." Sec. 11(d). "The determination provided for in subdivision (c) of this section shall be made by the 'Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly. In making such determination such officials may call for information and expert assistance from the Bureau of the Census. Such officials shall, jointly, report to the President the quota of each nationality, determined as provided in subdivision (b), and the President shall proclaim and make known the quotas so reported. Such proclamation shall be made on or before April 1, 1929. If the proclamation is not made on or before such date, quotas proclaimed therein shall not be in effect for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of 90 days after the date of the proclamation. After the making of a proclamation under this subdivision the quotas proclaimed therein shall continue with the same effect as if specifically stated herein, and shall be final and conclusive for every purpose except (1) in so far as it is made to appear to the satisfaction of such officials and proclaimed by the President, that an error of fact has occurred in such determination or in such proclamation, or (2) in the case provided for in subdivision (c) of Section 12. If for any reason quotas proclaimed under this subdivision are not in effect for any fiscal year, quotas for such year shall be determined under subdivision (a) of this section." Sec. 11(e). And Whereas the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor have reported to the President that pursuant to the duty imposed and the authority conferred upon them in and by the Act approved May 26, 1924, they jointly have made the determination required by said Act and fixed the quota of each respective nationality in accordance therewith to be as hereinafter set forth; Now, Therefore, I, Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the power in me vested by the aforesaid Act of Congress, do hereby proclaim and make known that the annual quota of each nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1929, and for each fiscal year thereafter, has been determined in accordance with the law to be, and shall be, as follows: NATIONAL ORIGIN IMMIGRATION QUOTAS http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21838 The quotas are listed on the link. They include things like only 100 people from allowed from China but 65,000 allowed from England.

I agree with iNow's position. What will change in their (Democrats) favor in the next 3 weeks. All the GOP agreed to do is address DACA and have a vote. 51 Republicans could vote to end DACA and have all 800,000 protected by DACA be deported and Republicans would still be keeping their end of the bargain. Despite the Senate being nearly split equally the narrative is Republicans need 9 Democrats to pass a budget and not Democrats need 11 Republicans; either adds up to 60 votes. All giving Republicans another 3 weeks does in allow them time to have a 80's style training montage and comeback more prepared to fight. Republicans have repeated proven to be dishonest negotiators. They filibustered Garland demanding 60 votes but then seated Gorsuch with a simple majority. There is no good faith here. There is no status quo. Republicans will move forward in which ever way best suits them and could careless about what they agreed to. This is most the same group that voted to repeal the ACA over 100 times. They do not fear redundant divisive battles or damaging what's in the public's best interest.

A better question is what percentage of the policy position is based on race? With regards to Immigration Trump has already made it clear race drives that discussion when he asked where we aren't getting immigrants from Norway. Other issues from gun control to heathcare are steeped in racial tension.

You mean 8%, 27%, and 29%, the rested voted third party. Again, Some Jewish people aided Hitler. Anyone can be a racist or an apologist for racists.

Amazon and fast food didn't even exist 50yrs ago. Both were born from simplifying process. The type of jobs people do are always changing. To say Robots will replace jobs which themselves replaced other jobs only support the point I am making. You can have the last word. This is off topic as the thread is about the shutdown.

89% of Blacks, 65% of Latinos, and 65% of Asians voted for Clinton. Some Jewish people helped the Nazis during WW2 but that hardly means Hilter wasn't antisemitic. The overwhelming majority of minorities, all minorities, opposed Trump.

Awesome. Do you want policy regarding DACA changed so those 800,000 will be deported or do you want current policy to continue?

You said in a previous post that at your school Trump supporters where called racists and they you were called a racist. I took that to me you had supported Trump. I had no idea how old you are.

