Meh. The difference in life expectancy between the US and higher rated countries could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. Obesity isn't good for life expectancy and the US sure does come ahead on that one. A better measure is something like life expectancy after cancer diagnosis when medicine and healthcare have a direct correlation to how long you live.
Sort of. There is an issue of definition as well as culture that could influence infant mortality rates. That is different than X number of people with Y disease.
As an example, the US and Canada are two countries which register a much higher proportion of babies weighing less than 500g, with low odds of survival, resulting in higher reported infant mortality. Does it really mean that health care in the US is worse because we have more preterm babies and try save their life? The EU varies between 5-10% while the US has 1 in 10. Why the difference? What was the EU priority for pre-term babies before 2015 and what is causing their increased preterm births (the Born too Soon link)? That isn't a simple statistical analysis. Even if the WHO uses numbers from the country itself. This is kind of the problem whenever statistics are applied across countries. The different definitions and culture influence what those numbers mean and rarely is it ever an apples and apples comparison.
You admit you were wrong yet still claim you are right. No. There was never a ban and you are lying. The "ban" is that the CDC cannot advocate against the rights of citizens. Should any other government agency advocate the removal of your rights? Can the FCC use its funds to promote and advocate regulating an ISP under Title 2? Can the FCC, if successful, advocate for restricting obscene content on the internet because ISP is regulated under Title 2? Should the FBI use its funds to promote an end to encryption anywhere subject to their jurisdiction? If either of those are "no", then why is it okay in your mind for the CDC to do effectively the same for the right of arms?
the wording of that amendment is effectively a ban, right?
No. If you can't leave your politics out of your research then you don't deserve to be doing research. Especially when it comes to the rights of citizens. Period. End of discussion. Any research from any agency is under the same conditions when it comes to the government. Take any research topic and if you start advocating or promoting one set of political solutions or positions is the moment you lose credibility. "Gun control" is a purely political thing. A federal bureaucracy doesn't have the right to decide on what rights any citizen has and cannot advocate or promote the degradation of any right. Period.
You can research the "why" of gun violence without advocating "ban guns". If you can't separate "your solution" from what you are researching then you are a bad researcher.
If you don't understand that "gun violence" is a loaded term then you are too ignorant to understand the issue.
Did you read your own link? The Dickey Amendment hasn't been repealed and is still law the CDC must follow.
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:
This is the amendment you are talking about that "bans gun research". This is the exact wording. It doesn't ban "collecting statistics" or any kind of research. We know how many people die by guns each year because the CDC can collect those statistics. We have statistics on gun deaths in the US because the CDC can research gun violence! What the CDC can't do is advocate or promote gun control.That is still the law the CDC must follow. What you link to doesn't change that. The last omnibus spending bill did not repeal the Dickey Amendment.
Researching the causes of gun violence has never been banned for the CDC.
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:
Where in the above quote does it say the CDC cannot research gun violence? How would any of that text describe a ban on "research on gun violence". Note, the same kind of restriction is put on other hot-button topics, like abortion.
That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.
Capitalism? What franchise has !capitalism created that we all enjoy?
No, what destroys a franchise is "art industry". Whenever you try and mass produce "art" it will be a steaming pile of garbage watered down to a simple formula. The same problems exist with any franchise in any "art industry". Do you need to be reminded of how crappy 'pop' music is that the 'music industry' produces? Or dare I say, Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Thinking that "art" can be manufactured on an assembly line and still be good is the problem.
Now Trump looks like the bad guy, unwilling to make concessions or pull back from his brinkmanship.
That is one way to read it, I guess but I don't think it is accurate. Trump did pull away from his brinkmanship and even complimented Kim before Kim started lashing out. It was stated well in advance that sanctions and military drills would continue until a deal would be reached. Why would Kim then all the sudden get angry and lash out at South Korea calling them weak?
setting himself up as the good guy for the post-dictatorship period he knows is coming.
I am not sure that it is coming. What evidence is there to suggest that any deal (or not) would mark an end to the Kim dictatorship?
So I think that he indeed added this as he did not understand that the first part already said the same thing,
I don't think so. The first phrase, as you say, is stern, calm and diplomatic. It's the 'why'. The second is not only a warning but tells Kim how we view ourselves: We fear our own power. I am not sure if Kim fears nuclear weapons the same as we do but regardless it opens the door for hope because in that fear we will work for peace. It also gives Kim a different understanding of "bigger button that works". Can he comprehend a nuclear capability to be actually afraid of using it?
