What about DC becoming part of Maryland or Virginia? There's no reason for them to be a separate state with two Senators that I can think of.
Puerto Rico should be independent. There's no compelling reason that they should be any different than Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. They have more in common with them than they do with the U.S.
What about DC becoming part of Maryland or Virginia? There's no reason for them to be a separate state with two Senators that I can think of.
Puerto Rico should be independent. There's no compelling reason that they should be any different than Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. They have more in common with them than they do with the U.S.
Why is Wyoming a state, then? It's a bit of a weird argument. There's not really a great rationale for saying "Well, why dont we make a state out of X, or take Y and combine it with Z?".
DC deserves representation.
About your Puerto Rico argument - well, they're American Citizens. So that's a start for why they shouldnt be fully independent (unless they *want* to be independent - which they dont according to every referendum I've ever seen). It'd be a bit like saying "Well - Hawaii has more in common with New Zealand than Texas (probably close to true, by the way), so let's make them independent!".
Which is obviously absurd.
If P.R wants to be a full state, let them. If D.C wants to be a full state, let them.
What about DC becoming part of Maryland or Virginia? There's no reason for them to be a separate state with two Senators that I can think of.
Puerto Rico should be independent. There's no compelling reason that they should be any different than Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. They have more in common with them than they do with the U.S.
Why is Wyoming a state, then? It's a bit of a weird argument. There's not really a great rationale for saying "Well, why dont we make a state out of X, or take Y and combine it with Z?".
DC deserves representation.
About your Puerto Rico argument - well, they're American Citizens. So that's a start for why they shouldnt be fully independent (unless they *want* to be independent - which they dont according to every referendum I've ever seen). It'd be a bit like saying "Well - Hawaii has more in common with New Zealand than Texas (probably close to true, by the way), so let's make them independent!".
Which is obviously absurd.
If P.R wants to be a full state, let them. If D.C wants to be a full state, let them.
What about DC becoming part of Maryland or Virginia? There's no reason for them to be a separate state with two Senators that I can think of.
Puerto Rico should be independent. There's no compelling reason that they should be any different than Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. They have more in common with them than they do with the U.S.
Why is Wyoming a state, then? It's a bit of a weird argument. There's not really a great rationale for saying "Well, why dont we make a state out of X, or take Y and combine it with Z?".
DC deserves representation.
About your Puerto Rico argument - well, they're American Citizens. So that's a start for why they shouldnt be fully independent (unless they *want* to be independent - which they dont according to every referendum I've ever seen). It'd be a bit like saying "Well - Hawaii has more in common with New Zealand than Texas (probably close to true, by the way), so let's make them independent!".
Which is obviously absurd.
If P.R wants to be a full state, let them. If D.C wants to be a full state, let them.
Then let Northern California become a state.
Then let New York become two states. But why was Puerto Rico a problem again?
How are you dividing who can be Americans? Again, it's a very Conservative thing to want to suppress voters... Cliche even..
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
No one is saying okay let's just convert illegals to legals. path to Citizenship for DACA sure.
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
No one is saying okay let's just convert illegals to legals path to Citizensship for DACA sure.
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
Maybe the Democratic Party should give me a compelling reason to vote for them other than I should feel guilty for things I haven't done and taking money from some people and giving it to others. It never seems to be the rich that pay for their programs either. The rich always seem to find a loophole or a way to make the middle class pay for it anyway (higher prices, inflation, etc...). The simple fact is thete just aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. This is especially true when you factor in they it pay taxes on their incomes, not their wealth. A fact that the left conveniently leaves out of their equations.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
No one is saying okay let's just convert illegals to legals path to Citizensship for DACA sure.
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
Maybe the Democratic Party should give me a compelling reason to vote for them other than I should feel guilty for things I haven't done and taking money from some people and giving it to others. It never seems to be the rich that pay for their programs either. The rich always seem to find a loophole or a way to make the middle class pay for it anyway (higher prices, inflation, etc...). The simple fact is thete just aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. This is especially true when you factor in they it pay taxes on their incomes, not their wealth. A fact that the left conveniently leaves out of their equations.
