You aren't looking at the broader picture. If it is okay for CBP to take DNA samples from people presenting themselves at the border, what is the harm in having local police drop by to take your DNA, as well as the DNA of your family members, just so you can already be in a database in case something happens to you in the future? They might need your DNA sample to identify you in case of a natural disaster hitting your town. They won't misuse your DNA and they promise not to run it against unsolved cases just to see if they can get a hit. Don't you trust the police not to abuse their authority?
For those who think that the biological parents always have the best interests of their children at heart, I suggest going to interview some CPS case workers and have them tell you some of the heartwarming incidents they have on file where the biological parents have given special attention to their little rug rats. Dragging a child into cartel territory is not doing them any favors, I assure you.
Of course, Congress can still fix/update/modernize immigration...if they *wanted* to badly enough. Apparently it isn't important to them. What a shame.
Bloomberg is buying political endorsements--every time a politician endorses him he donates to their campaign. I can't prove it, of course, but if it is true then that is bribery--money offered in exchange for a political favor that would benefit his campaign.
Nothing says 'drain the swamp' quite like pardoning a slew of politicians and public officials convicted of corruption.
The son of one of Trump’s pardon recipients gave $85k to Trump victory this August. His wife gave $50k that same month. On top of that, they made an in-kind contribution for $75k in air travel.
George W. Bush was going to pardon someone during his term. During the vetting process, they discovered that members of his family had donated to the campaign. The pulled the possibility of the pardon immediately. Because OF COURSE they did. Because before Trump, even the faintest hint of given a pardon for money was an earth-shaking scandal. Even what I consider the worst Administration of my lifetime wouldn't touch that kind of shit with a ten-foot pole.
What the hell did ANY of these people do to deserve a pardon?? Blago didn't just try to sell a Senate seat, he extorted a children's hospital (something near and dear to Trump's heart no doubt). Bernie Kerik essentially stole from 9/11 first responders so he could have a safe place to fuck his mistress, in addition to the tax fraud (by the way, the $100,000 he owes us all?? Erased). A guy so notorious in the '80s that he was known as the junk bond king. Trump picked the absolute scum of the goddamn universe as the people MOST worthy of a pardon. I'll let you people figure out why. But the main reason is this. Because Trump is just like them. These are his people. This behavior is what he views as QUALITIES worthy of praise. And these pardons are just an attempt to normalize white-collar corruption as not only acceptable, but virtuous. I mean, Jesus Christ almighty.
About the Democrat he pardoned, Trump claims to not know him despite the fact he was a finalist on his Celebrity Apprentice reality TV show a couple years ago. Obviously he was around for a while.
Anyway Trump had this to say about pardoning him: 'I saw his wife on television'.
Basically Trump commuted Blagojevich's prison sentence after his wife attacked Comey and Mueller on Fox News.
If your rich and need a pardon just go on Fox News and Trump will pardon you.
About the Democrat he pardoned, Trump claims to not know him despite the fact he was a finalist on his Celebrity Apprentice reality TV show a couple years ago. Obviously he was around for a while.
Anyway Trump had this to say about him: 'I saw his wife on television'.
Basically Trump commuted Blagojevich's prison sentence after his wife attacked Comey and Mueller on Fox News.
You can't find a single Democrat anywhere in the country who wanted this guy's sentenced commuted. Not. One. He's an absolute sleaze-bag of the first order, and if for no other reason than he completely broke the trust of the people of Illinois by doing what he did, he should have rotted in prison for every second of his sentence.
Why does the slippery slope only applies to DNA testing? What is to stop them from separating you from your children as a normal citizen in the same manner as you envisage sweeping mandatory DNA sampling?
Of course, you also ignored that it could be given as a choice between the two options to the parents.
It's perhaps worth making the point that optional DNA testing to demonstrate a familial relationship is already in place - see for instance here. The testing takes about 90 minutes and the DNA profiles are not stored for any other purposes. There is a big advantage to genuine families of agreeing to this test as it's much quicker than traditional investigatory techniques (such as review of documents) and will cut out some of the reasons for concluding that families are not genuine (such as concerns over the validity of documents).
While I don't see any real downsides to this method of DNA testing for family relationships, the sort of testing @Mathsorcerer was worried about is also being rolled out - see here and here for example. In this program DNA testing is mandatory for anyone detained by border control for a possible crime (including crossing the border) and the results of those tests are added to the FBI DNA database.
Andrew Yang has accepted CNN's offer to be a political commentator. I am uncertain what Mr. Yang really knows about politics other than how to run a weak campaign before having to quit.
Bloomberg being on the stage is good for everyone else who will be on the stage--the target will be on his back as opposed to any of theirs. Okay, neither Biden nor Warren would have targets on their backs because they don't matter any more. Gabbard won't have a target on her back because I am uncertain she qualified--even if she had she wouldn't be allowed on the stage because the DNC still has not finished paying her back for daring to vote "present" on both articles of impeachment.
