Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is a big leap from human cells to human being.
Humans are composed entirely of cells. When the fetal cells are specialized, how is this different from a human being?
Again, this is just your opinion. It is not based in science.
What makes someone a human being is if they have the chromosomes and their cells are specialized. If you disagree, that´s fine, but what counts as a human being in your opinion?
Describing yourself as "pro-life" doesn't necessarily mean you want to ban abortion.
It means that you want most already legal abortions banned.
The large majority of young people are pro choice. The large majority of people over 65 are anti choice. Therefore as we go forward this shift is only going to go against you. So society is going to shift to more pro choice, not less.
Many initially young pro choice people become pro life as they age. Otherwise, you would be expecting pro choicers to become more common. Instead, more people are becoming pro life since the 1990s(https://news.gallup.com/poll/235445/abortion-attitudes-remain-closely-divided.aspx). Abortions are already becoming less common and they aren´t going up anytime soon, so once abortions are gone, I predict Roe V Wade will be overturned and abortion might eventually be banned. If morality doesn´t change, technology certainly will. Birth control would keep abortions very rare and eventually non existent. It was technology that ended slavery, and it might be technology that ends abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
He is pure hatred of everything not thang. A pathetic wannabe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
When the specialized cells are arranged in a certain way, and if they are a certain type of specialized cell, then they are human cells. If I grow a human lung in a lab, it´s a human lung. If I grow a fetus in a lab (if it were possible), then that fetus is a human being.Because cells don't make a person. We can grow specialized cells in petri dish.
For example saying that a fetus has cell specialization. That might be true, but it has absolutely no bearing on where or not it is a person.Person is different from human. Person is a legal term. We can´t accurately call a fetus a human now for the same reason we couldn't call African slaves in the US in the 1700s people; the law stated otherwise. Human is a scientific term. If you meet the requirements, you are human. Because of this, a fetus now is as human as an African slave during the 1700s.
The vast majority of americans understand that a woman has the right to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy.
It´s not the vast majority. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx hows that the ratio between pro choicers and pro lifers in the US is about 1:1. Moreover, despite young people tending to be pro choice, society has gotten more pro life overall since the 1990s(https://news.gallup.com/poll/235445/abortion-attitudes-remain-closely-divided.aspx). Since society is being more pro life and abortion rates are falling, Roe V Wade´s days are numbered. Even Roe died as a pro life advocate and she started Roe V Wade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Science backs up why a fetus is a human being.No, no it doesn't.
Why not? A fetus´s cells specialize at 5 weeks. Since they got chromosomes and the cell specialization, they are human beings.
Therefore they want to pass laws based on their religion.
Not applicable to all pro lifers. Not applicable to me, or Ben Shapiro, or Stephen Crowder. They and I cite science to back up the claim that a fetus is a human being.
So, we get it, theocracy shouldn't be in place. But if you want to keep abortion legal, there are secular arguments too that have to be addressed and refuted adequately to keep abortion legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just because religion believes a certain thing doesn't mean we should do the opposite. We shouldn't have a theocracy, but we shouldn't have an anti-theocracy; something that legalizes everything religion prohibits. Otherwise, murder and staling would be legal because religion prohibits this. Granted, some of the religious laws are incompatible with America, like stoning for adultery, but we shouldn't care about religion when making laws.He just wants religious rules to be law. Which is a horrible, horrible idea.
Also, Mike Pence isin´t theocratic. Science backs up why a fetus is a human being. Although he cites the bible way more than he should, on issues like abortion, there is a science pro life argument. The left and most atheists often ignore it and pretend like the only pro life arguments are religious based, which is incorrect.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
NO, if no nukes= more war
I think nukes can deliver a possibility of nuclear war. If there is a nuclear war, humanity is basically dead.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Even the Cold War had no direct conflict between the US and the USSR.
We got lucky. Even if the odds of a president launching nukes is 1/100 in their term, as time goes on, the collective odds of a president launching nukes gradually increase. Nukes are too risky. Getting rid of all nukes at once leaves us vulnerable, but if we gradually get rid of them, then it would prevent their explosion. This is why there should be a high tax on nukes. It forces countries to gradually get rid of them so they are no longer a threat.