What robots can do and a zero cost economy are separate things. Yes, robots will eventually be able to do any a human can do. That said humans can do anything humans can do and yet we humans are still very particular about which humans do what. As for a zero cost economy, though technically possible, I do not see it happening during our lifetime. Those who are empowered by the system we have will wage war to keep it. What humans are capable of and have access to don't always drive our choices. Have AI and putting it is good use are very different things. Yes, seriously. You voted for a bigot and are not explaining how you want to help remove bigots from office; it makes no sense. Just stop voting for them.

If you want to help don't vote for them AGAIN. It isn't complicated.

No it is the point. If you still voted Trump despite him claiming Obama was born in Kenya, refusing to show his taxes, "grab them by them by the pussy", and all his daily lies than nothing was going to stop you. Yes, turn out is key! How did Trump get turn out; by worry about who he might be offending or preaching to the choir?

It is very strange logic. Liberal should be careful not to call those who openly support racists names they don't like because it pushes those people away yet the racists they support can just double and triple down on the racism no problem.

I don't agree with that at all. For starters what will be the point of having AI CEOs of companies if no one on the planet can afford the products those companies create? Not being able to imagine what jobs will look like in 20yrs doesn't mean there won't be any. Millions of people today work in jobs that didn't exist 20yrs ago. Innovation both creates new jobs and and makes old jobs obsolete. Over the last 25yrs or so over a billion people globally have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Automation and computers have not been detrimental. "but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people." https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim So you voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, and etc in Previous election but in 2016 switch to Republican because you were called names at school? It doesn't matter what I call them; they will vote the way they vote. If you understand Republicans in office are racists but vote for them anyway in part because you are angry that liberal call you racist for supporting racist than you are way more interested in the way those who oppose racism behave than actual racism. Racism is a deal breaker for me. I would not vote for someone I understood to be a racist just to get back at random acquaintances I don't like.

Racist is a personal belief or feeling. People absolutely have the right to feel or believe whatever they want. How many voters did Trump alienate by claiming Obama was born in Kenya, refusing to show his taxes, denigrating other Republicans, and etc? In this partisan environment Motivating ones base is more important than being polite to the opposition. Clinton was considerable more careful in her language towards the opposition than Trump was and yet Trump won. Anyone that is offended by people accurately calling out racist doesn't vote Democrat anyway and won't under any circumstance.

We do agree. I was just elaborating in my own words.

I am not sure what you point is there is a lot of better things those other Countries could be spending there money on too. Saying Russia does it too doesn't add anything to what's been discussed. It is a persons right to be racist too. Just because racist people successfully get their guy elected doesn't mean they cease to be racist. Whether it is Nazis with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" or Trump questioning why the U.S. allows people in from "shithole" countries when what we need is more people from Norway it is obvious racism is part of the partisan political dynamic. I see no reason to ignore it. My govt (U.S.) is shutdown currently in part because Republicans want immigrants who have been living here for decades, many legally (200,000 Salvadorians and 60,000 Haitians legally), deported because they come from "shitholes". It is blatantly racist and saying as much is perfectly appropriate. Turnout is what wins election in the U.S.. People don't flip. If we look at the numbers by group (male, female, White, Black, Latino, Asian, Christian, Jewish, etc) there are painfully consistent election after election. We does change is how many of specific groups bother to show up. Republicans appear to understand this better than Democrats which is why there are so many prominent Republicans that make no bones about the fact they only plan to serve specific groups if elected. I don't see Republicans top toeing around the way they talk about abortion, immigrants, welfare, and etc for fear of turning away anyone. Rather Republican double and triple down to rally their target audience. If Democrats stop pointing out that the Republican party welcomes and runs cover for bigots it isn't going to win them a single extra vote in Coeur d'Alene Idaho. "Nearly nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) favor allowing young immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children to remain in the U.S. – a policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This is a view that spans partisan lines. " https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-support-daca-but-oppose-border-wall-cbs-news-poll/ Compromise always seems like the most equitable solution but how much compromise should be needed when the overwhelming majority of the nation is actually in agreement? Is calling them uneducated really any better than call them Racist? A rose by any other name....