No, I didn't confuse anything. Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants as well as regular ones. France, for example, has thousands of illegal immigrants from mostly Islamic countries that provide services to it's mostly aging native population. We benefit no more and no less than any other nation from illegal immigration, as @newtboy mentioned, if you import food products or grow them locally you probably are benefiting from illegal immigration.

As far as your evidence, I hope this will suffice as 'some':

Steven A. Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a Jan. 6, 2015 article, "Unskilled Workers Lose Out to Immigrants," available at nytimes.com, stated:

"There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and we also admit over a million permanent legal immigrants each year, leading to enormous implications for the U.S. labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that there are some 58 million working-age (16 to 65) native-born Americans not working — unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. This is roughly 16 million more than in 2000. Equally troubling, wages have stagnated or declined for most American workers. This is especially true for the least educated, who are most likely to compete with immigrants (legal and illegal).

Anyone who has any doubt about how bad things are can see for themselves at the bureau's website, which shows that, as of November, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans working than in November 2007, while 2 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) were working. Thus, all net employment gains since November 2007 have gone to immigrants."

Jan. 6, 2015 - Steven A. Camarota, PhD

George J. Borjas, PhD, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, in a Sep./Oct. 2016 article, "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers," available at politico.com, stated:

"[A]nyone who tells you that immigration doesn't have any negative effects doesn't understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable...

We don't need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages."

Sep./Oct. 2016 - George J. Borjas, PhD

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., PhD, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, in an Oct. 14, 2010 briefing Report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers," available at usccr.gov, stated:

"Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser [sic] in this competition are low skilled black workers…

It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their sheer numbers keep wages from rising over time, and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market."

Oct. 14, 2010 - Vernon M. Briggs Jr., PhD

There are more educated people than I that hold the same opinion, but let me give you an easier to understand, and absolutely true, example. How do I know it is true? When I was a much younger man, I worked for a roofing company. So I lived it.

The company I worked for was owned by a family friend, who had worked for most of his life in the field and had an excellent reputation. However, in the 90's around the time NAFTA was passed and (not related, I hope) illegal immigration spiked in Texas, he began to lose out to other companies. He did some snooping around and found out they were often charging hundreds of dollars less in their estimates than he could possibly offer, at least while still making a profit. He also found out that the two companies that were taking most of his business were staffed with illegal workers, being paid much lower wages than he could give to his legal employees.

Fast forward a year and he was close to declaring bankruptcy. Just like any type of labor where you pay your employees little to nothing comparatively to their compatriots in the same field, you cannot compete fairly. Net result, he was forced to let us go one by one, replacing us with illegals.

Obviously, I moved on, learned a different skill and began to make far more than I would have as a simple laborer. But the fact remains that an entire industry was undermined and radically changed by the inclusion of cheap illegal labor. This will not change if we simply ignore illegal immigration because it is the 'nice' thing to do. What it will accomplish is that young people will slowly find that certain jobs are out of their selection. It also will get worse the more accepted and commonplace illegal immigration becomes. I know for a fact that while I worked at Apple there were entry level support techs that were illegally here. Perhaps you will say that it is a benefit because it would prevent offshoring, but I disagree. What it does is make the working class poorer and doesn't solve the other issues brought about by illegal immigration, such as Emergency Rooms being flooded by people who can't afford insurance. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it is common to go to the ER and see people stacked like cordwood because they can't refuse patients unless they are a private hospital.

As far as The Jungle, and my statement about it and it's author, I was merely pointing out that as much as you try to put forth that illegal immigrants have a bad life here in the USA, the fact is that we used to treat legal immigrants far worse. Perhaps it was a reach on my part, but it seemed logical at the time.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, but I respect your opinion. I live in a state that has a very large proportion of illegal immigrants, and while you are correct that they are generally not a criminal negative to society, they do have severe effects which I think you are overlooking. I do think that legal immigration policy needs massive change and businesses that exploit the almost slave like labor of illegals to make more profit should be punished severely. In the meantime, when we do catch illegals, they should be deported, not protected by a sympathetic politically motivated law enforcement group.

I took fencing in college, and had some preconceived ideas about men probably being better at it on average due to higher strength on average.

At least for foil fencing, that turned out to be quite wrong. With foils, strength is far less important than dexterity and footwork skill, which in my class the girls tended to be noticeably better at.

...However, aggressiveness / competitiveness / "killer instinct" was in many ways more important than either strength OR dexterity, and the males tended to exhibit those qualities far more than the females in my class. So even though the women were more technically proficient, the men tended to win matches at a much higher rate.

I found that interesting. Can't say that my experiences would speak to any sort of universal trend, but it was the clear trend in my beginner's level course.