Just like Iraq....Know for a fact they have no weapons and invade them anyway
We thought Iraq did have nuclear weapons. It wouldn't be an invasion. It would be a team of 20,000 UN workers or so making sure that there are no nukes in Israel.
Should we purge all scientists that know how to make them?
I wouldn't kill them, but I´d send them to an isolated island with no transportation out of it but it would be a good island for them so they wouldn't want to leave and so when every one of them dies from natural causes, the knowledge of how to build nukes is gone.
The Anarchist Cookbook is a book that has been ruled constitutional to publish multiple times despite attempts to ban it. It tells you how to make explosives and illegal drugs.
The explosives in the book aren't nearly as dangerous as nukes. I would personally want the book banned but I respect the court decisions that established it´s legalization. Making explosives that injure a dozen people is nothing like a nuke.
However, you are increasing the incentive for nukes to be made illegally.
How can they make a nuke if they don´t know how? All the scientists that know how to make a nuke are on an island. I don´t think the scientists would allow random people to get a nuke, so I doubt they would help out random people with making a nuke. Since people currently don´t build nukes illegally, I don´t think they would get nukes in a nuke free world.
Created:
Posted in:
I got 100 friends on this site. I'm kindof happy about this accomplishment.
Created:
-->
@David
Why do you think there are so many Aspies on this site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Who are you in the debate on Youtube?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is anecdotal, but I know a few foster people and they seem alright. Some may be messed up, but not all of them are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
And also the likelihood that newborn goes into an abuse home then comes back to foster care is extremely high
I don't think this is true. Do you have a cite?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They require a check from every country that has nukes. If the country doesn't pay, they get sanctioned. The only reason why we have nukes is to protect against other nukes. Eliminate the nukes gradually, and there is no need for defense from them.How would the UN go about collecting this tax? What if the country doesn't pay?
What about hidden nuke arsenals like Israel has? How do you find those nukes and charge them for it?
I'd send foreign UN officials to search Israel for nukes, just like what we did to Iraq.
I don't know how you get rid of the "instructions" for building nukes.
By burning them if they are made of paper or by deleting them if they are online.
That would actually be unconstitutional.
Why?
how do you prevent people from "discovering" it again?
In order to discover it again and to build a nuke again, people would be prohibited from owning plutonium and uranium. It would have to be done underground if it happens and if building a bomb gets caught, the people involved would be punished with life in jail without parole. Currently, people aren't building nukes illegally, so I don't think it would happen in a nuke free world. I'd want the nukes to get used for power to get rid of them and to provide energy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think there are 2 types of foster kids. Those that get adopted when they are newborns and those that get adopted when they are 10 or some age like that.
The older kids are the ones who are stereotypically, "messed up". They endured poverty, maybe an abusive or drunk parent. This leads them to commit crime in some instances.
Newborn foster kids never endured any of that. They have no idea what their parents went through.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
How do you force other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons?
I'd want the UN to implement a tax on nukes that every country must pay annually. It would start off at $1 billion/nuke and as countries got rid of their nukes, the tax would increase until no country has them anymore. To avoid the tax, most nukes would get destroyed.
Isn't mutually assured destruction a deterrent to war?
It's a deterrent, but not a peace guarantee. The more countries that get nukes, the more likely we are to have nuclear war.
If we get rid of the instructions on how to build nukes in addition to the nukes, people can't make them illegally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Steve Jobs was adopted and he turned out alright. The foster system has filters to keep bad parents from adopting.
Created:
I think we should get rid of nukes gradually and force other countries to do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm pro life and am against the Iraq war. I am against the death penalty, I prefer to take make murderers mandatory blood donors every 3 months to force them to save hundreds of lives to make up for the few they destroyed. It would deter murder drastically because murderers want to do damage and they can't get this done if they know they would have to save hundreds of lives if they kill 1.
I want abortion punished by forcing the women to donate enough blood to save another life. If you take a life, you need to save a life in the situation of abortion. If the woman can't because of stress, they can be unconscious when it happens. If the woman's blood is not donatable, the doctor picks up the tab.
But lets be real, if the death penalty was abolished and the Iraq war ended, it wouldn't be enough to get the left to overturn Roe V Wade.
Created:
Posted in:
Lets cut to the chase and rather than posting 100 posts, lets post just 10.
