The Political Discussion Thread

[LtColCarter]

In other words, the law, nor the constitution matter to you, only a result you agree with.
THAT is why you are a trump flunkie.
And you want to stack the branch of government you view as the most important with other flunkies who neither care about the law, or the constitution under the guise of "originalists"?
You have the excuse of not knowing the law, what is theirs?

That is about accurate when talking about Annoying and most right wingie dingies.

[aretood2]

Just because we help overthrow some dictator doesn't make us responsible for the care, feeding and health care for the entire country till the end of time.
And maybe we're coming to our senses.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-I...ive-Households



When did they rewrite “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” to read: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to freeload off the taxpayer” ?

The problem with CIS is that they measure households, not people. Here's a CATO response to CIS style studies and the issues with CIS's methodologies:
https://www.cato.org/blog/center-imm...nt-welfare-use

One issue that CATO didn't point out is whether or not CIS counts naturalized citizens as natives or immigrants. Oops.

The first issue is that CIS counts the welfare use of households, which includes many native-born American citizens, rather than individuals. There might be some good reasons to do this but the immigrant-headed household variable CIS uses is ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons. To CIS’ credit they try to separate out households with children but didn’t separate out American-born spouses.

It goes on to list several other issues. Here is a CATO study that looks at per capita expenditures of welfare, they found that per capita, that is by person to person, welfare spending among natives outpaces that of immigrants. Just look at the graphs.

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...tive-use-rates

CIS is known for taking statistical short cuts. They aim to prove their point not to disprove it. That's the major methodological pitfall. The point of science, even soft sciences, is to try to find proof against your assumptions, not in favor. You see, CIS doesn't question its own findings the way CATO questions its own findings by trying to account for pitfalls in their results.

[Chaka-Z0]

History the USA has meddled in other countries for their own benefit. They're no different to the bad guys they castigate.

Well that's a rash conclusion which I do not really agree with. Those dictators had it coming, I never said what the US did was a mistake. They took it upon themselves to settle things down in the South and should also endorse the social aftermath caused by their military coup.

If you want to go down that road, European countries are really no better in meddling

Don't forget the rival caveman tribe that ended the Houga-Bouga line.

Just because we help overthrow some dictator doesn't make us responsible for the care, feeding and health care for the entire country till the end of time.
And maybe we're coming to our senses.

Just like a douche-bag father that leaves town after getting his girl pregnant eh?

I agree and nobody said anything about inviting the entire population of Venezuela for a tailgate party, we're talking about thousands. You (Trumpists) are literally looking at an ant with a magnifying glass thinking it's a Reetu.

[Chaka-Z0]

The problem with CIS is that they measure households, not people. Here's a CATO response to CIS style studies and the issues with CIS's methodologies:
https://www.cato.org/blog/center-imm...nt-welfare-use

One issue that CATO didn't point out is whether or not CIS counts naturalized citizens as natives or immigrants. Oops.


It goes on to list several other issues. Here is a CATO study that looks at per capita expenditures of welfare, they found that per capita, that is by person to person, welfare spending among natives outpaces that of immigrants. Just look at the graphs.

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...tive-use-rates

CIS is known for taking statistical short cuts. They aim to prove their point not to disprove it. That's the major methodological pitfall. The point of science, even soft sciences, is to try to find proof against your assumptions, not in favor. You see, CIS doesn't question its own findings the way CATO questions its own findings by trying to account for pitfalls in their results.

I am not one bit surprised, and I actually am surprised that there is a form of welfare in the US considering that individual freedoms are key to the way of life and culture of many Americans. I believe it will take generations before any significant change can be done unfortunately.

[Annoyed]

The problem with CIS is that they measure households, not people. Here's a CATO response to CIS style studies and the issues with CIS's methodologies:
https://www.cato.org/blog/center-imm...nt-welfare-use

One issue that CATO didn't point out is whether or not CIS counts naturalized citizens as natives or immigrants. Oops.


It goes on to list several other issues. Here is a CATO study that looks at per capita expenditures of welfare, they found that per capita, that is by person to person, welfare spending among natives outpaces that of immigrants. Just look at the graphs.

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...tive-use-rates

CIS is known for taking statistical short cuts. They aim to prove their point not to disprove it. That's the major methodological pitfall. The point of science, even soft sciences, is to try to find proof against your assumptions, not in favor. You see, CIS doesn't question its own findings the way CATO questions its own findings by trying to account for pitfalls in their results.