What I think he means with "stop talking about it" to end racism means stop talking about (and focusing on) race, not stop talking about racism....all of us, not just the victims of racism. If we ALL ignored race, clearly racism would evaporate....but racists don't do that, instead they focus on it. What the video implied IMO with the smiling Trump is that we should just stop talking about racism but continue to apply it, problem solved. Trump himself often divides and labels people based on race, unapologetically and gleefully, he certainly does not approve of the idea that he should 'stop talking about race and dividing people based on race', which is what I'm sure Morgan was saying.

I was mostly with him until he said anyone can pull themselves up by their boot straps. That's bullshit. He had immense talent (he won a state wide drama competition at 12), drive, opportunities, supportive family, education, and just as important, luck. Assuming that anyone without those abilities and support can do the same is ridiculous. Circumstance and natural ability mean most people don't have a chance to take advantage of opportunity that might present itself if they're lucky enough to have one appear. There's something wrong with him to think that anyone can do what he did, clearly almost no one can as very few have.

Yes, Mr Freeman, the bus runs every day....but you have to have the fare and be willing to abandon your family, job, home, and community for a lottery ticket elsewhere. For some, there's nothing to lose looking for greener pastures, but most who get on that bus are not successful, and many take their families down with them. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't look for better options and take them, but it's not as easy or simple as just getting on the bus.

You're not obliged under any circumstances to follow manufacturers warnings or instructions. They are liability limiting instructions (they are for the manufacturers safety against being sued).

Firing pin safety blocks and other "don't sue me" "safety" features are often disabled in competition guns. When something safely fails and nobody is in danger then no negligence has occurred. If you don't get it fixed after the failure then you're negligent at that point.

You don't know if it was a (preventative) maintenance issue. Faulty parts aren't a preventative maintenance issue in this sort of item (since you can't identify a fault until something like this happens - that's when you know it's faulty).

Do you shoot much?

The purpose of the device (a gun) is to propel a projectile at great velocity. The purpose of the projectile is to sometimes kill or injure but mainly just put holes in paper. Just sayin'.

These days firearms are mainly used for shooting steel, cardboard and paper targets. I own competition guns made solely for shooting cardboard and steel. The market determines what they are built and bought for, not you.

Now, you've changed the topic to "responsibility". I hadn't seen anyone here argue he lacked responsibility for the operation of the device. On top of that, if the device is faulty and it malfunctions you are not necessarily liable for what happens. There is case law on this in the USA.

There are accidental shootings. I've literally got a degree in treating people who have been victims of accidental or purposeful shootings. There is lots of case law covering accidental shootings (and the law says that there are accidental shootings). Accidental doesn't mean there won't be repercussions.

Interesting hypothesis.

She should probably give more credit to the generation above her. It's the same old miscalculation and underestimation I see time and again. The generation above her are just as adaptable, caring, etc as her generation but in different circumstances. They are the ones who brought the world together for her generation to enjoy (they invented just about every high tech thing she enjoys).

Nice condescending line there too, "statistics tell us Trump voters are uneducated". Implying they have no education. Perhaps she should have said less educated.

"Older voters didn't grow up with the internet". True. A group of older voters invented it though. And the rest adapted to using it just fine.

"Teach older folks about climate change". FFS. Really? Perhaps if she looked she'd find that the scientists leading the charge on climate change are "older folks". They've been doing it since before she was born.

"And how to sort out hoaxes on the internet". Like younger people are any better. Lol.

Actually getting a little bored now. She's provided no data to back up anything. Just a stream of consciousness diatribe insulting just about anyone over 40. How thoughtful of her. Not hypocritical at all.

Side note: there was no competition to win the popular vote. You can't win something there is no contest over. Hillary received more of the vote we call the "popular vote". She didn't win anything. Just like you don't win the most yards gained. It is just another metric that has zero bearing on the outcome of the competition.

"You may also like to see what's cooking in Hell's kitchen"

1:02

Ain't he the competition?

Chomsky is a scientist in a limited field. Žižek is a philosopher (yes, indeed, what exactly does he DO?).

It is difficult to compare them (and it is not a competition). Chomsky has a body of work to back his views up, Žižek has interesting insights if you can keep up with what "..and so on and so on" means in a specific context.

Most often I find that I agree with what Chomsky says and am entertained or puzzled by what Žižek has to say.

Hops started being used along the Rhine river in Germany around the 10th-11th century. It took some time before the use of hops was written into the Purity Law to ensure the quality of beer.

Because German beer would keep longer, it could be distributed further. With wider distribution, the beer could be made in larger batches. Larger batches meant it could be made more cheaply (per unit) which allowed German beer to compete against local breweries.

The early edge the Germans had in incorporating hops into their ales and beers gave them a competitive advantage that would last for centuries, and a brewing culture that thrives to this day.