Rule:
-No posting more than 2 posts at a time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine that you bought a car from me, but you still had to pay me a percentage of its market value to me every year.
I don't approve of the property tax. I´d rather have a sales tax on the house. Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for stuff, but I would want a sales tax to pay for everything instead of an income tax.
Imagine that I could enter your car on a whim and search it (and confiscate the contents) whenever I wanted (with flimsy unverifiable probable cause like an anonymous tip) or whenever I though it looked suspicious.
I don´t approve of this in the vast majority of situations.
Imagine that I could take your car and give it to someone else at any moment under something called "eminent domain".
In eminent domain, you are paid a fair price for your property. I don't agree with eminent domain though, although if the person consents to it being sold, it´s fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The article states pros and cons to buying. One pro was that it would prevent rent hikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I encourage people to get on a pathway towards buying their own home, but I wouldn't force it. I don´t want to pay all these rental fees and would rather eventually own my own home.So if the place is good people should buy it instead of renting it, Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They don´t own their land as a country. They own it as private property. Therefore they would be prohibited from harboring criminals from the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The point is to pay for government services. I´d rather raise the money by different ways.Isn't that the whole point of real-estate taxes?
If private citizens could actually own a piece of land, and nobody could forcibly take it away, well, that would be "total anarchy"...
How so? In anarchy, there is no government. I don't agree with anarchy. I agree with a small government, that only punishes people for things involving an unjustified victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Unsure. It depends heavily on the property. If the place is good, I would allow more rent then if the place is terrible. I don't think of this so my answers are on the spot, but I´d rather make sure the price gets approved by someone before rent is allowed.What do you mean by some?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, but then (without a real-estate tax) how would the government steal land from poor people?
Why should the government steal land from poor people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Some rent control is necessary, but I wouldn´t go overboard with it. Otherwise, there would be less incentive to rent out properties and to own more than 1 place to live. Less landlords, less opportunity for tenants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So labor union members are just slaves to whatever the Democrats say?
They aren't slaves, but the leaders of the unions tend to be overwhelmingly democratic. This is coming from my Dad, who is a treasurer for a union. Saying that unions are left is like saying Canada is left. There are right leaning members in both Canada and in Unions. Although Trump was much more anti-illegal immigration then Romney, Trump´s advantage could be due to him having an easier candidate then Romney. Obama was a stronger candidate than Hillary. If Trump was running against Obama, I doubt he would have done as well amongst union members then Romney.
Pretending that union households don't care about immigration because the Democrats don't is just plain incorrect.
The democratic position is they want a pathway to citizenship for illegals instead of deporting them, they denounce open borders.
it never calls for a theocracy in which you force you religious views upon others in your country.
Remember that when you reference other issues, like homoseuality. My thought process is a lot of right wingers are against homosexuality for example solely because of the bible. If that´s true, they should be consistent and support the bible on left wing beliefs, like easier immigration restrictions.
Could you cite a quote about that in the New Testament in case I am unaware?
Matthew 25:35- ¨I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.¨ This is the bible saying to be welcome to immigrants. The bible does not specify legal or illegal. Otherwise, the bible would say here, ¨I was a warranted stranger and you welcomed me¨
There are hiring caps based on the company's available capital.
If there is a company whose job it is to build buildings for example, then the more hands they have working, it would cost more at once, but since the job gets done quicker, it costs about the same. Then, they can build more buildings quicker, generating more profit. The worker benefits because they have more union members that can negotiate for some of that success and/or a higher salary.
If you have too many people working on a task, it becomes less efficient.
Then the workers could do multiple tasks at once. If it takes 60 workers some time to make 2 houses, and 30 more immigrants get added to the mix, the company would have them work on a 3rd house, making the company money.
Let us assume you are right on the Latin America thing, you are just proving that if we allow any foreigners in, they will irreparably alter our culture.
They will assiliminate on their own. When we had practically open borders with Europe, the immigrants started off not assiliminated, but they assiliminated as time went on. Them having kids sped up the assimilation process. And then Italian Americans acted more American than Italian, with way more Italin-Americans knowing English than Italin. We are seeing this trend in the Hispanic community: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/05/12/english-proficiency-on-the-rise-among-latinos/. They just need more time. I think we as Americans can play the long game.
