Greyparrot

Are you angry with Mueller?

I can't believe he admitted that Trump was improving the physical border barrier. Maybe he is sick today.

I really don't care about stockholm syndrome groups like that. It's just ridiculous to claim this group does nothing while all kids are brought to the gates.

It's like you have to have something turned off in your brain to allow that logic to take root.

Check out this website.

This group has been around for a LONG time. When the left lies to your face telling you that kids only come through the gates, you just ask them why this group is still around to pick up the skulls of dead kids in the desert.

It's actually quite amusing. The left actually assumes you think the way they do with no nuance.

They truly believe in pedantics over nuanced policy solutions.

Personally, I think its an intellectual copout to go through life in black and white with no shades of grey. I could never afford to be that intellectually lazy.

Think about how the left frames any issue.

Vote for Obamacare or people won't have health care. There are no other solutions...

Vote for the Green New Deal or we all die in 12 years. There are no other options....

Climate change can ONLY be addressed with the Paris accords.

Reigning in Iran can ONLY be done with the existing Iran nuclear deal.

Vote for a minimum wage hike or the poor will never have any money. You get the idea. Zero nuance.

Lol you have a lot of patience with pedantics.

Trump has never been an all or nothing guy on border security. He has had border patrol officials on televised press conferences multiple times explaining what they need for border security while Trump supports them. Trump changes the pedantic language as the officials describe the changing situations at the border in the span of minutes. That's a hell of a lot more responsive than the last 30 years of pedantic quibbles from the Congress.

When conservatives hear the word "wall," they all know he means border security. And we also know it drives the left insane because they get fixated on pedantics. The left is too blinded with TDS to hear the multiple times Trump has said he would use a fence where Officials wanted a fence, and use steel slats in the areas where officials wanted steel slats. In short, they are completely unable to see anything positive because the left IS all or nothing when it comes to the way they think.

Everyone afflicted with TDS can only think in all or nothing terms.

That is why I often make fun of the lack of nuance from any of their ramblings.

Yeah, it's ok to gawk, but don't try to intervene. TDS is best left to the professionals.

Nuance isn't common among the left.

Money isn't the problem. Many "failing" schools in poor districts get more money per student than others. A culture that demotes education is to blame partly. The other part is a lack of discipline and structure at home as 70% of the students have no fathers in the home. School can never replace the home, no matter how many dollars are thrown at it. If you want to make the case that poverty leads to fatherlessness, then maybe you have a case. But I can guarantee you that I can pick many eras of American history when poverty was extremely high, yet fathers remained in the home.

Conservatives don't take Trump literally, but they do take him seriously.

Wingnut Leftists don't take Trump seriously, but they sure as hell take him literally.

Wall/fence/barrier...who cares? As long as there is more progress than rhetoric...and we all know know what 30 years of rhetoric has built so far along the border...that's not a very high bar for Trump to outperform.

Totally disagree. He isn't sorry, and is doubling down on the fake racism narrative by doing "service" with one of the country's most infamous race baiter, Jessie Jackson.

He won't apologize to the Chicago PD, or anyone else. He will do it again.

Also, this is how you can spot an open border sycophant.

1) Never admits that Trump is securing the border in any way.

2) Never admits a single problem to the nation from having an open border, or ineffective border.

3) Never admits that the border patrol is not getting the tools they demand to secure the border from an ineffective, fat, bureaucratic Congress.

It's actually risen to about 10k for coyote fees since Trump.

Whatever Trump is doing is really affecting Coyote pricing, whether it's making it harder for Coyotes to traffick invaders, or encouraging more illegal invaders to make attempts to make a run for the border instead of turning themselves in at checkpoints.

Every policy supported by open border faggots would logically cause Coyote fees to fall.

Most 3rd world nations are run by warlords, not communism.

Don't ever let these open border scum lie about how it's a refugee crisis. Hold their lying faces to the fire.

Oh and mind you..the 85% that get their court deportation orders NEVER show up to court. It's a fantastic joke perpetuated by open border faggots.

What a fantastic joke..it's a refugee crisis....

Talk about dishonesty.

The DOJ's best estimates say 15% of all court cases are legitimate refugees... and that's just the ones that turn themselves in to the border patrol...

that means 85% of people ARE NOT FKN REFUGEES.... the number is obviously higher than that because of the massive amount of invaders that do NOT report themselves to the authorities for a court date.

Let that sink in...the VAST MAJORITY of invaders are not LEGAL REFUGEES!

The Romans had it right.

Bread and Circuses while the barbarians are at the gates.

The number one issue for 2020? Free healthcare for all, even illegal aliens.

