Discussion about hot topics trending today

[thekillman]

They were Turkish soldiers killed during their own invasion of Syria.

Switch ISIS for Turkish and you pretty much have the same post. Turkey considers the Kurds terrorists, even though the US considers them allies. As far as i can tell, they aren't terrorists, so the Turkish are wrong in this regard. I still don't see why it's news.

As I understand it, the station was slated to be defunded by 2025 anyway. So there's no big change there. What I don't get is how he plans to do it. We don't own that thing on our own, other nations are involved, so I don't know how he can try to privatize it.

Yea, the plan is to de-orbit it somewhere next decade. But i have the same thoughts, i saw the headline and couldn't help but think "isn't that an internationally run station? Hence the name?"

[mad_gater]

I think not. Yes, our weapons systems are indeed very expensive. But how much of this expenditure, from stealth technology to drones is intended to make it easier for our service personnel to carry out their missions and return home in one piece? I would much rather spend taxpayer dollars than servicemen's lives and consider that money well spent.




Our tax system is graduated; the well to do already pay far more than the lower incomes. Has been that way for a very long time now. The tax deal pushed through by Trump and the Republicans last fall expands upon that.

From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb...rackets-rates/

Rate Individuals Married Filing Jointly
10% Up to $9,525 Up to $19,050
12% $9,526 to $38,700 $19,051 to $77,400
22% 38,701 to $82,500 $77,401 to $165,000
24% $82,501 to $157,500 $165,001 to $315,000
32% $157,501 to $200,000 $315,001 to $400,000
35% $200,001 to $500,000 $400,001 to $600,000
37% over $500,000 over $600,000


Aside from sales taxes, vehicle use/gas/etc type taxes, with the programs such as earned income credit, deductions and so forth, many people on the lower end of the scale don't actually pay ANY federal income tax, some actually get more in their tax refunds than than is deducted from their wages. Personally, as a lower middle class working stiff, that tax package is going to cut my federal tax bite by more than 1/3.

You've heard a lot about the tax bill costing people in high tax blue states such as NY more. What they don't bother to tell you is that that does not affect lower income people. Yes, the removal of the SALT deductions will cost some residents of high tax states such as NY more. But what they don't tell you is that it affects the higher income folks. Anyone shopping for a $500K home is very well off by most standards. Similar situation deductions for state income. The increase in the standard deduction more than offsets this for people up to around the $75K mark, again, a very comfortable income level.

The left wing media doesn't bother to tell you that though, does it?

As far as the intent of the Democrats, they were more then willing to play hostage with the military budget in order to defend the presence of illegal immigrants into this country, weren't they? Kinda shows their priorities.

And I'll make a prediction regarding the immigration reform firefight that is upcoming that shows their intent even more clearly, based upon what both sides have already said.

I think Trump and the Republicans will back down on DACA, allowing the "dreamers" to stay, in exchange for border security that effectively stops the flow of illegals into the country, many of whom immediately jump on the welfare free ride. That's the fair deal that Trump put on the table; neither side gets all that it wants. It's a compromise. I don't even insist upon a physical "wall"; all I want is to effectively close the borders, we don't need a wall to do that, we just need to deploy the tools we already have to accomplish that.

My idea of "immigration reform" is to round up every single illegal in the country and export them to their country of origin, no exceptions, no BS. They can then reapply for admittance using the established legal processes. But I know I'm not going to get that, so I support the compromise the Republicans put on the table.

But you mark my words. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail to avoid stopping or even slowing that flow of illegal immigrants (read: welfare recipients). The reason for this is simple. Their ticket to ride is how much they can give away; buying votes with freebies from the public treasury. Get a population that is dependent upon government hand-outs and that population will vote for whoever promises the most free stuff.

I forgot who it was that said that a free republic such as ours only remains free until the people realize they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury (i.e., vote for the people promising them all the freebies they could ever want)

[Annoyed]

I forgot who it was that said that a free republic such as ours only remains free until the people realize they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury (i.e., vote for the people promising them all the freebies they could ever want)

That quote has been attributed to many people, the earliest reference I've run across is Plato.

