Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: Bozhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/congressman-calls-for-police-to-arrest-undocumented-immigrants-at-state-of-the-union/2018/01/30/9f93feba-05e7-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=.905e81f681a8
Finally common sense on security. Not sure how an illegal can gain entry into a secure area like Congress. Or maybe having a fake ID isn’t a crime anymore. Makes you wonder how safe air travel is and who is on your plane.
WTF
ROTFL
Have you ever visited Washington DC?
I used to live in nearby Maryland.
Tons and tons of international tourists all over DC
These non citizens will often take the White House tour or the Capitol tour
My grandmother who is not an American citizen took the White House tour.
Boz wants to put all the American airlines out of business by having a USA citizenship requirement to fly
ROTFL
Quote: TankoThe EC prevents wildly unbalanced voting power.
She won the popular vote by 2,860,000 votes.
She won LA by 1,694,621 votes.
She won NYC by 1,508,746 votes.
Either city alone would have provided more than enough votes to win the popular vote.
If we don’t count LA, she wins the popular vote by 1,165,379 votes.
She lost Staten Island. Which means the population living in a 243 sq. mile area would have decided the election for a 3.8 sq. mile nation.
We could rule the rest of you every time.
Combining both cities, the populations living within 749 Sq. miles would have picked the leader for a 3.8 million sq. mile nation.
Without the EC, anyone living outside of LA and NYC could stay home and watch own them on CNN.
I don't buy this argument....
One vote in NYC should equal one vote in rural Alabama. Or anywhere else.
Why is it so hard to do it that way?
The EC is unbalanced. One Wyoming electoral vote is worth almost four times what an electoral vote in New York is worth. How is that fair?
The point is the EC is irrelevant today. And if you want to talk about unbalanced voting power...the balance we're after occurs in the SENATE, where two are given to each state regardless of population.
When one person = one vote scares you, there's something wrong with your platform. And if the only elections you win are when LESS people vote, it's not something to be particularly proud of.
Quote: terapinedWTF
ROTFL
Have you ever visited Washington DC?
I used to live in nearby Maryland.
Tons and tons of international tourists all over DC
These non citizens will often take the White House tour or the Capitol tour
My grandmother who is not an American citizen took the White House tour.
Boz wants to put all the American airlines out of business by having a USA citizenship requirement to fly
ROTFL
So exactly what ID do these unwilling accomplices of criminals have? A Mexican passport? Their Green Card should work fine to fly like legitimate immigrant workers have. Glad I gave you a laugh today, hopefully your floor is clean. I haven’t seen that used by anyone since AOL in 1996. Thanks for the oldie but goodie.
So there are no hard working minorities who have overcome Trump’s hardships, no college grads working 2 jobs to try and make ends meet, no disabled American Hero Veterans, or just any of the struggling Americans who $1000 won’t mean much to, to honor?
The simple answer is these Dems don’t give a sh@t about these criminals but they do see them as a winning bet for future elections. Not saying the GOP cares about them either but it is a sad statement on our country that these illegals are getting more publicity that everyday hard working Americans that the Dems say they represent.
Quote: Boz
So there are no hard working minorities who have overcome Trump’s hardships, no college grads working 2 jobs to try and make ends meet, no disabled American Hero Veterans, or just any of the struggling Americans who $1000 won’t mean much to, to honor?
What makes you think that the immigrants (legal or otherwise) being brought to the SotU don't fit these criteria as well?
Quote:Only five US presidents in history have been elected despite losing the popular vote: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump this November.Dec 12, 2016
Quote: TigerWuWhat makes you think that the immigrants (legal or otherwise) being brought to the SotU don't fit these criteria as well?
If they joined the Army, then someone has some explaining to do, and no they are NOT struggling Americans. If they are College Grads but are considered “Dreamers”, they lied to enter the school and should not be honored.
Far too many hard working immigrants who played by the rules who deserve it first if the Dems want to show that we need immigrants. But again, that doesn’t get the coverage making these criminals out to be innocent victims does.