@WarChiefZeke And once again, the actual facts show that you are wrong.
Credit to @Grond0 above, of course.
"
Your reference to Obama splitting families up was one of the two main talking points Trump used to defend the introduction of the zero tolerance policy (the other was that the law required him to split them up). Both those claims have been debunked many times - see here for example."
What's next? If Trump is innocent, as you keep claiming, how about you try defending his use of these camps?
Andrew Yang has accepted CNN's offer to be a political commentator. I am uncertain what Mr. Yang really knows about politics other than how to run a weak campaign before having to quit.
Bloomberg being on the stage is good for everyone else who will be on the stage--the target will be on his back as opposed to any of theirs. Okay, neither Biden nor Warren would have targets on their backs because they don't matter any more. Gabbard won't have a target on her back because I am uncertain she qualified--even if she had she wouldn't be allowed on the stage because the DNC still has not finished paying her back for daring to vote "present" on both articles of impeachment.
It wasn’t weak and it accomplished what Yang was really attempting to do.
I am pretty sure no one knew about Yang two to three years ago except for a fringe amount of people. Now he is a household name. If he can carry that momentum into 2020, a political role in a New Democratic administration wouldn’t seem too far fetched.
Who here is willing to allow a migrant to live in your house while they are waiting for their asylum claim to be processed? Would you also be willing to allow a homeless person to live in your house while they are getting back on their feet? (Not at the the same time, of course.)
If the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then are you already doing so? If not, why not?
If the answer to both questions is "no" and no one else is willing to accept them, either, then where should the migrants go--out onto the street or a detention facility, where at least they have access to food, water, showers, a bed, etc.?
It wasn’t weak and it accomplished what Yang was really attempting to do.
He never got more than 5% support--no matter how you look at it that is weak. The only way it isn't weak is if you compare it to 0%, but that is not a very high bar to attain--even 1% if "not weak" when compared to 0%. His campaign accomplishd what he wanted it to do? Fail? *shrug* Sure, okay--sometimes people want things to fail on purpose.
If his purpose was "become a household name" then it was all for his ego, which makes him no different than any other aspiring politician. If he wants to be taken seriously in the future, though, he really should figure out how to tie a tie.
Who here is willing to pay the medical bills of their sick neighbor if they support Medicare for All?? If you are willing, why aren't you doing so?? If you say you don't have the money, why aren't you making MORE money so you can?? Why aren't you getting another job?? If you don't do these things, you are a hypocrite and your arguments are invalid.
God. That was easy. What a fun game.
There could be any number of reasons why this is a ridiculous framing. People who have one-bedroom apartments. The fact that people have walked up to these detention centers with care packages and been turned away, much less asking to "take a migrant home with them", like that's a thing. But the main counter is this: the government does things individuals can't. Can't pay for, can't organize, couldn't possibly have time for. You say liberals live in a fantasy uptopia, it's NOTHING like the utopia libertarians live in where the government is removed from everything. I'm sure you remember the article I posted years ago about the town in Texas that tried it.
Who here is willing to allow a migrant to live in your house while they are waiting for their asylum claim to be processed? Would you also be willing to allow a homeless person to live in your house while they are getting back on their feet? (Not at the the same time, of course.)
If the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then are you already doing so? If not, why not?
If the answer to both questions is "no" and no one else is willing to accept them, either, then where should the migrants go--out onto the street or a detention facility, where at least they have access to food, water, showers, a bed, etc.?
We live in a society. We pay taxes. Charity should help and do its thing. Government should be involved too and should provide facilities for people to meet shortfalls. But homelessness and immigration are symptoms not causes.
Even more importantly than housing people, government should be involved in combating the root causes that lead to so many people being homeless. They should focus on the predatory practices that exploit the little guy and drive people to homelessness. Medical costs are out of control and a leading cause of homeless and bankruptcy.
Government should be doing things like increasing the minimum wage, $7 bucks and change an hour is poverty wages. Andrew Yang's freedom dividend idea would have helped fight poverty and homelessness by providing people with resources needed to stay off the streets in the first place. Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All would tackle the medical issue and eliminate a major cause of homelessness.
In America there is a vast power differential between the rich and the poor. The system is rigged to the wealthy and there is nothing you alone can do against powerful monied interests, that's where government needs to step in and balance the playing field against predatory practices.
Unfortunately, one politicial party is completely owned by corporate interests and constantly undermining American rights to benefit the elites - the Republican party.
It's funny mathsorcerer called it a "detention facility" and not a shelter. Why should homeless people be locked up? Why is being poor a crime in conservative American minds especially when they push for policies that take away safety nets and make the system more rigged towards their wealthy donors which increases inequality and homelessness.
Under Republicaniam/Trumpism, white collar criminals face no justice or consequences for crimes that helped people end up homeless the on the streets in the first place.