That's the problem with statistics in general. They can be twisted to support any point of view you want them to.

[Annoyed]

Well that's a rash conclusion which I do not really agree with. Those dictators had it coming, I never said what the US did was a mistake. They took it upon themselves to settle things down in the South and should also endorse the social aftermath caused by their military coup.

Just like a douche-bag father that leaves town after getting his girl pregnant eh?

I agree and nobody said anything about inviting the entire population of Venezuela for a tailgate party, we're talking about thousands. You (Trumpists) are literally looking at an ant with a magnifying glass thinking it's a Reetu.

So, our military intervention was not a mistake, you seem to agree with it, and you still think we are responsible for the care,feeding and support of the people of that country?

Here's an idea. How about Canada step up and provide free food, housing and whatever else the people of that country need? And you can start sending aircraft to Mexico to provide transportation to all those migrants to Ottawa, and your government can take them all in, and your welfare system (taxpayers) can feed, clothe and house them as well.

And finally, this has been a problem for a long time, well before Trump ever got into politics. So, just calling people Trumpists doesn't fly either.

[SoulReaver]

I actually am surprised that there is a form of welfare in the US considering that individual freedoms are key to the way of life and culture

how's that a contradiction?

[Chaka-Z0]

I have no problem whatsoever with Canada helping them out. I give a lot to charity myself, I've done a Christmas hamper campaign last year and delivered over 500$ worth of groceries to two local families. I've been donating ever since I started working at the age of 16. Canada brought in 25k Syrian refugees during the crisis. We went back a bit during the 8 years of conservative reign, but we're slowly getting back to where we were before, our PM is actively seeking a seat at the UN council. People see Canada as this huge country, sure it's big but our population is very low compared to other developped countries. We still do more than our part to help. Let me ask you this, when was the last time you actually helped someone? I'm not talking about giving money, that's easy.

Difference between me and you is that I see humanity as a whole and don't make distinctions by national identities.

[Chaka-Z0]

how's that a contradiction?

Individual freedom= I will only pay for what I use and screw everybody else? Why do you think so many Americans are against free healthcare?

[SoulReaver]

Individual freedom= I will only pay for what I use and screw everybody else? Why do you think so many Americans are against free healthcare?

at least welfare's when citizens ask for it

most recent example Coco Pops posted this link: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/41...-while-holding

that was basically citizens' taxes at work & against their will so why aren't the neocons complaining about that one?

[Annoyed]

I have no problem whatsoever with Canada helping them out. I give a lot to charity myself, I've done a Christmas hamper campaign last year and delivered over 500$ worth of groceries to two local families. I've been donating ever since I started working at the age of 16. Canada brought in 25k Syrian refugees during the crisis. We went back a bit during the 8 years of conservative reign, but we're slowly getting back to where we were before, our PM is actively seeking a seat at the UN council. People see Canada as this huge country, sure it's big but our population is very low compared to other developped countries. We still do more than our part to help. Let me ask you this, when was the last time you actually helped someone? I'm not talking about giving money, that's easy.

Difference between me and you is that I see humanity as a whole and don't make distinctions by national identities.

A few weeks ago; older woman who lives alone across the street was struggling with some overgrowth in the creekbed next to the house; same creek runs next to my own, and I was cleaning it up with the weedeater. Went over and did hers too. (before she slipped and fell trying to do it on her own)

[Chaka-Z0]

Sorry I wasn't specific, by you I meant your country. Trump pretty much got rid of the few environmental and humanitarian initiatives the US was involved with.

[jelgate]

Should we mention how he can't be bothered to go in the rain to honor fallen soldiers

[SoulReaver]

Should we mention how he can't be bothered to go in the rain to honor fallen soldiers

he prefers his showers golden

[Annoyed]

Sorry I wasn't specific, by you I meant your country. Trump pretty much got rid of the few environmental and humanitarian initiatives the US was involved with.

Maybe that's because those environmental initiatives were basically schemes to tax the US and its citizens for energy use while giving a pass to numerous other nations.

As far as humanitarian aid goes, we have always been more than generous to people who have been the victims of natural disasters and such. What did we get for it? Scorn from the very nations we've helped?
Why is the U.S. supposed to be the world's banker when it comes to various aid programs?
Isn't that one of the functions of the U.N.? How much aid could the UN deliver if it dropped its BS and spent that money on humanitarian aid?