I am confused by your statement. Kim had bellicose language for the annual military drills that were explicitly stated would continue until a deal was reached just as the sanctions would stay in place. There was some concessions by removing the B-52 bombers (nuclear capable) from the exercise but the language continued. Kim started insulting South Korea as weak. And your response is "let South Korea do the heavy lifting" after Kim called them weak and ineffective? Do you really think any kind of peace can be made with that kind of venom and disrespect?
I honestly do not know how you can processes these events with that kind of statement. I get it, you don't like Trump and don't want to give him any kind of credit even when South Korea credited him. I don't even know if Trump should be credited or if it was all a rouse by Kim to "test the waters" of this new presidency and the alliance. After all, we did start seeing top South Korean advisors advocating a withdrawal of US troops and ending of the alliance when peace be made. Maybe Kim decided he needs more time for anti-US sentiment to become more mainstream in South Korean politicians before he executes a Unified Korea... err "peace".
provided any proof that Obama couldn't make the deal,
Proof? Like Iran not signing on the deal because "not a treaty"? I am sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Sure, Obama can promise things that Obama can fulfill like "political commitments" but when it comes to promises of the United States the Senate must approve precisely because of shit like this. Obama set the Iran deal up for failure by ignoring the Congress. That is not how the US operates and Obama should have known better instead of trying to create a legacy built on lies and executive overreach.
What really makes Trump make US look like shit is how it's going against it's allies on these deals.
Because our Allies were fed the same bullshit lies that Obama could keep his political commitments after his term ended. Absolutely it causes problems and it makes our government look retarded. Because the United States did not agree to anything and this is exactly why the Senate must approve deals and treaties and that they have the same effect as law when approved properly. You want a treaty to be taken seriously in the US and not subject to the whims of the president? Follow that damn law and have the Senate approve. Obama was a damned fool and his "legacy" will be one of overreach, failure, and lies.
immigrants being animals... anyone referred to as an animal
MS-13 that is what you are talking about. The "immigrants" described as animals by Trump that is being defended by you and the media. Pathetic and disgusting especially when you lump them in the same as other immigrants. MS-13 are not innocent immigrants and should not be characterized as such nor defended.
You and the media are why we can't have nice things. You are literally spreading fake news and lies. You are why politics are getting mean and people would rather turn to Trump than listen to CNN. You will take anything out of context to promote your narrative that you will defend the scum of the earth. You are like Rob Rousseau saying "I would rather my daughter dated a member of MS-13 than a member of the Republican Party.". Because better to date someone that would have your daughter kidnapped and trafficked for sex than someone that disagrees with you politically. No shit politics is getting mean when you can't even agree on who is a bad person any more.
What lovely people you mis-characterize as "immigrant". They are literally the reason why we cannot have open borders. Sarah Sanders was right, animals isn't strong enough.
You may not like dehumanizing language but treating them like a dog is better than what they deserve.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a major setback in that conflict
But it was literally law since the 90's that our embassy would be in Jerusalem. Trump followed the law and a campaign promise unlike every other president before that made that promise and lied. You may not like it but following the law and a promise is a mark of good character for a president. Hamas and Iran will use anything as an excuse for violence especially if they can get a good photo-up western media will lap up. "protestors" killed that just so happen to be mostly Hamas.
pulling out of the Iran deal is a risk for our peace with them, not to mention destroying our credibility for other such arrangements.
The US never agreed to the Iran deal. Full stop. Obama made a promise he couldn't keep. Obama didn't have authority to make such a deal binding to other administrations. Obama made a promise and kept it for as long as he was in office. The US did not break any promise or deal. Not following the law to get what you want and lying about the pretenses is the mark of a bad character for a president.
I am sorry but the damage to US credibility is because of a president making promises without consent of the Senate expecting "not a treaty" to be treated as law by the rest of the government. There is no defending the Iran deal as struck by Obama and friends. He created a quagmire the moment he went around Congress.
These rules classified an ISP to be regulated with Title 2 with exceptions (which probably won't stand up against the first lawsuit as the law says those exceptions do not exist for that classification). Nothing about them were related to "Net Neutrality". Why is Title 2 the answer?
How can TV do what you are saying with HBO even though TV falls under Title 2?
How does the NN rules being repealed stop things like "HBO/Youtube package Title 2 internet"?
Title 2 just means that it's a public communications line and that no special conditions can be created to block or hinder access and that all rates must be reasonable and across the board.