That's right--one town tried Libertarianism *once* and therefore the entire political philosophy is a failure...but dozens of countries have tried Socialism for decades and have all failed but somehow Socialism is still valid because "no one has ever implemented it correctly". Talk about living in a fantasy utopia...... (not a direct quote, of course, but that is the usual defense of it)
I notice you didn't answer the questions, though. *shrug* Medicare for All--screw that. I am not willing to pay money my neighbor's health care because their illnesses are not my problem just like my illnesses are not their problem. I pay for my stuff, they pay for theirs--*that* is the only system which works.
I did say people who were "willing"; I suppose I should have phrased it as "willing and able". Someone in a one-bedroom apartment can't even take in a roommate, much less a migrant. You can't walk up to *any* sort of detention facility with care packages--anyone doing so is probably trying to smuggle in things which are not allowed in the facilities like drugs or weapons. In many instances you can't even take food down to the local police station just to give them a free lunch--the risk is too high that the food might be poisoned or tainted in some manner. They'll take it, of course, but they won't eat it.
edit/add: I used the phrase "detention facility" because I was referncing migrants. Homeless people usually go to shelters of some sort, when they can.
Speaking of charities....conservatives still donate more to charities than liberals do. There is the difference: conservatives give money because they *choose* to; liberals want to *force* people to donate money via taxes. In fact, many recent measures in Los Angeles to help alleviate and combat homelessness there were shot down because *wealthy Democrats* did not want their property values to go down.
Only 3% of all hourly workers make the minimum wage; that is not a siginificant problem needing to be addressed. Starting pay at most grocery stores or warehouses is in the $10.50 to $14 range.
I have addressed homelessness before. Tiny houses can be built for $10,000--less if they are bought "in bulk" via government contract. Job training at community colleges can get them jobs paying $15 per hour *without* needing to raise the minimum wage. The only causes of homelessness which cannot be solved long-term are drug abuse and mental illness.
Unlike people who can only cry about politicians whom they do not like or who live to trash-talk the other side, I actually come up with *solutions* to problems. Now all we need to do is to implement my solutions and lot of the problems we discuss in this thread would stop being problems.
That's right--one town tried Libertarianism *once* and therefore the entire political philosophy is a failure...but dozens of countries have tried Socialism for decades and have all failed but somehow Socialism is still valid because "no one has ever implemented it correctly". Talk about living in a fantasy utopia...... (not a direct quote, of course, but that is the usual defense of it)
I notice you didn't answer the questions, though. *shrug* Medicare for All--screw that. I am not willing to pay money my neighbor's health care because their illnesses are not my problem just like my illnesses are not their problem. I pay for my stuff, they pay for theirs--*that* is the only system which works.
I did say people who were "willing"; I suppose I should have phrased it as "willing and able". Someone in a one-bedroom apartment can't even take in a roommate, much less a migrant. You can't walk up to *any* sort of detention facility with care packages--anyone doing so is probably trying to smuggle in things which are not allowed in the facilities like drugs or weapons. In many instances you can't even take food down to the local police station just to give them a free lunch--the risk is too high that the food might be poisoned or tainted in some manner. They'll take it, of course, but they won't eat it.
Exactly how much of "your" money do you believe goes to a single individual person receiving Medicaid or food stamps?? This is always framed like you are personally receiving a $500 bill each month for some stranger. It's paltry amounts taken from EVERYONE that funds these systems. It's a pool. I just read a stat that almost HALF of all crowdfunding campaigns online are to help defer medical costs. Quite the system indeed.
I just read a stat that almost HALF of all crowdfunding campaigns online are to help defer medical costs. Quite the system indeed.
That is a *voluntary* system; taxes are not voluntary. In fact, crowdfunding is Libertarian in nature--people are choosing to give to others out of the goodness of their heart.
I just read a stat that almost HALF of all crowdfunding campaigns online are to help defer medical costs. Quite the system indeed.
That is a *voluntary* system; taxes are not voluntary. In fact, crowdfunding is Libertarian in nature--people are choosing to give to others out of the goodness of their heart.
And then the money from the chili feed runs out. And since no one likes to beg, there probably won't be a spaghetti feed. And if there is, about half as many people will show up. This is not a sustainable trajectory for funding the costs of a long-term, potentially fatal medical situation. It also assumes you have MANY friends and relatives who are going to show up in the hundreds.
"Crowdfunding" is not my solution--I never claimed that it was sustainable. Medicare for All will cause more people to run out of money more quickly, though, because taxes for it will always go up and will always land on middle- and lower-class people more heavily.
Interestingly, most Democrats running for POTUS have, as part of their platform, "Obamacare (the ACA) is *bad*". Only 10 years ago we were being told that is was the best thing since sliced bread. It didn't take all that long to fail.