The left has reasons. They are often drowned out by strawman attacks (left wants open borders!), a couple extreme are often used to dismiss. Ocasio-Cortez has the "extreme" Democratic message - campaign finance reform, etc. Regular Democrats offer you get hosed by big bussiness but not as bad as Republicans who also want to cut safety net and safety and wages.
Agreed, the rich don't pay their share. There are enough of then to pay more or rather they have more than enough money to pay for their fair share. Not only rich people but big corporations aren't paying their share. Its difficult to conceive how a couple people own more money than 99% of the rest of us. They don't need additional tax cuts. Agreed they hide their wealth and often don't declare income the same way us working stiffs have to.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
No one is saying okay let's just convert illegals to legals path to Citizensship for DACA sure.
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
Maybe the Democratic Party should give me a compelling reason to vote for them other than I should feel guilty for things I haven't done and taking money from some people and giving it to others. It never seems to be the rich that pay for their programs either. The rich always seem to find a loophole or a way to make the middle class pay for it anyway (higher prices, inflation, etc...). The simple fact is thete just aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. This is especially true when you factor in they it pay taxes on their incomes, not their wealth. A fact that the left conveniently leaves out of their equations.
The left has reasons. They are often drowned out by strawman attacks (left wants open borders!), a couple extreme are often used to dismiss. Ocasio-Cortez has the "extreme" Democratic message - campaign finance reform, etc. Regular Democrats offer you get hosed by big bussiness but not as bad as Republicans who also want to cut safety net and safety and wages.
Agreed, the rich don't pay their share. There are enough of then to pay more or rather they have more than enough money to pay for their fair share. Not only rich people but big corporations aren't paying their share. Its difficult to conceive how a couple people own more money than 99% of the rest of us. They don't need additional tax cuts. Agreed they hide their wealth and often don't declare income the same way us working stiffs have to.
The left won't admit they want open borders but I sincerely doubt they'd mind them. They'd rather achieve it passively via amnesty. By the way, without price controls, the middle class pay the corporate taxes also. Do you really think corporations won't raise their prices when forced to pay higher taxes?
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
No one is saying okay let's just convert illegals to legals path to Citizensship for DACA sure.
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
Maybe the Democratic Party should give me a compelling reason to vote for them other than I should feel guilty for things I haven't done and taking money from some people and giving it to others. It never seems to be the rich that pay for their programs either. The rich always seem to find a loophole or a way to make the middle class pay for it anyway (higher prices, inflation, etc...). The simple fact is thete just aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. This is especially true when you factor in they it pay taxes on their incomes, not their wealth. A fact that the left conveniently leaves out of their equations.
The left has reasons. They are often drowned out by strawman attacks (left wants open borders!), a couple extreme are often used to dismiss. Ocasio-Cortez has the "extreme" Democratic message - campaign finance reform, etc. Regular Democrats offer you get hosed by big bussiness but not as bad as Republicans who also want to cut safety net and safety and wages.
Agreed, the rich don't pay their share. There are enough of then to pay more or rather they have more than enough money to pay for their fair share. Not only rich people but big corporations aren't paying their share. Its difficult to conceive how a couple people own more money than 99% of the rest of us. They don't need additional tax cuts. Agreed they hide their wealth and often don't declare income the same way us working stiffs have to.
The left won't admit they want open borders but I sincerely doubt they'd mind them. They'd rather achieve it passively via amnesty. By the way, without price controls, the middle class pay the corporate taxes also. Do you really think corporations won't raise their prices when forced to pay higher taxes?
Compared to higher wages the impact of higher taxes on earnings should be pretty small, as long as there is competition. If another company would be able to undercut you if you raise your prices, it can do the same if the tax rate on earnings is higher. And there is definitely no evidence of companies lowering prices if their tax rate is lowered, so why should the reverse be true? If you are looking for negative effects, dividends would be lower, which is bad for those of us with shares.