You would have to assume two outrageous things to say that these immigrants will assimilate like the old European immigrants: (1) that our political, social, economic, and cultural climate is exactly the same as it used to be when we took those European immigrants long ago
At the time when we took in the European immigrants, Europe and America were very different. Europe had war and disunification. America had peace and unification. Most of the European immigrants were Catholic, America was protestant. Europe was protectionist, America wasn´t.
If you consider that Hispanics vote 69% Democrat, I don't know how you think your Libertarian views will fly when you let in the entire third-world below our border.
Libertarians want people to lift themselves out of poverty. This can be done by HS degree Hispanics getting a job that only requires a HS degree.
In your opinion, will more Hispanics be able to afford to cross our southern border or will more Africans be able to cross an entire ocean without any money?
Both Hispanics and Africans have a comparable GDP per capita and they both (for the most part) have water to cross. For Africans, it´s the Atlantic Ocean. For Hispanics, it´s the gulf of Mexico, with the exception of some mexicans, most of whom live in the southern portion of the country. Both groups will have a huge distance to travel to get to the US.
They have a lot of economic and political freedom, as well.So does some of Latin America.No, not really.
Latin America has separation of church and state(social freedom), they have elections(political freedom) and they for the most part don´t have communism(economic freedom). However, if an area lacks these things, like China, then chinese immigrants would be fleeing China since they don´t like Chinese values and would accept American ones, which is what happens on it´s own. When immigrants are from a good country, they bring American like values to the US. When Immigrants are from bad countries, they are fleeing those shithole country values and they are accepting American ones.
I don't think that poor people are poor simply because of their mindset.
I think they are poor because they don´t know how to get out of the situation.
And when you inevitably drive down their wages by letting in tens of millions of low-wage immigrants that take all of the jobs that don't require a college degree
The immigrants can´t take jobs from people if the businesses don´t have caps. I don´t think businesses have caps because of what history confirms.
1) In the 1860s, a fear of letting backs work was they would take jobs/wages from white people. Did this happen? No.
2) In the 1940s, a fear of letting women work was they would take jobs/wages from men. Did the unemployment rate rise to over 50%? No.
Why didn't unemployment skyrocket during these times? Because businesses don't have caps and can hire as many people as that apply for that job. Will businesses have caps for people now? No. There are enough jobs for everybody.
Hope you mean to say you would use a euphemism not "euthanize" lol.
I wanted to use the verb for euphemism. I don't know what that is. I did my best.
But you just said that union people vote based on what Democrats say, now you are saying people's minds can be changed regardless of party?
Union people generally, not always, but generally vote democratic because the democrats seem to have a better plan to fix their important issue; pay for the common worker. When I said that the union votes democratic, I was generalizing. If my plan gives them a better salary (which I think it does), and they hear it, then I predict a lot of union members would vote for me if I ran for POTUS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you eliminated property taxes, landlords would simply pocket the extra money and continue to raise rents every single year like they always do anyway.
If landlords were required to reduce their prices by the property tax amount, then it basically saves the poor person money. The hard part would be forcing them to do it, but companies often obey the law, otherwise many legal workers would get paid less than minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you're proposing some sort of national job-placement assistance, then I'm on-board.
After doing some research, if it helps them be on their own with a good salary not mandated by the government, sounds good.
I favor rehabilitation for those who use most recreational drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. It worked in Portugal.Isn't this just welfare by another name?
Welfare is a cash handout to poor people. Rehab isin´t welfare.
...a lot of their rent goes to pay the property tax.This is highly unlikely.
It´s true. Rent is so high in part to pay for the property maintenance. This includes taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps the most common is that they are too lazy to work.
Didn't say that. My assumption about them is that they want to work good jobs, but don´t know how. They could barely care what job they do if it's a decent job if it pays the bills. My sheet shows many jobs a homeless person can do that only require a HS degree. The homeless would appreciate the sheet as a means of getting out of poverty on their own, without government handouts.
I used to work one full- and two part-time jobs, a total of three jobs, until I got sick.
This is harder than it has to be for the homeless. They work multiple jobs because they don´t know how else to secure money for themselves. I´d want to show them good paying jobs they can get that enable them to reduce their hours and earn more at the same time.
Most employers require addresses.