*************
Trump's next round of pardons will probably be for people caught in the Mueller net.
Right your attitude is the typical shortsighted "screw you I got mine" attitude. Well if you want to isolate yourself then have at it hoss. People that feel this way want to enjoy the fruits of society but not pay the cost for it. They want a handout for society - they want all the services and trappings of modern life but don't want to pay for it.
This selfish attitude is why people end up homeless in the first place.
This selfish attitude is why people end up homeless in the first place.
Economics is not a zero-sum game, but you may pretend that it is if you so desire.
*laugh* Trump thinks Senator Murphy should be prosecuted under the Logan Act for meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. For now, let us put aside the fact that it is surprising that Trump even knows what the Logan Act *is* and focus on the fact that *no one* has *ever* been prosecuted under the Logan Act. Murphy is a Senator, the Senate deals with foreign policy, and foreign policy sometimes means meeting with Foreign Ministers. True, he isn't from the State Department and his visit was not official, but that is really making a mountain out of a molehill.
It’s a sign of a facile argument when you need to move the goalposts and cherry pick a statistic to reframe an argument that you are otherwise underwater on - The ridiculousness of the strategy is made apparent when we consider that there are plenty of other statistics we could use:
How about deaths? Want to guess if more children have died while in custody under Trump or under Obama?
If your argument Is that conditions aren’t objectively worse because they’re only worse in 9 out of 10 ways, then you’re probably dying on the wrong hill.
I am not willing to pay money my neighbor's health care because their illnesses are not my problem just like my illnesses are not their problem. I pay for my stuff, they pay for theirs--*that* is the only system which works.
There's not a single country in the world that uses just this system. That's because no one lives in total isolation and we're all affected by other people. Those effects can be very direct - for instance illnesses may be communicable. They may be less direct - for instance you may not have access to the goods and services you desire as a result of other people's illnesses. They may be quite indirect - for instance you may find it less annoying to pay for a dead body to be cleared off the street than to walk past it every day.
Broadening the argument out a bit, we've discussed before whether it's realistic and makes good economic sense for things like roads and sewers to all be privately owned. Even if you believe that is realistic though, I can't see any way in which individuals willing to consider only their specific problems can provide an answer to wider environmental issues, like climate change.
Listening to Blago talk about how Trump gave back his freedom that was "stolen" from him is absolutely nauseating. You know who had their lives stolen from them?? The Central Park Five. The West Memphis Three. Any number of poor people who couldn't afford a competent defense and were railroaded by the system for crimes they didn't even commit. And this shit-bag acts like a victim for things he is OBVIOUSLY guilty of. And if you want a real treat, go read the comments on any FOX News video about this particular subject. They are AMAZING......and not in a good way.
And another thing.....every one of these assholes had access to the best legal defense money can buy. Lawyers who probably bill more for a single afternoon of consultation than most of us make in two weeks. These guys aren't some poor kid caught with a dime bag and told to plead out to 6 months in county by an overworked public defender.
Listening to Blago talk about how Trump gave back his freedom that was "stolen" from him is absolutely nauseating. You know who had their lives stolen from them?? The Central Park Five. The West Memphis Three. Any number of poor people who couldn't afford a competent defense and were railroaded by the system for crimes they didn't even commit. And this shit-bag acts like a victim for things he is OBVIOUSLY guilty of. And if you want a real treat, go read the comments on any FOX News video about this particular subject. They are AMAZING......and not in a good way.
And another thing.....every one of these assholes had access to the best legal defense money can buy. Lawyers who probably bill more for a single afternoon of consultation than most of us make in two weeks. These guys aren't some poor kid caught with a dime bag and told to plead out to 6 months in county by an overworked public defender.
That's what I'm saying, it's a minor miracle if a rich guy with access to the best lawyers money can buy goes to prison here in America and on top of that they have a 'get out of jail free' card in Trump where they can just donate tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign and/or have your story appear on Fox News and Trump will pardon them. These elites in the Republican Establishment have ruined the country.
@WarChiefZeke And once again, the actual facts show that you are wrong.
Credit to @Grond0 above, of course.
"
Your reference to Obama splitting families up was one of the two main talking points Trump used to defend the introduction of the zero tolerance policy (the other was that the law required him to split them up). Both those claims have been debunked many times - see here for example."
What's next? If Trump is innocent, as you keep claiming, how about you try defending his use of these camps?
Still waiting...
You will be waiting a long time. I responded to that already, and I felt like me and Grond0 came to a satisfying mutual agreement about how we view this.
@WarChiefZeke And once again, the actual facts show that you are wrong.
Credit to @Grond0 above, of course.
"
Your reference to Obama splitting families up was one of the two main talking points Trump used to defend the introduction of the zero tolerance policy (the other was that the law required him to split them up). Both those claims have been debunked many times - see here for example."
What's next? If Trump is innocent, as you keep claiming, how about you try defending his use of these camps?