The larger problem is that internationally operating companies have so many ways to hide their profits, that it is hard to effectively and fairly tax them as an individual nation.
As for open borders, do not put words into our mouths. With one or two exceptions no one I know thinks it would be good to just open borders.
24-year-old libertarian-leaning centrist. But for my age, and geographic location (southern California), I'm apparently a "conservative" by other peoples' reckoning? Funny how these things so heavily affect how people perceive other people.
I know it sucks to be misunderstood and misconstrued–we all have been–so I thought I'd share that.
It never seems to be the rich that pay for their programs either. The rich always seem to find a loophole or a way to make the middle class pay for it anyway (higher prices, inflation, etc...).
This is an excellent point with plenty of history to back it up. I don't think this point should be ignored, @Balrog99 is right on the money here. (Pun not intended)
By the way, without price controls, the middle class pay the corporate taxes also. Do you really think corporations won't raise their prices when forced to pay higher taxes?
The simple fact is there just aren't enough rich people to pay for everything.
Statistics say otherwise. The super-rich could, in theory, make the world a comfortable place for everyone.
Of course, once you start accounting for transportation, limited resources, middle-men, leeches, warlords in third-world countries who will always steal and destroy, the plan quickly falls apart. It's beyond unfortunate. Especially when you consider that the continent of Africa is perhaps the most resource-rich, diverse, and beautiful in the world, and somehow it contains the majority of impoverished countries. A true shame.
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
Heh, yea. National-scale political platforms are a farce at this point. The Republican Party still has "fiscal responsibility" on its platform, and only a small handful of Senators and Congresspeople actually achieve this with their actions.
The left has reasons. They are often drowned out by strawman attacks (left wants open borders!), a couple extreme are often used to dismiss.
I'm not justifying it–it's as ridiculous and unfair as you are implying–but I'll make the point that unfortunate phenomenon frequently happens to literally every group of people ever.
I don't disagree. Once the fifth member becomes confirmed we might as well conclude "being a member of the Federalist Society is a prerequisite for being a Supreme Court justice".
*************
re: abolish ICE.... Congress cannot abolish ICE. It is a subset of the Department of Justice and therefore is subject only to the Executive Branch. Congress may try to starve that department of money when it sets its budget but they cannot pass a law that says "ICE is formally dissolved an a Federal agency". People running for Congress on a platform of "I will abolish ICE" are lying to their likely voters.
Also, the "C" in "ICE" stands for customs. If ICE were to be abolished, then who would inspect ships coming in to port, looking to make certain that weapons, equipment/materials used to make weapons, or invasive species like kudzu are not present? Who would look for animal smuggling or, even worse, human smuggling?
And the E stands for "Enforcement". Also, ICE is actually under the Department of Homeland Security, not justice. ICE has only been around since 2002 when the Homeland Security Department was created. I'm trying to remember where it was I read the pedigree of ICE/CBP. Lots of agencies moved around.
It is the CBP (Customs Border Patrol) who man ports of entry and carries out inspections. I know, I practically live on the border, I have to go through a CBP checkpoint on a highway when going north a few times per year when I visit family in central Texas for holidays and such.
Also, you are wrong. Agencies, even entire departments are created by statutory authority (acts/laws of Congress), and they can be repealed by such. Their purpose is to aid in carrying out the laws. In the past, even entire departments have been removed. The Post Office was a cabinet level department, then it was demoted to a independent government corporation. The Department of War (the Army) was split into the Departments of Army and Air Force and merged with Department of Navy to form the Department of Defense.
So yes, Congress CAN abolish ICE. But it's not likely to happen, unless there was EXTREMELY GROSS mismanagement of the agency (and probably not even then) or Congress feels that the job of the agency is done, which is never going to happen for an immigration-based agency.
Anyways, ICE has two jobs. To kick out immigrants and do investigations relating to Customs and Border, so all sorts of border related criminal investigations like drug/human trafficking, smuggling, money laundering, that sort of thing. They don't do the actual border inspections, like I said, that's the CBP's job.
