Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again with the shouldism'sLet Boltonism die off already.
Isn't bolton a war mongering Neo-Con? I'm sure he would love to funnel weapons and money to Israel and then attack Iran.
My point is the exact opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This statement sounds like a John Boltonism.America shouldn't be obligated to do jackshit.
Well i mean that is sort of my point. If Israel can agree to peace terms, then america wouldn't have to prop them up any more. But without looking like a dick and abandoning an ally.
That's why trump, instead of relentlessly sucking up to the criminal netanyahu, should instead be using that aid as leverage to get them to actually negotiate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So if I asked a Palestinian or Israeli: What do you care about more, a political party or a Religion. What do you think they would say?
that is a loaded question. If you asked a republican what is more important, religion or policy, alot of them are going to say religion. But then if you looked at their record that would not be the case.
They don't accept the same standards. Where is this court that is above both Israel and Palestine?
again, so just because there isn't a court that can try them for their theft, that means it isn't theft? That is a pretty terrible argument.
How would America benefit from peace?
They wouldn't have to send massive amount of aid to the Israelis or the Palestinians. They would get enhanced trade opportunities. Less conflict would likely lead to less attack on american troops and their allies in the region. There are countless ways america would benefit from peace.
You do understand the huge sums of money is being sent because the US is getting something out of it right?
What exactly do you think america is getting out of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Their only potential tactic to tank Bernie would be a Hillary endorsement lmao
lol i've seen them try to do something like that. I think it was a CNN segment where they tried to argue he was "washington insider" because he has been a senator for years.
You know CNN is out of ideas when they feel like painting a candidate as an experienced legislator is somehow an attack. I mean, most of their audience would probably think that is a good thing. The people who would think that is a bad thing aren't watching CNN anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only hope the DNC has at stopping Bernie is to chain him to the Senate for an elongated impeachment trial.
Even that isn't working. Bernie's surge has been happening while he has been stuck in the senate. Bernie has a super strong ground game. He also has strong surrogates out campaigning for him (AOC, Michael moore etc)
I don't think the establishment Dems have any method they can use to stop bernie. He has risen so much they can't just ignore him. And attacking him doesn't work either because people trust Sanders more than they trust corporate media outlets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And all he had to do was say that women can't be president. Then everyone realized "Yeah, they can't. Let's vote for a man instead". And now he is surging and she is dropping. Clear causation.
lol no. everyone saw that Warren is a political backstabber. That definitely hurt warren.
But in alot of these polls biden is down some, Butigieg is down by alot in some of them. It isn't just warren's people Sanders is picking up.
Created:
Posted in:
Bernie Sanders is having a huge surge. The national average shows the gap between Biden and Sanders closing significantly.
The average for Iowa shows Sanders leading (i believe within the margin of error).
The average for New Hampshire shows sanders really leading.
There hasn't been much polling for Nevada lately, but the 2 done in early January (before his big surge) show biden and sanders almost statistically tied with 1 point and 5 points between them.
Sanders is well placed to win 2 or even 3 of the first 4 states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Political because of either sides supposed past grievances which is covered with Religion?
There are certainly religious aspects to it. Access to religious holy sites for example. But I would argue it is much more about politics, land and power than religion.
Most of the world doesn't matter if they are not the people apart of the ordeal. Are they working under the same laws or not? Does Israel consider it theft?
lol is that a joke? Just because a thief doesn't consider it theft, doesn't mean it isn't theft. Of course Israel doesn't consider it theft. Almost everyone else disagrees.
I never asked this do you see how the US are more helped supporting Israel than Palestine?
No, not really. If the region were peaceful and not wracked by conflict america would benefit. Backing one side over the other and then pretending to be neutral only undermines american interests.
I said make an argument that isn't based on morality instead money, control or some other metric. Can you?
America spends huge sums of money propping up israel. They have spent decades pissing off arab powers in the region. This has created tensions, death and destruction for decades. This is not good for america or anyone else. Peace is good for business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Because of the Religious backing towards it with similar to the Palestinians?
Sorry, i'm not really sure what you mean. The main reasons they don't want peace are political.
Why does stealing matter when there isn't a unification on the law on either side?
They are occupying and settling land they do not own. That is theft. Most of the world acknowledges those settlements are illegal.
Do you understand that Israel is helpful to the US which is why they are support them?
That's the same argument the US used to back dictators and despots all over the world. And just as in those cases, taking israel's side on every issue is only prolonging conflict and killing people.
Can you make an argument that isn't moral?