Quote: bac8or9I am really neutral in politics and I wholeheartedly believe in he/she whom won, won by the greater amount of votes, why dwell in the past or dwell in losing?
But anyways, here is my question. It's been more than 100 days past your initial 100 days, no? What happened?
And by the way, even though Clinton's husband was impeached and committed criminal acts, he is still pretty popular and so is she, oh yeah, she has not been convicted yet huh....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
bac8or9 nuked: previously nuked for trolling, nuked for sockpuppet dupe id.
Makes sense to me.Quote: SteverinosThe point is the EC is irrelevant today. And if you want to talk about unbalanced voting power...the balance we're after occurs in the SENATE, where two are given to each state regardless of population.
When one person = one vote scares you, there's something wrong with your platform. And if the only elections you win are when LESS people vote, it's not something to be particularly proud of.
There. I fixed that for you :o)Quote: TigerWu
If we did that, then 90% of Congressmen would be out of a job. in Jail
Quote: BozIf they joined the Army, then someone has some explaining to do, and no they are NOT struggling Americans. If they are College Grads but are considered “Dreamers”, they lied to enter the school and should not be honored.
Far too many hard working immigrants who played by the rules who deserve it first if the Dems want to show that we need immigrants. But again, that doesn’t get the coverage making these criminals out to be innocent victims does.
A criminal (i.e., illegal immigrant) who has a steady job, pays their taxes, and otherwise stays out of trouble is pretty far down on my list of concerns when it comes to things that are wrong in this country. I guess that's why I just don't care about the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Once we've fixed all of our real problems, then we can start lining people up and asking to see their papers.
Quote: BozIf they joined the Army, then someone has some explaining to do, and no they are NOT struggling Americans. If they are College Grads but are considered “Dreamers”, they lied to enter the school and should not be honored.
Far too many hard working immigrants who played by the rules who deserve it first if the Dems want to show that we need immigrants. But again, that doesn’t get the coverage making these criminals out to be innocent victims does.
How are children brought here illegally criminals?
I understand you feel if ANYONE is here illegaly even those brought here as children then they must be criminals
However if you ask yourself some basic questions you will see you are wrong
Question #1: if a ten year old american citizen commits murder are they considered to be committing an adult crime? Can they be put in jail when they hav passed 21 years of age?
So why should someone brought here when they were young be more liable for criminal acts?
Quote: darkozHow are children brought here illegally criminals?
I understand you feel if ANYONE is here illegaly even those brought here as children then they must be criminals
However if you ask yourself some basic questions you will see you are wrong
Question #1: if a ten year old american citizen commits murder are they considered to be committing an adult crime? Can they be put in jail when they hav passed 21 years of age?
So why should someone brought here when they were young be more liable for criminal acts?
No comparison, even Obama considered them criminals. However he gave them protection from prosecution under DACA. If they have done nothing wrong, why would that have been needed?
My issue is why would we ever award them with citizenship without preventing this issue from continuing to occur?
Just from my observation. I have noticed that it's mostly the children of Mexican immigrants that get into gangs.Quote: darkozHow are children brought here illegally criminals?
I understand you feel if ANYONE is here illegaly even those brought here as children then they must be criminals
However if you ask yourself some basic questions you will see you are wrong
Question #1: if a ten year old american citizen commits murder are they considered to be committing an adult crime? Can they be put in jail when they hav passed 21 years of age?
So why should someone brought here when they were young be more liable for criminal acts?
Quote: AxelWolfJust from my observation. I have noticed that it's mostly the children of Mexican immigrants that get into gangs.
Its a problem with all immigrant communities all through the history of this country
Take Chinatown in NYC.
Gangs always looking for fresh meat from overseas
The Chinese have their gang problems just like any immigrant community
That's the way it is
File under you can’t make this stuff up. This idiot who thinks he should be our next President is honoring an illegal who employes 800 Part Time employees. He doesn’t even get realize they are Part a time to avoid his heroes law that penalized company that hire Full Time employees with unrealistic requirements on Health Insurance. I wonder how many of these PT employees are on government assistance?