Still waiting...
You will be waiting a long time. I responded to that already, and I felt like me and Grond0 came to a satisfying mutual agreement about how we view this.
What is it, exactly, that you want from me?
You keep saying that Trump isn't bad or that calling the detention centers "concentration camps" is farcical. So what makes them good or not bad? You mock us for pointing them out, but wont give reasons why you think they shouldn't be pointed out. If you really think they are fine, you should be willing to defend them, but you won't. You only point to other people that have done them. Why?
@Mathsorcerer "jjstraka34 wrote: »
Exactly how much of "your" money do you believe goes to a single individual person receiving Medicaid or food stamps??
Too much."
I mean, do you have insurance? Because that means your paying someone else's medical bills already...
I can't see any way in which individuals willing to consider only their specific problems can provide an answer to wider environmental issues, like climate change.
I can give you my answer to climate change: I don't give a shit about climate change. Not only is the climate going to change regardless of whether we do anything about it or not, the climate is *supposed* to change--why is the climate supposed to be exactly like it was 50 or 100 years ago? They keep pushing the disaster events off into the future, usually far enough into the future that by the time that date arrives no one will remember the doom-and-gloom predictions.
I see that no one is talking about the debate last night, which was like watching a group of people all attacking each other in a free-for-all. The claim is that Warren was the winner but I though Buttigieg presented himself rather well. There was nowhere for Bloomberg to go but down, and that is how his performance went. It was visible that he did not have good answers to some of the serious questions presented to him, espeically those NDAs former employees had to sign about harassment cases.
I mean, do you have insurance? Because that means your paying someone else's medical bills already...
In case you forgot, I have been an actuarial analyst before so I am pretty certain that I know more about the insurance industry than most people here. Yes, I have insurance, which means that I pay into a pool and the pool pays for costs incurred--that is how all insurance works, whether medical, rental, vehicle (the property & casualty field), etc. Here is the difference: having insurance is *voluntary* whereas taxes are not. The end result of continuing to raise or levy new taxes to pay for crap under the guise of "we need to help people" is that the government simply takes all money away from everyone then doles out only what they think you need to live on a monthly basis. I can only presume that liberals will not be happy until everyone is living in poverty, because then we will all be equal--remember, the CCCP consisted of leaders being driven in luxury cars to their vacation homes past lines of people waiting for bread and toilet paper.
If you want to know what is wrong with the United States these days, then take a look at the people who think that government is the answer to every problem.
No, not every problem. Just the one that will save 10s of thousands of lives a year and gives everyone an equal chance to keep breathing and existing. Treating healthcare coverage as if it's the same as deciding to get a new gaming laptop or luxury sports car is a uniquely American phenomenon, mostly because this country despises poor people with every fiber of it's being. It's reflected in our healthcare policy, our justice system, and the way our labor laws work. It's basically end-game Calvinism.
If this country despises poor people so much, then why are so many people adamant that we enact policies that will keep more people poor in the long run? The taxes required to give "free" medical care to everyone, "free" university education to everyone, and a basic minimum income will change the current system of "lower class, middle class, upper class, top-out-of-sight class" (note: the top-out-of-sight class refers to people whose wealth is so vast that you, as a normal person, never see them or even their house--that gated driveway you see down that one road, the one you wonder who lives there but you can't see the house, yes--those people...people like Bloomberg) into "lower class, top-out-of-sight class". Incidentally, there is also a bottom-out-of-sight class--these are the people living in the drainage systems in cities like Las Vegas or Los Angeles; they are there, but you as a normal person will probably never see them.
Every nation dies as a result of an excess of the virtues which built it. Giving a level playing field to everyone and making sure that everyone has a chance to get ahead...that is how we were built, but mandating it via expanding government programs will make us so top-heavy that we collapse. Mentally, I am prepared for this eventuality but most people are not.
edit/add: disclosure: I am not wealthy, but my family used to have wealth. My grandfather had a construction business--I have mentioned before that the likelihood that he employed illegal immigrants is about 99%, but I was a child and so I had no say in how he ran his business--and then he got killed by that drunk driver. After the insurance settlements and selling the business my grandmother wound up being a millionaire. After both my father and my aunt--her children--got divorces within 2 years of each other, my aunt and my step-mother--some of whose children were notorious in our town for their criminal activity--wound up pilfering as much money from her as they could. Getting away from the psychotic ex took most of my money, the lazy one wound up costing me the rest. Currently...*whew* it has not been an easy 10 years, especially after my last employer stabbed me in the back--my income alone was well over the national median--so now I work 2 jobs, about 70 hours per week, and am trying to recover the couple of tens of thousands of dollars I had. Retirement? *laugh* There is no retirement for me until age and health force it, after which I will wind up living with one of the kids once they are established and have careers of their own. I don't despise poor people--I pretty much *am* one.