Supporting Israel's continuing the abuse of innocent people and outright theft because it is politically expedient? I don't see how that could be moral at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If Israel wanted to they can genocide Palestine right? That means only 1 part is left therefore will be at "peace". correct? Do you agree that will create peace in Israel and Palestine area?
If only 1 side remains in a conflict, then yes that would bring about peace. But unless i missed something, no one is contemplating genocide. And short of that, there will always be Palestinians continuing the fight, unless they agree to a peace deal.
Do you agree if Israel really wanted "peace" they would've done so already or another way of saying this, if there was a war between Palestine and Israel who would win?
You kind of hit on my point. Israel doesn't want peace. They want to occupy as much of Palestine as they can. If they agreed to a peace deal and put down lines, then they would have to give back alot of the land they have stolen and stop stealing more. So instead they drag the process out as long as possible while putting more and more illegal settlements in place. They can gain much more by refusing to make a deal than they ever could by actually agreeing to something.
But since trump and his team are willing to back literally everything on Israel's wish list for screwing over the palestinians, Israel is signing onto the plan. But i'm guessing they are well aware that the palestinians would never consider this plan, so again, it is a political stunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Trump plan declared "support" for an independent, sovereign State of Palestine with a capital on the outskirts of East Jerusalem. The plan would involve the creation of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem, dependent on Palestinians taking steps to become self-governing.Silly goose.
you clearly didn't read very much about the deal. It makes it illegal for the palestinians to have a military and they would be perminently occupied by an "international force". The plan would make the palestinians a country in name only. They would occupied and subservient to others.
It's so funny the naysayer logic from the Orangemanbad crowd.Palestine doesn't care about Oranges.
I don't even think this abysmal plan is trump's fault, at least not directly. He put people in charge of it who obviously want to solely back Israel. I don't think trump had any part of writing this train wreck. But he did appoint the idiots who did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Can their be peace without Palestine accepting it?no.Why?
If 2 groups are fighting and one side is continuing to fight, then that isn't peace. You cannot unilaterally impose peace on people. Especially america trying to impose peace on the middle east by taking Israel's side on every issue.
Does peace require both sides to agree?
yes. If one side is continuing to fight, in what way is it peace?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Isn't is call the peace plan and isn't that what Trump wants?
I'm not sure what this means.
Can their be peace without Palestine accepting it?
no.
Isn't it call the peace plan?
Yes, but since one side isn't even going to discuss it, they can call it whatever they want. It is dead on arrival. And since the plan is so blatantly pro Israel, there was no other possible reaction this plan could have gotten. It is just a political stunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why add the purpose now since you didn't say it earlier?
I don't understand why you are focusing on the word peace. Trump is saying he has released a peace plan. But since the Palestinians are obviously not even going to talk to them about this, it clearly is not.
Why would a discussion about the definition of the word peace be relevant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Can you define peace?
for what purpose exactly?
We could go with:
"freedom from disturbance; tranquility."
or
"a state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely the only 2 things Israel wants is the Golan Heights and a limited right to return. That's not even close to being fucking unreasonable.
lol no. Trump's peace plan gives israel the jordan valley as well as east Jerusalem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
The Palestinian state would get $50 Billion dollars
in exchange for never getting most of their land back. That is a tiny, tiny compensation.
formal US recognition as a sovereign entity
so? the US will have to recognize any Palestinian state that eventually is created. This is in no way a concession to them.
and some land which they don't currently have
true. they would get some of their land back. Land they already own. But they would have to give up alot of land they currently own but Israel has stolen.
but it doesn't seem to be worse than the current status quo.
Maybe, maybe not. The proposed plan gives the Palestinians "a path" to becoming a state. There would still be time for Israel to dick them around some more.
The burden of action would then rest with these countries, and away from Israel.
no, it really wouldn't. Israel has stolen huge swathes of Palestinian land. Offering a token apology doesn't really change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
terrible move, leave them alone, there will never be peace, instead focus on securing North Africa as that's where the natural gas is,
that's just blatant imperialism.
better ourselves with the Kurds, and stabilize Iraq and support the Iraqi GOVERNMENT, not the protesters
both the iraqi government and the iraqi people are sick of the US and their murders and bombings.
Created:
Posted in:
you know what you can fk off with you libel accusations.
lol you are ashamed of your constant attacks on people who can't defend themselves so you attack others who point them out. That is right on point for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
no one is entitled to come to the U.S. especially illegally, every country has similar laws yet you think they are draconian?
every country has laws about who can and cannot come into it. That is normal, no one is arguing it should be otherwise. The problems in america is that the methods to enter the country legally are convoluted. You have to jump through tons of hoops, know the right people, or have the money to pay for ridiculously prices lawyers. The US system forces people who would love to be able to come legally to become illegals because there simply is no path they can take to do it legally.