We vilify Wal-Mart , yet celebrate this woman. Crime does pay, just ask Senator Booker’s guest tonight.
Today’s Democratic leaders, an old bitter white guy, a fake Indian woman and an Obama wanna be. If that’s diversity, I want no part of it.
Quote: darkozHow are children brought here illegally criminals?
I understand you feel if ANYONE is here illegaly even those brought here as children then they must be criminals
However if you ask yourself some basic questions you will see you are wrong
Question #1: if a ten year old american citizen commits murder are they considered to be committing an adult crime? Can they be put in jail when they hav passed 21 years of age?
So why should someone brought here when they were young be more liable for criminal acts?
If your father holds up a bank and gives you the money, and you knowingly keep it instead of reporting it to authorities, should you be prosecuted? You'd have to at least return the money, right?
Quote: RogerKintIf your father holds up a bank and gives you the money, and you knowingly keep it instead of reporting it to authorities, should you be prosecuted? You'd have to at least return the money, right?
That comment is now-a-days borderline patriarchal and cisgendered which is equal to racism and anti-feminazism, probably. You can't just assume someone has a father, such patriarchal thinking. Smh.
Edit: I wrote matriarchal not patriarchal woops.
Edit 2: You make a good point though. Even I, a liberal, can't argue with that.
edit 3: Darn I just assumed my own political viewpoints, I'm ashamed. (To be fair I am liberal because I oppose the death penalty.)
Quote: RSThat comment is now-a-days borderline patriarchal and cisgendered which is equal to racism and anti-feminazism, probably. You can't just assume someone has a father, such patriarchal thinking. Smh.
lulzits tru tho
Edit: I wrote matriarchal not patriarchal woops.
Edit 2: You make a good point though. Even I, a liberal, can't argue with that.
Well, according to the tv commercials, only clean-cut white guys commit crimes.
Quote: RogerKintIf your father holds up a bank and gives you the money, and you knowingly keep it instead of reporting it to authorities, should you be prosecuted? You'd have to at least return the money, right?
In cases where a man has raised a child believing the child to be his, and it turns out later the man was fooled and the child was conceived by another man, the judges don't rule the man was relieved of duties, because the reasoning is, the child's interest is above the interests of either parents. They may or may not find the biological father, but that just means he's included in obligations if they do.
And that's the way I feel about these DACA kids. Their interest is still primary regardless, because of these circumstances.
Quote: rxwineIn cases where a man has raised a child believing the child to be his, and it turns out later the man was fooled and the child was conceived by another man, the judges don't rule the man was relieved of duties, because the reasoning is, the child's interest is above the interests of either parents. They may or may not find the biological father, but that just means he's included in obligations if they do.
And that's the way I feel about these DACA kids. Their interest is still primary regardless, because of these circumstances.
All of that sounds really noble but is it? If you were adopting these children and paying for them yourself I would applaud you. However, I'm kinda getting the feeling that you expect other people to pay for them. If I'm wrong I apologize.
While we're making arguments based on feelings rather than law, I feel the well-being of children of veterans (especially those KIA) is still primary, regardless.
None of this really matters though does it? Raegan gave amnesty and Cali has been blue ever since. Dem or rep, gov still grows.
Quote: RogerKintAll of that sounds really noble but is it? If you were adopting these children and paying for them yourself I would applaud you.
If asking for charity on behalf of other people is only noble if I pay for it, that indicts a whole lot of people, many known as great humanitarians and saints who did the same.
Quote: BozSo exactly what ID do these unwilling accomplices of criminals have? A Mexican passport? Their Green Card should work fine to fly like legitimate immigrant workers have. Glad I gave you a laugh today, hopefully your floor is clean. I haven’t seen that used by anyone since AOL in 1996. Thanks for the oldie but goodie.