Comments
For those who think that the biological parents always have the best interests of their children at heart, I suggest going to interview some CPS case workers and have them tell you some of the heartwarming incidents they have on file where the biological parents have given special attention to their little rug rats. Dragging a child into cartel territory is not doing them any favors, I assure you.
Of course, Congress can still fix/update/modernize immigration...if they *wanted* to badly enough. Apparently it isn't important to them. What a shame.
Bloomberg is buying political endorsements--every time a politician endorses him he donates to their campaign. I can't prove it, of course, but if it is true then that is bribery--money offered in exchange for a political favor that would benefit his campaign.
George W. Bush was going to pardon someone during his term. During the vetting process, they discovered that members of his family had donated to the campaign. The pulled the possibility of the pardon immediately. Because OF COURSE they did. Because before Trump, even the faintest hint of given a pardon for money was an earth-shaking scandal. Even what I consider the worst Administration of my lifetime wouldn't touch that kind of shit with a ten-foot pole.
What the hell did ANY of these people do to deserve a pardon?? Blago didn't just try to sell a Senate seat, he extorted a children's hospital (something near and dear to Trump's heart no doubt). Bernie Kerik essentially stole from 9/11 first responders so he could have a safe place to fuck his mistress, in addition to the tax fraud (by the way, the $100,000 he owes us all?? Erased). A guy so notorious in the '80s that he was known as the junk bond king. Trump picked the absolute scum of the goddamn universe as the people MOST worthy of a pardon. I'll let you people figure out why. But the main reason is this. Because Trump is just like them. These are his people. This behavior is what he views as QUALITIES worthy of praise. And these pardons are just an attempt to normalize white-collar corruption as not only acceptable, but virtuous. I mean, Jesus Christ almighty.
Anyway Trump had this to say about pardoning him: 'I saw his wife on television'.
Basically Trump commuted Blagojevich's prison sentence after his wife attacked Comey and Mueller on Fox News.
If your rich and need a pardon just go on Fox News and Trump will pardon you.
You can't find a single Democrat anywhere in the country who wanted this guy's sentenced commuted. Not. One. He's an absolute sleaze-bag of the first order, and if for no other reason than he completely broke the trust of the people of Illinois by doing what he did, he should have rotted in prison for every second of his sentence.
Of course, you also ignored that it could be given as a choice between the two options to the parents.
While I don't see any real downsides to this method of DNA testing for family relationships, the sort of testing @Mathsorcerer was worried about is also being rolled out - see here and here for example. In this program DNA testing is mandatory for anyone detained by border control for a possible crime (including crossing the border) and the results of those tests are added to the FBI DNA database.
Bloomberg being on the stage is good for everyone else who will be on the stage--the target will be on his back as opposed to any of theirs. Okay, neither Biden nor Warren would have targets on their backs because they don't matter any more. Gabbard won't have a target on her back because I am uncertain she qualified--even if she had she wouldn't be allowed on the stage because the DNC still has not finished paying her back for daring to vote "present" on both articles of impeachment.
Still waiting...
It wasn’t weak and it accomplished what Yang was really attempting to do.
I am pretty sure no one knew about Yang two to three years ago except for a fringe amount of people. Now he is a household name. If he can carry that momentum into 2020, a political role in a New Democratic administration wouldn’t seem too far fetched.
If the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then are you already doing so? If not, why not?
If the answer to both questions is "no" and no one else is willing to accept them, either, then where should the migrants go--out onto the street or a detention facility, where at least they have access to food, water, showers, a bed, etc.?
He never got more than 5% support--no matter how you look at it that is weak. The only way it isn't weak is if you compare it to 0%, but that is not a very high bar to attain--even 1% if "not weak" when compared to 0%. His campaign accomplishd what he wanted it to do? Fail? *shrug* Sure, okay--sometimes people want things to fail on purpose.
If his purpose was "become a household name" then it was all for his ego, which makes him no different than any other aspiring politician. If he wants to be taken seriously in the future, though, he really should figure out how to tie a tie.
God. That was easy. What a fun game.
There could be any number of reasons why this is a ridiculous framing. People who have one-bedroom apartments. The fact that people have walked up to these detention centers with care packages and been turned away, much less asking to "take a migrant home with them", like that's a thing. But the main counter is this: the government does things individuals can't. Can't pay for, can't organize, couldn't possibly have time for. You say liberals live in a fantasy uptopia, it's NOTHING like the utopia libertarians live in where the government is removed from everything. I'm sure you remember the article I posted years ago about the town in Texas that tried it.
We live in a society. We pay taxes. Charity should help and do its thing. Government should be involved too and should provide facilities for people to meet shortfalls. But homelessness and immigration are symptoms not causes.
Even more importantly than housing people, government should be involved in combating the root causes that lead to so many people being homeless. They should focus on the predatory practices that exploit the little guy and drive people to homelessness. Medical costs are out of control and a leading cause of homeless and bankruptcy.
Government should be doing things like increasing the minimum wage, $7 bucks and change an hour is poverty wages. Andrew Yang's freedom dividend idea would have helped fight poverty and homelessness by providing people with resources needed to stay off the streets in the first place. Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All would tackle the medical issue and eliminate a major cause of homelessness.
In America there is a vast power differential between the rich and the poor. The system is rigged to the wealthy and there is nothing you alone can do against powerful monied interests, that's where government needs to step in and balance the playing field against predatory practices.
Unfortunately, one politicial party is completely owned by corporate interests and constantly undermining American rights to benefit the elites - the Republican party.
It's funny mathsorcerer called it a "detention facility" and not a shelter. Why should homeless people be locked up? Why is being poor a crime in conservative American minds especially when they push for policies that take away safety nets and make the system more rigged towards their wealthy donors which increases inequality and homelessness.
Under Republicaniam/Trumpism, white collar criminals face no justice or consequences for crimes that helped people end up homeless the on the streets in the first place.
I notice you didn't answer the questions, though. *shrug* Medicare for All--screw that. I am not willing to pay money my neighbor's health care because their illnesses are not my problem just like my illnesses are not their problem. I pay for my stuff, they pay for theirs--*that* is the only system which works.
I did say people who were "willing"; I suppose I should have phrased it as "willing and able". Someone in a one-bedroom apartment can't even take in a roommate, much less a migrant. You can't walk up to *any* sort of detention facility with care packages--anyone doing so is probably trying to smuggle in things which are not allowed in the facilities like drugs or weapons. In many instances you can't even take food down to the local police station just to give them a free lunch--the risk is too high that the food might be poisoned or tainted in some manner. They'll take it, of course, but they won't eat it.
edit/add: I used the phrase "detention facility" because I was referncing migrants. Homeless people usually go to shelters of some sort, when they can.
Speaking of charities....conservatives still donate more to charities than liberals do. There is the difference: conservatives give money because they *choose* to; liberals want to *force* people to donate money via taxes. In fact, many recent measures in Los Angeles to help alleviate and combat homelessness there were shot down because *wealthy Democrats* did not want their property values to go down.
Only 3% of all hourly workers make the minimum wage; that is not a siginificant problem needing to be addressed. Starting pay at most grocery stores or warehouses is in the $10.50 to $14 range.
I have addressed homelessness before. Tiny houses can be built for $10,000--less if they are bought "in bulk" via government contract. Job training at community colleges can get them jobs paying $15 per hour *without* needing to raise the minimum wage. The only causes of homelessness which cannot be solved long-term are drug abuse and mental illness.
Unlike people who can only cry about politicians whom they do not like or who live to trash-talk the other side, I actually come up with *solutions* to problems. Now all we need to do is to implement my solutions and lot of the problems we discuss in this thread would stop being problems.
Exactly how much of "your" money do you believe goes to a single individual person receiving Medicaid or food stamps?? This is always framed like you are personally receiving a $500 bill each month for some stranger. It's paltry amounts taken from EVERYONE that funds these systems. It's a pool. I just read a stat that almost HALF of all crowdfunding campaigns online are to help defer medical costs. Quite the system indeed.
Too much.
That is a *voluntary* system; taxes are not voluntary. In fact, crowdfunding is Libertarian in nature--people are choosing to give to others out of the goodness of their heart.
And then the money from the chili feed runs out. And since no one likes to beg, there probably won't be a spaghetti feed. And if there is, about half as many people will show up. This is not a sustainable trajectory for funding the costs of a long-term, potentially fatal medical situation. It also assumes you have MANY friends and relatives who are going to show up in the hundreds.
Interestingly, most Democrats running for POTUS have, as part of their platform, "Obamacare (the ACA) is *bad*". Only 10 years ago we were being told that is was the best thing since sliced bread. It didn't take all that long to fail.
*************
Trump's next round of pardons will probably be for people caught in the Mueller net.
This selfish attitude is why people end up homeless in the first place.
Economics is not a zero-sum game, but you may pretend that it is if you so desire.
*laugh* Trump thinks Senator Murphy should be prosecuted under the Logan Act for meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. For now, let us put aside the fact that it is surprising that Trump even knows what the Logan Act *is* and focus on the fact that *no one* has *ever* been prosecuted under the Logan Act. Murphy is a Senator, the Senate deals with foreign policy, and foreign policy sometimes means meeting with Foreign Ministers. True, he isn't from the State Department and his visit was not official, but that is really making a mountain out of a molehill.
Democracy dies to thunderous applause.
How about deaths? Want to guess if more children have died while in custody under Trump or under Obama?
If your argument Is that conditions aren’t objectively worse because they’re only worse in 9 out of 10 ways, then you’re probably dying on the wrong hill.