Tulsi Gabbard: 'It's fair' to say 2020 Democrats advocate for 'open borders'
lol she literally says "I don’t — I don’t support open borders". do you even read your sources?
Most 2020 Democrats have now embraced decriminalizing illegal border crossings
that's true. But that has nothing to do with open borders. They could still be detained and would still be deported. It just wouldn't specifically be a criminal offense. This would remove the justification for the abuse, family separations and deaths that have occurred in ICE facilities. But that is definitely not an open border.
no it relies on them contributing more than they are taking as to not be a drain on citizens.
And even if the 1st generation do not achieve that, studies prove that all subsequent generations do. So it is an investment that virtually always pays off if you are willing to look more than 10 or 20 years down the road.
ahhh there we go, your true colors show, when all else fails call people racist, classic leftist tactic, you are so typical.
I said i couldn't be certain. You like to discriminate against foreigners, you like to discriminate against the poor too. so it's hard to say where exactly your bigotry/hate comes from.
I disagree with your opinion. costs are costs, businesses are in business to make money and not just eat their cost of production or operations.
lol that is so overly simplified that it's sad. If i said living things are living things, so a human and a Banana are exactly the same, it would have the same validity as the point you are trying to make.
if those owners want to keep their skilled laborers, then they would need to pay more.which is what has already been happening right? Many businesses have had to increase wages to get employees
no, no it has not. Wages have been stagnant for years now while corporate profits are way up. The destruction of unions in america has put all the power in the hands of employers so the vast majority simply refuse to increase wages.
Unions were useful once, now they are just corrupt business killers, very sad, I was in a union and very pro union.
There are very few unions left. The government along with big business crushed many of them into the dirt. So now they are free to suppress wages, lower safety standards and abuse workers as much as the law will allow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
nope not at all, consistent enforcement of current laws, not more.
consistent enforcement of broken, draconian laws. Yes we agree you are advocating for more government control and restrictions.
some of the candidates do.
lol who? Literally none of them advocate for open borders.
if that means it inhibits or takes more money from citizens, then yes.
oh, so no children should go to school. no roads should be built. there should be no military. All of those things inhibit or take money from citizens.
lol yeah sure, how about legal citizens? sure, some will, but how many? enough to offset all the ones that won't generate a positive, rather than a drain?
i honestly don't think there is any coherent thought in here. children of immigrants grow up to be adults. they are now normal citizens they same as you. they add to society in countless ways. That is one of america's primary strengths.
sure like the trickle down economy that didn't work either,
trickle down economics relies on charitible rich people deciding to do things they wouldn't normally do. Obviously it fails. Immigration just relies on people living their lives. Which obviously they are going to do.
we have massive debt but you are thinking generations into the future while the debt climbs and there is no guarantee that will be a boost with increased automation etc.
So i am thinking of america's future while you are thinking about... I honestly don't know what you are thinking about. It could be racism, it could just be a hatred of poor people or the idea of community in general. It's hard to tell, you are a bit all over the place.
not exactly, all that really matters is what you have to spend, not so much what you earn, also purchasing power. $15 per hour don't mean shit if gas is $10 a gallon, milk is $5 etc.
This is overly simplistic break down. You are assuming that workers making a living wage would drive up all prices. That simply isn't true.
it's no different when the price of gas spiked, trucking companies raised their prices due to increased costs as did the companies who used them to also offset increased costs, increase wages is an increased cost, you should expect prices will increase to offset those costs just like any other cost. that and small businesses will close. I fail to see how this would be beneficial.
A flawed comparison. When fuel prices went up, fuel companies made way more money. You are comparing the cost of a commodity to the cost of a service. They are very different things.
what about the people currently making $5 above minimum, do you think they will make $20? I think their pay will stay the same but their purchasing power will be less because of the increased costs that will happen.
If you believe in capitalism, then yes that is what would happen. if those owners want to keep their skilled laborers, then they would need to pay more. if, like me, you think capitalism is broken, then the owners would try to pay their workers as little as they can get away with. In that case we need much stronger unions so that workers can fight for proper wages. Hopefully, with a president Bernie Sanders that will happen.
Which economic system is all or nothing for you? which one do you find perfect and have no complaints with? I'm just dying to know.
social democracy. which is almost what america has now. A capitalist system to promote competition and growth with strong government regulations to ensure that growth and competition is healthy and in the best interest of society and the nation. It is the best parts of capitalism while putting breaks on the horrible side effects that come with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i'm not sure what that massive blob of text is supposed to be for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol that article doesn't say anything has changed lately in Hamas' support. Did you even read it?