Kind of like, hrm, it's the local cop's job to check for speeding traffic. But it's the FBI's job to look for someone kidnapped in the trunk of someone's car.
Actually, I would not approve of statehood for DC. I'd rather the district be cut straight in half (just for the purpose of districting, I'm not calling for the dissolution of D.C.) and the geography contained therein with the residents of said geography added to Virginia and Maryland for the purpose of then doing the redistricting by the decadal census redistricting.
But definitely Puerto Rico, as well as the other U.S. territories (Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands) that have been territories for too goddamn long. They are AMERICAN CITIZENS and THEY are being denied their right to representation more than anyone.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'.
Why yes, actually, that IS the purpose of government, to fulfill the welfare of the citizens and provide for the betterment of the nation. Read the preamble to the Constitution.
So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
I have to wonder if maybe it's because there have been 30 YEARS of complaining about illegals/felons from one of the two parties.
Why, when you spit on and kick someone on the ground, would you expect them to treat you with kindness when they stand up?
Guess which one didn't do the spitting and kicking?
I mean, come on, Trump in his first 10 MINUTES of his presidential candidacy called essentially all Mexicans rapists and murderer. I don't even need to watch the video of it any more, I have it memorized. I will never, ever forget. "And some, I assume, are good people" means he wrote off practically everyone coming in from the southern border.
Well this story simultaneously encapsulates what this Administration thinks the "immigration" debate is all about and puts to bed the claims they give a shit about the military:
And the E stands for "Enforcement". Also, ICE is actually under the Department of Homeland Security, not justice. ICE has only been around since 2002 when the Homeland Security Department was created. I'm trying to remember where it was I read the pedigree of ICE/CBP. Lots of agencies moved around.
It is the CBP (Customs Border Patrol) who man ports of entry and carries out inspections. I know, I practically live on the border, I have to go through a CBP checkpoint on a highway when going north a few times per year when I visit family in central Texas for holidays and such.
I was thinking of the old INS. Also, you live considerably farther south in Texas than I do.
Also, you are wrong. Agencies, even entire departments are created by statutory authority (acts/laws of Congress), and they can be repealed by such. Their purpose is to aid in carrying out the laws. In the past, even entire departments have been removed. The Post Office was a cabinet level department, then it was demoted to a independent government corporation. The Department of War (the Army) was split into the Department of Army and Air Force and merged with Deparment of Navy to form the Department of Defense.
So yes, Congress CAN abolish ICE. But it's not likely to happen, unless there was EXTREMELY GROSS mismanagement of the agency (and probably not even then) or Congress feels that the job of the agency is done, which is never going to happen for an immigration-based agency.
Oh, I *love* this discussion. Define "fair", making certain to note the exact percentage or amount you think qualifies as "fair". Only concrete numbers will suffice--no pseudo-answers such as "more than they do now" or "as much as they can afford".
I have been asking people to set or define the rate which they consider "fair" for about 15 years now and no one has ever given a concrete answer.
That is about as long as I have been advocating for Statehood for Puerto Rico--they are our fellow American citizens, for pity's sake, it's about time they receive all the benefits which are due them by law.
I would not support statehood for DC. The last thing we need is another underpopulated state that's over-represented in the Senate. It would be better if it was counted as a part or parts of another state or states. I would support statehood for Puerto Rico, however, if the locals wanted it. I see no reason not to integrate it into the Union.
I would not support statehood for DC. The last thing we need is another underpopulated state that's over-represented in the Senate. It would be better if it was counted as a part or parts of another state or states. I would support statehood for Puerto Rico, however, if the locals wanted it. I see no reason not to integrate it into the Union.
In a general sense, I agree that underpopulated states are an issue as it relates to the senate. That said, it's also clearly not unprecedented for states with tiny populations to be admitted. See Wyoming and Alaska. At this point, I say give anyone with a reasonable claim to statehood the option. If you have a larger population than Wyoming, you're in.