There's not a single country in the world that uses just this system. That's because no one lives in total isolation and we're all affected by other people. Those effects can be very direct - for instance illnesses may be communicable. They may be less direct - for instance you may not have access to the goods and services you desire as a result of other people's illnesses. They may be quite indirect - for instance you may find it less annoying to pay for a dead body to be cleared off the street than to walk past it every day.
Broadening the argument out a bit, we've discussed before whether it's realistic and makes good economic sense for things like roads and sewers to all be privately owned. Even if you believe that is realistic though, I can't see any way in which individuals willing to consider only their specific problems can provide an answer to wider environmental issues, like climate change.
And another thing.....every one of these assholes had access to the best legal defense money can buy. Lawyers who probably bill more for a single afternoon of consultation than most of us make in two weeks. These guys aren't some poor kid caught with a dime bag and told to plead out to 6 months in county by an overworked public defender.
That's what I'm saying, it's a minor miracle if a rich guy with access to the best lawyers money can buy goes to prison here in America and on top of that they have a 'get out of jail free' card in Trump where they can just donate tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign and/or have your story appear on Fox News and Trump will pardon them. These elites in the Republican Establishment have ruined the country.
It turns out, he's America's 10th highest paid "athlete".
Corruption.
https://www.theroot.com/we-calculated-how-much-we-pay-trump-to-play-golf-it-tu-1841793634
You will be waiting a long time. I responded to that already, and I felt like me and Grond0 came to a satisfying mutual agreement about how we view this.
What is it, exactly, that you want from me?
You keep saying that Trump isn't bad or that calling the detention centers "concentration camps" is farcical. So what makes them good or not bad? You mock us for pointing them out, but wont give reasons why you think they shouldn't be pointed out. If you really think they are fine, you should be willing to defend them, but you won't. You only point to other people that have done them. Why?
@Mathsorcerer "jjstraka34 wrote: »
Exactly how much of "your" money do you believe goes to a single individual person receiving Medicaid or food stamps??
Too much."
I mean, do you have insurance? Because that means your paying someone else's medical bills already...
I can give you my answer to climate change: I don't give a shit about climate change. Not only is the climate going to change regardless of whether we do anything about it or not, the climate is *supposed* to change--why is the climate supposed to be exactly like it was 50 or 100 years ago? They keep pushing the disaster events off into the future, usually far enough into the future that by the time that date arrives no one will remember the doom-and-gloom predictions.
I see that no one is talking about the debate last night, which was like watching a group of people all attacking each other in a free-for-all. The claim is that Warren was the winner but I though Buttigieg presented himself rather well. There was nowhere for Bloomberg to go but down, and that is how his performance went. It was visible that he did not have good answers to some of the serious questions presented to him, espeically those NDAs former employees had to sign about harassment cases.
In case you forgot, I have been an actuarial analyst before so I am pretty certain that I know more about the insurance industry than most people here. Yes, I have insurance, which means that I pay into a pool and the pool pays for costs incurred--that is how all insurance works, whether medical, rental, vehicle (the property & casualty field), etc. Here is the difference: having insurance is *voluntary* whereas taxes are not. The end result of continuing to raise or levy new taxes to pay for crap under the guise of "we need to help people" is that the government simply takes all money away from everyone then doles out only what they think you need to live on a monthly basis. I can only presume that liberals will not be happy until everyone is living in poverty, because then we will all be equal--remember, the CCCP consisted of leaders being driven in luxury cars to their vacation homes past lines of people waiting for bread and toilet paper.
If you want to know what is wrong with the United States these days, then take a look at the people who think that government is the answer to every problem.
Every nation dies as a result of an excess of the virtues which built it. Giving a level playing field to everyone and making sure that everyone has a chance to get ahead...that is how we were built, but mandating it via expanding government programs will make us so top-heavy that we collapse. Mentally, I am prepared for this eventuality but most people are not.
edit/add: disclosure: I am not wealthy, but my family used to have wealth. My grandfather had a construction business--I have mentioned before that the likelihood that he employed illegal immigrants is about 99%, but I was a child and so I had no say in how he ran his business--and then he got killed by that drunk driver. After the insurance settlements and selling the business my grandmother wound up being a millionaire. After both my father and my aunt--her children--got divorces within 2 years of each other, my aunt and my step-mother--some of whose children were notorious in our town for their criminal activity--wound up pilfering as much money from her as they could. Getting away from the psychotic ex took most of my money, the lazy one wound up costing me the rest. Currently...*whew* it has not been an easy 10 years, especially after my last employer stabbed me in the back--my income alone was well over the national median--so now I work 2 jobs, about 70 hours per week, and am trying to recover the couple of tens of thousands of dollars I had. Retirement? *laugh* There is no retirement for me until age and health force it, after which I will wind up living with one of the kids once they are established and have careers of their own. I don't despise poor people--I pretty much *am* one.