No, Title 2 is a group of regulations for specific classifications and depending on the classification will decide which and how regulations are applied. Are Internet Service Providers a Information Service Provider or are they a Telecommunication Service Provider? Title 2 cannot regulate Information Service Providers because that is the way the law is written. Currently, ISPs are classified as Information Service Providers and thus are less regulated. The Obama-era FCC rules that were repealed effectively said "ISPs are Telecommunication Service Providers and we are going to pick and choose which regulation will apply regardless what the law says.". That is a horrible thing to do because not only does the FCC not have the authority to pick and choose which laws or regulations apply to which classification but it will be a matter of time before the exceptions will be applied because the law says so and as soon as the judiciary gets involved. Some of those exceptions are for example, decency rules. No more offensive content on the internet just like TV or Radio that do fall under Title 2. TV and Radio are Telecommunication Service Providers and if you classify the internet as such you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio because that is the law. It would only be a matter of time and lawsuit.
11% of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015 came from one of the banned countrie
Sounds like the vetting process needs to be examined and revamped.
and 0% of deaths from terrorist activities over that 40 year period came from these countries
Times change. Like civil war in Syria. The justification was multiple reasons not just "government cooperation". You are addressing a strawman.
are not effectively cooperating with US background checks, but yet still have results like this, it is our background checks which are too onerous.
With numbers like those there is definitely something wrong. Part of the reason for the ban was to assess the problems. I don't think the process is too onerous if a country is not cooperating. In fact, any government not cooperating should be scrutinized more.
No one with a positive IQ should fall for the Trump administration's proposed reasons for this ban. He may be able to get the ban through the Supreme Court based on an inconsistently strict partisan reading of the law, but even those justices won't be fooled by the actual reason for the ban
Did you hear the arguments laid before the Court? Because you seem very confident that the motives are racist when the argument was that even if his motives were racist that the process to decide these countries were enough to justify the list that any reasonable person would acknowledge because the specificity is unprecedented in US history. Even the plaintiff acknowledge that if Trump apologized, these orders would be lawful. The defense also suggested that Trump did in fact apologize thereby making these orders lawful.
If your argument is "Well it would be legal if it wasn't Trump." or the strawman you initiated with then you are on specious legal and logical grounds.
The people that parade this talking point really don't understand the ban. Including the people that mod you up.
Do the governments of those countries help the US properly vet any would-be traveler to the US? If not they are banned. If they do help and that help is up to at least some standard of what the US does then they are not banned.
The US has laws against existing criminals this ban was about the governments of nations that do not do the bare minimum in helping the US ensure that criminals do not come here.
IOW, the ban is for countries that are A) hotbeds of terrorist activity and B) governments not doing the bare minimum to help the US prevent those terrorists from traveling to the US.
Simply put, I do not believe that your mechanism for failure will work as you imply. A Trust for one. Assuming that the economy will behave as you expect. Assuming no one will change it to buy votes or expand it (illegals?). In addition to the point that I do not believe the federal government should be managing the welfare of citizens like this is an aside. You are giving people money. You must assume that people will be happy with a pittance and won't demand more. "how can anyone live off these bread crumbs?". This whole thing started with your claim: "tax rate is permanently-fixed and never increases." I don't buy it. That is a huge assumption on your part more so than assuming a politician will sabotage it. It sounds great on paper until you introduce the human element. "Permanent" and "never" are terrible government policies particularly in democratic societies. Why should I, being forced into a ponzi scheme for decades, take the risk to be apart of your ponzi scheme when you make claims of "never and permanent" regarding taxes?
" We could say the same of Government in general" - Sure, and that is why we have conflicting branches of government. An assumption was made that each branch would fight for more power thereby no one branch would be more powerful than the others as the constitution has laid. However, the congress gives up its power because voting is risky and can lose your job. Generally, because the government is made of people not to be trusted we should err on the side of caution and not give the government more power.
You make a lot of assumptions with your plan and expect everyone to buy into those assumptions. I don't. How many generations will it take for your plan to fail and you have multiple generations buying into a ponzi scheme? A used car salesman indeed. "The last ponzi scheme was garbage. I am better and smarter! My ponzi scheme will get you rich and unicorn farts!" The Clinton example was the first that came to mind. It really is irrelevant to the fact that it is a failing system.