"But Tehran, the main backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, dramatically reduced its support in early 2012""The movement also lost about $10m a month, said Mr Sabbah, when Egypt's Islamist President Mohammed Morsi was overthrown in 2013."
It says their level of support changed 8 years ago.
For all you know Iran will ramp up support Hamas as payback for the US' betrayals since trump became president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I1) Brexit.
how is this related to iran?
2) Shooting down of a plane with hundreds of Canadians and Ukrainians.
this was a tragic accident caused by the increased tensions from the US assassinating an Iranian government official. I don't think this has significant impact on international diplomacy.
3) Assassination of Soleimani.
If anything this solidifies foreign support for iran. They were the victim of a US sanctioned murder.
4) Iran declaring the Nuclear deal null and void with EU nations.
The US already did that. Why do you think this will, in any way, be blamed on Iran? That is 100% trump's fault.
Hamas isn't going to be funded anytime soon.
what does this even mean? nothing has changed in terms of the funding of hamas. You have provided no evidence that it has.
This is the ONLY thing that could possibly bring Hamas to the negotiating table.
Maybe. But if the US is unilaterally taking Israel's side on every issue, it doesn't matter how much pressure you put on Hamas. They will never agree to let Israel keep most of their land, which is what trump's "peace" plan does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
With what money?
They are a large country with a big population. The US has been trying to destroy Iran for decades. They have been applying "maximum pressure" for a long time. It didn't work and it isn't going to.
Even the most corrupt EU nations are too afraid to cross America's economic blockade of Iran now.
I don't see how this is relevant to your point. The US had already done that before they murdered Solemani. His death didn't change Iranian policy. what it did do is piss off alot of dangerous people who will be out for revenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no sane reason why Palestine can't be given a state without taking land from Israel. Tossing aside the terrorist argument.
Agreed. However Trump's plan means Israel refuses to give back any of the land they have been stealing. It makes the deal a non-starter.
There's also the Chance that Hamas might negotiate now that Trump cut off the ATM machine by killing Soleimani.
This sentence makes no sense. Solemani has already been replaced by an even more hard liner. His death did not change Iranian policy. If anything Iran will want it's allies to increase attacks for revenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I don't advocate for more laws lol that's what is currently happening with the dummycrats, do try to keep up.
You are advocating for draconian restrictions to immigration. That is more restrictive laws. Try to keep up.
obviously you don't know or understand what a pragmatic libertarian is.
I think those are opposite terms.
open borders or no restrictions is not a reform
correct. And literally no one is advocating for that. It is a straw man argument right wing people use to make their argument seem valid.
you should examine the financial examples with some of the cities that raised their minimum wages to $15 and see how they fared.
Because it becomes super easy for greedy corporations to move the job 1 town over. A nationwide law prevents that kind of dickishness.
Here's the nothing, there is no free stuff, you get that right? someone is paying for it right?
of course. We, as a society, collectively pay for government services.
Buffalo schools try to keep pace with kids speaking 83 languages
so because people need services provided, we should just prevent people from coming to america? That is a dumb argument.
where do you think the money comes from to pay for interpreters and all other needs? the money fairey?
It comes from tax revenue. Tax revenue those children will generate once they gain an education and get a job. From someone who likes to claim financial things are super important, you seem shockingly unaware of what investment is.
how about a school systems where the student population quickly increases because of illegals, they would need more teachers, infrastructure etc, again that's not free right?
correct. And those children will be a massive boost to the economy and pay back that investment many times over.
We can add in food and medical assistance, toss in some other entitlements and you think even $15 would offset those increased costs?You don't think with increase costs for a business via increased wages, they in turn wouldn't increase prices? I mean it's simple to figure out.
you're right, it is very simple. An educated workforce earning wages they can afford to live off of create a much larger and stronger economy. This in turn greatly increases the tax base and more than pays for the investment.
why are prices for pretty much everything so expensive in California? check out their gas and food etc. Isn't it the wealthiest state in the U.S.? so how could it also have the highest costs and no housing?
that's capitalism for you. You seem to complain about and praise the system at the same time. It is baffling how you hold such contradictory thoughts as true in your head at the same time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
It's hard to say. All potential solutions to the conflict have issues.
of course. It is a very complicated and difficult issue to resolve. But pretending like you are a neutral negotiator, then taking Israel's side on every issue is definitely not a path that is going to bring positive results.
We're aware that Palestine universally sponsors terrorism against Israel right?
