Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Don't forget his disregarding of the Constitution something you go on about other presidents. But hey if the president is on your side it doesn't matter? It was also morning when you posted this. You remembered i love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

I've said that I don't think this is a good solution. I don't like the precedent that it sets. I think it would have been better if he stuck to his guns on the first shutdown, eventually, the Democrats would have caved.

But as I've also repeatedly said, this illegal immigration problem has been ongoing for more than 40 years. It is long past time to fix it, by any means necessary.

Looking at it from the Democrat's and other open border people's viewpoint, they would have been better off to deal, too. They could have gotten protection for the Dreamers as part of a deal. If you recall, Trump did make an offer regarding that last year. But they threw it back in his face.

Now, it's likely he's gonna get the wall, and the Democrats get zilch on the Dreamers.

[Annoyed]

Shred it?
Yeah, ok, I'm sure you will "get to it" at about the same rate you challenge other facts, I.E. NEVER.
And how much was based on your boy trumps federal tax breaks?
3 billion is not a frigging blip on their radar, but a 15+ percent over a company is tens of billions.
Wake up man, wake up.

Actually, your "details" are quite public.

Actually, you could, and you could crap all over Australia's policies.
That's the value of education.

So, your dodge now is "I can't get it"?

Maybe this article will help you understand things a bit better.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/17/democr...t-over-amazon/

At any rate, Cuomo and de Blasio forgot that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her socialist ilk tend to see capitalism in any form as evil. Her side didn’t want Amazon to get taxpayer help and demanded instead that it be forced to contribute millions to schools and subways.

At the heart of their argument is a narrow view of private rights, one that believes government should use its immense power to make it nearly impossible for companies to operate unless they fund the pols’ social-justice and climate-change boondoggles.

When the clash is a binary one like this one, the so-called moderates clearly have a more reasonable view. After all, incentive-based private-sector growth has been a guiding principle of urban development for decades as officials override the thicket of laws and regulations they create to lure new buildings and jobs.

Naturally, the sweetheart deals *often involve pay-to-play campaign contributions to the pols from *developers, lawyers and lobbyists. Too often there is also outright thievery of the kind that marks most big developments under Cuomo and de Blasio.
But while the battle still rages and analysts study the entrails of Amazon’s decision-making, here’s a thought: What if both sides of the Dem battle are wrong? What if even crony capitalism is a big part of the reason for the epidemic of the blue-state blues?

The migration of jobs and families out of high-tax, high-cost states has been going on for years, but is becoming a stampede because of the new federal tax law and because of how Democrats are reacting to it.

The provision limiting state and local tax deductions at $10,000 wiped away a preferential treatment for high earners in those states, and helps explain why about 20 percent of filers will either get no benefit or see an actual hike in their federal tax bills. The resulting rush for the exits is putting pressure on government budgets in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere while creating a real-estate boom in Florida and other low-tax states.

Throw in the fact that some Democrat-controlled states, especially Illinois and New Jersey, already face huge problems with their civil- service pension funds and it’s obvious that the blue-state model is *undergoing a major stress test.

Incredibly, the leaders of most are responding in self-defeating ways. Simple math suggests they should find ways to lower their spending, and pass on the savings as tax cuts to give mobile citizens reasons to stay.

Instead, driven by a hatred for Trump and a demented desire to do the exact opposite of what he does, many are actually countering his tax cuts and deregulation efforts.

Cities from Seattle to New York are raising taxes, or trying to, imposing minimum wages of $15 an hour and requiring even small businesses to give workers expensive health and vacation benefits.

Simultaneously, many of those same cities are driving up their education and health costs by declaring themselves sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants — in direct reaction to Trump’s push for secure borders.

[Gatefan1976]

I've said that I don't think this is a good solution. I don't like the precedent that it sets. I think it would have been better if he stuck to his guns on the first shutdown, eventually, the Democrats would have caved.

On what basis would they have caved?
Trump publicly owned the shutdown, any and all damage done by it would be on his head, and that's exactly what happened.

But as I've also repeatedly said, this illegal immigration problem has been ongoing for more than 40 years. It is long past time to fix it, by any means necessary.

Which means it is not a national emergency. At BEST you could call it an ongoing issue, and even the democrats don't claim it's not an issue.

As people have noted, what happens when a democratic president declares gun violence, or global warming a "national emergency"?
When Obama named Syria as a national emergency, it was for international command and control AND humanitarian reasons BECAUSE of the evolving situation. What evolved in the border crossings to suddenly make them an emergency?

Looking at it from the Democrat's and other open border people's viewpoint, they would have been better off to deal, too.

This is a lie, a tired crutch of people who have no argument. Obama deported more people than any other president. Democrats are not "soft on crime", or "soft on border security", what they are is HARD on stupid stuff that does not work because history has shown it does not work.
It's backed by FACT.

They could have gotten protection for the Dreamers as part of a deal. If you recall, Trump did make an offer regarding that last year. But they threw it back in his face.

And the Dems offered 25 billion for border security, but he threw that back in their face. Now he got 1.4 billion and declared a farcical "national emergency" for what you yourself describe as an ongoing issue.

What the Dems want is a "clean bill" on the dreamers.

Now, it's likely he's gonna get the wall, and the Democrats get zilch on the Dreamers.

Ethics cost you sometimes, trump has no ethics.

[Annoyed]

On what basis would they have caved?
Trump publicly owned the shutdown, any and all damage done by it would be on his head, and that's exactly what happened.

Two reasons.