"they must have the opportunity to access higher education" - As already stated, everyone in the US already has that. Universality has been achieved. You are avoiding the point. Average includes those that cannot do college. Average is 100 iq. College requires a little more than that.* College is not necessary to participate in the economy. If you make it required you will create a set of 2nd class citizens because A LOT of people will be unable to do college or you will make college dumbed down that it amounts to a job as a burger flipper. If everyone had a degree that degree would become worthless just like what happened to the high school diploma getting a job at burger king. College is specialized and specific and is not required. College is not average nor mandatory. High school is for the average because everyone must do it to participate in the economy. I don't even know how you quantify "fully" participate. Want to argue the costs? I agree that is an issue. Paying through taxes when deficit spending is already an issue is not the answer. If it is payed through taxes expect a lot of strings attached like no gender studies or other "worthless" degrees. After all, it is supposed to be for job training according to your "fully participate".
*https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ first search result. the examples you list are far and away above the average. Why you think that should be the new high school diploma and the "average to participate" is beyond me.
Sure sure. It's all perfect and you have the best solution ever conceived by man that will never fail. It's just that "those" people messed it up.
has a varying revenue base and recipient base
Which your plan won't have that problem. Because your assumptions are correct and no one will ever be able to expand on your assumptions which would never in any way break or bankrupt the system. Social security was advertised as you advertise. How are you any different than the congressmen that sold social security?
You do see how my Dividend solves this problem, though, I'm sure.
Until someone messes it all up. On paper social security was similarly advertised. Yet here we are. And assuredly you will have an excuse why your plan won't fail. Here's a thought, instead of pushing your plan at the federal level do it at the state level and I will take it more seriously. Until then you sound like the used car salesman that sold social security.
Which they can't afford to pay back.
different issue and I agree. But universal education has been achieved.
Different types of jobs need different skills.... We can't teach you all of that to rigor in high school.
You seem to not understand "for the average citizen to participate in the economy.". In the last century it was reading writing, and arithmetic. The average citizen doesn't need an engineering degree, an accounting degree, a programming degree, economics degree, etc to participate in the economy. If you can't identify the skills that will be necessary for the average citizen to participate in the economy then your proposals sound rather empty. The average citizen doesn't need a degree in accounting or engineering to participate in the economy.
Social Security isn't failing because people are asking for more
Not really. They are living longer and more people that haven't paid into it are drawing from it. Also, something about Bill Clinton accounting shenanigans with social security. So we are both right. the funding maybe flawed but also people are taking more and paying less into it in addition that it is being abused. My underlying point that entitlements only go up which is the case for social security.
Bernie Sanders
Yes, and the DNC didn't have the decency to use lube. yes the potus can lead an agenda but it's the congress critters that get the riders and amendments to pass the pork. Obama was able to get his agenda because his party controlled congress with enough majority. using the bully pulpit isn't the same as writing the law.
you have college for whoever can afford it.
Everyone is able to afford it because everyone can take out a loan. There are problems with that but the issue isn't universality. Everyone that wants a bachelors in underwater basket weaving can get it. Universal access to college has been achieved regardless of your financial situation. Now it is an issue of making sure that that access is affordable. Making it "free" isn't the answer.
new job opportunities require a college education
You are not addressing what I say. YOu just ramble on as if you are talking to yourself. "If there are skills needed for the next century for the average citizen to participate in the economy then it should done through high school. "
I am not going to respond to all, because I think you are foolish.
That's stable, right?
I am young enough to have no expectation of Social Security. If something simple like Social Security will fail how would your plan not fail when people ask for more? On paper it was advertised as you claim, yet there are many alive today that are paying into a ponzi scheme that will lose because of what I am saying and what you fail to recognize.
I see Bernie had a great victory over Hillary.
How long has Bernie been in the Congress? I thought we were talking about the people that make the law not the people that enforce the law. Fool.
Free College for All to just Free College for All Making Under $125k.
We have college for all. The issue is affordable. As more people have gotten a college degree the less it is worth. Everyone has a high school diploma and that is worth barely more than paper. If there are skills needed for the next century for the average citizen to participate in the economy then it should done through high school. I don't understand why college is needed. Why must college be the new high school?
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. The difference in life expectancy between the US and higher rated countries could come down to personal choice and lifestyle. Obesity isn't good for life expectancy and the US sure does come ahead on that one. A better measure is something like life expectancy after cancer diagnosis when medicine and healthcare have a direct correlation to how long you live.
. This is purely statistics.
Sort of. There is an issue of definition as well as culture that could influence infant mortality rates. That is different than X number of people with Y disease.