Why do they do this? Their address can be a charitable shelter that is nearby until they get the good job from my sheet.
Many jobs require transportation.
Under my plan, lets say your in NYC and you want a job in rural Kansas. If you need a ride to get to Kansas that´s government paid, so be it. The poor person gets their ride and contributes to the job in Kansas. If all they need is a $100 ride to a place where they can be productive, so be it. They can get a place to live in that area with the money they earned from their job.
The criminal records are often a result of their homelessness and sometimes, their only crime was not having a place to sleep.
Me personally, I wouldn´t ban sleeping on the streets and I don´t think it´s good for cities to ban it. We have charitable shelters for the homeless to live.
The BMA has not adequately addressed this crisis.
What is the BMA? I looked it up but didn't find anything. What is the BoMA?
Did you know that the city parks public bathrooms paid for by the taxpayers are no longer available to all citizens of Manchester?
This is going too far. How much does a bathroom cost?
Another homeless ordinance being written will make it illegal to camp within the city except for those they may give a permit too.
See what big government does. It requires a permit for safe things.
They created this crisis, now’s the time to fix it.
We both agree that homelessness must go down? Now, how do we get to that point, because the War on poverty has been tried for about 50 years and not only has not reduced poverty, but poverty was going down before the policy started, and when the policy was put into effect, the poverty rate stagnated. Check out the link below:
Addiction might play a part. Addictions prevent them from looking for work and from getting hired at times, but not always. (It depends how out of control your addiction is.) Many employers assume the homeless citizens are all addicts because here in Manchester that’s what some elected officials want you to believe is true.
I favor rehabilitation for those who use most recreational drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. It worked in Portugal.
To get into most apartment complexes in the United States, applicants must have a good credit score, good references
I´m sorry, but I don´t know how to help fix the situation of people who are in this. Maybe they can get a good credit score and good references. Or maybe landlords should not restrict people on this, I don´t know.
the average one-bedroom apartment goes for $1,200 those who rent it must now earn at least between $1,952 to $3,600 a month in most cases.
3600*12=$43200. All the jobs on my sheet pay more than $43,200 per year for those with a HS degree. Getting rid of the property tax will help renters because a lot of their rent goes to pay the property tax. Schools can get funded by a sales tax on goods, services, and investment profits.
Please tell me which of your hodge-podge is your pick for #1.
I would say eliminating the US debt should be #1 to maintain our sovereignty.
How are you going to "eliminate poverty"?
If POTUS, I would show low income people how they can get a better job that only requires a HS degree if that´s all they have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think corruption is the biggest issue out there and both sides do it. Coal companies lobby Republicans, and planned parenthood lobbies democrats. I think eliminating national poverty, guns, immigration, abortion, military, and getting rid of the income tax are all comparably prominent issues. I side with libertarians on most of these.Because this is the true and primary CAUSE OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION.
You might like this linkI hope I´ll watch it later. I can´t right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don´t think the company cares if your homeless or not for certain jobs. They want hard workers. They can test you out to see if you would be a good worker. The employer may think that you´ll be lazy, but if your labor provides more revenue then it costs, he´ll hire you. The employer has almost nothing to lose from hiring you and can gain a lot.How many companies do you know of will hire homeless people?
What about a 55 year old that only has a high-school education and hasn't held a job in the past ten years (supported by spouse).
They too can get a job. You gotta start somewhere. The company would accept him as more labor for their projects. The company benefits since they get to expand and the homeless person gets a good job and would no longer be homeless once they buy/rent a place to live.
Have you considered orphans who are under the legal working age?
They wait until a foster parent is there to adopt them. The foster system can use welfare, but as POTUS, I would want consenting competent parents to adopt the kids so the kids get a home. From what I've heard and concluded from this evidence, there are more people wanting to adopt then there are foster kids. From this evidence, I think the foster system tries to figure out the best parents for the kids and this is why it takes time. I don´t know if this is right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why is this issue the first priority?Can you and I agree to make this priority #1?
And are you including the corn subsidies that artificially prop-up the junk-food industryI believe that any industry that needs federal funds should become nationalized. If your not making profit on your own, you shouldn't be making profit. So, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would end all subsidies to private companies. If they want federal funds, they can´t be for profit.If we ban all welfare, let's start with corporate subsidies please.