That is the exact reason I would like to see a "skin in the game" requirement for voting. You need to be pulling the cart, not riding on it to have a say where it goes.

[Coco Pops]

Yea, the plan is to de-orbit it somewhere next decade. But i have the same thoughts, i saw the headline and couldn't help but think "isn't that an internationally run station? Hence the name?"

Oh no ...........

SpaceX should buy it as an orbital platform.

I mean how else do we keep adding to it and make it huge? I mean We could have a city of a thousand planets or 100 nations? haha

[Falcon Horus]

That is the exact reason I would like to see a "skin in the game" requirement for voting. You need to be pulling the cart, not riding on it to have a say where it goes.

Ah, so no voting rights for you then -- only the 1% -- see how you would like.

[Annoyed]

Ah, so no voting rights for you then -- only the 1% -- see how you would like.

Sorry, my dear. I said "must be pulling the cart, not riding on it".. Since I am working and supporting myself, not letting the state support me, I am pulling the cart, not riding it.

I didn't say landowner, I didn't say wealthy. I just say you must be self supporting, or have been until retirement.

[Annoyed]

And NY just keeps it's "stupidity on display" program on track...

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...mid-election-/

In his own remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer expressed opposition to such a sweeping approach.

“The only enemy here is overreach,” Schumer said. “Now is not the time nor the place to reform the entire legal immigration system. Rather, this is the time for a narrow bill” – which Democrats have said would help the Dreamers and provide some money for border security.

If not now, Chuckie, when? When the Dumbocrats are in charge? Sorry. Trump and the Republicans put a fair offer on the table. And I really hope the Republicans stick to it. Their attitude ought to be "Take it or leave it, you won't get better."

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/news/...136058c20.html

ALBANY — Two New York state lawmakers are urging their fellow legislators not to pass a state budget without including new rules for political ads on social media.

Sen. Todd Kaminsky of Long Island and Assemblyman James Skoufis of Woodbury detailed their proposal Monday at the state Capitol in Albany.

The two Democrats want to require Facebook and other social media platforms to identity the individual or groups behind political ads on their sites.

Sorry, boys, that would fall under "interstate commerce", which is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution. You don't have the authority to do that on a state level.

Let alone the practical difficulties.

[Coco Pops]

So only working people should vote hey? Very Heinlen there....... "Only citizens can vote" would you like to know more?

[Gatefan1976]

And NY just keeps it's "stupidity on display" program on track...

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...mid-election-/
If not now, Chuckie, when? When the Dumbocrats are in charge? Sorry. Trump and the Republicans put a fair offer on the table. And I really hope the Republicans stick to it. Their attitude ought to be "Take it or leave it, you won't get better."

You know there were TWO deals on the table before now, right?
Oh, and really when have the repubs just put up and shut up in congress and the senate?

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/news/...136058c20.html


Sorry, boys, that would fall under "interstate commerce", which is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution. You don't have the authority to do that on a state level.

Let alone the practical difficulties.

Ahh, the constitutional argument.
You do know the repubs favourite toy, the military, is also against the constitution and a states rights issue as well?
Oh, and having the NRA decide policy on guns in states that don't want them (supported by the repubs)
Don't cry foul now, patriotism(tm) is your go to, and patriotism, is a federal thing, not a state thing.

[Annoyed]

You know there were TWO deals on the table before now, right?

If you're referring to what the Dems want, that's a non-starter. They want amnesty for the Dreamers, and that's it. They don't want border security and they don't want changes to the immigration system, such as ending chain migration. That won't get past the Senate, and they know it. So that is not a "serious" deal to be considered.

As I said, Trump & the Republicans offered a fair compromise. If the Dems don't want to accept that, then it's on them when DACA ends next month, and the Republicans can then try to force whatever they want, maybe using the nuclear option. I'm sure that will be less acceptable to the Dems than what is on the table now, but nobody ever accused them of being all that bright.

[Gatefan1976]

If you're referring to what the Dems want, that's a non-starter. They want amnesty for the Dreamers, and that's it. They don't want border security and they don't want changes to the immigration system, such as ending chain migration. That won't get past the Senate, and they know it. So that is not a "serious" deal to be considered.

Awesome, start with deporting Melania trumps family (chain migration), Melania (illegal) and Barron (anchor baby)

As I said, Trump & the Republicans offered a fair compromise. If the Dems don't want to accept that, then it's on them when DACA ends next month, and the Republicans can then try to force whatever they want, maybe using the nuclear option. I'm sure that will be less acceptable to the Dems than what is on the table now, but nobody ever accused them of being all that bright.

What either side considers fair is not going to be the same thing.
Also, it was Trump that brought DACA into the mix, the majority of Americans want to keep it, but nobody ever accused them of representing the people.

[Annoyed]

Awesome, start with deporting Melania trumps family (chain migration), Melania (illegal) and Barron (anchor baby)

What either side considers fair is not going to be the same thing.
Also, it was Trump that brought DACA into the mix, the majority of Americans want to keep it, but nobody ever accused them of representing the people.

It was more than fair, considering that the Republicans *could* do what they want as long as they can agree among themselves by using the "nuclear option", changing the rules in the senate so that a simple majority is required, rather than the current 60 votes.

And, it was actually Obama who brought DACA into the existence by executive order. The Constitution clearly delegates immigration to the Congress, so Obama never should have started the program to begin with.

[Gatefan1976]

It was more than fair, considering that the Republicans *could* do what they want as long as they can agree among themselves by using the "nuclear option", changing the rules in the senate so that a simple majority is required, rather than the current 60 votes.

They cannot agree amongst themselves, that's been shown many times.
Additionally, I would not be so gung ho to employ the nuclear option, you set president for that and you will make your politics even more hyper partisan than it is now.
Your concept of winning reminds me of this exchange from Red Dwarf:

RIMMER: Victory, gentlemen! The fascists have fallen!
KRYTEN: May I untie them now, sir.
RIMMER: Rejoice! We conquer! Victory on Waxworld! It's VW day!
LISTER: So you took the HQ Wiped them all out.
RIMMER: To a droid.
KRYTEN: It's true, all melted.
LISTER: What about Arnie's army?
CAT: Yeah, how many of them made it back?
RIMMER: There are always casualties in war, gentlemen. Otherwise it
wouldn't be war, just be a rather nasty argument with a lot of pushing
and shoving.
LISTER: So how many survived?
RIMMER: Well we haven't had time to make a full official estimate, but at
a rough guess, and obviously this is subject to alteration pending
information updates, roundabout none of them.
LISTER: So you wiped out the entire population of this planet.
RIMMER: You make it sound so negative, Lister. Don't you see, the
deranged menace that once threatened this world is vanquished!
LISTER: No it isn't, pal. You're still here.
RIMMER: I brought about peace. Peace, freedom and democracy.
LISTER: Yeah, Rimmer. Right. Absolutely. Now all the corpses that
litter that battlefield can just lie there safe under the knowledge
that they snuffed it under a flag of peace and can now happily
decompose in a land of freedom. Ya smeg head.

The price of victory is not always worth it.

And, it was actually Obama who brought DACA into the existence by executive order. The Constitution clearly delegates immigration to the Congress, so Obama never should have started the program to begin with.

Obama -created- DACA, yes, but it now being a bargaining chip to get a stupid wall is all on Donnie demento.
Oh, and again, the -MAJORITY- of Americans want DACA.

[SoulReaver]

It was more than fair, considering that the Republicans *could* do what they want as long as they can agree among themselves by using the "nuclear option", changing the rules in the senate so that a simple majority is required, rather than the current 60 votes.

And, it was actually Obama who brought DACA into the existence by executive order. The Constitution clearly delegates immigration to the Congress, so Obama never should have started the program to begin with.

you "forgot" the part about Melania - what did that ho do to deserve the right to stay (let alone stay & vote) cept let Dirty Don grab her by the posse? she's an illegal & so is Baron since the little **** technically is an anchor baby. why aren't you calling for their eviction?

[Annoyed]

They cannot agree amongst themselves, that's been shown many times.
Additionally, I would not be so gung ho to employ the nuclear option, you set president for that and you will make your politics even more hyper partisan than it is now.

And who was it that used the nuclear option first, back in 2013?