Bread and Circuses.

Don't argue with him. He likes open borders and invasions from socialist dystopias.

And MSM never gets tired of losing.

We’re going to LOSE. We’re going to LOSE so much. We’re going to LOSE at enforcing fair trade with China, we’re going to LOSE at the border. We’re going to LOSE so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of LOSING, you’re going to tune into CNN and go ‘Please, please, we can’t LOSE anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. Don Lemon, please Mr. Cuomo, we beg you sirs, we don’t want to LOSE anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else. And Jeff Zucker is going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep LOSING, LOSING, LOSING, We’re going to make America Blue Again.”

MSM predictions have been wrong about everything the last 2 years.

It's still ridiculous. I wouldn't put on blackface to sympathize with the descendants of former slaves. That kind of kabuki belongs in a theatre, not on prime time TV.

Yeah I agree, the people on the left screaming collusion with Mueller are insane. Mueller might be the least swampy person in D.C. atm.

I mean..if Jussee Smollet could get off scott free with the help of a former president, couldn't a son get off scott-free with a sitting president?

Do you think Trump colluded with Mueller to stop him from indicting his son?

No but a crime has to be involved. You can't investigate somebody for zero reasons. You have to state a crime that they are investigating.

This is the reason why no indictments from Mueller on the people closest to Trump, especially Donald Jr. are causing CNN to lose their minds, and actually say batshit crazy crap like Mueller was in cahoots with Trump.

I know people are saying Trump doesn't have to have committed a crime to obstruct justice... but SOMEBODY had to have committed a crime. You don't send people to jail in America without charging them with a crime. You don't investigate someone without having probable cause of a crime. That's specifically in the bill of rights.

You should know this if you had basic education.

Do you think Trump colluded with Mueller? Cause many of the CNN spinmasters are taking that route for lack of results.

Help definitely.

Asian culture is superior. If I'm going to lose my ancestral culture no matter what, I would much rather live under Asian culture than 2nd world Latino culture or 3rd world African.

I took a year of college Chinese anticipating this future.

Ni hao!

Obstruction of justice requires a crime. There was no crime. Mueller even admitted in his conclusions that he could not find grounds for obstruction of justice because he would have to specifically state what exactly was obstructed. The Firing of Comey didn't pass legal muster as sufficient grounds. And firing Comey certainly was not a crime.The only people of note charged with crimes were Flynn and Cohen, and Trump sure as hell did not interfere in that justice. Those people are going to jail, and there will be no pardons, (even though pardoning is not obstruction of justice anyway.)

Wishing that there is something in the report that somehow contradicts Mueller's final findings is the greatest of wishes. Mueller had every motive for finding the president guilty along with many of his team who were Obama and Clinton supporters and holdovers. Mueller could not have possibly screwed up, unless you believe in tinfoil hat conspiracies where Mueller colluded with Trump.

Is anyone seriously convinced that our country is made more whole by indicting a tax cheat and a perjurer?

What a total waste. These are not the witches they were looking for Obi-Wan.

Lol beep boop NPC sheep.

Barr says he is vindicated. With nothing to go on, Southern District of New York is going to spin wheels and only make Trump look good.

No monopoly can be sustained without government force.

Sure, the ultra rich purchase the government to avoid the inevitable bankruptcies associated with incompetency. No doubt. Too big to fail is a direct result of Wickard vs Filburn.

The More I read about the reasoning and the justifications for the Wickard vs Filburn ruling, the angrier I get with the abuse of the government meddling in the economy.

A farmer owned land, grew some food, and consumed the food. The government punished him for that.

Legally speaking, you could be found in violation of state commerce if you swept the floor of your own house instead of hiring a maid to do it. The government can interpret any action you take in the privacy of your own home to affect state commerce, and then levy a fine simply for improving your own life. This is tyranny of the highest order. Why is this abuse of government authority allowed in the so-called land of the free?

Then get government out of the business of running the economy if it's a problem that wealthy people are purchasing government power. If you take the ball and go home, there is no game, so cheating is irrelevant. Thousands of professional lobbyists will be out of a job overnight if the constitutional Commerce Clause were applied as was originally intended and not as some perversion of a bad FDR SCOTUS decision starting with Wickard vs. Filburn morphing into the monstrosity today that allowed Obamacare.

Give the rich opportunities to achieve. Don't give them the necessary government power to crush competition and form monopolies. 

That's why I said read the study.

 

In addition to the thousands of local and national programs that aim to help young people avoid these life-altering problems, we should figure out more ways to convince young people that their decisions will greatly influence whether they avoid poverty and enter the middle class. Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.