Sure. I see California has a ballot measure this up coming election on splitting into three states. Northern California. Southern California and California. I want to be careful suggesting each state can split itself up as it wants, but I'm not necessarily against the idea for the largest state in the union to want to have a bit more of a nuanced hand in national politics.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
This argument cuts in both directions, though. Trump (and conservatives in general) also want a cut to legal immigration. Those immigrants, should they become citizens, would likely end up voting Democrat more often than Republican. So proposing those cuts is also a political work-around to try to control the voting population.
White House Says Improved Ties With Israel Show U.S. More 'Beloved' Around the World
Asked by a reporter what evidence the White House has that the U.S. is more beloved around the world, Deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley replied: 'Israel'
Do you really think corporations won't raise their prices when forced to pay higher taxes?
I doubt taxes are a determining factor for big corporations, because corporations nowadays are global and make such decisions globally. Look at the pharma industry: the prices of drugs like insulin in the US are high, because the unregulated market allows for it, taxes or not. There is no price competition here; the big manufacturers keep the price up on silent agreements. Yet they have no problems in keeping the price lower in other countries, even though it is the same product often coming down from the same manufacturing line.
Taxes should be pretty irrelevant to pricing by any size of business. The two main methods for determining prices are to match demand and supply (price at what the market will bear as described for drugs above) and add a margin about cost. Even if one business wants to consider taxation in determining their desired margin, competitive pressures would only allow that in the unusual situation where everyone was following a similar strategy.
Where taxes will be relevant is in influencing investment and production decisions.
A group of literal nazis were able to get into the largest political gathering in Sweden by whining about "free speech" and their right to have an opinion. They used this opportunity to interrupt other speakers and scream that people with other opinions than themselves were traitors that should be killed. They also found the time to vandalize a protest project and make sick jokes about the Holocaust.
It should be pretty obvious that the alt-right and neo-nazis don't give a damn about free speech. It's just a tool for them to exploit.
So I posted this a year ago, and the same thing happened again this year too. Except now the nazis also found the time to assault people. I wonder how many times we are going to let literal nazis create chaos at political gatherings before we realize that they are not interested in democracy and free speech.
French constitutional council (the highest authority) declared someone helping an illegal migrant cannot be charged if it is demonstrated the assistance provided was disinterested.
Assisting someone, regardless of the status of the person, is thus not a crime if the assisting person is not commiting something already illegal in order to do so.
French constitutional council (the highest authority) declared someone helping an illegal migrant cannot be charged if it is demonstrated the assistance provided was disinterested.
Assisting someone, regardless of the status of the person, is thus not a crime if the assisting person is not commiting something already illegal in order to do so.
What is meant by 'assisting' or 'helping an illegal migrant'? Not sure what this ruling is trying to address.
It discusses the underlying concepts of politics in general and US politics in particular using the terminology of game design. I've found it interesting for its different take on the subject.
What is meant by 'assisting' or 'helping an illegal migrant'? Not sure what this ruling is trying to address.
Take my word for a grain of salt here, since I may be wrong. If I had to guess, it's related to the Hungarian "Soros" law that was passed a few weeks ago, in which it became illegal to help illegal migrants when in Hungary. Not help them get in per se, but even feeding them or trying to make sure they arent sleeping on the streets appears to be illegal in Hungary. NPOs are being targeted for providing humanitarian effortss, if I understand what I read correctly.
I'm guessing that this ruling means that you wont be help liable for, say, helping a drowning man only to discover he's an illegal migrant.
8 GOP traitors errr "lawmakers" ran off to Moscow for a secret meeting possibly on how to assist hacking in the 2018 midterms? No Democrats were invited.
These guys: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) Sen. John Thune (R-SD) Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX)
These guys ran off on July 4th for a secret meeting in Moscow.
“I asked our friends in Russia not to interfere in our elections this year,” Louisiana senator John Neely Kennedy recounted. Sure ya did bud. You've totally got credibility. Just like Trump Jr's Russian meeting was totally all about adoption (wink)
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) told Russia’s foreign minister that while Russia and the United States were competitors, “we don’t necessarily need to be adversaries.”. Checks out I'd guess you'd say that when Russia is hacking and spreading disinformation to help your party.