Incidentally, the invention of calculus made trade easier as most beer (and pretty much everything else too) was carried in wooden barrels. Since barrels were hand-made they would often have slightly different sizes. Calculus made it easier to calculate the volume of the container to ensure the seller and customer would get a fair deal on the trade.

Cool Pacific Rim needs the competition.

I'm not a liberal, nor a conservative. I'm a pragmatic moderate.

Of course, ANYONE to the left of you is a "shit liberal". There are more of you every day because the electorate is being polarized.

Unfortunately for you, there's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more "shit liberals" everyday than people of your "ilk". Also, there's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more people who aren't of your ilk than are, and you keep pushing everyone who isn't as irrationally conservative as you away to the Democratic Party.

Remember, people like you caused Trump to get nominated instead of Kasich or Bush, and you might have won with either of them vs Clinton. But no, you're a man of principle! And those principles led you to Donald Trump, the candidate who could never be elected, even with all the political winds from circumstance at his back. Even against the second most disliked major party nominee, only to Trump himself!

I don't expect you to bow down. I expect you to drive yourself crazy as you'll continue to fight the insane fight while you lose election after election, and destroy the Republican Party as you keep it hostage under the threat of primarying any rational members they have left, handing election after election to Democrats until conservatives and the Republican Party become irrelevant and powerless.

That's what you can do. You keep that fight up! Never give up, never surrender! No matter how far you feel yourself sinking in the quicksand, between millennials completely rejecting your ideology, growing populations of minorities who reject you, demographics that show that eventually large electoral vote rich states like Texas will become competitive and will flip and turn blue. Nevermind the GOP has managed to win the popular vote one time in the last six elections, soon to be a seventh. Next time, keep thinking going down this path will work!

But don't you stop fighting! Keep struggling! I expect nothing less! This isn't about this election anymore. It's about wreaking havoc against your own side for decades to come! Nominate Trump in 2020 again! Primary the traitor Paul Ryan!

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!

MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, Trump is a complete tool. Guilty of all the stuff Maher said about him. Given that kind of "competition", what would the Democrats have to do to get those 20 states to flip their direction?

I can take a stab that that one, Bill -- he's sitting right next to you. If the Democrats had chosen Sanders as their candidate, I guarantee that at least some of those states would have gone blue on election day.

Firm, registered Democrats? They'd all happily vote for Bernie in the general, just like they will vote for Hillary.

Undecideds, moderates, and young people? Drastically more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary. A huge segment of the voting population is disgusted with the two major choices, and would happily flock to a candidate that has a proven track record of honesty and integrity, instead of the dog and pony show that we have now.

Firm, die-hard Republicans? Maher is right; there is a certain percentage of people that would never vote Democrat. But, I don't think that number is above 50% of the population even in the reddest of red states. But even for many of those people that are completely dissatisfied by Trump, from their perspective Hillary is NOT a better option.


Let's consider how all the arguments against Trump play to that specific audience: (note that the responses are what *they* think, not necessarily what *I* think)

Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill), and "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (Hillary).

Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?

etc. etc.

Hillary goddamn Clinton is NOT going to be seen as a reasonable alternative to Trump to those people. No matter how much he goes off the rails. No matter what crazy, foul, contemptible shit he says or does. No matter how many skeletons you dig out of his closet. Why? Because they are convinced (reasonably or not) that the Clintons have done just as much questionable shit and more, they are perhaps just better at covering it up.

But if the Democrat candidate was Bernie Sanders, I'm sure a lot more of those hard-line Republicans would be way more tempted to vote blue in November.

Not far off, but it's all ok. My best friend - his dad - has gone to have a little chat with him. I'm sure it's all sorted by now.

As for the response speed (yes, I was tempted to wait a year or so before posting this), I do remember one night after doing well in a competition I kept being woken up by my right arm doing a parry-riposte. My muscles were acting completely independant of my conscious brain. It was one of the weirdest feelings I've ever had.

A beautiful video - in regaurds to what the poster mentioned, I would make this observation- Modern competitive fencing is to "sword fighting" what Ballet is to folk dancing, a purified form. What noims said stikes a chord with me, I miss it greatly. Pommel up.

"Following an appeal by the Spanish Triathlon Federation to disqualify Jonathan Brownlee for accepting assistance from Alistair Brownlee to finish the 2016 ITU World Triathlon Grand Final Cozumel, during which Jonathan struggled with heat exhaustion in the final portion of the run, the ITU competition jury unanimously ruled against disqualifying Jonathan. The ITU Competition Jury made this decision in accordance to Appendix K, Rule 7, which states that athletes can receive help from another athlete, Technical Official or Race Official."
http://wts.triathlon.org/news/article/mola_named_the_2016_world_champion