Being in the country illegally is not a criminal act. It is a violation of civil law. Police do not have the right to enforce civil law. It is a violation of your fourth amendment right arrest those who are not criminals. The only people that can enforce immigration law (civil law) is ICE and Border Services, who can detain you and deport you, but cannot charge you with a criminal offense. And it is a violation of the tenth amendment to force federal matters (immigration) on state/municipal police. Being here unlawfully also does not prevent you from getting on an aircraft.
If you don't like that, change the constitution that you so dearly love.
Quote: SteverinosThe basic argument is that the EC was implemented as a limitation on democracy. It wasn't the only limitation in the Constitution, but we have eliminated most of the others. Senators are no longer appointed by state legislatures. A slave was officially counted as 3/5 a person but the 14th amendment abolished that. The 17th amendment made Senators directly voted in instead of appointment by state legislature. And of course the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.
The point is the EC is irrelevant today. And if you want to talk about unbalanced voting power...the balance we're after occurs in the SENATE, where two are given to each state regardless of population.
When one person = one vote scares you, there's something wrong with your platform. And if the only elections you win are when LESS people vote, it's not something to be particularly proud of.
Fair enough, but the past is the past. Campaigns would run differently and results would be entirely different if it was simply a popular vote. Fix gerrymandering first so that congress represents geographic districts.
Quote: Bozhttps://mobile.twitter.com/SenBooker/status/958443419680100353
File under you can’t make this stuff up. This idiot who thinks he should be our next President is honoring an illegal who employes 800 Part Time employees. He doesn’t even get realize they are Part a time to avoid his heroes law that penalized company that hire Full Time employees with unrealistic requirements on Health Insurance. I wonder how many of these PT employees are on government assistance?
We vilify Wal-Mart , yet celebrate this woman. Crime does pay, just ask Senator Booker’s guest tonight.
Today’s Democratic leaders, an old bitter white guy, a fake Indian woman and an Obama wanna be. If that’s diversity, I want no part of it.
Booker's guest came to the United States when she was 7, arriving 22 years ago, in 1995. Her parents were here illegally. Since then:
Quote: Senator BookerAs a young student, she excelled in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), graduating second in her class in high school and earning degree in mechanical engineering from the City College of New York in Harlem. After college she helped launched a logistics and tech startup that to-date has employed over 900 part-time workers. She then went on to work for Samsung, leading STEM outreach initiatives for students in grades K-6.
Vilchis currently runs a nonprofit called latinoTech, which is dedicated to helping Latinx entrepreneurs access venture capital. She’s also working on launching a venture capital fund to help directly fund Latinx entrepreneurs building tech companies.
The start-up company employing part-timers (by the way, they do cover medical) is a courier company that essentially is a New York City bicycle courier company, which is why the work is part time. You can look it up - Homer Logistics.
Quote: SteverinosThe point is the EC is irrelevant today. And if you want to talk about unbalanced voting power...the balance we're after occurs in the SENATE, where two are given to each state regardless of population.
Without the EC and the two senator limit, the interests and needs of the small states could never compete against those of the larger states. They would have less incentive to remain in the Union, or join it in the first place.
The EC and the two senator limit, levels the playing field, and provides the smaller states with a voice. These are remedies designed to prevent what Madison called “The Tyranny of the Majority”.
I live in a city with fifteen times the population of Wyoming, yet 327 times smaller in terms of sq. miles. We’d be a dot on their map.
If elections were decided by the majority alone, what chance would the interests of Wyoming’s 280,000 voters have against our 2.4 million voters? It wouldn’t be worth the bother to count their votes. Our interests would prevail every time.
If the number of senators were determined by population, how much influence would Wyoming’s measly two senators have compared to my forty, or California’s forty-five?
Wyoming, and any small population state, for that matter, wouldn’t even get crumbs.
Quote: RogerKintIf your father holds up a bank and gives you the money, and you knowingly keep it instead of reporting it to authorities, should you be prosecuted? You'd have to at least return the money, right?
Statute of limitations on bank robbery is five years. After that neither you or your father can be prosecuted
Try again
As for money being returned after so many years most likely that would happen but it would become a civil suit with treasure trove arguments.
As for comparing a stolen item that is definitive as property of a victim with immigration thats probably morally wrong and most likely legally wrong
There are specific statutes for every crime because crimes are not treated under one general blanket. You just cant compare bank robbery and its proceeds with illegal immigrants and their proceeds
Quote: BozThe simple answer is these Dems don’t give a sh@t about these criminals but they do see them as a winning bet for future elections. Not saying the GOP cares about them either but it is a sad statement on our country that these illegals are getting more publicity that everyday hard working Americans that the Dems say they represent.
The answer should be even simpler than that: Trump can simply let them continue their contributions that are helping to Make America Great Again. The only reason Democrats are involved in this issue s because Trump of made it an issue. And Trump could very easily end all the publicity this issue has created.
Thats at the federal level. There can be state laws that have a much longer statute of limitations.Quote: darkozStatute of limitations on bank robbery is five years. After that neither you or your father can be prosecuted
Try again
As for money being returned after so many years most likely that would happen but it would become a civil suit with treasure trove arguments.
As for comparing a stolen item that is definitive as property of a victim with immigration thats probably morally wrong and most likely legally wrong
There are specific statutes for every crime because crimes are not treated under one general blanket. You just cant compare bank robbery and its proceeds with illegal immigrants and their proceeds
Quote: TigerWu
The EC is unbalanced. One Wyoming electoral vote is worth almost four times what an electoral vote in New York is worth. How is that fair?
No.
One EC vote is one EC vote. What is more fair than that?
The purpose of the EC is to avoid the large states and population centers deciding an election alone. The last election shows why we need it. One candidate very popular in the most populated state but without that state a clear loser. (Maybe a loser with that state when illegal alien votes are removed.)
To get elected, a candidate must appeal to the population in many areas. The Foudners were a bunch of smart men!
Quote: AZDuffman
The purpose of the EC is to avoid the large states and population centers deciding an election alone. The last election shows why we need it. One candidate very popular in the most populated state but without that state a clear loser. (Maybe a loser with that state when illegal alien votes are removed.)
One candidate with a non-plurality of the vote, but without sparsely populated largely rural states a clear loser, what is more fair than that?
Maybe one person, one vote, rather than one person, 0.15 relative votes or whatever the individual case is?
Quote: darkozStatute of limitations on bank robbery is five years. After that neither you or your father can be prosecuted
Try again
As for money being returned after so many years most likely that would happen but it would become a civil suit with treasure trove arguments.
As for comparing a stolen item that is definitive as property of a victim with immigration thats probably morally wrong and most likely legally wrong
There are specific statutes for every crime because crimes are not treated under one general blanket. You just cant compare bank robbery and its proceeds with illegal immigrants and their proceeds
Why not? The stolen proceeds of illegal immigrants and their children is far more destructive to society than a bank robbery or even thousands of bank robberies. How much does it cost to educate (program) a child for up to 13 years? How expensive are globes and solar systems? LOL The trade deficit and debt indicates the people within our borders have become completely unproductive. Only 3 countries spend more, per student, on education than does the US yet we are something like 17th in overrall educational performance?
Quote: TigerWuI don't buy this argument....
One vote in NYC should equal one vote in rural Alabama. Or anywhere else.
Why is it so hard to do it that way?
The EC is unbalanced. One Wyoming electoral vote is worth almost four times what an electoral vote in New York is worth. How is that fair?
If anything, one popular vote in Wyoming is "worth almost four times" what one in New York is worth.
Quote: ThatDonGuyIf anything, one popular vote in Wyoming is "worth almost four times" what one in New York is worth.
The losing team almost always whines about the refs and the rules.
I'm sure the people of these forums know better than the folks who designed and created the framework for what would become the greatest nation ever.
Quote: RogerKintQuote: ThatDonGuyIf anything, one popular vote in Wyoming is "worth almost four times" what one in New York is worth.
