Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

I call BS again.

Even if he does back down or the courts eventually do decide that he can't legally do it, it's still a stroke of genius.

By doing this, he got Pelosi to show her hypocrisy when she whined about it. Why doesn't she want them moved into her jurisdiction?

There is an election coming up, and the more albatrosses (albotrossi)? we can hang around her neck, to weigh her down, the better.

[Annoyed]

Counting by household does not give you percent of population, you are counting units of unequal size across the board. Once again, that's not how math works.

Also just looking at percentage of population that uses welfare doesn't work. Because what matters is amount spent. Less money goes to immigrants than to natives. Per capita, Natives on welfare cost 39% more than immigrants on welfare. If five hundred immigrants use Free and Reduced Meals for their kids' school lunches versus one hundred natives who use food stamps, SSI, and WIC cards throughout the year, the 100 natives end up being more expensive than the 500 immigrants.

Translation: Whatever sort of math that doesn't make the point you want it to is wrong.

The basic fact is that a larger percentage of the illegal population group uses benefits than the US citizen group.

Here you say life is not fair...



Here you say that it's unfair to take your hard earned cash for welfare....well...which is it? Is this about fairness or not? Womble's posts were about how welfare does work, not whether or not it is fair. You made the statement that it doesn't work, Womble proved you wrong. You are wrong, it does work. Whether or not it is fair is completely irrelevant to the point, the point being that it works. This is just a classic dodge tactic of yours just to avoid admitting that you are wrong, you changed the subject (or rather moved the goal posts).

If you read what I wrote, then you will recall that I said life isn't fair, never was, never will be and in many different ways.
Ok, so you think it's proper to take money from those that got dealt a better financial hand and give it to those who got the short end of the financial stick.

So, how do you want to make it "fair" for people that gotten different types of a raw deal? How are you going to make it fair for the severely handicapped at birth? How are you going to make it fair for the people born with lower intelligence levels? Lobotomize the folks that got the brains? You can make this argument for any of the many different ways someone can get the short end of the stick.

Doesn't make sense, does it? Nor does robbing peter to pay paul.

Oh, and in a semi related note, have you ever heard of a song by "Rush" called "The Trees"?

For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw

[aretood2]

Translation: Whatever sort of math that doesn't make the point you want it to is wrong.

The basic fact is that a larger percentage of the illegal population group uses benefits than the US citizen group.

Percentage is the number of people who do X divided by the total population/population of the group in question. Using household units counts units, not people. You can't get a percentage of people if you don't count people. You are wrong, it's not that hard to admit instead of making these mental gymnastics and diving into cognitive dissonance, just admit you are wrong.

If you read what I wrote, then you will recall that I said life isn't fair, never was, never will be and in many different ways.

You said that welfare doesn't work. Womble proved that it does. That's that. You were wrong. It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with effectiveness.

If you want to talk about fair then you have to consider the costs of allowing an ever growing impoverished population to fester. For example, people who can't afford preventative medicine will go to the ER at a much higher rate with more expensive complications and those costs are offset on the rest of us. These impoverished people will resort to crime or crime will target them causing increased expenses in police, jails, courts, and so on...once again the costs will be offset on the rest of us. Ultimately, it is cheaper for us to be taxed so that these problems won't happen. This is how welfare is used in socialist hell holes like Canada, Germany, UK, Israel, France and so on. It's more expensive to have no welfare than to have welfare and that's a demonstrable fact.

Ok, so you think it's proper to take money from those that got dealt a better financial hand and give it to those who got the short end of the financial stick.

So, how do you want to make it "fair" for people that gotten different types of a raw deal? How are you going to make it fair for the severely handicapped at birth? How are you going to make it fair for the people born with lower intelligence levels? Lobotomize the folks that got the brains? You can make this argument for any of the many different ways someone can get the short end of the stick.

Doesn't make sense, does it? Nor does robbing peter to pay paul.

Severely handicapped at birth? Free healthcare provides the needed services to insure a good quality of life like it is done in every advanced and developed country outside of the US?

People born with lower intelligence levels? Social programs aimed at training them at skilled labor they are able to do and providing them the tools to be self sufficient with the least amount of aid possible like, once again, it is done in every advanced and developed country outside of the US?


You seem to be under the false impression that these are insurmountable issues that no one else in the world has figured out. News flash, even here in the US those people get the help they need, but at great cost to their families while in all of the other developed countries things are better at doing this.

Oh, and in a semi related note, have you ever heard of a song by "Rush" called "The Trees"?

No, does it have to do anything with your false impressions or ignorance of the world at large?