You're aware that Israel is actively blockading food and medicine from being brought into Palestine? And that they are systematically stealing and settling land that belongs to the Palestinians?
The Palestinians have and continue to do shitty things to Israel. Israel has and continues to do shitty things to the Palestinians. Neither side is innocent in this. The difference is that israel holds most of the power in this relationship. They have billions in military hardware to pound the Palestinians with. They are occupying Palestinian land. Israel holds most of the cards but expects the Palestinians to make all the concessions.
Why do they need a state?
Israel could just decide to make them all Israeli citizens. But then Israel would become a palestinian dominated state so that is not going to happen. The only other possible path forward is to give the Palestinians their own state separate from israel.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump released what he is charitably calling a peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians. Essentially, the plan gives Israel everything they want and screws over the Palestinians about as hard as it could have.
Needless to say, the Israeli's love this plan, because they get everything they want. The Palestinians have dismissed it out of hand because it is stupid on the face of it.
The people around Trump obviously know this plan isn't going anywhere. It is a political stunt. It will help to bolster Netanyahu who just got indicted for corruption and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid going to prison. It will bolster Trump in certain evangelical and Jewish circles. But it has no chance of actually bringing peace. I mean the level to which the proposal is insulting to the Palestinians is likely to prompt an escalation of tensions. There's a decent chance this "deal" will make things worse.
But i'm honestly not sure if trump is smart enough to understand this plan isn't going anywhere. He might know it is just a stunt for a few cheap political points. Or he might honestly believe that he is some kind of brilliant statesman who can solve the issues of the middle east by picking sides and pissing people off. If the people around him told him that was what this was, he would probably believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'll get to your other stuff later, but you honestly want to go down this road? The founding principles of America are violated by almost every law you propose.
no, no they are not.
Most matters are meant to be handled by states.
That's just because the states wanted to be free to do whatever they want. A state government being in charge of something is not fundamentally different to a national government running it. It just makes it alot easier to use money and influence to get laws you want in 1 state.
Department of Education? Unconstitutional.
lol no. The constitution doesn't say the government doesn't have the power to do that. It isn't explicitly included one way or the other. If you want to say that any power not granted by the constitution shouldn't be had by the government, then the government would be completely useless as technology and society change. You would be virtually guaranteeing the death of democracy and rule by an oligarchy.
Universal Healthcare? Well, that duty wasn't given to the federal government, so... unconstitutional. The list goes on......
again, just because the constitution doesn't say something, doesn't make the government doing something "unconstitutional". The constitution doesn't say anything about who has the power to create laws about the internet. By your logic no one should be able to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
liberty like more unconstitutional laws and restrictions?
You are, in this very argument, advocating for more laws and restrictions that run contrary to the founding principles of america.
yep it used to be about liberty, the only liberty is libertarians which you are not so I'm not sure you have much to point fingers at.
Libertarians want the freedom for corporations and the rich to do whatever they want to everyone else. Forgive me if I don't believe the tyranny of the rich is better than governing by democracy.
Imagine if all these illegals, unskilled works were now making $15 per hour?
If immigration was reformed, then they wouldn't be illegal. Problem solved.
imagine if all these illegals, unskilled works were now making $15 per hour? that would be an even larger drain on the economy since prices will go up drastically.
lol imagine if poor people got paid enough to live on?!?!?! the horror. if they don't live in abject poverty, you might have to pay a bit more for your products. You just come off as someone who is fine forcing others to live in poverty and squalor so the rich can get MUCH richer and you can save a few bucks on consumer goods.
a fruit picker with a family can not contribute more to the economy than what they use, schools, other public services, healthcare etc.
Why? That argument doesn't even make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Was there extortion? Nope just rumors that it might have happened, but didn't.
you keep repeating this over and over as if you have some information that supports this. But we both know you don't. You have a bunch of liars willing to repeat this ad nausium on cable TV, but when asked to testify under oath fight against it tooth and nail. If they really were innocent, they would have testified.
they aren't confirming a crime, so what exactly are they confirming, just their assumptions, sure they used different words but they are just opinions and assumptions.
trump has committed lots of crimes. He doesn't even try to hide many of them. But the cover up of the Ukraine scandal was illegal.
riiightt and they didn't bring them because they were just being nice? LOL
no, because people on the right don't care that Trump is incredibly corrupt. It doesn't matter to you that he has been enriching himself from the presidency and selling out US policy. As long as he is "owning the libs" you will keep supporting him no matter what he does and how many crimes he commits.
again no one ever batted an eye when Biden threaten to hold billion dollars if they didn't fire an attorney, yet you want Trump to go through the FBI to ask another country to do their own investigation into something. somehow that's not extortion?
1) It wasn't Biden's idea to that. He was just the one that went and carried it out.
2) neither Biden, nor the people who made the decision to do that had anything to gain from it personally
You are comparing extortion for personal gain to fairly regular diplomacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
lol not if they didn't know it, you can't extort someone without them knowing you are doing in this manner, the "witnesses" for the Democrats have admitted on video the Ukranians didn't know it was being delayed.
The people involved in the extortion have refused to testify. So saying they didn't know is ridiculous because the people who would actually know the answer to that question have actively refused to answer it under oath.
irrelevant, innocent until proven guilty.
He isn't being accused of a crime at present, so that statement is irrelevant.
I don't believe those were the charges they brought, in fact they dropped a few of them they started out with.
true. He has committed WAY more impeachable acts than just what they brought. They should have brought alot more. I mean his emoluments clause violations alone should have gotten him impeached.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not afraid of them. I want immigrants, just not 30-year-old men with 8th grade educations. I want people who have skills that will contribute vastly for our economy. I'm not really in favor of uneducated manual laborers, as they end up costing a lot more than they provide.
So you want immigrants, you just only want the ones with money.
It depends on the second-generation immigrant's country of origin more or less. Countries with bad education systems and other programs that help them develop skills generally send immigrants that cost us.
Countries don't "send" people to america.
In the instance of 2nd generation Mexican immigrants (and over half of all immigration comes from Mexico currently), they still receive welfare at higher rates than natives and many other immigrant groups.
1) please provide evidence of that
2) even if it were slightly higher (which you haven't proven yet), that doesn't mean that they are costing us money. If they have a 1% higher rate, they would still be a massive net positive.
3) even if they were a net loss, that would likely be our fault anyway. If those children couldn't get a proper education because of xenophobic, anti immigrant policies, then we are only worsening the problem. The answer would be to provide better education to immigrant children, not to try to prevent immigrants coming.
IDGAF where you are from, I just don't want you costing me money, so your jibberish about xenophobia is ridiculous.
sorry, I forgot you hate all poor people equally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
again his defense has debunked anything that could be considered "strong arm' tactics.
He withheld aid hours after a call with them. That's extortion.
The video shows all those who testified, even the ambassador etc and they all admit the Ukraine didn't know about the aid, everything is just their opinion and assumptions.
The trump administration blocked most people from testifying. So saying the very few people who defied orders to testify can't confirm something is in no way evidence it didn't happen.
Think about it though and ask from any U.S. president is a pretty big deal and he knew that, but doesn't make it a crime.
It was blatant abuse of office. The cover up was criminal though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that I don't know, I don't know the process for doing that, nor do I know if he couldn't actually ask for it, but again even lifelong democrats are defending him on this issue.
A president can ask members of the US government to investigate. the FBI or congress for example. He cannot send his own political bagman to a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political rival and use his office to extort the government of that country into co-operating.
If trump had asked for an investigation, everything would have been fine. He didn't ask for an investigation. He ordered her personal lawyer (who hired criminals) to go and dig up dirt on a political rival. He then used the power of his office to extort a foreign government to help.
He then engaged in a cover after the fact, during which he likely committed some crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Oh no! I'm shaking in my boots! Please don't call me a fascist or a Nazi now!
Xenophobes don't have to be facist or nazis. But they are afraid of "others" and make up reasons to vilify and target them. which is exactly what you are doing.
Considering that over 50% of immigrant-led households are on welfare, I have yet to see that.
And how many 2nd generation immigrant families are on welfare? How much value to do those immigrants add to society?
Does america make as much income on an immigrant as it makes of a native citizen, statistically no. But they add a massive boost to america's otherwise stagnant and even declining population. Their children will be native born citizens who add huge amounts of value.
Supporting immigrants is not a burden. It is an investment that pays off many times over. If you stopped immigrants from coming you would save some money now, but cost a complete fortune in the future. Your financial argument is bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you are missing the point I'm trying to explain, if what she says is true, then it would be justified for him to ask for an investigation, therefore not an impeachable offense
No one has ever argued that the president can't ask for an investigation. He certainly can. What he can't do is send his personal attorney to dig up dirt on his political rivals and strong arm foreign governments into helping. If trump had asked congress or the FBI to investigate, this wouldn't be a scandal and he wouldn't have gotten impeached. But what he did was an abuse of office.
it also has a strong potential to drag them in to testify and or be further investigated.
I have no issue with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Want to talk about how far the left has sunk? Letting in people who will cost us billions just for votes is sinking kind of low.