The losing team almost always whines about the refs and the rules.
Winning and whining is a lot worse
Funny that Trump was whining about the popular vote he lost.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo.
The purpose of the EC is to avoid the large states and population centers deciding an election alone.
Then we're way overdue to end this electoral affirmative action for depopulated States.
(conservatives really hate affirmative action, so I know this will work)
Affirmative action - a policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group. In this case, smaller less populated States
Quote: AZDuffmanNo.
One EC vote is one EC vote. What is more fair than that?
One person's vote equaling every other person's vote no matter where they live is more fair than that. The EC does not do that. Large states and population centers would not "decide" an election with a popular vote.
Hillary won 65,853,516 popular votes.
Trump won 62,984,825 popular votes.
It does matter where those people live. It is irrelevant. A large city "deciding" an election makes no more sense than saying the state of Alabama decides an election. Or saying the city of Chicago combined with half of Rhode Island decides an election. 2 million votes in New York City is worth the same as 2 million votes in the rural South.
Quote:To get elected, a candidate must appeal to the population in many areas.
EXACTLY. And the EC clearly and obviously does not do that. Otherwise "swing states" and "battleground states" wouldn't exist.
You're right, the Founding fathers WERE a bunch of smart men. For their time.
Quote: terapinedQuote: RogerKintQuote: ThatDonGuyIf anything, one popular vote in Wyoming is "worth almost four times" what one in New York is worth.
The losing team almost always whines about the refs and the rules.
Winning and whining is a lot worse
Funny that Trump was whining about the popular vote he lost.
Reminds me of very successful coaches who win a game but lose in one area of the game (turnover margin etc.) and whine about it. Or, like someone who is winning at life, has a good job, gets high a lot, an overall very likeable person, but still whines that his/her presidential candidate lost. Winning and whining lol
Quote: RogerKint. Or, like someone who is winning at life, has a good job, gets high a lot, an overall very likeable person, but still whines that his/her presidential candidate lost. Winning and whining lol
It gives them something to do for 4 years........
Quote: RogerKint
The losing team almost always whines about the refs and the rules.
I'm sure the people of these forums know better than the folks who designed and created the framework for what would become the greatest nation ever.
1.) I voted for Gary Johnson, I was on the losing team no matter what.
2.) You're absolutely right. In fact, let's just go back to the laws we had in 1776, without a single exception, because they predicted the future perfectly and every single law they had back then, without any additions, alterations or deletions was spot on then, now and for all time.
3.) The Constitution sucks.
Quote: RogerKintWhy not? The stolen proceeds of illegal immigrants and their children is far more destructive to society than a bank robbery or even thousands of bank robberies. How much does it cost to educate (program) a child for up to 13 years? How expensive are globes and solar systems? LOL The trade deficit and debt indicates the people within our borders have become completely unproductive. Only 3 countries spend more, per student, on education than does the US yet we are something like 17th in overrall educational performance?
For one you are making up a crime. Sorry but there is no crime of Stealing a public school education. How you see it is well...irrelevant
Secondly having spent money on education on dreamers it would be a stupid move to now deport them
Better to get the value of that education by having them be productive members of the united states
Quote: darkozFor one you are making up a crime. Sorry but there is no crime of Stealing a public school education.
Illegal immigration is a made up crime? Are you saying all crimes are made up? I don't get it.
Quote: darkozHow you see it is well... irrelevant.
Likewise
Quote: RogerKintIllegal immigration is a made up crime? Are you saying all crimes are made up? I don't get it.
Was there any such thing as, "Illegal immigration," in 1776? Public schools?
Quote: RogerKintIllegal immigration is a made up crime? Are you saying all crimes are made up? I don't get it.
Likewise
Correct. You dont get it
Quote: Mission146Was there any such thing as, "Illegal immigration," in 1776? Public schools?
Great point! There was no illegal immigration because there were little or no social programs. Immigrants could only be a net positive to society at the time. From what I've read a migrant just couldn't have any transmittable illnesses.