As an example, the US and Canada are two countries which register a much higher proportion of babies weighing less than 500g, with low odds of survival, resulting in higher reported infant mortality. Does it really mean that health care in the US is worse because we have more preterm babies and try save their life? The EU varies between 5-10% while the US has 1 in 10. Why the difference? What was the EU priority for pre-term babies before 2015 and what is causing their increased preterm births (the Born too Soon link)? That isn't a simple statistical analysis. Even if the WHO uses numbers from the country itself. This is kind of the problem whenever statistics are applied across countries. The different definitions and culture influence what those numbers mean and rarely is it ever an apples and apples comparison.
. So the ban is still in effect.
You admit you were wrong yet still claim you are right. No. There was never a ban and you are lying. The "ban" is that the CDC cannot advocate against the rights of citizens. Should any other government agency advocate the removal of your rights? Can the FCC use its funds to promote and advocate regulating an ISP under Title 2? Can the FCC, if successful, advocate for restricting obscene content on the internet because ISP is regulated under Title 2? Should the FBI use its funds to promote an end to encryption anywhere subject to their jurisdiction? If either of those are "no", then why is it okay in your mind for the CDC to do effectively the same for the right of arms?
the wording of that amendment is effectively a ban, right?
No. If you can't leave your politics out of your research then you don't deserve to be doing research. Especially when it comes to the rights of citizens. Period. End of discussion. Any research from any agency is under the same conditions when it comes to the government. Take any research topic and if you start advocating or promoting one set of political solutions or positions is the moment you lose credibility. "Gun control" is a purely political thing. A federal bureaucracy doesn't have the right to decide on what rights any citizen has and cannot advocate or promote the degradation of any right. Period.
You can research the "why" of gun violence without advocating "ban guns". If you can't separate "your solution" from what you are researching then you are a bad researcher.
If you don't understand that "gun violence" is a loaded term then you are too ignorant to understand the issue.
Did you read your own link? The Dickey Amendment hasn't been repealed and is still law the CDC must follow.
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:
This is the amendment you are talking about that "bans gun research". This is the exact wording. It doesn't ban "collecting statistics" or any kind of research. We know how many people die by guns each year because the CDC can collect those statistics. We have statistics on gun deaths in the US because the CDC can research gun violence! What the CDC can't do is advocate or promote gun control.That is still the law the CDC must follow. What you link to doesn't change that. The last omnibus spending bill did not repeal the Dickey Amendment.
Researching the causes of gun violence has never been banned for the CDC.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:
Where in the above quote does it say the CDC cannot research gun violence? How would any of that text describe a ban on "research on gun violence". Note, the same kind of restriction is put on other hot-button topics, like abortion.
That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.
CDC can't, by law, do any research on gun violence.
That is a lie. The CDC can't spend money to "advocate or promote gun control". If they couldn't "research gun violence". How is it we know how many gun related deaths there are from the CDC year after year?
What is wrong with saying a government research agency cannot push an agenda in their research?
Capitalism? What franchise has !capitalism created that we all enjoy?
No, what destroys a franchise is "art industry". Whenever you try and mass produce "art" it will be a steaming pile of garbage watered down to a simple formula. The same problems exist with any franchise in any "art industry". Do you need to be reminded of how crappy 'pop' music is that the 'music industry' produces? Or dare I say, Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Thinking that "art" can be manufactured on an assembly line and still be good is the problem.
I guess, if you want an easy scapegoat. Reality tends to be a little more nuanced.
Now Trump looks like the bad guy, unwilling to make concessions or pull back from his brinkmanship.
That is one way to read it, I guess but I don't think it is accurate. Trump did pull away from his brinkmanship and even complimented Kim before Kim started lashing out. It was stated well in advance that sanctions and military drills would continue until a deal would be reached. Why would Kim then all the sudden get angry and lash out at South Korea calling them weak?
setting himself up as the good guy for the post-dictatorship period he knows is coming.
I am not sure that it is coming. What evidence is there to suggest that any deal (or not) would mark an end to the Kim dictatorship?
So I think that he indeed added this as he did not understand that the first part already said the same thing,
I don't think so. The first phrase, as you say, is stern, calm and diplomatic. It's the 'why'. The second is not only a warning but tells Kim how we view ourselves: We fear our own power. I am not sure if Kim fears nuclear weapons the same as we do but regardless it opens the door for hope because in that fear we will work for peace. It also gives Kim a different understanding of "bigger button that works". Can he comprehend a nuclear capability to be actually afraid of using it?