Then we ban welfare for the poor, disabled, and CHILDREN
One at a time. Poor people can get a better paying job that only requires a HS degree. Such jobs do exist, are very common, and some examples are in the sheet below:
They may not be the best jobs, but they are certainly better then working at McDonalds considering the salary advantage. Only 1 job from the list goes below $45,000 per year, and barely so. Bernie Sanders $15 an hour plan gives the worker $30,000 per year. My plan is better for the poor then Bernie´s plan.
As someone with autism, I don´t need welfare and there should be strict requirements for going on welfare. I would only reserve welfare for people both physically and mentally disabled. Mentally disabled people can still do construction work and physically disabled people can still get a job in the link above.
Children's parents can follow the plan I described above in order to escape poverty for themselves and their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Back in the day, United Farm Workers attacked illegal immigrants.
Because the Republicans in that time supported open borders. Ideological gravitation is pretty prominent in the minds of Americans. You´ll be surprised what policies people would support just because they are Republican or Democrat by default.
How is open borders the Christian thing to do?
The bible has various verses supporting not to oppress the foreigner and to treat the foreigner like the native. Since native people don´t have to go through a legalization process, the bible does not advocate this for immigrants.
They underpay the illegal immigrants. Assuming they could hire one worker, they would obviously choose the illegal.
Businesses don't have worker caps is the thing. They would hire all qualified workers. Whether or not someone is qualified for a job has nothing to do with whether there are illegal immigrants applying too.
Could you perhaps mention how Latin American countries are Westernized?
Latin American countries are generally:
-Christian
-Have separation of church and state.
-Are capitalist economies that resemble colonial Spain.
-They have European gun laws.
-They are mostly of European descent ethnically. Just so happened that the Europeans mingled with a bunch of natives.
-They generally abolished the death penalty, just like Europe and Canada.
-They have medicare for all generally.
They don't share our values of liberty, as seen by their voting patterns.
Lets say that every one of the 160 million immigrants coming into the country vote liberal. This would cause the conservatives to poll at 33% nationally. The pie chart method would save the republican party in this situation, since Republicans would still get significant representation in government, they just don't get as much as the Dems. However, there will be some republicans in the mix, since the US under my plan would have open borders with everyone, Latin Americans would be voting liberal possibly. But the other ethnic groups that would come into the US, like those from Africa would be very red pilled compared to African Americans. They are very religious, very disciplined, very pro life, they would look at our poverty as a joke since they have had worse, so they would oppose welfare. They can help remove the liberal monopoly on minority votes.
Partitioning the Hispanic race; classifying White Hispanics as Whites and Native Hispanics as Native Americans, etc can help make the group more red pilled. If they are a combination, they are classified in the two or more races group.
They have a lot of economic and political freedom, as well.
So does some of Latin America.
They seem pretty intent on getting their welfare benefits.
It´s because they think they need them. In order to alleviate poverty, I would show them how to get a better paying job that only requires a HS degree.
They are fighting for more free things as we speak. Ever see what happens when a candidate runs on lowering benefits? He loses.
If I euthanize it so I could say, ¨I want to eliminate poverty through individual effort¨, and they point out that the war on poverty was a failure, then a bunch of Sanders supporters would not like the war on poverty because it is counterproductive to their goal of eliminating national poverty. They might vote for my proposal to eliminate poverty if it makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They behave like democrats. Many people are willing to do inconsistent things in order to satisfy their parties. 2 examples(one from the left, one from the right).You know that unions are actually very anti-immigration.
Black Lives matter believes the government is racist/tyrannical. Do they support the 2nd amendment to defend against the government they believe is tyrannical? Some blacks do. But a majority of BLM is left leaning on guns. Because they are Democrats first, even though they claim to support black lives first. If their claim was accurate, they would support the 2nd amendment, needed to protect black lives. This is why I find it hilarious that people like AOC would post BLM and March for our lives. It is inconsistent to support both a group that wants to ban some guns and believes the government will never go tyrannical and a group that believes that the government is tyrannical right now to African Americans.