Comments
Puerto Rico should be independent. There's no compelling reason that they should be any different than Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. They have more in common with them than they do with the U.S.
Why is Wyoming a state, then? It's a bit of a weird argument. There's not really a great rationale for saying "Well, why dont we make a state out of X, or take Y and combine it with Z?".
DC deserves representation.
About your Puerto Rico argument - well, they're American Citizens. So that's a start for why they shouldnt be fully independent (unless they *want* to be independent - which they dont according to every referendum I've ever seen). It'd be a bit like saying "Well - Hawaii has more in common with New Zealand than Texas (probably close to true, by the way), so let's make them independent!".
Which is obviously absurd.
If P.R wants to be a full state, let them. If D.C wants to be a full state, let them.
How are you dividing who can be Americans? Again, it's a very Conservative thing to want to suppress voters... Cliche even..
Maybe the Republican party should broaden it's platform from demonizing immigrants.
Agreed, the rich don't pay their share. There are enough of then to pay more or rather they have more than enough money to pay for their fair share. Not only rich people but big corporations aren't paying their share. Its difficult to conceive how a couple people own more money than 99% of the rest of us. They don't need additional tax cuts. Agreed they hide their wealth and often don't declare income the same way us working stiffs have to.
The larger problem is that internationally operating companies have so many ways to hide their profits, that it is hard to effectively and fairly tax them as an individual nation.
As for open borders, do not put words into our mouths. With one or two exceptions no one I know thinks it would be good to just open borders.
24-year-old libertarian-leaning centrist. But for my age, and geographic location (southern California), I'm apparently a "conservative" by other peoples' reckoning? Funny how these things so heavily affect how people perceive other people.
I know it sucks to be misunderstood and misconstrued–we all have been–so I thought I'd share that. This is an excellent point with plenty of history to back it up. I don't think this point should be ignored, @Balrog99 is right on the money here. (Pun not intended) Again. An excellent point. Statistics say otherwise. The super-rich could, in theory, make the world a comfortable place for everyone.
Of course, once you start accounting for transportation, limited resources, middle-men, leeches, warlords in third-world countries who will always steal and destroy, the plan quickly falls apart. It's beyond unfortunate. Especially when you consider that the continent of Africa is perhaps the most resource-rich, diverse, and beautiful in the world, and somehow it contains the majority of impoverished countries. A true shame. Heh, yea. National-scale political platforms are a farce at this point. The Republican Party still has "fiscal responsibility" on its platform, and only a small handful of Senators and Congresspeople actually achieve this with their actions. I'm not justifying it–it's as ridiculous and unfair as you are implying–but I'll make the point that unfortunate phenomenon frequently happens to literally every group of people ever. "The left" is way too broad of a brush stroke for this and I think you know that.
That said, I've lived in San Diego for a couple of years and it's genuinely shocking how many people would indeed be OK with it. Advocate for it even.
–
There's my two bits. Hopefully that adds to the conversation rather than detracting. Much love, y'all.
It is the CBP (Customs Border Patrol) who man ports of entry and carries out inspections. I know, I practically live on the border, I have to go through a CBP checkpoint on a highway when going north a few times per year when I visit family in central Texas for holidays and such.
Also, you are wrong. Agencies, even entire departments are created by statutory authority (acts/laws of Congress), and they can be repealed by such. Their purpose is to aid in carrying out the laws. In the past, even entire departments have been removed. The Post Office was a cabinet level department, then it was demoted to a independent government corporation. The Department of War (the Army) was split into the Departments of Army and Air Force and merged with Department of Navy to form the Department of Defense.
So yes, Congress CAN abolish ICE. But it's not likely to happen, unless there was EXTREMELY GROSS mismanagement of the agency (and probably not even then) or Congress feels that the job of the agency is done, which is never going to happen for an immigration-based agency.
Anyways, ICE has two jobs. To kick out immigrants and do investigations relating to Customs and Border, so all sorts of border related criminal investigations like drug/human trafficking, smuggling, money laundering, that sort of thing. They don't do the actual border inspections, like I said, that's the CBP's job.
Kind of like, hrm, it's the local cop's job to check for speeding traffic. But it's the FBI's job to look for someone kidnapped in the trunk of someone's car.
But definitely Puerto Rico, as well as the other U.S. territories (Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands) that have been territories for too goddamn long. They are AMERICAN CITIZENS and THEY are being denied their right to representation more than anyone. Why yes, actually, that IS the purpose of government, to fulfill the welfare of the citizens and provide for the betterment of the nation. Read the preamble to the Constitution. I have to wonder if maybe it's because there have been 30 YEARS of complaining about illegals/felons from one of the two parties.
Why, when you spit on and kick someone on the ground, would you expect them to treat you with kindness when they stand up?
Guess which one didn't do the spitting and kicking?
I mean, come on, Trump in his first 10 MINUTES of his presidential candidacy called essentially all Mexicans rapists and murderer. I don't even need to watch the video of it any more, I have it memorized. I will never, ever forget. "And some, I assume, are good people" means he wrote off practically everyone coming in from the southern border.
I have been asking people to set or define the rate which they consider "fair" for about 15 years now and no one has ever given a concrete answer.
That is about as long as I have been advocating for Statehood for Puerto Rico--they are our fellow American citizens, for pity's sake, it's about time they receive all the benefits which are due them by law.
In a general sense, I agree that underpopulated states are an issue as it relates to the senate. That said, it's also clearly not unprecedented for states with tiny populations to be admitted. See Wyoming and Alaska. At this point, I say give anyone with a reasonable claim to statehood the option. If you have a larger population than Wyoming, you're in.
Sure. I see California has a ballot measure this up coming election on splitting into three states. Northern California. Southern California and California. I want to be careful suggesting each state can split itself up as it wants, but I'm not necessarily against the idea for the largest state in the union to want to have a bit more of a nuanced hand in national politics. This argument cuts in both directions, though. Trump (and conservatives in general) also want a cut to legal immigration. Those immigrants, should they become citizens, would likely end up voting Democrat more often than Republican. So proposing those cuts is also a political work-around to try to control the voting population.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/white-house-says-improved-ties-with-israel-show-u-s-more-beloved-1.6245653
White House Says Improved Ties With Israel Show U.S. More 'Beloved' Around the World
Asked by a reporter what evidence the White House has that the U.S. is more beloved around the world, Deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley replied: 'Israel'
Where taxes will be relevant is in influencing investment and production decisions.
Assisting someone, regardless of the status of the person, is thus not a crime if the assisting person is not commiting something already illegal in order to do so.
He was arrested for human smuggling, but since he did it apparently without taking any money he was released.
The crew at Extra Credits recently started a new YouTube series called Extra Politics.
It discusses the underlying concepts of politics in general and US politics in particular using the terminology of game design. I've found it interesting for its different take on the subject.
Take my word for a grain of salt here, since I may be wrong. If I had to guess, it's related to the Hungarian "Soros" law that was passed a few weeks ago, in which it became illegal to help illegal migrants when in Hungary. Not help them get in per se, but even feeding them or trying to make sure they arent sleeping on the streets appears to be illegal in Hungary. NPOs are being targeted for providing humanitarian effortss, if I understand what I read correctly.
I'm guessing that this ruling means that you wont be help liable for, say, helping a drowning man only to discover he's an illegal migrant.
I may be off about that.
These guys:
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)
Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND)
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX)
These guys ran off on July 4th for a secret meeting in Moscow.
“I asked our friends in Russia not to interfere in our elections this year,” Louisiana senator John Neely Kennedy recounted. Sure ya did bud. You've totally got credibility. Just like Trump Jr's Russian meeting was totally all about adoption (wink)
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) told Russia’s foreign minister that while Russia and the United States were competitors, “we don’t necessarily need to be adversaries.”. Checks out I'd guess you'd say that when Russia is hacking and spreading disinformation to help your party.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22063027/republican-senators-russia-4th-of-july/