I am confused by your statement. Kim had bellicose language for the annual military drills that were explicitly stated would continue until a deal was reached just as the sanctions would stay in place. There was some concessions by removing the B-52 bombers (nuclear capable) from the exercise but the language continued. Kim started insulting South Korea as weak. And your response is "let South Korea do the heavy lifting" after Kim called them weak and ineffective? Do you really think any kind of peace can be made with that kind of venom and disrespect?
I honestly do not know how you can processes these events with that kind of statement. I get it, you don't like Trump and don't want to give him any kind of credit even when South Korea credited him. I don't even know if Trump should be credited or if it was all a rouse by Kim to "test the waters" of this new presidency and the alliance. After all, we did start seeing top South Korean advisors advocating a withdrawal of US troops and ending of the alliance when peace be made. Maybe Kim decided he needs more time for anti-US sentiment to become more mainstream in South Korean politicians before he executes a Unified Korea... err "peace".
provided any proof that Obama couldn't make the deal,
Proof? Like Iran not signing on the deal because "not a treaty"? I am sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Sure, Obama can promise things that Obama can fulfill like "political commitments" but when it comes to promises of the United States the Senate must approve precisely because of shit like this. Obama set the Iran deal up for failure by ignoring the Congress. That is not how the US operates and Obama should have known better instead of trying to create a legacy built on lies and executive overreach.
What really makes Trump make US look like shit is how it's going against it's allies on these deals.
Because our Allies were fed the same bullshit lies that Obama could keep his political commitments after his term ended. Absolutely it causes problems and it makes our government look retarded. Because the United States did not agree to anything and this is exactly why the Senate must approve deals and treaties and that they have the same effect as law when approved properly. You want a treaty to be taken seriously in the US and not subject to the whims of the president? Follow that damn law and have the Senate approve. Obama was a damned fool and his "legacy" will be one of overreach, failure, and lies.
immigrants being animals ... anyone referred to as an animal
MS-13 that is what you are talking about. The "immigrants" described as animals by Trump that is being defended by you and the media. Pathetic and disgusting especially when you lump them in the same as other immigrants. MS-13 are not innocent immigrants and should not be characterized as such nor defended.
You and the media are why we can't have nice things. You are literally spreading fake news and lies. You are why politics are getting mean and people would rather turn to Trump than listen to CNN. You will take anything out of context to promote your narrative that you will defend the scum of the earth. You are like Rob Rousseau saying "I would rather my daughter dated a member of MS-13 than a member of the Republican Party.". Because better to date someone that would have your daughter kidnapped and trafficked for sex than someone that disagrees with you politically. No shit politics is getting mean when you can't even agree on who is a bad person any more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
What lovely people you mis-characterize as "immigrant". They are literally the reason why we cannot have open borders. Sarah Sanders was right, animals isn't strong enough.
You may not like dehumanizing language but treating them like a dog is better than what they deserve.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a major setback in that conflict
But it was literally law since the 90's that our embassy would be in Jerusalem. Trump followed the law and a campaign promise unlike every other president before that made that promise and lied. You may not like it but following the law and a promise is a mark of good character for a president. Hamas and Iran will use anything as an excuse for violence especially if they can get a good photo-up western media will lap up. "protestors" killed that just so happen to be mostly Hamas.
pulling out of the Iran deal is a risk for our peace with them, not to mention destroying our credibility for other such arrangements.
The US never agreed to the Iran deal. Full stop. Obama made a promise he couldn't keep. Obama didn't have authority to make such a deal binding to other administrations. Obama made a promise and kept it for as long as he was in office. The US did not break any promise or deal. Not following the law to get what you want and lying about the pretenses is the mark of a bad character for a president.
I am sorry but the damage to US credibility is because of a president making promises without consent of the Senate expecting "not a treaty" to be treated as law by the rest of the government. There is no defending the Iran deal as struck by Obama and friends. He created a quagmire the moment he went around Congress.
These rules classified an ISP to be regulated with Title 2 with exceptions (which probably won't stand up against the first lawsuit as the law says those exceptions do not exist for that classification). Nothing about them were related to "Net Neutrality". Why is Title 2 the answer?
How can TV do what you are saying with HBO even though TV falls under Title 2?
How does the NN rules being repealed stop things like "HBO/Youtube package Title 2 internet"?
Title 2 just means that it's a public communications line and that no special conditions can be created to block or hinder access and that all rates must be reasonable and across the board.
No, Title 2 is a group of regulations for specific classifications and depending on the classification will decide which and how regulations are applied. Are Internet Service Providers a Information Service Provider or are they a Telecommunication Service Provider? Title 2 cannot regulate Information Service Providers because that is the way the law is written. Currently, ISPs are classified as Information Service Providers and thus are less regulated. The Obama-era FCC rules that were repealed effectively said "ISPs are Telecommunication Service Providers and we are going to pick and choose which regulation will apply regardless what the law says.". That is a horrible thing to do because not only does the FCC not have the authority to pick and choose which laws or regulations apply to which classification but it will be a matter of time before the exceptions will be applied because the law says so and as soon as the judiciary gets involved. Some of those exceptions are for example, decency rules. No more offensive content on the internet just like TV or Radio that do fall under Title 2. TV and Radio are Telecommunication Service Providers and if you classify the internet as such you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio because that is the law. It would only be a matter of time and lawsuit.
Getting hit by a car is the same as a lawful action? If the driver saying the public statements apologized and then hit you, would that be okay?
The plaintiffs argued that if Trump apologized his ban would have been legal. I am not sure how that fits with your car analogy.
If that is your argument then I think you have a bad case.
Does the Saudi Government work with the US to vet would-be travelers?
11% of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015 came from one of the banned countrie
Sounds like the vetting process needs to be examined and revamped.
and 0% of deaths from terrorist activities over that 40 year period came from these countries
Times change. Like civil war in Syria. The justification was multiple reasons not just "government cooperation". You are addressing a strawman.
are not effectively cooperating with US background checks, but yet still have results like this, it is our background checks which are too onerous.
With numbers like those there is definitely something wrong. Part of the reason for the ban was to assess the problems. I don't think the process is too onerous if a country is not cooperating. In fact, any government not cooperating should be scrutinized more.
No one with a positive IQ should fall for the Trump administration's proposed reasons for this ban. He may be able to get the ban through the Supreme Court based on an inconsistently strict partisan reading of the law, but even those justices won't be fooled by the actual reason for the ban
Did you hear the arguments laid before the Court? Because you seem very confident that the motives are racist when the argument was that even if his motives were racist that the process to decide these countries were enough to justify the list that any reasonable person would acknowledge because the specificity is unprecedented in US history. Even the plaintiff acknowledge that if Trump apologized, these orders would be lawful. The defense also suggested that Trump did in fact apologize thereby making these orders lawful.
If your argument is "Well it would be legal if it wasn't Trump." or the strawman you initiated with then you are on specious legal and logical grounds.
The people that parade this talking point really don't understand the ban. Including the people that mod you up.
Do the governments of those countries help the US properly vet any would-be traveler to the US? If not they are banned. If they do help and that help is up to at least some standard of what the US does then they are not banned.
The US has laws against existing criminals this ban was about the governments of nations that do not do the bare minimum in helping the US ensure that criminals do not come here.
IOW, the ban is for countries that are A) hotbeds of terrorist activity and B) governments not doing the bare minimum to help the US prevent those terrorists from traveling to the US.
Simply put, I do not believe that your mechanism for failure will work as you imply. A Trust for one. Assuming that the economy will behave as you expect. Assuming no one will change it to buy votes or expand it (illegals?). In addition to the point that I do not believe the federal government should be managing the welfare of citizens like this is an aside. You are giving people money. You must assume that people will be happy with a pittance and won't demand more. "how can anyone live off these bread crumbs?". This whole thing started with your claim: "tax rate is permanently-fixed and never increases." I don't buy it. That is a huge assumption on your part more so than assuming a politician will sabotage it. It sounds great on paper until you introduce the human element. "Permanent" and "never" are terrible government policies particularly in democratic societies. Why should I, being forced into a ponzi scheme for decades, take the risk to be apart of your ponzi scheme when you make claims of "never and permanent" regarding taxes?
" We could say the same of Government in general" - Sure, and that is why we have conflicting branches of government. An assumption was made that each branch would fight for more power thereby no one branch would be more powerful than the others as the constitution has laid. However, the congress gives up its power because voting is risky and can lose your job. Generally, because the government is made of people not to be trusted we should err on the side of caution and not give the government more power.
You make a lot of assumptions with your plan and expect everyone to buy into those assumptions. I don't. How many generations will it take for your plan to fail and you have multiple generations buying into a ponzi scheme? A used car salesman indeed. "The last ponzi scheme was garbage. I am better and smarter! My ponzi scheme will get you rich and unicorn farts!" The Clinton example was the first that came to mind. It really is irrelevant to the fact that it is a failing system.
"they must have the opportunity to access higher education" - As already stated, everyone in the US already has that. Universality has been achieved. You are avoiding the point. Average includes those that cannot do college. Average is 100 iq. College requires a little more than that.* College is not necessary to participate in the economy. If you make it required you will create a set of 2nd class citizens because A LOT of people will be unable to do college or you will make college dumbed down that it amounts to a job as a burger flipper. If everyone had a degree that degree would become worthless just like what happened to the high school diploma getting a job at burger king. College is specialized and specific and is not required. College is not average nor mandatory. High school is for the average because everyone must do it to participate in the economy. I don't even know how you quantify "fully" participate. Want to argue the costs? I agree that is an issue. Paying through taxes when deficit spending is already an issue is not the answer. If it is payed through taxes expect a lot of strings attached like no gender studies or other "worthless" degrees. After all, it is supposed to be for job training according to your "fully participate".
*https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
first search result. the examples you list are far and away above the average. Why you think that should be the new high school diploma and the "average to participate" is beyond me.
Not a real thing.
Sure sure. It's all perfect and you have the best solution ever conceived by man that will never fail. It's just that "those" people messed it up.
has a varying revenue base and recipient base
Which your plan won't have that problem. Because your assumptions are correct and no one will ever be able to expand on your assumptions which would never in any way break or bankrupt the system. Social security was advertised as you advertise. How are you any different than the congressmen that sold social security?
You do see how my Dividend solves this problem, though, I'm sure.
Until someone messes it all up. On paper social security was similarly advertised. Yet here we are. And assuredly you will have an excuse why your plan won't fail. Here's a thought, instead of pushing your plan at the federal level do it at the state level and I will take it more seriously. Until then you sound like the used car salesman that sold social security.
Which they can't afford to pay back.
different issue and I agree. But universal education has been achieved.
Different types of jobs need different skills. ... We can't teach you all of that to rigor in high school.
You seem to not understand "for the average citizen to participate in the economy.". In the last century it was reading writing, and arithmetic. The average citizen doesn't need an engineering degree, an accounting degree, a programming degree, economics degree, etc to participate in the economy. If you can't identify the skills that will be necessary for the average citizen to participate in the economy then your proposals sound rather empty. The average citizen doesn't need a degree in accounting or engineering to participate in the economy.
Social Security isn't failing because people are asking for more
Not really. They are living longer and more people that haven't paid into it are drawing from it. Also, something about Bill Clinton accounting shenanigans with social security. So we are both right. the funding maybe flawed but also people are taking more and paying less into it in addition that it is being abused. My underlying point that entitlements only go up which is the case for social security.
Bernie Sanders
Yes, and the DNC didn't have the decency to use lube. yes the potus can lead an agenda but it's the congress critters that get the riders and amendments to pass the pork. Obama was able to get his agenda because his party controlled congress with enough majority. using the bully pulpit isn't the same as writing the law.
you have college for whoever can afford it.
Everyone is able to afford it because everyone can take out a loan. There are problems with that but the issue isn't universality. Everyone that wants a bachelors in underwater basket weaving can get it. Universal access to college has been achieved regardless of your financial situation. Now it is an issue of making sure that that access is affordable. Making it "free" isn't the answer.
new job opportunities require a college education
You are not addressing what I say. YOu just ramble on as if you are talking to yourself. "If there are skills needed for the next century for the average citizen to participate in the economy then it should done through high school. "
I am not going to respond to all, because I think you are foolish.
That's stable, right?
I am young enough to have no expectation of Social Security. If something simple like Social Security will fail how would your plan not fail when people ask for more? On paper it was advertised as you claim, yet there are many alive today that are paying into a ponzi scheme that will lose because of what I am saying and what you fail to recognize.
I see Bernie had a great victory over Hillary.
How long has Bernie been in the Congress? I thought we were talking about the people that make the law not the people that enforce the law. Fool.
Free College for All to just Free College for All Making Under $125k.
We have college for all. The issue is affordable. As more people have gotten a college degree the less it is worth. Everyone has a high school diploma and that is worth barely more than paper. If there are skills needed for the next century for the average citizen to participate in the economy then it should done through high school. I don't understand why college is needed. Why must college be the new high school?