[SoulReaver]

By doing this, he got Pelosi to show her hypocrisy when she whined about it. Why doesn't she want them moved into her jurisdiction?

cept your argument's based on the false premise that the Dems wanna let everyone in

[Annoyed]

cept your argument's based on the false premise that the Dems wanna let everyone in

That doesn't even deserve discussion. Just look at the positions they take. Sanctuary cites, the ridiculous catch and release crap, the law about children.. children can only be held for 20 days.. and of course, their alleged parents are cut loose also... I'm sorry, but that pile stinks too much, I'm not going to enumerate it. Our immigration policy is seriously frakked up. But the Dems like it that way.

[jelgate]

So in other words, you have no proof and using feelings about Sanctuary cities to justify your conspiracy theory

[Annoyed]

cept your argument's based on the false premise that the Dems wanna let everyone in

Problem with your theory is that that is what the Democrats/Liberals themselves say.

Here's a nice piece about the situation.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._liberals.html

Trump and the Republicans are going to rip the liberals 17 new ones over their hypocrisy on this issue.

Which is part of the reason this is such a stroke of genius on Trump's part. Even if it turns out he can't do it (and I think he can, based upon the history of the feds dumping immigrants into places as described in the article), he set a trap for Pelosi and the rest and they obediently walked right into it.

[SoulReaver]

Problem with your theory is that that is what the Democrats/Liberals themselves say.

Here's a nice piece about the situation.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._liberals.html

Trump and the Republicans are going to rip the liberals 17 new ones over their hypocrisy on this issue.

Which is part of the reason this is such a stroke of genius on Trump's part. Even if it turns out he can't do it (and I think he can, based upon the history of the feds dumping immigrants into places as described in the article), he set a trap for Pelosi and the rest and they obediently walked right into it.

even Bernie admitted it's necessary to have a "filtering" at the border to separate the good immigrants (you know, those who do jobs americans wont) from the bad ones (tattooed mara thugs bad hombres etc. etc.)

you saying Pelosi & AOC are more pro-immigration than Bernie?

[jelgate]

Problem with your theory is that that is what the Democrats/Liberals themselves say.

Here's a nice piece about the situation.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._liberals.html

Trump and the Republicans are going to rip the liberals 17 new ones over their hypocrisy on this issue.

Which is part of the reason this is such a stroke of genius on Trump's part. Even if it turns out he can't do it (and I think he can, based upon the history of the feds dumping immigrants into places as described in the article), he set a trap for Pelosi and the rest and they obediently walked right into it.

That is nothing more than an opinion piece. You just found a person who likes to rant against the same person
Still lacking facts about your conspiracy

[Annoyed]

That is nothing more than an opinion piece. You just found a person who likes to rant against the same person
Still lacking facts about your conspiracy

Is it not the Democrats/Liberals that are pushing the Sanctuary cities, who are opposed to building the wall or otherwise effectively securing the border, who are pushing for the abolishment of I.C.E. and other enforcement tools?

I mean, this stuff is common knowledge.

[jelgate]

Is it not the Democrats/Liberals that are pushing the Sanctuary cities, who are opposed to building the wall or otherwise effectively securing the border, who are pushing for the abolishment of I.C.E. and other enforcement tools?

I mean, this stuff is common knowledge.

It's already been established this is a false premise. You are also making binary statements that hardly applies to everyone

[Annoyed]

It's already been established this is a false premise. You are also making binary statements that hardly applies to everyone

Now you're just ignoring reality.

Why don't you take a look at recent positions taken by eaders of the liberals.
Here is a nice example from the Kindergartner herself:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...e-native-to-us

New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday vowed to defund U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said all Latino people must be exempt from immigration laws because they are “native” to U.S. lands as they are descendants of Native people.

The Democrat Socialist made a speech against immigration laws and promised to abolish ICE just before she unveiled her widely-mocked Green New Deal on the same day. Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib also joined the calls to abolish ICE.

[jelgate]

You're being binary again and using the most radical to justify your point. It hardly applies to the majority

[SoulReaver]

Now you're just ignoring reality.

Why don't you take a look at recent positions taken by eaders of the liberals.
Here is a nice example from the Kindergartner herself:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...e-native-to-us

then I say AOC's secretly working for Trump. not that much crazier a theory than the rest eh?

no matter if she speaks the truth or not what she said is political suicide & there's no way anyone can be that stupid

[Annoyed]

then I say AOC's secretly working for Trump. not that much crazier a theory than the rest eh?

no matter if she speaks the truth or not what she said is political suicide & there's no way anyone can be that stupid

Wanna bet ? Never underestimate human stupidity. Especially that of the young.

There is a reason I tagged her "Kindergartner".