Consider an example. Today, more than 40 percent of American children, including more than 70 percent of black children and 50 percent of Hispanic children, are born outside marriage. This unprecedented rate of nonmarital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of children will spend part of their childhood—and for a considerable number of these all of their childhood — in a single-parent family. As hard as single parents try to give their children a healthy home environment, children in female-headed families are four or more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty. In turn, poverty is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in children, including school dropout and out-of-wedlock births.

It is sometimes said that Americans are turning their back on the marriage culture. The high divorce rate, soaring nonmarital birth rate and consequent rise of single-parent families are certainly weakening marriage as an institution. But look again and discover that college-educated women have high marriage rates, low nonmarital birthrates, and low divorce rates. The marriage culture seems to be alive and well for those with a college degree. These families usually not only have enough money to afford good schools for their children, but they also provide a stable family environment that allows children to flourish.

The recent attacks by Planned Parenthood on Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor, for launching a campaign designed to inform teenagers of the consequences of teen pregnancy provides a good example of how many in our society face the effects of nonmarital births on teen mothers and their children. In one of the campaign posters, a baby with tears rolling down his face says: “I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.” Another shows a girl saying to her mom: “Chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” Planned Parenthood criticized the ads, displayed in the subway and bus shelters, for ignoring racial and economic factors that contribute to teen pregnancy. Other critics say the ads stigmatize teen parents and their children.

Granted, most teen moms are from low-income families and face a number of barriers to success. Along comes Bloomberg with a direct message to get the attention of teenage girls and warn them not to make their situation worse and to think more about their future. If the mother wants to improve her future by continuing her education, being a teenage parent is precisely the wrong way to do it. As for blaming the victim, no one is blaming the baby—yet the baby will also bear long-term consequences.

Teenagers are capable of understanding principles and of using them to help make decisions. Anyone who delivers messages to teens about the consequences of decisions that could affect them and others for many years should be praised not criticized.

Bloomberg should next launch a public campaign about the value of marriage to adults, children and society. There will be at least as many critics of this message as the message that young people should avoid teen pregnancy. Good. The bigger the controversy, the more the media will cover the debate, and the more the nation will have the opportunity to reflect on what is at stake. I am confident that most Americans will conclude that organizations like Planned Parenthood have it wrong, and Bloomberg has it right.

Ben Shapiro states through a Brookings Institute study that a person needs to restrain his/her greed in only 3 specific areas to avoid poverty.

1) Don't have babies before you are married, and wait until you are 21 before you get married.

2) Finish high school.

3) Get a job.

Read that study, and you'll see that income inequality has a lot less to do with poverty than these 3 factors.

Redpill moment.

What if I told you that rich people are not in fact greedy as people like to portray, rather they generally sacrifice a lot of short term pleasures so they can afford long term investments and savings.

What if I told you that the greediest people are often made poor through their own greed by spending and consuming more than they make while never sacrificing short term desires to invest in themselves and in the future?

Do you really believe the rich steal from the poor? Like at gunpoint? Or are they just exploiting the greed of the poor?

Did you know Massachusetts (my state) took in nearly 1 billion dollars of revenue this year through the lottery which is mainly supported with the greed of the poor? (most lottery tickets are purchased by the poor who have no clue about the risk/reward calculations)

What do you think of that?

It's a cultural thing.

Norway still hasn't forgiven the UK for the battle of Hastings.

If that's true, forensic ballistic experts should be the ones crafting the bans.

plenty of black Obama voters voted for Trump.

Is this sarcastic?

Congress would never allow it as it would be a racist policy to have open borders with those nations and not Mexico.

Van Jones was right 2 years ago when he was caught on tape admitting it was a big nothingburger.

It's not survival of the fittest if you have safety nets for people with crappy DNA.

If you don't have income inequality, people won't be free to choose to be more productive and more competitive than others. They also won't be free to use their superior DNA to better society for all of us either.

Someone who works harder or chooses to be more productive than you shouldn't be mislabeled as greedy.

Everyone is greedy to a certain extent, whether they choose to work hard or not. These two concepts are not related at all. The issue is whether we allow a society that rewards hard work and hyper productive people that work 16 hours a day with 150 IQ or we have a society that punishes those people by enforcing income equality. 

The best policy for a thriving society is to have both incentives for people with superior DNA as well as a safety net for people with inferior DNA.

That means you must be willing to live in a world of income inequality as well as a codified tolerance for people with different levels of talent and ability. Anything less than that means you support some level of eugenics where the genetic extemes are culled or ostracized simply to achieve equal outcomes.