IN GENERAL, people who are dependent upon the govt., of which there are more democrats/liberals than republicans/conservatives would be more negatively affected by a prolonged shutdown. So over time, the dems would have come under more pressure to cave.

To Trump's backers, including myself on this issue, he should have been proud to stand his ground. How many times have I said he was stupid to back down?

[Gatefan1976]

Two reasons.

IN GENERAL, people who are dependent upon the govt., of which there are more democrats/liberals than republicans/conservatives would be more negatively affected by a prolonged shutdown. So over time, the dems would have come under more pressure to cave.

To Trump's backers, including myself on this issue, he should have been proud to stand his ground. How many times have I said he was stupid to back down?

Your "opinion" has no basis in fact none whatsoever.
Red states produce far less revenue, yet have more people on welfare per capita, and it's the high tax rates in states that actually pay for them via socialist "wealth distribution" federal schemes.

If he did not back down, your entire governmental system would have collapsed. You are worried about crime?
How about when airport security collapsed and you may have gotten a -real- emergency?

[Annoyed]

And in SCOTUS news...

The Supreme Court unanimously says states can’t steal your car

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it’s unconstitutional for states to steal people’s cars. That’s a great step forward in cracking down on civil asset forfeiture and the practice of states and cities seizing personal property as a means to raise money.

[Gatefan1976]

And in SCOTUS news...

The Supreme Court unanimously says states can’t steal your car

Your are happy a Reagan ramped up policy is getting axed?
There may be some hope for you yet.

[jelgate]

But let's remember it's okay to steal land for a wall that does nothing

[SoulReaver]

wait your civil assets forfeiture laws were a Reagan thing?
normally the conservatives like to tout him as a "small government" man so which is it?

[Chaka-Z0]

Meanwhile, Daesh leftovers want back into the country

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...-the-caliphate

zxl58Pv.jpg

[Gatefan1976]

But let's remember it's okay to steal land for a wall that does nothing

wait your civil assets forfeiture laws were a Reagan thing?
normally the conservatives like to tout him as a "small government" man so which is it?

Nonono, you need to look back here.
Civil forfeiture and eminent domain were NOT a Reagan idea, it's been around since the British empire, especially in naval considerations. What Reagan did was ramp it up on it's OWN citizens under the guise of the "war against drugs".
The IDEA of it however, is based on the Monarchy, the Crown having the ability to seize whatever it determines it needs.
What I am trying to show is the arc of the republican party bending towards a Monarchy or Imperial dictatorship.
Annoyed likes what trump is doing by sidestepping the checks and balances provided by the US constitution, that's a Monarchy.
MG claims the US is not a democracy, that's it's a Roman republic ruled by not the senate, but the Emperor, that's a dictatorship.
Both of these outcomes is antithetical to the notion of the Founding Fathers when they created the constitution, and both are things the US has fought wars, and "police actions" to prevent.

[Gatefan1976]

Additional.
What people like AOC, or the "kindergartener" as Annoyed likes to call her, propose are currently beyond US infrastructure, and you have to be careful with her idea's. The "idea" is not flawed, it's historically been proven to be helpful to the US to move on to the next level of commerce. They did it in the gold rush. they did it in the steam era, the industrial era, the modern era and the technology era.
The new "green deal" needs to take into account people who cannot work in a new environment and make sure they are trained in skills that they are capable of, and be paid well enough to survive on their own.
I don't want people to be left behind, simple as that. Train the "simple" person to clean solar cells, or water filters so they are still empowered to be seen as useful, rather than a drag on the economy into the dirt by "paying" for them.
How about instead of growing corn in the middle states, you make solar power production area's instead? That solar power could be sold for far more than the corn on the land, and would provide more jobs, and would not have to be subsidised like most farms. You can employ low skill workers to protect and clean the solar panels, and have educated workers to upgrade them as needed or available.
Is that not fair?

[Coco Pops]

I don't like how people call her AOC or Alphabet .

[Gatefan1976]

I don't like how people call her AOC or Alphabet .

AOC is fine, it's like calling me GF76, it's merely a contraction. Alphabet however takes thought.

[Annoyed]

Nonono, you need to look back here.
Civil forfeiture and eminent domain were NOT a Reagan idea, it's been around since the British empire, especially in naval considerations. What Reagan did was ramp it up on it's OWN citizens under the guise of the "war against drugs".
The IDEA of it however, is based on the Monarchy, the Crown having the ability to seize whatever it determines it needs.
What I am trying to show is the arc of the republican party bending towards a Monarchy or Imperial dictatorship.
Annoyed likes what trump is doing by sidestepping the checks and balances provided by the US constitution, that's a Monarchy.
MG claims the US is not a democracy, that's it's a Roman republic ruled by not the senate, but the Emperor, that's a dictatorship.
Both of these outcomes is antithetical to the notion of the Founding Fathers when they created the constitution, and both are things the US has fought wars, and "police actions" to prevent.

Again and again, there is a reason I don't comment on most affairs in far off lands. I don't know what I'm talking about. And neither do you in this case.

Civil forfeiture and eminent domain are two different things. Eminent domain is the taking of private property for public use, such as building a road or other public structure. This is written into the Constitution; but has been misused. See "Kelo vs New London"'.

Civil forfeiture is a police agency taking a person they've accused of a crime's possessions. Homes, Cars, whatever. You'll notice I used the word "accused". That is correct. Conviction in a court is not required. Some police agencies and local govts. have been using this as a revenue stream.