Some people believe that America should be a Christian country. They are pro life and anti-homosexuality on this basis. Do they support open borders, even though it´s the christian thing to do? Some religious people do. But a majority of them are right leaning on immigration. Because they are Republicans first, even though they claim they are Christian first. This is why I find it hilarious that people like Mike Pence would support God and be against open borders. It is inconsistent to support both the bible on immigration and the current Republican party on this issue.
The immigrants are willing to take less money, so companies replace native workers with the low-wage immigrant workers.
Companies need the labor force, so they take everyone that is qualified to work whether legal or illegal. This is how they make the most amount of money. If your the owner of a construction company and there are 2 people applying for a job and they are both physically qualified, one of them is legal and the other is not, assuming there is no government intervention, the employer hires both of them if allowed. Instead, the government prohibits illegal immigrants from working and then accuses them of being on welfare. Let them work alongside native born workers and they will get off of welfare.
But we came from Europe. Americans have Western ideals.
Latin America is mostly western too, with the exception of Cuba. Both America and Latin America were settled and conquered by western countries. The immigrants from non western countries also adopt a protestant work ethic; one that requires them to be fiscally independent.
So, European immigrants have a culture that is more complementary to ours.
I disagree. Europe´s gun laws and stance on the death penalty is more similar to Latin Americas then in the US.
I don't see any British-Americans saying "Make America Britain Again". I can't say the same about Mexican immigrants.
People are individuals. The vast majority of Mexican Americans don´t want America to be part of Mexico. The ones who did say that were being satirical. They were claiming that since they settled the South West first that they should decide who lives there. Granted, their claim isin´t accurate; the US bought the area from Mexico and it was Anglophone majority at the time of being conquered.
You're assuming that the poor people who come here can't/won't vote for welfare programs. How do you propose we ban welfare, considering over half of current immigrants are on some form of welfare?
We show low income people how to be fiscally self sufficient with the degree they have. The war on poverty has been a counterproductive failure since poverty was going down quickly before it started and when it started, the poverty rate stagnated. To eliminate the war on poverty, abolishing welfare and showing people how to be self sufficient is what will have to be done.
Give a man a welfare check, you feed him for a month. Teach a man how to make his own money, you feed him for life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
it depresses the wages of native workers
It helps the American worker by giving them access to more union members, because some of the immigrants would join a union. More union members means more salary for the native born worker since unions would have more negotiating power.
destroys our culture
When the US had practically open borders with the whole world in the 20th century, since immigrants came from all over Europe, the ethnicities interbred with each other to form an anglophone American generation. Granted, they weren't of British descent, but American nonetheless. Same principle applies to the immigrants who interbreed with other immigrants and native born citizens. The offspring will feel more American than any other nationality.
they cost us tons in welfare
If we ban welfare, any immigrant who is here for welfare would leave. If low income people get a better paying job that only requires a HS degree, then there would be no need for welfare, since the low wage workers found a better job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you for your suggestions to improve my channel.
I have a chromebook, so I don´t know if https://obsproject.com/ works on there.
I could try filming myself on a laptop next time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't know if you enjoy reading political/economic books, but I am currently reading "We Wanted Workers".
I can check it out. My reading SAT score isin´t the best, so hopefully I can comprehend everything.
One main reason is that moving costs for those workers are incredibly high.
If that´s a main reason, the workers can move themselves. Immigration would not be mandatory for people, but optional. The US has a practical ban on immigration. 160 million people want to come to the US, but only about 1% are getting in under Trump and only about 3% got in under Obama per year. It would be very good for the aviation industry since they can transport so many more people if national borders were like EU borders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Open borders would double the world´s GDP. I used to be against it, but a lot can change in 4 months.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I need to work on my monotone. I don´t know how to get rid of it. Ben Shapiro pulls off a monotone well. I think a monotone is just my style, but if it´s inferior to a multitone, I could try and work on it my next video.
I´m worried that if I use a multitone at the start of a video, that I´ll lose energy for the rest of the video. I wouldn't sprint the first 100 m of a marathon for example. I wouldn't want to use all of my energy within the first minute of the video, but I might have to take that risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Created:
Posted in:
Hello DARTers,
With the permission of Virtuoso, I am advertising my YouTube channel. Be sure to like, share, comment, and subscribe to the channel. I advertised DART on the channel in my video for today. It´s coming up.
Created:
I don’t see why not. Change the name, solves the issue.
Created: