dustryder

Ahh.... now we get to the crux of your problem with the current system. The fact that there is a conservative majority. I bet you had no criticisms of this system before. 

Bernie proposed rotating courts.

How would voting within a certain amount of days help? The Senate has filibusters.

really,  so some mind readers know that if the person didn't have a gun they wouldn't have found another method, amazing.

Tests do exist in Finland, but they don't put so much unnecessary emphasis on tests, and only teach to the test, the way the United States does.

Other countries like Canada actually seem to have it much better than the United States in terms of education.

You asked about what school was like a long time ago and I showed how, so it's not meaningless.

They deceived us by making us think these policies would help us when instead they hurt us.

They corrupted our school system by forcing them to focus only on teaching to the test. Look at other countries like Finland who do not focus on teaching to the test, and their education system is better as a result.

This is a basic summary of what schools were like before I was born. https://www.quora.com/What-was-high-school-like-30-years-ago

It talks about how "30 years ago, you actually had teachers that taught classes and kids understood what was going on. The teachers took their time to make sure kids knew the material which is different from today’s high school. Students didn’t have smart phones 30 years ago people wasn’t on their phone while the teacher was instructing the lesson."

It also talks about how "Food wasn’t processed like it is now you actually had cafeteria lady’s who cooked from scratch, but now it’s just straight up food you have to reheat and then serve it. Graduation rates was higher 30 years ago now it’s lower because you have more people getting pregnant and people joining gangs."

I wasn't trying to say that learning how to do basic calculations was bad. I guess I should have phrased my words differently so it wouldn't sound like I was saying that. I was just saying that schools teach us too many things that we would not really remember in like a year or two and also puts too much emphasis on standardized test. Like how can a test be like 50 to 80 percent of your grade?! That is just insane! It should be divided more evenly, so 25% of this counts to tests, and 25% counts for that, and the other 25% counts for this, and so on.

It applies here because Barack Obama was being dishonest towards Americans by ruining the American education system.

His policy, in a way, was a "bribery" towards schools that showed high test scores and also a punishment towards schools that did not show high test scores.

This forces just about every public school to focus on teaching to the test instead of teaching more useful stuff, resulting in a worse society since you now have students who know how to calculate (-B+-(((4/AC)/(2A))^(1/2))) but don't know how to do other more important things, and we have schools with bad kids who don't get punished because of Obama's policies, and we tend to forget a lot of what we learned in school, all because of Barack Obama and George Bush's policies.

Non vaccinated people are only a risk to themselves and other non vaccinated people, it's a choice.  Though i find it ironic those who want mandatory vaccination but want more people from other countries who probably aren't vaccinated.

So basically, to "fight climate change" we would have to stop using electricity, stop using any kind of transportation, stop building, and stop farming.

~~

Also, you can't shower or do laundry either 'cause apparently those too emit greenhouse gases, nor can you have access to any kind of news like a newspaper since those too are only possible due to cutting down trees for paper and using energy.

I'm aware that "clean energy" sources such as Solar Panels and Windmills exist, but those things, especially solar panels, have proven to be unreliable. Back in 2018 I stayed in a solar-powered house, and oftentimes the air conditioner would stop, since the solar panel that powered it wasn't getting enough sunlight, and I was left to deal with the 100+ (farenheit) temperatures and sleep in a bed soaking in my sweat. Since the Wi-Fi and surveillance cameras were also solar-powered, those too would often shut down at random when there wasn't enough sunlight. With windmills, you aren't always going to get wind.

Many facilities such as hospitals cannot afford to risk relying on unreliable energy source, since there are people who depend on some machine just to stay alive and that machine needs to be functioning 24 hours a day regardless if there is wind or sun. Police departments and Fire departments need to be able to respond to emergencies with reliable energies like fossil fuels; the last thing they need is a solar panel or windmill failing to operate 'cause there wasn't enough wind or sun, and then getting someone killed because of that.

So America first. Army should be used to defend our borders, not police the planet. Military-industrial complex is out of control.

I dont see a problem with it

While it can result "in an immediate increase to an income" it doesn't ALWAYS result in that. It can also, just as easily, result in your hours being reduced to compensate for the wage increase, your prices going up, and/or you getting fired from your job since your employer is now unable to afford to pay you the new wage without going out of business. When that happens, you won't HAVE any extra money to boost the economy with, since you will just have no money and/or no job.

Stormy Daniels admitted her Trump story was an invented lie

The problem with the first option is that, whenever you raise the minimum wage, especially by that much, businesses that can't afford to pay that much will have to either fire employees to compensate, raise prices and push the wage increase to the consumers, or go out of business. Makes me wonder why people are fighting for only 15 dollars an hour. Why stop at 15 when they're actually going to need a lot more money than that anyways, especially if you look at "1 Adult 1 Child" and "1 Adult 2 Children" which require a minimum of $31.99 and $41.54, respectively? Not to mention you risk hurting the very people that an increase in minimum wage are supposed to help, since they could lose their jobs outright, and have no money.

The second and third options seem like the best ones to me. In fact, it looks like you can save the most money by having just "2 Adults" with no children, based on what their data, on Queens New York, shows.

Living wages can and do change, based on the decisions that we make. If I am an adult with no kids, then my living wage, according to the data, will be 17 dollars and 46 cents. If I then make the decision to get married, it will go down to 12 dollars and 10 cents. If I then have a kid, it will change back up to 31 dollars and 99 cents. You also have to take into the account the number of hours that I work and how many days off I take for vacations and whatnot. Those too can affect my living wage and/or cause it to change. If living wages do not change, then shouldn't it stay at 17 dollars regardless if I have kids or not, or regardless what decisions I make?

This is the problem with dustryder's claim that "the US minimum wage is already less than half of the US living wage." The so-called "minimum amount you need to provide for basic necessities." varies from place to place and from family to family, and the people claiming that the entire United States needs to ensure that everybody gets a full living wage, including dustryder and linate (the original poster), often don't take that into account.

Like the youtuber Anthony Brian Logan said, if I choose to not have kids, to save my money, to eat only 1 or 2 meals a day, to ride a bike to work or walk there instead of taking a car, to avoid as much debt as possible, to avoid spending on unnecessary things that I don't need like decorations, and live in a cheap home, then my "living wage" will be much lower, and I could actually afford to live decently with my minimum wage, as opposed to someone next door who makes the poor decision to have kids at an early age (which will cost them more money), chooses to purchase fancy things that they don't need (which costs them more), chooses to own an expensive car (which costs them more), and makes poor life choices which results in debt (costing them more).

What is wrong with a poor person getting a better job that doesn’t require a college degree?

How do they get in, then? If your claim is that most illegal immigrants are people who overstay their visas, I have a response to that, but first I'd like to know if this is what you're referring to. 

There's little reason to believe any of the official estimates put out by the government, but let's just say it's true. The number is always fluctuating, and still remains far above zero. It's also a lot higher than 

There is little use for an incomplete wall. Can you figure out why? 

If the wall couldn't be completed while Trump was still president, then whether it ever got finished or not would largely depend on whether the democrats agreed not to sabotage the project. If the wall is in fact a good idea, then, unless you think democrats are not open to reason, it wouldn't be rational to abandon the idea just because democrats are currently opposed to it. 

The wall would be a small expense relative to the overall government budget. The estimated cost is around 20 billion dollars, which less than 1 percent of what the government spends every year, and the wall would only have to be built once. Border Patrol already receives 4 billion in annual funding, so 20 billion is not an unreasonable amount to spend to make it possible for Border Control to actually do its job. 

"Presumably, advocating on behalf of any harmful policy idea is harmful to society"

There is plenty of speech with the potential to harm society.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. - Matthew 7:1-5