So the left has sunk to the level of doing exactly what america has always done? Oh my god. How will america ever recover.....
Also, I already explained that the idea that immigrants cost america money is stupid. So no, I reject your flawed xenophobia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are we discussing crime when describing the 2020 impeachment?False equivalency.
how so?
Besides, history is written by the coastal elites, so the left can do whatever the fuck they want and abuse power and still be on the right side of history.
The "coastal elites" as you call them are not the left. They are the center right. As you can see right now, when an actual left candidate shows up, those coastal elites attack to protect their financial interests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you may want to watch it then, there appears to be a lot of information that wasn't revealed, selectively, and if true I can see why they wouldn't want the public to know it.
How would it be relevant? Even if Biden were the worst criminal in american history, that doesn't in any way excuse trump committing crimes and abusing his office.
if what she says is true then I think there is an argument to validate asking for an investigation into the energy company etc, which would then negate any sort of "crime" they are trying to dream up with regards to that one issue.
If they want to investigate, they can go for it. It would in no way invalidate trump's impeachment though. It's like the difference between "I think my neighbor stole my snow blower so I will break into his garage to check" and "I think my neighbor stole my snow blower so i will call the cops".
Trump abused the power of his office and committed crimes. Whether or not Biden is guilty of something is a completely different discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, a POEM from 1883 is where we should get our immigration advice from. It is on the Statue of LIBERTY- not the statue of immigration.
Just showing how far the right has sunk. America used to about liberty and the american dream for anyone who would come and fight for it. Now the right just wants to attack and keep everyone out unless they can profit from them. The right wants to destroy the foundation of america.
Second of all, we didn't have a bloated welfare state back then, so that wasn't even a consideration when taking in new immigrants. So, nice try.
And most of those immigrants will go on and get jobs and pay back the investment. And then their children and grand children will get jobs and pay it all back many, many times over. The idea that immigrants are a drain on society is stupid and extremely short sighted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money? We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.
Lol america was literally founded on this idea. America is a country of immigrants. America has gone from:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
To:
Get the fuck out unless you have money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well i didn't watch it. But I can't imagine any theoretical reasoning. "Joe might be corrupt so I committed some crimes" isn't a strong defense. Or any defense at all for that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well I'm obviously not going to watch a 30 minute video for this. But I honestly do not see how Joe Biden matters. If you murder a guy, it doesn't matter what the victim of the murder did. He could be a terrible criminal but you are still a murderer and would be arrested.
Trump committed crimes and abused the power of his office. Whether or not Biden is corrupt is kind of beside the point. Trump was impeached for his crimes and abuses, not Joe's. Whether or not Joe is guilty of stuff too doesn't matter for the purposes of his impeachment. If they want to go after joe after they are done impeaching Trump, I would be fine with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's because it's in the interests of the U.S and it's Israeli puppeteers to have a destabilised Middle East.
Yeah. America is an imperialist power trying to set up client states they can steal resources from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
although I do agree with him that the EU needs to pay up or modify the 2% clause of the NATO treaty.
Fair enough. they need to modify the treaty to lower the 2% clause. But if they tried to do that, trump would throw a fit.
However, just as I would pick Trump over Hillary, the EU would pick the US over China I think.
why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Iran FUNDED the militias,
So? If you gave a guy 20 buck and he used that to buy a weapon and commit a crime, did you commit the crime? The US has been funding and arming terrorists for decades.
Iran supports Shia militias. Those shia militias attacked america. There is no evidence that the US government has provided that Iran was in any way linked to those attacks.
The us is stopping blatant intervention in iraq
ok. So the US, a country from the other side of the planet, is occupying a middle eastern country and murdering people to stop "intervention" by the people who live there. That is really dumb. America is the interventionist in this scenario.
USA helped Iraq
by toppling their government, destroying their country and killing 100's of thousands, if not millions, of people. You have a seriously twisted idea of what help means.
we destroyed ISIS
america helped create ISIS. It was the kurds and the shia militias that primarily defeated ISIS. one could argue Iran had more to do with the defeat of isis than the US did.
and was going to make finally an effective government
how are they planning to do that? The US government shattered iraq and killed countless people. It has been trying for years now to put it back together and has failed miserably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
invasion of iraq with shia militias
So iraqi citizens formed a militia and invaded their own country.... and so the US had no choice but to commit an act of war against Iran without providing any evidence that Iran was involved. Do you see how stupid that sounds?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
While you didn't argue for it directly, you did so indirectly. That is what unions do- they offer job security. That means that incompetent people who don't do a very good job cannot be fired, and I have a problem with that, which is why I think unions should be limited.
lol you are taking one small downside of a union and trying to use that as an argument to dismantle unions.
Perhaps you think the benefits outweigh the cons, but that is still a very real problem.
ok, so advocate for a way of reforming unions, not destroying them. It's like saying people can choke on food so no one should ever eat. It's just dumb.
I want a world in which employers and employees are on an even negotiating ground. You seem to want employers to be slaves to employees and must give what the workers want or risk going out of business. Not really a strawman because it just happened and you want to give them even more power.
Lol you are straw manning me and you know that you are doing it because you are trying to justify it while you do it. I have never said I want employees to have more power than their employers.I said I want them on even ground. Most unions are nowhere near that now. Many companies simply smash any attempt to unionize at all. That is why we need laws to strengthen unions.
Why are you assuming that all companies will make their workplace less safe?
history. Human nature. Greed. Take your pick.
Yes, they want to reduce costs, but at the same time, they want the best workers.
not usually no. They want to maximize profit. If the best worker costs 50% more and earns them 20% more money, they will go for the cheaper employee. Higher skilled workers sometimes increase profit. But cheaper employees always save money.
You obtain the best workers by offering better incentives, such as better pay and workplace conditions.
And if all companies have shitty, unsafe worker places? then they don't have to worry about doing those things because it is literally not an option anywhere the employee could go.
Do you believe that people are entitled to be able to stay in one town and make plenty of money? Because that is the only alternative to "move to where the jobs are".
you are missing the point. Employers everywhere want to screw over their employees. Whether you move or not is largely irrelevant. Your boss wants to pay you as little as possible. He wants to pay as little as possible on maintaining his employees (safety equipment, lunch room furnature etc). saying that an employee can just move, I mean you might as well tell them to move to narnia to get a better job.
I mean, you just finished praising how centrally-planned Russia was super productive, but I suppose you didn't.
I was responding to your comment about how america's laissez faire capitalism industrialized faster that russia. That was a lie. I was pointing out that was a lie. You wanted to pretend like laissez faire capitalism was a requirement for industrialization when that obviously isn't true.
Well, do you think that American and Russian prisoners are equal?
no, they lock up much fewer of their people than america does.
We have rule of law here and we lock up murderers, sex offenders, etc. One group is less deserving of that pity, and I would even argue that productive prison labor could aid rehabilitation.
America also locks people up for carrying around a small amount of marijuana or trying to actually enforce your rights to a cop.
Case law and juries could determine a case-by-case basis on that rather than having tons of hard to understand and broad regulations. Negligence has typically always been defined through case law.
It is always seen through the prism of labor laws though. If the law says you must make X safety precaution and the employer didn't do that, then that is negligence. If the law says the employer doesn't have to take any precautions at all and they chose to put in some minor safety precautions, then they have exceeded what was required of them. That wouldn't be seen as negligence.
of course there would be. Because the law requires employers to protect their workers. It has for decades. Do you think there was a shit storm when am employee got killed in say the 1920's. There wasn't because it was just normal. If we repealed regulations, things would start sliding back in that direction.Well, unions began rioting and such, so I guess there was.
When exactly are you referring to? You seem to jump around alot in the timeline so it is hard to keep straight.
Well, employers have a duty of care to keep their workers safe.
true. That duty was established by law. They didn't use to have that duty until the government said they did.
I think it should work like this: there should be severe penalties and law suits if workers are injured or killed on the job of no/little fault of their own. It should be at the owner's discretion how they structure their workplace, but they should greatly fear consequences of not being safe.
But this allows the courts to have the exclusive ability to determine worker rights. If the courts decide the employee is always in the wrong, companies can do whatever they want to whoever they want. The 1 place that we the people have a voice in determining what the rules should be is the government. The judiciary was not intended to decide what rights people should have.
I don't care for stupid OSHA standards that say a step must be a certain amount of inches long. Things like that are just ridiculous, the employer should be in charge of that.
Actually studies have shown that even small changes in the high or length of stairs significantly increases the odds of people falling on the stairs and increasing injuries and deaths. Having a consistent high and length of stairs saves lives. There is no reason that an employer should need to determine what the right stair height is.
People might be upset for a little while. But in a matter of days or weeks something would happen that would distract them and everyone forgets all about it. It happens all the time.They find out it happened. The company likely gets sued. The end.
assuming the employee can afford the court costs. Assuming the courts don't take a que from the government and decide that the employer has the right to decide what safety precautions are reasonable. there are just way too many ways for working class people to get screwed over relying on that. But the government needs those working class people to vote for them and therefore has much more reason to protect those workers.
Created: