Dump of r/NeutralPolitics comments.

NeutralPolitics.csv

text
" what points to no collusion which of these claims or others support the notion that it’s all on the up and up those are two separate things just because something doesnt support one conclusion doesnt mean it automatically support the other trump alienating members of the g7 while insisting that russia should be part of the group falls under trump says nice things about russia and trump called for not insisted and its clear thats not happening regardless of what trump says while supportive it in no way is evidence towards collusion its just dumb policy from trump being unwilling to follow through on the sanctions imposed on russia by an entirely separate branch of government for meddling in our elections trump did follow through sanctions are in place he followed the law as it was written reversing sanctions on i dont see anywhere that trump has reversed any sanctions snopes says that idea is mostly false never mind i don’t want to have to link to all the news reports that this group demands there wouldn’t be enough evidence for you and the other devotees anyway there simply aren’t any explicit confessions and there wasn’t for nixon’s actions at this point either so thank you for giving evidence instead of just talking about how much evidence there is that im ignoring but lets review the evidence that you present that is conclusive 1 trump calls for russia to be returned to the g7 after being kicked out in 2014 knowing this will never happen suggestive trump likes russia would you say this is enough to convict on collusion not very convincing 2 you say trump is unwilling to follow through on sanctions yet he passed them and followed the law as written by congress exactly not very good evidence 3 reversing sanctions didnt seem to happen that i can tell so i think you can see why im not convinced by that evidence and i think you can see there is no way to show collusion based on that meanwhile from trump not only declined to lift obamaera sanctions on moscow as many feared he would but expanded them” observes commentary magazine’s noah rothman “this administration closed russian consulates and annexes in the united states it has targeted putin allies under the magnitsky act — the same act that kremlin cutout natalia veselnitskaya lobbied the trump campaign to scuttle trump has even gone so far as to open us arms sales to ukraine representing a significant blow to putin’s ambitions in europe” the approval of lethal weapons to ukraine is particularly striking it was on that issue that the language in the party platform was softened at the behest of the trump campaign as originally proposed the plank warned that europe was being “severely tested by russia’s ongoing military aggression in ukraine” and expressed gop support for “providing lethal defensive weapons” to ukrainian forces defending their country but trump staffers insisted on a weaker formulation the platform ultimately eliminated any reference to russian “aggression” and called only for providing “appropriate assistance” to ukraine whether trump’s personal views have changed is unclear tens of millions of dollars’ worth of material — sniper rifles javelin antitank missiles and ammunition — have been approved for export to ukraine the detailed national security strategy review issued by the white house this month pulls no punches in describing the malevolence of putin’s regime “russia aims to weaken us influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries around the world china and russia want to shape a world antithetical to us values and interests russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior” the united states says the nss will work with europe “to counter russian subversion and aggression” but all the independent actions and coincidences and events sure do point in one direction they don’t point in other directions they aren’t easily explained away with other interpretations of those events how can you explain away each of them as innocent and random coincidences or benign so were back to trump says nice things about russia and putin in his tweets and interviews i wish hed stop russia and putin are not our friends versus trump continued and expanded obama era sanctions sold lethal weapons to the ukraine which obama didnt do obama pulled their missile defense refused to hand syria over to russian control like obama did approved strikes killing hundreds of russian soldiers closed russian consulates and annexes and put out a national security strategy review saying russia aims to weaken the us and separate us from allies interferes with domestic policies intimidates its neighbor and is antithetical to us values and interest and that they will work to counter russian subversion and aggression so you believe tweets outweigh the actual policies i explain that by youre wishing there to be collusion because you dont like trump but youre wrong remember there is little dispute that russia influenced the election most certainly to the point of tipping the scales in his favor no one says they tipped the scales in his favor except hillary clinton she was a terrible campaigner and is a terrible person she neglected huge sections of battleground states and they tipped the scales towards bernie as well and as soon as the surprising election results came in they started fomenting antitrump resentment in their totality the evidence is very compelling and clear while any one claim could perhaps be explained away as innocent no it isnt its not even close evidence that trump says nice things about russia while maintaining the most antirussian policies in recent history suggest the opposite and lets see what other presidents have said about russiaputin obama in 2012 obama disparaged mitt romney for exaggerating the russian threat—“the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the cold war’s been over for 20 years” obama quipped this breezy attitude prevailed even as russia annexed crimea invaded eastern ukraine intervened in syriahballyhooed “reset” with russia launched in 2009 in keeping with optimistic attempts by every postcold war american administration to improve relations with moscow out of the gate obama’s team quickly turned a blind eye to russia’s 2008 war with georgia which in retrospect was putin’s opening move in destabilizing the european order like george w bush before him obama vastly overestimated the extent to which a personal relationship with a russian leader could affect the bilateral relationship george w bush famously said he looked into putins eyes and saw a measure of his sole he’s a manchurian president with a ton of unpatriotic enablers unwilling to see it sure im the one unwilling to see the truth here ill help if you want to convince me and other skeptics that trump colluded with russia stop with some junior associate deputy campaign chairmen met with a russian diplomat at a conference twice crap heres what you have to show with some evidence 1 a significant member of the administration or campaign that actually received help directly or coordinated with the russians saying they were interested or would love to is not evidence if it never happened that would be pretty conclusive on its own with other administrations i would say you would never find this kind of evidence directly but with the trump family i think you would failing that 2 show that trumps policies are unusually prorussian at least relative to any other new administration which always wants to a reset russianus relations b set peace in the middle east and c denuclearize russia currently you have to say his policies are not as prorussian as the last administration dragging his feet on sanctions which he passed or saying this or that about how great russia is or putin is is not convincing to a rational observer its just not if you want me to believe the president of the us should be convicted of treason for collusion with the russians which i will believe if thats what the evidence shows thats what youll have to show me i dont believe you can find that unreasonable "
"the unhrc replaced the un commission on human rights which was disbanded after a number of criticism including the use of the council to shield their own country from criticism and the election of countries carrying out genocide to the council in 2008 with the new council these same issues have come up again it has been argued that the council was simply a cover for countries with bad human rights records to cover themeslves some of the worlds most abusive regimes have won seats on the human rights commission and used them to insulate themselves from criticism current members include sudan which is carrying out genocide nepal whose absolute monarch has suspended basic liberties and saudi arabia where women have few rights all are gross violators of the universal declaration of human rights the commissions founding document the council in 2008 also received some criticism of its stance towards issues skimming over the violent collapse of civil rights in zimbabwe and barely touching on the culpability of sudan’s government for the nearly 300000 deaths in darfur the council focused more than half of its seven special sessions since 2006 on the israeli occupation of arab territories true burma now called myanmar by its military rulers did receive attention with calls to expand the political space there was also a special session on global food prices and shortages but the council chose not to consider tibet for example or the mounting toll of official violence against minorities in india both china and india are council members on the council’s agenda for september 2008 only one country was named in advance for special attention israel moreover the council is now dealing with the explosive issue of what topics will dominate a conference on racism xenophobia and other forms of intolerance to be held in durban south africa next year the article goes on to mention that regionalism plays a role in selection in the case of africa a consortium of human rights organizations that pooled existing international surveys of human and civil rights and freedom of expression categorized two of the four nations nominated and ultimately elected as “unqualified” one “questionable” and only one ghana “qualified” to take a council seat the article also notes the bush administration quit the council in 2006 for the same reasons and the obama administration rejoined in 2009 the council has faced criticism from some groups especially when countries like china russia saudi arabia algeria and vietnam were elected to the body in 2013 the current council is from the same regional area and has a heavy asianafrican presence some of these issues were brought up again when australia was elected to the council current council member the philippines is waging a deadly extrajudicial ‘war on drugs’ that has killed at least 6000 people while prospective member the democratic republic of the congo is riven by conflict arbitrary arrest torture and killings by security forces and the persistent recruitment of child soldiers membership of the human rights council is controversial saudi arabia which has executed more than 100 people this year is a council member and the philippines whose government is currently waging a brutal extrajudicial ‘war’ on drug crime has been warned by rights groups it risks being suspended from the council if it continues to violate human rights a twothirds vote by the un general assembly is required for suspension the countries who will be promoted for threeyear terms on monday have a mixed human rights record at best in the democratic republic of the congo riven by war for decades security forces employ torture rape arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial killings and children are forcibly recruited to fight as soldiers mexico’s security forces have been consistently accused of extrajudicial killings enforced disappearances and torture as part of efforts to combat violent organised crime and in senegal issues of child trafficking and exploitation unlawful killing by security forces and deaths in custody remain prevalent all will almost certainly earn spots on the council monday human rights watch said the drc congo’s bid in particular should be rejected “accepting congo’s election bid would undermine the founding principles and credibility of the un’s top rights body and its ability to promote respect for human rights” louis charbonneau un director at human rights watch said “it would also be a serious affront to the countless victims of government abuses and to the work of courageous congolese activists” afghanistan pakistan and qatar are also candidates for the asiapacific’s allocation of seats here is an article from huffington post that argues the some of opposite about countries on the council but still says the council is biased against israel among its ten standing agenda items the council has continued a permanent item on israel’s human rights behavior in the occupied palestinian territories opt this is clearly unfair while israel’s treatment of palestinians certainly deserves close scrutiny it is hard to justify singling it out for such special attention when the united states was absent from the council its members convened no less than six special sessions on israel since the united states joined the body only two such sessions have been called and one of these sessions was a hangover from when the united states shunned the council a similar decrease in the number of country resolutions devoted to israel occurred along with a corresponding increase in attention to cases like north korea iran and syria israel still views the body with trepidation and fails to cooperate with its factfinding commissions on opt but after initial opposition agreed to participate for a second time in the universal peer review process in 2013 according to israel’s ambassador in geneva “israel came to the review with respect for the process belief in the importance of its universality and cooperative nature and with great pride in its achievements” some in washington argue that the council’s biased treatment of the united states’ closest ally in the region demands a complete break from the body but others argue that that would be an enormously high price to pay in terms of us leadership in promoting human rights around the world the politics of the united nations suggest little movement on this issue in the near term but the united states’ willingness to defend israel against such unfair treatment is best served by engaging directly on the body and not walking away from it there are other articles along the same lines for example there are also other organization like the un watch that have released reports pdf web archive but some argue that the organization is biased towards israel this is all very similar to another un council the united nations economic and social commission for western asia whose member states of this council include bahrain egypt iraq jordan kuwait lebanon libya mauritania morocco oman palestine qatar saudi arabia sudan syria tunisia united arab emirates yemen1 countries which historically have not liked israeljews and attempted prevent creation of the jewish state from the arab league boycott from back when the first farmscoops were moving into israel kabbutzim that they were able to buy and state their communist secular enclaves also to note yesterday the uk has put the united nations human rights council on notice over what it called its disproportionate focus on israel the adl has also criticised the council for “extreme antiisrael bias” "
"when they replaced the terrible commission on human rights the human right council hrc was envisioned to not suck to no longer be made up of a bunch of the worst violators of human rights sadly they are part of the un and it was pushed through that countries would have geographic representation the consequences of this decision were inevitable but unstoppable in the politics of the un today these are the members afghanistan 2020 angola 2020 australia 2020 belgium 2018 brazil 2019 burundi 2018 chile 2020 china 2019 côte d’ivoire 2018 croatia 2019 cuba 2019 democratic republic of the congo 2020 ecuador 2018 egypt 2019 ethiopia 2018 georgia 2018 germany 2018 hungary 2019 iraq 2019 japan 2019 kenya 2018 kyrgyzstan 2018 mexico 2020 mongolia 2018 nepal 2020 nigeria 2020 pakistan 2020 panama 2018 peru 2020 philippines 2018 qatar 2020 republic of korea 2018 rwanda 2019 saudi arabia 2019 senegal 2020 slovakia 2020 slovenia 2018 south africa 2019 spain 2020 switzerland 2018 togo 2018 tunisia 2019 ukraine 2020 united arab emirates 2018 united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland 2019 venezuela bolivarian republic of 2018 assuming you are familiar with countries of the world you can be assured that the wolves are watching the henhouse from the standpoint of the us there is one major issue at hand the hrc is consistently antiisrael to the extent that generally speaking 60 of their condemnations are of israel without getting into the politics the us is a longtime ally of israel and consistently is on israels side in the un that being said i will source news articles from obamas term when he joined the hrc after bush declined to join it for essentially the same reasons trump pulled out of it in an attempt to avoid blah blah trump opinions for being part of hrc mark toner a spokesman for the state department during a press briefing on wednesday “it’s led to a substantial track record a positive track record at the council” toner replied that under us guidance the council had for the first time addressed serious violations of human rights in nations like libya iran guinea cote d’ivoire and kyrgyzstan after the vote the us ambassador to the un susan rice told the bbc america was not blind to the councils flaws obviously there will always be some countries whose respect and record on human rights is subpar she said we have not been perfect ourselves but we intend to lead based on the strong principled vision that the american people have about respecting human rights and supporting democracy in an interview with politico website rice discussed us president barack obamas decision to have the us become a part of the un human rights council unhrc once again saying the move is meant to change the councils agenda and decrease its obsessive attempts to isolate israel in favor of dealing with human right violation in other parts of the world such as sudan myanmar and zimbabwe in the years since the united states joined the council has dramatically improved its track record in carrying out its fundamental mission of protecting and promoting human rights around the globe while it remains an imperfect body — with many states with poor human rights records among its members and a persistent though diminished bias against israel — the council is now shining a light on the worst violations of human rights including in places such as syria north korea sudan and iran and helping create space for civil society to hold governments to account there is no doubt that us leadership and diplomatic muscle have contributed to this dramatic change in orientation and performance… opinions against being part of hrc former us ambassador to the un john bolton now a fox news contributor argued that washington’s membership on the council imbues it with a legitimacy the panel does not deserve “the entire un human rights mechanism for many years has been governed essentially by human rights violators and their mission is to get on the human rights council and its predecessor body basically to protect themselves from real scrutiny” bolton said as evidence of his claim that the council lacks legitimacy bolton cited the fact that the un general assembly voted down a proposal to bar from the council’s membership ranks any country that had been slapped with sanctions – for supporting terrorism – by the un security council itself the council has faced much criticism for its focus on israel as well as its failure to produce a substantial condemnation of the atrocities in sudan other members on the council include cuba saudi arabia china and russia former us president george w bush decided not to join it after various ussuggested reforms — such as minimal standards of respect for human rights among member states — were rejected member states of the organization of the islamic conference oic hold a majority in each of the african and asian groups this gives the oic the balance of power when the going gets tough the single us vote or the seven votes of the “western european and others group” weog amount to a hill of beans by letting some of the world’s worst regimes rub shoulders with its leading democracy the united states becomes an enabler these governments don’t share western or universal values they use the council to 1 feign interest in human rights 2 keep the focus on israel and away from themselves 3 manufacture victim status 4 encourage liberal guilt and concomitant financial responsibility and 5 undermine the universal application of real human rights standards in short pro hrc membership the us gets a voice at the top organization about human rights and can thus influence how some resolutions are written even if they cant influence the final vote con hrc membership the hrc is a joke with an agenda typically controlled by egregious human rights violators i do not believe this will affect the credibility of the hrc at all as they essentially have zero credibility already like the chr before them some do disagree with my assessment of course at the same time participants shared concerns about factors which limit the council’s ability to deliver effectively on its mandate including the erosion of the council’s credibility when states responsible for gross and systematic rights violations are elected as members lack of cooperation with the council and its mechanisms including attacks on special procedures mandate holders selectivity and politicization resulting in some countries escaping scrutiny for serious human rights violations attempts by some states to limit civil society access to and participation in the council reprisals against human rights defenders seeking to engage with the un lack of visibility and implementation of council resolutions and other outcomes if we let the un human rights council fail which will surely happen if democratic states weaken their commitment and engagement with it we leave the field free to tyrants to call the shots annan wrote this is still a work in progress but there is no greater cause and we risk falling into a trap of our own making if we believe that the opinions of humankind expressed at the un are meaningless paper tigers with no effect in the real world through diplomacy and negotiations we reached agreement on the universal declaration of human rights and a slew of human rights treaties that followed the fundamental principles they articulate represent civilized norms to protect ourselves from the worst impulses of human nature "
the flores decision flores v reno and subsequent flores v lynch court flores v sessions cases related to it did a number of things it seems to be particular about the right of accompanied and unaccompanied minors right to due process and bond hearings flores v lynch found flores v reno applied to accompanied and unaccompanied minors the government also argues that some provisions of the tvpra regarding the detention and release of unaccompanied minors are inconsistent with the settlement at most that might support modification of the conflicting provisions so that they no longer apply to the unaccompanied minors covered by the tvpra but the creation of statutory rights for unaccompanied minors does not make application of the settlement to accompanied minors “impermissible” the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend on the record before it conclusion we hold that the settlement applies to accompanied minors but does not require the release of accompanying parents we therefore affirm in part reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion each party shall bear its own costs so they said look whatever congresswhite house thinks is going on they havent given a good argument as to why the minors should be treated differently the government also argues that the law has changed substantially since the settlement was approved it cites congress’ authorization of expedited removal—but that occurred in 1996 before the settlement was approved see illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 pub l 104–208 § 302 110 stat 3009546579–85 1996 the government also notes that the homeland security act of 2002 reassigned the immigration functions of the former ins to dhs but there is no reason why that bureaucratic reorganization should prohibit the government from adhering to the settlement the court is pointing out there any actual laws about this despite what congress thinks it has done to address the situation things were apparently picky about unaccompanied v accompanied which is the reason for flores v sessions as minors were otherwise taken into detention centers for months on end despite already being in country with a parentlegal guardian which would accept their release it seems the main issue is that the government and its actors dragged their feet in properly sorting out if the minors could be released to a parent or parental guardian in the flores v sessions issue often times a parent was trying to get them out but the government would not relent plaintiffs submit evidence showing that in practice orr currently detains unaccompanied minors for months and even years without providing them with any opportunity to be heard before a neutral person with authority to review the basis for the detention one declaration for example is from hector who was detained in california at the age of 15 although hector’s mother was living in los angeles and repeatedly attempted to get her son released into her custody hector was detained by orr for 489 days flores v sessions the flores decision was complicated and remains complicated because it impacts a lot more than just folks attempting to cross the boarder the government regularly flaunted the flores decision for years under numerous presidents and attorney generals where they go from here is anyones guess however flores v reno was issued in 1993 the court wrote we turn now from the claim that the ins cannot deprive respondents of their asserted liberty interest at all to the “procedural due process” claim that the service cannot do so on the basis of the procedures it provides it is well established that the fifth amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings see the japanese immigrant case 189 u s 86 100–101 1903 which suggests the court knew in 1993 their hands were tied because of the fifth amendment salgadodiaz v gonzales immigration proceedings although not subject to the full range of constitutional protections must conform to the fifth amendment’s requirement of due process so i have no idea what the us government should do aside from adhere to the laws they have written and follow them in as good faith as possible given the cases already argued it seems the courts can do nothing until they are given better instructionlaws from congress more than likely they need to deport everyone after sorting out their situation this was the decision in the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act in 1996 although it applies to a lot more than just illegal entry into the us it appears numerous policies are in place but they are not able to be enacted quickly enough to meet the 20 day deadline i understand that because even when given all pertinent information legal asylum immigration is not a quick process for asylum applications filed on or after april 1 1997 the immigration and nationality act ina states that the initial interview should take place within 45 days after the date the application is filed a decision should be made on the asylum application within 180 days after the date the application is filed unless there are exceptional circumstances see ina section 208d5 as of jan 29 2018 the uscis asylum division is scheduling interviews in the following order of priority first priority applications that were scheduled for an interview but the interview had to be rescheduled at the applicant’s request or the needs of uscis second priority applications that have been pending 21 days or less since filing third priority all other pending affirmative asylum applications will be scheduled for interviews starting with newer filings and working back towards older filings and in a general visa based case it isnt that much better with times ranging from 08 months to 284 months so i guess they have three options 1 get faster at sorting out folks trying to enter the country 2 find a way to make the country stop caring about immigrants or 3 have congress update the laws or maybe more im not a lawyer or deeply informed about this issue beyond my own recent interests
the protestors in question are being led bycomposed of members of hamas military arm here is hamas say so itself others times it has been reported up to 80 of those killed were hamas 2nd source the us eu classified terrorist organization in control of the gaza strip which is changing tactics to gather more sympathy this is a very dishonest look at the great march of return your claim that the protests are led bycomposed of members of hamass military arm is unsupported by evidence and by your source the source you cite places 5 of the protesters killed as part of the militant arm which doesnt warrant quotation marks around protesters because it doesnt claim anything about their behaviour in the march the majority of the protesters are not hamas militants you could have a case albeit a poor one with members of hamas employed politically being the leaders and the people of the march your claim that 80 of the protesters being killed were part of hamas is supported by your source but misleading it is very important to note that it was never claimed these 80 were militants since you do seem to consider hamas a reliable source from your usage of hamas says so itself it would be pertinent to quote the hamas statements from the times of israel article you cited salah bardawil said in the last rounds of confrontations if 62 people were martyred fifty of the martyrs were hamas and 12 from the people how can hamas reap the fruits if it pays such an expensive price hamas spokesman fawzy barhoum did not confirm all 50 were members of the islamist movement he told afp hamas paid for the funerals for all 50 “whether they are members or supporters of hamas or unrelated to the factions” bassem naim another senior hamas official declined to confirm or deny the number but said it was a “large movement and has great popular support” it was “natural to see members or supporters of hamas in large numbers” in such a protest he said adding that when they were killed they were “participating peacefully” in demonstrations it also important to cite people involved in the creation and organization of the march such as hasan alkurd he had this to say about salah bardawils statements “it was a huge mistake and it’s untrue some of those killed were part of hamas but to say that the majority were it’s simply not true we tried to speak with hamas and the other parties as much as we could asking them to step aside they are constantly in the spotlight this was our turn i think that what bardawil meant to say was that his movement’s members are willing to sacrifice themselves he did not mean to say that there were more hamas members at the protest because it’s not true and no one can claim that his statement was meant more for the public in gaza in order to promote his party’s image and i do not think that he thought about the consequences of his statement and what the israelis would do with it amnesty international says the organizers of the “great march of return” have repeatedly stated that the protests are intended to be peaceful and they have largely involved sitins concerts sports games speeches and other peaceful activities despite this the israeli army reinforced its forces – deploying tanks military vehicles soldiers and snipers along the gaza fence – and gave orders to shoot anyone within several hundred metres of the fence while some protesters have attempted to approach the fence threw stones in the direction of israeli soldiers or burnt tyres social media videos as well as eyewitness testimonies gathered by amnesty international palestinian and israeli human rights groups show that israeli soldiers shot unarmed protesters bystanders journalists and medical staff approximately 150400m from the fence where they did not pose any threat btselem in its recent position paper says that on friday 30 march 2018 tens of thousands of gazans attended demonstrations held in five locations near the gazaisrael fence the participants varied widely in age and included men women and entire families over the past week b’tselem investigated what took place that day based on testimonies given to our field researchers in gaza – khaled al‘azayzeh muhammad sabah and olfat alkurd – by people who demonstrated at the various sites and on eyewitness reports by the field researchers themselves according to the investigation as well as reports and footage circulated by the press and on social media most of the protesters stayed close to tents erected in the area some 400 to 700 meters from the fence others came within 150 meters of the fence – in some cases mere meters away – and some of them torched tires and threw stones at soldiers positioned behind dirt mounds on the other side of the fence b’tselem’s investigation found that soldiers – including snipers – fired for hours on end at protestors who were less than 300 meters from the fence the soldiers also fired rubbercoated metal bullets and teargas some of which was sprayed by a drone on demonstrators hundreds of meters from the fence hamas founding charter called for the genocide of all jews and the destruction of israel this is the hamas charter that explains hamass principles and objectives quoting their founding charter is a disingenuous tactic that doesnt provide nearly enough evidence for your characterization of hamas their actions over recent years and statements as well as this charter are more representative of hamas than the age old tactic of referencing their founding charter they later changed this language some say it was never officially changed to get more support from egypt this article talks about the plo hamas doesnt want peace they want to get people killed to further their agenda which is the genocide of jews and the destruction of israel as it did in the past hamas is offering a longterm ceasefire — known in arabic as “hudna” — in return for a lifting of the blockade it conveyed such a proposal to israel several weeks ago through egyptian and qatari channels but israel ignored it
as someone who has studied the korean peninsula for over thirty years as a korean linguist intelligence analyst and now hs history teacher i have to say that such an agreement without clear details is unprecedented and historic in a very concerning way the full text of the agreement joint statement of president donald j trump of the united states of america and chairman kim jong un of the democratic peoples republic of korea at the singapore summit president donald j trump of the united states of america and chairman kim jong un of the state affairs commission of the democratic peoples republic of korea dprk held a first historic summit in singapore on june 12 2018 president trump and chairman kim jong un conducted a comprehensive indepth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new usdprk relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the korean peninsula president trump committed to provide security guarantees to the dprk and chairman kim jong un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula convinced that the establishment of new usdprk relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the korean peninsula and of the world and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the korean peninsula president trump and chairman kim jong un state the following the united states and the dprk commit to establish new usdprk relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity the united states and the dprk will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the korean peninsula reaffirming the april 27 2018 panmunjom declaration the dprk commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula the united states and the dprk commit to recovering powmia remains including the immediate repatriation of those already identified having acknowledged that the usdprk summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future president trump and chairman kim jong un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously the united states and the dprk commit to hold followon negotiations led by the us secretary of state mike pompeo and a relevant highlevel dprk official at the earliest possible date to implement the outcomes of the usdprk summit president donald j trump of the united states of america and chairman kim jong un of the state affairs commission of the democratic peoples republic of korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new usdprk relations and for the promotion of peace prosperity and security of the korean peninsula and of the world this is long on ideals yet completely lacks any plan of how or when anyone has commited to fulfill promises or how anyone will verify compliance what has been publicly released is contrary to mike pompeos insistence that whatever came out of negotiations would be complete verifiable irreversible the parties promise to join efforts for peace work toward denuclearization and recover powmia remains and no more the agreement lays out no plan on how any of this will be accomplished there has been a long road of negotiation toward denuclearization and it has been marked by serious plans aid and agreements that allow some verification despite these long term efforts denuclearization has not happened this agreement does not appear to change or address any of this an example of past negotiations this is really an arbitrary selection of events in a long history of negotiations an abbreviated but extensive chronology is available here 1985 nk signs nuclear nonproliferation treaty then later suggests it will only adhere to treaty only if us withdraws nukes from sk 1991 president george bush withdraws all nuclear weapons from overseas including on the korean peninsula 92 sknk sign denuclearization pact then us imposes sanctions for continued nk missile proliferation iaea inspections begin 93 reasonable suspicion of continued atomic development declared by iaea nk threatens to withdraw from nonproliferation treaty npt then changes its mind 94 us intel believes that nk has succeeded in producing nuclear weapons this pattern of negotiate agree renege attempt to renegotiate develop weapons test weapons continues right up to today deals are made and broken as a gesture of goodwill before this negotiation nk gave up a nuclear test site that was already unusable there is no reason to believe that this is anything but business as usual and weve already granted nk a free political victory by the way negotiations were handled this time a couple of longterm goals of nk were met and granted in this meeting without really giving anything up 1 prestige and legitimacy a one on one meeting with the president of the us 2 commitment to end joint exercises with an ally id like to see this succeed but am very skeptical tldr it is historic but not in a good way edit additional info and sources
"your first study again suffered the same problem as the cardkrueger metaanalysis which they published in 1995 not the 1994 which was a study done on the effects of the minimum wage on 2 adjoining areas but still had the same problems it did not factor in shortvslong term trends found in the study it merely measured whether the findings of the study supported the raising the minimum wage as a means of combating poverty or not and for good reason as described at the bottom of my post flaws of timeseries analyses are significant for minimum wage studies the study does address more than the raising the minum wage as a means of combating poverty or not from its abstract once this publication selection is corrected little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains luijendijk hj koolman x may 2012 the incentive to publish negative studies how betablockers and depression got stuck in the publication cycle shows how studies that fail to reject the null hypothesis are not newsworthy and often do not end up being published the funnel plot method used in the cardkrueger and hristos doucouliagos and t d stanley studies is the most common method used to remove publication bias and while there are difficulties with using polls they do actually provide relevant data especially to the point i was trying to make that the majority of economists oppose the raising of the minimum wage supporting this is how the poll can be replicated like so and find near the same results when asked about the 15 minimum wage and this opinion has been found throughout time in surveys done in 1976 by the american economic association 90 agreed that rasing it would increase unemployment with unskilled and young workers which shows you how long this consensus has been around polls are entirely inadequate in comparison to metaanalyses which actually use the data collected by studies rather than the politically charged opinions of researchers and often researchers who arent even experts in the relevant field in surveys done in 1976 by the american economic association 90 agreed that rasing it would increase unemployment with unskilled and young workers which shows you how long this consensus has been around 1976 is before the massive shift in how minimum wage studies are conducted the change in methodology and metaanalysis methods this is also an appeal to historytradition fallacy just because people agreed on something in the past doesnt mean that belief is correct id cite this poll showing an almost symmetrical distribution of belief on the effect of a 15 minimum wage on employment most minimum wage increases are far less than this older polling on a 9 minimum wage finds similar results as well as a very significant consensus on the overall benefits of increasing minimum wage to 9hour and pegging it to inflation one of the researchers has a potentially problematic disclosure but this is a minor nitpick and shouldnt affect the overall view of the research a significant problem with the research is similar to the one described below with the uw study bad construction of counterfactuals within a state instead of looking at similar labor markets ah the university of washington study its worth noting its methodological errors especially its terrible construction of counterfactuals that entire paper is based upon terrible understanding of how automation affects employment see autor not an independent study just a supposed literature review from an extremely biased source this entire study is based upon the cps which has its flaws especially before the redesign see this it also fails to account for spatial heterogeneity this study doesnt account for spatial heterogeneity or publication bias two extremely important factors in determining the effect of minimum wages on employment see hristos doucouliagos and t d stanley 2009 and this paper there is no funnel plot and subsequent correction making it very easy to reach false conclusions by way of publication bias there are a couple other significant problems with this study as outlined in the reviews section of this study your second source was again not the full book as you said and merely a collection of excerpts i apologize id thought that it was the book let me see if i can upload of a pdf of the book somewhere here are some short book reviews for the time being starts on page 243 in fact all of your citations fail to account for spatial heterogeneity an interesting study model to possibly eradicate some of the flaws would be a combination of longterm time series analysis and crossstate line comparisons but im unsure if any papers of this sort exist its also extremely important to note the critiques of time series analyses see this the labor market is extremely complicated and it nearly impossible to isolate all of the factors that affect employment and wages id like to cite this incredible study which reviews some metaanalyses reviews recent studies gives possible reasons why minimum wage doesnt affect employment and analyzes the history of minimum wage research "
"asylum seekers presenting at ports of entry aren’t in violation of illegal entry however there’s a backlog of people being processed tijuana mexico — after more than a month of travel by foot bus and train the central american caravan of more than 150 people has stalled at tijuanas usmexico port of entry where many are hoping to receive asylum — a us safeguard against deportation for individuals believed to have a credible fear of persecution upon the groups arrival immigration officials said the port of entry which has capacity to process roughly 300 people was already full el paso — serbando pineda hernandez and his 15yearold son riquelmer were making their ninth attempt in as many days to reach the port of entry here and apply for asylum as they approached us customs and border protection officers sunday on the paso del norte bridge pineda tried something new he presented a handwritten sign saying they sought protection from dangerous gangs in their native guatemala joined by four immigration activists who helped create the sign pineda and his son straddled the boundary dividing mexico and the united states but their path was blocked by two officers who told them that the port of entry was at capacity and couldn’t handle asylum applicants it was the immigration equivalent of a “no vacancy” light over the rio grande trump administration officials have in recent weeks adopted a carrotandstick approach to asylum applicants they have told those who cross the border illegally and make asylum requests that they will face criminal prosecution but that if they go through the official border crossings their applications will be processed yet in several cities along the border asylum seekers who follow those instructions are turned away and told to return later at some crossings applicants camp out for days and there have been allegations of people legally seeking asylum being turned away there have already been cases of people being illegally turned away by border officials when trying to request asylum at the us border alex mensing a spokesperson for pueblo sin fronteras an immigrant rights group that organized the event told newsweek five of the six plaintiffs listed in the federal class action lawsuit said they were turned away at one of san diego’s two ports of entry otay mesa and san ysidro the lawsuit — brought by al otro lado american immigration council and the center for constitutional rights — alleges that officials lied to asylum seekers and in some cases even coerced them to keep them from being able to formally apply for asylum and one asylum seeker reported being told “donald trump just signed new laws saying there is no asylum for anyone” according to the lawsuit asylum seekers must show that they have suffered persecution or fear that they will because of their race religion nationality political opinion or membership in a particular social group under both us and international law officials at the border must allow asylum seekers to make those claims to an asylum officer or immigration judge the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were not put into any asylum process said melissa crow legal director for the american immigration council they were rejected she said by people who do not have the authority to reject them so in some cases people are left with a damned if you do damned if you don’t catch 22 whereas before the new policy when a person was caught illegally entering the united states outside a port of entry if they were seeking asylum they wouldn’t be referred to doj immediately when an asylum seeker crosses into the us illegally she commits a federal misdemeanor under previous administrations the department of homeland security usually processed her asylum case first rather than referring her to the department of justice for federal prosecution even if dhs referred her for prosecution doj wouldn’t usually bother to actually prosecute her before her asylum case was complete and finally to show how policies and practices are used in a way that makes it hard for legitimate asylum seekers you have young children being left to “present” their case without their parents who would be able to give the details needed to have a chance for a successful asylum application since these kids can’t explain the complex situations that lead to them requesting asylum they can’t explain why they have a credible fear to an immigration judge as the white house faces court orders to reunite families separated at the border immigrant children as young as 3 are being ordered into court for their own deportation proceedings according to attorneys in texas california and washington dc requiring unaccompanied minors to go through deportation alone is not a new practice but since the trump administration’s controversial family separation policy more young children — including toddlers — are being affected than in the past "
i dont understand your first question since the national review article you cited seems to indicate why children are being separated it’s the last that is operative here the past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit the new trump policy is to prosecute all adults the idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against reentry illegal entry is a misdemeanor illegal reentry a felony the administration is charging all adults which means the children are placed into the custody of hhs it seems there are alternatives and in fact this is not how things were previously prior to this families were housed together and attempts were made to expedite removal of families not allowed to enter the country however part of the trouble is that the government needs to figure out who the child actually is in terms of legal parentsfamily or if they are being trafficked each child from a contiguous country—mexico or canada—must be screened by a cbp officer to determine if he or she is unable to make independent decisions is a victim of trafficking or fears persecution in his home country however noncontiguous children are treated differently children from noncontiguous countries such as el salvador guatemala or honduras are placed into standard removal proceedings in immigration court most troubling is that there has recently been an increase in these types of immigrations in recent years 20142016 as pew states apprehensions of children and their families at the usmexico border since october 2015 have more than doubled from a year ago this all started with homeland security act of 2002 which obama attempted to address in 2014 as part of the 2002 law dhs is responsible for coordinating and implementing the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children who are in federal custody by reason of their immigration status including developing a plan to be submitted to congress on how to ensure that qualified and independent legal counsel is timely appointed to represent the interests of each such child consistent with the law regarding appointment of counsel that is in effect on november 25 2002 there is a lot to read about here but it is should be safe to say the us formalized how to handle immigrant children at border crossings in 2002 which would have meant the senate as 5050 and the house was majority republican and the president was george w bush alternatives are literally anything the president wants to have the government carry out obamas letter directed i have directed the secretary of homeland security secretary to establish an interagency unified coordination group to ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in responding to the humanitarian aspects of this situation this document unaccompanied alien children an overview by william a kandel an analyst in immigration policy probably contains the answers you seek i havent been able to read all of it yet it agrees that the president did put together a commission to address the welfare of the children to address the crisis at its peak in 2014 the administration developed a working group to coordinate the efforts of federal agencies involved it also opened additional shelters and holding facilities to accommodate the large number of uac apprehended at the border and highlights a number of laws proposed in 2015 to reduce the rate of children being considered unaccompanied the current uac definition requires that in order for a minor to be deemed unaccompanied he or she must have no parent or legal guardian available to provide care and physical custody to the minor hr 1153 would amend the language to require as well that no siblings aunts uncles grandparents or cousins over age 18 are available to provide such care and physical custody i believe this is why prior to the changes outlined by the current administration families were housed together now the obama administration is rushing to open up detention centers to hold the families mostly women with children from el salvador guatemala and honduras and is working out streamlined procedures to quickly send them back to their homelands a turnabout in policy that is being widely panned by immigrant advocates it seems conditions were quite harsh but families were kept together prior to be removed from the us the first a 672bed center in artesia new mexico is located on federal law enforcement training campus families sleep in rooms with bunk beds and are allowed outside though they remain overseen by guards and the secure facility edit a quick edit as another user ujohnwalkersbeard had a solid post about sorting out to house these kids that spawned a subreddit rhelpthekids so maybe take a peak and i hope this isnt against the rules
here is an excerpt from the oral arguments for citizens united where the government argued that they could ban the publishing of books under the campaign finance laws at least if general treasury funds of a corporation were used to finance the book justice alito do you think the constitution required congress to draw the line where it did limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth whats your answer to mr olsons point that there isnt any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video demand and providing access on the internet providing dvds either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library providing the same thing in a book would the constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well mr stewart i think the the constitution would have permitted congress to apply the electioneering communication restrictions to the extent that they were otherwise constitutional under wisconsin right to life those could have been applied to additional media as well and its worth remembering that the preexisting federal election campaign act restrictions on corporate electioneering which have been limited by this courts decisions to express advocacy justice alito thats pretty incredible you think that if if a book was published a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy that could be banned mr stewart im not saying it could be banned im saying that congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its justice alito well most publishers are corporations and a publisher that is a corporation could be prohibited from selling a book mr stewart well of course the statute contains its own media exemption or media justice alito im not asking what the statute says the governments position is that the first amendment allows the banning of a book if its published by a corporation mr stewart because the first amendment refers both to freedom of speech and of the press there would be a potential argument that media corporations the institutional press would have a greater first amendment right that question is obviously not presented here but the other two things justice kennedy well suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book your position is that under the constitution the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60 90day period the 60 the 30day period mr stewart if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy that is if it was subject to no reasonable interpretation justice kennedy and i suppose it could even is it the kindle where you can read a book i take it thats from a satellite so the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view mr stewart well the statute applies to cable satellite and broadcast communications and the court in mcconnell has addressed the justice kennedy just to make it clear its the governments position that under the statute if this kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy within the 6030 day period if it comes from a satellite its under it can be prohibited under the constitution and perhaps under this statute mr stewart it it cant be prohibited but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required to use to raise funds to publish the book using its pac chief justice roberts if it has one name one use of the candidates name it would be covered correct mr stewart thats correct chief justice roberts its a 500page book and at the end it says and so vote for x the government could ban that mr stewart well if it says vote for x it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the preexisting federal election campaign act provision chief justice roberts no im talking about under the constitution what weve been discussing if its a book mr stewart if its a book and it is produced again to leave to leave to one side the question of chief justice roberts right right forget the mr stewart possible media exemption if you had citizens united or general motors using general treasury funds to publish a book that said at the outset for instance hillary clintons election would be a disaster for this chief justice roberts take my hypothetical it doesnt say at the outset it funds here is whatever it is this is a discussion of the american political system and at the end it says vote for x mr stewart yes our position would be that the corporation could be required to use pac funds rather than general treasury funds chief justice roberts and if they didnt you could ban it mr stewart if they didnt we could prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds
since people seem to be talking about the cons or how this is intuitive ill speak in favor of it the resources of the police department are dictated by the town budget and in many towns town budget comes down to a vote by the population the amount of crime at a given instance is dictated by criminals and can widely vary since we cannot guarantee that they have the resources to protect from all crime we cannot hold them liable when they fail to protect from a crime due to not having enough resources and since both sides of the equation are out of their hands we cant hold them liable for not having enough resources so then what if they have enough resources to have responded to a crime while this sounds great in practice its much much harder than it seems the first problem is prioritization the question of whether you prioritized correctly is inseparable from the question of if you had the resources to solve the problem because it determines the number of officers to each incident the order in which you respond to the incidents how long you think you have to wait on an incident whether you think an incident will escalate etc the less officers you assign to an incident the more dangerous it is for the officer and the more likely they will be to fail the more officers you assign the less incidents you can service at once there isnt a perfect risk tolerance to have nor is there a perfect queuing method for job lists it gets more complicated because other things like patrolling and detective work save lives too if a police department always values maximal response to current crime over patrolling and detective work that might result in crimes or deaths as well in some cities police presence and patrol is a crucial deterrent in some cities detective work is very important do you want criminals knowing that if there is some crime going on police are going to be too busy to respond to them weighing this passive roles of the police against the active roles of the police is very subjective but important to balance and that determination of what is ideal isnt just subjective but also dynamic for example if crime escalates in a city or the number of officers changes or officers are ill or theres a blackout or a major event the optimal manner in which they prioritize jobs may change too and we have to keep in mind that the police are human when theyre trying to find that ideal prioritization theyll be wrong theyll be experimenting maybe they try having partners two cops to a car and find that they just arent covering enough ground so they switch back to one officer per car in the meantime maybe their proposal to double their fleet of police cars gets scrutiny by the town maybe they finally get enough cars and switch to singleofficer per car but then a few incidents go wrong so they start sending backup more often etc and since this is all subjective as the staff changes the thought process and risk tolerance might change on that backdrop trying to prove that they could and should have prevented a particular crime is extremely subjective and extremely situation specific it would be a hard thing to prove but also opening up that legal avenue may create an enormous amount of lawsuits by anybody who thinks the police could have done a better job in their case which is probably a ton of people meanwhile are all of those lawsuits going to be effective are they just going to bleed more money from the polices resources making the matter worse are they going to criminally charge the officer or followed the orders or the dispatcher who chose where to send what cars when its not even always clear how to allocate blame its messy meanwhile its not like we dont have a mechanism for addressing general police effectiveness we use the mechanism that we use to make anybody do their job whether its important or not a police department that doesnt protect citizens is likely going to be a target from the voters and the mayor who can change staff change resources etc for doing their job poorly police staff can be fired or investigated like other people who do their job poorly especially if its a pattern for doing their job well they can be promoted or praised meanwhile if that investigation finds them innocent the police chief or mayor can try to solve the problem through more resources or different procedures edit i think i made my argument in a fact agnostic way eg crime varies and budgets vary and neither is dictated by the police rather than most police stations are at or near capacity which is why i didnt provide sources if you feel otherwise help me find where you think a source is needed
" ethnic cleansing and apartheid a un agency published a report on wednesday accusing israel of imposing an “apartheid regime” that was covered in this post np had also to cite a un council about a un council is probably a bit much land and water theft so this is a bit mixed here is some more info as of 2007 the estimated average per capita supply in the west bank had increased to about 98 liter per capita per day 98 lpcd the estimated household use was 50 lpcd with many households consuming as little as 20 lpcd even if connected to the network due to the fragmentation of the west bank movement of water from waterrich areas to palestinian communities with water shortage is inhibited therefore there are huge differences in water use in the eastern and southern west bank while the daily consumption in the jericho district was 161 liters in 2009 in jericho city even 225 liters it was less than 100 liters in other areas in the central jordan valley it was about 60 liters inhabitants of anu’ima east of jericho had only 24 liters residents of villages that are cut off from water supply have to buy water from watertanker operators43 all of the eastern west bank except the israeli settlements and jericho are designated as a closed military area or as an area that for other reasons has access restrictions for palestinians in 2012 90 of the small palestinian communities living there had less than 60 lpcd over half of them mostly bedouin or herding communities often cut off from their traditional wells had even less than 30 litres per person per day as of 2009 the palestinian water authority pwa or municipalities provided about 70 lpcd in gaza but could not reach all households a lot of this is due to the police activityblockadewall which reduced terror attacks in israel by 90 also the palestinian authority has said they will cut off talks with israel if the blockade is lifted targeted assasination from the link palestinians say israel has targeted and killed at least a dozen local palestinian leaders since the current round of unrest erupted almost five months ago israel has acknowledged some of the cases and refused to comment on others indicating that there is a policy of targeted killing israeli officials have said repeatedly that their forces have permission to hit palestinians who have attacked israelis or are planning attacks this is against hamas a known terror group to the un us uk etc that has a history of violence and terror that attacks civilians and children collective punishment torture arbitrary detention again a report from the un united nations officials condemned the other article the report does not spare the palestinian governing bodies either “neither the palestinian government nor the hamas de facto administration in gaza took steps to ensure accountability for crimes committed by palestinians armed groups in previous conflicts including indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks on israel and summary killings of alleged ‘collaborators’” it states according to the report palestinians killed 16 israelis most civilians and one foreign national in stabbings carrammings shootings and other attacks last year granted the 11 called out in the report are not excusable but selectively highlighting what this report says is questionable never declared borders from the first part of that link the current borders of the state of israel are the result both of war and of diplomatic agreements among israel her neighbors and colonial powers some borders are internationally recognized while others are disputed one specific ethnic group rather than to all its citizens there is more to it than that the legal adviser also said that the legislation seemed to be aimed at altering basic principles – for example by essentially cancelling the law of return which declares the right of every jew to immigrate to israel and determining instead that receipt of israeli citizenship will be based on a person’s familial affiliation to another citizen of the state in addition wrote yinon the bill negates the principle according to which the symbols of the state reflect the national revival of the jewish people in addition to rejecting hebrew language as the principal language of the state 50 discriminatory laws against ethnic minorities that source is biased as the only thing it is set up to do is attack israel illegally occupying so that is a probds article bds is a hate group and has been declared as such in places like germany "
"my background i was a cop for 15yrs and worked many special assignments including drug task forces all that work all that overtime and money spent just think how much it costs for simple possession the officers time contacting and arresting the suspect booking the suspect jail deputy’s time processing the suspect jail nurse time medical checking the suspect housing feeding the suspect arraignment judge dadefense attorney court staff clerks bailiff etc cops time booming evidence evidence clerks package and send to lab for testing all time and money guy is released on bail does not show up for court on his court date again judges time da and defense attorneys time court staff bailiff etc records processing a warrant for his arrest all takes time and money cop stops him for a traffic violation has to arrest on a warrant waits for tow truck for his car all time off the street costing taxpayers repeat jail processing etc maybe 2 times as he’s constantly released then arrested again on warrant add a few extra drug charges in there that multiply all the above 34 times all these court dates are all overtime for the arresting officer and in many cases multiple officers i once made over 3k going to court multiple times on a simple possession case i will leave out cost of drug treatment program and or work release cleaning up garbage on side of road etc all costing staff time paperwork you name it last but not least probation officers time dealing with them checking on them probation depts clerks processing time all the paperwork and beurocracy probation officer dealing with courts on behalf of the addict all this and the guy is still likeley an addict still more arrests to come multiplying the above yet again also all the arrests and processing and cops time dealing with the thefts the addict is caught for and not caught for the victims time losing property anger and fear of being victimized then add in that this guy now has a felony record every time heshe puts in for a job they are disqualified because they checked that convicted felon box or past drug use box if they lie and don’t i knew people who worked at places for months on end without a problem employer found out about past drug use or criminal conviction and fired them all that time all that money all that stress and victimization of an addicts theft victims to get their fix all that and nothing changes besides the addict now has a record now has associated they have met in jail only making them worse criminals the cost of a simple possession to the tax payer is estimate is about 1012 thousand dollars when you add all this up perhaps more that’s just 1 case most of these guys have multiple this is not counting all the time and money spent on them throughout their lives as they commit crimes to get a fix also think about the money spent on welfare for their kids cps food stamps it goes on and on now what do i think is the answer first off i think all drugs mere possession should be decriminalized only go after big weight sales those bringing drugs in focus on treatment of the addict stop the demand stop the supply all treatment should be free and state of the art imagine if you only changed 2 of every 10 that went to treatment look above at the cost a single addict costs the taxpayer and system and imagine that imagine those 2 and their families not growing up in that environment thus decreasing the kids chances of following addicts footsteps the benefit grows exponentially and is immeasurable as you go down generations portugal has this policy all drugs are decriminalized and they only focus on those selling large quantities treatment is free and good they have many outreach programs they had a heroin epidemic in the 90s and crated this new ground breaking policy i’m 10 years addiction was cut by 50 and portugal is now the 3rd safest country in the world in my years in law enforcement i learned many things one thing i learned for sure is the drug war is a losing battle and by fighting it we are only creating a bigger problem and yes many people are getting rich off that war edit i got a message from the moderator stating i needed sources i guess there are sources but i would argue that i am a source as i am a 15yr veteran police officer who’s worked the front lines of the drug war i hope that helps and is enough to not get this removed "
well you know i cant very well leave that be guess were discussing this im well aware of mississippis reasoning in leaving the union what i mean by the morality not being black and white is that the north didnt attack the south to end slavery the emancipation proclamation was a tool used by lincoln to cripple the south during the war no such law was made in the north at the time lincoln campaigned with a promise to eventually do something about slavery this put a lot of fear and anger into the slave owners down south the north fought the south to preserve the union and cared little about the end of slavery it was just a means to an end many people will praise the north as the indusputible good guys that did no wrong its not the south that was racist in the 1860s it was the entire country there were a few pure abolitionists here and there but for the most part nobody agreed to equal rights for blacks at the time even in the north the politicians and other wealthy individuals in the south knew what the end of slavery meant to the future of their enonomy and being men of their time wanted no part of the abolitionists crusade to end slavery ending slavery wouldnt have crippled the north like it did the south and if it did the north wouldnt have agreed to an end on slavery either the northern states had immigrants by the boat load coming in everyday willing to work in their factories for scraps the south didnt have the luxery and relied heavily on slavery to feed into its economy there was also a very real fear in the southern states at the time that if the slaves were freed they would attack and kill the white people who lived there you got to remember that the south had over 90 of the slaves at the time their numbers rivaled that of the southern whites and everybody knew this generals on both sides were like the military has always been very conservative for the most part and most didnt like the idea of ending slavery most knew each other well and were schooled at westpoint there is also something to be said of the common soldier the common soldier in the north were fighting to preserve the union many didnt even know slavery was an issue that was on the table until lincoln used it as a tool to cripple the rebellion the southern soldier fought for a different reason you see back in the 1800s people were very defensive of their state there wasnt this unifying patriotism for the us as a whole that we see today someone living in south carolina would consider themselves a south carolinan first and an american second so it comes to no surprise that when the union came marching down destroying the railroads raiding the farmland crushing the means of production and killing civilians through collateral damage in your home state that you would sign up to fight them off it was your state after all and your family and friends live here only the richest folks could afford slaves and so your average southern soldier wouldnt have cared too much about slavery himself no the southern soldiers were defending themselves from a northern aggressor any state in the union reserved the constitutional right to leave that union at anytime when the country was formed when that right was exercised it came under attack can you really blame the south for that atrocities were committed by both sides but that is oftentimes just a side effect of war in general im not saying that the south was right to defend slavery just that the north wasnt neccecarily fighting against slavery hell lincoln wasnt even going to attack the south and was almost ready to let them secede until ft sumterwhich was a crazy misunderstanding on the part of the south and in their defense strongly believed sumter to be theirs as it was in their territory the northern populace was outraged and demanded that lincoln retaliate and so he did and so began the start of a long and senseless war that will forever be a mark on american history personally im of the opinion that if the south would have seceded without an issue it would have outlawed slavery on its own by 1900 due to rising pressure from allies and trade partners overseas would it have worked out better for the south or america in the long run we cant really ever know but its interesting to think about the kind of world we would be right now if the confederacy never fell anyway there it is
"this was a little too long for the meta post but i also wanted to do a little deeper dive on why sources are important here and anywhere in online debates really what is important in discussing politics is that when we make claims sources are given so that things are able to be easily referenced for crosschecking and the promotion of discussion that is because we should be able to easily fact check not only the claim itself but also the source of the claim some research institutions are set up to only push a specific agenda and that must be taken into consideration when using studiesfacts from that source oftentimes we see people using these sources without the awareness of the leaning of that source one such example is in our faq however biases are not limited to institutions we ourselves have a number of innate and largely unseen to us biases that present themselves in our day to day lives the book thinking fast and slow by daniel kanheman is an excellent example of some of these biases present in our everyday lives here is a summary for those with youtube access and also wikipedia has some good information about the biases some of these are familiar but what kanheman adds is his work on the two systems of thought in our brain system 1 is fast automatic frequent emotional stereotypic unconscious to quote from wikipedia and often our first response this brain is lazy and will prefer this system in most situations when it does not have to engage in system 2 it will not most of those traits can be seen to dominate online discussion especially when people are discussing items related to their identity or that are personal to them what we want in true open discourse is the opposite of this system 2 is slow effortful infrequent logical calculating conscious these are the items we want in a discussion on politics we want to break through the barrier of kneejerk pettiness and move to actual discussion on policy history and most importantly foster an environment where people can come and form mutual understanding and respect sources therefore force the reader to pause and engage their system 2 and move beyond emotion into an actual discussion that is we engage our factual and logical system instead of an emotional one this becomes even more important on items we are passionate about however this is not the only reason sources are a good idea as i mentioned earlier there are biases from institutions and also in ourselves we can also simply recall something incorrectly or only partially so often we see news outlets misquote a study or only part of a study either due to lack of knowledge on the subject or in an attempt to push an agenda when we request sources we have often seen instances of oh i thought it said when it did not we also have a tendency to overstate something we think we have knowledge in or have an understanding of when we do that we can lose nuance which may be essential to understanding the issue or understanding it from anothers point of view substitution availability anchoring these are all biases that are present in all of us which can lead us to false conclusions or reinforce bad knowledge sources help alleviate that this is especially true with socalled common knowledge in our current online environment items such as memes are highly shared and can oftentimes shape our view of an issue thier is very little room for facts and nuance in 2 lines of text these items are often designed to spark outrage for a cause and are therefore hyperbolic or stretch of the truth the max point of polarization phrases such as let that sink in are also designed for the same effect and often follow some highly polarizing sentence however when we look at some of these items their is a lot more nuance and middle ground than shown by these low value highly polarizing statements we find that the sky isnt really blue or disney made up lemmings jumping off cliffs for a movie we are here to learn and understand this isnt a political turf war facts should be used discussed and bad factssources should be countered with good ones keep it civil keep an open mind and above all be excellent to each other "
this is a more difficult question to answer than you might think i cant give you a specific answer to your question but maybe can provide some useful context particularly relating to eu trade policy countries typically have thousands of different tariff rates for customs purposes goods are classified using a tariff nomenclature almost always based on the harmonized system classification results in goods being provided with a 6 digit code each of whichhas a very specific description of a good why so complicated because this way countries can discriminate against very specific product imports and imports from very specific countriescompanies and encourage the import of others the complex nomenclature is also useful for statistical purposes developed countries usually allow dutyfree imports of raw materials ore oil etc and halffinished products with some tariffs remaining in industries that the signatory nations want to protect usually finished products and highend technology future economic value and agriculture jobs the eu trade policy towards nations with which we dont have trade agreements specifically descriminates against specific types of manufactured goods and agricultural goods the eu charges significant rates on agricultural goods but we use a weird system that says the cheaper your foodstuffs are the higher our tariff rates are this is done to ensure a minimum price level for european farmers we also charge comparatively high tariff rates on things like cars 1037 clothes and shoes 82037 depending on goods type cosmetics and pharmaceuticals to name a few on top of my head we like any kind of product our manufacturingservices sectors need industrial machines robotics computer screens printers etc so these are usually free this is usually a good rule of thumb in the case of the eu since we do not have a free trade agreement with the us the eu and the us charge each other most favoured nation rates so no tariff discounts for us american products receive the same tariff rates as say chinese products when trade agreements are signed however signatory states usually remove tariffs entirely on at least 9537 of products and reduce tariffs on others the contents of trade agreements are the result of years of negotiations trade agreements are used to divert trade so for example the eu has trade agreements with countries like south korea vietnam and soon japan which will contribute to diverting manufacturing away from china of course the eu will receive concessions from these countries as well like lower tariffs on eu products better protection of eu investments and better protection of intellectual property what people tend to forget is that rules of origin are also a very important part of trade agreements which basically boils down to how much of the product was produced in country x in modern supply chains it almost never happens that say a car produced in mexico is produced in mexico only many parts are imported from other countries who is to prevent companies from importing a car from china screwing on one bolt and claiming it is mexican you need to prove that at least x37 of the value of the car was actually produced there this is one of the things trump wants to renegotiate he wants products imported from mexico and canada to have to contain higher percentages of homemade value which indirectly benefits the us as parts imported from the us is counted as made in mexicocanada for customs purposes basically trump would like to use the nafta renegotiation to boost us manufacturing trump is in some sense using bullying tactics the justification he uses to increases tariff rates on steel and aluminum he is also considering cars is considered flimsy by most at least in international trade law but very useful as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations mexico and canada are in general very happy with the nafta rules surrounding trade in goods trump must therefore introduce incentives for mexico and canada to give him concessions on his most important priorities source i work at a customs advisory firm edit added some stuff
"for unskilled immigrants the number of eb3 third preference option bachelors degree level work associate degree apprenticeshipneeded level work unskilled work visa granted is limited to 10000 green cards per year while the number of total of eb3 visas per year will be 145000 green cards this might sound a lot but these are divided per country no country can receive more than 737 of the visa and one type of visa can only fulfill 28 637 of the types of immigration and divided by visa options as well for example im indonesian the number of eb3 visas granted to indonesians will be around 145000 divided by 28 637 then further divided by 737 725 2900 eb3 visa per year there will also be another 2900 visas for eb2 visas for those with like masters or doctors degree 2900 eb1 einsteinlevel work visa and the others for the familybased immigration this rule applies to other countries as well for unskilled immigrants this means that the number of unskilled eb3 visa granted per country will be 10000 divided by 28 637 divided by 737 around 50 200 unskilled eb3 visas if the number of immigrants exceeds the cap this means that their green cards will be granted the next year and if the next years cap is fulfilled too they will be thrown to the next year after that next year and so on this is why for some countries it can take absurdly long time to get a visa the time given on the reason chart is not always true because the waiting time depends on the number of immigrants from your country to come in the true waiting time can be seen on the visa bulletin currently not a lot of immigrants coming in which is why the waiting time seems like quick but on the other hand it used to be so long and h2 visa people can get a green card too but it will not be a transition process instead the employer do the green card h2 visa in a separate process 2 kinds of labor certification as well the reason chart is oversimplified here is the more elaborate chart once you overstay your work visa h1b h2 visas you become illegal and unless you fit the criteria theres no way for legalization and even if you fit it its not a guarantee and if youre deported usually there will be a 10year ban before you can reenter the us edit dont want to deal with this cap pay 500000 for eb5 investor visa sounds not that much to you but compared to indonesian rupiah this will be 7 1 billion idr for comparison jakartas minimum wage is 3 6 million idr per month usd 256 month there are those who wanted the minimum wage to be 4 7 million usd 334 per month and they were treated like burger flippers wanting usd 15 per hour this 3 6 million idr if put into outside the big cities even small cities would do it is enough for a lowermiddle class life edit 2 wrong calculation i said 725 visa for eb3 725 visa for eb2 725 visa for eb1 while the reality it would be around 2900 visa for eb3 and 2900 eb2 visa 2900 eb1 visa with 200 unskilled work visa not 50 on my previous early calculation i disregarded the percentage and let me add about diversity visa 55000 visa granted per year with tons of people trying to move in for a random single indonesian dude like me the chance of me getting the lottery would be 0 7737 and if i have a wife it would be 1 5437 also diversity visa is only for countries with low levels of immigration mexican people chinese people etc those countries with too many immigrants already in the us may not apply plus labor certification to ensure that the immigrant is not taking us jobs is required for eb3 and eb2 visa eb2 visa might bypass this if they have a national interest waiver basically proof that the country will suffer if the us doesnt take him in for example a doctor nuclear scientist applying to the us when the us is having a shortage of doctors nuclear scientists labor certification lasts for 6 months 1 5 years depending if the employer is audited or not audited 1 5 years and the green card application after the end of labor certification to being counted on the visa bulletin takes 6 months that means applying for eb immigration takes 1 year best case "
i think you are correct for the most part it gets tricky because hhs tried to place the children if they couldnt keep the family together as reported by the american immigration council which can probably be trusted it is also a a 501c3 nonprofit over the course of the summer and fall 2014 over hundreds of women and children were detained in artesia the facility was ltimately closed several months later but the government has continued its policy of detaining women and children currently families are housed in three facilities the south texas family residential center in dilley texas karnes county residential center in karnes city texas and berks family residential center in leesport pennsylvania both the dilley and karnes facilities are owned and operated by private prison companies by the end of may 2015 dilley’s capacity will be 2400 making it by far the largest family detention center in the united states with a followon story about one of these camps from last summer by local philadelphia news nbc10 detailing that the mother and child went to one location and their father to another despite the words being thrown around the issue is that the children are not allowed to be put into jail so they must be held elsewhere prior to this i am not sure what happened pre2002 to families or children that is a very good question the best i can say is that prior to the act in 2002 it was all on the attorney general to decide what to do with all of these issues prior to september 11 2001 the attorney general had sole authority to administer and enforce us immigration law after 911 congress passed the homeland security act of 2002 37 hsa the hsa created dhs which took over many immigration service and enforcement functions from the immigration and naturalization service ins doing some digging turns out that in 1999 according to cheryl little of university of miami interamerican law review things may have been very similar families or at least motherchildren were housed together conditions were still not great with one person nothing women and children ate their meals on the floor so i would gather that children are housed at all times by some form of government entity before and after 2002 the suggestion that they are released follows from other articles that they attempt to place them with family already in the state or elsewhere in the country however do remember that prior to the the 2002 law not everyone could just prosecute undocumented immigrants the patriot act for example authorized federal officers to arrest and imprison noncitizens on immigration grounds without legal review and without public disclosure importantly this lack of legal oversight portends the use of immigration law for ends that do not relate directly to immigration enforcement kanstroom 2003 soooo it is very likely most were just left to their own if they were not caught upon crossing the boarder the us government appears to have frequently allowed folks to stay every few years with new laws passed like the immigration act of 1986 as for the gps and skipping out that doesnt seem to be the case if you trust the american immigration council or at least whatever system they were once running ice operates two alternatives to detention atd programs for adult detainees—a “full service” program with case management supervision and monitoring either by gps or telephone checkin and a “technologyonly” program with monitoring only according to us government data 95 percent of participants in ice’s full service program appeared at scheduled court hearings from fiscal years 2011 to 2013 further in fy 2012 only 4 percent were arrested by another law enforcement agency ice’s alternatives program as well as being more humane is also less expensive than detention—1055day as opposed to 158day as the second link the atlantic reports in 2017 with the program scheduled to close on june 20 future asylumseekers who aren’t held in detention centers are likely to end up in “intensive supervision” programs—a costeffective alternative to family case management
"sorry im sure this could all be said better but i dont have a lot of time my issue is that all of the recent articles do not really do a good job at presenting the key legalhistorical aspects your issue is that your looking for the content of academic papers essays books law review articles or blogsopinion articles seriously take this last one with a grain of salt shortly well sourced research you will be hard pressed to find substantive coverage over key legalhistorical aspects in the news media because simply put that isnt an easy thing to just sum up in a news article and it is not exactly their job it takes serious time and resources to gather that sort of information and it really isnt the job of the news media to report that theyve taken it upon themselves in some arenas which ends up being pretty unsubstantial commentary but there are significant challenges in comprehensively covering a topic and the job of the news is to report of current events occasionally really good substantive articles get printed but they are seemingly an exception to the rule but those articles take a long time to make longer then the time afforded since the trump administrations policy change and the news coverage of these kids broke its also worth saying that if you read the nyt everyday for the last 5 years you would have a pretty good idea about the key historicallegal aspects if you wanna understand this stuff read a lot of different sources as much as you can get your hands on no shortcuts it would be very easy to claim this is because of bias and there is no evidence of it but it really makes it easy to argue there is thats not how that works you must have evidence to support your claims and youre claims must be well supported to make a good argument an argument without evidence in a bad opinion you may feel that something is correct ie coming to a conclusion and working backwards but you must still substantiate that assertion with evidence and if youre conclusion comes first might be better to form it as a question before you start researching it if you think the media is biased you must provide evidence that it is the burden of evidence is on the person making the claim it is not burden of others to disprove your claim is there a nyt article or an article anywhere on msm published after the ig report came out that talks about flores and its history visavis current law and policy i dont know look it up some of the toplevel comments were demonstrably more substantive than the nations leading media outlets perhaps they wanted to avoid the detail but i find it is very important in becoming informed on all of the issues that must influence a sound and legal immigration policy which is the good thing about reddit but youre still running the risk of not getting the whole picture thats sort of the spirit of this whole thread well sourced debate and discussion gives us all a clearer picture of the topic like that article i shared with you in the previous comment is not mention or alluded to in the top comments description of events should it be probably not his explanation is pretty good and doesnt require that little aside but depending on what information you were trying to get out of this topic it might be essential but whats clear is that it would take a mountain of work to combine all the information i might have on the subject top comment posters and second top comment posters and we would still be missing something if you want to become more informed consistently read the news be critical of sources and read books and the other informative media read 100 hours on immigration policy or 10 books i guarantee when youre done with that you will have enough questions to drive another 100 hours tldr research is fucking hard dont expect the news media to do it for you and dont underestimate the work required to be informed no shortcuts hard work and diligent reading will pay off dont jump to conclusions ask questions "
while it is “only” 7 countries they are some of our closest allies how does it look to other countries when they see how the us reacts to these countries responding to our recent tariffs an unstable partnership isn’t one you’re likely to get into without incurring something heavy upfront that’s assuming that there would be no immediate side effects which isn’t true 1 we are also partners with them relating to intelligence canada and the uk for example are part of the five eyes program which is part of our intel sharing program that is essential for counter terrorism i assume we agree that although it’s controversial that more intel on the north korean nuclear program potential terror attacks and international espionage against the usa is a positive and losing some or all of that intel would be crippling such as losing an eye 2 even if we were able to produce or import from other countries which i doubt the goods and products needed it wouldn’t happen overnight wouldn’t be as cheap and that would have an immediate effect on entire sectors of our economy trump’s statement applies to all trade importexport of any goods but let’s use a few simple items corn we are the largest producer and exporter of corn the united states is the worlds largest producer and exporter of corn corn grain exports represent a significant source of demand for us producers and make a significant net contribution to the us agricultural trade balance for agricultural commodities indicating the importance of corn exports to the us economy on average corn grain excluding popcorn or sweet corn accounted for approximately 11 percent of all us agricultural exports by value during the 1990s in 2008 because of record exports of corn and other feed grains that share grew to over 12 percent of the us agricultural export value but by 2014 a declining us share of world corn trade and moderating corn prices left corn with only a 6percent share of us agricultural export value now let’s just look at mexico’s consumption the numbers here are extremely skewed in the favor of over simplification in favor of your statement the latin american nation imports billions of dollars worth of the yellow grain from the united states to feed its livestock and for us corn producers mexico is their number one export customer thomas sleight president of the us grains council told afp what happens to the farmers who make this corn the us isn’t able to consume all this corn and the demand from other countries isn’t going to just magically grow overnight even if it did the logistics of shipping that corn to those countries can’t be changed immediately so you’re now looking at corn farmers having a massive surge in supply and a drop in demand more supply and less demand means that they now have to sell it at a very cheap price if they can find a buyer at all so it’s either sold at a loss or rots those farms go out of business out of 316000 corn farms about 300000 farms 95 of them are owned by families more than 30 of corn farms are operated by women so let’s be kind and say that somehow only half of those farms are affected and somehow the others aren’t again the drop in price and overflow of supply will hit them all thad’s 150000 farms that go out of business the farmhands don’t have work the drivers who would ship that corn go out of business entire towns revenue dries up who pays the police officers and the fire fighters and school teachers iowa would be devastated that’s one good out of thousands software companies airplane production logistics fuel and the list goes on an interconnected web of industries and jobs and staff the ripples through the economy would be catastrophic maybe just maybe we would come out in better shape then others maybe we’ll lose two arms while they lose all their limbs but who would choose such a thing when a more rational approach would be to not risk losing a limb altogether
"i can’t imagine it being particularly beneficial this refers to our imports and exports in general but shows what an impact that has on our economy the us is the worlds largest trading nation with exports of goods and services of nearly 23 trillion in 2013 • us goods and services exports supported an estimated 113 million jobs in 2013 • every billion dollars of goods and services exports supported nearly an estimated 5600 jobs in 2013 every billion dollars of goods exports supported more than 5400 jobs in 2013 every billion dollars of services exports supported more than 5900 jobs in 2013 • an estimated 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs are supported by exports • us agricultural exports supported an estimated 929 thousand jobs on and off the farm in 2012 latest data available • every billion dollars of us agricultural exports in 2012 latest data available required 6577 american jobs throughout the economy • us jobs supported by goods exports pay 1318 percent more than the us national average • exports of goods and services full year share of us gdp at 1345 percent in 2013 not to mention that the us’s influence in trade goes hand in hand with the value of the dollar as the preferred global currency there is some demand for an end to the us monopoly over the oil trade countries like russia and angola favor ending dollar dominance in the global oil industry as this has helped the united states to maintain a global economic hegemony and exert its political and economic influence nations that wish to reduce exposure to us political risk including the politics of sanctions may be eager to reduce the importance of the us dollar in world trade in favor of stable alternative trading currencies if a number of oilrich nations take up china’s wouldbe rmbdenominated oil trade the centrality of the dollar in the oil trade will be diminished and ultimately it allows other countries particularly china to have this influence and power as much as some argue that we’re getting ripped off right now we have a lot of influence in these markets we’re giving that away and once gone we won’t have the power to dictate terms these trade dynamics and the detrimental effects are something many agree on such as heritage in recent years beijing has identified the african continent as an area of significant economic and strategic interest america and its allies and friends are finding that their vision of a prosperous africa governed by democracies that respect human rights and the rule of law and that embrace free markets is being challenged by the escalating chinese influence in africa and brookings at best china’s economic behavior may enable bad policy choices by latin american states at worst it may represent a concerted strategy by china to achieve political influence in latin america challenging or supplanting us hegemony and the chinalatin america economic relationship has had direct effects on some latin american states’ willingness to join china in challenging a usled liberal world order—typically when their interests already align latin american states appear to calibrate their alignment with beijing and washington based in part on economic ties and integration with each great power in part on their ideologies and in part based on the specific issue under consideration for now china’s rise has not unduly harmed core us national security interests in the western hemisphere but it has challenged us influence and warrants continued attention i can’t imagine a bargaining position where we don’t have anything to bargain with as being a positive position to be in and there are real economic and national security implications to the us undermining what is in effect a global leader position in trade these moves don’t help the us and only undermine our power and influence in a world where that influence is the most valuable asset any country can have "
our ag sector would be devastated and our alliances would be irreparably damaged i’ve said this earlier but it’s worth repeating these 7 countries are some of our closest allies and there’s an assumption that there would be no immediate side effects which isn’t true 1 we are partners with them relating to intelligence canada and the uk for example are part of the five eyes program which is part of our intel sharing program that is essential for counter terrorism i assume we agree that although it’s controversial that more intel on the north korean nuclear program potential terror attacks and international espionage against the usa is a positive and losing some or all of that intel would be crippling such as losing an eye 2 even if we were able to produce or import from other countries which i doubt the goods and products needed it wouldn’t happen overnight wouldn’t be as cheap and that would have an immediate effect on entire sectors of our economy trump’s statement applies to all trade importexport of any goods but let’s use a few simple items corn we are the largest producer and exporter of corn the united states is the worlds largest producer and exporter of corn corn grain exports represent a significant source of demand for us producers and make a significant net contribution to the us agricultural trade balance for agricultural commodities indicating the importance of corn exports to the us economy on average corn grain excluding popcorn or sweet corn accounted for approximately 11 percent of all us agricultural exports by value during the 1990s in 2008 because of record exports of corn and other feed grains that share grew to over 12 percent of the us agricultural export value but by 2014 a declining us share of world corn trade and moderating corn prices left corn with only a 6percent share of us agricultural export value now let’s just look at mexico’s consumption the numbers here are extremely skewed in the favor of over simplification in favor of your statement the latin american nation imports billions of dollars worth of the yellow grain from the united states to feed its livestock and for us corn producers mexico is their number one export customer thomas sleight president of the us grains council told afp what happens to the farmers who make this corn the us isn’t able to consume all this corn and the demand from other countries isn’t going to just magically grow overnight even if it did the logistics of shipping that corn to those countries can’t be changed immediately so you’re now looking at corn farmers having a massive surge in supply and a drop in demand more supply and less demand means that they now have to sell it at a very cheap price if they can find a buyer at all so it’s either sold at a loss or rots those farms go out of business out of 316000 corn farms about 300000 farms 95 of them are owned by families more than 30 of corn farms are operated by women so let’s be kind and say that somehow only half of those farms are affected and somehow the others aren’t again the drop in price and overflow of supply will hit them all thad’s 150000 farms that go out of business the farmhands don’t have work the drivers who would ship that corn go out of business entire towns revenue dries up who pays the police officers and the fire fighters and school teachers iowa would be devastated that’s one good out of thousands software companies airplane production logistics fuel and the list goes on an interconnected web of industries and jobs and staff the ripples through the economy would be catastrophic maybe just maybe we would come out in better shape then others maybe we’ll lose two arms while they lose all their limbs but who would choose such a thing when a more rational approach would be to not risk losing a limb altogether
"most of these comments and redditors as a whole feel strong against smdp or fptp voting and two party systems i think that perspective is overly romanticizing multiparty systems and is lacking some key considerations when people compare us third parties to a system like denmark unequal things are being compared us third parties are limited to fairly extreme parties such as the green party or the libertarian party the green party is a national party and while it is a bit smaller in the us even in true multiparty systems the green party is still a fringe party this is because the green party has views and policies that most voters do not support in any system there are a few systems here and there where the green party has succeeded in adjusting and getting to be a minor third party but overall they are mostly an insignificant force regardless of system a more fair comparison would be to look at the changing voting identities of the major parties for example bernie sanderss democrats trumps republicans or the tea party republicans these are voters who were dissatisfied with the current political reality and so forged their own pathbasically they created a new party these voter represent the leftofcenter or rightofcenter voters who dont think the more moderate members of their coalition are doing enough so sanderss group is similar to denmarks dslp or spp and the tea partytrumpers are similar to dpp or la venstre and social democrats represent the establishment reps and dems respectively and thats the thing with big catchall parties like in the us they are supposed to be a wide coalition of different factions and voices all unified under one banner honestly its not all the different from having centerright and centerleft blocs in denmark the distinctions are just a bit blurrier and the focus is on the similarity and not the difference the us may not have clearly designated third parties but it still does have variety within the winning party thats what i mean by the advantages of a multiparty system are overstated especially on reddit in denmark you can vote for whatever party you want but at the end of the day all the leftofcenter parties are still going to be the same bloc its the same for rightofcenter the most moderate parties are always the largest and most of the time form the bulk of the policy and platform voting for spp is still really a vote for sd and helle thorningschmidt theres certainly value in organizing the coalition in one way over another but considering multiparty systems strictly better because they protect more variety or choice is a bit silly in fact you could argue that because the us unites all factions under one banner the us actually promotes third party interests better than a system like denmark for example trumps republicans were able to completely redefine the interests of the republican party against the interests of the moderate factions of the party in a true multiparty system trumps supporters would have had to overcome a much more powerful moderate conservative party the tea party similarly overtook the establishment reps sanders had a bit more trouble but nonetheless much of his agenda has been adopted into the overall democratic platform so while these parties may not have their own name they are certainly affecting enormous political change dont get me wrong i dont have anything against a multiparty system nor do i think that the us is perfect but this mentality that smdp is the worst and more parties fix everything is absolutely incorrect edit added some sources on green parties across the world so that the auto moderator would leave me alone "
no im not frankly did you see the quote from the email and there is a lot of errors in your statement we provide due process to criminals that are american citizens it doesnt matter if they are a teen caught spray graffiti am armed robber a rapits or an al qaeda terrorist if the criminal is caught in the act and engages the police or military in a way that justifies lethal force then yes they clearly have the right to kill said criminal but the intent of the law and the purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law and bring violators before justice the laws of this country state you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law through due process awlaki was a piece of shit but he was an american piece of shit with constitutional rights taking him out via an illegal order by drone assassination is a violation of the constitution the proper way to handle that situation was to capture him extradite him drag his ass in front of a grand jury and run him through the gauntlet then sentence him when found guilty not oh we are just going to assassinate this guy because the president wants him dead oh and by the way they orchestrated this deliberately they made sure he was killed in another country where it was possible to pull off a drone strike so that way the us government couldnt technically be held responsible for violating the constitution they knew this action is illegal under us law yet they did anyway and dont forget the memo specifically stated that using the illegal drone strike to kill awlaki was an experiment by the us government and the doj to see if they could find any loopholes in the law to justify killing us citizens it states that very clearly with awlaki the fed essentially found out hey its okay if we totally ignore the constitution and assassinate american citizens at will just as long as they arent on us soil and we can paint the story that they are a terrorist this isnt a conspiracy theory its literally in the memo and by the way even though the doj was compelled by a court to release this memo to the aclu they conveniently lost 10 pages of the memo that had more details regarding how they pulled it off and what other potential targets may exist so whats next first they violated the constitution by killing an american overseas who was suspected of being part of al qaeda but was not found guilty by a court of law and they did it because the president decided he was a threat so the president is king now what defines a threat according to the president during the 1940s harry laughlin of the american eugenics society went and identified people and families who were political opponents of the fdr administration he would have his agents from the aes go to schools kidnap the children without their parents knowledge telling the school they were doctors from a government mental health facility and were there to rehab the child because they were mentally deficient the kids werent mentally deficient but they were the children of political opponents of the current administration they were shipped off to a research facility deep in the mountains of virginia and they were then starved locked in dark rooms given electroshock therapy lobotomizations sterilizations and in some cases euthanasia all because harry laughlin determined that they were shiftless ignorant whites from the south and were political enemies of the us government some 35000 children over the course of 9 years were horribly tortured and permanently scarred or disabled because of this program look it up with this understanding why in the hell would anyone ever want to trust this institution
" yes which the scotus said was not the case to be exact scotus didnt say the act wasnt motivated by religious animus even the majority opinion spends an entire page p2728 recounting some of trumps antiislamic statements what this all turned over though was which standard of review they chose to apply but the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements it is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive neutral on its face addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility as described in many parts of the opinion immigration and national security are two areas where the president has a lot of leeway theres some case law in the area of visas that says the court can only do a facially neutral analysis which basically gives them no ability to question motives this court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a u s citizen that review is limited to whether the executive gives a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action in this case they decided to delve a little deeper and apply what they call rational basis review for today’s purposes the court assumes that it may look behind the face of the proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review ie whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes this is still not a very hard standard to pass though the majority themselves say they are unlikely to strike down laws under this standard given the standard of review it should come as no surprise that the court hardly ever strikes down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny on the few occasions where we have done so a common thread has been that the laws at issue lack any purpose other than a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group” department of agriculture v moreno 413 u s 528 534 1973 in one case we invalidated a local zoning ordinance that required a special permit for group homes for the intellectually disabled but not for other facilities such as fraternity houses or hospitals we did so on the ground that the city’s stated concerns about among other things “legal responsibility” and “crowded conditions” rested on “an irrational prejudice” against the intellectually disabled sotomayer would prefer to use whats known as the reasonable observer test common to other first amendment cases examining if the government has disfavored a particular religion that test asks how a theoretical layperson would perceive the action you can see this argument play out in one of the majoritys footnotes the dissent finds “perplexing” the application of rational basis review in this context post at 15 but what is far more problematic is the dissent’s assumption that courts should review immigration policies diplomatic sanctions and military actions under the de novo “reasonable observer” inquiry applicable to cases involving holiday displays and graduation ceremonies the dissent criticizes application of a more constrained standard of review as “throwing the establishment clause out the window” post at 16 n 6 but as the numerous precedents cited in this section make clear such a circumscribed inquiry applies to any constitutional claim concerning the entry of foreign nationals so the court didnt find that the order wasnt intended to be antireligious what they decided was that when it comes to immigration they cant secondguess the president as long as he has an okay excuse"
one of my concerns is language like the following which can be found in many places in the pdf report you linked eliminating or reducing the federal government’s role in owning and operating transmission assets and increasing the private sector’s role would encourage a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigate unnecessary risk to taxpayers pg 66 this proposal would restructure the united states postal system to return it to a sustainable business model or prepare it for future conversion from a government agency into a privatelyheld corporation pg 68 the proposal would spinoff federal responsibility for operating air traffic control services and locks along the saint lawrence seaway integrate into dot certain coastal and inland waterways commercial navigation activities and transportation security programs and reassess the structure and responsibilities of dot’s office of the secretary pg 71 the actual restructuring that has been proposed in that document is relatively harmless from what i can tell with the sole exception of placing veteran cemeteries into the aor of the va which is already financially strapped and barely operating properly the main problem is that the report claims to be about restructuring but is more about privatizing the federal government than restructuring it privatization is the goal here they plan on privatizing as much as possible and one item on the plan in particular stands out to me the most the gear center summary of proposal this proposal would establish a publicprivate partnership to help the government respond to innovative technologies business practices and research findings that present opportunities to improve mission delivery services to citizens and stewardship of public resources the government effectiveness advanced research gear center would be a nongovernmental publicprivate partnership that would engage researchers academics nonprofits and private industry from disciplines ranging from behavioral economics to computer science to design thinking to use creative datadriven and interdisciplinary approaches to reimagine and realize new possibilities in how citizens and government interact this just reeks of trying to operate a government like a business which i think we all know by now isnt smart or even really possible and still have it operate fairly for the benefit of the people one last bit that i found interesting this proposal would transition federal agencies’ business processes and recordkeeping to a fully electronic environment and end the national archives and records administration’s nara acceptance of paper records by december 31 2022 this would improve agencies’ efficiency effectiveness and responsiveness to citizens by converting paperbased processes to electronic workflows expanding online services and enhancing management of government records data and information combine this with the gear center and you have a recipe for private entities to design and control most of the software that operates our government not to mention the exorbitant cost it would undoubtedly entail to create said software overall this plan is in my opinion a plan to privatize the federal government now i dont know how much you trust the private sector of the us to serve the public interest but considering recent developments id be honestly surprised if the federal governments contracts didnt end up outsourced to other countries even if they didnt we can be certain that the contracts will be huge expensive exclusive and most importantly out of our hands
i doubt canada will ever be aligned with adversary x either not when the majority of their population huddles our borders anyone who took the president as saying that canada or canadian steel specifically is a national security threat isn’t an abstract thinker tariffs on steelaluminum from canadaeurope are likely aimed at preventing china from using those markets to avoid direct tariffs though again i think the tariffs on these products from our allies are also being used as chips to renegotiate trade agreements i’m not convinced that steel plants are something that one just “fires up” as needed particularly if doors have been shuttered and equipment has been idle at the end of the day if us consumers have to pay a little extra to keep our steel industry competitive which includes research and development infrastructure and etc then it’s worth it this article regarding marine readiness is a year old but it refuted your claim that our military isn’t “in need” the majority of the military budget goes to om facility sustainmentrepair transportation training and etc and personnel not equipment or technology anecdotally i served in the military for 20 years when the us invaded afghanistan and iraq we had to scramble to design and field uparmor kits for hmmwv and design and field mraps because ieds were devastating our troops page 169 “no bottleneck though was as threatening as that of steel plate as matt riddle vice president for survivability systems at bae systems put it to national defense magazine “you want 1000 vehicles a month but thats 4000 tons of steel” for the armor only two domestic suppliers were certified by the defense department to supply the 38inch armor plate used in mrap construction international steel group and oregon steel mills721 only the former was actually in operation at the start of the war its production was 35000 tons annually in 2004 and had been 6500 tons annually in 2003 the dod would suddenly be demanding 21000 per month” “only 2 us steel mills were qualified to produce special armored steel for the defense department at that point both had been acquired by foreign companies since the beginning of 2006 oregon steel was owned by evraz group sa of russia the international steel group was acquired by the dutch conglomerate arcelor mittal” “specialty steels are used throughout the military in weapons vehicles armor tools and other defense systems basic steel such as the sheet steel on your refrigerator does not have the strength hardness or lightness needed for many military applications steelmaker nucor makes forgings that are used in the abrams tank and the bradley fighting vehicles forgings are steel products specially cast to be much harder than bulk steel timkensteel makes the hardened and treated steel used by us air force “bunkerbusting” bombs to make bomb casings harder and eliminate collateral damage allegheny technologies inc ati makes alloy steels adding nickel titanium and other metals to steel to create products that are more heatresistant or stronger or lighter all qualities required in the latest generations of fighter jets” great article by the way to further illustrate that our military isn’t always as equipped as most people think i’ll remind you that in the early 2000’s members of the military were buying their own body armor can the us rely on foreign steel maybe is it desirable that we do so no the us steel industry has been of import to national security and us geopolitics since at least world war i and to think otherwise is short sighted
"the problem here invariably ends up being that the system is overstressed due to low funding and a very high ratio of claimants to judges perhaps the problem here isnt that there are a lot of people seeking asylum but that america has purposely hobbled its bureaucratic infrastructure on this front unhcr found that over 80 of women from central american countries seeking asylum in the us were found to have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum or protection under the convention against torture on top of that it is well documented that access to legal representation plays a major role in the success of somebody seeking asylum and that in fact the of unrepresented children has been rising significantly and detention centers are often placed far from any sort of population center or availability of legal aid for really no good reason additionally there are gross disparities in the outcome of factually similar cases entirely dependent on where the judge hearing the case is if not then how can we determine who is a legitimate victim and who is actually a violent gang member abusing our asylum laws to gain entry there is legitimately no evidence to base this assumption on and i think its just racebaiting since 2011 002 of unaccompanied minors have been found to have ties to gangs in their home countries according to acting chief of us border patrol thats 56 out of 250000 pretty low number much lower than general population of the us if we open the door to tenuous claims of perseuction based on dubious group identities where does it stop does the entire population of honduras have a valid claim to asylum literally the slippery slope fallacy you cant actually prove the slope is slippery people are just advocating giving credence to people who say they are under imminent threat not many people who just want a job in the us would be willing to leave the entirety of their friends and family and risk death to trek across a continent in hopes of a job if government inaction or incompetence is now persecution perhaps we should open our doors to them too should we just have fully open borders to all oooo fully open borders nice straw man there to complete the whole slippery slope thing anyway the us has already ruled that government inaction or incompetence is enough for an asylum claim however the board of immigration appeals and the federal circuit courts of appeals universally acknowledge that for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal under the act “persecution” may involve a “government’s inability or unwillingness to control private conduct source regardless of the legal precedent there there are a number of ethical ones why would you turn away someone whose life is in danger solely because its not their government trying to kill them what difference does it make when a government is just a power structure run by people and a gang is just a significantly less powerful but still enough to kill people power structure run by people there are dozens of examples of people being denied asylum deported and then murdered on return to their home countries the only citation you have is jeff sessions who clearly holds a vested interest in denying as many brownskinned asylum seekers as he can considering hes an unabashed racist i can give citations for this if you want please make me give citations for this its like over a dozen links that have links within them as well "
"so not that you asked i want to start by saying that education is still worth it the article includes this chart which shows that unemployment seems to drop and weekly earnings rise with more education getting an education is a key part of social mobility so going to college seems to mean you make more money cool my teachers were right itll be easier to get the good things in life right well maybe not pew did a lot of reserach into student debt and found a bunch of interesting things for instance people with student loan debt are far more likely to have total assets worth less than their debt meaning they have a negative net worth they also have more trouble paying debts on time my guess is theyre more likely to live paycheck to paycheck so small bumps can cause bigger problems are more likely to be underwater on their home loan and are more likely to be carrying credit card debt all in all theyre more likely to be flat broke but looking like theyre doing okay theyre making more money with the degrees but a large portion of that is going back to lenders those without student loan debt are able to avoid other kinds of debt more easily all of this points to the idea that the mobility may be more on paper than in reality so economics isnt my forte but lets just look at the first page or two of this report • 27 of respondents to asa’s survey said that they found it difficult to buy daily necessities because of their student loans • 63 said their debt affected their ability to make larger purchases such as a car • 73 said they have put off saving for retirement or other investments and • the vast majority—75—indicated that student loan debt affected their decision or ability to purchase a home • 30 responded that their student loan debt was the deciding factor or had considerable impact on their choice of career field • 47 indicated it was the deciding factor or had considerable impact on their decision or ability to start a small business • 29 indicated that they have put off marriage as a result of their student loans • 43 said that student debt has delayed their decision to start a family student load debt is slowing things down most people with student loan debt are buying houses later starting families later and saving and investing less theyre less likely to innovate with new businesses and over 50 said that the debt hampers their ability to further their career thats a lot of delayed and possibly underperforming economic factors by addressing student loan debt we could see a surge in home buying business startups and auto purchases how feasible is debt forgiveness not very but other options exist pegging annual interest rates to the yield of a 10 year t note was a start to combat high student loan interest rates but more could be done to try to keep interest rates low and fixed states especially could take steps to curb the rising cost of higher education and schools could do more to try to keep costs down grant aid could be expanded to lower the burden for future borrowers and more and better tax incentives could be provided for parents who put money into college spending accounts for their children as someone struggling with student loan debt i love the idea of throwing 144 trillion dollars it since it would help me a lot but it doesnt actually address the problem and therefore is probably a very unlikely policy "
it wouldn’t have happened if the south hadn’t committed insurrection in the name of slavery and the squashing of other state’s rights period i have pointed to the very words of the articles of confederation you just saying it’s not true doesn’t make it not true and then attacked its own governments army after the insurrection you cannot be the aggressor if you are attacked first i know quite well who gary is and you are twisting his almost 40 years of dedication and hard work gary flat out refutes your notion of northern aggression you most certainly did not quote him please find me a single article or quote from any of his lectures or books were he states that the civil war was an act of “northern aggression” as you said directly he wrote “the myth of the lost cause and civil war history” in 2000 maybe you missed it you cannot be the aggressor when someone acts your first you can also make up excuses for sumter being an “accident” but if seizing federal land after creating insurrection does not make you the aggressor i do not think this conversation can go on any more i could care less about what the individual soldier thought or fought for to quote gallagher himself “no matter how prejudiced their own attitudes union soldiers functioned as cogs in a grand military mechanism that inexorably ground down slavery” the south tried to squash state’s rights by forcing the federal government to deny the north their right to selfgovern and committed insurrection when they couldn’t they then attacked their own government these are both facts no matter how much you deny them the north fought to preserve the union from a situation the south created and gary gallagher agrees and it is nefarious and a flat out falsehood to deny anything else or try to twist gary’s words into some thing he has fought almost his entire life to deny some lost cause of liberty because of northern aggression they didn’t “rape and pillage” their way down it was a war the south started you cannot justifiably complain when you start a war and casualties happen the individual soldiers justifications are moot it’s an excuse to try to reclaim some pride for joining a morally egregious and treasonous cause of insurrection and losing i will think he will be quite irked at your notion i will leave you with a quote from him directly “it could have been avoided if republicans had not won the election of 1860 and democratic rule in washington which always gave slaveholders a disproportionate measure of power had continued even with republican victory it could have been avoided before midapril 1861 if the republican party had placated disgruntled slaveholders by abandoning the promise expressed in its 1856 and 1860 platforms to bar slavery from the national territories or if the mass of loyal citizens in the united states decided that it was acceptable for seven slaveholding states to break up the union and take possession of all federal property within their borders it could have been avoided even after the firing on fort sumter if abraham lincoln and the loyal states chose to overlook the assault on united states soldiers as the buchanan administration had chosen to overlook shots fired against the star of the west when it tried to resupply major robert andersons garrison at fort sumter in early january 1861”
" the total spend of the 2017 uk general election deciding 650 separate contests across the country was £416m while it decides a sum for 650 separate contests it still seems to come down to a concentration in spending directly to three parties in one election thats just a completely different election format from the us that comparisons are difficult to draw and thats not even factoring in the different legal financial limits the united states presidential election on the other hand cost 65bn dollars this is clearly incorrect as your own source says the presidential contest — primaries and all — accounts for 24 billion of that total the other 4 billion or so went to congressional races  so only 24 billion was spend on the presidential election and that number includes primiaries as well basically an election that simply narrows down the field not sure if that should be included or not in such a comparison lets also add in the currency rate £100 132 or 416 548 i think its also important we make comparisons on a per capita basis rather than just a sum if we use the uk population as a base 6564 million and compare it the us population 3257 million we get 496 thus for per capita we should be dividing any us number by almost 5 lets take 65 billion 496 roughly 131 billion so we should be comparing 548m from the uk to 13105m from the us almost 24 times as much rather than the 156 times your comparison might imply to someone but again i find a comparison difficult due to the difference in the election format this means the us focuses to a much greater extent on rewarding donors and building war chests than actually governing it also means the us focuses more on actually being able to support a specific candidate rather than the entire party they may be associated with i mean i couldnt find myself donating to a party rather than to a specific candidate i couldnt pledge my support to politicians across 650 contests simply because they associate with the same party that one specific candidate i support also does so if i was in the uk system i would have a greater disincentive to donate a grester disincentive in actually helping fund the attempt of reaching elected office of a candidate i support you may view that as better i dont exactly agree edit it seems the uk has unlimited donations from individuals and corportations but spending limits upon the campaigns i havent found precise information about independent political expenditures where the us has limited donations from individuals and out right bans donations from corporations but no spending limits upon the campaigns themselses independent poltical expenditures are expressly permitted my guess the difference is from the ability to make independent political expenditures to be able to fund an effort to express support for a candidate or a cause without it going to a campaign or in the case of the uk a party edit 2 eh correction the uk also prohibits political advertisements in broadcast media id say thats the main culpret here in the division this can create limited exposure although if donations can only go to three specific parties rather than thousands of candidates that exposure certainly isnt needed as much and the size of the uk also doesnt require as much reach as the us would demand"
" that washington in 2002 wanted to get rid of chávez is undeniable why does this matter to the topic is this a claim that venezuela is not a dictatorship op alleged without sourcing i am curious what he believes the us role would be if any chavez assumed more and more power with popular consent because oil prices were high and he was paying attention to the longneglected poor as for venezuela being a dictatorship i dont think it is or at least there is very little evidence for it venezuela may be adopting the cuban model for socialism where the wealthy prosper and there is no middle class huh first that source seems ridiculous second poverty seems to be in a much better state than it was in cuba prior to the revolution however the human development index of cuba still ranks much higher than the vast majority of latin american nations80 after cuba lost soviet subsidies in 1991 malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of diseases81 despite this the poverty level reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing world ranking 6th out of 108 countries 4th in latin america and 48th among all countries or no other similar country adopted cubas approach to development although some tried and the differences between poverty in cuba and other latin and caribbean countries are stark while average income has grown in cuba at a similar speed to other latin american countries such as bolivia colombia and el salvador the poverty and social conflict still experienced in the mainland countries is very apparent in cuba the extremes of opulence and misery are banished in favour of a generalised level of wealth best described as enough to get by and those results are under threat of a decades long terrorist campaign backed by the us the batista dictatorship was overthrown in january 1959 by castro’s guerrilla forces in march the national security council nsc considered means to institute regime change in may the cia began to arm guerrillas inside cuba “during the winter of 19591960 there was a significant increase in ciasupervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled cubans” based in the us we need not tarry on what the us or its clients would do under such circumstances cuba however did not respond with violent actions within the united states for revenge or deterrence rather it followed the procedure required by international law in july 1960 cuba called on the un for help providing the security council with records of some twenty bombings including names of pilots plane registration numbers unexploded bombs and other specific details alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of the conflict through diplomatic channels us ambassador henry cabot lodge responded by giving his “assurance that the united states has no aggressive purpose against cuba” four months before in march 1960 his government had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the castro government and preparations for the bay of pigs invasion were well advanced and one of the most crippling blockades on an entire country as for wealth inequality being large in venzuela thats probably true but was already the case before a coup brought chavez into power and extreme poverty was largely being reduced during his years in office "
first of all rather than relying on vanity fair the original petition can be seen here that makes me wonder if that extra money was coming directly out of trumps pocket or trump foundation assets it doesnt particularly matter whether it was trumps own money or money from other donors if it was used to benefit trump and his businesses instead of in accordance with the trump foundations charitable mission however the extra money was likely from trumps own pocket a spokesperson for the trump foundation is quoted in this article saying that trump has donated about 8 million to the trump foundation and also that the foundation only has about 17 million remaining meaning it has spent most of its assets therefore some of the difference would necessarily have come from trumps own pocket and some of the difference may also come from interest earned on both trumps and donors contributions however the lawsuit alleges that trump foundation assets were used for trumps personal legal and business expenses this calls into question whether the 19 million in charitable contributions actually went to charitable causes in at least one case for example trump foundation money was used to settle a lawsuit against one of trumps golf courses in this case the money was later reimbursed but only after the lawsuit from the ny attorney general was filed this would be the primary method of selfdealing does this mean that the self dealing was even specifically using donor money again the definition of selfdealing is taking advantage of a fiduciary position to benefit yourself rather than the foundation and its mission so it doesnt particularly matter whose money it was this article though written before the lawsuit was filed demonstrates how trump could benefit even when the trump foundation was contributing to legitimate charitable organizations by making those contributions with money donated to the trump foundation and hosting events at trumps own businesses the evans foundation said yes in 2009 and 2010 it gave a total of 150000 to the donald j trump foundation a small charity that the republican presidential nominee founded in 1987 then trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in south florida in those years the trump foundation’s gifts totaled 150000 on the night that he won the palm tree award for his philanthropy trump may have actually made money the gala was held at his maralago club in palm beach and the police foundation paid to rent the room it’s unclear how much was paid in 2010 but the police foundation reported in its tax filings that it rented maralago in 2014 for 276463 finally its also alleged that the trump foundation raised money used for trumps 2016 presidential campaign a fundraiser in iowa where the trump foundation “ceded control over the charitable funds it raised to senior trump campaign staff who dictated the manner in which the foundation would disburse those proceeds directing the timing amounts and recipients of the grants” gets primary mention although the lawsuit brings up several other cases of improper coordination between the trump foundation and the trump campaign as well as other instances of illegal political spending which to be fair would not necessarily be a case of selfdealing
"in one sense that’s true since they were told to not keep people for an extended period as policies related to detainment as a deterrence for example were seen as violating the flores agreement in 2015 in the wake of a pair of federal court decisions and extensive public criticism dhs modified its approach to family detention procedures in february 2015 a federal district court in washington dc issued a preliminary injunction barring dhs from attempting to deter future immigration to the united states by detaining families who have a credible fear of persecution this ruling called into serious question the government’s reliance on the advisory opinion of former attorney general john ashcroft in matter of dj as judge boasberg noted “incantation of the magic words ‘national security’ without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty”five months later judge gee a federal district judge in california ruled that family detention policies violated the terms of the 1997 flores settlement agreement however when faced with families with children they opted to either release them or if they were seeking asylum to keep at least the mother’s with their children its been over a year since the administration started detaining hundreds of families crossing into texas from central america and that year has been marked by failure after failure the original plan was to hear families asylum cases quickly and deport them as soon as possible that failed once some detainees were able to meet with lawyers and get their asylum claims upheld then the plan was to detain families for the months it took to resolve their cases that plan fell through earlier this year after a court ruling and then a new administration policy accepted that mothers and children whod passed their initial interviews didnt need to be kept behind bars now the administrations family detention experiment is at risk of being outlawed entirely over the weekend a federal judge ruled that the family detention system violates a 20yearold policy that sets high standards for detained immigrant children this week judges started ruling that detained families should be released immediately the administration has the opportunity to keep fighting the courts and preserve its ability to keep immigrant families behind bars but why would it want to a federal judge has ruled that family detention violates the governments own rules for keeping immigrant children there are strict legal standards for when and how the government could legally keep children in immigration detention those were set in 1996 when the government settled a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups an event known the flores settlement under the terms of the flores settlement the government has to hold children in the least restrictive conditions possible that generally means unsecured facilities in other words places that run more like shelters than prisons that are licensed for taking care of children what’s interesting is that the obama administration was quite strict on immigration contrary to some reportingassertions by critics but even so when it came to young children accompanied with their parents the complete separation that we’ve seen is quite new "
in my opinion this is a pretty onesided assessment as is this premise in the op historically kim has made similar pledges but backed out on them yes dprk regimes have failed to live up to their end of the agreements but the us has also repeatedly failed to do so according to the 1994 agreed framework north korea would dismantle its reactor at yongbyon the source of its plutonium in return for two civilian light water nuclear power stations generally seen as less of a proliferation risk until those reactors were built north korea would receive shipments of usfinanced fuel oil a republicandominated congress did its best to slow down fuel deliveries and the construction timetable for the reactors was continually postponed it later emerged that north korea had been cheating by pursuing a secret uranium route to making a bomb that was enough for the hawks in the bush administration john bolton among them to kill off the agreed framework christopher hill who became the bush administration’s chief negotiator with north korea disagreed with the decision to end the agreed framework after a break in contact of more than two years hill was given the task of reestablishing contacts with the north koreans under the format of multilateral sixparty talks those negotiations eventually led to a 2005 joint statement of principles to guide future negotiations which included some of the elements of the agreed framework such as the eventual provision of light water reactors the joint statement once more raised hopes that the us and north korea had turned a corner in their relationship but it began to fall apart almost immediately within weeks the us treasury imposed new sanctions freezing 23m £17m in north korean assets in a bank in the chinese territory of macau using counterterror legislation it was a relatively small amount of money but it infuriated the north koreans and the chinese who saw it as a violation of the spirit of the joint statement us diplomats who had negotiated the 2005 statement were also taken by surprise “i think it’s fair to say that one part of the us government was not particularly in touch with another part of us government not for the first or last time” said hill who saw it as an act of sabotage by hawks such as bolton in the bush administration “i think the real purpose of it was to screw up the negotiations” further supporting this perspective experts estimate that without the agreed framework north korea could have hundreds of nuclear weapons at this point although the bush administration review initially also called for further negotiations before it could release the review us intelligence sources revealed that north korea’s centrifuge program was pursuing technology for a uranium enrichment program which would produce material for nuclear weapons rather than confront the north koreans and demand they halt their efforts to create a uranium enrichment capability the intelligence findings gave those in the bush administration who opposed the agreed framework a reason to abandon it john bolton then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security under president bush later wrote that “this was the hammer i had been looking for to shatter the agreed framework”
the case that the trump foundation was engaged in self dealing is extremely strong i suggest reading the actual complaint in people of the state of new york v donald j trump if you want something more direct than a news article the trump foundation began as a clever tax evasion and embezzlement scheme the initial purpose behind the trump foundation was criminal tax evasion the scheme worked like this 1 trump or his businesses would donate money to the trump foundation claiming a 100 deduction on the money donated1 2 trump would hold the money in the foundation until he could arrange that some debt of his or benefit to him could be arranged by paying money to a charity then he would direct2 the foundation to pay that money to the outside charity in order to benefit him the hotel ad embezzlement the most egregious case of this was in 2013 where the foundation paid 5000 for an advertisement at the dc preservation league annual gala which advertised trumps hotels3 this was not a donation to charity it was just purchasing services from a charity if trumps foundation had merely paid 5000 to a normal magazine for an ad it would clearly have been caught but they were trying to hide it by buying the service from a charity that was an embezzlement of 5000 for the benefit of trumps businesses it also means any corresponding donation by trump was tax evasion since he stole the money to spend on himself the palm beach embezzlement in 20062007 trump got into a fight with the city of palm beach over a flagpole at maralago4 trump and the city agreed to a settlement whereby trump would donate 100000 to charities agreed on by them trump then used the foundations money to pay the settlement thereby using foundation money to absolve his own debt we also know because of a handwritten note uncovered in the ny ags investigation that trump personally decided to use foundation money and personally knew that it was to settle a matter unrelated to the foundation so all of the elements of proving the crime are right there these are only a couple of examples and there are many more like renovating a fountain for one of his hotels paying his sons boy scout membership buying himself sports memorabilia and buying paintings of himself the foundation spending more than it took in isnt especially hard and shows its not a real charity its easy for a charity to spend more than it takes in donations it just has to earn some investment return even bank interest in between receiving the donations and sending the money out the fact that the charity has so little cash on hand though is another indication that its not a real charity real charities make long term giving plans and dole out money over time a charity which does not do any ongoing giving and has no oversight except one mans whim is a slush fund of course he spent the money in the slush fund 1 contributions to 501c3 foundations like the trump foundation are deductible 2 this was illegal already foundations are supposed to have boards which control the money and a single director controlling all spending of money is illegal but the trump foundation has not had a board meeting since 1999 complaint para 26 3 complaint para 8485 4 complaint para 7477
i think solutions involve the work environment as a whole us employers have access to various sources of cheap labor undocumented workers working off the books electronics for imaging paid skilled undocumented workers from india 121 per hour to install its new computer systems in california prison labor whole foods paid prison workers 74 cents per day to raise tilapia in colorado millions of food service workers earn just 213 plus tips workers under 20 can be paid just 425 for the first 90 days and then churned to keep the payroll low farm workers are already exempt from federal and most state minimum wages if they are below the size threshold which means documented and citizen farm workers are earning 5 7 per hour for piece picking students can be paid only 85 or 75 of minimum wage depending on agestatus americans with disabilities can be paid less certain types of nonprofits can pay as little as 85 big companies all over the us outsource basic functions to independent contractors provided by agencies at less than minimum wages so theres plenty of opportunities to pay americans very little money and these jobs are often being done by undocumented workers or people with no other choice of course the calculation that american workers often make is that they do better with benefits in some cases then making low wages or they can be supported by family members etc interestingly as california has seen reductions in the availability of migrant workers farm wages have gone up in some cases to semirespectable rates of 10 15 even 21 per hour if wages get too much higher these farms will cease to function farming will move to mexico i think the compelling reason for american companies to hire undocumented workers is not just labor cost but the ability to ignore all sorts of other rights and benefits unions labor laws safety paid time off professional development these are all a huge pita for employers if you can avoid all of that your costs and headaches are reduced across the board corporate profits are higher ceo salaries are higher shareholders are happy and the reason white americans wont do farm jobs or cleaning jobs or dishwasher jobs is because they can often find something better or because a stigma has become attached to this type of work a guest worker program and we might not want to look at singapores or the middle eastern models would indeed confer some benefits to workers including the lack of fear invoked by our present zeal for arrest detention and deportation but it would also legalize and institutionalize a separate lower class of workers who would mostly be brown and from latin america what benefits and rights these workers would have would be carefully considered im sure but they would no doubt be less than citizens and permanent residents germany did a reasonable job with the gastarbeiter program but even now in germany citizens of turkish descent talk about their parallel lives these issues of work wages and economic migration are all intertwined undocumented workers are part of the fabric of our society simply deporting everyone will cause ruptures and changes in our society that go far beyond mere shifts in the monetary value of certain types of work
"no i dont think you have to wait if i wanted to impose a law tomorrow that said asians need to pay 3x the income tax you could immediately dismiss that as an undue burden it was not me who said unless the disparate outcome is motivated by intent to discriminate its not clear thats a problem i was referring to the statement made about racism in voter eligibility testing where blacks were given an extremely unreasonable test at rates much higher than whites by putting up a standard that is pretty much impossibly to achieve i dont think the standard of showing proof for claims of discrimination is impossible it is not impossible to show that someone murdered another person again we dont just find a dead body and assume murder so to do this you would have to wait for a decent period yeah and be able to tell exactly how the discrimination works it would be impossible to quickly act upon this we agree about that right no i am not willing to concede that for all the egregious historical examples of discrimination apartheid slavery jim crow nazism suffrage etc the argument can be made immediately that this is an undue burden no wait time needed only when you make claims about how people will act eg no banks will give loans to black people that you need to gather data and make the case for that specific example there is already historical precedent and so there would not need to be a waiting period instead the argument would have to be based around whether the historical situation is relevant to the modern world so what do you suggest we do after we found out males benefited from discrimination and now have a massive head start on other groups i could accept your approach if we are then fine taking away the business from the people that benefited from discrimination however i think that would be way more messy i suggest we make a policy which corrects for the issue and move on i think its a very bad idea to try to fix all historical acts of wrongdoing by punishing the beneficiaries especially if they were innocent bystanders as would be the case for preferential treatment towards permits i think thats one point where we just flat disagree our society should be helping all people who need help regardless of their skin color what genitalia they have what genitalia they want to have what genitalia they like others to have etc constantly chasing our tail trying to fix the imperfect behavior of the past will rip our society apart all it does it knock people down who mostly have done nothing wrong in their life if this bothers you so much consider what would happen if tomorrow we decided affirmative action was discriminatory under my world view we stop doing aa and let bygones be bygones under your world view we steal the degrees and try to destroy the careers of everyone who ever got into college or got a job under that policy in other words i dont think its right to kill the grandchild of the man who killed my grandfather nor to try to take his land ect history was filled to the brim with awful terrible times and we will never have perfect optics on the lives of our ancestors we need to move on and focus on the challenges people face today "
there are a couple claims getting mixed up here but i think the claim that the investigation itself ie muellers appointment is unconstitutional is based on recent arguments made by law prof steve calabresi calabresi essentially argues that the investigation violates the appointments clause under article ii section 2 clause 2 either through muellers appointment itself andor his behaviour this opinion seems to be an outlier law prof steve vladeck has written perhaps the most highprofile deconstruction of calabresis arguments but other legal experts seem to have independently arrived at the same conclusions vladeck counters calabresis claim about the appointment itself insofar as calabresi is arguing that the special counsel is a “principal officer” for purposes of the appointments clause that claim can’t be reconciled with the very supreme court precedents morrison included on which calabresi relies way back in april university of chicago law professor eric posner and i explained in a letter to the senate judiciary committee exactly why we think it’s clear that the special counsel is an “inferior officer” in a nutshell in every way that matters the applicable federal regulation 28 cfr part 600 bestows comparable or less authority on the special counsel than what the ethics in government act of 1978 bestowed on the independent counsel—authority that led the morrison majority to conclude that the independent counsel was an inferior officer if calabresi thinks morrison correctly determined that the independent counsel was an inferior officer for purposes of the appointments clause then it has to follow that the special counsel is as well as well as calabresis claims about muellers conduct as special counsel taking the first part first what calabresi is really arguing here is that mueller is exceeding the scope of his lawful authority—as provided by part 600 and as delegated to him by acting attorney general rosenstein even assuming there’s merit to that charge more on that in a moment it has nothing whatsoever to do with the appointments clause if a government officer is exercising authority beyond what he lawfully possesses he’s exceeding his statutory and regulatory mandate that doesn’t thereby mean he is also violating the appointments clause because his status as a “principal” or “inferior” officer doesn’t turn on his actions it turns on the lawful authority of his office properly construed as a claim about mueller exceeding his delegated authority much of it has largely been rejected by judge jackson in her 37page ruling last week rejecting paul manafort’s motion to dismiss to be sure manafort only challenged mueller’s authority in particular respects calabresi’s claim is at least in some respects broader and judge jackson is a single district judge not the supreme court but one would expect a sensational claim about the special counsel exceeding his lawful authority to at least try to engage with the one judicial analysis expressly holding to the contrary calabresi’s “opinion” says nary a word on the subject tldr ive only seen calabresi argue that the investigation itself is unconstitutional it appears to be a novel argument
im assuming if the freedom of speech portion of the first amendment came into conflict with the 14th amendment equal protection under the law much in the same way that freedom of religion could not stop the right to gay marriage due to the 14th amendment i want to clarify what is at least my understanding given that kennedy ruled in favor of gay marriage marriage being recognized and dealt with by the government but ruled in favor of the baker who wouldnt bake a wedding cake for a gay couple with a very specific and narrow wording first the arguments in obergfell v hodges was freedom of religion being suppressed forcing people to recognize gay couples as being married vs equal treatment under the law gay couples couldnt get a marriage certificate through the government while other couples could this meant that the 1st amendment came into conflict with the 14th in this case the 14th amendment trumped the 1st amendment second the arguments in masterpiece cakeshop v colorado civil rights commission mostly mirrored obergfell v hodges with the exception of the cakeshop being a private business though it also is selling to the public so anyways in this case they decided the 1st amendment trumped the 14th while i dont think this specifically resolves hate speech by private citizens if something against a politician ever made it through the courts they would probably be found unable to make certain racistsexistdiscriminatory statements at some point this is going have to be resolved simply because someone could just create a religion around whatever they wanted to be allowed to do or coopt an already existing religion like some protestants have done moving onto your second line also holmes presented the clear and present danger test which is rife with subjective judicial interpretation most scientists are basically saying that climate change is a clear and present danger arguing its the originating cause of the massive surge of immigrants in europe from the middle east and upper africa desertification and higher temperatures causing scarcity of basic living needs which then cause regional destabilization which finally results in mass migration the also state that many of these super storms that we have been getting also have climate change as a major factor at some point we have to have the common sense to leave it to our betters in some fields ask a farmer about farming a doctor about medicine and a scientist about whatever their field covers while we need a better test to set precedence it doesnt take a degree in rocket science to be able to spot harmful or inflammatory speech like milo yiannopoulos comment of “i can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight and donald trumps constant labeling of newspapers as the enemy of the people which was followed just today with a shooting in annapolis at the capital gazettes building where at least 5 are dead we need a bipartisan proverbial foot put down on rhetoric that obviously falls under the meddling priest quote and subsequent results now im starting to ramble and maybe someone else could make a better worded argument on this but i have to stop here
your first study again suffered the same problem as the cardkrueger metaanalysis which they published in 1995 not the 1994 which was a study done on the effects of the minimum wage on 2 adjoining areas but still had the same problems it did not factor in shortvslong term trends found in the study it merely measured whether the findings of the study supported the raising the minimum wage as a means of combating poverty or not and while there are difficulties with using polls they do actually provide relevant data especially to the point i was trying to make that the majority of economists oppose the raising of the minimum wage supporting this is how the poll can be replicated like so and find near the same results when asked about the 15 minimum wage and this opinion has been found throughout time in surveys done in 1976 by the american economic association 9037 agreed that rasing it would increase unemployment with unskilled and young workers which shows you how long this consensus has been around and the data over three subsequent years we find that binding minimum wage increases had significant negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers keeps using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate we conclude that the second wage increase to 13 reduced hours worked in lowwage jobs by around 9 percent while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent consequently total payroll fell for such jobs implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered lowwage employees’ earnings by an average of 125 per month in 2016 supporting it seems reasonable to expect that the workers more likely to be replaced following minimum wage increases are those who are low skilled earning wages affected by increases in the minimum wage these minimum wages particularly stifle job opportunities for lowskill workers youth and minorities which are the groups that policymakers are often trying to help with these policies findings using data drawn from the march current population survey we find that state and federal minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 had no effect on state poverty rates when we then simulate the effects of a proposed federal minimum wage increase from 725 to 950 per hour we find that such an increase will be even more poorly targeted to the working poor than was the last federal increase from 515 to 725 per hour in fact there is a better metaanalysis which did account for long term results of the increase and found that when we compare average growth rates for the period 13 months before the first minimum wage increase with the growth rates for 12 months after the last increase to minimize anticipatory effects and to allow for longerterm effects we find that employment growth fell sharply in retail trade 213 percentage points and in restaurants 82 percentage point but fell only slightly in manufacturing and construction 26 percentage point suggesting that the minimum wage increases had an adverse effect on employment in lowwage industries your second source was again not the full book as you said and merely a collection of excerpts
" north korea broke the agreement first they clearly broke the agreement whether they were first is up for debate the agreed framework was signed in 1994 and that communique from the executive board is dated 2002 only one year short of the projected delivery date for the light water reactors a lot happened or didnt happen in those 8 years soon after the agreement was signed us congress control changed to the republican party who did not support the agreement initially us department of defense emergency funds not under congress control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement together with international funding from 1996 congress provided funding though not always sufficient amounts consequently some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late kedos first director stephen bosworth later commented the agreed framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature some analysts believe north korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the us agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the korean war but because of congressional opposition the us failed to deliver on this part of the agreement international funding for the lwr replacement power plants had to be sought formal invitations to bid were not issued until 1998 by which time the delays were infuriating north korea in may 1998 north korea warned it would restart nuclear research if the us could not install the lwr formal ground breaking on the site was on august 21 1997 but significant spending on the lwr project did not commence until 2000 us officials in 1998 testified to congress that there were no fundamental violations of any aspect of the framework agreement by north koreans joel s wit state department coordinator for implementation of the agreed framework 1995–2000 during the clinton administration stated that we did know about the dprk cheating on the highlyenriched uranium front starting in 1998 the us diplomat who negotiated the framework robert gallucci has warned that it could collapse if united states did not fulfill obligations that it agreed to also 1998 there was increasing disagreement between north korea and the united states on the scope and implementation of the agreement the united states did little to meet its commitment to normalize political and economic relations when by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between the united states and north korea had not been established north korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the united states kept up its end of the bargain construction of the first lwr reactor began in august 2002 construction of both reactors was well behind schedule the initial plan was for both reactors to be operational by 2003 but the construction had been halted indefinitely in late 2002 senators accused president clinton of understating the cost of the project assistant secretary of state rust deming told congress “to be frank we have in past years not always met the fuel year deadline” the light water reactors were never built"
here is the majority opinion in full below is quoted the relevant sections regarding specifically what the court found to be a hostile attitude towards the bakers religious views emphasis added a neutral and respectful consideration of phillips the bakers claims of religious objection was compromised however by the colorado civil rights commission’s treatment of phillips’ case which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection as the record shows some of the commissioners at the commission’s formal public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain disparaged phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the holocaust no commissioners objected to the comments nor were they mentioned in the later statecourt ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here the comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the commission’s adjudication of phillips’ case another indication of hostility is the different treatment of phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to antigay messages who prevailed before the commission the commission ruled against phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer not to the baker yet the division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting antigay marriage symbolism the division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers but the commission found phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant the state court of appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer phillips’ concern that the state’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection it seems that the commissioners actually were hostile to the bakers religion they called is despicable implied that he was only using religion as an excuse to discriminate and compared his religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the holocaust the commission was also inconsistent with its rulings in this case they ruled that the specific message on the gay wedding cake was not the bakers free speech but rather the gay couples speech in other cases however they found that bakers could refuse to make cakes with antigay messages because it violated those other bakers free speech to have to write messages they disagreed with the exact argument the baker in this case tried to use by my reading had the commission not been hostile to the religious views had they acknowledged that he genuinely held these beliefs but that those privately held beliefs cannot impact how he conducts his public business and had they been consistent in their rulings across similar cases then the baker would have been forced to either make the cake or stop offering custom wedding cakes altogether
that citation is from 2002 after the us declared north korea part of the axis of evil in fact it was reported that us president bill clintons officials agreed to the plan only because they thought that the north korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed as north koreas leader kim ilsung had recently died from wikipedia soon after the agreement was signed us congress control changed to the republican party who did not support the agreement from 1996 congress provided funding though not always sufficient amounts consequently some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late kedos first director stephen bosworth later commented the agreed framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature assistant secretary of state rust deming told congress “to be frank we have in past years not always met the fuel year deadline” the united states did little to meet its commitment to normalize political and economic relations when by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between the united states and north korea had not been established north korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the united states kept up its end of the bargain some analysts believe north korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the us agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the korean war but because of congressional opposition the us failed to deliver on this part of the agreement in october 2002 a us delegation led by assistant secretary of state james a kelly visited north korea to confront the north koreans with the us assessment that they had a uranium enrichment program the parties reports of the meeting differ the us delegation believed the north koreans had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program the north koreans stated kelly made his assertions in an arrogant manner but failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos and they responded by denying that north korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using enriched uranium according to korea scholar bruce cumings “when critics tell you that we got nothing from the deal and north korea proceeded to just cheat on it i can tell you that’s completely wrong” cumings tells his standard club audience “that facility was frozen for eight years until last december we had video cameras and seals on the facilities there were at least two united nations inspectors on the ground at yongbyong throughout that eightyear period and there was no possibility of the north koreans having cheated on that particular agreement” from the us government’s point of view explains cumings north korea began cheating on the agreement in the late 1990s importing pakistani technology to enrich uranium although enriched uranium can become fuel for an atomic bomb assuming the necessary technology it can also serve as fuel for light water reactors and he says “north korea says it has every right to import enriched uranium”
excellent question to answer this i think we need to look at 1 the provisions of each agreement and 2 the narrative leading up to the agreement 1 what are the differences in the statements of the jcpoa and the nk agreement nk establish relations with the us establish a stable regime in the korean peninsula reaffirm the 2018 declaration to completely denuclearize the korean peninsula and commit to recovering powmia remains jcpoa major ones include a for 10 years limit the number of centrifuges to 5060 ir1 machines or total of 6104 ir1s and store the remainder in a warehouse b cap the amount of uranium enrichment for 15 years at a single facility c restrict enriched uranium stockpile to 300kg for 15 years d dispose of enrichment byproducts out of the country e right to produce advanced centrifuges after 85 years f upgradecomplete the existing arak heavy water reactor under joint commission guidance g strict monitoring h terminate all uneu sanctions and many us sanctions i permanent prohibition of nuclear weapons when i compare the nk agreement to the jcpoa i note the following a the nk agreement is more vague obviously and only sets general guidelines b the nk agreement targets denuclearization of the korean peninsula c the jcpoa does not denuclearize iran d iran is free to develop its nuclear technology under the surveillance of the joint commission e iran gets a functional heavy water reactor which produces weaponsgrade plutonium as a byproduct f both countries get sanctions lifted if i was trump and my goal was to limit regional hegemony of a belligerent nation who threatens us allies israel and participates in proxy wars against your allies syria i would push for complete denuclearization of that country furthermore i would impose additional sanctions for these threats against my allies hence i would withdraw from the jcpoa renegotiate a deal that denuclearizes iran and limits its military capabilities and support the nk deal until nk no longer commits to denuclearization sample of ayatollah comments on israel iran involvement in syria 2 what is the context of the nk deal and the jcpoa this is a bit too much in depth for me to answer briefly both countries developed nuclear tech under the radar both countries had sanctions placed due to nuclear tech and both countries previously condemned the us and the west as the source of its misery in my opinion i think that iran approached the jcpoa as a belligerent nation who never considered the us to be its ally after the deal in comparison nk unilaterally offered concessions prior to the declaration return of prisoners nuclear testing site and appears to be willing to reconcile with the us as its ally if i was the president of the us i would pick nk over iran 3 your source on a side note your cited source is an opinion piece that does not support your statement it fails to include tenable enforcement mechanisms to address iran’s history of devious behavior and to limit the country’s ballistic missile capability
" from the timeline it sounds like the north koreans were impatient it takes a heck of a long time to bid and build a nuclear reactor facility the agreement itself pdf says the us representing the consortium will make best efforts to secure the conclusion of a supply contract with the dprk within six months of the date of this document for the provision of the lwr project contract talks will begin as soon as possible after the date of this document emphasis added as stated above formal invitations to bid were not even issued until four years after the agreement so securing a supply contract was already way behind schedule instead of formally ending the treaty when they decided that the uss portion was not being forthcoming enough they tried to surreptiously pursue their nuclear weapons they of course deny that and even western experts disagree about whether thats what they were actually doing when they set about to acquire enrichment technology some believe it was for the supposedly forthcoming lwrs but even so the us failure to provide the promised fuel oil secure a contract for the lwrs and provide sanctions relief all predate the revelation of the dprks enrichment program it wasnt until 2003 that north korea ended the agreement each side blamed the other for effectively ending the agreement see wiki source above on north koreas part they issued a statement stating their position under article 1 of the framework the us is obliged to provide light water reactors to the dprk by the year 2003 in return for the dprks freezing of graphite moderated reactors and their related facilities but only site preparation for the lwr was made though 8 years have passed since the dprk froze its nuclear facilities under article 2 of the framework the two sides are obliged to move toward full normalization of the political and economic relations over the last 8 years however the us has persistently pursued the hostile policy toward the dprk and maintained economic sanctions on it the former has gone the length of listing the latter as part of the axis of evil under article 3 of the framework the us is obliged to give formal assurances to the dprk against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the us however the us listed the dprk as a target of its preemptive nuclear attack under article 4 of the framework and paragraph g of its confidential minute the dprk is to allow nuclear inspections only after the delivery of essential nonnuclear components for the first lwr unit including turbines and generators is completed but the us has already come out with a unilateral demand for nuclear inspection in a bid to convince the international community of the dprks violation of the framework all four of these points are correct and independently verifiable of course they leave out the dprks violations of the agreement so it would also be correct to say it is cherrypicked but my point is only to demonstrate that the blame for the failure does not rest solely with one side "
"you have a point to an extent but the part youre missing is publicity take for example that news story about israel i linked to super easy to find and covered by multiple media outlets and every time israel does something like this it gets covered by the media and talked about internationally these incidents are well documented and the conflict has a long history of academic and journalistic coverage similarly look at the other countries that have a high number of condemnations syria and myanmar both of these countries are involved in highly publicized conflicts namely the rohingya persecutiongenocide and the syrian war these three countries all have the same two things in common they are involved in severally violent conflicts with a large number of casualties and they are highly publicized now compare the number of casualties lets talk 20062015 for comparison israel easily over 10000 casualties on both sides since the beginning maybe a little over a quarter of that in the 21st century syria estimated 353593 and 498593 note we dont know how much of this and how much is civilian myanmmar somewhere between 6000 to 43000 now lets take a look at the two countries you mentioned north korea the statistics do not exist you can find the death toll for the korean war and the famine but it is next to impossible to even find an estimate of the death perpetrated by the regime its likely pretty high we just dont know the numbers or details saudi arabia also pretty unreliable no good number for political executions because the government doesnt disclose that if you look at yemen and count those deaths it would be about 5200 civilians my point is this we know how many people are dying how theyre dying who they are and who is killing them we know so much more about what israel is doing than we do these other countries and blatantly against repeated condemnations israel has done little to address those concerns frankly it does not seem like that big of a deal that the unchr has focused on so heavily on them being a us ally and a critical voice when it comes to middle east policy it is not surprising that so much attention has been focused on them logically it makes sense that less attention has been placed on those other countries because of the circumstances around their human rights abuses we simply dont know as much dont have as much access and their abuses dont garner the same international interest so again their obvious bias doesnt bother me too much because the thing theyre criticizing is a serious problem that isnt getting any better edit i would also like to make it really clear that i would support any change to the council that would shed more light on abuses globally i may even support the us leaving the council depending on what it plans to do next corruption is a problem and there are plenty of hypocrites on the council that use their position to mask their own bullshit however pointing out that does not subtract from the point im trying to make "
" cuba was in 1959 among the most wealthy nations in the hemisphere cuba might have been cubans were not nearly all of that money was american money cuba had a onecrop economy sugar cane whose domestic market was constricted its population was characterized by chronic unemployment and deep poverty united states monopolies like bethlehem steel corporation and speyer gained control over valuable national resources the banks and the countrys entire financial system all electric power production and the majority of industry was dominated by us companies us monopolies owned 25 percent of the best land in cuba more than 80 percent of farmland was owned by sugar and livestockraising large landowners 90 percent of the countrys raw sugar and tobacco exports was exported to the us in 1956 us owned companies controlled 90 percent of the telephone and electric services about 50 percent in public service railways and roughly 40 percent in raw sugar production according to a report published by the department of commerce the gains from these investments were reaped by american businessmen leading to discontent among the cuban people in the 1950s most cuban children were not in school 87 percent of urban homes had electricity but only 10 percent of rural homes did only 15 percent of rural homes had running water nearly half the rural population was illiterate as was about 25 percent of the total population poverty and unemployment in rural areas triggered migration to havana more than 40 percent of the cuban workforce in 1958 were either underemployed or unemployed afterward the wealthy prospered the middle class vanished and poverty increased source because i think everybody agrees poverty decreased by a lot just as venezuela was before adopting socialism huh the caracazo or sacudón is the name given to the wave of protests riots looting shootings and massacres6 that began on 27 february 1989 in venezuelas capital caracas and the surrounding towns the weeklong clashes resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people thousands by some accounts mostly at the hands of security forces and the military the riots and the protests began mainly in response to the governments economic reforms and the resulting increase in the price of gasoline and transportation prior to chavez attaining power venezuela was in total chaos pretty much like it is today no one knows the actual poverty rate in cuba as trusted information is not available poverty however is reported to be widespread with about 15 in extreme poverty lol man did you read the source in urban areas there’s an estimated 15 living in extreme poverty in cuba although the statistics are at least 10 years old and literally the next line sure compared to the rest of latin america cuba is doing far better the economic opening has allowed a number of cubans to earn more and enabled many others to start their own small businesses so we can agree with the source that cuba is doing far better than its counterparts "
" does hate speech based on race become a lie close enough to the false fire alarm then hate speech is legal everywhere unless as you said it is intended to provoke violence amendment xiv section 1 all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws section 2 representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each state excluding indians not taxed but when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for president and vice president of the united states representatives in congress the executive and judicial officers of a state or the members of the legislature thereof is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state being twentyone years of age and citizens of the united states or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twentyone years of age in such state section 3 no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or elector of president and vice president or hold any office civil or military under the united states or under any state who having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof but congress may by a vote of twothirds of each house remove such disability section 4 the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned but neither the united states nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the united states or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave but all such debts obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void section 5 the congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article i would argue that even if the 1st amendment protects free speech the 14th amendment negates any protection of hate speech where exactly i think we need to consider whether this could extend to lying about climate change at some point you really want trump to do this"
"in discussing this question we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the union it does not by any means follow because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state that he must be a citizen of the united states he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state for previous to the adoption of the constitution of the united states every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen and to endow him with all its rights but this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the state and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the united states each state may still confer them upon an alien or anyone it thinks proper or upon any class or description of persons yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the united states nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states the rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them the constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization and this right is evidently exclusive and has always been held by this court to be so consequently no state since the adoption of the constitution can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government although so far as the state alone was concerned he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character this has been touched on 7 times in the supreme court since the definition of state is a country and a country most certainly can make its own citizens without permission from anyone else the 14th amendment did not change this balance as clearly stated in the amendment itself a person is a us citizen if they are naturalized or born under the jurisdiction if they live in a state they are also citizens of that state whats a state citizen and how are they different additionally where is the power of immigration enumerated there is some truth mostly fiction to the sovereign citizen argument there are 3 types of citizens in our system all mentioned in the us constitution citizen of the several states article 4 us constitution descendent of a revolutionary or present in a state when it becomes a member of the union 14th amendment citizen self explanatory citizen of a state mentioned in 14th amendment "
budgets are public record there may be some individual states that dont make them easy to find and theyre universally not easy to read but they are there the problem is finding a good summary of them that is readable especially for the federal budget where third parties like to make reports on the presidents budget proposal as if its actually been passed or ever will get passed and not the actual congress appropriation bills if youre interested in the federal budget you can see a list of approved appropriations by year on congressgov the omb mostly tracks the income and expenditures of the government see here for their historical tables but in line with what i mentioned above they primarily use the presidents proposed budget when discussing the current year so you shouldnt use any of their estimates or current year data as a reliable source there is no easy answer for what you want its basically a process so bureaucratic and broken over decades of mismanagement that no one really had a handle on it basically congress spends money via appropriations based on their expected income from whatever source they want to pull from usually the congressional budget office the money described in the appropriations is basically divided up as a sort of interest free loan that gets paid back to the treasury as income flows in from taxes tariffs sales and so on if the numbers dont add up when the treasury needs to pay someone in actual cash then they work the federal reserve to issue bonds or takes loans from foreign countries and the us debt grows if they do then the treasury can stash the money so they dont have to do that next time and then the debt falls off as the bonds or loans mature without more being taken out in sequence although the few times that has happened in recent memory congress goes ahead and spends the extra money the treasury reports as surplus such as what happened with the surplus near the end of clintons term the process works very similar for states except they generally take loans from the federal government instead of foreign powers along with issuing bonds theyre also much easier to read for example here is californias enacted budget summary the tldr version is there isnt going to be a place to get exactly what you want best case scenario is to look at the omb cbo and treasury department reports to find out whose got the most reliable statistic for what youre trying to drill down to on the federal side for the individual states look for the states financial management office and find their summary for the enactedpassed budget edit take a look through the fiscal services monthly statement and compare that to a states monthly financial report like so for california its not going to be a one to one comparison just based on size and what gets funded and where revenue comes from at the state versus federal level but its the best thing i can think of that might work for what you want
yeah you were right about the outcome but if not for trumps public statements this would have been 90 not 54 this doesnt seem to be the case based on the text of the dissent which includes impact in conjunction with intent although it primarily grandstands in intent the majority was critiqued for ignoring the facts misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals many of whom are united states citizens” edit from what i can tell the majority held that the respondents had failed to demonstrate that the proclamation violated the establishment clause with their argument that trumps public statements indicated discriminatory intent that constituted establishment of a state religion seems like regardless of the outcome it hinged on intent so i dont really know why youre digging up this comment the opinion was held under a standard of review called rational basis rational basis is the lowest standard of review and primarily deals with state action as facially neutral only determining if their stated interestnot intent is valid and if the action reasonably serves those ends an analysis of the majority opinion emphasis mine unlike traditional establishment clause cases such as “religious displays or school prayer” the court emphasizes that this case takes place within an arena that of national security immigration and foreign policy that is generally left to the political branches a different standard of review is therefore necessary and citing a 1972 case kleindienst v mandel the court points out that it generally does not look beyond the “facially legitimate and bona fide” reasons offered by the executive branch in such areas such deference is critical the court explains in allowing the president the “flexibility” necessary to respond to a rapidly changing immigration and national security landscape nevertheless the court seems to be willing to move a bit beyond mandel ruling that “for our purposes today we assume that we may look behind the face of the proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review” in a footnote the court clarifies that the “constrained standard of review” represented by rational basis “applies to any constitutional claim concerning the entry of foreign nationals” applying rational basis review the court agrees to “consider” extrinsic evidence but explains that it will ultimately decide the case based on whether the “policy is plausibly related to the government’s stated objective” ie protecting the country and improving the vetting processes under this lenient standard the court decisively upholds the policy the court explains that the policy “is expressly premised on legitimate purposes” “reflects the results of a worldwide review process undertaken by multiple cabinet officials and their agencies” and justifies the inclusion of each country placed on the list
"the two party system is designed to have checks and balances to keep things at least somewhat centered it is based on the idea that political ideologies is a linear spectrum on the left you have liberal or progressive ideas that promote change and trying new things in an attempt to get a better result on the right you have conservative ideas that promote conserving things that are proven to work and not making any changes or take risks that could result in a costly setback most people realize that neither ideology is effective if practiced in absolution if you change everything constantly youll just chase your tail and if you never change anything youll never make any progress so we need a mixture of both sides if we want to represent the bulk of the people democracy the way the two party system is intended to work is that you have two parties presenting a plan of which things they intend to change and which things they intend to conserve a balance of both progressive and conservative ideas one typically ends up being more conservative and one ends up being more progressive then the people vote on which one makes the most sense to them personally the numbers are tallied and the majority wins oversimplified a little obviously so its a nice way to represent the majority and keep a healthy balance of liberal and conservative ideas but imo what our system has become is counterproductive the two parties have no interest in working with each other any longer so much so that its pretty common for a party to adopt the same policy as the other party then that party will reverse position just for the sake of political leverage and a large number of voters throw away their voice by declaring long in advance that they are going to support a particular party regardless of their policy or candidates so to answer your question yes i still think its a democracy but i think us voters have lost sight of the big picture and often squander their voice instead of maintaining a degree of objectivity or neutrality one thing that would be interesting to me is to to see why people dont vote in the last presidential election 42 of eligible voters did not vote is that because they didnt feel well enough informed did they not care was their something preventing them from voting or did they just simply dislike the two candidates i think this is relevant to the question about whether a 2 party system is democratic because if the number of people that feel unrepresented by either party grows beyond the size of people that voted for the winner then it would appear that there is a huge failure in the process and that it is not democratic this is just theoretical but if 35 of the nonvoters said that neither party represents them but the gop and dnc have a death grip on the country and paint third party votes as protest votes then we would be experiencing a huge amount of voter suppression which is the enemy of democracy "
i apologize for a lack of sources im speaking extemporaneously from my knowledge as a recent law school graduate by definition the laws that protect protected classes of individuals are about intent as a general rule a shopkeeper can deny service to any and everyone on any basis other than discrimination against a protected class if i owned a bar i could deny service to an lgbtq black veteran immigrant for any reaosn other than their membership in a protected class or in this hypothetical classes if said individual was leering at another customer i could kick himher out regardless of whether the leering was homosexual in nature if said individual was belligerent i could kick them out all that matters in this context with very limited exceptions where a pervasive pattern of denial of service is presented as evidence of intent eg when a large organization appears to be pervasively denying promotionadvancement or is consistently paying members of a protected class less for doing the same type of work is intent you ask what is to stop a person who is genuinely homophobic from discriminating while falsely claiming it is on the basis of their religious conviction the discovery process in a court proceeding is the answer the shopkeeper will be deposed and asked questions about their basis for denying service their records will be examined to determine if there is a pattern of discriminatory outcomes which again can serve as evidence of discriminatory intent the driving force behind the courts opinion in masterpiece is that all of this discovery showed that 1 the baker would bake cakes for homosexual customers so long as the cake was not going to be used to celebrate gay marriage and 2 he would sell premade cakes to the customer regardless of the cakes intended use whether to celebrate a homosexual marriage or not he did not deny them service he denied them a particular servicea custom made cake the couple could have bought a premade cake from his shop so they were not denied goods they were denied his personal labor in custommaking a cake theres a major distinction there thats long recognized by the law most notably no court in the us can order specific performance as a remedy when personal services are involved as that would be by definition is involuntary servitude so if an opera singer refuses to honor a contract for performance the counterparty may seek monetary damages but cannot receive a remedy of specific performance forcing the opera singer to actually sing on the other hand if a corporation reneges on a contract to sell me 2 tons of wheat i can seek and receive a remedy of specific performance the court order the corporation to sell me the wheat i too am concerned about how the next case involving this issue will be decided but as a general matter every right minded lawyer can at least understand the general basis of the courts decision in masterpiece
" since only two foundries are capable currently of making steel plate used by the dod and since those two foundries can’t exist solely by selling the plate to the dod and if they did the cost of those steels would skyrocket then those foundries have to produce and sell enough lower quality steel and aluminum in that market to make a profit and stay operable huh if the us steel companies could sell at lower prices comparable to international companies they would already be doing that in order to steal the business away from the international companies obviously they cant compete with the international companies because they cant make a profit if they price their product at the same price as the international companies hence the need for the tariffs in the first place it makes little sense to argue against the idea that steel and in turn national security will end up being more costly thanks to the tariffs do you think the mr trump is just pulling tariffs out of his ass not sure what youre asking tariffs are a popular policy on certain wings in both the right and left the sanders wing loves tariffs too i believe they are mistaken in their hatred of free trade of course the economic consensus is entirely against tariffs for obvious reasons i definitely dont think we should trust that these tariffs will be good simply because trump thinks they will be good that seems rather naive i also dont really understand how the national security argument pans out when there are clear disadvantages to national security that these tariffs will bring i mean thinking about it even more if trump just wanted to buy higher quality steel from us companies and the extra cost be damned why does the government need to issue tariffs in order for that to happen why not just buy the us steel without implementing tariffs im confused as to what the tariffs accomplish here besides adding more incentive to buy us steel but if trump wants to buy us steel even before tariffs clearly there is enough of an incentive to buy it despite the extra cost right if i have option a low quality low cost ie international steel and option b high quality high cost ie us steel and i can buy either one if i determined i wanted to buy b because of its high quality i could just buy b there is no reason for me to artificially make a more expensive what is your actual complaint here i dont have a complaint i tend to follow the economic consensus when it comes to these tariffs and so i think they are inefficient for the economy and will make national security more costly i was wondering if there is any hidden national security benefit that i wasnt aware of or if there was a clear way to analyze how the added cost will stack up to whatever benefits these tariffs give that would make it rational to declare that these tariffs would be beneficial to national security but i guess there is not "
the difference is catching them in the act and the formal nature of war we arent engaged in a formal war between a sovereign nation so the rules of engagement are suspended that creates a unique advantage and a unique problem the advantage is it give the us leverage to argue that they can use any means necessary to eradicate enemy combatants but it also means that if some of those combatants are us citizens then the us government is legally obligated to follow the order of the law the government cant simply say well this administration thinks this citizen is a threat so we are gunna kill him when he leaves american soil thats illegal and they must do what they can to captureextradite this person and bring them before a court of law these terrorists are not agents of any sovereign country and are acting on their own beliefs glorified organized criminals if you will they dont represent a sovereign nation and are not fighting under another sovereigntys banner and are committing their crimes under the guise of individual vs the state the united states consider a criminal who kills a police officer and escapes the scene before being engaged by police do the police hunt down and kill the criminal on sight at his house not unless he resists arrest with lethal force the polices job in hunting him down is to bring the cop killer before a court for judgement because the actions of the criminal are individual vs the state because of this it is the duty of the us to capture first and kill only if the target resists in a way the lethal force becomes necessary in the case of your german example that is different we are talking about 2 sovereign nations engaged in formal war the symmetrical nature if you will americans that go to germany to fight for germany are taking up a cause to fight against the us as agents of germany in this case even if these american defectors didnt formally renounce their citizenship they have left us sovereign territory and taken up the cause of a foreign sovereign power in formal actions against the us in a formal state of war in this case the theater is germany vs the united states and those american defectors are now former americans acting as agents of the german government vs the united states the key being they are acting as agents of the german government in open formal war against the us as such they are formal enemy combatants of a sovereign enemy nation and are fair game when it comes to open combat engagements preemptive strikes and assassinations if they are captured they would then be subjected to the formal rules of treating prisoners and being american citizens would have a special trial and due process for treason but in the battlefield such as your scenario there is nothing unconstitutional about sneaking up and taking them out they are wearing german uniforms so they are german soldiers
yeah drift is one way of describing a massive influx of people who are different too much different makes for some damned dangerous culture clash there are also controllable items in there do we want to have a culture with multiple languages some people do i dont do we want to have more mexican culture i like the food and the soccer but i hate the musicis that really all were talking about they also are generally speaking racist as all get out secondthird generation kids whove incorporated the host country culture seem fine but the issue isnt people who are absorbed its whether were taking too many too many to absorb effectively and whether we want what they bring with them at that level of cultural assault theres good and bad in all of it but pissing and moaning about the price of produce isnt something i consider important in the larger scheme compared to the overarching direction the entire culture trends towards i mean you can pretend that saying but immigration happens dur invalidates the entire concept but theres absolutely no way that running into a dark skinned server at ihop once in your lifetime who speaks perfect english and is in agreement with you about pop culture is the same as 3 of your entire population being people who arent even on the rolls there are immense and serious technical consequences to this when i was working road construction we had illegals dropping of materials at sites and there was damned near no way to communicateyou could get across drop it over there but hey wheres the bill of lading or whats the certification on this pallet of rebar do you have the mtr is absolutely impossible go ahead and try rejecting that material and keeping your job i like the hardworking guys ive met doing roofing i dont like the fact theyre getting paid pennies on the dollar to do skilled trades and that i cant yell at them for not using snow and ice shield properly unless i can figure out where the hell their english speaking handler disappeared to thats just the language the mexican drug culture is a real bitch compared to the us version all the mexicans ive met in the drug trade when i was young were filthy human beings that the world would be better off without americans have their version of those people but the ones crossing the border to get involved in the trade dont appear to be who we really want to attract perhaps we shouldnt try to manage our culture at all perhaps we should hide our heads under a rock and pretend that everything in the wide world is best like were candide or something idiotic like that or perhaps we should actually consider the farranging effects of massive social and cultural shifts associated with the things that are actually under our control and make decisions based on that this shouldnt even be a political discussion either you control your border or you dont
" so what type of government do you think is better well historically it is pretty clear that enlightened dictator is the best system by far the problem is that you have successioncorruption problems so that it becomes hard to endorse for anything more than short spans so given that some sort of more modern technocracy restrict the franchise to the very highly educated or perhaps high level civil servants with testing at the very least the government needs a fourth branch based on science and facts that can veto legislation that is just wrong an amazing amount of legislation gets passed that says it will do x but really will have the effect of x similar to the judicial review system there needs to be a factual review system but i would also do lots of other severe and serious things too governing the country is hugely important and we dont take it seriously for example we sequester jurors for low stakes stuff but we dont sequester congress one of the first things i would do if i could try to tinker with modern representative government would be to cut off congress from the lobbyists like literally no meetings congress spends the entire term sequestered and once elected to congress maybe you need to live the rest of your life in monastery or something or some sort of pension system where you have an ample but impossible to change lifestyle make it an actual sacrifice and make it difficultimpossible to benefit from serving past a certain point historically the franchise was broadened to its current place during a period where the ultimate military power was dudes in the streets with rifles so you had to broaden it and broaden it and broaden it until you had pretty much everyone as otherwise the masses would head out into the streets i am not sure that is the case so much anymore and we can perhaps correct the mistake of thinking that bobby joe with his hs education failure to understand basic math or science and ignorance of say the content or structure of government should have much input about how the country is run doesnt this make them unaccountable if they are beyond our legislature and executive how would such huge portions of the government actually work in your ideal system accountable to whom right now we have a system where no one is accountable they just need to raise some money participate in one of two established parties and be minimally inoffensive as for the hr board ummm the supreme court isnt accountable to anyone so similar to that i mean ultimately in the broad picture the government is only accountable to whoever can bring the military to bear on it that will never change force is the only ultimate authority but barring that many society have functioned giving certain individual a scope of relative impunity and i dont see any reason the leadership of an hr board couldnt be similar"
i feel like the hill has lower standards for conservative opinion pieces mueller is also potentially acting beyond the already vague scope lawyers for former trump campaign manager paul manafort sued the justice department arguing that mueller acted outside his prescribed scope in indicting manafort for crimes allegedly committed over a decade ago “by ignoring the boundaries of the jurisdiction granted to the special counsel in the appointment order mr mueller acted beyond the scope of his authority” the lawsuit states this was the argument which has been thrown out about a month ago a federal judge in washington ruled tuesday that special counsel robert mueller was working within his authority when he brought charges against president donald trump’s former campaign chairman since mueller has been a longtime colleague and friend of former fbi director james comey a conflict of interest was created when the special counsel expanded his investigation to include the possibility that trump obstructed justice in firing comey us law requires mueller to disqualify himself if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution” thats not how the law works and theres a far more compelling case to be made for a different conflict of interest conflict of interest means there’s some financial or pecuniary benefit that could come one’s way as a result of an investigation for example if i had worked at a business and business has something at stake that’s a conflict but just people being friends and knowing each other that’s not a conflict it is very funny trump pretends to care about conflicts of interest as well these warrant applications are now subject to intense criticism because the senior officials involved in signing them knowingly used an unverified antitrump dossier funded by hillary clinton’s campaign as the core of the rationale for surveillance this is a lie carter page has been having fisa warrants issued against him since 2013 because of his involvement with russians in that case one of the russian suspects victor podobnyy — who was posing as a diplomat and was later charged by federal prosecutors with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government — was captured on tape in 2013 discussing an effort to get information and documents from page … in one secretly recorded conversation detailed in the complaint podobnyy said page “wrote that he is sorry he went to moscow and forgot to check his inbox but he wants to meet when he gets back i think he is an idiot and forgot who i am plus he writes to me in russian to practice the language he flies to moscow more often than i do he got hooked on gazprom thinking that if they have a project he could rise up maybe he can i don’t know but it’s obvious that he wants to earn lots of money’’
for those who take the standpoint of dont break the law dont suffer the consequences in the case of political asylum for people in direct danger breaking the law can be part of the process to begin actual asylum if you illegally enter and are picked up you can begin a claim of asylum then schedule a court hearing for sentencing and process crossing the border illegally is considered a misdemeanor the zero tolerance policy as directed by the doj under sessions is unlawful itself as it prevents people seeking political asylum physical entry into the country thus preventing them from the act of applying for asylum nytimes cites texas monthly reports about agents physically blocking entry in recent weeks garcia and other immigrant activists in el paso had been hearing reports that cbp agents were blocking central americans from proceeding across the bridge to the port of entry where they are entitled to begin the asylum process by making asylum claims at a port of entry immigrants are supposed to be given a court date so that a judge may determine if the asylum claim is credible but recent reports suggest central americans are being turned back to juárez ironically garcia said many of these central americans have grown frustrated and subsequently decided to sneak into the united states outside of a port of entry then gotten arrested by the border patrol new trump administration policy requires that anyone caught entering illegally be arrested face criminal charges and be separated from any children they are traveling with whats even worse is that due to this administrations habit of deflecting blame or just straight up lying about this policy they muddy the waters for their supporters by claiming justification from older case law as seen here in a kansas senators statements this issue is caused in large part by restraints in our laws imposed by a ninth circuit court ruling and the actions of mexican drug cartels political editors at kcur radio kansas city say this echoes other statements made recently by white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders and house speaker paul ryan the ruling yoder is referring to is flores v reno a lawsuit regarding the treatment of minors at the border flores was originally brought during the reagan administration and settled in 1997 during the clinton administration the settlement has been the basis for judicial decisions regarding the topic ever since and underlies much of the current discussion the policy of separating children from their families was not imposed by the settlement but was rolled out by attorney general jeff sessions in may the new york times points out that while flores does govern how minors are to be treated in custody there is no stipulation requiring them to be separated from their parents
" direct evidence of discriminatory motive eh that would be clear statements so i asked for one where the guy didnt say that was the reason here is the full text direct evidence of discriminatory intent is evidence that “if believed proves the fact of discriminatory intent without inference or presumption” coghlan v am seafoods co 413 f3d 1090 1095 9th cir 2005 citation omitted occasionally a recipient official admits to having considered race during the decisional process as a basis for its action in other instances a recipient explicitly conditions the receipt of benefits or services on the race color or national origin of the beneficiary or explicitly directs action be taken based on race color or national origin these kinds of requirements are often referred to as “express classifications” and are the clearest form of direct evidence short of an express classification other direct evidence of discrimination includes “any statement or document which shows on its face that an improper criterion served as the basis … for an adverse … action” fabela v socorro indep sch dist 329 f3d 409 415 5th cir 2003 on the other hand “remarks by nondecisionmakers or remarks unrelated to the decision making process itself are not direct evidence of discrimination” standard v abel servs inc 161 f3d 1318 1330 11th cir 1998 that is completely false if you care to read my source rather then ignore it you would know that as it states quite clearly under section b subsection 1 sub subsection b other forms of direct evidence its not i wrote it after skimming your manual the statement i wrote does not proof or maybe even suggest the race of the individual played a role so your manual as far as i understand wouldnt consider it direct proof a statement of an official involved in the decision stating that an ostensibly raceneutral action was taken in order to limit minority individuals’ eligibility for a federally funded benefit or program is direct evidence of racebased intent how does i dont want that nword working for me prove that the person could simply argue race had nothing to do with his decision and his statement doesnt prove it if one said i dont want that guy because he is a nword then you would be correct finally when you say that you dont know if women are discriminated against thats why i would not be in favor of this legislation as it claims to address a problem that might not even exist if it aims at solving a problem that doesnt exist that does no real damage and you would be safe rather than sorry in particular if its just personal choice women dont enter the weed industry they will still not chose to join however if there is discrimination you seem you argue to let it happen and then after it happened not remedy the unfairness "
" what is the correct approach because i think any approach will be flawed simple ensure equal opportunity under the law enforce nondescrimination then leave it alone so if we would look at the average between males and females at higher levels or within levels there would not be a difference thats not really relevant to what were talking about but since you asked there are differences in pay even on the same levels with men being higher but that can almost always be traced to things like life choices having a kid and taking time off work or more aggressive salary negotiating by men thats not true becoming a tenured professor is a highly selective position and trajectory one quite heavily dependent on your peers as well as the politics at a university what im not sure you understand what the term selfselect means it means a lot of women want to be elementary school teachers are you trying to tell them theyre not allowed to do that and that they have to be professors maybe but you can take personal choice into account i think by simply asking if women wouldve liked to be doctors right and a lot of them want to be elementary school teachers again why do you think its not ok for them to want to teach elementary school or be nurses or as the article i linked said go into things like social work or liberal arts no but my mom is a doctor and it wasnt so easy back then to become a female doctor this may come as a shock but it isnt back then anymore its now and women are crushing men in both college enrollment and graduation source when women are the majority of both enrollees and graduates at colleges there is little reason to suppose they are unable to select the majors theyre interested in even the source seems to agree with me and not you as personal choice isnt the main trust of their argument apperently not really the author of the article just threw out a bunch of reasons they thought that that was the case have you ever considered most women just arent that in to welding or being plumbers or electricians or riggers or shiphands or garbage workers whats weird to me is when you think we have a moral imperative to force women to do things they clearly have no interest in doing weve been throwing millions and millions of dollars trying to get women into stem and the enrollment rate has barely budged in twenty years it also argues how laws have been used to prevent discrimination and how the share of women increased in some of those industries sure thats great but that doesnt mean you should expect that for every industry the whole point of feminism is to allow women to do what they want to do its kind of a pointless victory when you have people running around telling them that what they chose is wrong like what youre doing "
"yes it is since the export part of the us economy is the smallest of all of the g7 if all trade would stop the us would lose the least while its trading partners would lose massively by varying levels of pain the data from the world bank is here as you can see in the data exports are only 119 of the us economy for the uk it’s 283 for germany the proportion is 461 and most of these exports go to the us as you can see here because of the size of the internal us economy the us economy is very resilient to trade disruptions most us companies in fact sell within the us as the numbers show while the other economies are dependent on trade to with the us to thrive the us could replace most of that lost trade by shifting us consumer demand to internal production today as an example apple makes 100 of its iphones in china say that the us would impose a 100 tariff on the iphones made on in china and imported nation the us apple would not likely just stop making iphones the comp any would shift production to arizona or detroit or any other us location in order to satisfy us consumer demand it would be very profitable for the us because us workers would get jobs get paid and then spend most of this money locally in the us the money us consumers pay to china today would simply stay within the us economy not go to china so while say a the us workers producing the 119 of good that we export would have to find new jobs because so much production would be shifted from germany and china and others to the us and these jobs would thus be converted to us jobs cars is another example from “germany’s auto industry association vda says its members exported 657000 vehicles to north america last year with total exports of vehicle components cars engines as well as secondhand vehicles totalling 312 billion euros in 2016 imports from the united states to germany amounted to 74 billion euros meaning a trade deficit of 238 billion euros the vda’s latest available figures show” this shows that is the germans moved their german car production to the us us workers would be eur238bn better off of course germany’s workers would be worse off by the same amount now some things may become more expensive the us doesn’t allow child labour for example and this some prices would increase as children in emerging countries are not paid very much the other element of profitability here is the environmental one transport of goods is today virtually 100 driven by fossil fuels shipping millions of iphones and cars following the example above every year from china and germany is very costly from an environmental perspective locally sourced production is environmentally superior according to many sources transporting good is the leading cause of global warming "
" i mean the eu politicians are more likely to try and work for a solution simply because the economic effects will hurt them through their voters and they have less time to look for a better solution than trump has simply because they are up for reelection next year instead of 2020 in the scale of global trade a year or two isnt that massive and their voters know what trump is the whole world knows what trump is but my argument is that the break was a logical consequence of the situation of the average american not living in the coastal areas good for them whats coastal have to do with it though rural coastal areas have more in common with rural kansas than rural kansas has in common with austin city vs rural is far more accurate though i suspect its not as good of a talking point since the average american isnt rural 627 of the population as of 2015 live in cities 1 more to the point though why doesnt this logic work the other way this same message is frequent on reddit but somehow the sparsely populated and financial deficit that is the rural us is a magical static group that should be worshiped and accommodated while those in the city despite being the financial and population core of the us are irrelevant hanger ons i disagree with this and this crap just further splits the us up rural areas have issues but this message of if you dont obey the country will burn is not something which should be humored cities are just as if not more by population important as rural areas deal with their issues or bad things happen should apply both ways yet the current admin 2 3 4 as well as many state governments 5 6 have no issue shitting on urban areas to benefit their core voters rural areas have legitimate issues burning trade relations with our allies on the global stage isnt a solution for it or relevant to their lives my entire point basically is that eu politicians should realize that these voters are real their issues are real and if we dont address them properly more trumps will pop up simply because apparently the us elite doesnt really care about them anyway so only an outsider can score points with them which is what i said about the eu redirecting trade away from the us as an unreliable former ally if we look back in 20 years time im quite sure trump will not be seen as an outlier but simply as a logical consequence in historys inevitable march forward if this ends up being true i weep for mankind and expect mandarin to become a far more important language in classrooms the us isnt magic and spitting in the face of everything which maintains our global position can and will result in us being made irrelevant much to the benefit of some but sure as hell not the urban or rural people in the us"
i dont see any evidence that things are better in a good way this time the atmosphere and reception in news sources and online really vary from source to source that is typical but it is more pronounced in the current climate optimism tends to go along with party leaning or is dependent upon the degree to which writing and opinions are based on history vs the moment historic scans well and catches eyes but as one reuters article was titled today historic trumpkim summit ends with promise light on substance promise without substance doesnt amount to much yet reuters has changed the title and article throughout the day it is easy to get agreement on broad principles this has happened time and again what makes it historic is that 1 up to this point we havent ever given nk a direct meeting with a sitting president which is something they really want but does not speak to substance for us and 2 potus agreed to drop joint skus exercises that is specific and verifiable where work toward denuclearization is non specific and not easily measurable exercises with sk are an important part of american military presence in the region and while they are anything but perfect ive participated in a few they do keep the forces able to communicate and work together while reassuring our allies basically we agreed to significantly curtail a working relationship with an ally to get a vague promise from an historical adversary now details of a verifiable denuclearization plan could still come out but they havent yet strangely it appears to be a work out the details later negotiation details and compliance are where things have broken down in the past as yet there is no public indication that these issues have been addressed thats not surprising the negotiations took place in too short a time for these issues to be dealt with thoroughly because of this and a lot of other indications that i dont have time to get into my position of the moment is doesnt look that promising because of history we havent received any specific measurable promises business as usual with some significant concessions to the nk regime trump may legitimately not see his promises as concessions if they are things he wants anyway but he and i dont see eye to eye so theres that yes views vary note the difference between r and d senator comments r isnt all yeah this is great though what do koreans think thats mixed as well on the other hand some said that while they admit the efforts made by president trump have contributed to the realization of the extraordinary summit they fear that kim and trump are figures who are “hard to predict” edit added links to varying views on the subject and to ongoing details later negotiations
thanks for this feedback i understand what youre saying but let me try to explain it from the other side the reasoning behind submission rule g is tied in directly with submission rule a and commenting rule 2 we require submitters to ask a question and we require respondents to answer with facts supported by evidence since it is not possible to provide evidence about future events it would put the respondents in an impossible position to request that they speculate they literally wouldnt be able to answer in a rulescompliant way for instance suppose i asked according to fifa rules what would happen if a player received two yellow cards in a match regardless of the tense of the subclause the question is about fifa rules and the answer to it is they would be upgraded to a red card and the player would be ejected thats not speculation thats what the rules dictate but rule g prevents this question from being posted because of the word would we would not reject a question in that form were it political because as you say its not really a request for speculation its a question about fifa rules we might however ask that it be rephrased as the functionally identical question according to fifa rules what happens if a player receives two yellow cards in a match similarly your first question above could be phrased as is there legal precedent that would have compelled justice kennedy to recuse himself if issues involving dts finances had come before the court but the rules and precedents themselves are not hypothetical and you can talk about them without speculating indeed the phrasing above accomplishes this without it sounding like you might be asking respondents to speculate part of the lesson here is that phrasing is important because it goes to how the readers will interpret the question one of the posts right now on the front page of the sub is what happens now with the travel ban given that now is an instantaneous moment its not really possible to discuss it to rephrase what they seem to be actually asking more grammatically you would say what will happen with the travel ban going forward i dont read it that way in fact i see that question as similar to what youre really asking with your second one a change has transpired the travel ban has been upheld justice kennedy has retired what established procedures and precedents now apply that didnt prior to the change this form of question can be answered with evidence your example questions will congress pass a new law will it be enforced as is will the un condemn it will international pressure cause dt to reverse it cannot again the rule is about avoiding setting a trap for the respondents where theyd run up against rule 2
for some it’s because they’ve crossed the border outside of a port of entry for these people who would have had criminal referrals deferred they’re now being referred they have actually committed the misdemeanor but the government used to exercise the option to not refer to doj for the others it’s either a misconception or some have actually stated that they’ve broken the law somehow maybe because they’re detained pending their review basically held but they haven’t committed a crime also historically when there were children present previous admins would “catch and release” them or if seeking asylum detain them together or more recently release them with an order to appear so children can be kept with their parents this yale paper has a lot of history and points to consider the united states holds adult asylum seekers in immigration units within jails and in jail like facilities around the country conditions are similar to prisons many detained asylum seekers must wear uniforms and movement visitation and activities are strictly limited although families in immigration detention are not required to wear prison uniforms and some of the facilities have play areas and games for the children these facilities are unmistakably detention facilities in addition ice has separated families ice typically sends women and children to one of three currently operating family detention centers located in dilley texas karnes texas and berks county pennsylvania the agency sends men including husbands and partners to facilities in other areas of the country often very far away human rights first has reported on a range of flaws in the policies dhs initiated in 2014 including lengthy detention of families detention based on deterrence and unnecessary detention of children where less restrictive alternatives are available and in 2015 in the wake of a pair of federal court decisions and extensive public criticism dhs modified its approach to family detention procedures in february 2015 a federal district court in washington dc issued a preliminary injunction barring dhs from attempting to deter future immigration to the united states by detaining families who have a credible fear of persecution this ruling called into serious question the government’s reliance on the advisory opinion of former attorney general john ashcroft in matter of dj as judge boasberg noted “incantation of the magic words ‘national security’ without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty”five months later judge gee a federal district judge in california ruled that family detention policies violated the terms of the 1997 flores settlement agreement
the main difference here is that the dojs nondefense is centered around congressional intent much moreso than a constitutional issue the aca as originally drafted as originally drafted in 2010 the aca had a three legged stool of three interrelated policies those were community rating everyone pays the same for health insurance guaranteed issue nobody can be denied coverage for preexisting conditions individual mandate everyone must get health insurance or pay a penalty in the original big obamacare case of nfib v sebilius the court was asked to hold the individual mandate unconstitutional they did not on the reasoning that it operates as a tax but said it would have been unconstitutional if it was not done as a tax they also were asked to consider if whether shooting down the individual mandate made the other clauses guaranteed issuecommunity rating void or whether they could operate separately they did not answer that question because it wasnt necessary to answer once they held the mandate to be constitutional as a tax the aca as currently amended late last year congress passed and the president signed the tcja this law keeps the individual mandate nominally on the books but sets the penalty at 0 with the penalty nominally still existing but not actually enforced in any meaningful way texas and other states have sued to make the following argument 1 a penaltyfree mandate is unconstitutional 2 congress did not intend the other aca provisions to be severable from the mandate and they must fall as well doj is making a significant difference from the doma case by arguing for a very tenuous position on congressional intent and standing with the mandate penalty set at 0 it is kind of pointless on its own whether or not the mandate is found constitutional the big question is therefore not a constitutional question at all but about congress intent with the aca as amended did congress intend these provisions to be breakable from each other when it passed the tcja thats the key question before the court if they reach the merits furthermore the doj has to believe there are no procedural problems with this case such as a lack of standing texas argument that it has standing is that the regulations preempt state law but the complainedof regulations arent even the one being challenged and theres no question that community rating and guaranteed issue would be constitutional for the feds to impose on their own so to take this position the doj isnt taking an especially crazy constitutional stance but it is taking a very aggressively antiusgovernment stance on the questions of procedure and congressional intent which are the heart of the case
"speaking for ireland here the irish legal view of freedom of speech is very different indeed article 40 6 of bunreacht na héireann the irish constitution says slightly abridged the state guarantees the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions subject to public order and morality the education of public opinion being however a matter of such grave import to the common good the state shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion such as the radio the press the cinema while preserving their rightful liberty of expression including criticism of government policy shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the state the publication or utterance of blasphemous seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law the arbiter of what constitutes a threat to public morality or state authority is the state so legally speaking it seems that the governments power of censorship is not limited by writ which is in stark contrast the usa only by what is politically acceptable generally the irish state especially these days does not in any real sense actually suppress individual speech and irish people have an aboveaverage level of personal freedom even among western democracies for example the cato institute ranked ireland 4th freest in the world in 2017 although this is a complex measure of overall freedom not specifically freedom of speech we famously brought in a new blasphemy law several years ago that criminalised any speech deemed grossly offensive to the sensibilities of any religious group much to the consternation of secularists and liberals and even many religious conservatives who argued they could no longer be critical of others religions to date the law isnt enforced despite many open challenges to it what is notable is the constitution makes a distinction between media speech and individual speech albeit a subtle one the states power to censor the media is concrete but it is legally debatable if it has the power to censor someone speaking in public but not via mass media to the best of my knowledge that has never happened in the history of the state though media censorship certainly has for example monty pythons life of brian was banned for many years to sway slightly from full neutral into some opinion here i always tell people when irelands freedom is discussed that ireland is free mainly because the government doesnt want to oppress people not because it doesnt have the legal power to do so this is both a good reflection on irish values and a bad one since that reserve power is always there "
while i reject the idea that the burden of proof should fall on people who oppose the action to prove that it isnt necessary i will submit an article from 2017 on the subject link theres an awful lot of nuance and context to consider but if i rip one metric out of it its that even at peak consumption example used was massive us program to armor light vehicles during iraq war along with all other military needs total us military steel requirements are less than 1 percent of average us steel output in a given year there was some commentary on lack of manufacturing capability for specialty steel parts but it doesnt seem that theres any real concern that the us doesnt produce enough steel and theres no reason tariffs would address the manufacturing issues identified canada steel export report china steel export report i disagree that theres no basis that china couldnt be treated differently from canada from a national security perspective 1 as previously noted we dont appear to rely on steel imports for military use 2 us accounts for something like 90 of canadian steel exports and 40 of total steel production while only like 08 of chinese steel exports and we buy about 6x as much steel from canada as china china could plausibly choose to stop selling steel to us but the idea that canada could find alternative buyers and modify supply chain logistics to replace 90 of their steel exports are absurd short of canadian steel industry collapsing entirety or canada ceasing to be a capitalist nation theres no way they wont be selling us steel 3 again while both china and canada in a hypothetical sense could theoretically ceasing steel exports to usa in a future conflict canada is and is likely to be our ally we can manage that relationship a lot more readily than we can manage relations with china so yeah maybe you had something empirical to support your suggested reason but im thinking you were basically just spitballing edit ps ironic that you bring up the trolley problem the trumpright wing modified version of this would be a streetcar going along a clear path ie we dont have national security issue related to declining us steel production and then choosing to send trolley down a path where we run over our allies and adversaries alike id take utilitarianism over absurdism also wth are you talking about me taking material things and making it about imaginary goals that everybody shares one side is suggesting we do something on the basis of national security with no definition and im asking for an empirical basis for that statement and im the one ignoring material things that matter give me a break bud
" chuck norris obviously couldnt possibly win every conceivable fight youre clearly being unreasonable the earth rotates around the sun because chuck norris roundhouse kicked planet earth into orbit the moon is actually the part he kicked which broke off and went itself into orbit i think the man can win any fight in all seriousness my original comment wasnt controversial or even complicated i simply stated that the potus cant enact a tax law and that it is the job of congress to do that it was 2 lines a simple statement of fact i assumed that in a political forum the audience would understand the difference between the roles of the executive and legislative branches of government that said i had no reason to believe that this wasnt the case based upon my reading of the room im still not sure i dont believe that at least the vast majority of participants here understand that basic tenet of governance regardless the rule lacks specificity i understand that theres subtlety thats kind of the point how does one determine where specifically the line is drawn at what point does it make sense to cite a statement of fact i can understand that there may be a grey area but theres no grey area in my statement so thats not the right test there must be a test that a person can measure content against thats not every fact must be cited or entire posts would be blue conversation would be stifled and likely nobody would even look at the citations this is why the rule doesnt make sense its simply not true that all facts must be cited or that there is no common knowledge exception theres a line and judgement is left to the moderators who may all have different opinions with regards to where that line lies adding to that im positive that it leads to an enormous amount of really really dry work so thats what ill try to measure at what point does that line get crossed and how does one convey in plain language to the user base where the line exists how common must the knowledge be in order for citation to not be required i suspect my post was very close to the line had i said that legislative bodies create laws and executive bodies implement laws i doubt wed be having this conversation literally the only citation required for that would be dictionary definitions of the terms and i cant imagine needing to provide those unless someone specifically indicated that they didnt understand the terminology perhaps it was that i specified potuscongress rather than using general terms but is encouraging a more broad style of communication productive would dropping context degrade discussion"
"as others have said you are behind one iteration on the text of the travel ban review of vetting procedures was already undertaken and resulted in proclamation no 9645 which is indefinite though the list of countries is reviewed twice a year heres how the supreme court described the order it in their decision the proclamation imposes a range of entry restrictions that vary based on the “distinct circumstances” in each of the eight countries it exempts lawful permanent residents and provides casebycase waivers under certain circumstances it also directs dhs to assess on a continuing basis whether the restrictions should be modified or continued and to report to the president every 180 days at the completion of the first such review period the president determined that chad had sufficiently improved its practices and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals what the court was deciding on today was a preliminary injunction to stop the law going into effect while the case was being decided in court plaintiffs—the state of hawaii three individuals with foreign relatives affected by the entry suspension and the muslim association of hawaii—argue that the proclamation violates the immigration and nationality act ina and the establishment clause the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the restrictions the ninth circuit affirmed as per that cornell law link when determining whether to grant preliminary injunctions judges consider the extent of the irreparable harm each partys likelihood of prevailing at trial and any other public or private interests implicated by the injunction in this instance the majority on the supreme court found that while the plaintiffs would suffer harm they were unlikely to win and so the court overturned the injunction because plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims we reverse the grant of the preliminary injunction as an abuse of discretion winter v natural resources defense council inc 555 u s 7 32 2008 the case now returns to the lower courts for such further proceedings as may be appropriate this means that the lawsuit against the order is not technically over it could still theoretically result in a victory in the lower courts and work its way back up the chain of appeals to the supreme court while that happens though the travel restrictions will be in effect and if i might be allowed to opine a little the thoroughness of the majoritys opinion suggests that they are likely to uphold the order if this case comes before them again "
"maybe this is the place for this question if a state defined in law as a sovereign nation has an unquestioned right to create its own citizens that are not a part of the federal scheme and not us citizens what right does the federal govt have in declaring people illegal in the first place i will now cite a court case that is likely to get two challenges 1 overturned by amendment however only the result was because an amendment created a new citizen that didnt exist before the amendment still reflects that a state has its own citizens that arent federal citizens its also affirmed after the amendment 7 times 2 its old which is just a dumb argument you can cite cases that happened before this country was founded because we adopted all the laws of england english cases are currently used to explain the law as is blackstones commentaries which is from the time of the founding for previous to the adoption of the constitution of the united states every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen and to endow him with all its rights but this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the state and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the united states each state may still confer them upon an alien or anyone it thinks proper or upon any class or description of persons yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the united states nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states the rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them the constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization and this right is evidently exclusive and has always been held by this court to be so consequently no state since the adoption of the constitution can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government although so far as the state alone was concerned he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character federal immigration policy violates states rights and is unconstitutional as a result "
"every major university dealing with state of the art advances ion robotics is directly involved opening their campuses to the kids in the programs this happens in every state the 2017 state robotics challenge we ask youth to use their robots for civic engagement and service projects that grow sustainable communities it will be held august 27 and september 2 1130 am to 4 pm each day at the new york state fair 4h is not a rabbit and goat hobby organization anymore most of their budget for years has gone into their stemrobotics programs as the leading ngo doing such things monsanto and microsoft are seeing to that nyc unedited 4h youth development 4h is the largest national positive youth development and youth mentoring organization it empowers six million youth in partnership with 110 universities including cornell university 4h researchbased programs are accessible in many ways such as via 4h clubs and teen leadership groups programs offered include stem education healthy living and citizenship and leadership development 4h programs engage new york city youth in projects and activities that help build skills in engineering math literacy nutrition health stem civic engagement and leadership 4h programs seek to take cornell university’s research to new york city youth by engaging them in projects and activities help youth by involving them in handson activities and opportunities that encourage them to innovate build leadership skills including public speaking personal development life skills decisionmakingproblemsolving selfmanagement and citizenship connect youth to opportunities for exploring education career options service learning and internships the page goes on and on and never mentions animals farms agriculture or pets this is their team of generous corporations just because a child cannot fully engineer and build something from an idea doesnt make the idea unsound if 6 million children are now involved as 4h and cornell univ claim they are that is a large pool from which to draw ideas without paying any of them universities host the programs for kids in their facilities the expense of such access is quite stunning the cornell robotics lab the rpi robotics lab et cetera all across the country this looks weird to me common measures access to these resources is restricted to 4h professionals government agencies and 4h program administrators resources include logic models protocols templates and common outcomes and measurements please allow up to 3 business days for approval and access to common measures "
its getting worse all over the obama administration wasnt perfect with immigration but was way better than the current regime there are legitimate arguments to be made about being loose with executive power and the regulatory process but things like daca and entrepreneurial parole were decent attempts to address real problems and i think the priority enforcement program was good policy although his deportation record is less than perfect my view on the trump administrations approach to immigration particularly in relation to benefits adjudication through uscis is that theyre waging a war of attrition my colleagues in the field have been reporting that interviews for green cards and naturalization are becoming more hostile rather than neutral questioning on the employmentbased visa side where i spend most of my time they are questioning even the clearest cases i am currently kneedeep in lengthy requests for evidence telling me that its not clear that a cancer research job requires at least a bachelors degree or that degrees in finance and economics are too disparate of disciplines to be considered part of a specific specialty for a private equity investor role these cases would have skated through without a peep last year i used to work for uscis and stay in touch with a lot of officers who have been with the agency for 10 years many of them are losing morale and feel like their ability to exercise reasonable discretion on a case is diminishing even without any formal changes to law or regulation things have become way tougher and i think its to throw up as many roadblocks as possible to discourage people from filing in the first place the presidents enthusiastic support for the raise act and unwillingness to compromise demonstrates a level of outright hostility to the immigration system that is unheard of from a recent president im pretty firmly on the left of the political spectrum but my favorite quote about immigration comes from ronald reagan could you imagine what trump would say about his immigration policies if twitter was around in the 80s america represents something universal in the human spirit i received a letter not long ago from a man who said you can go to japan to live but you cannot become japanese you can go to france to live and not become a frenchman you can go to live in germany or turkey and you wont become a german or a turk but then he added anybody from any corner of the word can come to america to live and become an american
" why not why would this be bad because then you get many innocent people whose lives are ruined by false murder accusations so how would you immediately proof that literacy tests would be an undue burden on black people they are not immediately an undue burden they are an undue burden if they are wielded in a discriminatory manor as they have been in the past so tell me exactly how would you prove discrimination in real life that is your example above you would display the test to show it is very difficult if you were really trying give the test to a large sample of people from various races this will demonstrate how few people pass then show numbers on the racial breakdown of people who were given the test this proves that it was wielded against minorities congrats youve proved some racism like i said before i would never support voter eligibility testing based on its presumption that a leading class should decide who has a political voice so i dont think we even need the racism argument to say no here but thats an exact example of showing a policy is discriminatory and needs to be relegislated so your proposed plan is let discrimination happen while its going on while you are collecting evidence and we need a pretty high burden if i understand you correctly and then after it happened we dont need to fix the historical wrong no my proposed plan is to call out discrimination when it arises but not to assume it is the sole cause of all disparities a disparity is a sign of discrimination just as a body is a sign of a murder but it is not exceedingly rare to find a disparity without a bias if we want to support legislation that discriminates against whites yes id like some evidence its necessary i would also want evidence for legislation that discriminates against some minority i hope you would too yeah i get your point let the crime happen and dont do justice after it happened its the classic conservative view point of oppression of people the whole world has someone in their ancestry that is culpable for horrible acts we all saw the good that happened when we tried to exact revenge from germany after ww1 perhaps we should kill the 10s of millions of asian descendants of genghis khan would that satisfy your need for justice what are you doing to atone for the sins of your ancestors and the people who setup the society you live in i know its a beautiful idea but youre not going to fix all the worlds historical atrocities help people who need help today"
" smartasses seems to me like your question was answered in earnest theres no smartassery occurring what is important in this sub is that when we make claims which appear to be factual sources are given so that things people may not know or things that people may think they know but also be incorrect about are able to be easily referenced for crosschecking and the promotion of discussion while the sky being blue is not usually a political topic it does serve as a very good example of how people can misconstrue facts as other replies to your comment here have stated the sky is not always blue the top response shows why it is often blue as well as what causes it to sometimes not be blue this is a great analogy for political discussion because often the devil is in the details many political forums which allow unsourced facts result in a mess of people disagreeing without any common basis of fact source other political forums within reddit and elsewhere specifically rpolitics but not exclusively by any means if i were to tell you the sky is red and you were to tell me no the sky is blue we could go back and forth like that and devolve into personal attacks about how stupid one person is that the other cannot see that we are right when the truth is we are both right sourcing the facts with good sources no less allows us to reach that common understanding we seek in this case that both of us are correct about possible states of the sky and that if we were in different parts of the world perceiving the sky through different circumstances we may even simultaneously see the sky as different colors each while this may seem inane without context given that political discussion may often become heated and that a great deal of sometimes polarizing controversy might exist on a given topic this level of detail and factsourcing promotes more healthy and informational discussion the hope of the mods and many subscribers here is that such curation will prevent the kinds of problems which exist in other subs source sidebar and rules of this sub im answering this in depth because your claim that the responses to you are smartassery demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire point of this sub the sky being blue or not and why really exemplifies the entire point of why we care about sources the fact that you received earnest responses demonstrating this point is one of the great things about what we do here source my opinion which may be shared by others"
" will these tariffs be net beneficial or harmful to national security good lord did you expect an honest answer to that question again im looking for argument to support the notion that it would be beneficial and how to potentially respond to counterarguments to those arguments i dont know what you mean by honest answer im looking for arguments to answer the question regarding pricing lol the article itself says economists have a good idea of what will probably happen obviously they cant read the future im just looking for qualified opinions on what will probably happen thats the goal when deciding to support any policy after all and it should go without saying that a single editorial even if it does disagree with the economic consensus doesnt mean anything second as i mentioned earlier economists rarely offer accurate predictions any economist worth a damn will admit that huh i guess it depends on how you define accurate but i sincerely doubt nobelwinners would say that economists rarely offer accurate predictions shaming an entire academic field isnt a good look every country uses subsidizes tariffs and other artificial barriers to protect their industries to a greater or lesser degree this doesnt mean that its economically beneficial and it certainly doesnt mean the specific tariffs that trump is implementing are beneficial as to steel also aluminum and national defense us steel is used to build naval ships which protect global trade us aluminum and steel are used in 5th generation fighters cargo aircraft and strategic bombers did you know that the usaf has been modernizing their fleet which is good the b52 is what 70 ish years old us steel is also used in tanks mobile artillery and mraps so the need strategically to control our own steel manufacture should be obvious if the us steel is valued as a form of defense due to its composition then defense companies can just buy from the steel companies regardless of the price of international steel increasin the price of international steel doesnt change this nothing youve said addresses this point because of the economics of scale the production of d relies on b and c to offset costs can you source this i think this would actually be a fair point from you if this is correct but conceptually im not sure if this makes sense why would economies of scale matter if d creates positive revenue then a company will be inclined to push for it regardless of how b and c are selling "
i think dems would be hard pressed to dispute the validity of some of the ban but theyre disputing the reasoning for the ban i believe and could be wrong that the democrats and other critics attribute the reasoning of the ban to trumps earlier remarks about a muslim ban so as a result any ban may be poisoned fruit i personally think theres good reason for increased security measures directed at migrants and visas from certain countries take for instance somalia whom according to this source had really really awful record keeping thats the canadian government talking about it in further correspondence the executive director explained that the standard norm when seeking to obtain somali documentation from within somalia or from abroad is that you have to apply in person fill out forms and pay the … fee executive director 27 feb 2017 the same source added that since there is no good infrastructure and strong government in somalia documentation can be obtained … by a third party who knows you someone who knows the department or high level government officials who know you or your family executive director 27 feb 2017 the executive director further stated that the level of corruption and the lack of good infrastructure in somalia make somali documents vulnerable to be obtained … by anybody who wants to get them executive director 27 feb 2017 it turns out canada post does not send mail to syria either on that note isis actually destroyed legal records in some cases and produced their own passports creating legal obstacles for children attempting to flee syria according to the us country reports on human rights practices for 2016 in syria while citizens have the right to travel internationally the government denied passports and other vital documents based on the applicants political views association with opposition groups or ties to geographic areas where the opposition dominated us 3 mar 2017 3536 the same source further reports that there were reports daesh also known as isis isil is and islamic state destroyed syrian passports and legal records and produced its own passports not recognized by any country or entity these policies disproportionately affected children because many left the country before obtaining a passport or identification card additionally syrians born abroad to parents who fled the conflict and remained in refugee camps generally did not have access to syrian citizenship documents us 3 mar 2017 36
" the fact is israel was in the news just 2 months ago for shooting protesters the protestors in question are being led bycomposed of members of hamas military arm here is hamas say so itself others times it has been reported up to 80 of those killed were hamas 2nd source the us eu classified terrorist organization in control of the gaza strip which is changing tactics to gather more sympathy these same members of the military arm captured and killed israeli teenagers in 2014 this article argues they were purposefully placed in dangerous locations to get killed for sympathy for hamas hamas has also been sending hundreds of rockets into israel on multiple occasions as well as burning factories and farmland and attacking civilians with kitebombs australia has condemned hamas for causing palestinian deaths hamas founding charter called for the genocide of all jews and the destruction of israel they later changed this language some say it was never officially changed to get more support from egypt they also quoted the protocols of the elders of zion an antisemitic trope to justify these view and blamed things like the french revolution on the jews however hamas itself is not a good steward of the palestinian people they brutalize their own lets start by noting that the organizers of the march hamas do not allow palestinians to protest for a better future as the sovereigns of gaza hamas authorities arrest palestinians for spreading rumors online they have cracked down on male barbers for cutting womens hair if you are deemed a collaborator hamas has been known to drag your corpse behind a motorcycle they also crack down on homosexuals so much their recourse is to flee into israel lest they are forced to serve as informants against their neighbors or be stoned to death womens rights are pretty terrible as well womens tv channels get shutdown by the goverment and 40 of women think it is ok if they get beaten by their husbands for leaving the house gender segregation is still the law rape is common honor killings are common this list goes on the palestinian authority says it will refuse to negotiate with israel if the remove the blockade on the gaza strip because they also do not like hamas in fact they intercept 40 of terror attacks against israel by hamas in gaza hamas doesnt want peace they want to get people killed to further their agenda which is the genocide of jews and the destruction of israel"
it is not a conspiracy theory michael barkun author of a culture of conspiracy apocalyptic visions in contemporary america has described conspiracy theories as such for conspiracists nothing is as it seems nothing happens by accident and everything is connected with no room for accident or coincidence they believe themselves to possess hidden knowledge of how the world “really” operates while everyone else has been duped emphasis mine we do not know trumps motives we do not know his thoughts we do not know if anything is connected here there is no evidence that there are connections aside from speculation from people who do not know trumps thoughts all you have to do is look at the people that were pardoned and the crimes they committed ok lets do that dsouza was convicted for straw campaign donations he is an outspoken supporter of president trump npr are straw donations related to the russian collusion claim for which mueller was first appointed arpaio was pardoned for criminal contempt he is a big trump supporter and notable for being an immigration hardliner how is this related to the russia investigation the hill kristian mark saucier was pardoned for his crime of taking cell phone pics inside a nuclear sub this was widely viewed as a poke at hillary clintons case as both involved classified information npr not sure where russia is involved in this jack johnson truly the most deserving on this list of a pardon i am not sure how this pardon would relate to the russia investigation scooter libbys pardon is the only one that could remotely be construed to fit the signalling conspiracy theory but even then its still just unfounded speculation it is entirely reasonable that the pardons are signals to manfort et al that if they keep quiet they will be rewarded it is not entirely reasonable its possible it is not supported by any evidence it is speculation another purpose is to try and diminish those crimes because they are the exact kind of criminal acts that trump and his campaign are being investigated of possibly committing they are not the same crimes at all perhaps i overlooked something which of trumps pardons were for collusion with a foreign government to influence an election edit to address the idea of a blagojevich pardon hes trumps friend from celebrity apprentice and perhaps has a good case for a pardon i do not see the link to the russia investigation here either
the solution is to undo sessions zero tolerance policy that caused this situation to occur this situation isnt because of sessions its because of the 9th circuit court of appeals they determined that the government couldnt hold children with the parents so you have an issue 1 the government cant kick people out who claim asylum they have to process them 2 the government has to detain people who claim asylum until they get claim processed which can take a year 3 the government cant detain the children for more than 20 days but they also have to vet and release them to exact persons which takes time so what do you do with the kids between day 21 and when you have someone you can give them to since you cant keep them with their parents this is the 1000000 question ive been asking all over the rworldnews thread and so far nobody has given a real answer just accused me of wanting to send mexicans to death camps or something whatever happened under obama didnt upset me nearly as much as seeing children separated from their parents and subjected to indiscriminate cruelty and abuse okay because 1 you probably didnt know that obama was just straight up saying that illegal immigrants with families were effectively immune to immigration laws if they just said the magic word asylum and b your emotional state doesnt equate to effective policy if your decision on how the law should work is based on children crying then i dont know what to say children cry when their parents get sent to jail should we stop breaking up families of criminal parents because its damaging and abusive to the childs mental state to put them through that should the kid live in jail with them the government giving carte blanche to illegals with kids is asinine and effectively not an option as far as im concerned whatever our immigration policy the government straight up letting illegals go and knowing theyre free to remain in america as long as they continue to dodge johnny law isnt an option if you want family detention which is the best solution you need to take it up with the 9th circuit given the 9th circuits history of playing politics im not 100 convinced they didnt base their decision there specifically to use children as a weapon to allow illegal immigration knowing that the government now had two options a stupid one let the families go or a heartless one split up the families
this this is important the sum of the current account and capital account as reflected in the balance of payments will always be zero any surplus or deficit in the current account is matched and canceled out by an equal surplus or deficit in the capital account basically our trade deficit is the main means by which other countries get dollars these dollars then go into purchases of us debt stock in american companies oil from not only the us but many opec countries like saudi arabia and all sorts of other things assuming all the g7 countries are cut off the effects might not be quite as apocalyptic as you describe since china will still be able to trade with us as theyre not in the g7 and they might be able to keep some significant fraction of us dollars trickling out itll still be a catastrophe though for the stock market for real estate for us exporters and consumers etc probably depression level it will hit the rest of the g7 hard too but given their economies combined including the rest of the eu are larger than the uss and theyre not trying to trade war anyone else at the moment like the us is with mexico probably less so and perversely this would mean that the common wisdom that china has us by the balls because they can dump our currency and destroy our economy will actually be 100 true for once as it stands it might be a survivable disaster but with canada most of the eu and japan no longer buying dollars the us economy will be completely at chinas mercy and while trump will definitely immediately try and spin this into a reason to drop sanctions on russia lets be real economically speaking theyre a joke germany alone has more than twice their gdp japan about 3 times they couldnt come close to filling the gap if we cut off trade with the g7 most of their exports are oil we dont need anyways and they would definitely prefer to just let us collapse so they can replace us anyway finally americas current debt will become completely unsustainable with the loss of reserve currency status interest rates on tbonds will have to rise drastically for the government to sell enough of them to finance the debt raising interest payments raising deficits further and possibly creating a vicious cycle that risks a default massive cutbacks in entitlement programs cutbacks in military spending higher taxes or all three would be needed to keep us solvent
"you can use the rollback of tariffs in exchange for more stringent regulation that prevents china from dumping cheap and subsidized steel in the us market via canada it doesn’t have to be used for in kind quidproquo in fact that exact bargain would benefit both the us and canada it would prevent cheap and subsidized steel from flooding our market and forcing closure of our foundries it would increase the us’s ability to surge in the event of a war it would eliminate the tariffs between both countries look people can “what if” and “what about” this topic to death especially if your goal is to stump the chump a good strategy should simultaneously support multiple objectives p trump has better access to information via reports and analysts than you i or teh media any countries steel industry is vital to their national defense this is as true for us as it is china and every other developed country geopolitically it is in the best interest of china to cripple or damage our steel industry we’ve already sold our manufacture capacity down the river for cheap trinkets us manufacturing surge capacity was more responsible for victory during ww ii than us soldiersseamanairmanmarines via direct support and arms sales to free france gb russia and china some of that loss is offset by automation but not all sometimes you have to be willing to cause a small degree of selfharm to inflict even greater harm to your adversary or to prevent your adversary from inflicting greater harm on you edit also way to seize on a triviality while ignoring everything else i wrote and cited it’s as if you think that politics national security and economics are divorced from one another much better writers have expressed other ideas cementing the domestic steel industry to national defense below you may also find it interesting to note that while we import more steel from canada than any other nation canada imports more steel from the us than any other country second place china which exports more steel globally than any other single country if i were china i would absolutely saturate the world steel market with cheap and subsidized product to debilitate global domestic steel production then after constricting global steel exports i would use the fruits from years of industrial and military espionage and the nowexcess supply of steel to bootstrap my military "
the main issue comes in the idea that what your proposing requires eternal control by a perfect authority not being allowed to deny the holocaust is fine to most people but it sets the basis for the government establishing a truth and then forbidding the alternative narrative to that truth that precedent could easily be applied in harmful whether or not intentional ways especially special circumstances like war or rioting meanwhile you get into the idea that a lot of times truth is not an easy thing to determine there have been discussions on rchangemyview that get into why its virtually impossible to ban fake news in any way that wont target real news or be ripe for partisan abuse meanwhile a lot of things are subjective for example canadas restriction on free speech regarding gender pronouns i think that passed is one of several truths people can choose around a socially constructed idea to some that law forces them to lie to some that forces others to acknowledge the truth thats because its a subjective viewpoint thats being regulated this generalizes to most ideas then there is the idea that a lot of times truth is just messy when a company says x causes cancer when one study says it increases the risk of cancer a in 92 year old former coal miners but another study says it decreases risk of cancer b is the company lying itd be paralyzing to suggest that a person not knowing about the latter is criminal because that means any statement made without perfect knowledge of all public information is potentially incriminating a ton of our knowledge is this messy and there are a lot of conflicting things that you can say that may be rooted in truth meanwhile a lot of it is based in extremely subjective things how many sources makes something credible how good of a study makes something credible if there is a 65 chance something will happen can we say usually if there is a 99 chance something will happen can we say will how do we keep track of the timeline if i publish something on december 1 which was disproved by facts released on november 1 am i breaking the law until i can prove that i actually wrote it on june 1 and was just sourcing publishers in that middle time the logistics of proving a lie are so impossible that any system that tries to ban lies ultimately is just extremely subjective and therefore extremely dangerous
"deleted comments were asking how exactly is this just having the meeting already a concession which is a common question abraham denmark director of the wilson centers asia programme predicted kim will accomplish the dream of his father and grandfather by making north korea a nuclear state and gain tremendous prestige and legitimacy by meeting with an american president as an equal all without giving up a single warhead or missile nitcom meeting is a win for north korea emphasis mine nbsp that second part is the diplomatic victory that having the meeting represents to explain why that may be the case ill use an analogy that was used on me then respond to that not a perfect analogy because nations arent businesses but its like if i have a grievance with disney because ive been blatantly plagiarizing their material my business model is to steal their latest concept and exploit some third world schlubs to rush it to amazon to ride on disneys marketing blitz rather than having some paralegal send me a cease and desist letter i manage to negotiate to have a public high profile meeting with the ceo to discuss the issue it doesnt matter if i get all the concessions i want or in fact any the fact that i sat down with bob iger on the news legitimizes my otherwise garbage shadyass business its a big enough win that im very happy regardless of the outcome of the meeting my standing in all future ventures disputes court cases etc will be improved now that disney has tacitly agreed that im on equal footing with them the nk situation departs from this in a couple of key ways 1 they are a sovereign nation with a military who isnt going away and 2 there are real people who are living there and suffering greatly under both isolation imposed by the regime and sanctions from outside direct talks could lead to easing of both both trump and the obama administration favored having direct talks with north korea on the basis that its a way to get change started they cited nixon oing to china and reagans directly meeting with the ussr clinton departed from obama policy on this saying i dont want to be used for propaganda purposes other reading on obama and trumps positions and background for this talk cnn obamas letter to nk reuters difficulty obama encountered with nk overtures opinion fpcom trump meeting with nk is a win for america "
its a pretty short judgement you should read it but heres the three biggest points this establishes the background and the governments intent to make family detention centers in 2014 in response to a surge of central americans attempting to enter the united states without documentation the government opened family detention centers in texas and new mexico the detention and release policies at these centers do not comply with the settlement the government however claims that the settlement only applies to unaccompanied minors and is not violated when minors accompanied by parents or other adult family members are placed in these centers this establishes the plaintiffs claim that detaining children is unlawful meanwhile on february 2 2015 flores filed a motion in the us district court for the central district of california to enforce the settlement arguing that ice had breached it by 1 adopting a norelease policy and 2 confining children in the secure unlicensed facilities at dilley and karnes the government argued in response that the settlement does not apply to accompanied minors and filed an alternative motion to amend the settlement to so provide on july 24 2015 the district court granted flores’ motion denied the government’s motion to amend and also held that the settlement requires release of a minor’s accompanying parent “as long as doing so would not create a flight risk or a safety risk” this establishes the court sided with the plaintiffs and children can no longer be held with their parents we hold that the settlement applies to accompanied minors but does not require the release of accompanying parents we therefore affirm in part reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion so ive asked you this before and im going to ask you again what is your solution 1 the government cant kick people out who claim asylum they have to process them 2 the government has to detain people who claim asylum until they get their claim processed which can take a year they have to remain detained because historically they are severe flight risks 3 the government cant detain the children for more than 20 days but they also have to vet and release them to exact persons which takes time obamas policy of just letting the families go free is not an option what other options are you suggesting
"to my understanding the main difference is that under the obama administration a family illegally entering the country would end up going through a process generally referred to as catch and release under this process rather than immediately prosecuting the parents and holding them in a detention center until their case comes up for a hearing which would require separating their children from them the whole family gets released and is told to show up to court later on naturally this opens up a loophole in which many people choose to remain in the country illegally rather than go to hearings that would likely lead to their deportation the trump administration then chose to address this loophole by prosecuting people for illegal entry into the country even if they came with children which necessitates holding the parents in detention and housing the children in a different facility while their parents await trial just as how when someone is sentenced to time in prison their children dont come with them legally these children can only be detained for up to several weeks after which they are either returned to their immediate family given over to their extended family or put into longterm foster care while in previous years there were family detention centers in which parents could be kept with their children in 2016 the 9th circuit declared that these were in violation of the flores settlement which thus leaves the government with the current conundrum we have now either leave open a big loophole in immigration policy that allows anyone with children to illegally enter the country with no consequences or strictly enforce the letter of the law as a result while its true that there is no law that mandates separation of families under current law in order to actually prosecute their parents separation is unavoidable overall however this only applies to people who enter the country illegally which includes those who later claim asylum as the simple act of attempting to get asylum does not waive someone from being prosecuted for the crime of illegal entry as far as i am aware those who enter the country at a legal port of entry are at no risk of family separation although there are reports that at some points of entry asylum claims are so backlogged that asylum claimants are turned away and told to come back later "
when you can express your voter power issue in a manner which actually has an impact an election then we can talk alright ill give it a shot although the original posts were more broad it seems right now were mostly talking about selecting the president power here will have to be related to the ability to impact who is selected as president the president is the candidate chosen by a majority of electors if there is no majority the top three are voted on by the state delgations in the house but to simplify for now well just say the winner is the candidate with the most electors in which case the electors have the power to select the president and each has equal power but electors are appointed by the states and each state has as many electors as they have congressmen plus senators so the states have an impact on the selection of the president but not equal impact as some states may have a different number of electors from here i can see going down either of two paths 1 the states appoint electors based on a statewide popular vote therefore voters have an impact on the selection of the president albeit indirectly and you can try to determine how much of an impact different voters have after considering various factors this impact is what im calling power and you can try to determine if it is equal between states on this path it does not matter if citizens having power was explicitly intended and it is not necessarily bad if they are not equal 2 you can argue that the selection of the president should ultimately come down to people and extrapolate what it would look like if they were also equal in which case you can attempt to prove by contradiction that they are not equal once various factors are accounted for on this path it does not matter if the states appoint electors via elections but proving that they are not equal is still not necessarily bad the main factor i was considering was mostly limited to how much a single voter can swing an election relative to their states count of electors but there are yet more factors you can consider such as the possibility of the house deciding turnout rates between states rates of fraud ballot access rates how close the margins are how many voters are likely to swing other appointment methods in fact there is even a sense in which plurality voting alone is unequal
" we both know it isnt as simple as youve portrayed it in your synopsis and theres a lot more compelling evidence that what youve listed and what was detailed in the article its pretty close your burden of proof is that we need more than a smoking gun to prove guilt we have several smoking guns but you want more are you really open to the possibility or is this like proving evolution to creationists no we have no smoking guns please list 1 or 2 so i can look at it because i havent seen any any evidence that the trump campaign beyond some low level staffers that showed any evidence of working with russia or deals being made in exchange for their help don jr wanting to accept dirt on hillary but not getting any doesnt count how many disconnected and unrelated events pointing in one direction need to occur before the picture painted is clear enough if they dont show evidence of collusion it doesnt matter how many all i need is one that shows evidence youre talking about accusing the president of the united states with treason his nsa officer talked to a russian diplomat wont cut it crimes are mostly committed without explicit statements of intent caught on video with notarized transcripts of what was said is a full confession the only sufficient proof of guilt would it be enough would you then make the claim that it was coerced a confession will be fine statements of intent emails video reliable sources documents recorded phone calls etc im even willing to believe a preponderance of evidence so far the overwhelming amount of evidence points to no collusion i note once again you typed a whole page but didnt put in even a sentence of evidence im going to turn it around to you and ask what reasonably obtainable sort of proof would be compelling enough for you to say that yes indeed nefarious actions have occurred would it be that a democrat did these exact same things i think weve talked enough about what level of evidence id accept remember trump has pardoned people who have done similar things to what he and his enablers have done a message to them that he can set them free if they do his bidding and a huge incentive for them not to cooperate with the special counsel do you have evidence to support that he has implicitly or explicitly offered pardons in exchange for not cooperating with the special counsel "
" this is somewhat tangential to your question but judging equality of opportunity on equity of outcome is a fundamentally flawed approach what is the correct approach because i think any approach will be flawed this is mostly because male teachers tend to teach higher grade levels university and high school while women tend to teach lower grade levels elementary ed so if we would look at the average between males and females at higher levels or within levels there would not be a difference the problem here is they self select for those thats not true becoming a tenured professor is a highly selective position and trajectory one quite heavily dependent on your peers as well as the politics at a university the medical field is the same way with women selfselecting into nursing roles instead of practitioner roles you mean medical school for a long time was practically closed to them and today when you go into med class its not uncommon to see a majority of women the problem with judging equality of opportunity on equity of outcome is you disregard personal choice maybe but you can take personal choice into account i think by simply asking if women wouldve liked to be doctors r you at least are deeming the choices of individuals to be incorrect no but my mom is a doctor and it wasnt so easy back then to become a female doctor as well as getting on track for a specialization it wouldve been much easier to settle for nursing so while it was relatively easy for the men of her year her female colleagues nearly all have stories of gender specific struggles even the source seems to agree with me and not you as personal choice isnt the main trust of their argument apperently yet just 6 percent of those in welding—the most popular program among men—went to women experts offer several reasons for this split including gender stereotypes and the threat of workplace harassment in maledominated jobs it also argues how laws have been used to prevent discrimination and how the share of women increased in some of those industries she said she was picked on by male colleagues when she started her job they’d leave notes on her welds with insults such as “ugly” and “due in 2020” a reference to what they considered her slow pace really doesnt seem like a fair choice but rather a brave woman "
"hi there im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules specifically please make the following changes for accuracy and neutral framing 1 please strike your opening paragraph each np submission should stand on its own 2 edit this to remove reference to the other thread and provide sources which can probably be obtained from that thread oversimplified and i likely imperfectly understand these claims from this other thread both the obama and trump administrations have made novel assertions that when the executive branch finds that a law before the judicial branch is unconstitutional that there is no duty to defend it currently the assertion about the trump administration is sourced but not the obama 3 this paragraph is not accurate and the source linked does not support it may an executive order now make a finding that any law is unconstitutional and then enforce this finding with the executive branchs doj other presidents have ignored the judicial branch franklin delano roosevelt stated in 1942 i would instruct the national security officials in a gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the supreme court on national security matters and i would interpose the presidency in saying as the commander in chief we will not enforce this the content of the quote is coming from newt gingrichs description of his plans if elected president and claims support from past actions of fdr during wwii fdr never said anything about a hypothetical gingrich administration in 1942 4 this section requires a source is there any present duty for the executive branch to enforce orders that did not originate from the executive branch for the judiciary i realize that the judicial branch has such policies must other branches enforce findings by the judicial branch that are contradictory to our constitution as interpreted by the president the parenthetical there makes a claim of fact which needs a source thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain unmodified after two days will either be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
this article dissects at length the issues with the twoparty system and is fodder for arguments against it americas flawed two party system an inside look on the structure dividing the united states even george washington was wary he highlighted his concerns in his farewell address “the alternate domination of one faction over another sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities is itself a frightful despotism” “the first political parties” hmm worth considering whether we are living through a drastic swing from one party to the next no wait that is obvious we are and this is a condition of the twoparty system things can get pretty crazy quickly whether this is good or bad for the nation could still be debated though disruption breeds innovation they say but i do think that the problems with the us twoparty system are inherent and important to consider from inception the founding fathers were just trying to hold this great big land mass together one where the people were from different ethnic backgrounds they carefully opted for a system that was at once stable and democratic by choosing this system the federal power and union basically protected itself from a strong third party contender ie new special interest group or regionspecific power if your ultimate goal is to hold together a vast continental country it is probably easier to deal with two parties as opposed to numerous parties who could undermine a fledging union history would show that up until now this system has worked although there were some close calls civil war etc but there is a limit to the effectiveness of any system especially as the constraints of the world around it evolve therefore i dont believe that the twoparty system is democratic in the way that might be required in 2018 with two parties how can you not be misrepresented as an american youre poor and from the country so feel like it makes sense to vote for a billionaire youre black and feel obliged to vote for a bunch of wall street and statusquo friendly progressives either way the vast majority of people in the united states cannot vote for their specific interests and might even end up voting against themselves consistently
"canadian law student here i can’t answer the entirety of your question but i can tell you about free speech in canada or as we call it freedom of expression canadian rights are primarily protected by our charter of rights and freedoms which was added to our constitution in 1982 it’s our equivalent of the bill of right i believe a significant difference between the charter and the bill of rights is found right at the beginning in section 1 “the canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” canada therefore does not view rights as absolute instead the charter outlines our rights but allows for reasonable infringements of those rights by the government which is then checked by the judiciary while i imagine such limitations would leave americans with a bad taste in their mouths legally it’s quite a useful concept while i’m not an expert on american jurisprudence my constitutional law professor talked quite a bit about the difference between the american and canadian approach to free speech in america free speech is an absolute right however the state still needs to be able to regulate speech to a degree else you’ll allow dangerous things like yelling “fire” in a crowded building so the american courts get around the absolute right to free speech by narrowing what is meant by speech and carving out exceptions canada doesn’t have this issue so our courts say everything is expression except for violence itself it is therefore up to the legislature to limit free expression in a way that can be justified if a court finds it is unjustified through a legal test called the oakes test then the law is of no force or effect however ultimately the legislature can override the courts using the notwithstanding clause of the charter this allows provincial and federal legislatures to pass unconstitutional laws however the legislature has to expressly invoke the notwithstanding clause in the legislation and the new law lasts 5 years before it has to be revoted on using the notwithstanding clause is incredibly rare and often viewed as political suicide for reference here’s the charter "
the demand varies from company to company but for most of them its all based around what the company needs and the right candidate to do the job i work with a lot of biotech and biopharmaceutical companies that focus on very specific research areas when someone comes along with a unique set of education and experience nationality isnt important ive seen some of the people they hire negotiate in their onboarding that the company will file a green card for them and their family within three months of hiring based on this demand and they dont bat an eye in terms of salary some are high some are average i recently crunched some numbers on my new h1b cases filed this year and the average salary among them was around 8587000 for primarily entrylevel positions also when it comes to salary the h1b visa requires employers to make attestations to the government regarding the h1b workers employment and compensation some of these attestations include that the workers salary will be greater than either the prevailing wage for the occupation based on department of labor wage data and the education and experience required to perform the job or the actual wage for the position basically what they pay others in the same job whichever is higher they also need to be afforded the same benefits and their employment cannot displace or adversely affect the employment of similarly situated us workers employers also consent to potential unannounced site visits from uscis ice and the department of labor to make sure that they are complying with their statements to the government i just had a uscis site visit for one of my clients last week and theyre becoming more common that 10000 figure is just for the green card process not factoring in how much it costs to obtain and maintain their underlying employment visa so for an h1b an employer could spend between 3000 and 5000 if you combine uscis fees and legal expenses every three years to extend their status keep in mind that if someone from india is backlogged in being eligible for their green card an employer could file several h1b petitions over the course of 10 or 12 years until they finally get the card its not unheard of for an employer to spend over 20000 from hiring to the issuance of a green card
"this is all false and the only proof i need is the written decrees of successions from the states that defected i have posted mississippi’s already i will not bother posting south carolina’s and texas and virginia’s you obviously have access to them and all of them clearly state that slavery is the reason for becoming traitors so you can create all the narratives you want the very words of the confederate states disprove anything but the fact that the civil war was about slavery alone there is nothing that can rebut facts the stipulations given by the confederacy for the reestablishment of their states into the union was the dissolving of states rights to self govern they wanted the federal government to remove the northern states right to enact laws abolishing slavery and finally article xiii of the articles of the federation every state shall abide by the determination of the united states in congress assembled on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them and the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state and the union shall be perpetual nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state succession is the very act of treason by very definition you cannot be granted a right to treason even if the federal government wanted to but none of it matters it’s all moot because none of it would have happened if the southern states hadn’t fought for slavery and for northern states to not be able to provide rights and protections for blacks as former confederate colonel john mosby once wrote to his friend dr aristides monteiro the surgeon who served under him during the civil war that slavery was certainly a cause of the war despite protests by others “i always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the north about i never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery the north didn’t attack the south at all the south committed treason in the name slavery and was brought to justice for it a police officer arresting a criminal by force isn’t attacking said criminal they are arresting them "
"every single thing i said in my comment was almost word for word what gary gallagher one of the leading historians in the world on the civil war has said in his lectures and books i never said the war wasnt about slavery for the politicians and slave owners in the south it was but you cant say that slavery was the reason that the soldiers actually joined up to fight because it wasnt on either side to say so is blatantly false and is refuted by leading historians on the topic everything i said is supported by historians based on the historical evidence we have available succession is the very act of treason by very definition you cannot be granted a right to treason even if the federal government wanted to no it isnt there are legal avenues for secession that were supported by the founding fathers this is just untrue the north didn’t attack the south at all are you taking this discussion seriously the union came down and attacked the army and infatructure of the south what do you call that if not an attack you are just using other words to describe it a police officer arresting a criminal by force isn’t attacking said criminal but attacking the criminal is attacking them what the fuck am i reading the union didnt arrest the southeners they came down here and destroyed cities stole crops and property and forced their will on the people of the south they basically raped and pillaged their way down here the south looked towards the founding fathers as inspiration when seceding from the union in their mind they were doing the same thing as the revolutionariestraitors if youre english in 1776 they thought the government was abusing its power and so rebelled they attempted to secede peaceably but the north wouldnt have it the way they saw it they were the true americans as intended by the founders and the union were going a different direction im not saying the way they viewed everything was morally correct im just stating these things as a matter of fact just giving you an idea of how people were living at the time if you are interested in learning more about the civil war you ought to check out some of gary gallaghers work this is a good lecture on the civil war and the type of environment that led up to it "
its also interesting to note that all monotheistic religions are all built on exclusivity you believe in our god and do what our leaders decide what god desires or else you are an infidel or you burn in hell hence why christians dont support gay lifestyle this means that it is built in that they either exclude people or somehow unite everyone and that means only one monotheistic religion could possibly be correct and that means no matter what side you take billions of people are right and billions of people are wrong and whose side you choose all has to do with the seemingly random place you were born americans are just about as unlikely to be exposed to islam as saudis are to christianity its a mystery to me how any singular god could even judge perfectly and righteously based on these facts alone unless they judge in a different way than humans do and if that gods does judge in a way different than humans do then all of our monotheistic religions are largely going in the wrong direction with their teachings of exclusivity excluding people mostly by speech is what we are getting all up in arms about does this mean we have to ban monotheistic religions i dont like that at all even though a lot of organized religious beliefs lead to really backwards thinking and i dislike organized religion myself it seems wrong on its face to banish it completely it does however seem that the words organized religion are both an oxymoron and a paradox i am going back and forth now i need to have a deeper look at this hmmmm i am a bit stuck and it seems i am only deepening my own dogma about why i hate organized religion i guess at least im spiritual and yes i say this while laughing and rolling my eyes at myself i have figured out the solution and direction for myself but it is very hard teaching at least practically and that teaching is go in the direction of judging less as i mature most people go the other direction and be more judgmental its called getting jaded or becoming a cranky old person i have figured out how to practically and easily go in the direction of judging less but it is very visceral as well as transcendental so i would only share it in person if you want to know youll have to ask me in person
this seems to be an issue that relates to the impact of economic sactions the argument for considering an allied country as a threat to national security is one that examines our independent ability to manufacture those items critical to our national security currently canada is the largest importer of steel to the us 17 this means that every action taken must also consider if our allies prevent us from doing so by withholding the raw materials required to sustain our national security in order to remedy our current dependance on foreign countries to dictate what we can or cannot do a tariff is imposed in order to pressure the market to focus on developing local sources of the raw materials consider the following examples actions are taken by country a that country b does not approve country b limits raw materials sold to country a through one or more ways such as quotas limiting the quantity that can be sold an embargo or leveling export duties in this example due to the dependence of a on b country a has to cease its actions or harm its security now consider the example where country a attempts to develop these raw materials on its own country a attempts to encourage development of national businesses that produce the raw materials currently supplied by country b country b lowers the cost of raw materials exported to a in order to lower the market price and drive those companies out of business again a has to cease its actions or harm its security now consider the example where country a takes actions to limit country bs influence country a attempts to encourage development of national businesses that produce the raw materials current supplied by country b by increasing the market price through tariffs country b now cannot influence the market price to a level low enough to drive those companies out of business until the dependence on foreign raw materials can be supplied by local sources these countries can control our actions of course this all depends on what actions our president wants to take which our allies do not agree with personally i suspect it has to do with trade deals like nafta considering the fact that 88 of canadas exported steel is sold the the us its very likely
"i think there are two big implications of forgiving student loan debt first is the sheer cost of it americans owe 148 trillion in student loan debt in 2019 the us government will receive tax revenue of around 34 trillion and it is already slated to spend 985 billion more than it will take in deficit spending so we are going to take on almost 1 trillion in debt that will cost interest to maintain for many generations to come so we arent really in a position to absorb that cost without raising taxes and from the above number of 34 trillion in tax revenue it would require a one year tax increase of about 45 for every taxpayer or if we spread that cost over 10 years then it would be about a 45 tax increase but it wouldnt do anything to correct the root problems so in 10 years we would likely be back in the same situation thats the first issue that stands in the way the second issue is that when you give a handout to people its almost impossible to do it evenly so for instance student a worked two jobs through college and spent 8 years getting their degree so they didnt have to take out any loans but student b took out a loan for 100 of their college and got their degree in 4 years it would be extremely unfair to student a or if student c graduates and works very hard to pay off their loans even though it means they have to put a lot of things on hold in their life while student d graduates pays the minimum and defers payments whenever possible opting to buy a house and start a family then we would end up rewarding the procrastination of student d you might find it interesting that the us started piloting a loan forgiveness program about 10 years ago that was intended to mimic the australian method of setting loan payments at a percentage of the graduates income the difference of the us setup was that it included forgiveness of the loan after 20 years the projected cost was 110 millionyr but the current cost of it is 115 billionyr because of the spending issues it is a target of both sides of the aisle to be cut or modified most favor the payment plan but wish to eliminate the forgiveness portion but it demonstrates the impacts of student loan forgiveness even in small numbers "
may the judicial branch enforce a judicial law on the executive branch that was not passed by the legislative branch or signed by the executive branch dont know but thats a moot question since the congress has passed and enacted a contempt statute which gives the courts the power to punish contempt moreover congress also passed a law empowering courts to appoint special prosecutors to bring cases to punish contempts the supreme court has found this law to be constitutionally permissible i dont know about your state and per np rules an assertion about its laws should be sourced but federally there definitely are statutes about this as far as court orders constraining the president yes they have happened theyre unusual but not unheard of most famously richard nixon was ordered to turn over the tapes of oval office conversations to a special prosecutor nixon complied with the supreme courts ruling and turned over the tapes which showed him to be extremely guilty which section of our constitution states that constitutional interpretation is exclusively reserved to the judicial branch it is not exclusively reserved to the judicial branch but it is ultimately reserved to the judicial branch the president and the congress can undertake constitutional interpretation in many circumstances but ultimately the judicial power is vested in the courts and the judicial power encompasses all cases in law arising under the constitution and laws of the united states so article iii section 2 clause 1 establishes that it is ultimately the courts and paramount among them the supreme court who decide any case arising under the laws or constitution if no prosecutor refers a presidential action to the judicial branch may it take any action of any kind rule 42a2 of the federal rules of criminal procedure as i linked above allows the court on its own initiative to effect a prosecution of contempt there must be some underlying case where the contempt took place but for example a civil lawsuit by a private individual against the president where the president lost and was ordered to do something and where the president then refused to do that thing would be a valid basis for a rule 42 prosecution
"kennedy is not unique in his position as a swing voter in fact hes not even unique in that position while he was on the court early in kennedys career sandra day oconnor was often viewed as the swing vote she voted more often with the the conservative block but was seen as the best possibility of siding with the liberals she was also known for shifting more to the center when thomas joined the court shifting probably isnt the right word but becoming more of a swing vote since he was so conservative even when she voted with thomas she often refused to sign onto his options and instead wrote her own concurrences before her it was byron white and before him it was potter stewart before him it was someone else and probably someone else before that theres almost always someone identified as the swing vote on the court the swing voter is the one in the middle with 4 to the right and 4 to the left the court as a whole may be more conservative or liberal at any given time but someone is always in the middle theres already talk that john roberts is going to be the next swing voter as to his most liberal or conservative positionsi think thats way to hard to say for instance in texas v johnson kennedy voted to hold that burning the flag was protected speech thats an concept that my knee jerk reaction would be to call liberal however he also penned the citizens united opinion saying that corporate speech is protected its generally thought of as conservative however to kennedy these were both in the same vein of jurisprudence on interpreting the first amendment kennedy was a hero to the religious right in greece v galloway when he voted to say that a town can open meetings with a prayer but a demon to those same people with obergefell when gay marriage became a right gay marriage thats liberal right but kennedy also voted to uphold the boy scouts rights to ban homosexuals we tend to focus on the outcomes of cases and not why a justice voted the way that they did im far from an expert on the court and i think youd have to be to get down into the actual jurisprudence of kennedy to decide which opinions were more liberal or conservative based on ideology instead of outcome "
one would hope that congress enacts some constraints but so far has been critical but has signaled it won’t interfere as early as last week senate majority leader mitch mcconnell rky signaled on wednesday that he will not support legislation reining in president trumps tariff authority and that the president will not sign such a bill yeah i dont think we need to be trying to rein in the president through legislation no 1 it would be an exercise in futility because he wouldnt sign it mcconnell told siriusxm when asked if he opposed the bill as for legal authority there are some constraints but those are seemingly easily to get around president trump has reportedly decided to impose new tariffs of 25 percent on imports of steel and 10 percent on imports of aluminum this comes after the commerce department conducted two lengthy — but mostly closeddoor — investigations under section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962 under this law commerce secretary wilbur ross concluded that imports of steel and aluminum threaten america’s national security and recommended that trump impose comprehensive new import restrictions edit statements by some republicans in congress “this is dumb” said sen ben sasse nebraska republican “europe canada and mexico are not china and you don’t treat allies the same way you treat opponents we’ve been down this road before — blanket protectionism is a big part of why america had a great depression ‘make america great again’ shouldn’t mean ‘make america 1929 again’” house speaker paul d ryan wisconsin republican was less florid but still clear in his break with a president he has generally supported “today’s action targets america’s allies when we should be working with them to address the unfair trading practices of countries like china” mr ryan said “there are better ways to help american workers and consumers i intend to keep working with the president on those better options” “these tariffs are hitting the wrong target” said rep kevin brady texas republican and chairman of the house ways and means committee “when it comes to unfairly traded steel and aluminum mexico canada and europe are not the problem — china is”
"several republicans and administration officials — sanders ryan grassley — have made reference to the flores settlement of 1997 the flores settlement agreement flores imposed several obligations on the immigration authorities which fall into three broad categories the government is required to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to in order of preference parents other adult relatives or licensed programs willing to accept custody if a suitable placement is not immediately available the government is obligated to place children in the “least restrictive” setting appropriate to their age and any special needs the government must implement standards relating to the care and treatment of children in immigration detention flores also states that the government can only hold children for twenty days though exceptions are allowed under presidents george w bush and barrack obama the policy was to detain migrants with accompanying children in family detention centers for twenty days give them a court date and release them hoping they won’t disappear of course many do not show up for court but as the immigration courts are already over docketed this wasn’t a huge deal — the courts already have far more deportations than they can process what trump decided to do is start locking up the parents in federal prisons via he us marshall service sending the children to the detention centers alone under the care of dhs’s office of refugee resettlement where they are eventually either resettled with relatives or put into the foster care system the foster care system is already over burdened and 1475 immigrant children have been “lost” in it — they were placed in foster care but the government has been unable to reach the foster parents these are not the same children who were separated from their parents but it’s reasonable that some of these kids will get lost reuniting parents and children has also proved difficult already several migrants have been deported while their children remain in detention centers just in general the administration does not seem to have made adequate preparations to handle this many children "
honestly this is the only document that matters at this point because it is the only signed agreement that exists it says president trump committed to provide security guarantees to the dprk and chairman kim jong un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula and 1 the united states and the dprk commit to establish new usdprk relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity 2 the united states and dprk will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the korean peninsula 3 reaffirming the april 27 2018 panmunjom declaration the dprk commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula 4 the united states and the dprk commit to recovering powmia remains including the immediate repatriation of those already identified so in the outline the us ensures security in the agreed statements 1 says that well work on communication which is mutual 2 would terrify me if i was south korea especially in context of the opening section offering protection to nk and honestly doesnt inspire much confidence as an american 3 says north korea will continue not doing dick about denuclearization 4 is mutual and then following up the united states and the dprk commit to hold followon negotiations led by the us secretary of state mike pompeo and a relevant highlevel dprk official at the earliest possible date to implement the outcomes of the usdprk summit so we are going to send our top guy and they are going to send whoever the war games comments were made after the signing of the declaration so yet another concession that was made by trump on behalf of the us and yet we still dont have a definition of denuclearization further it was done without notifying either south korea or japan so in addition to kowtowing to north korea we are hurting the faith we have built with allies he didnt run it by our military experts either he just said it to the world there is nothing different about this except for the asinine theatrics of a movie trailer and a couple of petulant children playing big man on the world stage
i think the part thats being overlooked in these examples is how each one of those things could possibly be used to further a point of discussion the very purpose of this sub is political discussion and the rules prohibit insubstantive comments if someone was making some point that hinged critically on any of these examples they would absolutely be expected to source them the thing is the examples provided arent particularly typical of those statements of fact made to advance any argument that we normally run across one might argue that sugar is sweeter than some other substance or is desirable for some reason which would require a citation that the north pole is at or near some other geographic point which would require a citation that the roundness of a wheel provides some specific benefit to a cart that would require a citation chuck norris obviously couldnt possibly win every conceivable fight so theres no citation that would be possible there but one might provide examples of fights that he did win that were similar in nature to the hypothetical fight under discussion for the consideration of other readers finally and maybe youll find this more satisfying the mod team seems to respond more to reports of rule violations rather than randomly yanking comments that they run across by chance and this helps to mitigate the absurdity if someone says something controversial enough that another user might report it and they didnt provide a source they stand a much better chance of having their comment removed rather than randomly interjecting some unsourced and unrelated fact in an otherwise coherent and well sourced reply personally ive found that the more time i spend here the less likely i am to even include questionable content in my replies and thats actually a pretty good thing for everyone we should all be putting thought into our replies and considering whether were actually contributing to the discussion or distracting from it if i found the need to put into a reply that a wheel is round i would seriously reconsider the basic premise of my reply and whether it was meant to earnestly express some cogent point
"the washington post did a nice write up on the wto and its impact on the us that article highlights a few pros and cons the first con is the base of the wto and thats most favored nation status mfn statuses have benefits for both countries primary among those is that it increases trade smaller countries get a larger benefit from the mfn status granted by the wto because they would be unlikely to be able to negotiate that on their own while the us probably could there are also domestic benefits such as keeping special interests in check when the wto sets mfn rules its harder for a specific special interest group to push to treat a specific country and major importer of a competitive product differently while it appears that mfn status helps to boost trade even being bound by the wto with becoming a member specifically has increases trade the wto also has a process to settle trade disputes among countries the wto has a process that is designed to be unbiased but evidence suggests that the wto system may favor us and european union exporters while the favorable system may be bad for the wto having a resolution system that favors the us is probably a pro that same system is also a con however at least in some ways there has been a lack of transparancy and issues with judges leaving that may slow the decision making process down also a con as talked about in the first linked wp article is that the wto may be to blame for the loss of jobs in the us economists found correlation between chinas entry into the wto and a decrease in manufacturing jobs not to say that claim isnt disputed but it also could very well be true personal opinion is that the biggest beneficiary to leaving the wto would be specific industries that crafted tariffs could benefit like the steel tariffs benefited the steel industry other trade regulations could also help other specific industries however there would be a cost while us steel has benefited some costs will increase for other industries like beverages in aluminum cans sometimes like the orange juice mentioned in the usa today article those costs come in ways that seem completely unexpected "
from snopes— on 26 april 2018 the new york times and the associated press both reported that the us government had lost track of nearly 1500 migrant children it had placed into the homes of caregivers the alarming nature of the headlines prompted many readers to question the veracity of the reports but they are apparently true the times and ap reports were based on statements made by steven wagner acting assistant secretary of administration for children and families for the department of health and human services hhs on 26 april 2018 at a senate homeland security subcommittee oversight hearing statements which can be viewed in full here according to that transcript wagner told senators from october to december 2017 orr office of refugee resettlement attempted to reach 7635 uac unaccompanied alien children and their sponsors of this number orr reached and received agreement to participate in the safety and wellbeing call from approximately 86 percent of sponsors from these calls orr learned that 6075 uac remained with their sponsors twentyeight uac had run away five had been removed from the united states and 52 had relocated to live with a nonsponsor orr was unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1475 uac i put “lost” in quotations because not being able to get in touch with the foster parents does not necessarily mean the children have disappeared though i do think not knowing if children have or have not disappeared and being unable to find out could be characterized as “lost” i did specify what i meant by lost i’m not sure what your talking about with conflating two articles though how am o doing that this is all backed up by statements made by hhs edit — the media fact check points out that the children lost in the system were not the children separated through trumps zero tolerance policy but this is something i already pointed out hhs also says that many of the children they are unable to reach may be with illegal relatives who are avoiding detection — it would be nice if they could tell us how many of the missing are with relatives and how many with strangers though
"likewise when federal law imposes on an area of law solely occupied by a state and never granted to the federal government federal law fails we start with first principles the constitution creates a federal government of enumerated powers see u s const art i §8 as james madison wrote the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite the federalist no 45 pp 292293 c rossiter ed 1961 this constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties gregory v ashcroft 501 us 452 458 1991 internal quotation marks omitted just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch a healthy balance of power between the states and the federal government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front ibid the federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers the principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it is now universally admitted but the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising and will probably continue to arise as long as our system shall exist id at 405 nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the united states each state may still confer them upon an alien or anyone it thinks proper or upon any class or description of persons yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the united states nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states if a state has not given the power to the federal govt to determine who can or cannot be a state citizen any other power they express cannot impose on a right they retain 10th amendment us constitution this has not been argued and you cannot say that is not law as a result "
i already responded to that point what you said is only true if 1 you prefer one of the two main parties over the other and 2 third parties are always closer to one of the two main parties than the other neither of these things have to be true to some people republicans and democrats are so equally undesirable that there isnt a lesser evil to favor meanwhile some parties like one that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal might pull equally from both parties several polls throughout the 2016 election season had the libertarian party pulling pretty equally from both major parties thats before we get into the electoral college which leads to safe states in which it may be almost certain that the major party that you prefer will also lose in that case voting anything but the candidate or party who is favored in the state may be equally a wasteful returning to the point that voters may not prefer one major party over the other its important to acknowledge that a protest vote is not about trying to get one candidate to win therefore saying that its shooting yourself in the foot because the wrong candidate may win is misunderstanding the whole situation a protest vote is one which is used by somebody who does not want to influence the outcome of the election and has consequently decided to use the voting process for another purpose communication again protest votes are simply about putting to record that you do not approve of the existing process so analyzing it in terms of impact on electoral outcomes doesnt make sense any there are more complications like the fact that hitting certain thresholds of votes gives parties funding ballot access etc that can help them elect lower level candidates if you just saying that for many of voters its against their interests to vote third party thatd be fine but by saying that protest votes dont make sense thats where i felt the need to step in because i feel you seriously dont understand protest votes and how people who are generally so opposed or indifferent to the main parties that it does not matter which main parties candidate wins to them
"i’d like to read a thorough article of comparative jurisprudence analyzing this issue in detail i’m sure plenty have been written but i haven’t been actively looking for one and haven’t stumbled upon any shocking i know the discussion seems to revolve around libel and hate speech but freedom of speech like you said is much broader and the other aspects seem pretty overlooked yet equally fascinating from a european perspective it seems absolutely arcane that a tv station can be fined for showing a nipple for example also the rules of proper conduct in court seem to pose significant restrictions on free speech which are often overlooked i understand that contempt in the us can be based on disrespect of a court instead of simply actions that hinder court proceedings yet to my knowledge that hasn’t exactly been challenged as a limitation of free speech once again haven’t actually looked into the matter but that’s my impression and if so it’s interesting seeing as the us has a pretty massive body of case law on freedom of speech there are lots of other examples where fundamental differences exist but they don’t seem to garner much interest in the public discourse they seem to be taken as a given by and large but in many ways that acceptance to me seems more fundamental in understanding the way the concept is interpreted the reality of it remains that you aren’t going g to be thrown in jail for critical speech on either side of the pond dissent is wellprotected with certain vestiges of postwwii legislation enforced in certain parts of europe being the only real exceptions another concept that intrigues me from a comparative legal studies perspective is that of selfincrimination european civil law jurisprudence often sees that as including the right to lie to investigators if you are a suspect whereas lying to the fbi seems to get you in trouble likewise many jurisdictions will not allow a defendant to be heard as a witness they can be heard but without taking an oath because they do not have an obligation to refrain from lying but that’s off topic for this discussion of course "
"im sure this sounds like a copout but its complicated i think that there are legitimate concerns on each side of the debate except of course the nativist garbage spewed on the far right when people who live near the border express fears about cartels i understand why they want border security i dont think its unreasonable for people to want incoming people to be properly vetted for security issues but these concerns can be addressed without being outright hostile and destructive toward the immigration system instead of focusing just on border guards and enforcement officers i think that we need more immigration judges especially at the border we have a huge backlog of asylum cases and people in detention that need to be resolved and more ijs at the border would help to determine whether border crossers have legitimate asylum claims i would like to see our employmentbased immigration system updated to accurately address the modern needs of businesses while providing protections for us workers i hate that the h1b visa has become such a lightning rod for controversy whenever a company abuses the h1b program youll hear it in the news but youll never hear about the scientist on an h1b visa who has made a huge step forward in developing a cancer vaccine when the story about disney displacing workers came out i was angered i would like to see real reforms to prevent these abuses and also keep job shoppers like tata consultancy and infosys from dominating the annual h1b cap lottery with lowpaid contractors some of the more realistic business immigration reform has come from republicans like orrin hatch and jeff flake the isquared bill is a good step forward i also think that we need to eliminate per country green card caps which end up disproportionately affecting workers from india this is just from the area i specialize in im sure there are practitioners who focus on familybased immigration and asylum work who can identify much needed changes in the law also thank god for rneutralpolitics im terrified of discussing immigration policy anywhere else on reddit "
you make some good points the first one i think is just a difference of basic opinion im of the belief that the countries transited is completely irrelevant to the situation because we cant and shouldnt police who you asked for asylum you think differently okay they can shout their requests from right next to her or across the room but they dont get to ask while theyre inside her and this is where the analogy breaks down i more see our process as someone standing there asking not asking midcoitus but the whole girlfriend analogy doesnt really work well here because it could be seen either way completely logically i think our process is more akin to asking for a date but its not really similar to anything anyway still a fun analogy though it just has its limits does it make me an asshole to say there are a lot of you that want to come in and id prefer that you not stand on my lawn while i figure out who is welcome if by leaving your lawn you are pushing them into highway then yes even if its only a potential highway especially when there is no real and present threat to them being on your lawn if theres an empty lot next door and you can give them a bottle of water while they wait thats fine the reason they are on the lawn is because you are deciding whether or not to let them it it is your inaction that is leaving them on the lawn now if someone starts causing problems kick them out sure im all for it but until then they get a bottle of water and you make a decision as fast as is reasonable does it make me an asshole to then instantly reject someone i found had already broken into my house it depends i guess if they broke into your house because the other option was to get murdered on the lawn then i think it would be kinda assholish to fault them for it if they broke into your house because they think they are cool and shouldnt have to wait then yeah go ahead and say no hell at this point in the conversation say no to whoever you damn well please but it just seems like bad policy and bad humanity to be rude to people waiting for you to do something
trump plays his game awfully right youre just too butthurt to see it instead of using euphemism and trying to show as a good guy like republicans will speak of border security instead of speaking straight out of incoming criminals say what you want it works very well with the public as the public now has access to information and can draw their own conclusion and the public for once feels like its being told the right thing instead of some old blanket statements it goes against all the established rules of modern politics but you cant say its not working most folks disagrees hes unfit to lead as he has over 50 approval ratings and his current actions are success over success also since he has no shackles of political correctness he can make some bold move like straight out taunt political opponents on twitter to force them to act it worked with north korea which is something nobody really managed to do in over 50 years in contrast here in canada we have trudeau which is all image no action betrays his voter base at every occasion misleads and disappoints them all the time and cant even make a proper deal he lied about election reform lied about not making new pipelines went to india and made a fool of himself also gave india 750m of taxpayers money in return for 250m which is a bad deal any way you put it and refuses to tax netflix because he has no negotiation leverage whatsoever so which one do you want a leader that looks nice or a successful leader only the political inept would choose trudeau over trump a leaders job is not to be liked but to make the right thing where wisdom reigns there is no conflict between thinking and feeling jung about the issue its legitimate for sure but the protest is nothing more than a tantrum to virtue signal people dont get upset because blacks are protesting people are getting upset because they are smart enough to know its just some fucking lowgrade virtue signalling that wont have any real life impact other than piss them off its lose all gain nothing so the folks just make the smart move which is not to play
this may be stumbling into a potential genetic fallacy but that source is from fair which the southern poverty law center splc lists as a hate group of course i havent always agreed with every hate group listing by the splc a discussion for another time but fairs research while appearing to be thorough is deserving of some skepticism given their agenda and political leanings although i would argue that some rational measure of skepticism should be applied to any claims and evidence and likewise that we should always follow what appears to be the best available evidence in addition if one peruses the pdf associated with their data it can be noted that some of the links are selfreferential and therefore would require further individualized scrutiny and many are not necessarily scholarly sources eg news articles which dont actually provide source links to their claims or for their summaries there are also some broken links regardless it is possible that some of their research is sound so i am not contending outright that all of their information is false but i would caution taking it at face value finally another user in the thread has provided a link from the cato institute an american libertarian think tank for the uninitiated critiquing fairs study and they claim that it is fatally flawed the federation for american immigration reform fair is devoted to reducing legal and illegal immigration its recent report “the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on united states taxpayers 2017” by matthew o’brien spencer raley and jack martin estimates that the net fiscal costs of illegal immigration to us taxpayers is 116 billion fair’s report reaches that conclusion by vastly overstating the costs of illegal immigration undercounting the tax revenue they generate inflating the number of illegal immigrants counting millions of us citizens as illegal immigrants and by concocting a method of estimating the fiscal costs that is rejected by all economists who work on this subject this response article by cato seems fairly valid and wellsourced comparatively
if each voter in a population had equal power please reference where i referred to voter power there is no ratio here no value of a vote relative to another person a wyoming voter and california voter are only related by the fact that theyve meet the requirements for voting within their state there is nothing that one will vote for that has any relationship to other and that includes who they mark down as their choice for potus something is missing yes this mythical voter power that you keep mentioning suppose 6037 of californians vote for a particular party but then one of them changes their vote how much does that percent change compare that to if wyoming was at 6037 before one voter changes please explain why any of this matters californias percent would change disproportionately less relative to the number of electors in play californias would change by 1395m wyomings would change by 1058m the wyoming voter changes the percent by 68x more than the california voter if both california and wyoming are split the same it will take 68x fewer wyomingites changing their vote to change who the electors go to even though wyoming only has 18x fewer electors you keep listing numbers like they having meaning maybe if you could justify there being a real conspiracy to control the presidential election through voter fraud in wyoming as its easier for them to sway their 3 electors than californias 55 you might have a point except no you wouldnt because youd still need more than 13rd of the union basically all the states similar to wyoming in house representative numbers to make that conspiracy actually count for that argument and itd still be voter fraud yes statistically i agree that if you work out the math as you have there is a imbalance where you would expect to see a balance unfortunately your math is like calculating the popular vote an interesting statistic but it is not an actual vote and therefore not relevant except as a data point when you can express your voter power issue in a manner which actually has an impact an election then we can talk
"that article is a little misleading or at least a little overly enthusiastic it leaves out the fact late 2010 was the end of the second worst recession since 1940 with nearly 10 unemployment nearly 20 u6 unemployment rate the stretch of job growth has been so long because we had so many jobs to gain back not loosing the jobs in the first place would be a better show of strength also free trade with china really started around 1980 with the opening of diplomatic relations and nafta was signed in 1994 pertaining to nafta for the united states with its population of 320 million at the time of that study the pure economic payoff was thus only 400 per person while per capita gdp was close to 50000 this is saying nafta isnt responsible for most of the manufacturing job loses but it is china it seems to be inadvertently suggesting free trade tends to cause loss of manufacturing jobs and cause more inequality the longrun increase in manufacturing employment in mexico about 400000 jobs was small and disappointing while us manufacturing plummeted by 5 million — but more because of chinese imports than imports from mexico in both mexico and the united states real wages have stagnated while productivity has continued to increase leading to higher profit shares and a tendency toward greater inequality” the problem with losing lower pay manufacturing jobs is there are a lot of low skilled workers that really cant do much more that kid that huffed paint through high school isnt going to do much more than put nuts on bolts for 8 hours a day there are a lot of people out there that dont want a career they just want a 8 hour mindless job so they can go home drink some beer and argue on reddit in 2013 there were about 125mil jobs that required no more than a high school education and about 120mil 25 and older with no more than a hs education adding in the approximately 25mil 1824 year olds and we dont have enough low end jobs for these low skill workers admittedly i resorted to getting these numbers through graphics and 2013 still had high unemployment "
"in discussing this question we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the union it does not by any means follow because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state that he must be a citizen of the united states he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state for previous to the adoption of the constitution of the united states every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen and to endow him with all its rights but this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the state and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the united states each state may still confer them upon an alien or anyone it thinks proper or upon any class or description of persons yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the united states nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states the rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them the constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization and this right is evidently exclusive and has always been held by this court to be so consequently no state since the adoption of the constitution can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government although so far as the state alone was concerned he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character "
" i dont have an answer for this but the problems of non american citizens are not first and foremost to be solved by the american government yes but you said they should come here legally im saying they would if they could they shouldnt be considered criminals for not doing it the proper way and we need to recognize their situation isnt conducive to being able to follow those rules why arent you asking the same of canada for example what are they doing for these people first im not canadian so i dont care as much what they do nor do i know what they are doing 2nd the canadians werent separating kids from their parents 3rd the only way for these people to get to canada is go through the us so the point is kind of moot if our rules are too complicated maybe there are other nations where they might have an easier time following them this is not us problem so its not our sole responsibly to handle should we provide noncitizens with free legal assistance who pays for that where are the other countries jumping in to offer this service these are very common thoughts brought up that are actually strawmen to the original argument im not saying we have to take in every person i am saying we shouldnt automatically disqualify the people her e because they didnt fill out all then paperwork and have all the documentation filled out on arrival we shouldnt have separated kids from their families as a deterrent to people trying to immigrate here i think it becomes our problem once we know people need help it certainly isnt cheap the way were doing it creating refugee camps and hearing each court case the cost of a lawyer is the smallest cost and they arent provided anyway ultimately i think we should err on the side of being good people i also think we should try to picture ourselves being the ones to have to depart a family back to the hell they came from its easy to say its not our problem and they didnt follow the rules and shouldnt have come its a lot harder to have to turn someone away who is in desperate need of the smallest amount of help "
probably not because the entire issue as i had pointed out was to get the children back to a parentguardianother qualified adult custodian as dicated by judge gee the language was clarified by judge gee to be 20 days which is what everyone sites but i havent been able to find it in an opinion from a court yet in her opinion in jenny l flores et al v jeh johnson et al which i linked above the entire premise is that the us has an obligation to keep children with their parents for a variety of reasons to the extent defendants are asserting that releasing accompanying relatives would have been considered an unusual step at the time the agreement was formed the following regulation governing the release of detained minors in a narrower context which was in place when the parties formed the agreement and which is still in force belies defendants’ assertion i juveniles may be released to a relative brother sister aunt uncle or grandparent not in service detention who is willing to sponsor a minor and the minor may be released to that relative notwithstanding that the juvenile has a relative who is in detention ii if a relative who is not in detention cannot be located to sponsor the minor the minor may be released with an accompanying relative who is in detention so if everyone wants to hold up what judge gee wrote it shouldnt end with both parents and their minors being separated as theyve got to move the minors the majority of the arguments driving flores and subsequent follow on cases are about the rights of the minors and the conditions of their detention the overarching theme is getting the children back with preferably one or more of their parents at nearly any cost it was catch and release because the court literally said the government has no other choice if a relative who is not in detention cannot be located to sponsor the minor the minor may be released with an accompanying relative who is in detention essentially everyone knows what has to happen but the present situation is such that people dont want to have this happening
" this is against hamas a known terror group to the un us uk etc that has a history of violence and terror that attacks civilians and children should we also declare that israel is known to systematically target and kill civilians the report disputes israels claim that the gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the gaza strip saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the people of gaza as a whole intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war the report also says that israels military assault on gaza was designed to humiliate and terrorize a civilian population radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability the report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample in 11 of these episodes it said the israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians including some in which civilians were shot while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place waving white flags talking to bill moyers journal goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened according to the report another alleged war crime committed by idf include wanton destruction of food production water and sewerage facilities the report also asserts that some attacks which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians were disproportionate the report concluded that israel violated the fourth geneva convention by targeting civilians which it labeled a grave breach it also claimed that the violations were systematic and deliberate which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed planned ordered and oversaw the operations the report recommended inter alia that israel pay reparations to palestinians living in gaza for property damage caused during the conflict"
unfortunately for some the words of a candidate are usually just background when it comes to the constitutionality of an order so a president could in theory just decide on a whim to bar all travel to the us from anywhere in the world by using section 1182 to define the universe of admissibility to zero correct no not really in the beginning of the decision scotus was also quite clear that the legality of the order is predicated on the orders legitimate which is not the same as correct it just means procedural basis in national interest the relevant section is as follows the sole prerequisite set forth in §1182f is that the president “find ” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the united states” the president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here he first ordered dhs and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline he then issued a proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact based on that review he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest even assuming that some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of the president’s findings is appropriate but see webster v doe 486 u s 592 600 plaintiffs’ attacks on the sufficiency of the findings cannot be sustained the 12page proclamation is more detailed than any prior order issued under §1182f and such a searching inquiry is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the president in this sphere so if the president was for some reason presented with a comprehensive study which found that citizens of all other countries were in some way a threat and he prepared detailed reasoning for following the advice of this study then he could ban all nonuscitizen travel but this ruling does not mean he could do that on a whim the prerequisite of national interest is still relevant and fundamental
" interesting the law seems to want to protect the kids from detainment and ends up making it worse for them by requiring them to be separated from their detained parents this isnt what the law requires separating kids from parents is a choice the trump administration made if an adult with a child crosses the border they can be deported immediately under the process of expedited removal the immigrant could prevent expedited removal if they say they are afraid to go back to their home country once that happens border patrol can detain them until their hearing or can release them with a notice to appear in court who gets released with a notice to appear in court and who gets detained is totally at the discretion of the government often what happens is they are detained for a short time until they take their credible fear interview which is an interview with an asylum officer to determine how likely it is that they would win their asylum case when brought before a judge if they fail that interview they can be immediately deported if they pass that interview then there is no reason to detain the child any more and flores requires that the parent be released along with the child the new zero tolerance policy meant the administration didnt want to release the parents in that situation so they had 2 options 1 change flores or 2 separate children from parents so that they can continue to detain parents while the children go to a relative or guardian those are the 2 options that the trump administration has been presenting to the american people they say their hands are tied by flores so they have to separate families but really their hands are tied by the choice they made prior to this if you want to detain parents who are seeking asylum and have passed their credible fear interview then you have to separate them from their kids if you dont want to detain them but instead want to release them and trust they will come before a judge to hear their asylum case then flores doesnt really come into play "
hi there im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules specifically the following changes would need to be made please remove the intro sentence all submissions here are reviewed by a moderator prior to appearing in the subreddit the tweet you linked to isnt from sanders please replace that with a tweet or preferably an article containing a direct quote from him which includes the quoted phrases you used the washington examiner link you provided later on would suffice for this provide a source for this sanders support tariffs on said nonwestern countries but disagrees with its application to include the eu and canada citing that these nonwestern countries do not trade fairly by flooding the world market with aluminum and steel as well as not paying their citizens fair living wage and for this now he has been accused of favouring western nations over nonwestern ones out of personal bias as the interlocutor accused please rephrase this as it compromises the neutrality of the post from a practical stand point it is fairly obvious why i would just rephrase it as something like sanders has stated that his position on canada is due to vermonts proximity and reliance on trade with them finally please drop the first part of the closing paragraph so it just reads sans western imperialist accusations since i am not convinced of this notion because it is all conjectures unless there is definitive data to back up this notion what data is there to support bernie sanders to target vietnam china skorea and russia with imposed tarrif on steel and aluminum thanks for participating please reply here once youve made the requested edits or if you have any questions note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain unmodified after two days will either be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form
" op alleged without sourcing i am curious what he believes the us role would be if any 1 see the linked source for the quote that is of concern 2 why is the us role in 2002 relevant to poverty in 2018 i have no idea what this role might have been other than any direct interference would have been illegal as for venezuela being a dictatorship i dont think it is or at least there is very little evidence for it fine however is there a source for your opinion that maduro is significantly constrained presently by either the judiciary or the national assembly in december 2015 venezuela’s opposition coalition the democratic unity committee known popularly as mud won a landslide victory sweeping up twothirds of the seats for the national assembly the country’s legislature since then positive public opinion of president nicolás maduro political heir to hugo chavéz has rarely reached 30 percent poverty has increased affecting more than 81 percent of the population today compared to 48 percent in 2014 according to a yearly survey of living conditions conducted by three leading venezuelan universities malnutrition and starvation now afflict the most vulnerable the government has defaulted on its international debts and the country has entered a hyperinflationary spiral the tragedy of venezuela’s opposition is that after struggling for years to forge a common strategy it finally came together and learned how to win elections—only to have maduro change the rules the government has openly manipulated the electoral system and even committed outright fraud as its own longtime provider of electronic voting systems smartmatic confirmed in the wake of the 2017 constituent assembly elections it turns out however that winning elections in venezuela does not matter after all maduro and his allies fear being held accountable if there is a political transition in venezuela either because they have engaged in massive corruption are connected to international drug trafficking or have committed human rights abuses "
"the land that was ceded by mexico was largely uninhabited outside of a few missions which is why that was the land that was taken the us had conquered all the way up to mexico city yet did not annex populated portions im sorry but youre going down the path of historical revisionism here the us government was hugely racist at the time and questioned whether mexicans were even capable of democracy if they annexed populated territory thus they didnt do it im on mobile and will edit in sources later today lists a very good reason few mexicans lived in the north in the early 1830s comanches kiowas navajos and several tribes of apaches abandoned imperfect but workable peace agreements that they had maintained with spanishspeakers in the north since the late 1700s they did so for complex reasons that varied from group to group but declining mexican diplomatic and military power and expanding american markets were the backdrop for the region’s overall plunge into violence groups of mounted indian men often several hundred and sometimes even a thousand strong stepped up attacks on mexican settlements they killed or enslaved the people they found there and stole or destroyed animals and other property when they could mexicans responded by doing the same to their indian enemies specifically look at 1841 and 1849 prewar population was 67 million people puts new mexicos population at 40k and californias at 10k in tandem with previous state means that the mexican cession represented 07 of mexicos population over a whopping 42 of its land this comes out to 01 people per square mile simply put the mexican cession was uninhabited with these latter two the us government was clearly divided as to how much of mexico to annex after the war in the end the more nativist faction won out the us annexed empty land and paid mexico 15 million dollars in a strange fashion racism probably benefited mexico in this case since they werent subject to imperial rule in the same way the philippines would be 50 years later "
"hi there uraptorspade1296 im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules the primary issue is the way the premises are stated and supported as technology becomes better the world is becoming a smaller place people can travel more and find opportunities in other parts of the world while countries economies are becoming increasingly interdependent these two sentences are phrased as statements of fact which means they need sources to support them rule d please add that the list of benefits right after that has a source but its an opinion piece our source guidelines instruct that opinion pieces are permitted if the piece links to sources and is balanced by other sources with alternate views that in mind please replace the current source with a more factual one the chicago tribune and american conservative articles at the end are also opinion pieces i think you can remove those and just use the wsj piece to support the premise that this globalism vs nationalism debate exists how should these two political forces be balanced if they should at all should questions are tricky in rneutralpolitics because they can be interpreted as a solicitation of opinion or an inquiry that cannot be answered with facts violations of rules a and g respectively theyre not universally prohibited but this particular one might be better phrased as a more definitive set of questions such as 1 are globalism and nationalism truly opposing political forces 2 if so can they be balanced 3 what are the pros and cons of balancing them 4 what methods have proven effective at striking that balance if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
" the us h1b backlog of people from india and possibly other countries is 510 years long i wish it was only 510 years long typically folks remember bush clinton era wait periods and forget the effect the narrow queue has as engineers they ought to know better otoh no one who has planned their life on settling in the us likes facing up to the fact that their chances of a greencard are weak right now for the advanced degree quota eb2 they are processing applications from march 2009 this is not expected to move for the rest of the fiscal year ie by the end of the fiscal year they are expected to still process applications from march 15 2009 or before this is the relatively empty part of the queue a ton of people had gotten laid off in the years after the 2008 crash and dropped out of the queue there were also fewer applications since this is employer sponsored visa this recovered in 2010 my guess it that the queue will move in fits and spurt over the next few years to 2011 applications the problem is it will pretty much stop moving shortly after that by 2012 there were supposed to be 80000 eb2 applications in just a few months the majority from india according to discsussions on the immigration boards such as there are 1400 eb2 greencards granted each year so pretty much anyone today or who applied in the last couple of years has no chance of getting a greencard the media reports 22 92 years but a persons employment would have ended long before that existing visa holders changing employers resets their place in line for getting a green card they can apply to get their old spot in the queue if their job description has not changed substantially the process typically takes up to a year this is once the employer starts it and it is in the employers interest not to start it immediately the easiest way to get a greencard for indian devs is to return to india for a year and come back in a management position in the firm that would make them eligible for eb1s if the company goes for it"
"the fundamental insight driving the us interpretation is that in a democracy you dont need to protect popular speech by its nature the democracy will tend to make laws that promote popular speech and reasonable expression in other words if most people agree that a person is expressing themselves reasonably then those people will tend to be allowed to express themselves that way anyways so a protection of that act isnt needed instead the right to free speech is specifically and perhaps solely there to protect situations where the expression would be unreasonable to large portions of society maybe even a majority of the democracy the 1st amendment of the us is not there to protect reasonable speech its specifically there to protect unreasonable speech the basis for that gets deep and ranges from a humility over our ability to moderate what is reasonable without forcing our personal values and culture into the interpretation to the idea that its better to let bad ideas and sentiments expose themselves and be responded to than it is to let them fester in a bubble where they are protected and unchallenged meanwhile a theme running up and down the constitution of the us is the assumption that government will be corrupted at least sometimes by the same logic that even if you like what obama would do with strong executive powers you should still limit unilateral executive powers in case somebody like trump or worse comes in because you never know who will be sitting there next the bill of rights is an extremely clear and unforgiving line so that no matter who is in congress and the supreme court it will be very difficult to abuse speech controls even in the context of something that over the short term looks compelling and captures public sentiment eg the red scare riding the 911 wave riding the russianmeddling wave the more power you give government the more you have to worry if it ever falls into the wrong hands for even one populist term a scenario that is not entirely avoidable "
" the police have a duty to take crime reports but have no duty to protect anyone this isnt entirely true that was a pretty specific case you linked see bivens v six unknown named agents basically a special relationship liability is created its similar to a lifeguard not going out to save someone from drowning a cop can also place someone at greater danger and be sued obviously with respect to your link scott martin political scientistdata analyst in the comments got it right this is an old question but seems like it’s worth a brief comment based on some of the existing answers the gist of other responses is correct the case does state that police officers do not have a legal obligation to protect specific individuals however some of the other answers also suggest that the reason for the decision is that police should not be held liable for failing to prevent crime eg that a person who is robbed that the police fail to assist would have a legal right to sue or that a drunk who harms himself and is not assisted by police would have a right to sue etc this is not at all accurate the case specifically dealt with the failure of a police dispatcher to correct classify a violent home invasion as a high priority call twice as a result the police failed to protect a specific person due to their own failure to follow their own procedures which were designed to prioritize crimes in such a way as to ensure that those who need protection most get it quickest i think it’s a bad decision an overly broad reading of the case could lead to problems but this is actually a very specific case of official incompetence leading to very specific and horrifying harms to an individual it should absolutely have been actionable and i don’t think these circumstances happen that often unfortunately the courts are generally unwilling to enforce the idea that government employees have any specific obligations which seems very strange to me a good precedent here could have opened legal avenues to sue"
considering the history of our nations there doesn’t seem to be merit as much as pretext section 232 of the 1962 us trade expansion act allows safeguards based on national security hence the use of the term since it’s the legal loop hole allowing for the tariffs the argument is that steel production is essential for national security and so he is able to cite national security however if that were truly the concern then it doesn’t make sense why there were reports of assurances that canada wouldn’t have tariffs imposed previously but the tariffs which are being enacted under section 232 of the little used trade expansion act of 1962 will exempt both metals coming from canada and mexico on national security grounds — at least initially the socalled carve out of canadian steel and aluminum will allow us trade negotiators to have what a senior administration official described as ongoing discussions about various issues involving the three countries thats a thinly veiled reference to nafta negotiations which are currently in their eighth round of talks as the three countries seek to update the more than twodecade old agreement that governs trade between them these actions show that the prior exemptions allowed for a stronger bargaining position however if canadian steel truly was a national security risk then why the exemption and if they weren’t why cite them as such now again most likely it’s related to recent trade negotiations and not national security as stated justin trudeau said a planned meeting with us president donald trump to potentially seal a nafta deal collapsed after mike pence called and insisted the meeting was conditional on adding a sunset clause trudeau made the revelation of the oftenprivate talks during a press conference in ottawa thursday where he sharply criticized us steel and aluminum tariffs and announced retaliatory tariffs of his own he was asked what the new measures mean for north american free trade agreement negotiations
were not looking at a continuous random variable defined on an interval of positive length attaining a specific value in terms of peoples stances peoples feelings about what is optimal are not objective or quantitative you cant measure them with reasonable precision there is no authoritative way to compare measurements of one thing over another there also isnt a clear way to enumerate all issues many people get caught up in the mere process of trying to figure out that value never really attaining one meanwhile those who do may have absurdly large margins of error for the reasons above your argument rests on a level of precision the is impossible in our world therefore it isnt a useful or realistic description of our world describing the choice of actions of voters through that model isnt pedantic its just so idealistic of a model that its not describing humans and therefore doesnt apply additionally you are repeatedly only acknowledging the choice of the optimal action from within the goal of the voting system for example if you see both parties as committing moral atrocities priorities over how you conduct yourself in general might lead you not to vote for either rather than trying to figure out which moral atrocity is better when voters have a clearer sense of who they prefer the outcome of the vote will dominate their choice in how to vote when they have less of a sense for who they prefer or disapprove of both pretty strongly other factors might come into play in terms of votes stolen from parties the only case in which it would have to be exactly even is the one in which the election would have been determined by exactly one vote which as you say is not something to bet on in reality it has to pull as evenly from the two parties as how close the election will be so it doesnt have to pull completely evenly in the context of the above though if it pulls a little unevenly from the two parties thats not necessarily meaningful for the voter
"in my experience there are a few ways in which legal attitudes towards free speech in the united states differ from the attitude in other countries i can speak with more experience regarding usa law than nonusa law unlike great britain which i understand to have relatively plaintifffriendly libel laws the usas first amendment has been interpreted as significantly constraining the ability of plaintiffs to bring libel suits especially against the media or where the plaintiff is a public figure the usa doesnt have anything like lèsemajesté laws nor treason laws that could make speech alone actionable as criminal treason with respect to hate speech the controlling law in the united states was established in the supreme court case brandenburg v ohio 395 us 444 link to opinion tl dr hate speech is nonetheless not criminal unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action i understand that other jurisdictions are more willing to criminalize hate speech edit it’s worth making the point that it is not the law in the us that speech can never be restricted by government examples include prohibitions on fraud regulations of business activity such as advertising and the willingness of courts to enforce a contractual restriction on speech such as an nda there is also a complex and ambiguous body of law on obscenity edit 2 here are links to some recent united states supreme court cases that discuss the parameters of free speech in the united states snyder v phelps in which it was held that certain outrageous conduct by the westbrook baptist church couldn’t be the basis for a civil claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because of the first amendment united states v stevens struck down a law criminalizing “crush videos” the opinion contains a discussion of existing categories of restrictions of free speech in the context of the court refusing to create a new category "
perhaps but brinkmanship in trade where we have trillions of dollars on the line constituting less than 5 percent of the worlds population americans generate and earn more than 20 percent of the worlds total income america is the worlds largest national economy and leading global trader i don’t know of any nation that can afford to lose billions of dollars overnight pointing a gun to your head to lower your healthcare costs is hard to imagine as being a good plan add in that we’re going into it alone makes the other nations incentivized to not play ball and trumps instability in making deals undermines any reason for them to go along since he could just change his mind later he delayed the tariffs’ effective date for some of the country’s closest allies to make their cases the announcement thursday shows those appeals failed and the tariffs will take effect friday morning alliances are built on trust allies don’t tend to trust you when you threaten them “this is dumb” said sen ben sasse nebraska republican “europe canada and mexico are not china and you don’t treat allies the same way you treat opponents we’ve been down this road before — blanket protectionism is a big part of why america had a great depression ‘make america great again’ shouldn’t mean ‘make america 1929 again’” house speaker paul d ryan wisconsin republican was less florid but still clear in his break with a president he has generally supported “today’s action targets america’s allies when we should be working with them to address the unfair trading practices of countries like china” mr ryan said “there are better ways to help american workers and consumers i intend to keep working with the president on those better options” “these tariffs are hitting the wrong target” said rep kevin brady texas republican and chairman of the house ways and means committee “when it comes to unfairly traded steel and aluminum mexico canada and europe are not the problem — china is”
"hi there uroughandtumble03 im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules the specific adjustments to make are primarily around sourcing all the premises in the post need citations prefacing them with as i understand does not eliminate this requirement it’s my understanding that the case centered around whether or not the cake was a custom cake or a design that was used multiple times thus not custom from where does this understanding come if its in the courts decision could you please block quote a section or cite the page demonstrating this was a central point of the case rule d also it would be better to provide a source to the decision thats not behind a paywall this one would work while i agree with the ruling and that a custom cake shouldn’t have been forced please remove this in the interest of neutral framing rule b its best not to state your opinion in the post gorsuch says that since the baker did not sell a cake to the defendants heterosexual mother for a same sex wedding the baker is allowed to never sell any custom cake that would be used in a same sex wedding since it goes against his religious beliefs as with the first point please cite where gorsuch writes this as i understand it all bakers would be forced to comply with making a custom cake to be used in an interracial ceremony even if the purchasers were non interracial or interracial regardless of religious beliefs again please show the readers where this understanding comes from alternately in this case you could try rephrasing it as a question if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
in answer to the headline question of whether the constitutional findings of the president are coequal with the judiciary the answer is largely no the constitution vests the supreme court and the inferior courts created by congress with the judicial power of the united states that power extends to all cases arising under the laws and constitution of the united states and includes all cases where the us government is a party in both the windsor and texas cases the united states is a party to a lawsuit in that role the president as executive has the authority to take a legal position on behalf of the united states government however that position is not the final word on what the law is ultimately the court hearing the case and then appeals courts reviewing that case will decide what the law of the united states is and they are not obligated to agree with the presidents view of the law you cite to marbury v madison in the op whose most famous line is one directly supporting this assertion of judicial supremacy over questions of law it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule if two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each may our president now use these precedents to order that doj only enforce the constitutional finding by the president and not those of the judicial branch any attempt to do so would be subject to judicial challenge if he did a challenger could sue the united states to seek a writ of mandamus or some other form of injunctive relief by which the court would order the president or an inferior officer to carry out the law as the court interprets it it is a crime to willfully disobey a court order if the president gives an order to a government employee and a court gives a contradictory order the courts order wins and must be followed
gotcha i understand your point but i think it doesnt fit the post1945 world today if the us is in a symmetrical formal war with declarations and everything nuclear weapons are being fired and none of this matters in the german example what were saying is that the nature of the enemy combatant is obvious that person may be an american citizen but hes standing there at a german guard post in germanheld berlin wearing a german uniform and holding a germanmade rifle standing sidebyside with other german soldiers its obvious that he has effectively given up his american citizenship and chosen to fight for germany instead and therefore he enjoys no special protections but all of that is a judgment and not a legal definition in essence we are convicting him of actions unbecoming an american citizen based on an avalanche of circumstantial evidence we never formally withdrew his citizenship and notified him of it to me thats no different than an american citizen hanging out in a cave in afghanistan with known members of alqaeda holding a weapon provided by alqaeda having just exited a known alqaeda training camp etc that person is just as obviously an enemy combatant while the imprecise definition of that term and its nature as a government judgment call makes me a little uncomfortable it seems to be the only nonsilly option to your other point about individual vs state and state vs state i dont buy it there is a big difference between one guy shooting a cop on us soil and an acknowledged public member of a large terrorist network simply because alqaeda doesnt have a charge daffairs doesnt mean you cant be at war with them also i think us soil and nonus soil matters here the government obviously has overwhelming force at its disposal so its reasonable to expect it to hamstring itself and avoid collateral damage not so overseas we are not really capable of sending delta force people to abduct and arrest people anywhere we like
so there are two ways to apply for asylum one is to present yourself at a us port of entry with customs and border protection like an airport or a border crossing and claim asylum you are then taken into custody almost like being arrested they create a record for you and take your fingerprints and then ask you about your claim you will then be taken into detention until you have a credible fear interview to determine whether your claim of persecution has merit the wait to have a credible fear interview can be lengthy because there is a shortage of asylum officers if there is a finding of credible fear you are sent to the immigration court for asylum proceedings if not you are placed in deportation proceedings and barred from the us for five years the other method is an affirmative application with uscis which must occur within one year of your entry to the us you can apply whether in lawful status or not the issue for many people who are fleeing countries that are in generalized chaos is that they may not qualify under our asylum laws which require that you have been persecuted based on one of five things your race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political opinion so someone fleeing violence that is not based on your immutable characteristics for example a gangster extorting money from everyone in your neighborhood would not qualify the “particular social group” prong has evolved over time my old firm successfully argued that someone with aids in uganda or a girl fleeing genital mutilation in cameroon were members of particular social groups that faced persecution recently jeff sessions narrowed this denying asylum to women fleeing domestic abuse and gang violence in el salvador in matter of ab the volokh conspiracy has a great article about how cruel this was and how the narrowness of our asylum laws wouldn’t have helped people who suffered under some of the world’s worst dictators
"the sub needs to clean up its standards for requiring citations college professors wouldn’t require citations for the opinions i’ve listed i believe that my dog loves me there is no citation that could be provided as evidence that this is true dogs tend to love their owners but i could be a horrible person and my dog is chained to a fence and he hates me nothing has ever been written about my mutual love for and by my dog i believe that trump is not in the state of fitness that he and his physician claims him to be i can show a picture of him as proof but i’ve never touched him or taken his bloodwork or blood pressure all supporting official evidence claims that he’s the fittest president we’ve ever had and he’s going to live to 200 to the casual observer those official statements would be understood as hyperbole and as bullshit i have seen that he needs to hold onto the rail as he descends on stairs from air force one he’s clearly not a thin person what sort of citation could be provided to state that he isn’t the pinnacle of health besides another persons opinion what sort of citation would i need to provide to validate an opinion that is mine this was a list of opinions based on current news they do have supporting news pieces throughout the web and on tv or i wouldn’t have known about them to have the opinion but the ominous requirement that opinions need to be cited to validate them isn’t in line with the logic that exceptional claims need exceptional proof and mundane and common opinions and commonly known facts do not if i were to claim that trump is a muppet and putin is the artist controlling the strings you betcha i want to see something supporting those claims if i were to say trump has funky hair that’s common knowledge and should t require supporting information citations as you require them serve only to dampen discourse it is the exceptional that needs to be supported with citations not the common "
he repeatedly reneged on handshake agreements with democratic leadership over daca and the shutdown trump’s  chief of staff john kelly stood next to him during the call as the president offered his objection to a deal he had seemed bullish on just hours earlier it was evident that kelly was there the source said because trump would continually ask the “general” to recount what specific problems both he and congressional republicans had with specific elements kelly who had joined trump and schumer for lunch earlier in the day but not raised any objections during that meeting would call schumer later to explain that a deal was off in a negotiation that was filmed presumably because trump wanted to show what a great dealmaker he was agreed to sign whatever deal a bipartisan group of law came up with nice negotiating and then later backed out with cameras rolling he pledged to sign any compromise lawmakers could craft only to reject the outcome days later this echoes his negotiating style in the business world as well the consistent circumstances laid out in those lawsuits and other nonpayment claims raise questions about trump’s judgment as a businessman and as a potential commander in chief the number of companies and others alleging he hasn’t paid suggests that either his companies have a poor track record hiring workers and assessing contractors or that trump businesses renege on contracts refuse to pay or consistently attempt to change payment terms after work is complete as is alleged in dozens of court cases and from trump himself same article as above let’s say that they do a job that’s not good or a job that they didn’t finish or a job that was way late i’ll deduct from their contract absolutely that’s what the country should be doing this does not paint a picture of a person who you would expect to negotiate openly honestly or even rationally and only a fool would trust him to hold up his end of a bargain
"so i think your question isnt really your question is a two party democratic absolutely without a doubt the definition of democracy linked is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections whether you use ranked choice runoffs fptp or any other voting method the principle is still the same supreme power is in the voters and they exercise their power through elections whether theres multiple parties or not voters have ultimate choice even with only 2 parties voters can write in candidates now that doesnt mean that each system of democracy is equal or that they all have the same benefits and consequences but even that is hard to quantify multiple parties may give better representation but also may require significant change in the us duvergers law says that fptp voting in single member districts tends to lead to the two party system but its not an absolute canada sees multiple parties in power and even more represented for instance multiple other indicators in the us system may also contribute to the strength of the two party system most notably is the way the electoral college works while duvergers law says fptp favors two parties the electoral college seals the deal a third party has zero chance with a third party having zero chance in the presidential election tactical voting becomes important for all federal elections reinforcing adherence to the two party system i think a two party system meets the definition of a democracy just fine but that doesnt mean its not without flaws those flaws however may not be solved by adding a third party however but rather may be the result of other factors within the country in the us the two party system would probably be best addressed by looking at the electoral college first and foremost and then possibly at fptp systems "
well the belief is how you interpret which side of the argument is in the right like the masterpiece cakeshop case it was an argument over the rights of the baker vs the rights of the couple the constitution says that they have equal rights does the baker get to choose whom he does business with or does the couple get to choose who to buy from thats obviously not the argument of the case its about protected classes etc dont eviscerate me please thats the reason that 95 of cases go to the supreme court its because its a grey area of constitutionality or rights in citizens united the question was do corporations or groups in individual citizens acting in unison have free speech rights thats a constitutional question with no left or right stance it just happens that the left and right parties in america have chosen sides in the argument so that the courts seem partisan it would seem reasonable that in an alternate universe citizens united could have easily been afl cio vs fec with similar arguments and the left would have chosen for the unions to be allowed free spending in elections basically there are 2 schools of thought to constitutionality that the constitution should be interpreted as originally intended with strict rights and limited government the other is that the constitution is a living document and the interpretation should evolve with the changing nature of the republic thats where you get the differences the conservative thought process would say that citizens united is protected speech under the constitution as envisioned by the founders the liberal position would be that the original intent of the constitution could in no way have predicted that elections would be able to be bought and sold by people who had more money and power than 95 of the constituency therefore the speech rights of those with deep pockets should be limited because it can inhibit the democratic rights of the masses
"i dont think your sure holds up looking at you links from your quora link montesquieu for short his magnum opus the spirit of the law laid out the concept of separation of state power or as were familiar with it the 3 branches of the federal government in the us and many other countries aside not sure if you can say this was the moral basis but it certainly was the most important work mechanistically to the drafting of the constitution lets look at montesquieu born on january 18 1689 in bordeaux france montesquieu was trained in the classics as well as the law in 1722 he began his literary career when he published the persian letters a famous insightful satire of parisian and french society although he published other works as well his most influential volume was the spirit of the laws your second link also rejects your idea it says specifically the spirit of laws is a treatise on political theory its not a work of scientific theory nor is it attributed to science not surprising as montesquieu was trained in law i think to best answer your question you have to look at who wrote the constitution collectively we call them the framers these framers were for the most part lawyers and business people they were not scientists though the oldest franklin was an inventor so ill give you him when people speak of the framers and their work they dont talk of science more often youll see references to profession or religion the delegates who also became known as the “framers” of the constitution were a welleducated group that included merchants farmers bankers and lawyers many had served in the continental army colonial legislatures or the continental congress known as the congress of the confederation as of 1781 in terms of religious affiliation most were protestants i can find no reputable work that says these men of law and business used scientific principles as the basis for articles in the us constitution "
so this is about obstruction not collusion however their argument is unconvincing about obstruction this is trump jr’s media statement on july 8 2017 following the new york times’ reporting that he had met with russians in trump tower in june 2016 “it was a short introductory meeting i asked jared kushner and paul manafort to stop by we primarily discussed a program about the adoption of russian children that was active and popular with american families years ago and was since ended by the russian government but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up” that statement was false the meeting was not primarily about adoption emails and statements have demonstrated it was primarily about “dirt” on hillary clinton provided by russian sources rob goldstone’s initial email informed trump jr that a russian contact “offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father” trump jr replied “if it’s what you say i love it especially later in the summer” none of their 16 email exchanges mentions “adoptions” the meeting was not about adoptions this is no gray area trump jr’s statement was a lie it’s also not clear that “there was no followup” the president’s lawyers’ description of it in their letter as “accurate” is to put it mildly inaccurate this is wrong look at the statement we primarily discussed a program about the adoption of russian children that was active and popular with american families years ago and was since ended by the russian government the author states it is false because it says the meeting was not primarily about adoption but thats not what the statement says it says primarily discussed was adoption it clearly didnt tell the whole story of the purpose of the meeting but we do not have in evidence that was not the primary discussion
fundamentally the two directions we can push is making these jobs more attractive higher wages better working conditions subsidies to employers etc and making not working more unattractive reduction in welfare work requirements for social services etc i suspect we need both directions increasing the wages and making the jobs more attractive will help but due to the inherent difficulty of the work they need to compete not with just alternative employment but with unemployment as well on one hand i feel like a lot of employers are complaining about higher wages unreasonably if 15 isnt enough they should pay 25 and if 25 isnt enough than 50 if the problem isnt just wages but working conditions 60 hour weeks under the hot sun does sound dreadful then employers would have to improve working conditions with shorter hours more breaks equipment to make the work less difficult etc sure it would raise costs and encourage automation but thats a completely acceptable tradeoff in 3rd world countries middle class people have livein servants for dollars a day you could say oh no i cant find a livein nannyhousekeeper for 300month something is wrong with the labor policy but thats unreasonable we as a society dont want to solve that problem by creating an underclass to fill those jobs on the other hand most progressive social policies exacerbate the difficulty as they make the alternative to taking a difficult farm hotel cleaning etc job more attractive for example an increase in the minimum wage compresses wages whereas before 2030hr would be 35 times what a mcjob pays and would attract people to go through the effort raising the minimum wage to 15 means that the same 2030hr looks much worse provision of food stamps expanded medicaid coverage tanf etc all provides an alternative to unpleasant employment and makes it difficult to find legal farm laborers without hiking the wages to completely absurd levels
" the us holds the opinion that maduro is a dictator the us also held the opinion chavez was a dictator despite international observers not agreeing here is what jimmy carter said about venezuelas dictatorship a few weeks ago as a matter of fact of the 92 elections that weve monitored i would say that the election process in venezuela is the best in the world peru holds this opinion as well eh no from the source kuczynski had been one of maduro’s most outspoken critics calling him a “dictator” and demanding he step down but kuczynski resigned after a scandal last month and was replaced by his vice president martin vizcarra vizcarra declined to weigh in on maduro and the summit last week saying he would leave it up to the foreign ministry from your other source nicolás maduro is a dictator called caudillo in venezuela in the strict sense of the word because whatever he dictates gets done…period…no questions asked which contradicts another source you posted and yet … maduro doesn’t really matter he is simply a useful idiot the puppet of those who really control venezuela the cubans the drug traffickers and hugo chavez’s political heirs those three groups effectively function as criminal cartels and have coopted the armed forces into their service this is how it is possible that every day we see men in uniform willing to massacre their own people in order to keep venezuela’s criminal oligarchy in power the most important component of this oligarchy is the cuban regime so can you get the talking points in order nicolasmaduro has never admitted to being a dictator neither did fidel castro so does this fact prove that neither is a dictator i didnt ask him to admit it i asked which definition you used exactly and now you are not really clarifying things as the us considered chavez a dictator despite having free and open elections so you seem to be mixing definitions of what constitutes a dictator"
thats all well and good but i do not believe the above average person of even substantial intelligence can parse this guided by the charter of the united nations the universal declaration of human rights the vienna declaration and programme of action and other relevant international human rights instruments reaffirming all resolutions and decisions adopted by the commission on human rights and the human rights council on the effects of structural adjustment and economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights particularly economic social and cultural rights the latest being council resolution 343 of 23 march 2017 reaffirming also its resolution 3411 of 23 march 2017 reaffirming further its resolution s101 of 23 february 2009 on the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights bearing in mind paragraph 6 of general assembly resolution 60251 of 15 march 2006 stressing that one of the purposes of the united nations is to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic social cultural or humanitarian character emphasizing that the world conference on human rights agreed to call upon the international community to make all efforts to help to alleviate the external debt burden of developing countries in order to supplement the efforts of the governments of such countries to attain the full realization of the economic social and cultural rights of their people etc etc etc for 3 more pages to discover that its a horrifically bad resolution even given the ludicrous assumption they would actually read it in the first place rather i would just be reading some article by somewhere by someone who may not have read it themselves and that article would be quoted by someone else etc etc all under the belief that if the un human rights council said it
this study had a very small sample size from the article you posted the family case management program that is being shuttered had 630 families enrolled as of april 19 also of note these people had been vetted beforehand they had passed initial interviews proving themselves to be genuine asylum seekers so of course this sample is much more likely to show up for court hearings also from what you posted to qualify for the program participants had proven in initial interviews a legitimate credible fear of returning to their home countries the real rate of failure to show up for court has been about 3737 over the past 20 years 37 percent of all aliens free pending their trials — 918098 out of 2498375 — never showed for court edit points noted the real issue is that these 630 families are not representative of the population of all aliens who are released pending their trials the study is fine for judging the effectiveness of the family case management program but meaningless for drawing conclusions about the larger population of illegal aliens who are released since cis has a conservative bias on immigration i have also found a source that cites a different study on the same subject but for the years 2003 2012 the reader pointed us to a report from the bipartisan policy center a think tank founded by former congressional leaders of both parties that cited figures far smaller than 90 percent the report used figures from the executive office for immigration review which is tasked by the justice department with handling immigration court proceedings appellate reviews and administrative hearings between 2003 and 2012 the percentage of all immigrants who failed to appear in court after being released has bounced between 20 percent and 40 percent settling in at about 30 percent at the end of that time span no data for children specifically is available from this longrunning data set
" i mean who is it thats performing the testing you suggest if its the very government that you already distrust this seems rather circular no not the government experts in the actual fields if you want to pass water quality policy legislation then it needs to pass a factual review by you know people who are actually professional water quality researcherspractitioners are lobbyists not exactly the highly educated subjectmatter experts that we were seeking to empower just a moment ago umm no lobbyists are working for a particular cause trust me i know lots of them these would be experts maybe drawn from the same populations as lobbyists but not you know working for health partners or whomever im not sure how this explains why people wouldnt take to the streets over being disenfranchised they would they would just lose now andor be less interested in doing so since it would be clear they would lose accountable to their constituents hahahahahahahahahahaha a scotus judge can be impeached by congress thats someone well you could have a similar system also the above sort of questions how they are actually accountable since it has happened never or maybe once anyway the idea that we are still operating under a system designed before corporations were used for much other than building the local bridge and the industrial revolutionmass communication were enacted is just laughable i would probably go for something like stripping executivecongress of a lot of power give a portion of that back to the people to use for radical plebiscites issues that are not factual that congress wastes a lot of time on renaming post offices and what is the national symbol and so on and then also carve out another large chunk to be handled by technocrats who probably need to both pass extremely difficult tests andor be appointedelected by their peers to actually make the decisions on matters of fact"
also as an aside i find the rule g of the sub kind of frustrating because it seems to eliminate many questions that could be easily answered without speculation while also allowing questions which require speculation for instance suppose i asked according to fifa rules what would happen if a player received two yellow cards in a match regardless of the tense of the subclause the question is about fifa rules and the answer to it is they would be upgraded to a red card and the player would be ejected thats not speculation thats what the rules dictate but rule g prevents this question from being posted because of the word would the rulebook can only ever be applied to future situations which means it is impossible to ask about its application without referring to the future or to get a bit more abstract what time will the sun rise tomorrow at lat long this is a question clearly about the future sure but is the answer to it really speculation if so the subs facts only stance has a pretty radically narrow epistemological view of what gets to count as a fact whereas on the other hand one of the posts right now on the front page of the sub is what happens now with the travel ban given that now is an instantaneous moment its not really possible to discuss it to rephrase what they seem to be actually asking more grammatically you would say what will happen with the travel ban going forward but that question is about the future and therefore disallowed under rule g but arent they still asking about the future doesnt an actual answer to their question require speculation will congress pass a new law will it be enforced as is will the un condemn it will international pressure cause dt to reverse it how can we say what happens now without speculating but their question is allowed because they quasigrammatically asked it as what happens now which technically doesnt violate rule g
fact checkorg now that president donald trump has been in office for one day shy of a full year it’s time to take a look at how well his boasts — and his critics’ complaints — stack up against hard data here we offer key measures of what has happened since trump was sworn in on jan 20 2017 according to the most uptodate and reliable statistical sources available some highlights employment growth slowed by 12 percent nevertheless the unemployment rate kept dropping reaching a 17year low the number of job vacancies rose also to a nearly 17year record economic growth picked up to a 32 percent annual rate in the julyseptember quarter from 15 percent for all of 2016 the number of people caught trying to cross the border with mexico fell by nearly half the number of refugee admissions fell by 70 percent restrictions in the federal regulatory rulebook continued to grow but at less than half the pace during the two previous administrations the number of coal mining jobs which trump promised to bring back went up by only 500 manufacturing jobs grew just a bit faster than total employment real weekly wages rose 11 percent corporate profits and stock prices hit new records the number of people without health insurance went up — by 200000 according to a government survey and by 32 million according to a more recent gallup poll the us trade deficit that trump promised to bring down grew instead getting 115 percent larger the number of people on food stamps which trump wants to cut grew by nearly 3 million the federal debt rose nearly 3 percent projected annual deficits worsened trump won confirmation for a dozen federal appeals court judges — quadruple the number obama put on the bench during his first year the us image abroad took a hit the number of foreigners telling pollsters they have a favorable view of the usa fell nearly everywhere the only big gain was in russia
exactly i had good grades in high school high placement test scores but felt uncomfortable taking out loans for college i calculated that the roi for an average college degree was already low and plummeting i saw it as a bad investment after one year one semester really i dropped out and sought work in food service “flipping burgers” because it was the only thing i could think to do at the time at least i was making my own money instead of spending someone else’s i was also learning how a business operated i realized it was sort of a paid internship in a way which made me feel a little better about the circumstances i scraped together all of the money from my minimum wage job over the first year of work to pay off the college loans that hadn’t already been covered by scholarships i toiled away for 4 years as my friends stayed in school or gradually began to drop out i am the district manager of my company now with no debt and a healthy salary it would be very frustrating to have taxpayers cover the cost of someone else’s poor financial decisions my sister is going to a 60kyear college next year i have gone over the numbers with her to exhaustion but she still doggedly maintains that she is going and that there is nothing i can do to dissuade her if that’s your decision you live with it and you scrape together money to pay for it like i and countless other people have done my friends were living it up for 4 years while i worked night shifts now they are paying for their fun i would have loved to stay and take college courses meet new people party network and take advantage of everything else the university has to offer but the price was not right if i have an itch to learn something there are free lectures on youtube there are books there is the internet i am 100 on board with halting this cycle as quickly as possible but bailing people out is not the answer
" why do all business owners need to or think they should be making close to million a year as a bench mark of success id want to point out that it isnt 100 the case though it does seem to be a significant factor the business i ran i paid nearly what i made because i based the pay off what the labor itself was worth as opposed to what i would like and to some extent deserved to take home when i could no longer make enough profit to continue doing business due to market changes i closed the business it sucked but thats the reality of business if you cant do business as efficiently as the competition you are pushed out of the market and the links in this thread seem to point to business owners trying to fight the forces of the market i think that this indicates that many of the business owners arent looking at things as objectively as they should if their product isnt turning enough of a profit to justify paying a fair wage then they absolutely should be looking at things like automation or other changes to their process to make it more efficient underpaying employees just does a disservice to everyone involved the business comes to rely on unsustainable savings and the employees arent left with enough money to even attempt to better themselves and establish a better future changes in process although cutting jobs in the short term do provide other opportunities in the future maintenance of automation equipment development etc that being said i completely agree with you that the demand for ever increasing profits is eventually going to cause significant issues while i dont have any studies that i can cite i cant help but see a situation where the only effective way to increase shareholder profit is by cutting wages which effectively reduces the number of consumers if enough businesses do so whos left to consume besides other businesses and executives"
"you may find yourself interested in a book called the locust effect by gary haugen haugen takes a close look at the negative effects of living outside the protection of the law for the poor of the world ill confess i havent finished it yet but as you can imagine its a very cruel world for these people and haugen argues one of the main problems is the fact that they have no protection from those that would prey on them i cant recommend it highly enough if you want to explore this topic with some depth edit to add links as requested by sub rules while the world has made encouraging strides in the fight against global poverty there is a hidden crisis silently undermining our best efforts to help the poor it is a plague of everyday violencebeneath the surface of the worlds poorest communities common violence like rape forced labor illegal detention land theft police abuse and other brutality has become routine and relentless and like a horde of locusts devouring everything in their path the unchecked plague of violenceruins lives blocks the road out of poverty and undercuts development how has this plague of violence grown so ferocious the answer is terrifying and startlingly simple theres nothing shielding the poor from violent people in one of the most remarkable and unremarked upon social disasters of the last half century basic public justice systems in thedeveloping world have descended into a state of utter collapse gary a haugen and victor boutros offer a searing account of how we got here and what it will take to end the plague filled with vivid reallife stories and startling new data the locust effect is a gripping journey into the streets and slums where fear is a daily reality for billions of theworlds poorest where safety is secured only for those with money and where much of our wellintended aid is lost in the daily chaos of violence "
"to be clear im not defaming the character of the website or the author or his entire essay i went back and and looked at my original response where i discussed my problems with sites like politifact i can see how that can come off as dismissive and reeking of bias i do not like when others cast broad strokes so i should refrain from doing it myself so again i dont mean to cast aspersion on politifact or the author of this paper i simply suggest that there is data within the text that directly contradicts the headline that does not show its work so to speak in other words it does not provide even an allusion to how this conclusion was reached so while it may be an incredibly wellinformed judgement based on the facts and the author may be the worlds foremost expert in us immigration law and current events the article still does not provide the reader any of the facts regarding the rate of detection yet claims that detention was not obamas policy although again i may have missed it am i supposed to just take the authors at their words that their judgment is correct without being able to look at the data they used or even get a hint as to how they came to their conclusion i never said the opinion is wrong i never meant to attack the source my only point was that there is data missing to back up the assertion the tacit admission that obama did the same thing yet it wasnt nearly as often directly contradicts the implication in the headline that it was not an obama policy if anything it was a policy that was expanded however greatly under trump but certainly not started by trump if i responded to someone on this subreddit saying youre wrong trump didnt do it nearly as much as obama then my comment would be deleted for not having a source for my conclusion surely a reputable establishment like politifact should be held to at least the same standard "
"your source legit also says social activities heres a direct quote from the 1967 ammendment of the refugee rights charter which was building off the universal declaration of human rights a person who owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race religion nationality membership of a particular social group or political opinion ok so imagine im in a small village in honduras my only son is 14 and has been harassed recently by gang members about joining he spurned them because he wants to go to school instead and they beat him up and then promise one day soon theyll come back and finish him off cops wont do anything because theyre either corrupt also scared of the gang or simply unable if we stay we risk being one of the hundreds of thousands killed in the gang violence related to the us war on drugs in central america a very real possibility when you look at the stats clearly refusal to participate in illegal activities under threat of duress marks you as a member of a certain social group not being a gang member hell with how corrupt and powerful some of the gangs are that may even tie into political opinion i dont understand how someone from the above situation but was guaranteed theyd come after the son is in any less danger or has less serious claim than say someone back in the 50s who was threatened with lynching for an interracial relationship in the south its the social activity of spurning membership in a group participating thats putting them in danger given the stats of violence related to drugs and gang activity in central america they are literally some of the most dangerous places on earth low single digits numbers of crimes get solved clearly their own governments cant offer them protection and there have been cases where corrupt officials participate or aid gangs in finding or killing targets "
" you would find them because if there are lots of women who want to get into the pot business and cant because they are facing discriminatory barriers they would bring those suits this is nonsense how would the individual know they are discriminated against its pretty much impossible to prove that suppose a guy says i dont want that nword working for me you could still no prove that is discrimination so this is literally next to if not actually impossible like the naacp or now have done in the past which only works if these things go on for years if not decades if not centuries heres the reason why assuming occupation demographics and population dont line up is a bad metric in 2011 there were 35 million employed nurses in 2011 about 32 million of whom were female and 330000 male ok and how many males want to be nurses so if we were to take your metric we would conclude that men are being discriminated against and that men need special legislation to ensure that we have an equal number of male and female nurses possibly you missed my comment about how many women want to be in the business so i now eagerly await the number of men that wants to be a nurse otherwise it seems halve my argument was ignored as far as to how i would fix it i dont think you can answer that in the abstract because every situation is so different your argument is to let it happen for a decent amount of time possibly decades so we can gather the evidence let me ask a simple question would you find it fair to take and punish all those that got an unfair advantage from the discrimination existing or do you then say well indeed these people benefited from discrimination but thats totally fine if i were convinced that there was discrimination but you seem impossibly to be convinced of that and why would wait to investigate until you are already convinced "
"something i learned in law school and that might be helpful in this discussion is that when we talk about “duty” or “duty of care” in law it is a very specific thing it essentially means a legal obligation to behave in a careful way that doesn’t hurt other people if i owe you a duty but i fail to be careful or i am careless then i have breached my duty and i am responsible under the law to pay for all your injuries and pain and suffering caused by by behavior examples of legal duties include manufacturers owe a duty of care to people who use their products if my lawnmower has a tendency to explode then i am liable to you for your injury when yours explodes this is why we have product recalls property owners owe a duty of care to people on their property if my property has bear traps all over it and i invite you over for movie night and your ankle is severed i am liable to you i have a smaller duty to you if you sneak on my property without my permission in this case usually only if the bear traps are hidden this is why people put warning signs all over their properties doctors owe a duty of care to patients if i remove your testicles instead of your appendix i am liable to you this is why medical malpractice exists so if doctors have a duty then why don’t we make first responders have a duty of care well first responders do owe the public a duty of care so police officers are liable for injuries caused by their shooting their guns up into the air but they don’t owe anyone a specific duty of care so if a police officer accidentally shoots you while aiming at the bad guy he is not liable to you or if an emt attempts to revive you but accidentally kills you instead he is not liable to you the reason for this exception is that we want first responders to be able to perform their duties without worrying about avoiding lawsuits "
" i see your point but just to play devils advocate that’s part of what government does distributing wealth to those who need it i personally find that incredibly disgusting the concept of government wealth redistribution by that logic we should cut social security medicaid medicare subsidized housing defending other nations tax cuts to wealthy business owners to spur job creation etc yea we should cut all those things except the tax cuts part tax cuts dont cost anything you cant say letting someone keep their money is wealth redistribution a college degree is pretty much required to get stable employment these days so you could argue that most young adults don’t have as much of choice as you portray i chose to go to a commuter school within my price range to get a marketable degree and graduated with no college debt and got a decent paying job i should not have to pay for the mistakes of people who decided they wanted to go to an expensive party school for liberal arts degrees why should i have to pay their their partying and college experiences they should be responsible for their own choices the other part is the fact that so many people have college degrees now devalues college degrees and countries with free college see higher youth unemployment and more people getting useless degrees why should the tax payer pay social security for those who chose not to prepare better for retirement they shouldnt but at least everyone pays in to social security and everyone gets money back out of social security if i have to pay off other peoples college debts after paying for my on college how is that fair etc that’s a dangerous reasoning to apply because it could be used to argue against pretty much all government spending funded by taxes yea we need to eliminate the vast majority of government spending and taxes "
this is not a conspiracy theorythis has actually happened and under the obama the justice department released the awlaki memo which essentially gave the doj full authority to use drones to spy on and kill american citizens travelling abroad if they are considered a threat to american values guess who gets to decide if said person is a threat to american values the president read the memo now the guy they killed was anwar alawlaki an al quaeda leader but he was also an american citizen as was his 16 year old son who was later executed via drone stroke under direct orders of obama 2 weeks after awlaki was dronned now the first few instances of this were used to take out obvious terrorist threats at least that we know of this memo was highly classified and came out only after a very arduous investigation by the aclu you can read the memo here here is an excerpt from said memo in the words of our own government “there are few questions more important than the question of when the government has the authority to kill its own citizens” “this memo’s release will allow the public to better understand the scope and implications of the authority the government is claiming we will continue to press for the release of other documents relating to the targeted killing program including other legal memos and documents relating to civilian casualties” however we dont know if any other americans were killed under orders by this memo our government has used programs like this to target political enemies in the past such as the american eugenics society so its possible the president could use this program to eliminate political opposition travelling abroad a good example would be someone like an antitrump political columnsit travelling abroad and trump ordering a drone strike because he is a threat to our american values
" no i dont think you have to wait if i wanted to impose a law tomorrow that said asians need to pay 3x the income tax you could immediately dismiss that as an undue burden what if you redline districts and declare them ineligible for federal aid what if you make a law that punishes crack a 1001 compared to powdered cocaine what if there is a law about literacy tests before voting it was not me who said you joined a conversation where that was a part and i referenced someone else comment about it where do i claim you said this again we dont just find a dead body and assume murder why not why would this be bad i dont think the standard of showing proof for claims of discrimination is impossible it is not impossible to show that someone murdered another person how is this relevant murder is a different crime from discrimination you agree yeah so tell me exactly how would you prove discrimination in real life the argument can be made immediately that this is an undue burden no wait time needed so how would you immediately proof that literacy tests would be an undue burden on black people i suggest we make a policy which corrects for the issue and move on i think its a very bad idea to try to fix all historical acts of wrongdoing by punishing the beneficiaries so your proposed plan is let discrimination happen while its going on while you are collecting evidence and we need a pretty high burden if i understand you correctly and then after it happened we dont need to fix the historical wrong so basically see no evil and then dont fix it in other words i dont think its right to kill the grandchild of the man who killed my grandfather nor to try to take his land yeah i get your point let the crime happen and dont do justice after it happened its the classic conservative view point of oppression of people "
im not saying that at all theres minimum wage which probably undervalues the labor involved with some jobs not all of them as i mentioned are producepicking and construction cooking can be highstress but the working conditions are a lot better for the pay and then theres fair wage which is paying them at least the value of the labor employers these days rarely want to pay fair wages thats the reason why corporate profits have gone up while the median wage has barely trudged upward in terms of immigration we are already taking both people with high qualifications and lowskilled laborers the problem is that the process is so lengthy and expensive that its a barrier to the lowskilled laborers which results in illegal immigration as far as skills if an employer is willing to sponsor someones visa or green card then the onus is on them to assess the foreigners capability just because you hear anecdotes of poorly trained engineers which i have no doubt are true doesnt mean there arent equal amounts of anecdotes of highly competitive engineers or scientists or doctors when those people come they should be paid fair wages too imo im just saying that our consumer society as it exists with plateaued wages and increasing wealth gaps means families are less likely to purchase more expensive products even if that means workers were paid fair wages for example certain people are now more conscious about organic foods or humane treatment of livestock but actually being able to opt for the more expensive product is a luxury afforded to welltodo families a working class or middle class family will probably choose whatevers on sale this is why i said its a complicated economics issue labor immigration and the economy are all tightly wound together and lots of moving parts of those things in the us are fucked up
i mean if youre prepared for a zombie pandemic then youre prepared for a whole lot of things that might have a lot of intersection its odd but its a useful thing to be prepared for zombie scenarios are somewhat like an extreme epidemic that is killing people along with extreme social unrest and violence you have to keep quarantines and be prepared to handle widespread violence you have to be prepared if for some reason tons of military stop working with you if cops and emergency services stop doing their part if youre prepared for insurgents and zombies youre prepared to stop and recover from a revolution practically the cdc had a guide to prepping for zombies as well and their argument if i remember correctly was that the sort of concerns youd have with a zombie apocalypse will align and prepare you for all sorts of other disasters have plenty of water and food lighting medicine bug in if everyone was prepared for zombies theyd likely be prepared in a reasonable way for a storm that knocks out power hurricanes earthquakes social unrest etc your average citizen would be reasonably prepared for your average disaster just stay in your home and make sure you have everything you need to last a few weeks and you can sit until emergency services are ready to save you they dont want people looting on day 3 because they dont have water it might take a week or two for them to get resources to people if its a widespread disaster on top of that its just good marketing and adds some fun to emergency preparedness they present something thats fun to read and think about but at the same time theyre saying seriously do this stuff found the cdc zombie stuff and its not a bad idea to follow it most people should have at least 3 days of water stocked for an emergency but its really not as common as it should be
"may the judicial branch enforce a judicial law on the executive branch that was not passed by the legislative branch or signed by the executive branch i was once told that there is no law titled contempt of court in my state nonetheless this judicial law is real and it applies to me if a court decides that it does i presume that there is also no such federal law am i correct there is a distinction here i am not the unitary head of the executive branch so the separation of powers principles do not apply to me is there any precedent in either statutory or especially common law in the law of madison where the judicial branch has constrained the unitary head of the executive branch in regard to contempt of court if the president may not interpret our constitution then he or the doj may not decline to defend a case based upon an executive branch finding they would be obligated to seek a judicial finding trump and obama in arguing that statutes are unconstitutional are simply making an argument before the courts and leaving it to the courts vested with the judicial power to actually judge the cases and issue binding orders i was under the impression that based upon an executive branch finding that there was no defense offered and that the judiciary were not involved in deciding this is there or should there be an analogous executive branch law applied to the chief justice that need not be consented to by the other two branches i think not which section of our constitution states that constitutional interpretation is exclusively reserved to the judicial branch does marbury v madison state that constitutional interpretation is exclusively reserved to the judicial branch is there any such finding if no prosecutor refers a presidential action to the judicial branch may it take any action of any kind "
" they shouldn’t be considered criminals for not doing it the proper way and we need to recognize their situation isn’t conducive to being able to follow those rules the rules are shitty no argument there as citizens we should work to change them but in the interim we must follow them this applies equally for visitors first im not canadian so i dont care as much what they do nor do i know what they are doing 2nd the canadians werent separating kids from their parents 3rd the only way for these people to get to canada is go through the us so the point is kind of moot were concerned about the welfare of foreign citizens its as much our problem as it is canadas also the only way to get through to southern border of the us is through mexico so every one of these immigrants who are not citizens of mexico are not our problem for the same reasons you state this is not canadas problem i am saying we shouldn’t automatically disqualify the people her e because they didn’t fill out all then paperwork and have all the documentation filled out on arrival we shouldn’t have separated kids from their families as a deterrent to people trying to immigrate here we dont automatically disqualify them people are still being provided refugee status i agree that protecting children is important and believe that intaking claims like this in person puts us in a position where we must become directly responsible for the welfare of these kids which will never end up good the executive order puts a stop to the separation so at least that policy will not return ultimately i think we should err on the side of being good people once again no argument here id imagine most people dont think theyre erring on the side of being bad people statements like this however offer zero nuance to what is an incredibly complex situation "
severability or the lack thereof is not as controversial an issue as you are drumming it up to be the doj is espousing a legal theory that the mandate is not severable similar to how obamas doj espoused the unsettled legal theory albeit ultimately correct regarding gay rights both administrations argued two different unsettled legal issues the only difference is what legal issue they are arguing over on severability ill only add that even the obama administration conceded that much of the aca was not severable the trump doj is certainly not the first to argue that the entire aca is so intertwined with the individual mandate that none of the aca works without the mandate from the abovelinked article even the administration concedes that the individual mandate is not severable from the prohibition on considering preexisting conditions if the individual mandate is unconstitutional the muchtouted ban on preexisting condition exclusions has to go as well but how does the mandate interact with the rest of the long complex 2700page law a group of 103 economists led by former congressional budget office director doug holtzeakin and including two nobel prize winners has filed an amicus brief arguing that the individual mandate is so intertwined with other provisions that it cant really be separated from the rest of the law either if all youre left with is the doctrine of standing then youre not left with much if youd like to dig in on standing lets have at it but standing is a boring arcane area of constitutional law that judges apply inconsistently simply in order to bring about the foregone result that they want without having to address the merits of the underlying issues it doesnt bother me in the slightest that the doj isnt raising the standing arguments that you mention
in order to stay longer a nonimmigrant visa holder would need to seek out an immigrant visa which ultimately leads to a green card to get an employmentbased green card as opposed to a familybased green card an employer in the us needs to agree to spend thousands of dollars on government fees required to go through the process of sponsoring someone also the employer needs to prove that there is a gap in the labor market in the us at the time of application and that the foreign employee really is the only person qualified and willing at that time to perform the job duties of their position the foreigner needs to then maintain the same job or a substantially similar job for at least the next year or two assuming they do not come from a country with a yearslong backlog in order to finally apply for their actual green card the government is taking up to a year to process green card applications so the whole process if all goes smoothly takes years and thousands upon thousands of dollars from both the employer and the foreign national one important thing i would like to add i know bleeding edge cloud software devs from india who iirc are usa residents on h1bs going for green cards during the obama administration and they worked for a contracting company 23 years later their client offered them full time employment and that conversion moved them to the back of the line for green card which is 10 years long they have like 7 years to go so the implications of current immigration i see that i havent seen in other comments are the us h1b backlog of people from india and possibly other countries is 510 years long existing visa holders changing employers resets their place in line for getting a green card even if the employer employee cross all their ts and dot all their is
" simple ensure equal opportunity under the law enforce nondescrimination then leave it alone how like widely established the law can be racist then enforcing the law equally would still be discriminatory the law can be equal but enforcement can be discriminatory and private citizens and businesses can discriminate how does your approach solve anything but that can almost always be traced to things like life choices having a kid and taking time off work or more aggressive salary negotiating by men no offence but using that logic it’s literally impossible for there to exist discrimination as you can always just claim men are better negotiators as for having children as a choice that’s just strange it’s the survival of the species you are talking about you saying women that want a good career can’t have babies why not when women are the majority of both enrollees and graduates at colleges i agree today that form of discrimination has been largely eliminated from universities but what changed for women why weren’t they the majority in 1920 or 1950 or 1970 etc not really the author of the article just threw out a bunch of reasons they thought that that was the case he quoted expert opinions all of which agree it isn’t personal choice but barriers have you ever considered most women just arent that in to welding yeah and then i read the article about it that explained the abuse women face when they want to be a welder sure thats great but that doesnt mean you should expect that for every industry i don’t but you really should ask yourself why those numbers changed after antidiscrimination laws being passed if it was personal choice it shouldn’t have changed much right like what youre doing quote me where i did that if you don’t i will report for lack of civility "
" i don’t know if this got deleted before you had a chance to look at it she is completely biased but the things she’s listing are happening unlike the “hillary is running a child porn trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor” hers are “widely reported” and from reputable journalists and using multiple credible sources most of the folks who are watching this shitshow and not getting their news from a few narrow and purposefully biased sources that tend to distort select filter and misportray events tend to be furious at the gaslighting and slight of hand tactics the rest of the world is biased against this administration the rest of the free world tends to get their news without the domestic filters we impose on it with corporate ownerships and notably biased and agenda supporting yelling shows pretending to be news pick any article i have no idea how to cite most of this it’s my interpretation of the world and it is unfuckingcitable but one of the simpler worms moderating will fire one of their 22 neurons and decide it is fact without citations note the family resemblance and wikipedia is the most revered journal of the day and arbiter of all truth are opinions only valid if they aren’t original a pondering and not a statement of fact if i say “trump is president” and it’s very common knowledge and there is a no common knowledge exemption does it need to be cited utter bullshit “i think therefore i am” is how every discussion would need to start on every topic every sentence would need a footnote or seven oh shit now i need to cite it and fuck i’m using words and what about the quality of the citations if i just put a link to a shit opinion does that count as being cited a musing or rhetorical question and it shouldn’t need a citation okay 1 2 3 remove "
" its hard for short white men to get into the nba but thats not discrimination because we have accepted meritocracy as a reasonable requirement for hiring selections how many want to be in the nba also i think its quite possibly by the way short players face discrimination in college basketball given that there are and were a bunch of short players that were pretty decent as for the good examples they completely dodged unless the disparate outcome is motivated by intent to discriminate its not clear thats a problem and my question how you would show that so id say they are pretty bad examples as they use impossible standards i dont think i said that i said someone needs to demonstrate someone can be the govt or an individual citizen but the government found there is discrimination and are acting upon it so you disagree with their view right there are certainly lawmakers who think that which is why this is even being debated that does not mean they are correct by putting up a standard that is pretty much impossibly to achieve distinguish a specific policy or set of actions explain why they effect people of a certain group more negatively than the general public in addition to showing they are a burden out of line with standard societal norms so to do this you would have to wait for a decent period yeah and be able to tell exactly how the discrimination works it would be impossible to quickly act upon this we agree about that right so what do you suggest we do after we found out males benefited from discrimination and now have a massive head start on other groups i could accept your approach if we are then fine taking away the business from the people that benefited from discrimination however i think that would be way more messy "
an interesting facet to membership of the wto and trade agreements in general is that they serve to bind economies together which stabilizes countries and makes global war much less likely this is one of the reasons the wto came into being after the cold war world leaders were wary of triggering a global nuclear war after the us and soviet union got so close to the brink and used the wto as a method to settle trade disputes and negotiate trade agreements deputy directorgeneral alan wolffe of the wto gave a recent interesting speech at washington dc outlining how the us used trade to reduce conflict and generate prosperity trade agreements were often used as a foreign policy tool to ensure friendly nations with open markets prospered and belligerent nations with closed markets did not one example of how powerful a tool trade was involves the prosperity of taiwan in the 1960s vs the chinese mainland while mismanagement and famine in led to economic collapse in the chinese mainland in the 1960s taiwan entered a period of rapid economic growth and industrialization as chinas closed markets were picking up the pieces from the failed great leap forward taiwans open markets began to grow at an insane pace one that would be unmatched until chinas mainland liberalized its markets two decades later in 1980 a key component of taiwans 1960 growth were the us aid programmes in 1950 that stabilized prices of food and clothing during the korean war and helped develop its agricultural sector for future growth the us sent over a lot of aid at this time and it helped taiwan develop into a prosperous modern industrialized economy long before mainland china did and in the process the us gained an important ally and valuable trade partner
"as others have said ultimately the constitution places regulation of trade under congresss roof hence the congress has the ability to place whenever limits they so choose on the president here but current law provides the president with incredibly broad authority to disrupt trade to give some pertinent examples start with section 122 of the trade act of 1974 here potus is given authority to impose temporary up to 150 days tariffsquotas on any country with which the us faces a large and serious united states balanceofpayments deficit presidents discretion of course section 301 of the same authorizes the president to retaliate against foreign actions that are unjustified unreasonable or discriminatory there are administrative hurdles here the action must follow a ustr investigation and there must be an attempt to negotiate a settlement with the offending country scope is quite broad including authority to impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of and notwithstanding any other provision of law fees or restrictions on the services of such foreign country for such time as the trade representative determines appropriate the above are sort of mundane sorts of authority used in run of the mill disputes potus does have a nuclear option or two one of which arises from the international emergency economic powers act of 1977 under the above upon declaring the existence of an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security foreign policy or economy of the united states the president can exercise genuinely arbitrary authority over foreign commerce and foreign owned assets in the us in particular the president can block any transactions with a foreign party or freeze foreign controlled assets "
i understand but in terms of trade whether local or global for profit corporations accumulate to low regulated cheap or abundant labour and low tax markets if your country offers it eventually its a magnet except if you are too far from your customers or logistics costs gets too high the question then is what to do about this when your us labour market now understand this and is not too happy with this but unable to do counter act so then protectionism kicks in in the us but ultimately it needs to protect the corporation from itself and labour arbitrage in the long run also opportunistic governments may abuse this ie the tax revenue on the imports or free ride of corporations entering the country for their own political purposes but eventually after 30 years on a global scale its reached an infliction point in the first world nations either your own market is strong enough to handle change or not ie there needs to be a sunset clause on protectionism surely how long does a government have to get their own competitiveness in check lots of people mentioning the status quo its good its not it just perpetuates a bad government policy or protects the non competitive look what the chinese market has done in 20 years from low level third grade country to being dominant force in the east thats great but a sunset clause needs to kick in before its too late in terms of the eu their socialistic and big government and over regulated practices have not helped their competitiveness and even establishing the eu in the first place has complicated it even more but certainly has not improved competitiveness now they cry foal surely all must agree a sunset clause maybe 5 years give it some real impotus to say the least
"regarding bribery 1 the person named in the daily mail story has given an on the record interview confirming the details 2 there are many other bribes which appear to have gone through michael cohen including from novartis att russian superwealthyguy viktor vekselberg and the government of ukraine 3 the ukraine one is the most interesting so far inasmuch as it has both a large payment to the presidents attorney and an official act in exchange to wit the reception of ukraines president for an extensive private meeting with trump since receiving foreign officials is an explicitly listed constitutional duty of the president this would meet even the narrowest official act definition there is an extremely strong basis to investigate the president for bribery the fact that congress is not doing any investigation into such obviously corrupt conduct is if not surprising an indication that partisanship has overtaken any loyalty to principle or constitutional duty regarding state secrets this is an example of the sort of technically legal conduct which in a more sane republic would result in impeachment trump may have the power to make such a decision but making it in the way he did is so detrimental to us interests and so untied to anything but apparent selfdealing with a foreign power whose crimes against americans he has been a cheerleader for that no sane republic would allow such a leader to hold high executive office trump has never offered any adequate explanation for why he would do something so incredibly harmful to the united states there is strong reason to believe that in many respects with respect to the russian federation the president of the united states is not loyal to his country "
" trump will be around at least until 2020 the next election cycle in the eu is planned for 2019 trump will be around for longer than most of the eu policymakers although merkel and macron will definitely still be in power a lot of their parliamentary base might not im not sure of the point here are we assuming the whole of the eu is going to replace their leadership with people either subservient to american whims or to shift trade to chinarussia if anything thats only going to make their leadership more hostile to being spit on by their once ally furthermore i dont think trump is really an outlier i disagree extremely on every front from his experience to behavior hes a cartoonish outlier this isnt what the presidency should be like and has not been like and it should not be normalized as acceptable daily scandals investigations his people being indicted thats not normal and we shouldnt pretend it is if youre simply meaning not an outlier on wanting to start trade wars hes still an outlier due to his extremism bush for example also tried a trade war but did so with a more level hand of course that blew up in the uss face as well per links but more to the point he handled it like a reasonable person who understood his job not resolving it is basically a guarantee for more or even worse trumps popping up in the future not resolving what the illusion that were being raked over the coals by our allies despite constant growth and a dominant world position the message of we are victims resonates with some people true but whats to be done with that people believe lies and carefully directed messages manufacture outrage thats an issue that goes deeper than trade and has little to do with trade "
"i dont see it as an argument at all frankly only an excuse trump believes that the us has negotiated bad deals with all its allies and is very clearly determined to get special concessions the way hes going about this is by adopting the same tactics used to bully small subcontractors in nyc getting into a game of chicken in which he can make them hurt more than he is what he fails to understand and interestingly enough what the far left also fails to understand is that the us benefits enormously from existing trade agreements the us has all sorts of special privileges arising from its position in the world including being the fiat currency trump could damage the us terribly if our allies took him seriously but they really dont they see our news and the way the elections have been going and see him as a completely illegitimate man who only attained office by a fluke of our electoral system so no one to fear furthermore unlike with his racism that doesnt really hurt the tory wing of the gop this absolutely does the koch brothers are spending millions to try to stop this i personally think theyre doing this to try to avoid being targeted by foreign governments but i doubt that will work everyone knows they are the economic backbone of much of the gop which is why many of these industries will be specifically shut down i would not put it past some enterprising minister to be going through opensecrets figuring out exactly who is financing the gop and targeting tariffs directly to put them as much out of business as possible the us is bigger than any one of its allies but it is not bigger than all of them put together and theyre united right now not against us but absolutely against the gop "
"note i do not belive trade deficit is bad for the us more at the end i also do not know enough about these topics to say what the president of the united states might be doing wrong or is misunderstanding this is a very good question i think i would let people analyze the situation who are more knowledgeable and involved with this topic right now to come up with possible solutions then i would probably ask the other g7 members for their point of views and discuss possible solutions to the problem were very close allies after all we know that we are better of making sure we as a collective are doing well than our country as a single entity i am confident that it would be possible to find a solution that would better the position of the us without weakening the relationship between usm why i dont belive the trade deficit is bad evidence the us has had a growing trade deficit for decades while the gdp grew too for the most part the media and the general public have a perception that trade deficits as we know them are bad and can drag on gdp in reality the trade deficit may be more procyclical moving in the same direction as local gdp in fact the other factors contributing to the expanding gdp can accelerate its growth investorpedia article on trade deficit the us trade deficit is a direct contributor to its world wide influence and the power positoknof the usd please read the whole comment from ugenghiskazoo relevant part basically our trade deficit is the main means by which other countries get dollars these dollars then go into purchases of us debt stock in american companies oil from not only the us but many opec countries like saudi arabia and all sorts of other things "
"if they’re colluding with other countries to work against america’s best interest that’s the biggest one there are three legal ways that can cause a to be president impeached treason bribery or other high crimesmisdemeanors if you’re talking about trump there’s no reason to impeach him yet as no charges have been brought there is plenty of evidence that suggest one of the above might have happened however the only way to ever bring charges is for a formal investigation to happen unimpeded to prove that the evidence points to that conclusion which then raises the question if a president obstructs justice ie stops or tries to undermine said investigation which trump has done several times is that grounds for impeachment what if they stop it before it begins alltogether naturally we want to say that something as abstract and broad as obstruction of justice is not enough it could be easy for an opposing party to control congress push for endless investigations over nothing and then move to impeach president on grounds of obstruction even if no crime was ever committed they can take obstruction as the president making a comment about the investigation not holding water and then someone can say “boom obstruction” so it’s a tricky issue ideally obstruction should get a president impeached but that’s only when we know 100 that the investigation is valid this would fall in the third category of “high crimes” the other two treason and bribery are straight shots clearly defined and we know what they are it’s the third category of high crimes that is questionable and the one that is generally dealt with edit source on how the president can be impeached first paragraph obstruction "
" why do you say this isreal is no different than northsouth korea vietnam myanmar and pakistan technically you could probably add india indonesia and a good chunk of africa to that list so which one of those occupies land but does not give the people of that land citizenship rights when territory changed hands in war it wasnt okay for isreal while the international community largely ignored or agreed with it in other cases like the principle borders cant be changed through conquest is i think something since ww2 britain france isreal and the bulk of the arab world wasnt content with a territory conflict and made it a proxy religious war israel was not interested in peace with the arab states in 1949 on 12 may 1949 the conference achieved its only success when the parties signed the lausanne protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace which included territories refugees and jerusalem israel agreed in principle to allow the return of a number of palestinian refugees this israeli agreement was made under pressure from the united states and because the israelis wanted united nations membership which required the settlement of the refugee problem once israel was admitted to the un it retreated from the protocol it had signed because it was completely satisfied with the status quo and saw no need to make any concessions with regard to the refugees or on boundary questions israeli foreign minister moshe sharett had hoped for a comprehensive peace settlement at lausanne but he was no match for prime minister david bengurion who saw the armistice agreements that stopped the fighting with the arab states as sufficient and put a low priority on a permanent peace treaty"
"political science usually defines certain conditions for political systems to be considered democratic these range from obvious conditions such as the ability for opponents to run for office without fear to more subtle requirements such as having a free and diverse press the party system is usually considered a product of the electoral system ie how you distribute seats or how you define who wins and loses an election as others have pointed out itt the main ones are proportional representation pr which produces a lot of parties as in germany switzerland and first past the post ftp which tends to produce a two party system such as britain and america is either pr or ftp more democratic or inherently better not necessairly its more of a tradeoff between different aims proponents of pr claim that it better captures the diversity of opinions in any given society proponets of ftp claim that it rewards moderation and makes the country more governable since you give a firm majority to the winner and citizens know in theory who to assign blame or credit for the countrys direction keep in mind two things which add a little more nuance there are some finer tuning you can do in order to change the incentives within each system for example germany requires each party to get at least 537 of the vote to get a seat in parliament this is done to avoid extreme dispersion of its multiparty system number two the same country can have different electoral some countries elect mayors and governors with ftp and members of congress with pr some references lijphart a aitkin d 1994 electoral systems and party systems a study of twentyseven democracies 19451990 oxford university press "
"in 2014 the obama administration sought to open family detention centers after the reports of locking kids up there had been a surge of families and children on the border and they needed some way to deal with them all that also upheld the flores consent decree the idea was to lock up children and their parents together rights activists werent happy with the way the administration handled it and brought an action against it ultimately in 2016 the 9th circuit ruled that the detention limit for children also applied to children with families detained and it also overturned a federal district court’s decision that the government must also release the parents so what we have is in 2014 there was a surge of kids and families obama got some bad pr with the kids in cages and promptly opened family detention centers where kids and parents could be together a lower court rules that they couldnt hold past what flores allowed and that parents had to be released with kids the decision was appealed and in 2016 the 9th ruled that the centers were not okay but that parents did not have to be released since the decision came at the end of obamas term no change in policy happened and they continued to comply with the older decision to release children and parents together that was the policy until recently when trump changed it its hard to point to specific overlap since the rules changed along the way after the border surge obama tried family detention which trump knows he cannot do now and then obama was forced to released kids with parents which trump knows he does not have to do the last case was so late in obamas term it didnt have any effect on what he was doing "
its not currently feasible and likely wont be for quite a long time its a similar process to warehouse picking and the amazon competition for that went poorly simple handling problems like can be solved extremely effectively with things like cameraaugmented air blades or paddles but the problems of harvesting produce are far more complicated locating produce with computer vision is quite hard and slow grasping is still an unsolved problem actually picking produce is also hard its a little hard to say what will break the problem but its probably an algorithm thing vastly faster computers would make it a bit easier as would very detailed sensor data but some subproblems like grasping compliant objects are completely dependent on the algorithms personally i think were bruteforcing it with current techniques and we havent yet figured out a great solution algorithm problems can take decades to solve there are also toooons of economic problems farms even large corporate farms are some of the most cashpoor firms of any industry its very hard for them to secure funding for automated labor far more so than most other sectors even despite that rd into automated farming is intense maybe more so than any other industry more than fast food for one it also means that the longevity and cost of the robots is very important a robot that is just as good as a human currently 10100x worse will make at best minimum wage on an extremely seasonal job 5 months yearly expected productivity is 6000 a year which will have to cover maintenance power supervision and loan repayment it would take over a decade to pay back a 50000 robot and robots cost a lot more than that
"in regards to your 1 there have been several previous agreements with north korea regarding denuclearization 1992 joint declaration agreed framework of 1994 joint statement of the sixparty talks 2005 2011 there is a consistent pattern in which north korea will pledge to do something only to backtrack soon afterwards the most recent example of this is probably back in 2012 north korea had pledged to halt pursuing nuclear and missile technology research in exchange for food relief a couple months later north korea launched a satellite using icbm related technology other countries including the us protested which led to the us cancelling food relief efforts to north korea each presidential administration has made a go at peace talks with north korea and each time the us has gotten burned when north korea decides not to adhere to the agreement edit i have been barraged by a number of replies that have been promoting the idea of kim jongun as a young reformative leader please make no mistake about this kim jongun is a monster who has murdered dissidents and even members of his own family in order to stay in power he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths of innocent people he is continuing on the horrific legacy of his father and there are no signs that he is trying to reduce these atrocities that are on par with the holocaust i urge you to listen and read testimony from the north korean gulag survivors to find out the horrors that exist there i would also urge you to upvote uglassjar1 s post as they have a much more detailed and thoughtout explanation for the north korean situation that my admittedly amateurish examinations have lacked "
if there are only two parties each is vying for the 501th vote which is theoretically a moderating force it prevents radical occurances like brexit which was only put to a vote as a concession to a minority party things are polarizing in the united states asymmetrically but happening for both parties but candidates still need more than half of the votes polarization helps turnout by boosting base enthusiasm and thats one strategy that moves the 501th vote closer to you politically especially in low turnout elections low turnout elections may be because people are disenchanted because neither major party represents what some people believe particularly well if everyone voted and everyone had perfect information polarization wouldnt work because you wouldnt get the turnout advantage and the only way to win would be to appeal to the center politically so then theres sort of a paradoxwith more parties you would achieve more turnout more bases that are excited but each party would be more extreme in its own way by focusing on its base because the party would be mostly base and no single party would be able to control a government or even a branch of it by itself the current government is 100 controlled by the republicans and they still only got one major piece of legislation passed so you can imagine if the president was green party the senate was a coalition of libertarian and conservative and the house was a coalition of liberal labor and a radical california independence party that said obviously it works in a parliamentary system in other countries i just think the 2 party system helps more than it hurts in the present us presidential system
"here is an hour from a guy i think lays out some pretty strong evidence that the american move away from the global trade order has been happening for basically the last 30 years and has accelerated under trump but was always going to the same place if you dont want to watch the basic gist is basic facts the us built the global trade order protected it with its navy and maintained it through the various alliances and international organizations like the wto they did this for security this was the era of the cold war and to join the american bloc and get access to this vast trade network the us had built you had to pick a side us importsexports are a smaller share of gdp when compared to most other regional powers around the world outside of the soviets the us is only incentiveized to be part of the globalized trade order for very specific reasons stability in energy markets was a big one facts that started since 1990s the cold war is over and the us won as of 2018 the us is effectively energy independent due to shale with the two biggest reasons for participation gone the us is reevaluating the value of playing the role it does in this global trade order the wto is a big part of this overall bretton woods american system that was built to fight the soviets through alliances that were underwritten by us naval power and market access i think zeihan presents a strong argument as to why even discarding trump the us is taking a very transactional look at its relationships with other countries because the us has all the leverage in the system it built and if the system crashes and burns the us knows its the one least effected from the fallout "
"edit i am not going to delete this but there are far better top level answers 2nd edit spending some more time reading and looking at where these arguments are coming from i would defer to ucomeherebob and uurigzu as having the highest quality arguments with the best sourcing aside from points 3 and 7 these are more punditry points than real legal arguments cited legal arguments im trying to understand the topic so im going to try and break down that first piece of 7 reasons 1 the osc must be appointed to investigate a specific crime since rosenteins outline is focused on collusion which is not a crime the osc was never given proper instructions 2 issuing a directive of any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation is too vague since the osc should “be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” 3 mueller has potential conflicts of interest most notably his prior relationship with james comey 4 rostensteins potential conflicts of interest most notably agreeing to a warrant application for campaign volunteer carter page 5 potential conflicts of interest in muellers team but i was under the impression he could not look at political affiliation when selecting a team 6 rosenstein issued directives to mueller which are unrelated to russia and therefore fall outside of sessionss recusal thus it is sessions that should have made those determinations article cites manafort as an example 7 mueller is in practice has power equal to or greater than that of a us attorney which is a disqualifier because he was never nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate like other us attorneys "
none of those things have anything to do with personal freedom mississippi has constitutional carry and so do not need a permit to own or carry a firearm concealed or open if you get the enhanced carry permit you can carry your firearm anywhere that isnt a prison even schools and court houses weed has been decriminalized here since 1972 and was the first state to do so we passed a bill a while back where if any guns were banned federally we would continue to have the right to own them in the state it particularly named the ar15 iirc unlike some states in this great country we may own various weapons modifications that are outlawed elsewhere looking at you california the state of mississippi recognizes the right for an employer to fire anyone for any reason you can even drink and drive in mississippi as long as you are under 008 bac mississippi just doesnt regulate a whole lot of things and many of the things they regulate on paper arent enforced in reality everytime a bill is proposed here its almost always tabled and denied im pretty happy with my state if im being honest its a very beautiful mostly rural state with a very rich history and culture the food here is second only to louisiana imo we have the most diverse wildlife of any state the most hospitable people the most charitable people and one of the best community college systems in the country we rank pretty high up there on our nursing programs and we got like all the catfish oh yeah and we are home of the blues which is pretty much the origin of all modern music mississippi is not the shit hole the internet or media would have you think i wouldnt want to be anywhere else
"i told you exactly what that something else was america has always been a country where waves of immigrants come or occasionally where people don’t move but the border comes to them they bring languages french in louisiana spanish in the border states swedish and german and dutch in parts of the heartland japanese in hawaii they bring various tensions and biases from their old home objecting to one specific group when just about everyone else has done exactly what they do nowit’s a bit redundant when you say “american culture”what is that a culture exactly like you that speaks english and eats the food you do at home you are american so that must be american culture that’s one kind of american culture the parts that used to be mexico are another kind the parts that once were france are a third whatever the hell was going on in hawaii makes four and so on even if immigrants didn’t come cultural drift would still occur it’s inevitable cultural drift occurs between one generation and the next that’s the thing that makes parents yell at their kids to turn off that racket and listen to some real musictell the kids “you’re not wearing that” cultures are not and cannot be static even if no new people move in when you say you’re worried about “cultural drift” what i hear is the culture that surrounds me right here right now is one i understand instinctively and i don’t want it to change into something i can’t understand as easily am i right in saying that is that fair but it’s going to change even if you closed the gates on immigration today ten years from now it will have changed that’s what cultures do they grow so where is the drift "
it can be depending on the route one goes uscis is a primarily feebased agency with only 1 of their funding coming from the federal budget and the rest collected through application fees so there’s that to start with when us bloodsucking attorneys get involved things can get expensive depending on the complexity of the case generally an employer will spend around 10000 in total to sponsor a worker for a green card for example and that doesn’t even get into obtaining and maintaining their underlying employment visa familybased cases can run a few thousand dollars on average and if there are complicated eligibility or criminal issues that can get pricier some people opt to file them on their own if there are no issues but filing fees add up especially for a large family 1225 a pop for family members over 13 i’ve never worked on them but asylum cases can be a lot of work and if not through a pro bono or legal aid program can get expensive i used to work at a big firm with a large pro bono department there was a longrunning asylum case that numerous people worked on and the individual had several family members i caught a glimpse of the billing totals which were essentially fictional since it was pro bono and over 250000 worth of attorney and paralegal hours has gone into this one case and that’s just for affirmative applications with uscis there are attorneys who just do immigration court work to represent people in deportation proceedings since you have a hard time collecting your fees if you lose your case attorneys collect the bulk of their fees up front my friend’s firm requires a 4000 down payment to begin work on the case
"edit so the summary page and the bit quoted by op misquote the actual documentnot ops fault refers to women and sociallyeconomically disadvantaged individuals race isnt used in the wording for the bill pg 6trust funduse of amountsb does the program violate sec 601 of the civil rights act which prohibits discrimination based on race in these federally funded programs i dont think anyone is being excluded or discriminated against nonminority males wouldnt have access to benefits and i may be incorrect but i believe theres precedent minority business resources the reason behind it would be demographics for marijuana business license owners moving forward the level the economic playing field bit shows they anticipate minorities and females as having less initial opportunity to get involved in a new industry if you look at the data we have available from states that legalized sales you see that 81 of owners are white marijuana business owners by demographics this would have to be looked at in relation to the local populations demographics to see if ownership s show a fair reflection in terms of women i dont believe sec 601 applies to gender now if statistics show that a marijuana business licensestartup fundsetc can be attained just as easily by a woman or a minority as it can be by a nonminority male then maybe because in an equal industry nonminority males wouldnt have access to govt funded benefits a second report done by the boston city council in which it states allocate a percentage of licenses to communities and groups disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs boston city council racial equity in marijuana licensing "
" a 1997 federal consent decree that requires the government to release all children apprehended crossing the border the “flores” consent decree began as a classaction lawsuit the justice department negotiated a settlement during president bill clinton’s administration according to a 2016 decision by the us court of appeals for the 9th circuit the flores settlement requires the federal government to release rather than detain all undocumented immigrant children whether they crossed with parents or alone the agreement doesn’t cover any parents who might be accompanying those minors but it doesn’t mandate that parents be prosecuted or that families be separated moreover congress could pass a law that overrides the terms of the flores settlement waldman said the flores settlement requires the government to keep immigrant families together for only 20 days but no part of the consent decree requires that families be separated after 20 days courts have ruled that children must be released from detention facilities within 20 days under the flores consent decree but none of these legal developments prevents the government from releasing parents along with children to answer your question my opinion is people trying to use flores to justify this inhumane and cruel policy are either unaware to the conditions and nuances of flores or are being disingenuous clinton bush and obama somehow managed to not separate families needlessly then again those presidents were never advised by a white nationalist someone who wears a medal from a neonazi group or someone who ran a news site that worked with white supremacists during the election cycle "
fair point maybe i am being a bit too pedantic i concede that their policy is different is a very accurate sentiment i just dont agree with the insinuation that obama didnt separate families because his admin just did do it just less than trumps presumably perhaps one day we will have enough data to demonstrate how this is the case trump is enforcing the law more often and he has to separate the children because of the situation i think everyone would agree that ideally the holding cells for illegal immigrations would allow for the children to stay with the parents while their parents are in custody since they are migrants the kids may not have any other place to stay but really i think the key theme and point i am trying to make is that i cannot seem to find the data behind what the text relays i certainly trust that the author is telling the truth but i will be very convinced heshe is right once i see the information from which that conlusion is derived is it conjecture thats certainly permissible but i bet theres a way to prove it even to skeptics here is an article where obama is criticized for tearing families apart so is this different if so why surely we can agree that its somewhat of a similar policy because families are being separated if this kind of criticism is comparable then is this much rarer than what is happening under trump probably so how can we tell is it just assumed at this point being fairly ignorant myself i assume that its happening more under trump but i could not show any hard data to say that its happening drastically more often than it used to even though i believe that it is likely the case
"hi there im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules specifically please resubmit this with a title that does not ask a moral question which is the type we generally do not allow on np under rule a i would suggest a title of under what circumstances are children of aliens being separated from their family what changes are possible within current law or under proposed laws at the end i would also ask this to be rephrased so to restate the question under what circumstances are children being separated from their family is the existing policy acceptable or moral and if not what is a better alternative the question of what is acceptable or moral is not one which np can answer lastly this needs a source or two while the separation of children from their parents has been widely condemned by people on both sides of the aisle there seems to be considerable disagreement about what is actually happening and why and this segment with a quote from jeff sessions also needs a source the zero tolerance policy supporters including attorney general jeff sessions maintain it is necessary to discourage families from putting their children in danger via illegal border crossings and that orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain unmodified after two days will either be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"i think the easy technical answer is no but the more correct answer is probably maybe south dakota is a case about a states rights to tax a business whcih has no physical presence in that state the actual holding in the case is that the previous cases of quill and national bellas hess are overruled the lower courts had relied on an analysis of these cases in making their decision the court then remanded the case to a lower court to reassess the law as it applies to this case without the old holdings that a state cannot require an outofstate seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes on goods the seller ships to consumers in the state technically the court did not say that the south dakota law has to stand that other laws would have to be like it or what the requirements of any tax on out of state business would be the simply overturned previous decisions that banned the practice entirely justices on both sides had lots to say about the impact of the internet how retailers would handle this and other topics but that is all dicta the thing to take away is that the physical presence requirement is no more so how will that affect muni taxes the opinion doesnt say if a state passes a new tax law that would allow municipalities to collect sales tax as well it will almost certainly be challenged well probably see future cases on what is needed to reach that nexus to tax on companies without a physical presence and more analysis of advertising and all of the other nexus factors does this case say municipalities can tax internet companies no but theyre more free to try than they were before "
"the general election will have the two most popular candidates this is not necessarily the case though but this is not just a feature of the california primary system its just got the potential to be made really obvious by it the problem is that when you vote in the california primary the only information you can pass on is the information about your top choice you pick one candidate as your most favorite your opinions about the other candidates are not considered information is therefore lost about your opinion of other candidates imagine a situation where ten people are voting on which restaurant to eat at six people want to eat mexican and dont want chinese food four people want to eat chinese and dont want mexican food youd probably say the democratic thing to do would be to get mexican right but imagine they decide using the california system each person who wants mexican has their own personal favorite restaurant though theyd be reasonably happy with any other mexican restaurant but there are only two chinese restaurants in town and two people prefer each one after the primary voting the top two candidates are both chinese restaurants and mexican is off the menu despite the fact that 60 of the people would rather be eating mexican now obviously real world scenarios dont work exactly like this but you can plausibly get a similar situation occurring where not only does everyone not get the chance to select a candidate they like but in fact a majority does not get a chance to select a candidate they like its an imperfect system though as ive said elsewhere other systems also have imperfections "
"i think conflating china with free trade is a bad idea international trade has brought an enormous amount of wealth to the united states while at the same time exacerbating certain social problems there are a lot of ways to approach those problems like cutting back on free trade including worker and social protections in trade agreements or just increasing public investment in worker training or social welfare its one of the weird aspects of trumps presidency that countries like europe and canada who were always used by republicans as examples of countries who arent as good as us because socialism are now being touted as somehow better off than us they dont have any advantage that we dont also have if americans are buying european cars its because theyre somehow better than the american ones just like how the whole world is using american cellphones china is a whole different story because even though we made a trade deal with them that was harsher than the deals with any other country before or since im talking about the china wto accession protocol they still managed to take advantage of it there are also a variety of ways to deal with that problem but theyre all complicated and dont seem to be the type of easy fixes that trump tends to promote one of those solutions was ttip which trump withdrew from the long and the short of it is with the exception of china almost all of our trade agreements are universally viewed as overly favorable to us because they let us use our enormous wealth and technology advantages to compete and totally destroy local competitors in most countries around the world "
i dont know if you received an answer that was deleted already but yes people can be convicted of obstruction of justice even if no other crime has been committed if a crime has been committed then the jail terms can get longer heres the specific statue for reference a whoever corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication endeavors to influence intimidate or impede any grand or petit juror or officer in or of any court of the united states or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any united states magistrate judge or other committing magistrate in the discharge of his duty or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him or on account of his being or having been such juror or injures any such officer magistrate judge or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties or corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication influences obstructs or impedes or endeavors to influence obstruct or impede the due administration of justice shall be punished as provided in subsection b if the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case
"here are the requests i made the last time you submitted this question hi there uromannumeralvi this post has a few issues that conflict with our submission rules heres what i would suggest resubmit with a different title the current one makes it sound like youre asking the users to predict the future which is a violation of rule g the post itself asks whether nafta has been a net benefit or a loss for the middle class which is fine because its based on past performance for which theres evidence please make the new title to match the post move the summary of the effects section to right after the first paragraph remove the three bullet points entirely the characterizations of the facts therein conflict with your source rephrase the bolded question this way and move it to the end of the post has nafta provided a net benefit or a loss for the us middle class in that last point notice that i added us to clarify which middle class youre asking about and i removed from a neutral perspective i recommend you stop using that clause entirely in your submissions the neutrality standards for this subreddit are set out in nps rules and they include no requirement for respondents to be neutral so prefacing your questions with the suggestion that they should runs counter our rules if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"hi thanks for revising it but many of the questions are still leading they are phrased in a way to lead respondents to a particular point of view same with way the premise is framed try it like this title what are the pros and cons of us police lacking a duty to protect citizens body in 2005s warren vs district of columbia it was again upheld that police in the us have no duty to protect citizens their only duty is to enforce the law which in essence make them less public servants and more state minions this isnt a derogatory statement it is simply a recognition of fact they serve the state not the citizens yes the state represents the citizens the state in the usa has become its own mega powerful mostly unchecked entity if while enforcing the law a cop protects you that is great if an officer goes outside of his or her duty to protect you awesome just remember they have no duty to protect you and their first and only duty is to enforce the laws of the state as a society we need to discuss whether or not this is acceptable what are the pros and cons of the police lacking this legal obligation how does it compare with the duty to rescue doctrine in other countries is it is line with our core values is it truly in the best interest of our citizens does it give the state too much centralized power should we even have police forces that are not elected thus cannot be checked via votes does the calculus change in jurisdictions where the head of the police is elected rather than appointed nytimes article on the case warren questioned the public duty doctrine which you can peruse here "
"i dont think it is luck that determines the percentage that are successful small business owners unless you are talking about genetic lottery luck speaking very broadly college sucks up a high percentage of competent intelligent people the trades draw from a diminished pool i think an intelligent ambitious young person is all but guaranteed to start and maintain a successful business in the skilled trades career path after putting in the requisite 510yrs learning the industry that removes the income cap at the expense of harder work everything i say is anecdotal but i do have a massive sample of customers and contractors to make observations about there are a hell of a lot of very wealthy owners in skilled trades and construction that would never make it in the more intellectually competitive careers i wouldnt go so far as to say they are dumb but it sure seems like you can fumble and blunder much more as a trade business owner than if you owned a restaurant or it consulting business i think a coldly pragmatic 22yr old might consider the trades route if they have an ambitious desire for wealth and comfort i think they have an easier and faster path to success than in many other fields the bulk of these industries are made up of people who are far less motivated and competent than your average college graduating class however social skill is an absolute requirement you can not make it on technical proficiency only if you want to own a successful small business you have to be able to talk nascar and xenophobia over a beer with other contractors even if you are a liberal f1 fan "
yeah i was just trying to emphasize that most of my highschool education was based on being told what i need to know not why i should know these things or how to come to these conclusions logically for example kids are told that they have to go to college to be successful which is illogical that is what i meant by teaching us how to not critically think take the american dream as an example the stereotypical american dream is to be married have a house a car and maybe some kids but real critical thinking shows that this is not everyone’s ideal american dream the american dream is an overgeneralization dream up whatever you want as your own ideal dreams are particular to individuals not a group so why do we tell everyone that the stereotypically american dream is what they should be pursuing all i’ve seen this do for kids is make them “grow up to fast” by buying things they can’t afford and marrying people they don’t fully know i think it’s important that highschool students get funding but for the right programs for example my highschool didn’t offer any logic courses or practical thinking courses i took these courses for my philosophy major at a liberal arts school and they have helped me astronomically plus they’ve brought to my attention many more important ethical and moral questions that have made me an allaround better human being in order to critically think you have to be willing to consider other points of view logic and practical thinking courses are the greatest foundation for critical thinking that i think highschool students are missing out on what do you think
"uhuadpe raises a good point about the quality of the legal argument here but theres a more fundamental difference which this twitter thread by a former doj lawyer outlines well for more substantive backing see the letter by the attorney general summarizing his decision not to defend doma in brief its this to defend doma the department of justice would have needed to argue that orientationbased classifications should receive only rationalbasis scrutiny1 this wouldnt impact only doma it would also affect the obama administrations nondoma gayrights agenda an administration that wanted to improve things for gay people would obviously think it was a very bad thing if local and state governments could discriminate willynilly against gay people and the crux of the issue is that according to the people upset at the trump doj obama wasnt obligated to throw his gayrights agenda under the bus to defend doma it doesnt seem to me that theres any comparable issue here 1 scrutiny in the context of equal protection means how strong a justification the courts will demand for discrimination for race the big one and some other things its strict scrutiny the discrimination has to further a compelling government interest and must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest without discriminating more than is absolutely necessary for gender and some related things like sexual orientation probably its intermediate scrutiny the discrimination has to be substantially related to an important government interest for everything else its rationalbasis scrutiny which means that basically anything goes "
"let me start with a bit of context in 2014 the obama administration sought to open family detention centers there had been a surge of families on the border and they needed some way to deal with them all that also upheld the flores consent decree rights activists werent happy with the way the administration handled it and brought an action against it ultimately in 2016 the 9th circuit ruled that the detention limit for children also applied to children with families detained and it also overturned a federal district court’s decision that the government must also release the parents the trump administration now has a situation where they 1 have to detain juveniles in the least restrictive way for 2 no longer than 20 days and 3 have no obligation to release the parents after that time the only true option under current law would be to release parents with the children after 20 days but thats unlikely to be pursued by this administration aso to the proposed laws that would allow indefinite family detention thats a solution that cuts both ways it serves the purpose of keeping families together but the average length of detention for individuals who applied for relief from deportation was 421 days and thats a long time to keep a child locked up its also worth noting that the same source shows that 63 of long term detainees have a us citizen child who being a citizen would not be eligible for detention with their parent either way indefinite detention might solve a part of the family separation issue but it brings a whole new set of issues especially when applied to juveniles "
you have illustrated the basic problem economically but there is a quality of life issue as well im a 20yr hvac tech our industry has struggled to find workers for a long time the pay ceiling is a major part but it is also the toll that trades put on your body im 40 i make a solid middle class living i can afford my mortgage provide for my children and have money left over for entertainment retirement etc i would not push my son or daughter into the trades because it is hard work my face looks 5yrs older than it would were i white collar the sun ages you ive had serious back problems in the past there is not 1 sq of my hands that is scar free there is a measurable percent chance i can suffer a life changing injury or death every year over baseline average the trades may give you a skill set that all but guarantees consistent good employment but it isnt without downsides the persistent idea that hard work has some intrinsic good to it is baffling hard work doesnt make anyone a better person my industry is full of disgusting dishonest people who are damn hard workers we arent better humans than the it field academia or any other white collar sector humans have been slowly moving away from intense physical labor from the first time a few people planted crops we dont waste the same percentage of our lives working to survive as we did in the 1800s it is called progress and we should embrace it working 4060hrs a week doesnt make anyone a better person we should be figuring out how all of us can work 30 20 or even less demand for trade jobs us historical work hours
"high school for me at least taught me to not critically think i dont understand your sentence might be a grammar thing p do you mean hs did the opposite of teaching you critical thinking skills i could see a point there especially the way teaching is becoming more geared to teaching students to pass a standardized test than it is to impart knowledge however this can be fixed with more education funding and getting bloody betsy devos out of her position as secretary of education for which she essentially bought im not suggesting college become the main avenue for developing critical thinking just that critical thinking skills are a a happy byproduct of attending college i dont know what alternative solution is out there to promote critical thinking skills to our population outside of our education system i think attending classes reading textbooks participating in theoretical lecturesdiscussions and analyzing tests will lead to a more intelligent workforce that is also more compassionate for their fellow american it actually makes me angry at the school system for you to graduate and feel so disillusioned or let down by the system school is where you should learn and grow not feel complacent or misguided i blame lack of funding and proper oversight for that imagine if we could pay our teachers a more living wage maybe they would care more i dunno what my point is really but i feel for you bro let me know if there is anything i can do to help i would highly suggest attending college if at the very least to find something new you can be passionate about "
you answered question 1 with question 3 you would find them because if there are lots of women who want to get into the pot business and cant because they are facing discriminatory barriers they would bring those suits into court or form pressure groups to advance their collective interest like the naacp or now have done in the past heres the reason why assuming occupation demographics and population dont line up is a bad metric in 2011 there were 35 million employed nurses in 2011 about 32 million of whom were female and 330000 male so if we were to take your metric we would conclude that men are being discriminated against and that men need special legislation to ensure that we have an equal number of male and female nurses now i highly doubt that there are fewer male nurses then female nurses because they face active discrimination and i think government intervention into a problem that doesnt exist is bad for everyone as far as to how i would fix it i dont think you can answer that in the abstract because every situation is so different you have to weight have much action is required and how onerous it is to let it continue vs stopping it to use a hyperbolic example if the solution to ending sexual harassment in the work place was for all men to be killed i would find the cure worse then the disease if i were convinced that there was discrimination in the pot business i would be open to far more invasive government action then compared to an older industry as the pain caused having to retool a new industry is smaller compared to an older industry
"this is how people raise themselves out of poverty these immigrants arent poor americans and many people are coming from conditions most of us cant imagine so its a perspective thats alien to most of us even the poorest in this country have it better than arguably most of the world ive lived in a few countries with extreme poverty and worked with children and some of the stuff i saw stenches i smelt not a single friend or relative of mine has ever seen except in documentaries and news clips so i have seen it and i have seen many people do great things starting with nothing and making very little money it really puts your problems into perspective it certainly made me feel completely unworthy and inadequate on many levels its not supposed to be fun but you work your ass off and try to provide a better life for your offspring then you had i am four generations removed from this my family came to the us dirt poor a few dollars to their name period they were discriminated against and werent paid as much as a white man irony because were called white now but you work to improve your conditions now do you know whats better than being a slave being free and making something being able to work and provide for your family gives you dignity whereas prior to if were sticking to the slave example you had little to none you were considered property if you were making nothing and now suddenly youre making something thats progress and it goes from there and it takes time and then 100 years later hopefully your offspring havent completely forgotten their roots "
my man im absolutely aware of which case they were ruling on however you happened to cite the ninth circuit affirmation not the courts own reasoning im guessing you know since you have definitely read the the thing you linked those findings are not actually what the sc ruled on rather they found that there was a prima facie national security interest for the order that was not based on religion consistent with the authority of the president and that the order was not divorced from any factual context from which the court could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests they said nothing about whether the order discriminates against muslims or whether it was intended to edit to fully put this to bed the relevant bits the issue however is not whether to denounce the president’s statements but the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive neutral on its face addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility in doing so the court must consider not only the statements of a particular president but also the authority of the presidency itself and the court assumes that it may look behind the face of the proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review ie whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence may be considered but the policy will be upheld so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds
if each voter in a population had equal power then two voters would have the same power as two different voters 50 voters would have 2x the power of 25 different voters and 395m voters would have 68x the power of 058m voters california has 395m people with the power of 55 electors wyoming has 058m people with the power of 3 electors making california only 18x as powerful instead of the expected 68 derived from above something must be wrong a california citizen has an impact on 55 electors a california citizen has an impact on 55 electors how many electors do 2 california citizens have an impact on 1000000 californians 395m the answer is the same in every case 55 something is missing the number of electors a voter could impact isnt enough to determine their power california as a whole has the power of 55 electors but that power is in some sense divided between the voters directly or indirectly one way to look at it is like this suppose 60 of californians vote for a particular party but then one of them changes their vote how much does that percent change compare that to if wyoming was at 60 before one voter changes californias percent would change disproportionately less relative to the number of electors in play californias would change by 1395m wyomings would change by 1058m the wyoming voter changes the percent by 68x more than the california voter if both california and wyoming are split the same it will take 68x fewer wyomingites changing their vote to change who the electors go to even though wyoming only has 18x fewer electors
" chavez assumed more and more power with popular consent because oil prices were high and he was paying attention to the longneglected poor really i thought he introduced a constitution that allowed for recall elections giving venezuelans a decent way to remove the president what would you say was the role of the “allegedly” us backed coup against chavez edit the venezuelan recall referendum of 15 august 2004 was a referendum to determine whether hugo chávez then president of venezuela should be recalled from office the recall referendum was announced on 8 june 2004 by the national electoral council cne after the venezuelan opposition succeeded in collecting the number of signatures required by the 1999 constitution to effect a recall major changes are made to the structure of venezuelas government and responsibilities while a much greater number of human rights are enshrined in the document as guaranteed to all venezuelans – including free education up to tertiary level free health care access to a clean environment right of minorities especially indigenous peoples to uphold their own traditional cultures religions and languages among others the 1999 constitution with 350 articles is among the worlds longest most complicated and most comprehensive constitutions on us backed coup the british daily the guardian was told in april 2002 by wayne madsen a former intelligence officer with the us navy that his countrys navy had lent assistance to coup organizers by providing them with intelligence from its vessels in the caribbean "
"looking at the effects that nafta has had would be a good starting point it is the opposite of what you are wanting to discuss removal of trade barriers vs adding tariffs but i would think the same economic variables would be affected this article mentions often that it is hard to definitively carve out the effects nafta has had from other economictrade influences mostly the change in trade with china basically dont blame nafta blame china trade but it seems to me if you consider nafta and china trade together it gives a picture of companies winning and workers losing the benefits for the mexican economy were attenuated however by heavy dependence on imported intermediate inputs in export production as well as by chinese competition in the us market and domestically the longrun increase in manufacturing employment in mexico about 400000 jobs was small and disappointing while us manufacturing plummeted by 5 million — but more because of chinese imports than imports from mexico in both mexico and the united states real wages have stagnated while productivity has continued to increase leading to higher profit shares and a tendency toward greater inequality” basically what this says to me is business moving out of country for cheaper labor decreases prices here but lower wage jobs disappear and get replaced with higher wage jobs so this gets into the questions if moving jobs out of country hurts those at the bottom of the work ladder and if the steelaluminum jobs that come back to the usa would help those bottom ladder workers "
"yes thank you for the conversation though i will say that the civil war was actually very simple and very black and white no pun intended i will let the mississippi declaration of succession speak plainly for the exact reason for the war “a declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify the secession of the state of mississippi from the federal union in the momentous step which our state has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest of the world its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth these products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions and by an imperious law of nature none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun these products have become necessities of the world and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization that blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation there was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the union whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin” there is no other reason for the disagreement put forth and its complexity is not to be had but again you are right this is very off topic and i apologize for continuing take care "
does it matter from a neutral perspective who wins any election id argue from a neutral perspective you want an election to reflect the will of the voters as much as possible the downside of cas system is that you can potentially wind up with the two candidates with the highest unfavorability rating going on to the general election which would seem to me to be a failure to represent the will of the voters i dont think its a terrible method as long as this does not happen however does it matter from a neutral perspective if the election rules work for a political party or not not at all but i dont think that issue is relevant to californias primary system if one party gets shut out the problem is not that the political organization of the party gets shut out the problem is that the voters that who prefer politicians with certain views now no longer have a candidate to vote for there are many ways to structure a primary election and all of them in some ways advance democracy and in other ways they each does not far be it from me to suggest that your ordinary primary cant also have its own problems in particular the tendency toward polarization here the voters selected the method that they want to use this seems to advance democracy to me sure but a functional democracy doesnt consist of going the people voted for this and therefore its intrinsically good and unquestionable but rather the public voted for this lets assess how it is functioning so we the public can decide if we want to keep it or vote for something different
"hi there uromannumeralvi this post has a few issues that conflict with our submission rules heres what i would suggest resubmit with a different title the current one makes it sound like youre asking the users to predict the future which is a violation of rule g the post itself asks whether nafta has been a net benefit or a loss for the middle class which is fine because its based on past performance for which theres evidence please make the new title to match the post move the summary of the effects section to right after the first paragraph remove the three bullet points entirely the characterizations of the facts therein conflict with your source rephrase the bolded question this way and move it to the end of the post has nafta provided a net benefit or a loss for the us middle class in that last point notice that i added us to clarify which middle class youre asking about and i removed from a neutral perspective i recommend you stop using that clause entirely in your submissions the neutrality standards for this subreddit are set out in nps rules and they include no requirement for respondents to be neutral so prefacing your questions with the suggestion that they should runs counter our rules if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"i cant answer your question but im not sure its the issue i understand that trump wishes to target china and target steel imports for national security reasons however many more countries allies sell steel to the us than china and the amount of steel imports that is directed to the military is minimal 3 the letter of 15 economists of july 12 2017 pointed out that the top four steel imports came from canada brazil south korea and mexico so that the imposition of steel tariffs could be a diplomatic problem that said there has been some commentary that the indirect damage to the usa from steel tariffs is greater than the direct benefit due to the pressure placed upon secondary industries in the us that rely upon imported steel but unfortunately ive only heard that in interviews so i cant provide a reference immediately the important point is that it is not the harm that you envisaged of some steel companies in canada are americanowned so there is perhaps an argument that america is shooting itself in the foot by harming american companies thats probably not the issue most of the commentary appears to be focussed upon the secondary effects upon industries that consume steel i think that those secondary effects are the point of interest a lot of the rhetoric is based upon the 2002 steel tariffs and the situation is not the same if you have the time you can read some of the analysis of that time such as steel safeguards and the welfare of us steel firms and downstream consumers of steel a shareholder wealth perspective "
they state was hostile as at no point did they ever consider intent which is something that should always be considered gorsuch highlighted the importance of this in his concurring opinion relevant excerpt emphasis mine but in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction to be sure the bakers knew their conduct promised the effect of leaving a customer in a protected class unserved but there’s no indication the bakers actually intended to refuse service because of a customer’s protected characteristic we know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class as well as to anyone else so for example the bakers in the first case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating samesex marriage to an atheist customer just as the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating samesex marriage to a heterosexual customer and the bakers in the first case were generally happy to sell to persons of faith just as the baker in the second case was generally happy to sell to gay persons in both cases it was the kind of cake not the kind of customer that mattered to the bakers the distinction being made here is that the bakers were not infringing upon the rights of a protected class because they would refuse that particular request regardless of who made it the intent is clearly one of a personal conviction not one of discrimination
this seems weird though specialty alloys is an entirely different industry than everything else and yet from what ive seen these tariffs are across the board i am a hobbyist ferrous metallurgist granted most of my knowledge is in the realm of the state of the industry in the height of the late industrial revolution but again the massively oversimplified take away is that theres a significant difference between high volume outputs like the mildsteel industry the high carbon tool steel industry the structural steel industry when compared to the niche markets of the specialty alloy industry in that lowdemand realm if so desired you can take the raw materials like pigiron or scrap steel and then render them into those specialty alloys with a fraction of the energy and a bit of proper chemistry knowledge and while our stock of scrap in the us has decreased recently due to a rise in the price of steel that happened a few years ago its back down thanks to the flood of chinesium due to increased production as i understand it i cant promise that i have all the motivations of the market quite right regardless so those caches of scrap steel are going to start growing again sources available on request i promise ive had similar issues with my research as the grain of salt you mention frequently what comes up in sources is clearly info from one lobbying group or another i mean thats understandable its their job to promote their particular source of steel but naturally it does put the information provided into question
" so given that some sort of more modern technocracy restrict the franchise to the very highly educated or perhaps high level civil servants with testing is there any evidence that this would actually lead to better results i mean who is it thats performing the testing you suggest if its the very government that you already distrust this seems rather circular one of the first things i would do if i could try to tinker with modern representative government would be to cut off congress from the lobbyists are lobbyists not exactly the highly educated subjectmatter experts that we were seeking to empower just a moment ago i am not sure that is the case so much anymore and we can perhaps correct the mistake of thinking that bobby joe with his hs education failure to understand basic math or science and ignorance of say the content or structure of government should have much input about how the country is run im not sure how this explains why people wouldnt take to the streets over being disenfranchised accountable to whom right now we have a system where no one is accountable they just need to raise some money participate in one of two established parties and be minimally inoffensive accountable to their constituents we may be in a particularly politically polarized moment in our history right now but i dont think this goes so far as to say that our elected officials are unaccountable as for the hr board ummm the supreme court isnt accountable to anyone a scotus judge can be impeached by congress thats someone"
" they are however neither responsible for 60 of the human rights violations in the world nor the most egregious violations eh doesnt that depend on your definition on what the most egregious violations are the collective punishment of the citizens of gaza the illegal shoot to kill policy of protestors “by declaring the roe used on the gaza border as patently illegal b’tselem is implicitly warning that not only are soldiers bound to disobey the orders but that obeying them would place the soldiers in legal jeopardy of committing war crimes this is the first time an israeli ngo has explicitly warned israeli soldiers that they are about to commit war crimes in advance of the act itself” putting 19 million gazans into the largest concentration camp in the world early back in 2003 the hebrew university sociologist baruch kimmerling he was a distinguished sociologist now when i say back in 2003 bear in mind that the blockade the intensity of the blockade was notched up in 2006 after the elections that brought hamas to power so when kimmerling was speaking it was before the intensity of the blockade had set in and he described gaza as and now i’m quoting him “the world’s largest concentration camp ever” as well as forcing the people of gaza to drink poisoned water as well as the 50 year old occupation which is as far as i can tell unique in the world on top of that most human rights violators deny their crimes or try to obfuscate them while the israeli crimes are absolutely clear and pretty much undeniable "
so i want to clarify something important about the 90 day duration heres the hawaii courts decision relevant portion plaintiffs state of hawaii state and ismail elshikh phd seek a nationwide temporary restraining order that would prohibit the federal defendants from enforcing or implementing sections 2 and 6 of the executive order before it takes effect upon evaluation of the parties submissions and following a hearing on march 15 2017 the court concludes that on the record before it plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their establishment clause claim that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief so the injunction granted by the court were against sections 2 and 6 of trumps executive order im not going to copypaste the entire text of those sections due to their length its listed in ops second link if youd like to read them yourself but the tldr version is that section 6 stated that the ban would remain in effect while the secretary of state secretary of homeland security and director of national intelligence investigated and revamped the application process for accepting refugees the reason why the ban is still considered valid and necessary even after the initial 90 day period would have long passed is because the courts injunction prevented those three entities from conducting their review of the process
" almost all the revolutions which have changed the aspect of nations have been made to consolidate or to destroy social inequality remove the secondary causes which have produced the great convulsions of the world and you will almost always find the principle of inequality at the bottom — alexis de toqueville from democracy in america the story of venezuelas rise and fall holds some important lessons for other countries although it was one of the wealthiest countries in south america it had extreme and persistent wealth inequality marked by a stunningly high 55 of the population living below the poverty line thats more than double the percentage in other large south american economies like brazil and chile then along came a charismatic populist who appealed to the nations poor and they voted for him in droves his victory was seen as a blow to the political and economic establishment that has held sway in venezuela for 40 years he used the countrys oil wealth to enact programs to help the people who got him elected and although the poverty rate initially rose under chavez by 2008 it had been cut in half thats a remarkable turnaround but chavez other economic policies turned out to be just as disastrous as they have been every time theyve been tried in the end everyone suffered but its important to go back and look at the root causes the economic elites in venezuela had enriched themselves for many decades without sufficiently attending to the needs of the poor eventually the poor outnumbered them"
something similar was suggested in this proposal macchiarola m c abraham a 2010 options for student borrowers a derivativesbased proposal to protect students and control debtfueled inflation in the higher education market cornell jl pub poly 20 67 from the abstract after analyzing the causes this article draws on enterprise liability theory to propose a derivativesbased approach to stemming the runaway educational costs and improving the value proposition for ameri can students specifically this article asserts that borrower put rights should be embedded into new student loan contracts such put rights could provide any student borrower the right after a preset period of time following graduation to obtain forgiveness of a portion of her student debt provided that certain objective criteria are satisfied these criteria would center on whether and to what extent a particular student borrowers aggregate postgraduation income fails to meet or exceed predetermined benchmarks the risk and cost of this student borrower put right would be borne primarily by those who under the current higher education financing model bear remarkably little of the risk and yet reap the bulk of the benefits of governmentbacked student loans schools and lenders by placing some of the risk of noneconomic student outcomes on the schools and lenders diligence will be encouraged at a loans inception and a schools cost increases could only be rationalized if they were likely to return commensurate value to the schools students
"there’s an opening arguments podcast about this topic the hosts have much more experience and expertise than i do but i’d like to share a few of their insights i posted a link to the podcast please check the original source for more details and informed legal opinions overall the hosts don’t like the ruling and call it a cowardly decision because neither the defense or prosecution thought the religious bias argument was worth much they discuss a case lukumi v hialea where the religions bias standard was set incredibly high in that case the city council of hialea specifically said they were passing laws to push out a religious group the supreme court rules that because the law was passed with specific obvious and clearly communicated biases they were in violation of the first amendment this new ruling drops that bar significantly i believe the civil rights commission dropped the offending phrase long after deliberation and their initial ruling the opeing arguments notes that this could be impactful in the “muslim ban” case coming up i’m not up to date on where that case is in the judicial process but i know that one of the main defenses of the ban is that it isn’t specifically a muslim ban just a ban on terrorist heavy nations which also just happen to be muslim this ruling could give ammunition to the ban opposition because trump and others who support the ban have made sweeping anti muslim statements which can now be used as substantial evidence of an unconstitutional bias "
there is one argument for lowskilled immigration that doesnt get brought up very often but which i think warrants at least some discussion thats the humanitarian argument a poor person from a third world country who immigrates to the first world will see an incredibly huge improvement in their lives if you take a pessimistic view of the effect of lowskilled immigration on an economy lowskilled immigration can depress wages for lowskilled jobs but by a small amount comparatively taking that pessimistic view youve got a situation where lowskilled immigration slightly decreases the average income in the destination country while greatly increasing the global average income but of course the question is is an individual country really obligated to sacrifice to benefit the world as a whole i think that comes down to how you view morality from a humanistic consequentialist point of view its pretty straightforward lowskilled immigration passes the veil of ignorance test however from a deontological point of view its a lot less obvious we normally see countries as having a duty only to citizens that said even if your morality is firmly deontological you have to ask yourself why you believe people are ever morality obligated to forego their individual interests in the first place if it has anything to do with faith compassion or with building trust to solve coordination problems id argue that those apply not only to individuals but also to governments and the populations of countries
while i agree that conservatives support free speech more id like to add that they also more often consider it ok to shout fire in the proverbial movie theater when its not on fire of course now justice oliver wendell holmes jr penned it as such during the schenck v united states the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic i think we need to consider whether this could extend to lying about climate change at some point or about trickle down economics at what point do these lies reach a comparable point of damage and what about science saying that there arent significant genetic differences between blacks whites and asians does hate speech based on race become a lie close enough to the false fire alarm then i would argue that even if the 1st amendment protects free speech the 14th amendment negates any protection of hate speech we have yet to resolve the conflict between freedom of speech and equal rights under the law and until we do i doubt we can end this debate i would find it odd to see the first amendment trump the 14th amendment given that later amendments see the earlier amendments since if this was the case one could argue that prohibition 18th amendment couldnt be removed by the 21st amendment by necessity i would argue that the 1st has to be trumped by the 14th and has already been shown to do that with the gay marriage ruling trumping freedom of religion based on the 14th amendment
my contention was that the policy has been recently changed in order to knowingly create the current conflict the opinion from 2016 notes this important policy position of the previous administration which was in response to the appeal and attempts to change the relevant settlement in may 2015 the government notified the court that it had decided “to discontinue at this time invoking deterrence as a factor in custody determinations in all cases involving families irrespective of the outcome of this litigation” while maintaining that it could lawfully reinstate the policy that is the relevant government position which has changed invoking deterrence from further immigration behavior as a factor in determining the process the previous administration notes that it could lawfully alter this policy and the current administration has done so i agree that the courts have come to similar conclusions involving whether or not such detention is lawful indeed i dont think it is being heavily disputed whether or not the current practices are legal under us law although there is some discussion about whether or not the particular policies are illegal under international law the current administration has positively asserted that the purpose of the policy is deterrence and using deterrence as a factor in determining detention changes the ways in which these minors are detained the duration of their detainment and the nature of their detainment in terms of family reunification and custody
im saying the opposite im saying that rather than increase the number of colleges the us has increased the number of students via programs like the student loans this increased demand for colleges has resulted in the increase in tuition because there are more students than resources for them this is supposed to encourage more schools to open but restrictive regulations in higher education means that there are high barriers to entry which negate this this means that price for college stays high and will rise as more and more students use these loans now there have been many accredited for profit programs that offer better value such as numerous online colleges which charge basically pennies not to mention community colleges and trade schools but this next problem is culture if movies such as animal house and extremely goofy movie are any indication the idea of the college experience is deeply embeded in our national psyche we believe the meme collegesuccess when it doesnt really what really happens is college is a tool that helps achieve success you dont need an mba to own a business nor a bachelors in computer science to write code nor a bachelors of arts to paint a landscape the knowledge of college used to be very concentrated but the advent of the internet means the knowledge is now very available now something like medicine or engineering will probably always require a degree but something like programming and business management can be learned for basically free
this is not something that would have to be paid for the government can create the money with a stroke of a pen as the new deal demonstrated the multiplier effect of money injected into the economy generates several times as much as the initial amount economists do disagree about effects of new deal mainly it didnt really kill unemployment until war industry got going also no new deals spending wasnt free it was added to national debt most of it was paid down but not all i wont even go into us national debt problem or not edit unemployment rate also it is only for social spending that the political discourse includes questions about where the money would come from over the past several decades the government has spent dozens of times the cost we are talking about to wage war expand the national security state build prisons pay military contractors grow intelligence operations etc sure but those inject money into economy we replaced new deal wpa with dod defense spending whether thats a good thing or not is debate for different post alternatively the money could be generated without any increase in the federal budget by imposing austerity on the pentagon and national security bureaucracy not really like i pointed out its 14 t and dod budget is 687b for this year therefore to completely pay for it it would require massive cuts over several years something that would seriously shock the economy because as i pointed out dod is massive jobs program similar to wpa
i was born in the us and am technically a citizen of one of the banned countries though ive never claimed it through their birthright citizenship so maybe youre not yet terrified of this disallowing us citizens reentry or anything back into the country of their birth well this immediately affects say englishmen of iranian heritage who are dual citizens of iran and the uk this was a concern under obama as well when a republican congress started laying the groundwork with the visa waiver program improvement and terrorist travel prevention act of 2015 but why is this all a big deal because stories like a muslim family being barred from their disneyland vacation lead to public outrage in their country of origin and those countries threaten and will likely soon enact with this result retaliatory visa requirements based on heritage from the link above as the visa waiver program is based on reciprocity a key concern is that the 38 us allies will respond to hr 158 by imposing similar restrictions on born and raised us citizens ambassadors representing 28 european countries penned an open letter urging congress to vote against the bill warning of the detrimental effects to the more than 13 million european citizens who travel to the us annually and the potential for legallymandated reciprocal measures its bad geopolitics will likely lead to increased scrutiny of american citizens here and broad and just another step towards dehumanizing people for their ethnicity
" title what are the pros and cons of us police lacking a duty to protect citizens body in 2005s warren vs district of columbia it was again upheld that police in the us have no duty to protect citizens their only duty is to enforce the law which in essence make them less public servants and more state minions this isnt a derogatory statement it is simply a recognition of fact they serve the state not the citizens yes the state represents the citizens the state in the usa has become its own mega powerful mostly unchecked entity if while enforcing the law a cop protects you that is great if an officer goes outside of his or her duty to protect you awesome just remember they have no duty to protect you and their first and only duty is to enforce the laws of the state as a society we need to discuss whether or not this is acceptable what are the pros and cons of the police lacking this legal obligation how does it compare with the duty to rescue doctrine in other countries is it is line with our core values is it truly in the best interest of our citizens does it give the state too much centralized power should we even have police forces that are not elected thus cannot be checked via votes does the calculus change in jurisdictions where the head of the police is elected rather than appointed nytimes article on the case warren questioned the public duty doctrine which you can peruse here great thanks i understand what you mean i will revise and resubmit it"
of course there is it gets a bit deeper into customs law though i will try to explain that a bit more about it after work basically the relevant legislation to look into here is not us law under which this may be legal and justified but international trade law the general agreement on tariffs and trade 1947 for now i can tell you that under international law countries may not just legally increase tariff rates this is of course a principle the united states has championed since the 1940s trump is using one of the exeptions off the top of my head article xxi of the gatt 1947 countries can temporarily increase tariffs out of national security considerations and other countries can legally retaliate with their own tariffs if the countries cannot solve the dispute amicably however this article is very rarely invoked and it is far from clear that trumps justification fulfills the conditions for the use of this article mainly because they are vaguely defined on purpose and very openfor interpretation politically speaking this is irrelevant trump is simply invoking a tool that will give him an edge in trade negotiations with countries he believes have treated the us unfairly i did not mean to express a personal opinion on trumps policy or his intelligence creating leverage over the other party is usually a good idea in negotiations and since nobody can escape the fact that the us is a very large customer the us can use their market power to exact concessions
"youre argument doesnt make sense how hard someone physical works does not describe how hard someone works in a sense of trying to achieve something i work in a somewhat labor intensive field but that doesnt make it difficult and most people there have zero ambition to do anything in life theyre just there to collect a paycheck and go home writing a book wouldnt be more physically difficult but the amount of effort needed to write a book would turn almost all of them away the point im making is someone who is willing to work hard in high school to get accepted into college then who will work hard enough to graduate college is someone more likely to do well in all of life than someone who just graduates high school alone ive known people who have gone to college for degrees in construction or related fields the exact field someone gets into is irrelevant 65 of high school students go to college of that only 56 graduate college within 6 years these are people who are determined to do well and are working hard to achieve success thats not to say its the only way to do it but my point wasnt that you cant be successful without a degree or in certain fields more that people who go this difficult route are more determined to do well in the first place the degree might not be the thing defining their success their determination to be successful so they took this route might be whats defining their success in other words a causation vs correlation argument "
cgp grey did an excellent video on this exact subject i highly recommend watching it you can find it here written related source here the twoparty system is explained as an inevitable emergent consequence of the first past the post voting system in a very plausible and intuitive way the twoparty system cant be addressed directly that would amount to forcing people how to vote nor is it inherently bad if the entire political spectrum was sufficiently represented in these two parties but first past the post voting itself has serious issues as highlighted in the video and it always leads to a convergence on a twoparty system because voting for anyone other than the two biggest parties who represents your interests better will paradoxically lead to your interests being implemented less because it helps the that one of the two biggest parties that is further away from your own position so voting third party isnt even really protest voting its just shooting yourself in the foot i think it can be pretty widely agreed that this specifically is an undesirable property cgp grey also did some followup videos presenting how other voting systems overcome these issues the problem is though it would be nigh impossible to get anything changed about the current system in the us or any already established political system running on it for that manner because the only ones who could change something about it are the ones who profit the most the two big parties
once i reached midhigh school level of education i started seeing blatant stupidity all over our society things like this that have obvious huge problems with obvious simple solutions as you said just make the benefit scale with income phase it out slowly as you earn more such that it is never possible to have a net loss of money by taking a new job or getting a promotion or raise why is it still like this are people so stupid then when i ask myself that question i remember that i had to explain to two other engineers how graduated tax brackets work because they were worried about a raise putting them into the next tax bracket and causing them to lose money and i realize yes people are that stupid now as an adult dealing with professionals in different fields every day i further realize just how goddamn stupid the average person is i tried to explain to almost everyone i know about how trumps tax plan was a scam because it was changing the method we use to index the tax brackets to inflation none of them even knew that we indexed them to inflation very few of them could understand why it is important to do so after i explained it to them and only a couple of those that did understand it could understand why the new method would cause them to become further and further behind each year cumulatively forever relative to where they would have been if it hadnt been changed i often feel like im trapped in a monkey cage and the monkeys are in charge
"almost every post is about the us freedom of speech and the case brandenburg vs ohio here in germany as i understand it just a normal guy no law student etc we don´t have freedom of speech but we have freedom of thought meaning if someone goes around and says kill all jews we interpret that as inciting violence but i someone here said that we can´t promote nazism this is false to an extent the npd is still alive which is the nazi party as long as they don´t deny the holocaust and incite violence with there speeches they should be fine for the most part though the jan böhmermann case vs erdogan was a limitation old law forbidden citizens to flame the head of states of foreign countries as i understand it of free speech but that law has since been changed we can think and believe what we want in general but if we voice our opinion we must do it in a respectful manner you can´t say fuck those refugees lets go and kill them all for coming into our country and raping our women you can however still express these things in a respectful manner you can be against refugees entering our country you voice concern about how they treat women but for obvious reason we can´t incite hate speech or violence against people i think we have a pretty good system you can´t let people say whatever they want people need to be held responsible for what the say and when they lie as well just look at the whole brexit fiasco that was mostly based on lies edit "
"romannumeralvi thanks for this revised version however i see you didnt remove items from the bullet points so let me explain whats wrong with them economic growth within the us has been enhanced significantly significantly this directly conflicts with your source above that calls the gdp impact of nafta moderate many corporations have benefitted as have their employees however many of these employees work in either canada or mexico source how many is many the us trade deficit has been significantly and adversely affected this is an assertion of fact about causation your source does not support this it only shows a correlation between nafta and the trade deficit and again how much is significantly its better to use hard figures than to editorialize some us workers have benefitted and others have lost with the losers being among the lower paid us workers your source says that some critics of the treaty charge it has resulted in more lowwage competition but youre stating a related point here as fact it would be better to eliminate this and let your source speak for itself the reason i asked you to remove these three points is because the premises are all leading although youve provided facts from a source all three of these questions are preceded by leading versions of those facts in what appears to be an effort to either bias the answers or promote an agenda as such the post is still not framed in a neutral way as required by rule b "
" what nations would those be there are a few decent ones but nothing with the cache of the us i agree with almost everything youve said i completely understand why america is chosen over mexico or some other lesser nation as you say people want to give their families the best shot as an analogy though lets say i am in an abusive relationship with my partner i have the ability to leave my partner to find safety from the abuse but i dont get to pick lets say mila kunis as my next partner just because she would be the best possible option for my future the purpose of asylum is to find safety not to simply upgrade my life to its greatest potential clearly we can’t accept everyone and there needs to be standards for accepting people but we can’t treat them like desperate human beings we agree once again im not suggesting the opposite extreme either we can ask other nations for help too the countries youre mentioning have offered no support although they are quick to critique just because they did that 90150 years ago doesn’t make it different we disagree here it is absolutely different in the same way that our concerns about pollution are different now than they were 100 years ago if the issue is one of humanitarian concerns the problem lies with the offending nations first and foremost this isnt solely an american problem to solve sustainable solutions are what is needed right now and what is happening at the border is not sustainable "
yeah im student a in this scenario i worked to put myself through college for 7 years i got on a scholarship for the second half of it but still i put myself through college and worked extremely hard to make sure i didnt put myself in debt because i wanted to be able to get on with my life when i was out i had to make sacrifices along the way like choosing to go to a cheaper school and not having a lot of free time but i did it it wasnt easy i dont feel that its heartless to say that people need to pay back the money that they borrow yes you could argue that 18 year olds dont have a lot of life experience but shouldnt a college student be able to grasp the concept of a loan i guess as someone who worked my way through college it rubs me the wrong way when others want to borrow money so they dont have to work through college and then when paying it back looks daunting they run to the taxpayers yes paying back loans sucks but there were other options available and you still decided to take out loans we can talk about limiting interest payments incomebased payments or other forms of minor relief but hell i know lots of people who went to trade school or the work force enlisted in the military or took 78 years to put themselves through college just so they could avoid that debt mass forgiveness ignores the people that made big sacrifices to keep themselves out of debt and massively rewards young adults who just borrowed everything
my parents were refugees they were just looking for safety would have gladly relocated to timbuktu in order to escape their home country in fact the reason my family ended up in their previous shitty country because the previous generation was so desperate to escape a genocide they were willing to settle just about anywhere else before coming to the us my parents tried fleeing to lebanon first because it was the closest place they thought they could be safe in but then a civil war broke out and they just happened to be placed in the us after someone in the us was finally was like ok these people obviously need to get off the continent because no matter where they go people keep trying to kill them any refugee whose concern is anything other than immediate safety isnt really a refugee my parents never intended to come to the us they just kind of accidentally ended up here because this was the only country that offered to take them other refugee relatives of mine just as easily ended up in random countries such as sweden or australia because those had the resources that year to take them it makes no sense to me that refugees get to choose where they go to if they are truly refugees each county has a limited number of refugee visas so they go to whoever has the resources to help them that year so to give a spot to someone illegal means someone doesnt get a visa that desperately needs to come here and has been waiting for years
"i can elaborate if youre interested when i was a big bernie bro i hated citizens united but after researching it im now a huge supporter of it basically citizens united was whether a corporation could make a political movie about hillary clinton the law at the time completely prohibited corporations from spending money on political electronic advertisements within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary something like that now what is political was a huge issue famously michael moores fahrenheit 911 was not political but hillary the movie was so moores movie was given the green light but citizen uniteds wasnt they took it to the supreme court arguing their free speech was being restrict they werent able to engage in the political debate the government argued that any money spent buy corporations was unfair and would unduly influence people kennedy asked something along the lines of what if they made a book called hillary the book would the government be able to prevent that and the government said yes now later months later they reeled that back in and said that was no longer the governments position but they were already fucked and they werent able to distinguish why prevent free speech in the form of a movie was ok but a book wasnt edit the scotus ended up ruling correctly that individuals do not lose their free speech rights by associating with others including the form of a corporation or a union "
"there are a lot of problems with education k12 and am sorry that happened to you im glad you were able to take philosophy classes that spoke to you in a sense and helped you grow im more in the camp that those type of classes should be taken at the collegiate level and not in high school but i dont see the harm in offering introductory like courses at the high school level as electives hell i took an ap psychology course in high school that was pretty thought provoking as far as the american dream goes i 100 couldnt agree more im 27 and have a career in corporate finance making roughly 50k the idea of affording a nuclear family with a stay at home wife and two kiddos seems so unreal to me granted i would love to work towards that but it is definitely not something i feel is immediately affordable that doesnt mean i dont think we should keep legislating and working towards keeping the core of the american dream a reality that core is to be able to affordown the roof over your head and to follow the pursuit of happiness in that of starting your own family i think we as a society should work to keep avenues for success open in my opinion the greatest investment we can make as a society is in providing affordable healthcare and education for all this would have exponential effects on the average americans intelligence and their peace of mind also throw in affordable childcare and you have a real recipe for success "
students who cant pay their loans will be looking at a pretty severe credit hit anyway so they probably wouldnt mind as one waiter told me recently to me a credit score is just a number that always goes down no matter what i do i dont see any reason to not default on my student loans i mostly get paid in cash so they can garnish what i report to the irs because thats nothing compared to what i actually earn i dont care if my loans get paid off theyll never get another cent from me there is a problem with using financial punishment for people in the multiple job and gig society the problem is that they already feel so beaten down that they dont care not about something as abstract as a credit score anyway they are quickly deciding to quite simply not play this game this is exactly why the default rate is on the rise for millenials and gen xers theyve given up hope of owning a home buying a new car or raising a family theyve given up on the american dream and the threat of making that future less obtainable by tanking their credit score doesnt affect them as much as it did the generations that came before them so unless they make the punishment more tangible such as debtors prisons or conscription then i dont think millenials will take much notice courts have already started forgiving student loan debts due to financial hardship it is only a matter of time before the bankruptcy laws are changed at a federal level
"there are a lot of problems with education k12 and am sorry that happened to you im glad you were able to take philosophy classes that spoke to you in a sense and helped you grow im more in the camp that those type of classes should be taken at the collegiate level and not in high school but i dont see the harm in offering introductory like courses at the high school level as electives hell i took an ap psychology course in high school that was pretty thought provoking as far as the american dream goes i 100 couldnt agree more im 27 and have a career in corporate finance making roughly 50k the idea of affording a nuclear family with a stay at home wife and two kiddos seems so unreal to me granted i would love to work towards that but it is definitely not something i feel is immediately affordable that doesnt mean i dont think we should keep legislating and working towards keeping the core of the american dream a reality that core is to be able to affordown the roof over your head and to follow the pursuit of happiness in that of starting your own family i think we as a society should work to keep avenues for success open in my opinion the greatest investment we can make as a society is in providing affordable healthcare and education for all this would have exponential effects on the average americans intelligence and their peace of mind also throw in affordable childcare and you have a real recipe for success "
"i believe that protesting in darkness is not a protest but i’m certain open to learning about a ruling that says otherwise i took a quick google stroll but nothing popped up that i could find what gets super interesting to me is whether the nfl will be counted as privately or publicly owned if this issue goes to court the ny yankees were forced to allow women into their clubhouse because it was determined that the stadium was city property throwing the private corporation with private rules argument out the window “ here as in burton the place where the discriminatory acts occurred is owned by the state the city of new york and leased pursuant to special legislative provisions to the yankees in this case as in burton the facility involved is maintained and improved with the use of public funds the court noted in burton that the relationship of the public and private entities in that case placed them in a relationship of interdependence the same observation can be made on these facts where the annual rentals to be paid to the city for use of the stadium depend directly on the drawing power of yankee games and the city has in turn invested substantial sums of public money to enhance that drawing power by modernizing and improving the stadium itself” if the right to protest inside a stadium ever becomes a point of contention in this issue in a court i would be shocked to not see this case brought up as precedent "
" so we can agree with the source that cuba is doing far better than its counterparts do you mean north korea and venezuela or latin america cuba is ranked 31st among 32 countries in the americas region and its overall score is well below the regional and world averages property seizures by police without legal justification are common the state owns most means of production the nominally independent and heavily politicized judiciary is directly subordinate to the national assembly and the communist party which may remove or appoint judges at any time corruption is a serious problem with widespread illegality permeating everyday life throughout the vast statecontrolled economy in contrast despite the almost subsistencelevel wages of most cubans they are generally much better off than citizens of many other developing countries because their meager salaries are supplemented with free education subsidized medical care housing and some subsidized food in terms of the human development report’s human poverty index hpi which focuses on the proportion of people below a threshold level in basic dimensions of human development — living a long and healthy life having access to education and a decent standard of living — cuba ranked an impressive fifth in latin america and the caribbean in 2003 why doesnt the us also get credit for giving the poor a free education subsidized medical care housing and some subsidized food"
"thats a great question heres what i think based on learning german as my second language and as a result learning a fair amount about various european legal systems for a nonlawyer another great first hand account from the experts who are running a better prison in norway was actually placed on reddit this is one of many examples of real justice reforms that would be superior to pardons i would argue that the current state of our justice system and our unnecessarily punitive culture left over from the puritan era are the actual issue to be solved rather than using a pardon power which to me is producing more justice for the well connected than it does for the rank and file citizen with exceptions such as obama and holder using pardons to decriminalize a number of drug sentences et al another excellent reform we could adopt comes from sweden thie ministerial rule prohibiting political interference of almost all varieties in the normal workings of the justice system another example comes from the netherlands and switzerland with drug decriminalization yet another domestic example from north dakota in general id be advocating for removing politicians and the federal government from handling this system as much as possible and make sure its run by some competent and technocratic utilitarian approaches that try to be fair to everyone in the first place rather than giving out mercy arbitrarily to a privileged few "
1 agreed there is no blockade there is an embargo cuba trades freely with the rest of the world and frequently with the us 1 does the embargo have a significant effect on cuba there are contrasting opinions what does cuba wish to export that it cannot what does cuba need to import from the us this link suggests that medical supplies can only be imported from the us a claim that i find to be improbable because i cannot think of anything that is only sold by the us so how does the embargo harm cuba 1 cuban poverty and the human development index here again there are varying opinions background on pre1959 cuba and how the cuban healthcare system has underperformed other countries the hdi presumes that the cuban people have universal access to high quality health care but is this really true if we accept the claims otherwise then the claimed hdi needs to be adjusted downward so is there any evidence that cuban health care for the ordinary person is of high quality in my opinion their relatively good health care outcome statistics provide this support if we believe the cuban government here is an opinion that the statistics are manipulated the forced detention of expectant mothers may work in cuba but would this work in the us 1 most importantly why does a google search why maduro is not a dictator come up blank since 2016 prior to this maduro had defenders please provide a recent link otherwise
"ok ill try and explain my point the comment i was replying to made the following point in the argument is there another country that has been illegally occupying the land of another people for 50 years firstly the comment was a question as there was a question mark at the end however they were making an argument so we can assume that it was a rhetorical question and that they werent really asking us for an answer but are stating it as a truth so how should we interpret it and lets also fill in some of the assumptions that we are supposed to read into the argument so one interpretation could be p premise c conclusion p1 occupying land illegally is bad p2 here is evidence that israel has been occupying land illegally for 50 years c1 therefore israel is bad p3 if one country does something bad and others dont that country is worse than the others p4 no other countries have been illegally occupying land p5 israel has been illegally occupying land for 50 years c2 therefore israel is worse than other countries so these are both valid arguments in this form the issue i pointed out with the argument was that the original comment didnt give any supporting evidence for p4 no other countries have been illegally occupying land so it appeared they were claiming that israel was worse than other countries but not giving any evidence of that fact hope that helps and doesnt just make it more confusing "
different leader same family similar goals there has been indication of dissent in the privileged class since he took office his response has been purges public executions and private murders overseas overall his methods have been similar to his father and grandfathers control media and other speech control travel control the economy feed the army use brinksmanship and invective as diplomacy tools build up nuclear and strategic weapons capability because not being able feed your people makes conventional warfare difficult and nukes make good deterrentsnegotiating pieces and dont have to be fed it is theoretically possible that the situation in nk and his grip on power could change or could be changing that isnt in evidence though he appears to want what he has always wanted stay in power look good international recognitionattentionparticularly from the us cessation of ussk military cooperation us troops out of the peninsula ussk less closely aligned he made progress on many of those goals without having to give anything concrete yet thats a win for him from his perspective i dont yet see any evidence that he is really departing from methods from the pastrather he appears to be continuing them if the details really are worked out later and adhered to over time then we have a change that might require standing against hardliners but his usual method is just to kill those who disagree
such permits also dont solve the other problem that people have with such migrant workers namely the negative effects of having such workers easily available on the employability of locals particularly those on the bottom of the economic totem pole canadians from economically depressed areas have similar complaints about legal temporary foreign workers filling jobs that supposedly would be filled by locals if only the wages were higher or the working conditions a little less poor and thus depressing wages as a whole regardless of how large that effect is if it exists many people believe that it does and so they must either be convinced otherwise or another solution developed which improves their economic prospects i think a complication is that in many of these areas longterm poverty has had something of a brain drain effect meaning that many of the people who havent moved elsewhere for work and might be feasibly being displaced by temporary foreign workers are not really worth the wages they might desire for a variety of reasons some more or less sympathetic in contrast the temporary foreign workers generally are at least based on employers reports after all it costs actual money to fly people over from the philippines to do agricultural labour in canada and deal with all the immigration bureaucracy thats overhead local workers dont have so presumably the extra effort is worth it
" no the unhrc only looks at sovereign states this claim is neither factual nor supportable article 34 the security council may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security if true then the un hrc has no authority to be engaged with this dispute logically then this false claim supports the us leaving the hrc because it is exceeding its authority unlike israel which has no right to use force to maintain the occupation the only body with the authority to determine this is the unsc link please article 24 in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the united nations its members confer on the security council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the security council acts on their behalf in discharging these duties the security council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the united nations the specific powers granted to the security council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in chapters vi vii viii and xii the security council shall submit annual and when necessary special reports to the general assembly for its consideration"
its a shame calabresis article is behind a paywall because id love to see how he actually argues that a special counsel is a principal officer when the supreme court ruled 81 that an independent counsel wasnt i honestly cant find a significant difference between the scope of authority so it seems like grasping at straws to argue that a special counsel is somehow a significantly more powerful position than an independent counsel if anything the sc is much weaker the executive branch itself initiates the sc investigation not congress as with a ic and retains more control over it which both limits muellers authority further and eliminates the separation of powers concerns entirely not necessarily part of the appointments clause argument but it was a big consideration in morrison also bear in mind that kenneth starr was appointed as an ic to investigate a land deal that preceded bill clintons tenure as president and he somehow ended up deepdiving into a totally unrelated sexual harassment civil lawsuit which also preceded clintons tenure as president by several years that was unpopular politically and probably led to the independent counsel act being allowed to expire but it happened and theres no reason to think that it was unconstitutional if that was legitimately within the scope of an ics authority i dont see how you argue that muellers authority as a sc is significantly broader
chavez took office at the beginning of 1999 he died in march of 2013 but he had been very ill for the last few months and wasnt even in the country thats also the year the severe economic collapse started which i believe would affect the gini coefficient see below so i think its most appropriate to look at the period from 1999 through 2012 according to the cia factbook the gini index for 1998 the year before chavez took office was 495 the world bank says it was 498 by 2011 the last year for which i could find good data it was 390 thats a drop of more than 20 although gini index itself has its critics it is possible for the gini index of a country to rise due to increasing income inequality while the number of people living in absolute poverty is actually declining the economic shifts during this period did lead to dramatic drops in poverty as shown on this graph from this page chart 6 on that page also shows that during about an 8year period the gini coefficient in venezuela dropped more than in any other country in latin america all that being said chavez caused major political and economic strife and left the place a wreck the title of this article sums it up well if a bit understated chavez leaves venezuelan economy more equal less stable severe economic downturns disproportionately affect the poor which may explain whatever increased inequality theyve seen since 2012
"i would throw that back to you and argue that if you want the choice to be easier between college and no college you have to narrow the overall salary gap across all professions perhaps via a steeper more progressive income tax brackets which makes the two paths more equivalent parents place their children on paths in life and if the choice is go to college so that you will have a 80 chance at a sixfigure salary and a nice live and dont go to college and you will have a 1 chance at a sixfigure salary and a nice life which would you choose for your children most nonprofessional careers are barely seen as careers anymore would you encourage your child to become a bus driver how about a clerk in a store what about a meat cutter or a baker how about a custodian no way because those jobs all max out around 30k and 30k is an objectively shitty salary unless youre really poor or live in a very special part of the country meanwhile some kid who went to college has the chance of landing a job that may start at 30k but has potential to double with some experience and triple if theyre really good for most college majors professional occupations have left the nonprofessional occupations in the dust with a few exceptions but those still arent equal to professional careers even plumbers and electricians sit in the 60k range good but still not the same as many college careers "
if government is going to pick up the tab then some gatekeeping is required imo we cant just throw a bunch of people at college say study whatever and move on we can either limit it by degree slots depending on what market demands or test people and those who dont make the cut do something else i had this post in different post about nordic countries paying for colleges sure but the difference in many other countries there is a ton of filtering and they do their best to weed out those who cant hack in college so they dont pay for it norway for example has 351 in higher education according to my norwegian friend higher education also includes trade schools which americans dont consider higher education though we should united states on other hand enrolls 697 of high school graduates in college thus any proposal that keeps most universities but just pays for it is likely not to be a good return on investment college education is investment like any other one issue with college loans is market forces are not acting on rationally one way to fix college loans would be to make them discharge in bankruptcy 510 years after last loan was issued if people who got the loan has well paying job they can easily pay the loan back if people cant get a good job with that degree or that person banks would quickly catch on that x and y is bad deal and not give those loans out
"that is true american law requires an investigation to be completed before tariff safeguards protective measures can be implemented and the investigation recommended three options for protection one of which was the flat tariff rates which are now being implemented the report also recommended that the president should exercise discretion in applying these measures to different countries effectively implying that he couldshould waive these measures tocountries that were willing to help solve the threat to the american steel and aluminum sectors the report to my knowledge did not mention international law however so either the department of commerce did not consider whether these proposed tariffs clashed with international obligations or they did not publish their findings it is also relevant to mention that these kinds of investigations usually take place in relation to antidumping measures which are imposed when importing countries believe that exporting countries compete unfairly by giving some sort of state aid like subsidies to exporting companies this specific kind of investigation however was to my knowledge unprecedented in the us and i personally view it not as an apolitical safeguard measure but as a direct result of the trump administrations trade policy basically the administration is creating the legal tools they need to exercise leverage "
"objectively the north were the good guys though in every sense of the words that is my issue whether fighting directly for the abolition of slavery or for the cause of the staying of the union both are objectively superior notions than to acts of treason in the name of state rights suppression and slavery the issue i have is that it is a nefarious pivot not by you but the concept as a whole to say “it wasn’t really about slavery” when it was definitively no matter what the actual direct call to arms was the south wanted the federal government to stop the northern states from exercising their constitutional rights to selfgovernance and any person that fought against the union on this as a principle was objectively wrong it wasn’t independence because justified opposition for independence must come from the objective position of moral superiority and the south just did not have that but you are right we do agree on lots of things even if we are do not totally see eye to eye on everything and i will digress i hope you continue to fight for improvement in your state we can all happily disagree on the fine points when everyone is on an even playing field of educated rational ideals and you are an example for your state that we definitively can have just that this may not be phrased as i would like but i hope you understand my intent take care friend "
"ok well first you’re going to have to distinguish between climate change and an anthropogenic cause we can definitively prove that the mean global temp has been rising for some time we cannot definitively prove that humans are causing that rise in fact long term projections of global temps have been consistently overestimating the rise since the ‘90s so given that you’re asking for a lot of people to be held liable for more money in damages than exists on earth you’re going to need to prove definitive causality also if we cannot definitively prove the cause assigning blame to denial of the rise in global temps is a nonstarter without a definitive cause you have no grounds for any kind of case it would get thrown out immediately tangentially i’ve noticed that liberals tend to have just as poor an understanding of science as conservatives they just pick a different side of the argument to be on why is that surely most liberals understand by now an anthropogenic cause for climate change is not an established scientific fact it’s a consensus based on the evidence we have fwiw i’m not a denier i used to be because i refused to believe something just because rich people told me too however i did a lot of research on my own before drawing my own conclusions i’ve noticed that liberals are just as susceptible to blind ideological belief as conservatives "
"say that when they all vote republican because they dont believe in abortion whe they vote against sec education in school because they dont believe in birth control when they vote to strip lgbt rights because they dont accept homosexuality quite frankly i feel that youre lucky american conservatives are so antiimmigration because that shit can backfire on you real quick gotta be conscious of the negative traits peoples culture bring in along with the good ones look at the hassidic enclaves in new york and the problems with them because they dont integrate not because theyre jewish but because theyre an insular culture that acts together to exploit the system and protect values and traditions that are unacceptable to mainstream america and actively abuse programs in a systematic manner theyre a shit backwards sect comparable to bountiful bc mormons their own people are exploited and suffer trapped in the community and prevented from participating in opportunities in the wider society theyre just as much victims as anyone else integration is a serious concern that shouldnt be handwaved of course since illegal immigration isnt really feasible to stop in america the correct answer to to proactively engage and interact with the community but dont go throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignoring the very real concerns of unchecked migration "
did they yes c plaintiffs’ argument that the president’s entry suspension violates §1152a1a ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the ina section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the united states and therefore eligible to receive a visa once §1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility §1152a1a prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits had congress intended in §1152a1a to constrain the president’s power to determine who may enter the country it could have chosen language directed to that end common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152a1a does not limit the president’s delegated authority under §1182f presidents have repeatedly exercised their authority to suspend entry on the basis of nationality and on plaintiffs’ reading the president would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic or even if the united states were on the brink of war i never said you could do that i am saying if that is your claim then there would be factual based evidence to prove where the terrorism lies lol okay just because you dont agree with the study its irrelevant you obviously will not be changing your opinion which is very much an opinion at this point
on the surface and yet those voters will be hardest hit a recent reuters report quoted us farmers saying they feared a potential trade war “these tariffs are very likely to accelerate a titfortat approach on trade putting us agricultural exports in the crosshairs” said brian kuehl executive director of farmers for free trade the organization released a statement after the executive order was signed saying “we expect that these tariffs will cause retaliation that will come out of the pockets of american farmers” the statement concluded with a promise to demonstrate the negative effects of the tariffs in the upcoming months iowa farmer and president of the american soybean association asa john heisdorffer called the tariffs “a disastrous course of action” echoing fears of retaliation from valuable trade partners farmers aren’t the only ones frustrated by the new tariffs “the equipment manufacturing industry is profoundly disappointed at president trump’s actions today to advance import tariffs on steel and aluminum steel accounts for roughly 10 of equipment manufacturers’ direct costs” explains a statement released by the association of equipment manufacturers aem “the price of steel has already risen in anticipation of the administration’s actions and a 25 tariff will only further erode the progress our industry has made over the past year”
and since canada is our top importer of steel that makes them a national security threat i think you meant to say exporter which is not true steel importers from the us dont hurt us because we keep the factories if we need to turn them to wartime production here is a key quote from a us steel manufacturer which more people need to read it really lays out the canada situation our goal is to maximize domestic capabilities combined with supplies from unquestionably reliable third parties the one supplier in whom i have complete confidence is canada not only do we currently have a steel surplus with canada but we share a border and have synergistic strategic economic and national security interests however treating canada as a unique partner under any section 232 relief measures requires that canada also strengthen and align its trade enforcement efforts with ours circumvention and evasion of us trade laws and actions through canada is unacceptable canada has strengthened and aligned its trade enforcement efforts just before the g7 did they do enough thats the conversation we should really be having not what if theres a war and canada stops selling us steel i have not seen a single expert suggest that that is a conceivable possibility ps that last line is in response to conversations going on elsewhere in the thread you didnt make that point
"one way of describing his justification goes like this 1 create and defend a policy which does something undesirable 2 make demands of opposition members of congress in order to alter that policy knowing that the demands are concessions which many members of the opposition cannot concede to while still maintaining representation of their constituencies 3 blame the effects of the first policy on the failure of the opposition to capitulate to demands asserting that had they conceded the policy would indeed no longer be in effect we can view this in generalized terms as a common tactic that t uses to persuade opposition during negotiation the same series of events can describe the daca issues tariff negotiations and sanctuary city enforcement the generalized notion is that if you create a harmful policy but avoid public awareness of the policys origin then create a massive public awareness of a willingness to change the policy contingent upon some other group compromising its position the convinced members of the public will place blame on the second party for not changing their position in order to alter the policy this is especially effective if the policy is particularly egregious because then the public perception will be that the opposition refuses to change a relatively unimportant posture in order to rescind a very negative policy "
"hi there ucanopey im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is actually more of an economics question because it deals with how interest rates work more broadly across the economy you might be better off posting it on an economics subreddit but if you choose to post it here you would need to revise it to comply with our submission rules first it would be good to replace your sources because the washington post is behind a paywall for a lot of people heres the same article on another site and a similar article from cnbc then youd have to rework the last paragraph if this trend is set to continue is it financially feasible its not entirely clear what you mean by feasible here and the question is also possibly a request for speculation about the future which is prohibited by rule g i would suggest reworking it like my friend has been super vocal about this arguing why cant the government lower interest rates while cutting grants to lower income what your friend said is not relevant in this forum if you wish to establish a premise make sure it comes from a qualified source thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
yes because one is the decisions of a commission tasked explicitly with neutral decisionmaking and another is the background words of the head of the executive branch tasked with descriminating on immigration have you read the decision the justices addressed this argument as fundamentally irrelevant c plaintiffs’ argument that the president’s entry suspension violates §1152a1a ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the ina section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the united states and therefore eligible to receive a visa once §1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility §1152a1a prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits had congress intended in §1152a1a to constrain the president’s power to determine who may enter the country it could have chosen language directed to that end common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152a1a does not limit the president’s delegated authority under §1182f presidents have repeatedly exercised their authority to suspend entry on the basis of nationality and on plaintiffs’ reading the president would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic or even if the united states were on the brink of war
"hi there uechuck215 im a mod in rneutralpolitics im not sure i understand the premises here can you explain a few things is there legal or court precedent which would compel justice kennedy to recuse himself if issues involving dts finances came before the court are you asking about a hypothetical past like if such issues had come before the court while kennedy was on it the way its worded now it sounds like youre asking about potential future cases but the court is out of session and kennedy wont be on it when they start hearing cases again would his replacement be similarly compelled to recuse because of the circumstances under which kennedy announced his retirement what are the circumstances under which kennedy announced his retirement can you be a little more specific here moreover questions phrased in the future tense what willwouldcould happen all violate rule g because they require speculation on the part of the respondents the questions would have to be reframed so that its clear thats not what youre doing feel free to reply here with any comments thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"i’m going to get slammed by the moderators on not having sources or some other rule but this is a serious question is this the administration to be talking about wholesale rewriting of how we do business we have a current administration who is being questioned for flouting the rule of law it has also expressed an interest in becoming a “king” and there has been a mass exodus of prominent conservative pundits saying that these tendencies are a threat to our democracy and ample concerns about corruption and collusion with foreign governments and inappropriate ties to corporations i’ve provided just one link to each of these to give the basis for them each is obviously more complex and nuanced but these are verifications they they are things to consider so even if this is a good exercise to periodically do or if our democracy is bloated is this the administration to do the rewriting i also believe that having many of these governmental redundancies is along the line of the checks and balances that our forefathers built into our system of government should one head of one agency a political appointment not a vote from the people really have that much control over many of these issues do we want to have such wild swings in policy depending on the fickle whim of who’s in office maybe having redundancies is a good check on power "
"are you arguing that because the laws were de jure nondiscriminatory that therefore we cant conclude that the laws were not being applied equally guinn v united states is the famous grandfather clause case in which voters whos grandfathers could vote were exempt for literacy tests as it was 1915 most black voters grandfathers would not have been able to vote having been slaves so it was clear that the law was not being applied equally this law on the other hand from the text ive read of it does nothing to prove that laws are not being applied evenly in the case of new pot stores essentially it says that we want more women and sociallyeconomically challenged individuals to own pot stores and under the small business act congress has to power help individuals who meet certain criteria which reading the sba seem rather absurd under the sba a women is economically disadvantaged if a woman is presumed economically disadvantaged if she has a personal net worth of less than 750000 her adjusted gross yearly income averaged over the three years preceding the certification does not exceed 350000 and the fair market value of all her assets including her primary residence and the value of the business concern does not exceed 6 million which seems a huge overreach in what an economically disadvantaged person could be called "
" and realistically a full change and how elections work is eventually going to be hamstrung by the 26th amendment and require both parties to work together against their own interests to amend the constitution in a way that does not benefit them is that the right amendement the 26th is this section 1 the right of citizens of the united states who are eighteen years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of age section 2 the congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation2 edit looking through some of the related ones it looks like the 23rd may be what youre thinking of the district constituting the seat of government of the united states shall appoint in such manner as the congress may direct a number of electors of president and vice president equal to the whole number of senators and representatives in congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a state but in no event more than the least populous state they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states but they shall be considered for the purposes of the election of president and vice president to be electors appointed by a state and they shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment "
voting for a third party amounts to a protest votes i guess but no more than voting for a major party candidate after all the odds that ones vote will matter is very very low take a presidential election in summary we estimate the probability of a single vote being decisive as at most about 1 in 10 million in a few states near the national median averaging these probabilities over all the states and weighting by turnout yields a 1 in 60 million chance that a randomlyselected voter will be decisive so voting based on the premise that the vote will matter is highly irrational thus the joke about two economists seeing each other at the polls within the economics departments at certain universities there is a famous but probably apocryphal story about two worldclass economists who run into each other at the voting booth what are you doing here one asks my wife made me come the other says the first economist gives a confirming nod the same after a mutually sheepish moment one of them hatches a plan if you promise never to tell anyone you saw me here ill never tell anyone i saw you they shake hands finish their polling business and scurry off so if its not rational to vote based on impact why vote in my view its a moral duty and when one is freed from worrying about impact theres no reason not to vote third party
just some thoughts 1 overstays once we have a strong policy for documented legal guest workers then we can drop the enforcement hammer on any employers who are exploiting illegal workers 2 any given labor role is going to have a sustainable market rate if an industry cant attract workers at a sustainable pay rate then that industry needs to leave the us market and make room for another allowing foreign guest workers allows us to set that sustainable pay rate much lower rather than force farms and factories to close down 3 other countries have large populations of guest workers but still retain their national and ethnic identities we need to learn lessons from those countries to make such a policy salable to nationalist identitarians here 4 yes it is right they would still have full constitutional rights just as holders of tourist visas would have but would definitely be secondclass workers keep in mind though that this is entirely voluntary on their part and that second class by us standards is still a huge improvement for many people throughout the world 5 under current law yes this isnt necessarily a dealbreaker as long as the workers themselves remain nonimmigrants they would be required to return to their home countries at the end of their visa term unless they manage to transition to immigrant status
a big part of the problem is that agricultural labor is semiskilled labor and those skills just dont exist in the american workforce the notion that migrant workers even undocumented migrant workers make under minimum wage is a common myth this wapo long form article cites 12 to 18 for farm labor in california above the minimum wage of 11hour this politifact article from 2011 gives a figure of 950 to 12 per hour specifically for undocumented crop pickers in georgia well above the minimum wage of 725 per hour but harvesting jobs almost always pay piece rate and thats the rub you need to know what youre doing to make a good wage if you pull someone off the street to harvest theyre probably going to make minimum wage by default which is a waste of their time and a waste of the farmers time by having an unproductive worker and theyre temporary migrant workers make a living by being migrant workers a migrant worker might spend may harvesting asparagus in california then june harvesting broccoli in a different part of california then go to western washington to harvest cherries in july before hopping over the cascades to harvest apples in eastern washington in august then jet over to minnesota to harvest sugar beets in september migrant work isnt worth it to many americans even at rates well above minimum wage
my wife is latina an immigrant and now a citizen the church we attend is spanish speaking i am now bilingual as well and have the opportunity to view these issues from several perspectives im surprised to not hear this except from a few offending acquaintances that many illegal aliens are also identity thieves this is not a suspicion by the admission of my wifes acquaintance she contacted a coyote and purchased a valid social security number and was allowed into the country after being deported twice by a border official who was part of the coyotes network these images of immigrants wandering across the border without any contacts in the country or papers isnt half the story i like her my wifes acquaintance family and hope she stays though her story infuriates me i have some really mixed feelings about her situation edit in case anyone is interested edit mixed feelings refer to our acquaintance i have no mixed feelings about my wifes path to citizenship you know the one where you enter legally comply with the law and become a citizen lots of people like to pretend that there is no legal way which simply is not true btw my wife did not acquire citizenship through our marriage she simply applied for a greencard was accepted and came to the states then applied for citizenship after five years of residence
so the more ive looked into this i think this is the most substantial reasoning for their actions i dont know if it is policy wise the best action but i can at least see how these niche types of steel are important to national security i found this report press release from an industry group arguing for government help against foreign steel producers they list the following specialty steel uses 1 the joint strike fighter f135 engine the gears bearings and the body itself will use high performance specialty steels and superalloys produced by us specialty steel companies 2 land based vehicles such as the bradley fighting vehicle abrams tank and the family of light armored vehicles use significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle 3 steel plate is used in the bodies and propulsion systems of the naval fleet 4 the control cables on virtually all military aircraft including fighter jets and military transport planes are produced from steel wire rope its hard to copy here but appendix 2 of the report has a fairly comprehensive list of the steels used in our weapon systems all that said i do have to take this report with a grain of salt its produced by an industry lobbying group which wants the government to protect them from subsidize chinese steel it doesnt provide much in the way of capacity information
"do we want to have such wild swings in policy depending on the fickle whim of who’s in office policy doesnt really have anything to do with this it is just a restructuring of organizations the scope of these changes would be the exuctive branch ops pdf states to that end executive order eo 13781 entitled “comprehensive plan for reorganizing the executive branch” highlights the need to evaluate the organizational constructs that support today’s mission delivery objectives building on a history of bipartisan government reform initiatives the eo focuses specifically on the role of organizational alignment in reducing “duplication and redundancy” and improving “efficiency effectiveness and accountability of the executive branch”4 almost all of the changes seem procedural rather than political should one head of one agency a political appointment not a vote from the people really have that much control over many of these issues im not sure how you can argue that the executive branch should not have control over the executive branch as long as he acts in a constitutional manner doing so would violate the constitution and would also be functionally uneforceable since the executive could always restructure by leaving posts vacant i mean who else but the executive should alter the structure of the executive "
"i never said israel is evil i dont think in such categories what is unique about israel and the us is that they both want to commit their human rights violations and yet be regarded as countries of utmost morals that can set the standard for everybody else on respecting human rights in the links above and all over the internet you can find instances of netanyahu and his subordinates engaging in obvious doublespeak and fact spin about their actions ignoring evidence when presented attacking back the messenger with fallacies and they do this with a proud smirk on their face they know what theyre doing we have to be fair israel and the us have many reasons to be proud of what they are but they also have a dark side that they fiercely protect and encourage imagine if an iran official said they are a country of impeccable record on human rights and that they should lead and tell everyone else what to do never happened they know their place and this is one reasons of a few they get criticized but they get criticized less than israel does tldr israel and the us deliberately set very high standards for themselves a prism through which they want to be seen as model citizens in international diplomacy and use this to influence others but then they get angry when others judge them by these very high standards "
those who will see their premiums rise due to the elimination of one of the key components that was intended to keep premiums down will certainly be hurt by the elimination of the mandate the aca needs to have the young and healthy in the pool in order to keep cost down as best as possible for those who are older and less healthy with the elimination of the penalty we will see more and more people leave the marketplace in order to maximize profits insurance companies will raise rates on those who are in the marketplace to make up for the customer they are losing with the repeal of the mandate now if the court were to allow the preexisting conditions requirements to be eliminated by siding with the conservative states premiums for those unlucky enough to have dealt with previous illnesses will sky rocket if they are even still available anymore all together by the actual legal question yes the insurance companies are the ones who are hurt by losing customers with the removal of penalties while still being forced to cover those with preexisting conditions if they have to continue to raise premiums as a result of things staying as they are currently they will continue to lose customers who wont be able to afford insurance if we go back to the preaca rules the clear winners will be insurance companies
im gonna let you in on a big secret these virtue signalling movements are just euphemisms to undermine the trump presidency the goal is to disrupt and cause chaos in an attempt to somehow show the president is unfit to lead they dont give the slightest shit about others theyre playing their political game and thats it these causes are used as justifications to make a fuss nothing else think about it taking a knee protest can in no way help the cause used as a justification theyll throw blanket statement like raising awareness or some other crap but it cant have any real life impact its basically taking an opportunity to throw a tantrum and have it broadcasted nationally by highjacking an high profile event in the end it certainly pissed off the audience and made them unsympathetic to the defended cause which you may or may not agree with this is irrelevant here which is certainly detrimental dumb celebrities dont make good spokesperson they make good political pawns obviously someone in the background is pulling the strings with some cold hard cash because every dumb celebs parrots some democratic viewpoints every opportunities they have and anyone in disagreement is ostracized politics is an insidious game and nothing is as it seems its all smoke screens and illicit affaires behind closed doors
yeah heres how i made the estimate reports indicate roughly 2300 children were separated from parents over 46 week period so deducing from the 80 figure its something like 100010 of the total child detainee population which gives us an estimate of 10000 total again referring the 2300 in about a month were looking at around a 15 per month in about 4 months time of this policy the separated child population would be somewhere around equal to the unseparated population which i figured to be around 7000 deducing from the 80 statistic i briefly grabbed a source to refresh me on how i did this math and it actually provides some s that i had originally gotten through deduction but in any case i think im in the realm of accurate heres that source edit im glancing back at this after letting it sit in my head with the numbers i read at that source i think the gap closes even faster than i estimated but key point im making is that the 80 stat being shared by trump ignores the rate of change which appears to be substantial edit 2 something just struck me so i figured id edit i didnt account at all for unaccompanied minors continuing to be detained as well i have no idea at what rate theyre showing up per month or how their length of stay differs that kind of thing rather important for predicting a ratio
"hi there ugeordilaforge im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules are there tariffs that have helped or harmed the united states in the past to comply with rules a c and d please make this question a bit more specific and include some background information with sources as phrased its highly probable that in the 200 year history of the country there are indeed tariffs that have both helped and harmed the us you might instead ask for specific examples of tariffs that have done both or whether we can draw conclusions about the net effect of tariffs also please note that the source guidelines say that video or audio may not be used as the primary or exclusive source but can be included if accompanied by a link to an official transcript or an article describing the content so in addition to adding sources requested above please provide some textbased support for your video if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
why arent they filling for asylum in the nations they pass through on the way to our border what nations would those be there are a few decent ones but nothing with the cache of the us weve sold ourselves as the country of immigrants with the american dream the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet if you are from guatemala and you had to make a dangerous exhausting trek with your family are you going to stop in costa rica or mexico places that cant offer the same opportunity and may even have some of the very issues your trying to escape or would you travel the extra distance and try to give your family what you think is their best shot clearly we cant accept everyone and there needs to be standards for accepting people but we cant treat them like desperate human beings rather than criminals and we can help them even if that doesnt mean granting them asylum we can ask other nations for help too canada for instance even mexico and others my heritage in the us are people fleeing desperate situations famine in ireland and antisemitism in poland and russia before wwii its not like my family went through this application process and did anything special besides get on a boat coming to the us and hope to be let in just because they did that 90150 years ago doesnt make it different
firstly trump has only agreed to meet and back out of the war games in return the us has called for the complete dismantling of the nuclear program has gotten american political prisoners released and returned to their families for nothing the iran deal in contrast the obama administration paid 13 billion in cash for the release of 4 prisoners the iran deal was so wildly unpopular that the obama administration couldnt get the senate votes to ratify it as a treaty because it was a treaty knowing fully that any opposing administration could end the deal upon taking office lastly the iran nuclear deal did not stop the development for irans icbm program which is the delivery system for nukes the deal was just bad all the way around and since it was not ratified as a treaty trump had every right to end it stopping war games along nks coast for the complete dismantling the nuclear program and releasing american citizenssounds like a pretty good trade off we could probably do them somewhere else like off the coast of japan were not removing the troops from sk were just stopping war games do you suggest we do nothing and just continue to allow them to fire nuclear weapons over japan prior regimes in nk have shown lack of good faith but not kju yet dont we at least try to give peace a chance
your first study again suffered the same problem as the cardkrueger metaanalysis which they published in 1995 not the 1994 which was a study done on the effects of the minimum wage on 2 adjoining areas but still had the same problems it did not factor in shortvslong term trends found in the study it merely measured whether the findings of the study supported the raising the minimum wage as a means of combating poverty or not actually i forgot to mention a few studies that address this adr 2011 including controls for longterm growth differences among states and for heterogeneous economic shocks renders the employment and hours elasticities indistinguishable from zero and rules out any but very small disemployment effect allowing for longterm differential state trends makes the employment estimates indistinguishable from zero interestingly there is no evidence that the longterm employment response quarter sixteen or later is any more negative than the contemporaneous one and dlr 2010 we show that traditional approaches that do not account for local economic conditions tend to produce spurious negative effects due to spatial heterogeneities in employment trends that are unrelated to minimum wage policies our findings are robust to allowing for longterm effects of minimum wage changes
" they changed what they claim the meeting was about several times some of us call those things lies you clearly don’t want to believe that there could be something nefarious happening but overwhelmingly the evidence that is being presented and reported by reputable news sources is leading in a different direction i believe whatever the evidence shows i believe there could clearly have been something nefarious going on yet i havent heard any overwhelming evidence that leads in a different direction once again do you have a source that shows what some of this overwhelming evidence is that the primary discussion was not about adoption i know the “reputable news” claim is going to be problematic for you just because trump says something is “fake news” doesn’t mean it is most of the press reporting on these things have reputations that go back farther than trump’s been alive let alone a been a politician it isn’t by accident that he’s working so hard to discredit those who are reporting on his malfeasance he’s been working his whole life to hone skills that most of us would find extremely unethical and distasteful youve written four paragraphs about overwhelming evidence and how i wont believe it because something could you just link to an article or explain what this evidence shows"
the point is that by ascribing any type of value judgement or label to it you compromise the neutrality of the post in a submission were looking for just the facts without any sort of editorializing thats part of the meaning of the neutrality rule for submissions the other part is outlining the issue in a balanced way giving credence to all sides of the argument what do you call that or how would you prefer me to phrase it to meet your rules we would prefer insist really that you not phrase it in any editorialized way whatsoever heres how a rulescompliant version of this post might be crafted title do nyt reporter ali watkins actions violate any laws body ali watkins is a reporter who was involved in a romantic relationship with one of her sources that source james a wolfe was arrested recently following an investigation into leaks of classified information at the same time investigators also seized years worth of email and phone records from ali watkins with whom wolfe is alleged to have lied to the fbi about being in contact and sharing classified information source 1 source 2 does watkins involvement with wolfe and acceptance of any possibly classified information from him constitute any illegal actions are these actions protected in any way due to her status as a reporter
im not denying the reality of gang violence in south america but admitting everyone who claims to fear gang violence means admitting everyone including gang members themselves if an asylum seeker can make the case that you outlined if they can prove it then maybe the court can decide they have a valid claim if not then how can we determine who is a legitimate victim and who is actually a violent gang member abusing our asylum laws to gain entry in the words of jeff sessions the mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes such as domestic violence or gang violence or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime cannot itself establish an asylum claim the fact is that frivolous claims of asylum are overburdening the system and pushing legitimate claims to the backlog according to sessions only 20 of asylum claims have been found by judges to be legitimate if we open the door to tenuous claims of perseuction based on dubious group identities where does it stop does the entire population of honduras have a valid claim to asylum what about countries where people are going hungry if government inaction or incompetence is now persecution perhaps we should open our doors to them too should we just have fully open borders to all
"my own personal opinion he wasnt really a swing vote he went left on gay marriage and casey v planned parenthood as well as the affirmative action cases now those are huge cases so i think its fair to hold him as more swing votey than other justices but he was generally fairly conservative ruling with the conservatives on citizens united heller and the individual mandate of the aca though roberts flipped there many people agree this his swingvoteyness was more due to his completely inarticulate constitutional interpretation method his most liberal position would undoubtedly be his judicial opinion in casey v planned parenthood my personal feelings about abortion aside abortion is nowhere in the constitution and this country does not have a history of recognizing abortion as a fundamental liberty interest as is often used to recognize unenumerated rights so i really dont see how abortion could fit in there at all however there is a decent argument for equal protection being applied to samesex marriage by a living originalism approach so i wouldnt count that as his most liberal position his most conservative position would probably be his position in citizens united the political free speech rights of people are not destroyed because they are in the form of a corporation "
look man i understand the desire for concrete numbers that can be compared directly that will always be the most ideal scenario and with that i can therefore agree that not having them is not ideal however at the moment 100 of all cases under trump are resulting in separation until the executive order takes hold by no definition of rarely is that ever true in fact if 50 of cases resulted in separation you wouldnt be able to use the word rarely unless you want to call the website a liar or untrustworthy which is a different discussion saying relatively rarely is a statement that has actual meaning and displays a difference in policy to trump which is sitting at 100 that is a massive distinction in policy exactly how distinctive yes we need numbers but to say it contains no facts if false a qualitative fact is still a fact if i say i am older than my son that is a fact regardless of whether i include numbers or not if you want to get into credibility of politifact they are one of the most credible sources that arent a primary source you can look on the side of their site for their sources and when their source is a quote they provide you with who said it and what their qualification is most of their articles do in fact contain strict numbers i personally vouch for them
im not sure how this is taught in us schools but it was not victory only because us most probably it would still happen because of ussr successes but it would be longer and bloodier us was definitely the strawiron pipe that broke the hitlers back at the time what happened after greatly helped but was not altruistic us built its power by helping to rebuild eu but you also need to take into the context that there was competition with ussr by doing it instead of them they guaranteed the influence and on that influence the economic empire was born for that influence us went to wars in the years to come only for that influence and to make sure ussr didn’t get it sure you could do that and isolate yourself completely world would be in another recessionbecause you know also all us factories companies registered in the eu would crash their stock from the mothership at the end of the day it would probably be china economically picking up the slack and power that comes with it the important thing to keep in mind is that us made these decisions to keep its influence politically and economically look how much flak putin got for crimea and look how much flak usuk got for lying to allies about irak this is the power i really wanna say “with great power comes great responsibility”d
thank you for the comment yes i am asking specifically why bernie sanders supports tariff imposition on aforementioned countries that he wants to be targeted i have deleted my previous submission but my intention of posting is to see differing viewpoints backed up by objective data as there have been some backlash on sanders supposed bias which i wont go into details to avoid soliciting biased emotional response as i have already mentioned the supposed bias in my previous submission i could resubmit again and reframe my query to more neutral here is my proposed reedit qwhat data is there to support targeting vietnam china skorea and russia with imposed tarrif on steel and aluminum instead of eu and canada body of text bernie sanders support tariffs on said countries that are illegally dumping steel and aluminum into the us and throughout the world he also further reasoned that it simply makes no sense to start a trade war with canada the european union and others who are engaged in fair trade are not cheating and where workers are paid a living wage with good benefits what reliable data are available to support the claim that s korea vietnam china and russia are dumping steel and aluminium into the world market and that workers in these countries are not paid fairly
" nothing is free yes of course it does but youre buying more national security its not the same capability before and after i dont quite understand your point sorry what do you mean when you say the us will buy more national security why would this happen as a result of tariffs when i speculated that national security would be more costly what i meant was that with the same amount of national security ie not an increase in defense it would cost more than before because steel costs more now is this what you also meant its not the same capability before and after i think your point is that us steel will become more prominent in defense industry thus increasing quality of defense products am i right with this if so is this actually true ive heard claims from one other member that the us steel industry is far superior to international sources but i havent seen many sources to corroborate that fact and i also dont know why us steel consumers dont invest more in the supposedly higher quality us steel if it will increase the effectiveness products instead of spending so much on low quality steel from international sources why not buy the expensive domestic product if it is so much better and if it will increase quality so much so that it makes up for the price difference "
"i was actually referring to the reason behind the protests as being mistaken for antimilitary the overall reaction from the fans of the nfl makes for an odd contrast to the opinion of the vast amount of service members ive seen weight in i suppose the military could feel support from it but at the same time a lot seem to understand the protest and some even agree having been shot at under direct orders to not return fire the police arent equipped mentally or trained to conduct themselves in a military manner armed with military weapons and tech all of those toys with none of the training and the only enemy is supposed to have a right to a fair trial now some of my information is wrong or some of yours is “until 2009 no nfl player stood for the national anthem because players actually stayed in the locker room as the anthem played” espn’s stephen a smith explained in 2016 “the players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic the united states department of defense paid the national football league 54 million between 2011 and 2014 and the national guard 67 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage onfield patriotic ceremonies as part of militaryrecruitment budget line items” "
"ok if we take the fact that it would increase gdp by 86 billion to 108 billion one time and take the upper end of the estimate 108 billion we can calculate how long it would take the government to pay off the debt that it would have to incur to forgive all these loans according to wikipedia 26 of gdp is collected as tax revenue shamelessly stealing a source from up the thread total student loan debt has been estimated at 14 trillion we will ignore the gdp currently as it is already being collected in the form of the existing tax revenue and will focus on how much additional tax revenue will be raised using wolfram alpha to calculate we find that it would take 508 years for this policy to pay itself off if we take the low end of the estimate 86 billion we get 63 years note this calculation does not take into account other effects such as reduced welfare and cashtransfer payments from increased employment it also does not take into account differing revenue to gdp ratios over time as well as political changes in tax policies just a note you formatted the link incorrectly this is the correct link you should use the markdown link edit this is all wrong im going to recalculate edit 2 i think i fixed it edit 3 made this comment based on faulty information will update "
"no its not an economically viable course of action from us international trade in goods and services june 6th report of the census bureau for april the us exports 2112 billion worth of goodsservices and imports 2574 billion worth of goodsservices the g7 makes up without seasonal adjustment canada 257 billion export 271 billion import france 31 billion export 48 billion import germany 47 billion export 109 billion import italy 21 billion export 48 billion import japan 51 billion export 124 billion import total 407 billion export 60 billion import 19 of total export 23 of total import thats not the sort of flow of money and goods that can be stopped with causing extreme economic consequences and hardship for those impacted as of 2015 canada japan and the eu im including because of france germany and italy were are in the top 5 markets for agricultural exports in regards to just the countertariffs from mexico 3 compared to 1 canada you know initially for a month or two months people will survive but if it drags on longerterm its going to have severe economic consequences for us agriculture and i just we just dont want to see that now instead of tariffs changing the markets were looking at removing the markets altogether not just for agriculture but for everything "
" does not make it currently why does it have to be a current threat are future threats not looked into so they can be mitigated lets say chinese steel kills our steel buisnesses in the next 10 years then for another 10 years everything is aok and we just buy all the cheap steel we want then war with china chinas ally suddenly what do we do well we no longer have our main source of steel to replace any weapons or vehicles used in the war lots of stuff gets destroyed in conflict so you must continually replace the lost items and i am no expert but i highly doubt those rusting away uncared for steel mills will be able to get back up and running in any reasonable time do we go back to the ww2 days and start bringing metals from junk yards and any other source we can to support the war effort while we have ration books or do we prevent that entire scenario by keeping our steel mills even if they are a bit more expensive working that entire time remember china does a lot of fuckery with their currency to keep it low so we buy more of their products and they have tariffs on goods sent to them so its not like these tariffs are not playing unfair the tariffs on countries like canada are so china cant dump product and flood canada to sell to the us without the markup"
the people that need help with student debt the most arent those that graduated with a 4 year degree theyre the people who borrow to try to go to school but end up dropping out or never completing a degree no significant gain in long term economic prosperity from a degree plus theyre more likely to already be poorer have higher interest rate loans etc some sources among federal student loan borrowers who entered repayment in 20112012 24 percent of those who left school without a degree or certificate defaulted on their loans within two years compared with 9 percent of those who completed their program collegeboard trends in student aid report from 2016 article on how students who dont finish their degree are often still stuck with more debt than they can pay article on how the number of exstudents who have debt but never got a degree is rising well sourced post from professor at harvard kennedy school and harvard graduate school of education regarding the cost of unfinished college education while student debt is often quite difficult even if you graduate from an expensive private university its important to consider that the hardest hit are those whose prospects didnt improve from their endeavor and are now stuck paying huge debt on highschool level jobs
from your link here are the facts about poisoned water no one has poisoned any water the water is not poisoned and the poor water quality is not directly due to any action by israel due to the electricity crisis in gaza water supply through the network reaches most homes for just 35 hours every day and 96 of the water is not suitable for human consumption as a result there is an increased risk of waterborne diseases and outbreak this has nothing at all to do with the topic here perhaps we need a new thread to discuss water quality in gaza living in a war zone is always dangerous in many many ways the purpose of this and all of the other military blockades is to deny the ability to import war materials the israeli military reported that 35 rockets and mortars were launched from the gaza strip in 2017 the purpose of this blockade is to protect human rights by denying the ability to import more rockets there is no dispute that the blockade also denies the human rights of the palestinians international human rights law cannot be applied to only one side in any war this is why the blockade has never been found to be illegal by the unsc the only body with the authority to do this despite vigorous claims otherwise may we please now just discuss the topic
the entire region is essentially a big very real game of risk with un resolutions one of the tools all sides have used to secure regional power and regular oil supplies from arab nations its the lowest type of politics from those on all sides but there it is the whole enterprise has been a disaster from its very beginning or before it with the balfour declaration as the british warned it would be before they pulled out and as president trumans own state dept warned him it would be before he committed to resolution 181 israeli expansionism and its awful treatment of palestinians hasnt helped palestinian groups grabbing power and influence by becoming ever more extreme corrupt and gangsterish hasnt helped and here we still are with tens of thousands of innocent people suffering for their entire lives in refugee camps three generations now at the hands of those in power as our own diplomatic experts warned it would before we did it and that is embarrassing and shameful and should be condemned by all but i honestly dont know how we put it right while people believe these stupid religious fairy stories politics is stupid bigoted closedminded myopic corrupt and irrational enough add religious nonsense magic and superstition on top and were all fucked
"what points to no collusion which of these claims or others support the notion that it’s all on the up and up trump alienating members of the g7 while insisting that russia should be part of the group being unwilling to follow through on the sanctions imposed on russia by an entirely separate branch of government for meddling in our elections reversing sanctions on never mind i don’t want to have to link to all the news reports that this group demands there wouldn’t be enough evidence for you and the other devotees anyway there simply aren’t any explicit confessions and there wasn’t for nixon’s actions at this point either but all the independent actions and coincidences and events sure do point in one direction they don’t point in other directions they aren’t easily explained away with other interpretations of those events how can you explain away each of them as innocent and random coincidences or benign remember there is little dispute that russia influenced the election most certainly to the point of tipping the scales in his favor in their totality the evidence is very compelling and clear while any one claim could perhaps be explained away as innocent he’s a manchurian president with a ton of unpatriotic enablers unwilling to see it "
"you will find how an individual would know under section b subsection 1 direct evidence of discriminatory motive it goes into exhuastive detail so you should read it for yourself but as to your statement suppose a guy says i dont want that nword working for me you could still no prove that is discrimination so this is literally next to if not actually impossible that is completely false if you care to read my source rather then ignore it you would know that as it states quite clearly under section b subsection 1 sub subsection b other forms of direct evidence for example a statement of an official involved in the decision stating that an ostensibly raceneutral action was taken in order to limit minority individuals’ eligibility for a federally funded benefit or program is direct evidence of racebased intent even isolated comments may constitute direct evidence of discrimination if they are “contemporaneous with the adverse action or causally related to the adverse action decision making process” finally when you say that you dont know if women are discriminated against thats why i would not be in favor of this legislation as it claims to address a problem that might not even exist if it did exist the doj manual is how you would prove it "
"trump ordering the doj to investigate the investigation of himself is a huge deal we forget that trump is the president sometimes when he makes false statements about wiretaps or spies he actually knows its false because hes the president and has access to all the information about his campaign giuliani has already admitted that the new spy claims are purely politics and a pr tactic against mueller and thats all aside from the fact that trump has effectively told mueller that he believes the president cannot obstruct justice simply by nature of being president calling something fearmongering is an intense value judgement i happen to agree with the wapo piece that we are entering dangerous waters were clinton president and had she been half as outrageous as trump shed be on the way out and rightfully so but disregarding trump the reason id say we are facing a constitutional crisis is due to the fact that the framers of the constitution envisioned the three branches of government competing for power with each other they did not envision a party with control of congress and scotus subordinating themselves willingly to the executive regardless i was only trying to make the point that many do argue that we are facing a constitutional crisis "
"the players contracts have two more provisions that bind the players to league rules and club rules 11 skill performance and conduct if player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club then club may terminate this contract 14 rules player will comply with and be bound by all reasonable club rules and regulations in effect during the term of this contract which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this contract or of any collective bargaining agreement in existence during the term of this contract player’s attention is also called to the fact that the league functions with certain rules and procedures expressive of its operation as a joint venture among its member clubs and that these rules and practices may affect player’s relationship to the league and its member clubs independently of the provisions of this contract rule 11 above may be judged as too vague but rule 14 is very specific and the authority of clubs to impose reasonable club rules and regulations is very wellestablished and the authority of the league commissioner to judge based on anything he wants and punish conduct detrimental to the league is also very wellestablished edit trying to fix the rule numbering "
that wasnt the original question read it again what policies could be implemented to make jobs currently being taken up by often undocumented migrant workers manual farm labor landscaping etc he is asking about jobs not specific jobs the jobs in the brackets are examples which is why there is an etc at the end regarding the question about h1bs impact here is an example of how much the jobs are devalued 13000 pa for one study and 17 for another though it concedes this is not the case for more senior roles such as project manager or professor to your point about there being no shortage of good paying it jobs while this is true the argument is not that there is a shortage of goodpaying jobs because of h1b the argument is that the jobs are being devalued even if they are not in shortage that is they would be better paid and in even greater number for local workers if h1b owners were not underpaid while this might seem frivolous it is important for america since it is one of the industries they are world leading it is in their interest to ensure there are progression pathways for local workers in these more entry level roles that are overrepresented by h1b visas to foster local talent and keep the knowledge and experience within its shores
thanks for the note about the link it was working when i posted it and still comes up in search engine results but it does appear to be down now perhaps it will come back up its important to note that all 911 calls are not the same the operators prioritize them if you come home to find your house has been burglarized but theres no sign the burglars are still there a 911 call isnt going to get you a fast response also rural areas far from a police station have much longer response times and push up the averages thats all detailed in this article which also says the national average is 10 minutes for high priority calls but my searches confirm your finding that it does vary a lot by jurisdiction and it doesnt surprise me that there are studies quoting it as higher this recent source from new orleans itself says the average response time there for emergency calls is now 144 minutes and the most recent information i found on detroit says the response to priority 1 calls 145 minutes there since the topic of this post is protecting citizens in imminent danger the point of my comment was to counter the assertion by another user above that it generally it takes an hour for police to arrive as both of our sources confirm that is plainly false
"the governing law on immigration policy is defined primarily in immigration and nationality act of 1965 nothing in this act prevents quotas based on religion on the contrary a particular type of visa the eb4 explicitly gives preference to religious workers there has been some debate as to whether existing quotas that have the effect of changing the religious composition of immigration quotas is legal but this debate is undecided and such quotas remain de facto legal there is a bill called the freedom of religion act that has been introduced at least twice in 2016 and 2017 it seeks to amend the immigration and nationality act to provide that an alien may not be denied us entry reentry or admission or any other immigration benefit because of the aliens religion or lack of religious beliefs this bill has not yet become law so my argument is nothing in current law forbids using immigration policy to affect religiosity in america past and current immigration quotas already have the effect of changing religious composition of the immigrant population a bill to explicitly prevent religious discrimination in immigration quotas has failed to be enacted into law qed it is legal to use immigration policy to affect the religiosity of america "
" 99 of these people especially the families are just trying to get away from a terrible situation and live a life where they can worry about mundane things rather than surviving but you could make this argument for a large portion of the worlds population which would be in the billions of people lets just increase total immigration numbers by 5x far less than that billion who could live a better life in the us and we can see why that policy isn’t sufficient enough to open our doors out of sheer compassion there must be a more unique circumstance or barrier to entry so let’s not seperate families and keep kids in glorified internment camps while their cases are sorted out these internment camps must be better than what theyre seeking asylum from or theyd stop coming in i cant imagine any immigrant thinks being caught by border patrol is going to be a smooth process let alone one claiming asylum yet it’s clearly the more benenficial option we cant keep children locked up with criminals we cant separate them from their families we cant afford to board them as family units letting them go doesn’t solve for anything what other options are sustainable and sufficiently compassionate there are really no good answers here as far as i see "
"perhaps the way i’m looking at it is flawed but i was thinking about it less in terms of advantages for republicans and more about risk for democrats the party has control of california as it stands now to me splitting the state puts some of that control in danger i look more at the 2012 election simply because of how polarizing trump is which makes the 2016 election numbers have a little asterisk for me the 2012 results were much closer in southern california it wouldn’t make sense to me to risk at the very least any electoral votes i also find it a little interesting that the man timothy draper behind the initiative has also supported other props that were supported by republicans and opposed by democrats i would think he’s probably done some research on the potential impacts it would have politically he also introduced the six california’s initiative which seems like it would have had a greater impact for republicans three california’s just seems like he toned it down to make it more appealing less unappealing to democrats just a heads up the link you posted came up with an error page i finally got to it thanks google and it was pretty interesting so thank you for that i’m hoping my link works because it’s from the same site "
trump argues he can use his powers to out tariffs in place for german cars for national security reasons so the supreme court ruled on the travel ban and part of the ruling was if trump says hes doing something for a reason but later claims in court he didnt do for that reason and provides an alternative legal reason for him to do it how does the court rule the court said trumps twitter is an offical government communication but if the government provides a valid reason in court they defer to that so could trump use national security grounds to put tariffs on harley davison traditionally the president is basically unrestricted by the supreme court on national security i think arguing that would probably be a step too far for even the court at the end of the day trump has threatened multiple companies with the exact same thing hes never followed through carrier got threatened with it and just got given 7 million in tax breaks which trump could only give because pence was governor at the time to slowly ship their jobs to mexico its just trump being angry and lashing out because his plan is blowing up in his face and he looks stupid nothing will happen and everyone will move onto the next scandal from this train wreck of an admin
lets say you are in a balloon fight you have water and the ability to fill balloons but your balloons cost 1 each from your dad your opponent in the balloon fight says hey man ill sell you these balloons for 50 each you tell your dad you no longer need him so he goes to work and takes his balloons with him needing more balloons you say here you go 50 for a balloon please but this time your opponent says well now that my balloons are the only ones around they cost 2 each not wanting to be outgunned in the balloon fight you reluctantly buy the balloons then the balloon fight starts you both run out of filled balloons with no clear winner but your opponent doesnt stop they keep filling more balloons here you go 2 for another balloon please you say but this time the balloons arent for sale at all completely defenseless your opponent overwhelms you with their arsenal of balloons you now completely defenseless surrender to your opponent this topic is called supply chain risk or supply chain vulnerability in this case we do not want china being our exclusive supplier of steel because then they are free to raise prices without fear of competition and more severely cut off supply completely if the us does not act in chinas interests
"see this is all really good and it reveals exactly how you could restructure the submission to be compliant how about something like this it has been widely reported that justice kennedys son justin was the global head of real estate capital markets at deutsche bank worked with donald trump at that time and was in that position when trump received a sizable loan from the bank notably when many other banks would not work with him despite no longer being on the bench is there legal or court precedent that would bear on whether someone in kennedys position would need to recuse himself if issues involving dts finances came before the court for instance whether he has violated the emoluments clause whether new york and federal charges related to campaign finance would constitute double jeopardy etc etc as a corollary donald trump will nominate kennedys replacement who if confirmed might then be in a position to rule on a case involving trump many legal commentators say this is likely due to the current investigationssources are there legal precedents that would require that justice to recuse himself if similar issues came before the court for having been nominated by the very president who he might be tasked with ruling against "
your question is asking the right thing views of how to understand congressional intent vary though i have a hard time thinking that congress intended to make the provisions nonseverable when they had recently considered and rejected bills to actually get rid of some of the provisions in question here and as far as interpretation of a recent congress the 11th circuit does a good analysis here in the case that was appealed to become nfib v sebilius where they interpret the thenveryrecent aca and determine that the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions are severable from the original aca severability is fundamentally rooted in a respect for separation of powers and notions of judicial restraint see ayotte v planned parenthood of n new eng 546 us 320 329–30 126 sct 961 967–68 163 led2d 812 2006 courts must “strive to salvage” acts of congress by severing any constitutionally infirm provisions “while leaving the remainder intact” id at 329 126 sct at 967–68 “the presumption is in favor of severability” regan v time inc 468 us 641 653 104 sct 3262 3269 82 led2d 487 1984 i think the nonseverability argument from a completely toothless mandate is really quite weak and was even not so strong when the mandate had teeth
"jeh johnson former dhs secretary under president obama just stated this past weekend that catch and release does not work in fact he called it so ineffective that it undermines the immigration policy it is meant to enforce if this administration and the last administration are both telling us this is it even debatable further lets apply some logic if you were living in a country with limited economic opportunities for your children and someone offered you that you could live in the us but be part of a large subculture of 12 to 20 million that does not have legal status yet you could get jobs obtain welfare get a drivers license and your children might get amnestied even trump is promising to be nice to dacas and one of his pillars is amnesty to 18mm wouldnt you take that deal for the sake of your children if you read the newspapers you know that once youre safely with the shadows you will not be deported unless you join a dangerous gang or commit crimes that is our current policy after all so catch and release is zero deterrent to crossing deserts and crossing the border illegally in fact it is a gift jeh johnson is right such a policy only undermines immigration law that is meant to permit control over the border "
"that statistic is deeply flawed the full report and godawful methodology used to compose it can be found here it only considers fulltime workers this is a huge issue since most crappy jobs will not offer fulltime employment so they dont have to offer benefits imagine a group of ten people with bachelors degrees after graduating 9 of them end up with minimum wage jobs at mcdonalds 1 of them becomes a lawyer who makes 100000 a year using the methodology of this study the median salary of this group is 100000 a year even though almost all of them are making less than 20000 the study also assumes that people graduating today will experience the same salary increases as people who are currently retiring however the percentage of people who are getting degrees has skyrocketed almost doubling the number of people with bachelors degrees over the last 25 years its supply and demand if the supply of something doubles and if there is no reason to believe the demand will increase it seems incredibly foolish for the people responsible for this study to assume that the value will stay the same its as if tomorrow we discovered a way to grow twice as many oranges per tree and someone projects that orange prices will stay constant "
"much appreciated ive primarily just been skimming and will definitely dive into some of these sections in detail sometime today table 5 on pdf page 16 of the denver law doc has some interesting data to get into showing the ses breakdown along with race my only issue is that this is a highly specific field to base a conclusion off of im not disregarding the infoon the contrary its highly valuable but we need to gauge how representative of the total population law students are for example table a22 on pdf pg 52 shows 88497 bottom quartile college grads in 1996 and only 213224 first year law students for the same group ses data for law schools would be expected to skew towards the upper class regardless of race it would be more conclusive it it were conducted at a state school with demographics that are considered to accurately reflectas accurately as possible the sesracial breakdown of the country i think there should certainly be additional research into this if socioeconomically based affirmative action is proven to be more effective in increasing overall equality then thats the route that needs to be taken link 2 was lurking behind a paywall and i aint no ritzy nytimes subscriber but will see if i can sneak past "
i dont really see how this large block of text from the majority opinion indicates that public statements and intent were not at issue here im not sure what more evidence is required to justify this claim beyond the standard being used plainly not requiring an analysis of intent and the majority justices plainly stating that the case was ultimately decided on grounds other than intent hence my original point you could just delete the last two paragraphs of your comment because they dont really matter yes the majority rejected the rationale but that doesnt mean its not what the case was about it wasnt the principle under which this case was ultimately adjudicated and dependent on along with the precedent created so it does mean the case didnt hinge on intent which was the original statement if your preferred contextualization or meaning of hinge is that what matters about this case is a difference of opinion among dissenting members of scotus or members of the public rather than what would decide the outcome i dont really dispute that their grandstanding on intent also is no indicator based on their impact dissent that they would have voted in favor 90 without evidence of ill intent from trump as previously stated
if we know absolutely how much more somebody makes per year and absolutely how much they pay for that ie loan payments per year then as long as the latter is bigger than the former it was a positive investment no if you make 17500 more per year then as long as youre paying less than 1458 a month on loans it was a positive investment how much of a difference it made isnt relevant to that in reality since people will keep making that higher salary but wont keep making loan payments forever that difference would actually be larger however even if college costs were a net loss that doesnt necessarily tell us we should subsidize those costs instead it pressures colleges to focus more on pricing their product in line with what it does if a fantastic university with clubs sports dedicated libraries world renowned tenured professors on campus living and eating cultural events its own gym etc ends up costing more than a students increased lifetime earnings then maybe the solution isnt to help that student pay for all that stuff maybe its to let those economics pressure students toward cheaper more focused schools so that schools start to be centered more around their central goal of education and less toward being resorts
" youre correct but what usually irks more than their color is the fact that they are paid under the table the amount of money they make is so low that their income taxes are tiny compared to excise and property taxes consumption taxes are constant and unavoidable while income taxes are progressive and small for poor people that means that just by living here they pay almost the full tax they would as a citizen the institute of taxation and economic policy estimated that if all illegal immigrants paid income taxes their effective tax rate would only go from 8 to 86 as illegal immigrants they cant take advantage of the most important social services like social security or medicare so they contribute far more to the government currently than they otherwise would all the services illegal immigrants can actually take advantage of are state level and they pay those taxes pretty much in full then on top of that they pay 1013 billion annually to the federal government which probably means a bit over half pay income taxes overall they pay a lot more into the system than they take out through education etc if they were allowed to take part in the much more funded services like social security that situation would reverse"
my initial comment was mainly from a fiscal perspective but it wasnt necessarily something im advocating for it was just basic behavioral economics if we forgive loans once thats great but we will quickly go back to how it is now because new people will still have to pay for school and it may even get worse because people will be expecting it to be forgiven we would have to make school after the forgiveness period freecheap or we just dig the same hole again and of course that would only apply to public education so forprofit degree mills would actually be hurt by that policy i actually do agree though that it would be fiscally challenging to execute funding a higher education subsidy would likely need to come from a raise in the top marginal tax rates because i do not think it can be done in the current budget im pretty conflicted on whether that would be a good idea though also its a side note but i do think we should be spending more on social security than the military because social security is a much larger program in scope and what you pay in you ostensibly get back out its just that right now social security spending ballooned because of the boomers who didnt exist when the social security act was passed
"we both know it isnt as simple as youve portrayed it in your synopsis and theres a lot more compelling evidence that what youve listed and what was detailed in the article your burden of proof is that we need more than a smoking gun to prove guilt we have several smoking guns but you want more are you really open to the possibility or is this like proving evolution to creationists how many disconnected and unrelated events pointing in one direction need to occur before the picture painted is clear enough crimes are mostly committed without explicit statements of intent caught on video with notarized transcripts of what was said is a full confession the only sufficient proof of guilt would it be enough would you then make the claim that it was coerced im going to turn it around to you and ask what reasonably obtainable sort of proof would be compelling enough for you to say that yes indeed nefarious actions have occurred would it be that a democrat did these exact same things remember trump has pardoned people who have done similar things to what he and his enablers have done a message to them that he can set them free if they do his bidding and a huge incentive for them not to cooperate with the special counsel "
because migrant workers arent facing competition in the form of young people who are typically more willing to work for lower wages while most wont be willing to pay a 14yearold the minimum wage because that carries a lot of risk and they might not provide the marginal utility needed to justify that wage they will pay them 5 an hour for simple jobs that still need to get done such as the above mentioned rock picking and cow milking in fact rock picking is a huge cost for farmers that is a large part of the reason they have to pay 20 to migrants as its literally back breaking work teenagers with their much more flexible backs wont charge as much because they wont hurt as much this is also because their are other protections that migrant workers have such as being exempt from aca rules about providing health insurance while yes a migrant workers are paid well in advance of the minimum wage they are still cheaper than native workers because of these benefits younger workers who are much cheaper to insure anyway will probably not even have to be insured because they typically would be part time and they would be covered under their parents holy shit i sound like ron swanson child labor laws are ruining this country
1quantitative research has consistently shown that being foreign born is negatively associated with crime overall and is not significantly associated with committing either violent or property crime oxford research encyclopedia of criminology 2this is a complicated question i cant define better so ill list some alternatives detain and deport what trump did before this comprises of detaining people at the border and deporting them some say that it is inhumane because you may be separating families mother jones build a wall prevent immigrants from getting into the country in the first place and build a wall possibly very expensive but president trump has suggested it many times the hill allow more immigrants into the country simply allow more people into the country why do we need to deport them if they did nothing wrong could possibly destabilize the economy of certain states notably california and texas migration policy 3this problem can be solved by incentivizing the court hearing themselves possibly reward people for showing up with financial aid this is a difficult problem because the majority of these court hearings only lead to negative outcomes for these peoples i would love to hear your thoughts
"all of my comments here are speculating on the geopolitical results tomorrow maybe read them again if you’re expecting anything else that’s likely why you’re confused but you’re also confused that hr 158 didn’t pass it did your link says so and was layered into an omnibus bill the trump administration has used it to point to previous executive precedent i’m pointing to it not as legal precedent but as the likely geopolitical results the eu has previously stated that visa waivers are dependent on their reciprocity and would treat extraneous visa requirements on their citizens as grounds to terminate their own visa waivers for us citizens the scotus decision pulls the ban out of limbo it will be implemented and is now settled policy that means reciprocal visa waivers are in limbo too so more cancelled disneyland vacations for frenchsyrians read pr nightmares for under pressure european governments to punch back at american denied visas for some that do business in the banned countries eg ceos from countries still in the iran nuclear deal and more tension and political pressure with our allies you don’t have to look back very far to figure out how they’ll react because they’ve already said what they’d do "
"look at corn a large drop in exports even if for a short time would devastate those farmers maybe in a year or two if everything goes just right which doesn’t seem likely those farms and their affected families workers and other associated work such as logistics etc maybe i can quit my 30000 a year job and if lucky get a 200000 a year job in a year or two but can i afford to not have the income during that time less jobs higher costs may work out over time but the impact in the here and now will be devastating as for the eu some of the g7 members are eu members they have agreements to back them in any disputes so us cutting off trade would result in them responding accordingly as they’re already done with the tariffs the chairman of the european parliaments international trade committee says the eu should target american goods that will really hurt the united states if president donald trump moves forward with threats to raise tariffs on foreignmade steel or cars bernd lange says the european union doesnt have to match us tariffs cent for cent but should carefully aim at american exports such as soya bean sweetcorn and corn this isn’t a game with simple inputs and outputs it’s an interconnected web "
"hi there uantoniofelicemunro im a mod in rneutralpolitics we will sometimes approve a direct request for sources if op demonstrates theyve done some searching online and havent come up with satisfactory information the way to format a submission like that would be along these lines title what are some good sources to learn about south american politics body i am very interested in insert basically what youve written above i have searched online and come up with x source and y source but they lack z the kind of information youre looking for can you recommend some good sources for that information note youll have to resubmit to change the title also be aware that mexico is in north america so perhaps what youre really looking for is information on the politics of latin america which includes mexico the seven countries in central america parts of the caribbean and all of south america if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
so lots of people have made great points about the way that us has a greater amount of freedom of speech than other countries particularly with hate speech and libel laws i dont disagree but i do want to highlight scenarios to the contrary ways in which the us has less freedom of speech than other countries the us has stronger obscenity laws particularly for things surrounding nudity compare for example the us laws to eg german laws for things like public nude sunbathing source the us government can regulate the time place and manner of protest even if it cant regulate the content free speech zones seem to be a much more common american phenomenon vs europe this might be considered more a difference in freedom of assembly vs freedom of speech though similarly the us polices labor strikes more strongly than many other countries particularly in europe in fact many european countries recognize a right to strike whereas strikes in the us are sometimes considered unlawful overall i do think that other countries often conceptualize freedom of speech differently than we do in the us which results in greater freedom in some areas and less in others i cant speak to international or legal consensus though
"from what i understand the agreement that was signed was pretty brief less than a few pages it seems and i find it hard to imagine that something as complex as the monitored denuclearization of an entire country could be laid out in such a document kim has reaffirmed his commitment to denuclearization which seems not only vague but a reaffirmation of a stated position seems like a weak attainment from the us here without a sustained troop presence in the region any attempt at potential military support of our allies in east asia could be more easily construed as an increase in aggression rather than the status quo this gives leverage to china russia and north korea to further exert their influence in the region what i want to know is how the us could even argue for the need for sanctions going forward the us has given a lot of legitimacy to this regime simply by meeting with them and now it seems that nk has both the carrot and the stick to wield in future negotiations best case scenario we relieve sanctions for a despot in exchange for verifiable denuclearization im not sure that kim would be foolish enough to believe the us could sustainably act in good faith on that agreement see libya iran "
its really hard to determine what the effect of international trade is on things like employment wages and standards of living on the one hand its easy to measure that everyone benefits from lower costs of goods things like cellphones and computers just couldnt be afforded by everyone without it the negative sides are almost impossible to separate from other economic trends for example unskilled wages have risen less quickly than other sectors but its hard to say whether thats because of competition with overseas labor or technological changes that have devalued manual labor as compared to skilled labor like factories that need engineers instead of assemblyline workers heres one fact sheet describing the benefits from a very protrade group the uscc if you want to do some reading this oecd report talks about most of the issues from both sides and reaches zero conclusions the epi also has some publications on trade from an antifreetrade perspective but theyre pretty sloppy like the linked study reviewed the effect on workers without a college degree without even including data on workers with college degrees and a lot of their articles link only to other epi articles have spelling mistakes etc
"the senate bill is problematic under section 4 there is a presumption against detention which states 3 detention—in general there is a presumption that detention is not in the best interests of families and children the bill makes it exceptionally difficult to separate children and families that is a worthwhile objective however by adding a presumption against detention and stating that guidance for what should be done with nonseparated families should follow that presumption it functions as a catch and release bill they arent on board with family detention or open to the idea of establishing asylum centers for whole families which would be detention it also explicitly removes migrating to or crossing the united states border as a danger of abuse or neglect regardless of the situation in which the parent transported their child its a strange definition to place into a bill that is supposed to be about the childs best interest and reduction of trauma for example if a child is smuggled in a semi trailer and survives a trucker abandonment a open and shut neglect case for any other parent in the us this bill may make it extremely difficult for that child to be freed from such neglect and abuse "
there are very little repercussions of this ruling on any other cases at all the supreme court did not decide on the merits of the case but rather on the specifics of how the case was prosecuted by the colorado civil rights commission they found that the ccrc was hostile towards the bakers religious views in their prosecution of his violation of the colorado civil rights act they did not rule on whether the ccra was constitutional in its ban of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which was the case the baker and his lawyers were trying to present indeed the majority decision even specifically said that this decision will have very little impact on future cases from justice kennedys majority decision the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market the biggest take away from this decision is that states must remain neutral with regards to religious views when prosecuting civil rights claims
focus labor enforcement on employers rather than on undocumented workers and recognize social dumping as a form of predatory pricing the employment of undocumented workers tends to push wages down in a given industry because the workers are undocumented they frequently fail to report violation of us wage and working laws for fear of being deported this makes undocumented workers very appealing in a number of industries where the illegal workers can be paid less than minimum wage increasing wages and requiring us employers to follow labor law may make them uncompetitive with business in other countries that can benefit from extremely cheap labor and lax regulation to address the question of keeping us employers competitive we should consider treating social dumping as an illegal trade practice and address it using the same basic techniques used with any form of dumpingpredatory pricing the current system tends to drive down wages and employment standards an international agreement on working standards and trade policy that takes those standards into account could instead work to lift employment standards up internationally by reducing the pressure to economize on wages and safety standards
"i currently work in the sales tax field most municipalities that have tax are reported with the state tax return there are a handful of states where that is not the case colorado louisiana some alabama municipalities some arizona municipalities this decision by the scotus does not place an undue burden on small sellers because there was an economic threshold that a seller would have to reach each state has to approve their economic nexus nexus means you have a presence and may be liable for tax in that state standard now south dakotas was you had to do 100000 in business or have 200 transactions in a year those arent small time numbers vermont and iowa just jumped on board and took the same position i assume most states will probably echo the position if you have nexus in a state then you have to properly collect and report municipality taxes as well you dont get a free pass on that there is no ambiguity on that front here is a link that supports that claim the general rule is that once you have established nexus with the state then you are required to collect the appropriate tax in all localities administered by the state let me know if you have any other questions im happy to answer "
" the majority of who we’re talking about are legitimate asylum seekers as long as you think gang violence counts these people do face near certain death certainly terrible reprisals and a hopeless situation at best i have no doubt of their legitimacy as asylum seekers by this definition america without a doubt offers them a better life but if this is the qualification for asylum what percentage of the worlds population would also qualify under these standards why arent they filling for asylum in the nations they pass through on the way to our border clearly we cant fill the needs of all of the people who qualify for asylum let alone even process their requests efficiently what is the sustainable solution for this issue as asylum seekers continue to increase catch and release as has been in previous administration doesnt ensure that those entering the country are doing it legally as upsetting as it is to see families separated there is a greater problem that still requires an equitable solution while the media attention will die off once this process is changed and i have little doubt it will be changed soon were not identifying any real options for systemic improvements going forward "
i think student debt is differentiated from auto loansmortgages in the sense that education to a certain extent is a right as such primary education is mandated in the usa id granted higher education is not viewed as a right but there are plenty of studies this one for example that suggest the more educated a population is the greater the success of that populations nation unlike homes and automobiles which are ultimately consumer goods and individuals need not purchase an expensive home or an expensive automobile in order for a country to develop education is a fundamental pillar to a nations development and because higher education is such a highdemand borderline required expenditure similar to health care it is easy to artificially inflate those prices and cripple those with debt for a degree that should be much more accessible this is complicated by the fact that the government has an incentive to incentivize education an educated population means a population that generates more wealth innovation stability development etc there are plenty of studies and sources to back this up so i would argue that education is more similar to health care than consumer goods like houses and cars
the only thing i could think would be a major positive is the comprehensiveness of the agency if ice were abolished and the responsibilities restored in the same was it was for the ins then i dont think we would be having these crises where one agency does their thing another agency does their thing and there is no formal information process that helps keep these people connected ice detains people send them to the detainment centers which is run by the cbp and any sort of deportation or re connections are likely done by the uscis if those functions were restored under one agency i think that there would be less fractured information that leads to these situations where we dont know how to reconnect families enforcement wise i dont know how much of a difference there would be the enforcement is often times decided upon by the administration in power so maybe people viewed the ins under a microscope because of how the administrations wanted the agency to enforce comprehensive information and less fracture in the entire overall process is always a good thing and the ins responsibilities being divided into three different agencies just seems to not really be working in the data sense
"you asked two questions here 1 what is to prevent a supporter from illegally funding or supporting a candidate expecting a pardon 2 what is to prevent a president or governor from pardoning them to answer 1 a large part of it is that the candidate they are funding might not win and even if they win they might not grant a pardon so it is taking a risk that probably isnt worth it 2 normally impeachment the constitution is clear here the presidentshall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the united states except in cases of impeachment congress is the checks and balances to the presidential branch when the president abuses their power and there are many ways they can they answer to congress who will impeach if they deem it necessary right now this check and balance is not working which is why many think there is a constitutional crisis once a pardon has been given it cant be reversed even if the president is then impeached so to summarize the president normally wouldnt pardon for fear of impeachment causing the funder to not illegally donate funds in the first place if there was a significant risk of getting caught and the president not issuing a pardon "
"i should have said freer trade meaning fewer restrictions rather than the volume of trade and free as compared to trade before 1979 i dont think trade with countries with a cost of living on par with the us are the issue but places like china and mexico where labor can be had cheaper as a country im sure you are right our trade agreements are favorable to us my concern is that us might only be 10 of the population i have no idea of the numbers so for the argument say 70 are equally affected that would leave 20 negatively affected and those 20 would be the low skilled and poor which is the group where most of the societal problems dwell something else i just realized because they let us use our enormous wealth and technology advantages to compete and totally destroy local competitors in most countries around the world this also includes the small local competitors within the us that eventually got put out of business ill have to look into the china wto accession protocol and ttip ill also have to look into the signing nafta i get the feeling the republicans had clinton in a political corner when it was signed it just doesnt seem like it was good for the democrat base even then "
"some things cant be done good enough by a machine and still need a human an example i can give is detasseling hybrid corn i work for a family for 5 summers that hire 300 teenagers every summer to detassel corn the basic concept is you plant 3 rows of corn with the one in the middle the one that you want to pollinate the outside 2 in order to prevent the outside 2 from pollinating themselves you have to pull their tassels they have machines that pull the tassels or clip them but you either clip too high and miss some tassels or only get part of them or you clip too low and chop off roo much of the plant hindering its growth or killing it a properly trained person can pull nothing but a tassel leaving the rest of the plant the company they sell their corn to requires something like 99 purity so missing tassels is a big deal 1 missed tassel can potentially pollinate an acre or more in the right conditions for that reason they send in a group of kids to pull tassels and come by in another week or so to clean up any missed tassels even with the machines which are used sorta as a last resort of they cant get to a field in time with kids they still send in a clean up crew afterwards "
the unemployment rate is unremarkable given historical data it broadly follows a downward trend since the last major recession and the unemployment rate frequently dips over the summer before returning to the mean theres not really a rational connection to the tax reform and job creation the theory that unemployment is an undercapitalization problem isnt substantiated by the fact that while capitalization and profit rises wages remain flat see also here all else equal if productivity scaled with labor profit would be reinvested back into hiring more workers and raising wages to attract quality talent what this likely shows is that right now productivity and labor force arent necessarily correlated possibly because there is insufficient demand for new products since weve been on an upswinging market for about 7 years firms arent going out of business faster than new companies can start so unemployment is low until the next market correction the igm forum is broadly pessimistic about the eventual impacts of tax reform but dont opine on its employment effects my guess is that tariffs will have a much more direct effect on employment and market correction is likely to occur soon
but i was suggesting that they have kids who are american citizens and vote technically that doesnt require catch and release nevermind that 99 percent of participants in the family case management program attended their immigration court hearings i have a few issues with the sources used by this study when attempting to tally noncitizen voting the east chicago mayoral primary was plagued by plenty of absentee ballot fraud but the article they cite makes no mention of noncitizen voters the use of mclaughlins study is also misleading the fair article suggests he asked 800 registered voters if they were citizens and 13 responded that they were not first of all thats simply not true only 470 of the poll respondents were registered voters although 13 of them did say they were not citizens more importantly fair uses this statistic about hispanic noncitizen voter registration to measure all noncitizen voting fair completely disregards that not all noncitizens are hispanic and then casually assumes 100 voter turnout among noncitizens registered to vote finally richmans study gets a great shout out in this article about trying and failing to find evidence of voter registration fraud
the republican and democrat parties both manage the commission on presidential debates the commission on presidential debates cpd is an independent nonprofit corporation established in 1987 under the joint sponsorship of both the democratic and republican political parties in the united states the cpd sponsors and produces debates for us presidential and vicepresidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates it has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988 if you arent in the debates you arent getting elected period and unfortunately that decision is made not by an independent committee but by the two main political parties which is a little ridiculous we only have two parties because the two parties set it up that way the debates need to be opened trump for example was a democrat but ran as a republican and hes often said hes worked with whatever politician hes needed to in order to get what he wants hes only a republican right now beause he knows he cant win as an independent and definitely not democrat anymore and needs the gop to run on wed see more variety in political affiliations if the debates were opened
so i noticed you link to a lot of sources but you didnt actually show any excerpts of the evidence you are claiming if you look at the comment by uummmbacon youll see how they excerpted the relevant point which added weight and validity to their argument i would also point out that providing evidence that israel has been illegally occupying land for 50 years does not support the argument that there isnt another country who hasis still doing that im pretty sure that america did that with the native americans and to a good part of mexico the english did that pretty much over 23rds of the world and still maintains colonies if we go back further the romans were pretty good at it too so whether or not israel is doing this there is good evidence to support the fact that others are doing it to be more accurate the examples ive given are probably not very good but there are lots of examples of anexxation here and military occupation here if you can untangle the difference in the meaning of the terms lastly i would say that your comment fails to make a strong connection to the original question on what are the arguments for the us leavingremaining in the un human rights council
" does it matter whether or not they have applied in a different country maybe it doesnt i just feel like its weird to apply for asylum from country a while trying to enter country c from within country b your application says you need to escape a country that youve already left you are not going the route of immigrating for citizenship youre going the route of emigrating for asylum the purpose of the whole thing is a need for safety from your own country maybe if the argument could be made youd face persecution from the countries you passed through also some evidence of immediate danger while she is under no requirement to allow everyone to date her everyone has the right to ask they can shout their requests from right next to her or across the room but they dont get to ask while theyre inside her we are talking about what happens while waiting for that answer do we have to be assholes while we think about our answer does it make me an asshole to say there are a lot of you that want to come in and id prefer that you not stand on my lawn while i figure out who is welcome does it make me an asshole to then instantly reject someone i found had already broken into my house"
the court case from 2016 already ruled that accompanied children are not detained with their parents and not settled separately while their lawful guardians are within detention awaiting parole hearings for their asylum case this was argued by a law center that advocates for the rights of immigrants and the poor additionally the statement contained in the legal case you site states the following the critical flaw in plaintiffs’ amended complaint is that plaintiffs erroneously seek to recast lawful immigration enforcement and detention by the government as a separate act of “forcible separation of parents from their young children” while failing to acknowledge the applicable legal structure that governs the actions taken by the government in this case those detained for deportation can apply for asylum and as such are being processed by the legal policy which has been the law prior to this administration what the courts determined in 2016 was we the courts conclude that the settlement unambiguously applies both to accompanied and unaccompanied minors but does not create affirmative release rights for parents this is the exact same conclusion of the 2018 policy you sited
im not sure how this is taught in us schools but it was not victory only because us most probably it would still happen because of ussr successes but it would be longer and bloodier us was definitely the strawiron pipe that broke the hitlers back at the time im not only talking about our troops themselves we sent so many materials over via lend lease for practically free to supplement the lack of arms that the allies could produce we sent arms to all allies and our air campaigns later in the war were pivotal sure germany would have lost eventualy since they were on a 2 front war vs the hords of russian soldiers who were sent in with little regard to life however it would have taken a massive toll on russa that is not even comparable to the losses they had and lets not forget the pacific front china would have been near done for without us pushing on japan and the islands they held i dont know how it is taught wherever you are from but without us there is a good chance that we would have been in an even more powerful position after the war due to a extreamly higher loss of life and infrastructure had the war lasted sevral more years after 45 without or involvement
" i just dont agree with the insinuation that obama didnt do it when the facts presented are that he did do it just not as much as trump there was no such insinuation though the article explicitly states that it did happen under obama the difference is that when it happened with obama it was a bug people who fell through the cracks obamas policy went out of its way to prevent it he just wasnt 100 successful with trumps policy it was a significant component trump cannot actually carry out his policy without separation in discussing whether their policies are different thats all the information you really need the statement they were discussing was the difference in policy specifically if the title was has trump more than doubled the number of child separations then its a question of outcome not policy and numbers would be required at that point regardless the initial point was that there exists articles that go into the history of the events and laws in detail there even a second politifact article if you want to get more detail on the laws rather than the policies which youll notice goes into a very different set of information because of the different focus "
i cant deny that there are differences in the challenges like those you point out but those differences are distinctions without a difference especially in light of the extremely aggressive departure from custom that the obama administration took by challenging a federal statute the aggressiveness that you cite pales in comparison precedent has now been set by the obama administration that the doj may challenge the constitutionality of federal laws so now i suppose all thats left to question is under what circumstances may the doj challenge those laws since the obama administration decision was informed by politics the logical conclusion is that the only limiting factor as to what the current administration can challenge is political expediency granted thats not a limiting factor at all but that should have been taken into consideration for the challenge to doma youre arguing that there are significant differences between the two challenges but i would argue that the two challenges similarities are far greater than their differences this was easily predictable by the way and was predicted by legal scholars as soon as the obama administration challenged doma
"hi there uoptiongeek im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules it needs some adjustment to comply with rules b and d if you look at the source guidelines that are linked from rule d youll see that opinion pieces are permitted if the piece links to sources and is balanced by other sources with alternate views cannot be sole source so in order to be compliant please add sources that support an alternative view this would also go a ways towards satisfying the rule b requirements but youd have to change the title too more neutral wording would be something like what are the arguments for and against muellers investigation being fruit of the poisoned tree and therefore biased note in order to change the title you would have to resubmit if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"not sure on the bill of attainder part as im no lawyer but since congress holds what is called the power of the purse given to them by the constitution sorry for text dump i am new to posting on reddit and dont know how to be fancy with stuff i linkpaste all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills” — us constitution article i section 7 clause 1 taken from historyhousegov nowhere in this clause is the president specifically stated as being needed but as puts it the federal budget process starts when the president submits a detailed budget request for the coming fiscal year which could have a specific tax against harley davidson but this is only a recommendation from the president and he doesnt have any direct say at all past this point in fact as the website states the budget resolution is a concurrent congressional resolution not an ordinary bill and therefore does not go to the president for his signature or veto so trump cannot directly put a tax on harley davidson and even if such a tax does go into place it would be through congresses approval "
that was willing to work for less than peanuts i dont understand it was the migrants that were earning up to 20 an hour thats less than peanuts pay more they did they offered pay up until the point that it made more economic sense to let the crops rot why does this seem so hard for people to understand imagine you are a business owner and you have 1 million worth of crops that need to be harvested within a few weeks or they will be lost how much would you pay total to get those crops harvested the answer of course is up to 1 million dollars im not going to spend 2 million dollars to harvest 1 million dollars worth of crops that would be stupid im also not going to only offer 100000 to harvest 1 million worth of crops the crops are money so is the labor ill pay up to 999999 to save 1000000 it makes no sense to pay 1000001 to save 1000000 and it makes no sense to only offer up to 500000 to save 1000000 does this line of thought make sense to you i might lose a million dollars but im not willing to pay any more than 500000 to fix this problem or how about this one i might lose 1 million dollars and im willing to pay 2 million dollars to fix this problem
that’s understandable in summary what trump is suggesting is to completely destroy our entire economy regarding a much less extreme trade war this writer wrote the following mr zandi estimates that a nafta breakdown would cost the united states 18 million jobs he calculates that a full global trade war while far less likely would carry much higher risks including nearly four million lost american jobs “the economic fallout from such a war could be serious” he said “ending in a global recession” at best he’s oversimplifying a complex problem while ignoring actual experts in a complicated but essential field at worst he is deliberately hurting every american and us alliance out of spite or malice as susan rice put it america stands alone weakened and distrusted without united states leadership the g7 can accomplish little and when next we need our allies to rally to fight terrorists place sanctions against north korea combat a pandemic or check china and russia will they join with us after we have so disrespected them there is no evidence that mr putin is dictating american policy but it’s hard to imagine how he could do much better even if he were
"thanks for the correction it looks like i misread the headlines and was actually referring to this section of douglas concurrence the example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre this is however a classic case where speech is brigaded with action see speiser v randall 357 us 513 536537 douglas j concurring they are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt p457 acts actually caused apart from rare instances of that kind speech is i think immune from prosecution again since my point keeps being misread as saying schenk wasnt overturned i have to state explicitly my point was that the shouting fire in a crowded theater case is covered by douglas concurrence not blacks that was my error i am not claiming that most of schenk wasnt overturned im not claiming that the fire test justifies censorshipas the atlantic article you linked to seems to imply im just claiming along with douglas that the fire example still stands so unless youre trying to claim that it is in fact legal to shout fire in a crowded theater causing a panic i dont see where we disagree "
"i never said the players shouldnt expect heavy repercussions i was countering your claim that it was explicitly against the rules to take a knee your original contention was that it was not a free speech issue because it was against the rules to stand however as numerous sources proved it was clearly not against the rules and clearly a free speech issue an issue that involves the right to talk and symbolically express free speech is quite literally a free speech issue even if someone is not allowed to talk freely under a private employer it doesnt mean free speech doesnt apply but rather the first amendment right to free speech doesnt apply in that scenario reasonable people debated whether players have that right to protest freely on the field and certain people adopted your stance that since many people are offended the nfl should force players to stand what you are saying that it offended many nfl fans certainly played a role in how the free speech issue was resolved with the nfl saying the players ultimately will be fined if they do not stand on the field that does not by any means preclude this from being an issue about free speech however "
seems odd like people have said protect and serve adorns many police cruisers the fact that police no longer frame themselves as servants of the law abiding citizens of the country is troubling the police officer who resigned after marjory stoneman douglas shooting is gettin 8k a month seems like he resigned from public outcry and one could infer that means the public thinks cops have a duty to rescue reading thru that wiki link and quebec canada states every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistanceevery person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril either personally or calling for aid by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance unless it involves danger to himself or a third person or he has another valid reason in other countries you can be tried for failing to call the cops for someone in distress yet police officers sworn to police and paid by the tax paying citizens dont think thats their primary mission upholding the law is lofty but then doesnt that render cops discretionary privileges moot then we have a judge dredd scenario developing then cops are breaking the law by not enforcing it
"thanks for the link although the february department of commerce report linked within was more onpoint still that is not what the original link said and its a key distinction if trump were soberly relying on logic like that laid out in the report you linked our legal position regarding the tariffs would be much stronger even the department of commerce report though indicates that tariffs targeting the actual overproducers of steel eg china russia s korea vietnam and a few others would be sufficient to maintain their recommended level of steel production canada is even mentioned by one of the steel companies as being a good market because we have a steel surplus with them ruining our international alliances was not necessary to quote one of the steel producers from the report but as you consider additional actions please remember that we also need to find a solution to the excess steel capacity that is impacting global markets we need governments throughout the steelmaking world to come together to make clear to china that they need to reduce their excess capacity in steel making – the way a marketbased economy would – rather than exporting it "
" leaving it to your participants means unpopular facts are downvoted popular opinions are at the top that is a function of reddit that we cannot change moderation is hard but if all i need is some blue link to make it past the curation then this sub it’s not just a cop out excuse about “moderation is hard” we are all volunteers with jobs families lives hobbies etc group dynamics being what they are a small group puts in the bulk of the work we don’t have time to go through line by line and validate sources nor the ability to see each and every source for the same reason nor would relying upon reports about bad sources work because we already get numerous erroneous reports that would effectively become censorship by reporters if we “crowdsource” that function it gets broken into manageable chunks we are all participating here and all need to put in some work to make it great furthermore the point of np the reason d’être is to use facts and counter bad facts with good ones while having a civil discussion will become and kinda has already become rpolitics with a bad makeup job i’ve been hearing this for over 5 years now still hasn’t come to pass"
" sure but that would require the opposite of what trump is doing — international cooperation negotiation diplomacy longterm vision patience your opinion is widely shared however this opinion is not a fact the president has stated that he is implementing his very different strategy for international cooperation negotiation diplomacy longterm vision with patience maybe this will be the result of his strategy and maybe it will not work that way i could give you the names of ten to twenty of the greatest deal makers in the world who live in this country these great negotiators could go up against china or iran and work out a fabulous deal for the united states instead we have well meaning but na‹ve academic people negotiating who do not know what they are doing in tough real life situations they have never faced tough winner take all fight to the death negotiations against ruthless and vicious adversaries if the government used our best negotiators it would solve a lot of our problems and the united states would come out on top for one thing we have all the cards we have the strongest military and the strongest economy on earth or at least we had"
i dont know which questions if any youre responding to but it seems like youre not responding to anything i asked i understand chad provided information and was removed from the list accordingly i understand this government deems certain other nations are not providing adequate vetting procedures i also understand the whataboutism youre trying to deploy with president obama however your argument about the president has a duty to look out for the welfare of us citizens first and foremost falls completely flat if the end goal is to conclude that this travel ban is aimed at doing that especially in regards to stopping potential terrorists when it excludes many nations who are more prominently sending terrorists around the world i dont know that the ban is still necessary but it was constitutional ie the president is allowed to impose restrictions on people coming into the country i dont think anyone is arguing whether or not the president can restrict immigration he clearly can and thats been undisputed for a while the arguments have always been around excluding people or targeting people of a certain religious belief edit added sources
hi there useanblulz im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is topic is not in compliance with our submission rules specifically rules a b c and d if youd like to resubmit your question i suggest reviewing the guidelines and focusing on choosing a more specific topic additionally id encourage you to focus on framing the question in a more neutral way i understand you are looking for pros specifically but this subreddit doesnt accept questions that lean towards one side or another if we only focus on the pros it neglects any cons and might not paint a full or honest picture of any given situation similarly we would not accept a question that only focused on the cons for the same reason that it would ignore the pros here are some tips for proposing a successful neutral politics question please also remember to provide some background information that include sources thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain unmodified after two days will either be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form
"the first amendment has been interpreted quite expansively and imo correctly by the supreme court of the united states to include not just the freedom of speech but also the freedom of expression for instance the us supreme court ruled that flag burning was constitutionally protected under the first amendment as justice antonin scalia described it the founders were protecting the freedom of speech which includes the freedom to express oneself by comparison flag burning is currently penalized in both france and germany further the supreme court has ruled strongly in favor of freedom of the press making it extremely difficult to bring libel cases against a publication by public officials this has made the us media an extremely effective fourth estate this was also done under the first amendment in nytimes v sullivan we can once again contrast this with germany and france for instance in germany criminal prosecutions were started against a satirist for writing jokes about the turkish president though the case was later dropped such cases would be complete nonstarters in the us due to the precedent set under nytimes v sullivan "
yep agree there again my entire point and thought is that unless you are going to a top school you are wasting your money the problem with a lot of averages like the ones you pointed out are that they dont take into account the shit degree mills which most colleges are now vs harvard or mit that will produce millionaires and possibly billionaires so spending 50k on a college education that takes you into your 40s to pay off before you can really start saving for retirement your missing a lot of money there that and the simple fact that most of the jobs that these types of degrees get you you dont even need a degree for the small pay increase from having a degree wont outlive your debt while your future raises as you get into your late 40s and 50s will be more based on merit and at that point your degree is completely useless so will you make 1mm more with your mit degree probably but with your bog standard degree mill degree no i think it has been a terrible disservice to our country and generation to push everyone into college like it has been in the last 30 years the entire system at this point is completely fucked
"hi there umijinion im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules specifically please rework both the title and this line to make it clear the post is not violating rule g what would happen if congress passed legislation to stop trumps policies but trumps administration refused to comply by citing national security measures rule g prohibits questions that are phrased in the future tense what willwouldcould happen you may instead ask what powers congress has present tense or what precedents have been established past tense related to these issues also this assertion needs a source the court has historically been extremely handsoff with this subject if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note that youll have to resubmit to change the title note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
while i do agree the only way voting change is going to happen is if it is done statebystate with popular momentum in a similar way to how marijuana legalization has progressed its also important to recognize that this will be much harder than marijuana legalization we have had several states and areas try alternative systems only two later repeal it such as pierce county washington these are important case studies in what can go wrong and it is incredibly politically advantageous to some groups to attempt to control the good intentions of this movement for their own ends as a perfect example of this look at the groups wanting to divide up how californias electoral college votes work from being all or nothing im paper it sounds more representative but in reality since the rest of the country does not do the same thing it is and attempt to make elections less representative and realistically a full change and how elections work is eventually going to be hamstrung by the 26th amendment and require both parties to work together against their own interests to amend the constitution in a way that does not benefit them
i dont know if it is a democrat policy but it is an existing law on the books that it is an arrestable offense to enter illegally while you are held in jail your children cannot stay there with you no matter what law you broke in the past people were not being held as long because it is up to the discretion of the administration to what degree they enforce the laws 8 us code § 1325 improper entry by alien us code notes prev next a improper time or place avoidance of examination or inspection misrepresentation and concealment of facts any alien who 1 enters or attempts to enter the united states at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or 2 eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers or 3 attempts to enter or obtains entry to the united states by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact shall for the first commission of any such offense be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both and for a subsequent commission of any such offense be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both
as for the increased price to consumers if price elasticity is very high then consumers will so to speak not buy the product if the price goes up so the producer will lower its profits in effect paying more of the tariff itself for example lets say people in germany like to drink jack daniels for 30 a bottle but would prefer to drink glenfiddich 12 year but they arent willing to pay the glenfiddich 12yr price of 40 a bottle if germany puts a 10 tariff on bottles of jack daniels and jack daniels passed the price onto consumers by raising the price to 40 then no one would buy it in this hypothetical because there are sufficient alternatives that still cost 30 if jack daniels wants to keep selling in germany theyll need to lower their profits to keep the price close to 30 a bottle in that case jack daniels rather than the consumers pays the tariff price out of its profits in truth a portion is always born by the producer and a portion by the consumer but for a necessary product in high demand with very low supplies of alternatives like us steel consumers are going to pay the higher price because they have no choice
i did not know that congress then defends if so does this provide the government with any advantage or disadvantage the question as to the separation of powers remains regardless this question is if another branch besides the judicial branch shares the responsibility to determine the constitutionality of laws if so then the question raised now is if the legislative branch should review the constitutionality of its own laws rather than the other two this issue began with the executive branch making findings for constitutionality which i find to be problematic transferring this to the legislative branch is not just problematic it clearly abandons any pretense at separation of powers because this branch may not review review itself why not just transfer all of the dojs responsibilities to congress if it was unconstitutional for the executive branch to defend why is it constitutional for any branch to take a newly declared unconstitutional action since defending this has been found to be unconstitutional did this remove the authority of the judicial branch to take the now unconstitutional action of hearing this case
"theres a substantial difference between a state making this change and amending the 26th amendment of the constitution while doing so would be directly in conflict with both parties selfinterest it would be nearly impossible to do that this isnt to say that its literally impossible sure its possible that both parties would simultaneously decide not only to work together but to work together to an end that would remove most of their authority its just not likely maine very much is a success story but it must also be noted at the same time that this is not the first attempt to change voting systems in the united states and many others have met with failure there are a number of states and regions have attempted alternative voting systems such as ranked choice voting only to have it repealed a short time later because depending on whose side of the argument you want to listen to either voters found it too confusing or people who benefited from fptp managed to turn the local populations against it truly recognizing the scale of the issue is necessary to understand it thats not being defeatist its being realistic "
different mod here what she did after she got those leaks is what i question can you work that question into the version of the post proposed by uvs845 when the truth was that antitrump james a wolfe her lover at the time was leaking the info to herself and than she was reporting the info and lying about its source in a way that not only helped cover her source but also painted a completely false narrative to attack the trump admin this reads like you have a strong position on the matter the guidelines for this subreddit advise right at the top this is a community where evidence and openmindedness are valued above all in rneutralpolitics we try to learn about opposing positions and see their merits possibly even changing our opinions in the process posts and comments that lack these important qualities will be removed if you can submit a post that complies with rule b you have a big head start because a mod already did a lot of the work for you and participate in an openminded way well be happy to approve the submission leveling accusations at a moderator is not the best way to get that accomplished
"the aca is not a unitary entity its a very large act of congress which has been amended since enactment and which has a ton of different provisions doj believes one of those provisions the individual mandate with zero enforcement mechanism of any type as amended by congress in 2017 is not constitutional thats possibly defensible though i disagree the issue is then that doj believes that single provisions unconstitutionality extends to make other provisions which doj does not believe would be unconstitutional as standalone laws must be struck down doj is arguing that provisions of the aca which doj itself says could exist as standalone laws should be struck down because a different provision is they believe unconstitutional theyve also not argued the very basic standing issue which pervades the case because nobody can suffer a concrete and particularized injury from a penalty of 0 the windsor case did not involve these features and in fact the court explicitly only considered the challenge to section 3 of doma without resolving or striking down section 2 that would come later in obergefell v hodges "
"hi there udoozeruprising im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules heres what youd need to do first remove the second question from your title as it violates rule g instead id recommend doing some web research to find an article that answers this question and then include that as a source in the body of your post note changing the title of a post requires resubmission unbiased discuss in is as per usual difficult to come by if you cant find a neutral source you could add a source that argues the opposing view and for the sake of readability you may want to correct discuss in to discussion finally please provide a little more background in order to comply with rule c and include an article that describes the ruling itself thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"hows this police have no duty to protect citizens in 2005s warren vs district of columbia it was again upheld that police have no duty to protect citizens their only duty is to enforce the law which in essence make them less public servants and more state minions this isnt a derogatory statement it is simply a recognition of fact they serve the state not the citizens yes the state represents the citizens the state in the usa has become its own mega powerful mostly unchecked entity if while enforcing the law a cop protects you that is great if an officer goes outside of his or her duty to protect you awesome just remember they have no duty to protect you and their first and only duty is to enforce the laws of the state as a society we need to discuss whether or not this is acceptable is it is line with our core values is it truly in the best interest of our citizens does it give the state too much centralized power should we even have police forces that are not elected thus cannot be checked via votes nytimes article on the case warren questioned the public duty doctrine which you can peruse here "
"hi there uprofessorpaulkrugman im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules the whole thing flirts with a rule g violation but the last question is really what crosses the line could you reword that maybe you could ask how the courts narrow balance in the past has affected those issues which would imply conclusions about future decisions without asking the users to speculate if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating edit sorry but another mod just pointed out that this question violates rule e because its a poll or survey who strikes you as a reasonable replacement you might replace it by linking to a list of potential replacements and then asking if and why any of them has the right set of qualifications for the court note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
i enjoyed it as well as a side note i did some quick research on flag burning opinions and found that 71 of conservatives and 50 of liberals would actually support an amendment against flag burning which the supreme court found to be free speech looking at the big picture i think many free speech issues come down to context and i think focusing on partisan divides like we were doing actaully elides the fact that many college kids have poor understanding of free speech in general however both sides have staunch defenders of free speech lastly i read the abstract on the professor you originally cited and it doesnt seem hes against free speech as much as he doesnt think it should be viewed as a progressive duex ex machina free speech cannot be progressivethat is not to say that the right to free speech does not deserve protection it might serve as an important side constraint on the pursuit of progressive goals and might even protect progressives against the possibility of catastrophic outcomes but the notion that our free speech tradition might be weaponized to advance progressive ends is fanciful
well thats more an indictment of the american educational system than anything else and i for one will not stand for it xd really though some basic financial literacy should be part of high school education particularly how loans work before those grads go signing the paperwork on the secondbiggest loans of their entire lives the thing is when you tell a hs grad that theyll have to pay off all these loans they forgo lowerpaying humanities backgrounds and go for higherpaying degrees like engineering then they fail out because theyre probably not obsessive enough to study something they find uninteresting enough to absorb it transfer to something that actually interests them and they brace themselves to live like a college student until their mid30s or longer or jump to business maybe theyre sharp maybe theyre not but business degrees are relatively far easier to get and they tend to pay better than humanities backgrounds even when you factor in the dunces that get the same piece of vellum game theory might also be a good study for hs students just a couple problems prisoners dilemma and so on
the whole reason that institutions are willing to lend insane amounts of money to pursue whatever fucking degree someone wants is because its nonbankruptable if they made it bankruptable again the supply of student loan money would dry up considerably to reasonable levels and only people who will make good lending candidates pursuing marketable degrees will be able to get it which will have a very deflationary pressure on the price of a liberal arts education citation most definitely needed for all of those things other countries allow students to study for free entirely paid for by the tax payer and the students have a legal entitlement to take interestfree loans from the state eg bafög in germany that are capped at a maximum of 10k to be paid back even if you loan out 30k and that will be partially forgiven depending on how fast students can pay it back similar goes for austria and switzerland and the netherlands afaik there is no deflationary effect on degrees nor are loans drying up in fact what students are legally entitled to is regularly being increase to reflect rising cost of living
"sure but look at the outcome to date 1 for these professional leaders to respond by way of a twitter war in public just shows how weak their professionalism really is even merkel pressing some pictures for reaction today on twitter 2 the g6 have been the beneficiaries of military and economics safety blanket provided by the usa since 80s now they cry foal no long term vision to respond with seems the only vision of for us to keep funding the morassand the problem they having is that its not being offered to them i agree its unfair in certain political establishments to rock the boat but if its a sinking boat there is no easy way out if the captains shouts jump to say the eu is a sinking boat would be correct in laymen’s terms but also in the eyes of the politicians one can see in their faces and body language they have no idea how to react to this except now to go the twitter route they will loose their own jobs certainly as their own country men will see them as weak the eu is losing the public image war but probably recover in the quiet meeting with the us after this last weekend charade "
i think thats the bigger issue inflation what aspects of our economy further down the line are affecting wages high renthousing is certainly one but what about all of the costs put on retailers and others at the consumer level property taxes for commercial space licensing fees of fed state local govs and the gorilla in the room is the salaryprofit expectations of business owners or stock holders our attention is constantly misdirected away from the inverted pyramid of what those at the top make i really think this discussion needs to look there as well why do all business owners need to or think they should be making close to million a year as a bench mark of success stock owners constantly push companies for more profit—a completely unsustainable model unless you start reducing quality automatefire people or reduce labor costs to next to nothing id like to see this issue discussed by analyzing those at the top and how their profit expectations are affecting this this of course is all part of what goes into inflation when ceo’s require 3050 payprofit increases consumers have to pay for that
" jefferson here was following newton’s fourth rule of doing science “we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined” us constitution the founders understood the importance of science and technology in the longterm future of the united states my original point was about public policy not founding documents but i believe that the success of the united states is in large part based on the scientific thinking of founding fathers eg ben franklin james madison chief architect of the constitution peppered his federalist papers with reference to physics chemistry and the life sciences i apologize that i was not clear in my original question but i’d actually be interested in what other basis than science can be used to formulate successful public policy it’s my opinion that designing public policy based on empirical evidence is the only way to see actually effective results i haven’t read anything to suggest any other plausible basis for designing effective public policy"
that’s true and so the issue is that while the letter of the law states one thing it can be used to make it nigh impossible to seek asylum policies related to detainment as a deterrence for example were seen as violating the flores agreement in 2015 in the wake of a pair of federal court decisions and extensive public criticism dhs modified its approach to family detention procedures in february 2015 a federal district court in washington dc issued a preliminary injunction barring dhs from attempting to deter future immigration to the united states by detaining families who have a credible fear of persecution this ruling called into serious question the government’s reliance on the advisory opinion of former attorney general john ashcroft in matter of dj as judge boasberg noted “incantation of the magic words ‘national security’ without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty”five months later judge gee a federal district judge in california ruled that family detention policies violated the terms of the 1997 flores settlement agreement
if our steel industry goes extinct then it is absolutely a national security issue 1 not all steel produced is the same 2not all countries can produce the same highstrength steels that america can 3 no one can guarantee that another country will sell steel to america 4 you can’t guarantee that the price charged to america for steel during a war will be reasonable 5 trade can be a front for good or ill in warfare we can refuse to sell steel to others during war 6 the majority of steel produced in the us is recycled while not directly related to national security it does bare on ecological concerns some people claim that p trump is threateningapplying tariffs for no reason or because ego or because narcissist absolutely shallow thinking 1 tariffs are bargaining chips 2 p trump has more ready access to information and advisors than anyone else in the country really the question comes down to this would you want the us’s ships tanks up armored vehicles and planes to be built with foreign steel and aluminum edit i apologize for the odd numbering it shows up correctly when i try to edit it
does it matter whether or not they have applied in a different country im not sure it does after all they applied here and so it is our responsibility to hear them out in a civilized manner if they dont qualifywe cant afford to help okay send them on their way like you said we cant help everyone i 100 agree with that but while their application is pending treat them with dignity and respect if they as an individual cause a ruckus things might change but until that point there is no need to be mean using your mila kunis analogy as weak as it may be it is at the very least entertaining to brainstorm about while she is under no requirement to allow everyone to date her everyone has the right to ask and until they cause problems she has the responsibility to be polite while turning them down the way i see it we arent talking about the yay or nay not asylum part here we are talking about what happens while waiting for that answer and that is a key point again i agree that we cant say yes to everyone as much as we might want to but do we have to be assholes while we think about our answer
the market raises prices to what is tolerable not lowers them to what people want to pay why are all cell phone plans basically 100 per month look at seattle and how the extremely over paid people there have raised the cost of living theses things do trickle down and effect a lot of people at the lower end of the economy but this was about ag these farm owners have a lot more wealth than they reveal outwardly they have access to cash loans and land that most of us will never have the point is we are not analyzing the whole situation if we only focus on wage labor and not analyzing why business owners claim hardships if they have to pay livable wages there is more to it besides “my labor costs are too high so i cant hire anyone but illegal labor” why is that such a hardship for owners while they still seem to make out pretty well and why are these higher labor wages necessary to begin with i argue that unrealistic salary lifestyle expectations by business owners and much of the rest us too which creates a higher cost of living is part of the problem but this is not being discussed
"clearly it depends on the sector however the eu would be forced to move to the market which may cut down pricing for a while but would leave them subject to dollar diplomacy later down the road russia and china clearly just want the us out of the way so that they use their specific styles of political pressure without any sort of interference on countries and this is bad for everyone including the populations of those countries on a greater scale this is speculative and i do not have the data at my fingertips but global business is ready to move on from the dollar as well the prospects of india and continued growth from china mean there will be new players in the field and us hegemony could actually get in the way of that also pretrump the us was a thorn in the side of many companies a bulk of whom were even incorporated outside of the us likewise the current dismantling of the ukcentered financial system could spell an even bigger problem for the world chinas poor record of transparency and factual data reporting would be horrible on the global scale and they are a frontrunner "
your first study has only the abstract available and the rest is behind a paywall however it seems to be based on the cardkrueger study done in 1994 which is very flawed as it only studdied from before the minimum wage hike to only a few months after so in the short term it might not have a negative effect but in the long term it did have a negative effect according to this study we show results from three administrative data sets that consistently indicate negative effects of the minimum wage on job growth your second source is merely the abstract of the study which does not include the method nor the specifics of the source looking further i found an article about the study and it only included the total number of articles studied in the analysis and did not include the percentage of articles studied in comparison to the articles published overall which means it does not provide a decent rebuttal to my claim that a plurality of economists agree that raising the minimum wage negatively impacts employment nor does it provide how these studies were chosen so they might be biased
" if there is work and someone doesnt want to do it but they need a job and are able then they shouldnt receive government aid take away their aid and they wouldnt have a choice this hand holding is ridiculous youre making a ton of assumptions in here first of all that there are people on government aid who need jobs and dont have one that they saw this one was available and didnt take it that they have the skills to do the job in the first place and that theyre in places where these jobs are available id like to see some sources for all of those assertions if you have any as far as i know the vast majority of poor in the us are concentrated into a few places which dont all have easy access to rural california nor the skills required to operate the machinery and harvest with it and unemployment is at a very low point anyway so even if these poor had access to these jobs and the skills to do them whats to say they didnt have better offers elsewhere i surely wouldnt give up a stable 10hour job to spend 12 months doing 20hour work and then having no employment the rest of the year"
"stone doesnt really need any special relationship with trump to see whats going on hereespecially given that stone is not only under investigation by the fbi for activities related to the 2016 campaign but fully expects to be indicted perhaps its wishful thinking on stones part because he will likely be among the people trump would be sending a signal to but that link also emphasizes that he has remained a trump ally since leaving the campaign stones political acumen from the pretrump days should lend more weight to his perception of these matters than most of the people caught up in the investigation this is exactly the kind of political gesture that stone himself would have arranged once upon a time see get me roger stone andeven if jack johnsons pardon might be irrelevantits not a coincidence that trump pardoned dinesh dsouza who pled guilty to campaign finance crimes which are absolutely a focal point of the special prosecutor and allegedly wants to pardon martha stewart who was convicted of insider tradinga crime which is also extremely likely on mueller’s radar as well "
"your argument was very carefully couched to be about chances but at its core you are saying 1 thats a lot of money and 2 voters dont want it because it wouldnt benefit them my rhetorical argument stands up well to those 1 okay lets forgive college debt over 10 years if youd prefer 2 your argument continues to be that the 15 trillion dollar tax cut gave something valuable to the majority of voters like a house whereas forgiving college debt would be an extravaganz a lamborghini surprise surprise im not going to accept that framing especially when again economists show that in the long term many people arent benefiting from that tax cut and that in some ways student debt is harming the economy for example by putting off home ownership im not strong ideologically in favour of forgiving student debt but i think the analogy is good and your counter points tax cuts are over time huge swathes of people benefit from tax cuts whilst only a few benefit from loan forgiveness tax cuts are a house student debt is a lamborghini arent supported by facts or are purely begging the question "
"hi and thanks for your response thats much better but you would still need to make a few small adjustments for balance please include an opposing position as well youve outlined sanders view now you need to find someone who is making the opposing case summarize that in the same way and include the source that workers in these countries are not paid fairly this is a presumption based on sanders statement about countries that do pay a living wage but your source does not support that sanders or anyone asserted that the workers in the other countries are not paid fairly youd either have to find a source that supports this premise or reword the question finally the title asks for evidence to support targeting vietnam china skorea and russia with imposed tarrif on steel and aluminum instead of eu and canada however i think the administrations proposal is to impose tariffs across the board on all of them right it would be good to link to an explanation of the administrations proposal and then if appropriate ask about for evidence to support excluding eu and canada make sense "
" low balling thats not really a thing in capitalism as the owner of a company i will always pay as little as possible for the labor that i desire just like you as a customer will always pay as little as possible for the goods and services you desire the reason they increased their wages was to try to attract more workers because they didnt have enough labor and were losing their crops thats how the law of supply and demand works the damning part of it though is not that they were able to increase their wages its that they werent able to increase their wages enough to prevent losing millions in lost product in a fictional world where money doesnt matter they could have easily saved those crops just offer a million dollars an hour for people to harvest them but in reality they have a cap where they cannot offer any more pay because it would cost them less to let the crops rot than to pay the workers to harvest them which is called going out of business tldr the wages demanded by americans would put these farms out of business thats why my answer to ops question was none"
it may be true that its better for someone who is eligible for asylum to seek it through a port of entry but it seems like youre using that as a justification for treating them poorly sure youre using an obtuse argument that by treating them poorly youll actually make the lives of other asylum seekers better since theyll be too afraid of poor treatment to make bad choices but ultimately youre arguing for decreasing the quality of life of a subset of asylum seekers if youre really on the side of the asylum seeker i would just point out that for most people even positive secondary effects dont justify treating human beings in an inhumane way if you feel like punishment or negative incentives are a proper means to discourage the undocumentedentry path to asylum seeking those negative incentives still need to be humane a lot of this thread is about whether the childseparation policy is humane or not a question that shouldnt really be affected by whether it successfully discourages illegal immigration or by the percentage of legitimate asylum seekers among those affected
"oh i understand according to this article emphasis added theres no specific language requiring the threat to be current or even really defining the conditions of such a threat since 1947 the gatt has contained a “national security exception” found in article xxi this article permits members to impose trade restrictions for purposes of national security without any condition or agreedupon definition of a national security threat states may choose to invoke the exception to protect strategic domestic production capabilities such as required to equip their military or produce energy and this analysis emphasis added says the article distinguishes itself from other traditional exception clauses in international agreements in that it is purely selfdeclaratory in nature based on the rationale of preserving state sovereignty a country’s decision to invoke article xxi is subjective and has not typically been reviewable by international regulatory bodies like gatt or wto that article also details a case where the canadian government employed the exception during peacetime "
"traditionally common knowledge or widely reported facts do not need citations citations are traditionally used to give the original author credit for unique insight for example citations are not needed to make a statement that the sun will rise in the morning frankly i don’t know where i would be able to provide such a citation for the proof other than my dog isn’t surprised that it happens and would be surprised if it didn’t now it could be debatable if a citation is needed to state that the draconian and misunderstood and miswielded citation rule is “full of crap” it is a statement of fact but it is actually an expression of opinion perhaps the whole citation bullshit is actually used to squelch discussion when someone says that there is no credible evidence that a crime has occurred how could this be cited when someone says that there is ample evidence of a crime do they need to build the case for the prosecution and summon witnesses demanding citations as strictly as you do simply serves to stop discussion that’s not neutral politics that’s comment free zone "
"i think the problem is that youre looking at a square hole and wondering if a turnip would fit founding documents like the us constitution are public policy and science is rarely the basis for laws law being how we codify public policy science just like art or music or philosophy can inspire or inform public policy but it is rarely the basis for law however nothing you provided are law or public policy laws are how a society expresses its values not observations on how the universe works now when creating laws that govern how society will interact with the natural world scientific information should help inform those laws for example removing lead from paint and gasoline as ingesting lead has been scientifically proven to be harmful i apologize that i was not clear in my original question but i’d actually be interested in what other basis than science can be used to formulate successful public policy for the most part everywhere the values and interests of the people forming or running the government are used to formulate public policy successful and otherwise "
as a theoretical scenario he seems to be arguing that by importing steel its harming steel production in the us itself and hes arguing that should something come up in the future such as a largescale war or crisis having domestic steel production in the us could be a national security concern as imports at that point may not be available and we cant exactly demand that canada produce steel for our crisis as such protecting domestic steel production which is at threat of being put out of business by foreign imports would constitute a risk to national security in the current state of the two countries its highly unlikely that the us and canada end up on different sides of some conflict in the future but it is feasible that if only canada has steel production and we rely entirely on imports there could be a time when canada needs a lot of steel and is no longer selling and since were no longer producing we cant meet the demand it may or may not be a valid concern or one we strictly need plan for but opinion aside i can see the argument there at least conceptually
" although gini index itself has its critics cuba is excluded from the main human development indices that the undp presents namely the human development index table 1 the inequalityadjusted human development index hdi table 2 and the multidimensional poverty index table 5 as well as the hdi trends from 1980 to 2010 table 3 this is unfortunate because it is not possible this year to make a comparison of cuba with other countries or with itself over time due to the existence of the dual exchange rate system in which there is no reasonable single exchange rate together with the complexity of the highly segmented markets – underground economy rationing system farmer’s markets nonmarket allocation of some goods and services and quasidollar stores – it was concluded by the undp that it was impossible at this time to construct a measure of gdp per capita in purchasing power terms as is done for some 169 other countries the undp apparently is working with the government of cuba to correct this situation the undp’s explanation of the problem is presented in appendix 1"
"has it id like to see a source before believing that i agree that there is less demand for factory workers and more demand for programmers but those are only two career fields and im not sure they are representative of college and noncollege career fields in general factory jobs have decreased in demand because those factory jobs are moving overseas however you cant outsource trade jobs like plumbing or construction you also cant outsource retail or food service jobs you can outsource a lot of professional jobs though like accounting and engineering i honestly am not sure whether demand for educated workers has increased or decreased compared to noneducated workers however its certainly not obvious that the relative demand for educated workers has increased at all let alone doubled so i still think its very reckless for georgetown to just assume that there is this tremendous increase in demand for collegeeducated workers they certainly dont mention any evidence for that assumption and they dont even acknowledge that their conclusions rest on that assumption "
"the main reason is that it would be a sevenyear major hit on their credit score while you can argue that its worth it to spend seven years saving up to buy things like new cars or houses instead of sinking money into paying off debt extremely poor credit will also hurt your ability to do more basic things many apartment complexes wont give you a lease if you have poor credit because it makes you look more likely to not pay your rent you often will be expected to pay large upfront deposits on utilities same reason in extreme cases banks wont let you have accounts and employers will decline to hire you and so on a lot of people really underestimate how much credit score can hurt you if its actually bad and not just neutrallack of history some people would be able to take advantage of a policy like that and survive the side effects but it would primarily be the people who have family support and could stay with their parents for a couple years while their credit score recovered and those are the people who are being hurt least by their student loan debt "
" the german parliament voted on whether to proceed with the prosecution of the author and the vote passed with chancellor angela merkels vote being the decisive one as described in the wikipedia article i linked above it was a vote within the cabinet not the parliament and what was voted for was to allow or not the start of the prosecution after the turkish stated jad asked for it it was a weird law it was not the german government who started it there were also several dozen of private accusations for insult sec 185 of the german criminal code this does not change the fact that german law criminalizes speech far more stringently than is possible under the united states constitution thats known but it doesnt criminalizar jokes that was my point german freedom of expression has a broad range and its limits are usually pretty reasonable even though i personally favour more the us model edit its weird that you use an example that was acquitted within a couple of weeks without even getting to trial to prove that criminalisation there are better examples"
"you could increase the bargaining power of workers in the farming industry at the same time as you encourage research into automation in the industry you may need to increase the bargainimg power of workers across industries and indeed across borders if you want it to remain competitive one of the problems that contribute to the situation of the working class particularly in the us is that they dont have strong unions and even where they do those unions are often state or country based enabling international organizations to move to another place with weaker unions and fewer regulations or to be frank lose out in competition to those that do or new startups in those locations if they dont this is one of the strongest arguments for some degree of centralized involvement in the market to make a change that no one or group of few companies on the market could perform on their own without losing out in the short run to make all the players in the market so it at the same time so no single party loses out if the long term result is better for everyone "
that’s caught up in the gdp data look at it all us imports from all countries are only 119 of gdp see the link i posted just because we start buying german cars made in germany and instead buy german cars made in the ud doesn’t mean someone else will buy those german cars made in germany so germany loses it’s like say you the us have a bar and your friend and ally germany also has a bar each week you go to his bar and spend 20 buying drinks he comes once a months and spends 5 at yours buying a beer and suddenly he also charges you a 5 entry fee while his other friend japan pays no entry fee it pisses you off and you stop going to his bar you just drink your own beer in your bar now you liked going out once in a while but your drinks are pretty good so you’re satirised anyway and beau see you stopped going to your friend germany’s bar this doesn’t mean others will go there instead and buy the beer you used to buy frankly you both have lost out a bit but you still get drinks and save 15 while your friend has lost a customer a friend and 25 of income
" does this prove that the us healthcare system is amazing yeah the quality of care is pretty high especially if you consider the unhealthy life style of many americans the horror of the american system is that many are denied access to quality care i think for the fast majority of care one would prefer the us system provided you have infinite money the us life expectancy has recently dropped does this mean that obamacare is failing quite possibly i’d say it’s failing to provide adequate care to all people the sad part is that trump and co seem to want to limit access even more does this mean that our health care system was better ten years ago maybe maybe not but i am lost about your argument it might be hard to say if a little change here and there is directly attributable to the healthcare system the point was cubans live very long so i doubt their healthcare system is shitty now this not perfect reasoning but your argument makes no sense i’d suggest you find a country with a shitty healthcare system and high lifeexpectancy as a counter example "
"i think trumps understanding of economics can be summed in his retelling of a previous meeting with trudeau “trudeau came to see me he’s a good guy justin he said ‘no no we have no trade deficit with you we have none donald please’ ” trump said mimicking trudeau according to audio of the private event in missouri obtained by the washington post “nice guy goodlooking guy comes in — ‘donald we have no trade deficit’ he’s very proud because everybody else you know we’re getting killed “ so he’s proud i said ‘wrong justin you do’ i didn’t even know i had no idea i just said ‘you’re wrong’ you know why because we’re so stupid … and i thought they were smart i said ‘you’re wrong justin’ he said ‘nope we have no trade deficit’ i said ‘well in that case i feel differently’ i said ‘but i don’t believe it’ i sent one of our guys out his guy my guy they went out i said ‘check because i can’t believe it’ ‘well sir you’re actually right we have no deficit but that doesn’t include energy and timber … and when you do we lose 17 billion a year’ it’s incredible” "
i appreciate your logic and it does make sense but the caselaw is not settled in fact ludke vs kuhn would actually oppose your argument the fourteenth amendment at the very least is applied to private entities renting public properties with the same rigor as state actors it isnt a stretch to believe the first amendment would be so extended and the case of the packers fan suing the bears for access to the field beckman v chicago bears is currently in process turning on the question of whether the bears in their use of soldier field are required to follow the same rules as state actors due to the fact that soldier field is publicly owned a motion to dismiss on the grounds youre arguing was denied and the judge has ruled that the plaintiff has standing to sue on the grounds of both the first and fourteenth amendments that isnt the same as winning and im not trying to argue that the case law is settled either way but if beckman wins i have a hard time believing that any policy restricting free speech would be applicable in publicly owned stadiums
" provoking our allies reduces our ability to project force as well yes thats a shortterm nuisance in exchange for longterm stability by reducing our disproportionate expenditure of resources if you have a large tumor you deal with radiation and chemo to shrink it and make it operable in order to obtain the best longterm outcome despite the risks and unpleasantness of the immediate actions to that end there is no academic nor even psychologist treatise that supports the direction your argument is going other than contemporary antitrump hysteria something as seemingly obtuse as bowen family system dynamics would still inform you to make things fair and even and assert bottomlines to restore respect to the relationship in the end all of the countries involved will respect each other more and we will have more money available to us so no by absolutely no means whatsoever will this reduce our longterm ability to project power the only potential risk is the shortterm loss of a strategic airbase and that realized risk is still worth the outcome"
" it was north korea who broke the agreement first by acknowledging that they were pursuing a nuclear weapons program they never acknowledged this north korea claims otherwise when nk did so the united states stopped providing oil to nk and defunded the light water reactor both of which were concessions the us made as part of the joint agreement the us was often late in providing oil and didnt fund the full amount and the us dragged their feet on funding the light water reactor this did not happen in response to north korea deciding to pursue nuclear weapons since a they never actually decided to and b north koreas supposed announcement happened in 2002 while the us had been violating the agreement by not funding the reactor and oil since it was signed in 1994 additionally part of the agreement was the two sides would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations which the us didnt even bother attempting since the republicancontrolled congress didnt support the agreement all this information can be found on wikipedia"
you arent saying anything i dont already know where in this discussion did you make the mistake of believing that i subscribe to the lost cause theory or that the civil war wasnt about slavery i havent twisted anything its like you are choosing to ignore what im saying in favor of attacking a straw man i was basically explaining that the north werent being altruistic in their motives like everybody seems to believe almost nothing in life is ever black and white and to think any war could be is naive as far as the north being the aggressor that could be disputed if you subscribe to the idea that ft sumter belonged to the north then yeah the south was the aggressor but the south believed that the fort belonged to them and reasonably so as it was in their territory the north certainly did rape and pillage their way down it was a war yeah but it destroyed the lives of everyone in the south so much that we are still in shambles today as a result of it everything else you said i agree with you im not sure why you think im arguing differently
" and the centers stand on dubious legal ground last year a district judge ruled that the administration was violating a 1997 courtordered settlement called the flores agreement that governs the treatment of underage migrants who seek asylum or enter the country illegally the judge said the children were being held for too long and ordered the administration to release them as quickly as possible to the care of relatives or other guardians as their cases move through the immigration courts the administration appealed saying that the agreement applied only to children who had crossed the border alone not those who were accompanied by parents or other adult relatives on july 6 the court of appeals for the ninth circuit disagreed upholding the district ruling that flores covers all children accompanied or not but it said the administration could still detain their parents interesting the law seems to want to protect the kids from detainment and ends up making it worse for them by requiring them to be separated from their detained parents "
while your freedom to exercise your rights comes from the leeway government gives you the subtle distinction between you having a builtin right matters when deciding whether or not violent resistence is justified suppose ive kidnapped you and im holding a gun at you and i demand you have sex with me you have an inherent right to not be raped even though my threat of force is going to preclude that right and violate it then if you somehow manage to subdue me instead then you are morally justified you may have thrown the first punch but im the aggressor because i threatened your inherent rights in contrast if you have no such right then im not threatening anything so you are unjustified in attacking me the fact that my gun means you dont have a choice in practice doesnt mean that you dont have the right to choose in theory your rights are what make me into the aggressor and make you innocent when you defend yourself the people who live in north korea have fundamental human rights because they are human however those rights are violated
"yep section a makes first time illegal entry a class b misdemeanor and repeated illegal entry a class e felony any alien who 1 enters or attempts to enter the united states at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or 2 eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers or 3 attempts to enter or obtains entry to the united states by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact shall for the first commission of any such offense be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both and for a subsequent commission of any such offense be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both 18 us code § 3559 sentencing classification of offenses an offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is— less than five years but more than one year as a class e felony six months or less but more than thirty days as a class b misdemeanor "
"oh man i’m sorry your family had to go through all of that that should never happen to anyone i don’t understand why if the option was available someone shouldn’t try to find the cushiest spot they could possibly go to rather than stopping as soon as the immediate threat was gone like your family would have been happy to go to timbuktu if necessary but aren’t they happier that they were sent to the us instead it’s not illegal to ask for asylum in a country that’s not close to your country of origin you go to a port of entry in most countries and ask for asylum and it’s not usually the trump policy is an aberration from the norm treated as a crime unless the asylum is denied and you stay anyway i think i understand that because your family was assigned a spot you think that’s the only legitimate way to do it but it’s not illegal to go somewhere and ask rather than being assigned if you have the means why not if one is genuinely a refugee i don’t see why one should only get a spot if assigned unless that’s the only legal way to do it "
" did the injunction bar the three entities from conducting their review or did they choose not to barred them to continue with or rather to begin the review would be in direct violation of a court order youre supposed to source statements of fact but i dont really have anything to source here other than what an injunction is i suppose an injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts a party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment they can also be charged with contempt of court why is a travel ban needed before they can review the refugee application process strictly speaking it isnt necessary though if there is a problem with the current process halting that process while we work out the kinks would be a good idea it also prevents issues where the process suddenly changes in a single day which can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings or misfilings and what have you"
" i would also point out that providing evidence that israel has been illegally occupying land for 50 years does not support the argument that there isnt another country who hasis still doing that actually there is as those other countries annexed those regions and gave the people there full citizenship rights if you look at you will see that the israeli case is unique and i must attribute the wikipedia writers for their creativity the last time northern cyprus was called occupied was in the 1970s they have been a state with no international recognition but that doesnt really matter formally since the 80s morocco annexed the sahara and gives people full rights unlike israel in the occupied territories the closest is probably the conflict between ethiopia and eritrea however if i understand it correctly both dispute who owns the land and ethiopia occupies the land but gives full rights to the people there unlike israel if you occupy land the occupier has to give full rights to the people in the occupied land israel does not do this "
"i dont think he is placing this on the individual but rather the university for example in europe college sports are nonexistent therefore zero money goes to funding a stadiumarena also if they didnt offer expensive single living studio apartment style on campus housing they would have to build less dormitories to house students two single studio apartment footprints might be able to house 3 students with a shared kitchenbath obviously this statement is just a guess but if each one is 500sq ft surely 3 people can live in 1000sq ft it is up to the university to offer or not offer such amenities i remember touring a state college and they were bragging about their new lazy river a lazy river no one needs a lazy river to be educated that is insanely wasteful the universities use these things to attract students some students can pay for it others cant but the cost of that lazy river is distributed equally to this day im paying for that lazy river even though i never wanted the gd thing it was just the best state college for my major "
"you make it sound so simple its not simple to follow the immigration rules at least not for the desperate what are they supposed to do they have no money they cant use their own governmental systems they dont have access to resources someone in the us would in order to come here legally theyd need to get help from a lawyer theyd also have to somehow figure out the rules of us immigration which actually arent that simple and then wait months to be granted a visa what if they cant even get proper documentation from their governments if i want to emigrate to australia ill do it the legal way and ill have documentation and ill find out all the rules to make sure i dont break them by accident i would do a lot of research on it but i just live and work and have a family i dont have to worry about scrounging to put food on the table and violence and reprisals for not following gang rules or trying to keep my son from being forced to join a gang lets be realistic most people arent going to be able to follow the process here without help "
yes thats my point the vast vast majority of americans are not bilingual and do not want to have a real hard time in a city simply because weve allowed unrestricted immigration id like to think that americans actually really do get to say what they want in their own country its not actually a stretch and its not a strength to be unable to communicate in arizona when youre anywhere near the bordercouldnt even order lunch the last time i drove that far south diversity of thought is stellar being unable to communicate that thought is a weakness not a strength the fact that you think that the culture in america is so diverse that being unable to speak the same language is a norm speaks more to your lack of getting around than anything yes i want your culture of being unable to communicate in coastal megacities to be eradicated you want it propagated its literally the sort of thing that wars have been fought over which is a damn good reason to control your borders such that youre not in a position of having to fight over basic things
from the article you linked “target” is a specific legal term it refers to someone who investigators believe committed a crime and whom they are likely planning to bring charges against calling trump a “subject” of the investigation however means that mueller is looking into trump’s conduct for evidence of a crime but has no plans to bring charges imminently “being a subject is better than being a target of criminal investigation by a federal grand jury but it is cold comfort” said andrew wright a professor at savannah law school “in effect robert mueller told the trump legal team that he is investigating the president’s conduct but has not determined as yet whether the president has committed specific federal crimes” so this isn’t evidence that trump is out of the woods when it comes to the russia investigation in fact it confirms the opposite this appears to in fact support the idea that the president is being investigated for a crime by a conventional definition although perhaps not technically by a more legalistic definition
"for the premises im asking if theres precedent that would bear on whether someone in kennedys situation would need to recuse himself i understand that he wont actually hear any cases but i want to know what the rules are so to speak or if there are any i understand that it is only hypothetical that these rules and precendents if any would apply to kennedy but the rules and precedents themselves are not hypothetical and you can talk about them without speculating you can see how its difficult to ask about them without tangentially referring to speculation the circumstances under which he announced his retirement are such that donald trump will pick his replacement a replacement who would then be in a position to rule on a case involving trump many legal commentators say this is likely due to the current investigations again im just trying to find out what the rules and precedents are its possible to talk about them without speculating but surely you can see theres no way of asking about them without referring to the future right "
i think me and you got a different idea of what freedom is im not underpaid undereducated or sickly they arent the ones who want these things the people of mississippi are perhaps the schools should be better funded but it is what it is money isnt going to all the right places and thats where ill agree with you the south is in its current position because of the shitfest that was reconstruction following the civil war do you got any idea what they did to us down here they destroyed and burned down everything we had to start over from scratch of course were behind in those things you think its just coincidence or that we are dumber than you if so youre drinking the coolaid and falling for the same shit that you are telling me im falling for there is certainly corruption in government and thats why i believe in less government government is slow and ineffecient its oftentimes more corrupt than privatized industry none of this takes away from the fact that i love my state and im not gonna give up on it im not the only one either
this entire thread is speculative because no one here knows what the plan in the title refers to here we are at a very interesting point either trump is proven to be a moron or a genius i like to believe that this is all a very effective bargaining position if this works great he is a genius otherwise people will then likely judge him to be a moron the possible genius here is that because so many have bought into the prevailing moron narrative that trump is adroitly playing off of this as a negotiating tactic globally industries are in a panic the g7 leaders are getting brutalized by them at home trumps timing of this trip is perfect out of reach canada needs nafta more than the us does trudeau is now privately taking far more heat than we can imagine canadians are not risk takers while socially liberal their leaders are extremely conservative lets see how this works out genius or moron to be reelected trump knows that he needs to keep getting slammed in the ny times and on reddit his plan for this seems to be still working
" the act prohibits knowingly soliciting accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals why is that not a crime that is a crime but so far nobody is seriously alleging that trump did that the allegation so far is that the russians gave trump dirt on hillary which in and of itself is not a crime for either of them perhaps it should be but it isnt theres an attempt to characterize it as a crime by calling getting dirt on an opponent a campaign contribution but thats obviously a huge stretch and if youre going to interpret the law that way it would make all sorts of stuff illegal which currently isnt all that said i think people are using collusion as short hand for the more accurate term criminal conspiracy the theory being that russia was engaged in various crimes in order to affect the election if trumps campaign conspired with them in the commission of those crimes it would be part of the criminal conspiracy so far there doesnt seem to be much evidence of this but that is whats being investigated "
"but 74k cny is only 12k usd apple leverages cheap inhumane offshore labor to keep the cost of iphones low if they had to suddenly pay 60k usd for each technician i dont see how their costs could stay the same your allusion to tesla was not convincing they are in a different industry with radically different markets and manufacturing techniques if we did hit apple with a 100 tariff on imported iphones they would most likely switch over to performing only the final assembly in the us and continue to use overseas parts if we did not apply that tariff on all smartphones i imagine that apple would take us before the wto for unfair trade practices like cigarette manufacturers did when we banned the import of flavored cigarettes years ago but let menthol stay because theyre made in the us all of that being said i agree that the labor used to make iphones is largely inhumane and terrible for the environment not just in china though the raw materials sourced in africa extract a terrible toll on the people and the environment there "
" how would they show that distinguish a specific policy or set of actions explain why they effect people of a certain group more negatively than the general public in addition to showing they are a burden out of line with standard societal norms counterexample its hard for short white men to get into the nba but thats not discrimination because we have accepted meritocracy as a reasonable requirement for hiring selections uadamdf and ufremenchips provide 1 2 a good example based on the voting literacy tests but you seem to argue individuals say the relatives would need to prove the murder rather than the government i dont think i said that i said someone needs to demonstrate someone can be the govt or an individual citizen but the state apparently feels like there is discrimination hence why they step in with legislation to help that there are certainly lawmakers who think that which is why this is even being debated that does not mean they are correct i was trying to provide the proper criteria to decide whether they are"
the only sense in which californians would have more representation with this change is that they would have more representation per capita if you care about per capita representation then californians currently have less than every state in the senate every state has two senators but california has a larger population than any other state they are also the weakest per capita in the electoral college except for texas this is because congressmen are apportioned proportionally but each state gets electors equal to their congressmen plus senators which is not quite proportional as for texas being weaker despite having a smaller population this is due to rounding errors in congressional apportionment population electors electors per 1m wyoming058m3517 texas 283m 38 134 california 395m 55 139 if you dont care about per capita representation yes there are 4 more senators but all representatives are split up between the states each would have congressmen proportional to their population and 2 senators just like every other state
i have seen companies do what youve claimed and try to offer jobs to americans and then mysteriously not be able to fill those jobs then they go ahead and give those jobs to h1b visa holders and the like in my research ive seen these companies will very sneakily advertise in such a way as to reach the fewest amount of americans as possible they may put their ad in the newspaper for 10 per hour and asking for 10 years of experience who wants a job like that its outrageous this meets the parameters for looking for an american to fill the job i suppose this changes state to state but some states all you have to do is kind of sort of look for an american to fill your job then they go ahead and fill it with someone from out of the country so my question would be how did these farming companies look for americans to fill these jobs did they actually have a honest farreaching advertisement campaign most americans if they arent being advertised to will believe that those jobs dont pay very well and dont have any sort of benefits
you asked about arguments for why canada was being labeled a security threat canada isnt being labeled a security threat at any point in the process or justifications for the tariffs because there is no requirement for any country to be a threat only that the product be identified as critical to national security the only argument anywhere in the law report or tariff order than canadian steel imports are a threat to national security is here i have determined that the necessary and appropriate means to address the threat to the national security posed by imports of steel articles from canada and mexico is to continue ongoing discussions with these countries and to exempt steel articles imports from these countries from the tariff at least at this time and there is no argument there its just a statement without justification edit note the link goes to the original order back in march the may 31st order amends it to just say canada is no included but has no additional mention of canada being a threat to national security
" if their life expectancy is so high with shitty healthcare what the hell is going on the us has essentially the same life expectancy does this prove that the us healthcare system is amazing the us life expectancy has recently dropped does this mean that obamacare is failing does this mean that our health care system was better ten years ago these facts and conclusions could be true or not true the cuban statistics might really indicate a great system or not hirschfeld said she’s a little skeptical about the longevity data too since cuba has so many risk factors that cause early death in other countries from unfiltered cigarettes to contaminated water to a meatheavy diet in a more benign statistical quirk carmelo mesalago a professor emeritus of economics at the university of pittsburgh suggests that the flow of refugees could skew longevity statistics since those births are recorded but the deaths are not transparency would help give the data more credibility but the cuban government doesn’t offer much experts said"
" priorities what is most important to you thats what ive said different people have different priorities and sometimes when you add up all the stances and their priorities its not clear which candidate is better nothing is also an explicit choice albeit again one i have no small amount of contempt for thats what i said when i mentioned none of the above or not voting although in this conversation we were literally talking about third party candidates if you think the current crop of republicans are fiscally conservative i have several bridges to sell to you and many current democrats are socially authoritarian it was just an example the specifics of it arent important because the particular stances that a person cares about will vary with each individual voter and the offering for those stances will vary with each individual candidate the point was simply that its not that hard to be in a place where both main party candidates are unappealing in different ways such that its not really clear which is more unappealing"
yes thats my understanding too of what the reasoning is the problem is the reasoning is too narrowly focused there are national security issues that will result from putting tariffs on steel and then as next steps presumably natural resources canada has to sell canada is a resource based economy or at least the natural resource sector is a large component of its economy it has to sell its oil etc somewhere if trump decides to play hardball and push canada around with more tariffs it will drive canada into the arms of china to trade with to a far greater extent than it already is this doesnt matter for manufactured goods but it matters in the case of natural resources if canada trades with china predominantly rather than the us predominantly if things happen this way it will eventually cause enormous security issues for the united states trump and his enablers are shortsighted as can possibly be in other words the us will not have as much access to natural resources as it would need to have in times of war edit too
i don’t get your point about trust most of these so called “allies” buy most of their products from china while they export most of their products to us germany as an example buys more from the netherlands than it does from the us and it buys from the communist dictatorship of china more than anyone else now an ally would buy from the us rather than china wouldn’t you think as the us does today being the largest importer for german goods see here now what case would you expect from an ally germany defending buying from china and benefiting chinese industry vs increasing imports from the us it’s ally here is a good overview of euus tariffs generally they are quite low but they are skewed sharply in certain categories where the eu negotiated better in the past such as on cars where the charge us 10 while we only take 25 now at the same time they have decreased tariffs on japanese cars to zero see here now again what type of ally hits you with the highest tariff while decreases it on others the eu it looks like
lets assume that the us steel industry goes entirely extinct this is not inherently a national security issue unless the us is deprived of all sources of steel imports if a major war breaks out the us would still have complete access to canadian steel unless you expect that canada would side with the american adversary given the long history of an amicable relationship here this seems very unlikely even in the very unlikely event of a war with canada there are many many other sources of steel that would be happy to sell to the united states this national security argument becomes even more far fetched when you realize that the us outproduces canada by almost 61 and the top steel producing nations are highly unlikely to ally against the us an alliance between india japan and china is even more improbable than a war with canada see here for a list of the current world steel production the most likely national security issue is a war with china but the us could still import steel from india and japan and canada
" you honestly think in a court that if a person with the power to hire using the n word would not be taken as proof of racial bias the court might do as it pleases i am not one to mind read but it doesnt fit the definition you suggested for clarity can a racist hire fairly or is that impossible that is simply ridiculous use of racial epitaphs is already harassment as we saw last year its enough to file a hostile work environment suit we are talking about discrimination not harassment that is totally ridiculous the last half century of urban planning is replete with examples of policy that was aimed at solving problems us housing policy was to create the ghetto and maintain it what white americans have never fully understood but what the negro can never forgetis that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto white institutions created it white institutions maintain it and white society condones it from the kerner report i agree that the government was the problem but not by accident rather on purpose "
what then as is the case here if the prosecutors says that someone is not the target of a criminal investigation why would they say this if it is not true remember that the prosecutor here may have no choice but to keep looking for evidence because this is not a regular case if it is a fact that there is little or no evidence this does not mean that they should stop looking if law enforcement wanted to prosecute someone then normally they would first need to present their evidence in open court this has yet to happen so no one knows much here at least some of the evidence to the secret court was from a former foreign spy that was paid by the clinton campaign to get this evidence people debate if this evidence was all that the secret court was given or if it was an insignificant i do not know of a source that proves this either way so i conclude that no one yet knows here is a link that i believe to be somewhat neutral did hillary clinton collude with the russians to get dirt on trump to feed it to the fbi
1 it was intended as a description so i’m glad that came across as such i’m not saying i agree or disagree with that philosophy just factually saying that that is one of the functions of the us government in practice today 2 i guess by stable employment i mean something salaried with health and retirement benefits and paid time off with potential for growth that would allow for a stable retirement and comfortable life doubtless there are a lot of “stable” jobs that make ends meet that don’t require a degree but i intended jobs that people can turn into careers and do not make them entirely exchange their time for an hourly wage 3 dangerous to the stability of the government as it is run today not dangerous in a theoretical sense that same logic applied to other safety nets in place right now would strip benefits that people rely on away and leave a lot of people high and dry and unstable anyway like i said just playing devils advocate i don’t agree or disagree with this position just wanted to vocalize it
"another mod here please assume good faith when interacting with other users its one of the cornerstones of this sub and respect is vital to open communication your specific comment was removed because we do not allow links without an explanation if you go back to edit your comment to explain the substance of the sources you posted then we will reinstate the comment when people shout fake news at everything they disagree with how do you engage that without giving thier argument more credibility then its even worth this is up to you if they are breaking the rules you can report them if they are complying with the rules providing sources and simply arguing something counter to your point you can engage them respectfully and provide evidence that supports your point of view we hope that our users are intelligent enough to form an opinion for themselves or come to an understanding based on the evidence and logic presented if you feel that the conversation is not advancing sometimes its fine to just walk away "
"israel did not poison the water first the water resources of palestine are fully controlled by israel and the division of groundwater is subject to provisions in the oslo ii accord second on water being poisoned 96 of the water is not suitable for human consumption role of blockade the blockade of gaza imposed by israel and egypt for most of the past decade also makes it difficult to push ahead rapidly with major projects such as new desalination facilities as for my claim being inflammatory sara roy probably the most prominent expert on gaza’s economy is the one i base my claim on sara roy of the harvard university center for middle eastern studies has written “innocent human beings most of them young are slowly being poisoned by the water they drink and likely by the soil in which they plant” note although it really shouldn’t matter that most of roy’s family were exterminated during the holocaust so my claim isn’t really controversial and should only be inflammatory to those not aware of the situation "
"unaccompanied children or children accompanied by coyotes have been streaming into the us since at least 2008 the solution at that point was to bus them to points across the entire us and make them promise to show up to immigration court that failed miserably the foundation of the current political shit show lies in the flores settlement which stipulated that children could only be detained for a certain period of time before being released to parentsguardians and the william wilberforce trafficking victims protection reauthorization act which directed authorities to deter human trafficking at the borders because of this the issue now only has two legal solutions deport them as fast as legally possible while keeping them detained or allow them free access to the interior united states and hoping they show up for court which statistically and historically they wont if you keep them detained you have to do so separately you cant have children mixing with detained adults many of whom have criminal records "
" but cutting off labor supply from immigration isnt going to help the employers if no one whos already here doesnt want to work those jobs so heres the thing that above article states that trying to keep more immigrants out of the jobs has already started raising the wages nobody is biting but thats not surprising because wages arent keeping up with inflation whats important to note in the latimes article is the statement wages have increased 50 now take a look at the specific amounts in question it increased from 20000 to 30000 which is still only a few thousand above the areas living wage for a single adult with no children people dont want the job because its underpaid and is difficult work from an economics standpoint when that happens it should drive up the wage of the workers demanded until people are actually interested in taking the job that will not happen if they are paying people below the minimum wage under the table and encourages other businesses to find ways to circumvent the law as well"
"perhaps youre forgiving loan after students have been out of college for a certain amount of time so that the forgiveness would roll out over time and perhaps youre asking people to pay their debt off in the meantime or people like me who have been out of college a long time are getting littleno forgiveness people who have been out a few years get a good amount but have paid some and people who just got out get most forgiven im not certain i can define a good policy here but if youd asked me to explain how tax cuts could work over 10 years id have struggled to come up with that on the fly too and yet clearly its possible im not a policy wonk so im only really able to talk about values given the price of college tuition has been steadily going up i think that the idea of more recent graduates getting more benefit makes sense as for how you prevent people accruing trillions in the meantime there you may need some college tuition reform america has absurdly high prices compared to most western countries "
its not entirely when its picking season on dairy farms for example one of the easiest jobs is hooking the cows on to and off of the milking machines it takes about an hour total and is usually very early in the morning when they wake up hire a couple teenagers to do it before school another example is rock picking its literally just bending down picking up a rock and throwing it off the field its the first thing you do at the start of the season its best to have kids do it because their backs are more flexible another example is simple poop shoveling this one is really popular amongst my former high school peers it takes a few minutes per horse stall an hour for a cow pen depending on how bad it is if you do it once a day probably a little less im not saying have them work full time im saying have them work the easy quick jobs that would otherwise have to go to professionals which increases expenses and the time required to do them it would be like paying a surgical nurse to mop the floor of their or
" bottom line if you’re an asylum seeker you should present yourself at a port of entry however some of the immigrants who were detained were presenting themselves at a port of entry from the article but there is evidence that even families who seek asylum at ports of entry are being separated one highprofile case involves a congolese woman who sought asylum and still was separated from her 7yearold daughter in february nprs burnett reported on the legal battle of ms l v ice hers is not an isolated case according to immigrant advocates lutheran immigration and refugee service has documented 53 incidents of family separation in the last nine months mostly central americans other immigrant support groups say there are many more cases burnett reported reporter jean guerrero of kpbs in san diego reported on the case of a salvadoran father jose demar fuentes who says he sought asylum and was separated from his 1yearold son mateo despite having an original birth certificate proving that he is the boys father"
"hi there uravenclaw968 im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but the submission as it stands does not conform to our submission rules would you be interested in reworking it a bit the biggest problem is negative framing theres no way for respondents to provide evidence for why someone hasnt done something which means the question as framed violates rule g its also not clear what going after means you could rearrange it to ask for instance does austria have the incentive and legal means to disband opec most everything else youve already got here could be repurposed to set up that question but it will require resubmission because reddit doesnt allow editing of titles if you have any questions reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
from your source according to the fbi 67642 murders were committed in the us from 2005 through 2008 and 115717 from 2003 through 2009 the general accounting office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25064 of these murders the fbi numbers refer to murders between 2003 and 2009 the number of homicides by illegal immigrants 25064 is from the gao study which looks at the 296000 illegal immigrants who were incarcerated in 2009 and tries to broadly estimate what crimes they have committed in their lifetime based on a closer examination of 1000 of the files it makes no claim about when those crimes may have happened since murder sentences are longer than the other crimes gao looked at its reasonable to assume that many of the 25064 murder cases the gao estimates occurred had happened before 2003 from the gao study your source cites our analysis includes criminal aliens with arrests dating from august 1955 to april 2010 about 90 percent of the arrests in our study population occurred after 1990
"these are not necessarily my opinions as i understand them however these are not contradictory one opinion is that maduro is a puppet for the cuban intelligence service and the drug cartels this claim that he is a puppet does not contradict the general opinion that he is also a dictator this is a claim that he is a puppet dictator as for that brookings piece very little is verifiable so please provide a link that the national assembly has any power at all president nicolás maduro ‘is now the national assembly’ says assembly’s leader after court rules it can assume congressional duties taking over the legislative and judicial branches is the very definition of a dictator almost every electoral process since the beginning of the chavista period has featured major irregularities or biases in favor of the incumbent party these irregularities consist of practices that depart from either the spirit or the letter of venezuelan law or from international standards for conducting “free and fair” elections "
" from the uns perspective where everyone within the occupied territories is within israel for which of these does the unhrc have jurisdiction no the un doesn’t recognise the occupied territories as part of israel but as occupied hence they have no jurisdiction alternatively from a un perspective those who are not subject to israel might still be subject to jordan no i don’t remember the exact sequence but today the occupied territories are not considered to be part of jordan westbank or egypt gaza so no unhrc has no jurisdiction there as was pointed out there is no palestine that is a un member so are the palestinians from this perspective legally subject to israel or to jordan neither they are occupied by israel which gives israel the obligation to grant them near full citizenship rights they are basically stateless people or a state that isn’t part of the un so outside the unhrc jurisdiction if israel wants they can avoid being condemned by pulling out of the un can you now answer my questions "
"hi sorry i didnt see this sooner you made a toplevel comment instead of replying to mine so i didnt get notified heres what youd still need to change are they more similar in focus than many media outlets would have us believe this needs to be removed it presumes that unspecified media outlets are intending to influence us in some way which is not neutral rule b not sourced rule d and shifts the question toward a request to explain media coverage prohibited by rule a ive seen lots of coverage of internment facilities showing pictures of crying children in fenced cages this needs a qualified source i also wonder if he is directing ice to restrict access to both families and lawmakers who are interested in conditions and procedure this needs some clarification restrict access to what the country the stated policy positions and what do you mean by interested in conditions and procedure conditions for asylumseekers procedures for ice if you have any questions please reply directly to this comment "
a signed and ratified treaty is equal to statutory law based on article ii of the constitution this is incorrect only selfexecuting treaties have the force of law akin to a statute that treaty does not appear to be selfexecuting having said that that provision only applies to people that come directly from a country that is persecuting them common international practice is that that clause doesnt apply if they couldve found refuge in a state they passed through the intention reflected in the practice of some states appears to be that other countries or territories passed through should also have constituted actual or potential threats to life or freedom or that onward flight may have been dictated by the refusal of other countries to grant protection or asylum or by the operation of exclusionary provisions such as those on safe third country safe country of origin or time limits iow the provision doesnt apply to a central american passing through mexico unless mexico were also persecuting him
"i wasn’t arguing that there is a national security risk only pointing out that national security and national defense are not interchangeable terms but lets go ahead and take the full paragraph that article above quotes regarding the december 15 2017 reports on steel and aluminum dod believes that the systematic use ofunfair trade practices to intentionally erode our innovation and manufacturingindustrialbaseposesarisktoournationalsecurity assuchdodconcurswith the department ofcommerces conclusion that imports offoreign steej and aluminum based on unfair trading practices impair the national security as noted in both section 232 reports however the us military requirements for steel and alwninum each only represent about threepercentofusprodnction thereforedoddoesnotbelievethatthefindingsinthe reports impact the ability ofdod programs to acquire the steel·or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements apologies for the poor copy stupid phone here is the dod response memo in full "
" first of all im not butt hurt but embarrassed that such a large portion of our population is dumb andor hateful enough to support this buffoon thankfully he does not have a 50 approval rating though and what successes are you referring to he inherited a growing low unemployment economy he did get lower the tax bill mainly for the wealthy other than that he hasnt accomplished jack except for pissing off all our friends again and again the man is an idiot with a shitty grade schoolers knowledge and understanding of history he refuses to listen to people that actually know what they are talking about and gradually pushes them away in favor of sycophantic yes men this is the worst administration in modern us history thankfully our checks and balances and institutional inertia have kept the king dolt in check give that guy another term though and all bets are off i cant imagine that will happen though the hateful dolts caught everyone sleeping and elected one of their own wont happen again "
speaking only from my own situation im not especially afraid of hard work but i definitely dont want to be outside for a long time during the day even if that were not an issue i live in a city and have no reliable transport to get to places where produce must be picked if that were not an issue i would have no idea how to get into contact with any farmers that needed such work done all of those are impediments regardless of what wage they might be paying obviously those dont affect everyone but im willing to bet that a large number of the target workforce probably have transportation issues and live in cities far away from farms the last point probably affects just about everyone probably the solution would be public transport or at least some kind of better connection through employment services obviously that couldnt happen in a situation where a new law was implemented and nobody thought about handling the consequences but longer term solutions could take those factors into account
also in direct response to your cite regarding the appeals court decision the ruling by the appeals court has no real effect on the trump executive order as the lower courts decisions have already been stayed by the supreme court trump’s executive order is currently in force second cite the decision from the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit in richmond va will have no immediate practical impact the supreme court agreed last month to hear an appeal from a broadly similar decision from the ninth circuit in san francisco in december in a sign that the supreme court may be receptive to upholding mr trump’s latest order the court allowed it to go into effect as the two cases moved forward a final note if you read my earlier post carefully you will see that i referred to “religiosity” as a whole not any particular religion it could indeed be found although it has not yet been that an immigration policy that discriminates against a particular religion is unconstitutional
"that depends somewhat on the interpretation of ops question indeed op seemed to be asking along a stricter line of logic whether issuing dodgy pardons could be or already was being proactively blocked or not to me the narrow to middling chance of eventual punishment of the issuer doesnt seem to meet that standard but nevertheless your point is fair and stands as written as far as i can see theres a lurking incorrect premise in the murder example however because the laws of physics and biology dont allow for a reversal of a killing obviously however its perfectly possible to reverse some financial felonies where the fines are often specified to be triple the amount of the illgotten gains however the same provisions dont apply to pardons though they really should because most other contractual and financial offenses can and are reversed by courts when possible for a given whitecollar offense not allowing that ability for pardons was an obscure and unfortunate constitutional oversight "
"id like to see exactly what they offered from your link they say newbies would be making far less than the experienced folks workers are paid by volume with skilled workers typically earning 15 to 20 an hour unskilled workers earn much less which is why most locals don’t want the jobs so you become so reliant on the illegal labor that was willing to work for less than peanuts while they got good at the trade the legal labor has better options so never joins your labor pool then youre forced to rely on the legal labor but have no one trained enough where the pay is worth it pay more even a 40 raise doesnt impact food prices that much and even then your article states that some 425000 illegal immigrants lived in georgia when the legislation was passed even if only a portion of them are working the fields that is a shitton of people to hire you are gonna need to look like a golden fucking ticket to attract the amount of talent necessary to fill that gap paying just enough wont cut it "
" you would show discrimination if there is a long term provable track record of discrimination by documenting individual cases and then building an argument from that what individual cases they are not in the business so how would you find them the same way weve always done it like when simply observing that most pot stores which are all brand new are owned by men and concluding that as proof of discrimination is a very bad metric i mean if there are roughly an equal number of women wanting to get into the business i dont think its that bad of a metric if its true that there are far fewer women that want to you might be right also if i get you the only way to fight discimination is to let it happen for a long time document it and then try to do something about it would you accept taking businesses away from men because they got it because discrimination existed or would you then argue its unfair to them and that the unfair situation should continue to exist or how would you fix it "
thats true though to be perfectly honest it isnt always a bad thing the exact same thing is happening with some of these jobs they arent able to afford to pay a decent wage for labor what that means is that ultimately they arent competitive enough in the marketplace and although closing a business isnt a great experience its probably for the best if they have to adjust their prices due to marginal costs by any significant amount its going to be because they were vastly underpaying for labor and were relying on that fact to stay afloat businesses cant expect to remain in business solely because theyve done so in the past even according to the business owners in this article cited in a different part of the thread the business owners acknowledge that they arent running their business as efficiently as they can several have talked about replacing workers with machines or dropping prices for the goods they are selling wine and so on inefficiency will ultimately put you out of business
the decision makes it harder to believe the justices will protect minority rights and i think it will definitely undermine faith in liberal democracy the poll found perception of racism to be particularly important in peoples views of our democracy racial minorities women and young people who have missed out on the full bounty of american greatness also tend to perceive fewer benefits from democracy and are thus less convinced of the system’s value only 42 percent of nonwhite respondents said they are satisfied with “the way democracy is working in our country” compared with 51 percent of white respondents racial discrimination and money’s corrosive impact on politics are two major factors driving this crisis of confidence participants in the survey were presented a list of 11 issues and asked to pick the two that most concern them when it comes to democracy in america almost 3 in 10 picked “big money in politics” and “racism and discrimination” a statistical tie for the top issue
i think this whole episode provides interesting insight into the way trump communicates if this were a company he despises like cnn there would be a case to be made for this being a vindictive threat but by all accounts trump loves harley davidson from this you can draw the conclusion that its not the company he dislikes its this specific action of moving jobs overseas and put in that context if theres nothing special about harley davidson to draw his ire you could rephrase this threat as any company that moves jobs overseas will be taxed like never before that sounds a lot more like a policy and less like a punishment in fact this exact idea has been a theme of his presidency for a while now and even before then id just like to point out that im specifically addressing his intent with these comments in the context of bill of attainder this is not a commentary on his overall success in achieving his goal of preventing jobs from moving overseas which may turn out to be quite poor
" i wonder if there is contract language that covers this yes there is appendix a nfl player contract 2 employment and services club employs player as a skilled football player player accepts such employment he agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the club and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game 11 skill performance and conduct if player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club then club may terminate this contract 14 rules player will comply with and be bound by all reasonable club rules and regulations in effect during the term of this contract which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this contract or of any collective bargaining agreement in existence during the term of this contract edit trying to fix the contract paragraph numbering"
" 3 hold them for 20 days release the whole family give them a court date and hope they return is there any data on what percentage dont return for their court date theres lots of data from that report since 1996 deportation orders total 2991273 of this number 1771314 aliens were ordered removed from detention facilities another 1219959 persons free pending trial received removal orders breaking down these numbers shows 301861 litigants completed their trials but lost their cases and were ordered removed the balance — 918098 — never showed for court and were ordered deported in absentia now id highly encourage you to really take a in depth look at that article for more information it was put out by the cis a group that has come under plenty of critisim and is openly anti immigration they do however cite sources so can look at the facts their conclusions and see whether or not you agree it is a pretty in depth look at aliens both legal and illegal and rates of failing to appear "
"one of the reasons this point is incorrect is that there is a global steel industry crisis largely blamed on china and to a lesser extent russia skorea and a few other countries the president was offered multiple solutions to this problem including ones which only targeted the countries responsible for overproduction each of the measures was estimated to secure the us domestic steel supply this is described in the federal trade commission steel report on which the president relied in raising the tariffs ruining our international alliances was not necessary to quote one of the steel producers from the report but as you consider additional actions please remember that we also need to find a solution to the excess steel capacity that is impacting global markets we need governments throughout the steelmaking world to come together to make clear to china that they need to reduce their excess capacity in steel making – the way a marketbased economy would – rather than exporting it "
" however most do not meet the second and third requirements they are not part of a protected class they are not coming to the us because their race or religion is being discriminated against and they are not being persecuted by their home government im wondering how they meet the first requirement but dont also meet the last one considering the government cannot stop the drug cartels from executing people furthermore im wondering how much legitimacy donald trump adds to the conversation when he says things like “children are being used by some of the worst criminals on earth as a means to enter our country” he wrote “has anyone been looking at the crime taking place south of the border it is historic with some countries the most dangerous places in the world not going to happen in the us” source if donald trump is saying central america is very violent wouldnt that embolden these peoples claims that a their lives are at risk staying there and b the government cannot stop it"
"this is a pretty comprehensive article that explains the difference between the 2 administrations but in short some parts were similar while others were very different the family separations for every migrant who crosses the border are absolutely new most of the underage migrants housed in the older pictures you see from 2014 came to the border unaccompanied meaning without a guardian see vox source above as they didnt have an adult to be released to the us felt it was unsafe to send them off until they found a place for them which is why they were in the centers there was an unprecedented surge that year which led to the crisis obama tried to house the families together but it was challenged in court the plaintiffs used the flores settlement as the basis for their argument and they were told children could not be held longer than 20 days because they didnt want to separate families theyd release them together and order them to return for their court date 75 of them did so "
yea this is all super complicated of course with many peoples life work being studying and understanding it and finding that balance between open markets that allow growth without harming local industry the thing is an entire town being out of work due to low steel prices is very visible and of course devastating but the jobs created due to low steel prices and increased economic power are less visible so when you have politicians pointing to trade as the cause of so many peoples economic woes you cant really say they are wrong but its not the full picture but it is a very emotional thing that can be used to get votes i would argue a better solution would be things like educationtraining programs so that existing workers can benefit from the other advantages of trade my honest opinion is that trump is doing what he thinks is best for the american worker and what many of them think is best but i just think he is wrong based on my limited understandingreading expert opinions
"hello there uromannumeralvi im a mod in rneutralpolitics we appreciate your participation in the sub but we did not approve this submission because the main question doesnt conform to our submission rules is the threat of icc jurisdiction and its alleged bias over future actions by israel likely a major reason that the creation of an independent palestine is unlikely this presumes that the creation of an independent palestine is unlikely and also violates rule g g no requests for speculation if the question cannot be answered with facts — which includes any that are phrased in the future tense what willwouldcould happen — then its not appropriate for neutralpolitics this question also violates rule g is closure of the icc a necessary step before an independent palestinian state can be created if you wish to discuss this topic under more relaxed submission rules consider posting to our sister subreddit rneutraltalk also rpoliticaldiscussion allows requests for speculation "
im not pointing out the disagreement youre connecting two issues because canada says they are connected and they have no say in the matter step 1 us commerce department says steel is a national security product step 2 president issues tariffs on steel because law says he can after commerce department declares them a national security product notice what is missing there any reference to a country canada and the eu are going to the wto because theyre claiming this is protectionism which can be true regardless of us law the fact that the president is using a specific us law to implement these tariffs that uses national security reasons to bypass congress has absolutely nothing to do with any other country you cant go to the wto and claim these tariffs are illegal internationally because the us has decided they are related to national security that isnt recognizable or relevant to the rest of the world including canada and any statement conflating the two is just pr at work
yet to my knowledge that hasn’t exactly been challenged as a limitation of free speech sure it has been the long and short is that we have a robust right to speech in public forums we do not have a right to speak on anothers property which includes government property devoted to the business of government as a result speech in a courtroom can be regulated eg the courtroom is a nonpublic forum berner 129 f3d at 26 where the first amendment rights of everyone attorneys included are at their constitutional nadir in fact the courtroom is unique even among nonpublic fora because within its confines we regularly countenance the application of even viewpointdiscriminatory restrictions on speech the reality of it remains that you aren’t going g to be thrown in jail for critical speech on either side of the pond well as long as youre not mean about it but if the courts determine you were a meanie then you absolutely can be punished for disfavored speech in other jurisdictions
"then we have different standards of honesty i am generally sympathetic to the palestinian side that does not change my approach to laying out evidence in as objective way as possible yes you can justify the statement as being technically right you can pretend to be baffled that someone would look at the phrase and see an active less tangential accusation nobody could ever prove someone made the word choices and structure in a way to add more emotional impact if you cant prove dishonesty then it is morally justified right not for me i dont care what lies the other side produces i think the views i hold are validated by honest evidence i will admit to the weaknesses on my side and will not exaggerate the strengths i believe if everyone did that we would be a far better society im not waiting for my opponents to start first maybe you truly dont think there was any spin or exaggeration if so i think our frames of reference are too far apart to have constructive dialogue "
this is posted elsewhere in the thread but heres a fairly thorough critique its also worth noting that steven calabresi is the chairman of the federalist society which has been working quite closely with the trump administration and hardly an objective source the federalist society has been influential in the trump administration handselecting supreme court justice neil gorsuch and recruiting a slate of conservative judges to fill vacancies throughout the federal judiciary2324 the society helped to assemble the list of 21 people from which donald trump said he would choose a nominee to replace antonin scalia on the us supreme court federalist society members have generally chosen not to criticize president donald trump politicodescribed the federalist society membership as elite conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give trump a pass on his breaches of longcherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of supreme court justice neil gorsuch
i agree it takes a lot of regulation however louisiana has had a system in place since 1989 that pays for college tuition it is a merit based system meaning you need to hit certain marks in high school and hit certain marks in college to be eligible for remain eligible for funding there are different levels of funding depending on what marks you hit with the highest levels of funding paying a small stipend room and board is not payed for and you only get 8 semesters of funding if a student drops out or looses funding for academic reasons they do not have to pay it back however tops comprises 137 of the state budget so it is not a great loss i couldnt find information about the louisiana state but the largest state university lsubaton rouge has a graduation rate nearing 7037 well about the nation average to me this suggests that students who dont have the financial issues hanging over their heads are better able to succeed in school and are more likely to graduate
because if you dont let them in legally they come illegally its prohibition all over again its fighting market forces with rules on paper there was a great podcast that came out this week on what happened when we started policing the border more chapman former head of the marines and apparently a champion of equality there takes over as head of the ins after vietnam and decides to take better control of the borders the unintended consequence of this is that instead of stopping illegal immigration it made illegal immigrants from mexico come once and stay and bring their families instead of leaving to go back home every winter the economic force still existed but the cost of crossing rose so they cross less so they stayed if we instead allowed these people to come and work legally wed remove much of the black market for smuggling people across the border and many of them would go home to their families when done working instead of bringing them and staying
"there is both what is illegal entry us immigration law actually uses the term improper entry which has a broad meaning it’s more than just slipping across the us border at an unguarded point improper entry can include entering or attempting to enter the united states at any time or place other than one designated by us immigration officers in other words away from a border inspection point or other port of entry eluding examination or inspection by us immigration officers people have tried everything from digging tunnels to hiding in the trunk of a friend’s car or attempting to enter or obtain entry to the united states by a willfully false or misleading representation or willful concealment of a material fact which might include for example lying on a visa application or buying a false green card or other entry document see title 8 section 1325 of the us code usc or section 275 of the immigration and nationality act ina for the exact statutory language "
i mean your source allows for some arguments to be made the united states supreme courts decision in lloyd corp not to extend first amendment protections to privatelyowned shopping centers does not prevent a state from extending the free speech protections of its own constitution more expansively to protect expressive conduct in such locations pruneyard shopping center v robins 447 us 74 81 100 s ct 2035 2040 1980 a number of state courts have done so eg new jersey coalition against war in the middle east v jmb realty corp 650 a2d 757 nj 1994 robins v pruneyard shopping center 592 p2d 341 cal 1979 we conclude however that the current state of the law in minnesota and the weight of authority in other jurisdictions do not support such an extension further there are numerous law reviews which posit that this is an unsettled area of the law so unequivocally stating no is misleading also there is a somewhat difference between a mall and entertainment forum
"hi there uredblazingdragon im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules specifically please address a couple issues with the second question in your title does it violate the principle of political equality per rule b we ask that submitters avoid negative framing in their questions as its inherently leading so you could instead ask if it supports the principle in question not violates it then theres the problem that the principle of political equality is not defined please add a source to the text that defines this principle note that youll have to resubmit to change the title thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
i obviously cant read minds but i read this question as being about lower than collegedegree level jobs here is an example of how much the jobs are devalued 13000 pa for one study and 17 for another i have seen this number but that is not how they drag the average down because h1b workers have lower availability than the locals difficult hiring visa sponsorship being a minority in the pool not to mention that not all are underpaid big tech pays on par only sketchy consultancies pay significantly less so again there is no good estimate how they depress the average wages across the board again i am not arguing that wages are depressed that is basic econ entry level roles that are overrepresented by h1b visas that is just not true you cant hire h1b for an entry level keep the knowledge and experience within its shores what exactly stops outsourcing if you kick out all of those h1b workers the knowledge and experience in it have no geographic affinity
"according to this npr article 1995 minors were separated from their alleged adult guardians at the southern border in just over a monthlong period following dojs new zero tolerance policy for illegal crossings in part the policy states so i recently read this article with comments from a border patrol agent stating plainly that people know how to game the system and use children to cross the border for nefarious reasons that speaks directly to one of the problems human traffickers gangs and cartels use lax laws and loopholes to their advantage here is another article describing how cartels use children as mules then there is this article explaining that obama held more than double the number of children in shelters compared to trump white house it is a complicated and messy situation that congress should have fixed years ago daca while sounding good on the outside also helped fuel crisis of illegal minors attempting to get in to get amnesty "
"i think thats only looking from an economic perspective sure they definitely have more to gain from expanding their economy removing sanctions etc but will that have an affect on political leadership or control will north korean leadership feel more comfortable having a potential nuclear button to deter outside military intervention will north korean leadership see outside economic influence as the beginning of outside political influence how will an open korean peninsula handle an influx of new culture how will outside culture influence propaganda measures there are a lot of questions that frankly i dont have the answer to but the past few decades have been about control and i believe that if sticking to an agreement or open up north korea means losing control then it will be avoided if they feel they can attain the end goal of being recognized as a permanent nuclear power and get sanctions removed i think they would work towards that goal "
"“trudeau came to see me he’s a good guy justin he said ‘no no we have no trade deficit with you we have none donald please’ ” trump said mimicking trudeau according to audio of the private event in missouri obtained by the washington post “nice guy goodlooking guy comes in — ‘donald we have no trade deficit’ he’s very proud because everybody else you know we’re getting killed “ so he’s proud i said ‘wrong justin you do’ i didn’t even know i had no idea i just said ‘you’re wrong’ you know why because we’re so stupid … and i thought they were smart i said ‘you’re wrong justin’ he said ‘nope we have no trade deficit’ i said ‘well in that case i feel differently’ i said ‘but i don’t believe it’ i sent one of our guys out his guy my guy they went out i said ‘check because i can’t believe it’ ‘well sir you’re actually right we have no deficit but that doesn’t include energy and timber … and when you do we lose 17 billion a year’ it’s incredible” "
"i dont buy the us centric argument i may have specified potuscongress in the op but its a basic tenet of governance that applies all over the world originating in ancient greece i dont think that presuming that those outside of the us would have this information particularly in a political forum is presumptuous it is the very root of every discussion in this sub there are some exceptions but they are exceptions and they exist on the fringes even in some of those exceptions the three branches exist such as in china there are differences with regards to how much power each branch may or may not have in a particular system but thats irrelevant to the point i made legislatures create laws not executives by the very definitions so yes i do suppose that to some degree it is absolutely common knowledge for this audience the question then becomes to what degree is common knowledge allowed in this forum its not never we know that where is the line "
"i dont think we have a clear established metric of how unemployment follows a trend we used to think a strict relationship held between inflation an unemployment the phillips curve but this relationship has been getting a bit weaker over time this is called the flattening of the phillips curve what is unusual is that with the recent unemployment being sub 4 that is below the level most economists believe the natural rate of unemployment would be from people moving shifting jobs etc unemployment can never be 0 we saw this once in the 90s before a recession we might expect unemployment to fall without friction towards the natural rate but very near or below the rate we might expect more frictions so is this trumps policy or is our measure of unemployment not quite right in that there is still slack in the people who arent in the labor force but might be coming back labor force participation is stagnant but we are below the prerecession peak "
"so to restate the question under what circumstances are children being separated from their family theyre being separated when the parents are detained for more than 20 days under the flores settlement and its progeny children have to be separated from their parents when the parents will be detained for more than 20 days as a factual matter btw the nro article seems reasonably solid the house is currently debating a bill that would overrule the 20 day limit allowing families to be kept indefinitely at ice family facilities that seems like a reasonable fix the only children being separated from their parents are family units who did not seek asylum at the border well no the nro article notes that parents will often be detained while theyre applying for asylum the clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled iow the parents are held while the asylum claim is pending "
my main concern with your line of thought is that if we followed it we have to treat status as a citizen in a unique way imagine a scenario where two guys are born in tijuana and one guy in chula vista each of their families emigrate to the uk shortly after their births they grow up there become radicalized travel to syria and join the jihad the us becomes aware of them and wants to get rid of them by your theory purely by virtue of being born 10 miles apart the us is required to insert special forces to abduct the american citizen bring him back to the us and grant him a civilian trial but they can hit the other two guys with a hellfire and call it a day i dont like having such a great disparity for something that can be a technicality the memo allowing the us to hit all three with a hellfire is one way of resolving it another is forcing the us to extract and try them all but that gets silly too i dont know what the right solution is
"its a paranoid train of thought and one that would hopefully never be necessary but you can successfully argue that not having a sufficient enough domestic steel manufacturing capability can be a national security issue its something youd just rather have and not need than need and not have id rather never have to shoot anyone but i still have a chl and carry my pistol nearly every day unless its illegal to do so where im going ill more than likely never need my gun for self defense and do everything i can to not be in that situation and deescalate it if it happens but if push comes to shove i want to have a gun on my person and ready to be used if needed not having any real domestic steel production capability and just buying our steel from canada is like keeping your ccw in your vehicle instead of holstered on your person while youll more than likely be able to get to it if you need it theres still a reasonable chance that you wont "
"at the root free speech in the us is outlined as an inalienable right something that every person has and the government cannot interfere with at all more specifically the first amendment to the constitution explicitly forbids the congress from making laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances this is a stronger legal force than a government merely stating they respect individuals right to free speech and though some limitations have been placed on speech incitement of violence or fighting words mostly the effect has been that the government has to demonstrate why limiting such speech is warranted rather than the people having to justify why their speech is protected "
great analysis but the standard prior to this ruling except in home rule states was that if you have nexus in a state you also have nexus with a municipality if you sell directly into that municipality there normally is not a separate standard for nexus in a municipality for instance if you sell into atlanta ga and have nexus established you will have to collect tax for the state county city and any local option taxes you dont get out of that however in a home rule state like alabama they offer a system for remote sellers that minimizes the burden of reporting to the individual municipalities you can pay a simplified sellers use tax at 837 and report it to the state level instead of going to the municipalities if you have a brickandmortar or more traditional nexus in alabama though you wont qualify for that return different states have different rules so its tough to give a blanket statement out for all states its why i have a job
bed decisions like borrowing money to pay for a degree that wont get them a job that will allow them to pay off their loan frankly i dont think we should be footing the bill the blame lands on the universities making ridiculous money just check out the rate hikes if we reestablish state funding taxing privately funded schools should make up the difference then universities can make their choices big bills and big taxes or steady funding on a budget harvard and yale can make up for state schools lowered bills this very system worked fine for a long time until idiots came along itching to cut taxes on the 1 and decided to aim at state schools why they thought state schools could be defunded i will never ever know but in the meantime colleges administrative salaries have skyrocketed not creating a whole buncha livable jobs mind you just paying more to the same number of highlevel people as college presidents have become more ceoesque
directly beneath your quote from the cbo report generally such estimates include revenues and spending at the federal state and local levels however many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes this is the difficulty illegal immigration can have outsized impacts on local areas even if it does create a net benefit to the federal budget edit ive chosen not to repost other papers here but there are some more recent reports that disagree about the net economic benefit of illegal immigration i havent had a chance to look through them and assess their trustworthiness regardless i just dont think its that hard to submit that immigration by the rules would allow the government to manage the balance even better so that immigrants in total would be even more of a net economic and social benefit to the us
"i dont really think that is a technicality though the border is very real and there is a very real difference in laws and your individual rights depending on which side of the border you are on 10 miles 10 feet 10 inches can make all the difference between sovereign territories and thats the difference one is a sovereign american citizen if we want to maintain the integrity of the law and the integrity of the statutes that protect our constitutional rights then we must abide by the letter of the law if we do not then we are hypocrites and we are undermining the principles of our society i also dont think we should be as careless as it seems we are with targeting noncitizen terrorists while weve taken out many weve killed a lot of innocents in the process and the old tired excuse we hear from the military is well the bad guys always blend in with the civilians so its just the price we pay for stopping the bad guys is unacceptable "
"usgermany trade balance is negative germany exports 21 billion dollars worth of goods more to the us than they import from the us usfrance trade balance is negative as well but only to the extent of 6 billion dollars usuk trade balance is positive the us exports around 3 billion worth of goods more than they import usitaly trade balance is negative the us imports almost 10 billion dollars worth of goods from italy more than they export to italy usjapan trade balance is negative as well to the extent of 23 billion dollars finally us canada trade balance is negative to the extent of 4 billion dollars its quite clear who would lose out when trade stops most of these countries interestingly the uk is the exception have a considerable influx of cash due to trade with the us the real interesting question is how current trade barriers cause these numbers i mean prior to trump and how they would change without any tariffs at all source "
"i understand that he has that ability and ive got no problem with him using it but i am im saying he should do so at the right time based on what experts on handling that particular piece of information tell him is right donald trump is not a military expert and thats fine most presidents were not thats why he has the joint chiefs the secdef and many other people to help him determine the right course of action because he can do some serious damage by declassifying the wrong information if he decided to tell our adversaries that our nukes are all useless or that the all of our missile defense and radar are a sham and its all been luck so far yes that information is legally declassified through his authority but it would be catastrophic to the security of our country i dont intend to prove you wrong that he can declassify or classify information just that he shouldnt do it on a whim i also hold a security clearance right now "
the article still does not provide the reader any of the facts regarding the rate of detection yet claims that detention was not obamas policy although again i may have missed it um where in the article does it make this claim thats not what the article is about the title of the article is no donald trump’s separation of immigrant families was not barack obama’s policy its talking about separation of families the article explains the methods obama generally used his change in strategy etc theres even the question of policy vs outcome it is entirely possible that obama has a different policy as trump while still having the same outcome but in describing the policy you dont need numbers its policy the site has experts from various fields i think they had up to four experts and described all their qualifications who qualitatively described the policy and what they tried to achieve which is factually different than trumps policy
this is exactly the problem the 14th amendment has an intended consequence of giving noncitizen residents constitutional rights because it entitles any person within us jurisdiction the equal protection of the law this has an unintended consequence of making it beneficial to cross the border illegally because if you make it you gain constitutional rights since then various court opinions including flores have given children additional rights to not be incarcerated for having been taken across the border combined this makes it impossible to prosecute adults for breaking immigration law without separating them from their children asylum is not the relevant key to understanding the problem the court system has effectively made splitting up families an unavoidable consequence of enforcing immigration law and this was not previously a major problem because if the situation arose the government would choose not to enforce the law
"hi there uedithor im a mod in rneutralpolitics thanks for resubmitting this i am curious about the focus of the question though are you asking about trade policy or are you asking about bernie sanders the issue of tariffs where they should apply and why is a specific political question per rule a but the issue of why one particular person supports them seems peripherally related at best the way the post is composed it sounds like it might be using a passive form of whataboutism to make an argument about sanders rather than asking about the policy itself if thats the case we would regard that as nonneutral framing rule b but if im misreading it feel free to explain why thanks note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
here is my issue with sources like these look how they provide info on data under obama they talk to unnamed “experts” who say it happened “relatively rarely” did i miss some key data there or is that it again this source is problematic because it doesn’t present facts it presents a judgement and then lists some arguments that don’t seem to have a whole lot of raw data backing them up eg how much is “rarely” and how does it compare to recent history even if the data this article’s argument is based on was presented let’s say hypothetically that under obama these separations only occurred at 1 the rate of the separation under the trump admin it would still directly invalidate the entire premise of this article’s argument argument that it is not “obama’s policy “ it amounts to an argument that “obama did it a little bit but it technically wasn’t a ‘policy’” which seems to be a weak argument or at least one based on semantics
here is what a broad survey of economists has to say on the subject the average us citizen would be better off if a larger number of lowskilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the us each year 2 strongly agree 50 agree 28 uncertain 9 disagree 0 strongly disagree unless they were compensated by others many lowskilled american workers would be substantially worse off if a larger number of lowskilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the us each year 4 strongly agree 46 agree 30 uncertain 7 disagree 2 strongly disagree so the general consensus there is that on average americans benefit from lowskilled immigration but specific americans will be hurt by it so with a government redistribution policy that takes a fraction of the benefits that the general population receives and uses it to cancel out the harm that those few people receive lowskilled immigration could be a benefit to every single american
"this is not a throwaway suggestion i will confirm the mods do this ive had comments deleted multiple times obviously i didnt always agree with the exercise of discretion but understood all but a couple instances in one instance i challenged the moderation and the removal was maintained a reasonable clarification and explanation was given another time i thought there was inappropriate moderation i requested it be reviewed and was successful the mod that i had the disagreement with was the one that politely and without rancor told me they had been overruled and my comment reinstated i dont doubt the moderation team runs the scale of ideologies there may even be an average that is to one side or another they are fair and objective in application of the rules i personally disagree with some minor aspects of this subredditvs rules but those irritations do not keep me from saying it is the best political discussion on reddit "
sure its always a chain of events obama wouldnt have had to do anything to recover the economy in the first place if it hadnt crashed in 2008 as i mentioned i didnt take the time to actually assert an answer to the question i just felt that it was worthwhile to point out that the analogy only worked if you committed to the presupposed frame of reference pushing up vs rolling down nbsp you could really push the analogy to the limits by saying that obama took the economy from a valley to a hilltop pushed it over the hill left office and trump claimed credit for the down hill roll after the hard work of implementing the recovery measures had finished you could draw a whole series of economic peaks and valleys nbsp again my point is not to provide an analytic statement of success or not here just to point out that the analogy could have gone unaddressed partially because it wasnt as sound as you initially made it out to be
the nfl is a business before all else they have nothing to gain by taking sides on divisive political societal issues in fact they only stand to lose part of their fan base as a result we have already had people on both sides calling for a boycott of the nfl burning their memorabilia on youtube second whether anyone cares to admit it or not the players are entertainers they are being paid to perform just as with any other organization that pays a salary you are expected to perform according to their standards the actions and performance of players directly affect the organizations bottom line when you are being paid millions of dollars to perform on tv the right thing to do is do your joband protest during your personal time seems that the nfl made a decision to bury the controversy and not risk losing part of their fan base how is this any different than my boss suppressing my free speech on facebook during work hours
fair enough but it isnt like our steel capacity is being crippled its simply that steel producing regions are now political battlegrounds the us remains the 4th largest steel producer in the world behind china japan and india none of this is about trade or national security its about votes same as with coal steel companies in the us produced 7892 million metric tons of the global production of crude steel in 2015 production of steel in the us goes back to 1629 when the first plant was set up in massachusetts today the us is home to over 100 steel production plants in localized regions all over the country most of the production is in the pittsburgyoungstown with several industries in its districts most of the locally produced steel in the us is consumed by the automobile industries in detroit and michigan major steel producing companies in the us are us steel nucor and ak steel the industry employs over 142000 people
i hope its allowed to give a personal example as long as it illustrates a general proposition that shouldnt require a source i am 23 i am probably in the class you would consider alreadywelltodo my parents paid for my tuition in college and the small balance of my law school tuition less scholarships today if college debt were dischargeable in bankruptcy i would have gone to a private college and a law school that did not offer me scholarships i would have accumulated probably 400000 in debt and i would have declared bankruptcy upon being admitted to the bar as a lawyer if i were challenged on the legitimacy of my bankruptcy i would say in all honesty that i wanted to litigate for a nonprofit and therefore had no prospect of ever paying back my debt i would have scant assets so i would lose nothing on declaring bankruptcy in my opinion millions would do what i did i cant see why they wouldnt it would be a catastrophe
" from a european perspective it seems absolutely arcane that a tv station can be fined for showing a nipple for example this is only the case for networks that broadcast over public airwaves like abc or nbc the idea behind the restrictions is that airwaves are considered part of the public in the us the moral crusaders of society have just as much of a right to broadcast over those airwaves as anyone else since there is only so much spectrum available for use restrictions exist over what kind of content can be broadcast stations that dont broadcast over public airwaves have no restrictions censorship on these stations is selfimposed typically over concern of upsetting program sponsors if a station like cnn wanted to start showing hardcore porn late at night when few people are watching they would perfectly free to do that it probably wouldnt be a good business decision but there would be no restrictions against that "
im fully willing to admit i was wrong but i dont understand where do you see 60 the disabled tend to be drains both financially and emotionally this is why the overwhelming majority of women abort fetuses identified with downs syndrome i dont understand this point either some people arent able to work and because we are a society we take care of those people this is not a concern for me i dont have an argument for illegal immigration except that i dont really care about it in general like i said if the job doesnt pay enough to actually support someone its the employer who is the drain many people are talking about the need for ubi in the next few decades yet many of those same people seem to support open borders its an untenable position and i hope i dont have to explain why i guess we have to define open borders for one an increase in automation does not mean a decrease in money so i dont see where the issue is
phrased as not having a duty to protect citizens compared to not compelled by job description to risk your life might lead people to consider this argument differently its hard to put someone under fire so to speak in real life and have an expectation that they will perform in a certain way maybe that nurse doesnt want to risk getting fired and agrees with the dr who makes a bad call because they were up 27 hours or that police officer just had a baby and ducks behind a car for longer than they normally would you cant compel someone to give up their life for another which is why there is a code many try to adhere to a code of justice peace hope generosity unity spirit in and out of professional life public and private many say they do and dont i guess others dont even pretend i would say that the majority of police emt fire etc abide by a decent and humanitarian code but you cant stop every bad person every time
if the expectation is that we allow at least the same number of students to attend public highered as we do now plus annual growth in student base then it would be realistic for federal aid reallocation to pay for the same number of students or more than the current state of highered because nonloan loan federal aid and their annual growth each exceed the cost of all public tuition and recent tuition growth trends that may require a different approach to admissions given increased demand but i wouldnt call that unrealistic as there are already some us states that have solved this for their public highered full funding if you expect supply to meet all potential unrestricted demand less admissions limitations than the current status of public ed i agree that the solution of using existing federal aid is not feasible but then i would argue that the expectation of unrestricted admissions is not realistic in america
then may increase but they may not there’s no natural reason for why china can do cheaper iphones than apple could if it tried not anymore this might have been true ten years ago but chinese wages have increase dramatically from 29kyear to 74k cny per year tesla for example makes their cars in the us and exports them to china where china hits them with a 25 tariff while we don’t hit iphones with any tariffs if tesla can make cars in the us why can’t apple make iphones there’s no fundamental economic reason for it and tesla even makes their cars in california the most expensive state from a tax and regulatory standpoint and in terms of salaries there are by far cheaper labour and lower regulations markets within the us to make phones now some of the revaluations may be costly in usd but wouldn’t it actually increase profit if child labour wasn’t use to keep costs down also environmental costs of imports are huge
i think youre misunderstanding what im saying what qualified as being skilled in the early 1800s is vastly different than what qualifies today in early america being a carpenter was being skilled it was very difficult to immigrate to the us from europe without a skillset of some kind because the atlantic crossing wasnt cheap the chinese were a little different what happened to them was basically slavery the railroads would pay for their crossing and in return they had to work for the railroad in what were appalling conditions being a skilled worker today is vastly different than what it was then the market is far more competitive and the skill ceiling far higher my original argument was with your statement that the usa was built by unskilled european immigrants this isnt true they were definitely skilled for their time the early us was known for having very high quality products like ships guns and woodworking
“so for this discussion it doesnt matter whether they are entitled to asylum the us still has to process their applications and it is during that processing period that the childseparation problem arises” according to the reason to avoid requesting asylum at the port of entry to the us is that the inspections officers have the power to quickly find you inadmissible and deport you in which case you will not be allowed to return for five years this can happen if an inspector believes that you are making a misrepresentation committing fraud or misrepresented the truth when you got your visa or if you do not have the proper travel or visa documents at the time you request entry if you request asylum at the ports then there is no separation of families from their children is this something that could solve the problem of splitting up families that seek asylum while still giving them the ability to apply for asylum
"i understood in particular i grasped the inclusion of the word impossible demanding agreement and disallowing disagreement the parallels between the elections are significant legislators actions in both cases are heavily guided by wanting to use the elections to change the outcome of a scotus appointment these parallels are not total it is not impossible for you to make a case against them my own values and logic and tell me that waiting in these cases is not justified by the reasons the gop has given what i would ask the gop to do is the right thing being inconsistent is not the right thing preceding in bad faith changing rules to help widen a loophole is not the right thing following that up by twisting the knife is not the right thing both the gop and democrats have put forth scotus candidates that were thoughtfully and reasonably put forward in good faith that is one of many solutions other than waiting "
"the g7 leaders agreed a statement that they agreed on the need for “free fair and mutually beneficial trade” and the importance of fighting protectionism later trudeau mentioned that canada would push ahead with retaliatory tarrifs following the ones on steel and aluminium trump imposed this apparently annoyed trump and he withdrew from the statement his advisor larry kudlow said the withdrawal was because trudeau had stabbed them in the back played a sophomoric political stunt for domestic consumption” and had betrayed and was essentially doublecrossing president trump” earlier trudeau presented trump with a photo of a canadian hotel trumps grandfather owned it emerged that this was at least partially a brothel for gold miners and a picture has gone around of trudeau smirking while handing over the gift its possible that this has as much to do with trumps irritation as the confirmation of canadian tariffs "
" would you remove someones comment for talking about the big bang as fact without a source or there being a black hole at the center of the galaxy those two examples would be removed for being off topic but as it happens there are plenty of supportable alternatives to the big bang theory when we get into political themes the facts are even less concrete and more subject to interpretation which is one of the reasons why sources are always required do i need to source what a source is no because weve done that for you its also hard to imagine such a statement being on topic as political but if you did find a way to make an ontopic assertion of fact about what a source is then yes it would require a source where is the line drawn the line is drawn with a claim that something is true this explains it pretty well but if you have any further questions please direct them to modmail thanks for your participation "
"that is a wonderfully nuanced stance to my mind this isn’t a zerosum game i think both nations “won” yes mr un received a degree of legitimacy from meeting with mr trump the us has been seen as bargaining from a superior position largely due to mr trump’s perceived willingness to walk away at a moment’s notice i do wonder 1 what the ramifications of meeting in neutral singapore are with regard to your analysis 2 does this signal a potential nk pivot from china to the us 3 mr un was reportedly educated in switzerland and was able to observe south korea and singapore in person has his exposure to western and westernized asian culture had an impact on him and is that impact pushing him towards reconciliation with south korea particularly in light of the relative quality of life 4 how much of this was pageant for the world and what if anything was negotiated in the days and weeks leading up to this meeting "
"dunno like i said not interested in the whataboutism im just looking at whats happening and looking at the law whoever did it doesnt make it right the military funded the change to the nfls program in order to drive recruitment federal dollars for a nationalist pageant on taxpayer funded properties i simply dont agree that the players have no rights to free speech protections in that situation any lawyer wanting to making a case out of this will follow the same path as colleges accepting federal funds it comes with certain restrictionsfollowons organizations that dont want those like religious colleges dont accept federal funding for that precise reason they arent funding the entire thing which is the point i think youre trying to make federal dollars come with strings and a check from the military is exactly that it never should have happened in the first place and a few prominent republicans agreed "
i have worked for harley for 10 years in us and abroad i can tell you that harley or any other auto company has no option but to built product closet to point of sale due to tariffs due to us demographic changes more harley’s will be eventually sold overseas than stateside in next decade or less production planning for global supply chains run in 68 year cycles thailand plant was needed to support expanding asian sales indian plant was needed for indian tariffs and same goes for brazil kansas city plant closure is reaction to long term us market outlook plus currency headwinds faced for last 1214 quarters by the harleydavidson due to strong us dollar where most competitors are bringing bikes in us i am no expert of international trade but just some facts for discussion edit 1 adding highlevel supporting link hd q3 results edit 2 personal note i don’t work for harleydavidson any more edit 3 correction
" also i dont believe data on this argument would clearly show a determinate answer one way or the other i agree maybe not a determinate answer if by that you mean something that is definitive but if there were projections of how much highquality steel the country would need in a time of major war and projections of how much highquality steel could be produced by steel companies without tariffs that would be a useful starting point at least not sure if any study or analysis has been done but seeing as how the defense industry largely says that the tariffs are unnecessary im inclined to think that the us steel companies would still be able to produce enough highquality steel even without the tariffs im also not sure how likely it is that the us would not be able to rely on steel imports from its allies in a time of war although i guess with international diplomacy you never know and things can change "
" barred them to continue with or rather to begin the review would be in direction violation of a court order youre supposed to source statements of fact but i dont really have anything to source here other than what an injunction is i suppose an injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts a party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment they can also be charged with contempt of court the application process review not being the controversial part of the travel ban order couldnt the president trump have issued a new order to review strictly speaking it isnt necessary though if there is a problem with the current process halting that process while we work out the kinks would be a good idea did anything bad happen due to the injunction"
this comment isnt really speaking to the question at hand but is phrasing it like it is especially that final article where the double number is referring to unaccompanied kids in general not just ones forcibly separated from their family by dhs in fact on the subject of forcibly separating the children that article says she said it is disingenuous to couch this as a continuation of obamas policies  “what’s happened is the exception to the rule is now becoming the rule” young said “here they’re doing zerotolerance policy to punish families and send a message to their home countries don’t do this” no one is painting obamas policies on a rosey light no one is saying children arent used and abused by coyotes what they are saying is that this no tolerance policy leading to separating families is needlessly cruel and none of the arguments here seem to show this no tolerance policy imposes needed cruelty
supply and demand is still what drives this its just a more complex example than the traditional person x offers person y pay and person y decides whether or not that pay is worth it but most cases even in the private sector are more complex than that in practice in the case of public schools it works through differentadditional layers the individual teacher prospective teacher union ie set of teachers school administration public officials who create the budget and the voters parents and not each contribute to supply or demand creating the ultimate balance that drive things supply and demand doesnt end at the superintendent or the mayor it ends at the voters voters indicate what they demand and the price theyre willing to pay teachers show what they can supply and the price theyll work for towns vary a lot in terms of compensation because voters and teachers values in those town vary a lot as well
sure we have immigration policy for the purposes of introducing new people into our culture and to balance our society with whatever elements that we feel we need more of temporary workers may or may not be compatible with that policy those preferences are explicitly stated by the federal government for example we may as a nation decide that we want more or less religiosity in our society and our immigration policy could reflect that similarly we may as a nation decide that we want more east asians in our society to establish more blood ties with an ever growing asian economy any such immigration priorities should not become needlessly tied to temporary worker policy which would have its own priorities we may have a shortage of a particular type of worker but without a nonimmigrant status each worker will take the spot that would otherwise have been taken by someone who matches a cultural priority
"on page 2226 of the commerce report you can see the argument laid out its basically that since were importing so much steel our domestic steel industry is suffering and since our domestic steel industry is suffering its a national security risk since domestic steel is deemed to be critical to national security and since canada is our top importer of steel that makes them a national security threat now as to whether or not that logic is sound i dont think it is so basically the arguments for canada being a national security threat is that since not having domestic steel is a national security threat and canada is our top importer of steel theyre a national security threat the argument against canada being a national security threat is that the above logic not only makes zero sense but its rooted in a false premise that our steel must be domestic in order for it not to be a national security threat "
first please add some sources for these assertions of fact rule d recently electoral reforms have been proposed to alter how voters elect their representatives currently most states use firstpastthepost to other systems have become more frequent many cities have adopted ranked choice voting as an alternative electoral method in citywide local elections then please rework or replace this question because 1 rule g prohibits requests for speculation which includes any questions that are phrased in the future tense what willwouldcould happen and 2 it is answering your own question from the title would coalition governance of many parties accomplish this goal assuming it is not an accurate portrayal of the us electorate finally please change the title question to match the body of the post rule f note that changing the title requires resubmission once again if you have questions just reply here thanks
" would there be any reason for a recent collage grad not to file bankruptcy immediately after graduation well yes namely the fact that us bankruptcy law 11 usc 523a8 provides an exception to bankruptcy discharge for education loans in other words if you file for bankruptcy you will say get your credit card debt discharged but your education debt will still follow you post bankruptcy there is a narrow exception to this exception the undue hardship exception but many if not most jurisdictions interpret this very narrowly in order to provide full meaning to 11 usc 523a8 by way of example of undue hardship within the third circuit where i used to have some bankruptcy experience it was generally understood that you would need to have such an extreme inability to generate income that you essentially need to be a quadriplegic in order to qualify ive found a few cites for this for other circuits sources "
" read the ndp platform how is this a barometer for antiamerican sentiment in canada and how does it relate to being a security risk for the us im not criticizing im asking a genuine question because i dont see the link the idea that the us wouldnt have the domestic industrial capacity to produce enough steel and aluminum in wartime seems farfetched to me a quick glance seems to show that the us is the fourth largest producer this is also contingent on the massively unrealistic scenario that canada or another producer would cease exporting to the united states i just cant see that happening and see it as anything else but 1 a costly ploy to shore up support from blue collar workers in one arbitrary sector at the cost of thousands of jobs in other sectors 2 a very blunt attempt to look tough on the very real steel dumping that china is known for 3 an attempt to gain leverage in nafta negotiations "
youre most likely reading it right b prohibition on separation—an agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the united states or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with civil immigration laws a federal law—nothing in this act shall be interpreted to supersede or modify federal child welfare law where applicable including the adoption and safe families act of 1997 public law 105–89 since its illegal for children to remain in detention centers for longer than 20 days under that 1997 law this policy would require the united states to stop the prosecution process of a person crossing the border illegal after 20 days if they chose to do so at all its a policy that effectively makes it illegal to prosecute illegal immigrants with children where it will still be legal to prosecute people without children
" these sources are not sources at all because they have no relationship to this topic or the claim that and those results are under threat of a decades long terrorist campaign backed by the us yeah and i sourced that none of these sources mention venezuela indeed you mentioned cuba first venezuela may be adopting the cuban model for socialism where the wealthy prosper and there is no middle class and i replied to that and while talking about cuba mentioned the terror campaign against them the most recent is a discussion of a 1976 cuban barbados to jamaica plane crash that seems irrelevant the rest only reference events almost a century ago i think you might want to retake your maths exam if 1961 is almost a century ago also i like how you suggest that a bomb planted by a cia agent with the cia knowing before hand of the bombing is a plane crash would you call 911 just a bunch of plane crashes "
"well us can still project force with military to nonallies what is currently happening is that us is quickly burning through its “soft” power with allies a lot of stuff will be done quid pro quo in politics so everybody can claim a win you need to be a consistent partner if you want people dealing with you if you sign something than it is presumed its going to last more than 4 years no matter the domestic intricacies every time us is strong arming allies and reneging on deals it loses some of the willingness of partners to cooperate and more and more would they need to strong arm them until pushback happens trump is not worried about other politicians losing face but their voters see this if they dont act and push back they will be seen as weak or replaced especially when not standing up to trump who has little support in europe for example us has a lot of slack but lets see how long it holds "
"im really confused about this argument my understanding is that wyoming has a population of 579315 california has a population of 395m wyoming has 3 electoral votes 2 senators 1 representative california has 55 electoral votes 2 senators 53 representatives so by electoral vote each vote represents 193105 in wyoming 718181 in california by senate influence wyoming has the same number of votes as california by house influence wyomings 1 representative represents 579315 people each one of californias representatives 745283 people you argument is that wyoming should have the same amount of representation regardless of the population difference if otherwise california should have 204 electoral votes 395m divided by 193105 and more representatives senate exists to balance out oppression by the majority edit by the majority not of the majority edit sourced the rest is just math and cannot be sourced "
it is irrelevant these players give little of a fuck about the cause used as justification for their tantrum they are doing so obviously because they are bought to do so behind closed doors think about it theres a cult of celebs just virtue signalling while they live in gated communities they all parrot the same viewpoint and it just happens to be the democrat viewpoint the blm movement is just used as a justification to throw a tantrum in public if they really wanted to make a difference they wouldnt join a pointless bandwagon of virtue signalling and they would actually work and invest into making a genuine difference in within america but they dont and their little tantrum doesnt make a difference it just pisses of the viewers in the end the objective is very clear they want to cause chaos to make it looks like trumps america is engulfed in chaos welcome to politics blm is just a scapegoat
bud plaintiffs—the state of hawaii three individuals with foreign relatives affected by the entry suspension and the muslim association of hawaii—argue that the proclamation violates the immigration and nationality act ina and the establishment clause the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the restrictions the ninth circuit affirmed concluding that the proclamation contravened two provisions of the ina §1182f which authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the united states” and §1152a1a which provides that “no person shall be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race sex nationality place of birth or place of residence” in case you didnt know what the case was they were ruling on
there is no good name for it because the concept betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the courts role people like to portray the court as being nonpolitical and to some degree they are certainly insulated from the normal political cycle but fundamentally the only judges who will make it to the bench are those that are nominated by a popularly elected president and confirmed by popularly stateelected legislators you are never going to get nonpolitical judges because they are installed by the political process and because the concepts they deal with the balancing of conflicting constitutional provisions and fundamental rights necessarily require taking sides on what can fairly be called political issues and that somebody is going to be mad about no matter what everything is politics including the courts its just a broader and more amorphous definition than people are used to dealing with
i mean the eu politicians are more likely to try and work for a solution simply because the economic effects will hurt them through their voters and they have less time to look for a better solution than trump has simply because they are up for reelection next year instead of 2020 trump is a break of continuity yes but my argument is that the break was a logical consequence of the situation of the average american not living in the coastal areas my entire point basically is that eu politicians should realize that these voters are real their issues are real and if we dont address them properly more trumps will pop up simply because apparently the us elite doesnt really care about them anyway so only an outsider can score points with them if we look back in 20 years time im quite sure trump will not be seen as an outlier but simply as a logical consequence in historys inevitable march forward
editing to add ukardinal prompted me to review what is i shouldve noted from the outset an unorthodox reading and on reviewing i appear to be the only person on the planet that reads it that way ah well the world will come around to my reading until then though put no stock in it but you cant say on friday were going to go to rabbi wassermans house and burn it to the ground because thats inciting violence i can say that as long as it isnt directed to and doesnt actually produce imminent violence i read that case as making actual violence a necessary element of any incitement charge strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases an advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause when such appeals do not incite lawless action they must be regarded as protected speech
nobody is saying its simple to apply for citizenship as an uneducated and endangered person what if they can’t even get proper documentation from their governments i dont have an answer for this but the problems of non american citizens are not first and foremost to be solved by the american government why arent you asking the same of canada for example what are they doing for these people let’s be realistic most people aren’t going to be able to follow the process here without help if our rules are too complicated maybe there are other nations where they might have an easier time following them this is not us problem so its not our sole responsibly to handle should we provide noncitizens with free legal assistance who pays for that where are the other countries jumping in to offer this service your concerns are valid and real but theyre not the american governments responsibility to solve
" so can the nfl change what players get paid midcontract i would think not the players have individual contracts that stipulate earnings they can however fine players for various things from your interpretation what types of things can the nfl change without negotiating what cant they change as an employer they have every right that any other employer has in this country excluding those that are explicitly prohibited by contractual agreement no other employer would be expected to let their employees express controversial political opinions in uniform on television while acting as representatives of the employer further none of the contract language ive seen makes an exception for this hence the nfl is acting appropriately by setting these guidelines i personally think the guidelines are counterproductive by the way theyre making a meal of this whole scenario but thats their choice i guess"
no dems dont support it that bill states the following b prohibition on separation—an agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the united states or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with civil immigration laws and a federal law—nothing in this act shall be interpreted to supersede or modify federal child welfare law where applicable including the adoption and safe families act of 1997 public law 105–89 since its illegal for children to remain in detention centers for longer than 20 days under that 1997 law this policy would require the united states to stop the prosecution process of a person crossing the border illegal after 20 days its a policy that effectively makes it illegal to prosecute illegal immigrants with children where it will still be legal to prosecute people without children
"hi there uihatepopcornceilings im a mod in rneutralpolitics this is an interesting topic but would you be willing to edit the post a little so it conforms to our submission rules specifically this statement should be removed as it doesnt comply with our source guidelines a few family leo’s seem to think that the number is at least a large minority of all border crossers and this statement needs a source for the explanation given by trump i feel as this goes a long way to refute or affirm the explanation given by trump as to why so many children were separated from adults if you have any questions just reply here and thanks for participating note interactions with the moderators will be removed prior to the post being approved unless you request they be made public submissions that remain insufficiently modified after 24 hours may be removed or resubmitted by a moderator in an edited form "
"thats been answered elsewhere in the thread the us and many other most developed countries subsidize their agriculture because they want to reduce the cost of food and prevent farms from going out of business specifically the us heavily subsidizses the dairy industry canada has tarrifs on us dairy to prevent these subsidies from destroying their dairy industry food is one of those things where every nation needs to keep its domestic market intact and maybe the g7 countries if even true want to maintain trade surpluses with the us because then the net effect is that they get to buy american dollars which many most all use as a reserve currency there is a toplevel comment about this if we want trade surpluses then we should do that by selling more products and services that other countries want rather than forcing them to buy more of our shit or forcing our own companies to not buy theirs "
" the mods think its common knowledge to know the rules a summary of the rules is provided by automod as the top reply of every post 1 be courteous to other users 2 source your facts 3 be substantive 4 address the arguments not the person along with a link to the detailed explanation as a longtime reader of this sub i can tell you anyone who doesnt note these rules regardless of stance or political affiliation will fare very poorly here also breaking the rules gets your comment deleted but thats just common knowledge the consequence of breaking the rules is also covered by automod in order not to get your comment removed please familiarize yourself with our rules on commenting before you participate whether you agree with the rules or not i dont think it can be said that theyre secret or hard to find in my opinion this sub has one of the hardest working and accountable mod teams on reddit"
i can’t imagine a bargaining position where we don’t have anything to bargain with as being a positive position to be in youre right in a bank heist the robbers hold negotiating power but only as long as the hostages are still alive if they killed the hostages they would lose everything and be caught they and the police know this but by threatening it they can often can get what they want anyway even in the wording of trumps statement its pretty clear that hes using cutting trade as a threatultimatum tariffs on american goods are going to stop or we’ll stop trading with them” in other words give us what we want or well make bad things happen i think the question is less would cutting off trade be bad and more why would he threaten to do something with bad consequences if it actually achieves a reduction in tariffs on us goods it would be pretty clear why will it work hard to say for now
"most of the uss steel requirements are little more than thinly disguised congressional porkbarrel largely for the benefit of conservative dominated districts if we needed more steel for tanks above our capacity and canada and no other country would sell it to us we could easily just melt down the steel from the brand new tanks weve already mothballed to make them none of the militarys requirements for new equipment even remotely strains domestic production capacity and given that the us is by far the preeminent nuclear power we will never face an actual existential national security crisis from a human source that cant be dealt with nuclear weapons the only true national security crisis the us may face in the coming hundred years is global climate change moving the sonoran desert into our heartland submerging florida and making many parts of the south east subject to massive hurricanes "
" lack of explicit legal barriers to entry based on protected class ops comment from the source these tests writes rebecca onion at slate were “supposedly applicable to both white and black prospective voters who couldn’t prove a certain level of education” typically up to the fifth grade yet they were “in actuality disproportionately administered to black voters” additionally many of the tests were rigged so that registrars could give potential voters an easy or a difficult version and could score them differently as well for example the veterans of the civil rights movement describes a test administered in alabama that is so entirely subjective it measures the registrar’s shrewdness and cunning more than anything else so the law wasnt explicitly discriminatory unless the disparate outcome is motivated by intent to discriminate its not clear thats a problem how would you prove intent "
" and the congress has the power to impeach and remove him for improperly exercising that power simply because congress wants to impeach for something doesnt mean anything improper was done as other users have pointed out congress can impeach for any reason they so choose improper or not if congress does not wish to impeach and remove trump then nothing will happen as far as removal no matter how clear trumps criminality is id exercise more caution on implying criminality in the cases provided the cohen case has not been concluded and as mentioned before the president can declassify any information heshe chooses to afaik there has not been any serious suggestion of impeachment for a president declassifying information except our most current one due to divisive conversations of late and i doubt that would occur even under a simple majority for democrats maybe not even a super majority "
its fine its a lot of words to go through i had edited a typo i dont dispute any of that the south werent the good guys but i dont think there really are ever good guys in war governments tend not to fight wars over civil rights issues unless they have something else to gain from it many folks think the civil war was pretty much altruistic good guys vs backwards redneck racists but like i said in my original comment it wasnt as black and white as all that it was a terrible war and im glad that we are at peace today i believe that unification is far better than the alternative if i lived instead in the csa today ive got no doubt that we would both be weaker for it there is still a bit of a cultural divide and it does sometimes bother me that the north portrays us as they often do in time i think that we will grow more unified though anyway its good to be in the united states of america
"if we can enact tariffs to protect single companies ala what we did for harley davidson in 1983 by imposing a 4537 import tariff on motorcycles then i am sure we can do something opposite of this if harley davidson chooses to export its manufacturing to another country trump has already vowed to enact a 3537 tariff on companies that outsource jobs overseas while selling their product within the usa a tariff such as this could take the form of a tax on specific cc numbers from specific countries that manufacture the motorcycles of the targeted company we have already imposed tariffs on specific goods including washing machines and solar panels to protect and grow job prospects within these sectors domestically the same litmus test can and likely will apply to motorcycles specifically cruisers over x cc from y country nor specifically targeting a company by name but instead in practice "
maduro doesnt really control venezuela and yet … maduro doesn’t really matter he is simply a useful idiot the puppet of those who really control venezuela the cubans the drug traffickers and hugo chavez’s political heirs those three groups effectively function as criminal cartels and have coopted the armed forces into their service this is how it is possible that every day we see men in uniform willing to massacre their own people in order to keep venezuela’s criminal oligarchy in power the most important component of this oligarchy is the cuban regime the organization of american states secretary general luis almagro describes the 15000 cubans that run venezuela as “an occupation army from cuba in venezuela” in many ways venezuela today is reminiscent of cuba in the 1990s like cubans then venezuelans now face crippling food shortages currency manipulation and policestate repression
"insisting that the term alien is dehumanizing despite being confronted by the fact that the word has more than one meaning is an antiintellectual reaction its an acknowledgement that words change over time and have different meanings to different people to those that are familiar with the use of alien in its science fiction sense the word can often be perceived as dehumanizing you might think such people are wrong because the dictionary says otherwise and you are right as well but the public perception and use of words is a major driving factor in how words change in their meaningimplication over time it is not antiintellectual to acknowledge the reality that alien is sometimes or even often perceived differently from its original definition this is literally just a fact literally is actually a good example because its been used to have an opposite meaning to what it used to mean "
so which one of those occupies land but does not give the people of that land citizenship rights there are tons of examples that are relevant to the argument but dont fit in your very specific conditions because you apparently the distinction of citizenship rights on conquered lands is meaningful like the principle borders cant be changed through conquest is i think something since ww2 vietnam russia china india and pakistan have all had borders changed via military action post ww2 morocco technically has as well and youve got the conflicts over the separation and independence movements in the former yugoslavia territory north korea tried and it wasnt international principle that stopped that attempt could add at least a dozen more depending on your definition of conquest israel was not interested in peace with the arab states in 1949 what does that have to do with anything i said
if you picture the political spectrum as a howeverdimensional continuum then the probability of this not being true is infinitesimally small ie 1 toover infinity which in any case where it isnt taken an infinite number of times like right here there being only 1 tie more specifically onelessdimensional subspace that is equidistant from both points evaluates to zero if you bet on a continuous random variable defined on an interval of positive length attaining a specific value for a finite payout your expected success is zero dont do it however the difference can be small enough that the utility of setting an example could outweigh the utility of being expected to being a tiny bit better represented by the government but being pedantic you will always be a bit better represented by one party than the other no matter how small that bit is it practically cannot be exactly nothing
"fresno state is a state school that receives government money the courts ruled long ago that this makes them an extension of the government there’s a caveat though the courts have made a distinction between funding and subsidies a private school is not an extension of the government if they receive no funding even if the school or its students receive subsidies or tax breaks of some sort this distinction is why conservatives want private schools with a government funded voucher system the voucher would be considered a subsidy thus the school is no longer hampered by constitutional protections so technically as a tenured professor it would be illegal for the university to fire her for that tweet the nfl thing isn’t a first amendment issue but it is a free speech issue the first amendment doesn’t guarantee free speech it only limits what the government can do to curtail speech "
"i agree with most of what youve written rotundtractor one of the biggest strengths of a democracy is also its greatest weakness it moves slowly democracies are also the worst form of governance except for all the others winston churchill there are countless examples where we need to measure twice and cut once the first and most important to me is with the environment once spoiled its gone remediation isnt really a thing for most environmental perturbations nuclear spills are permanent coal sludge spilled into a river spoils the river i could seriously write a list hundreds of pages long where the rules prevent us from making permanent mistakes to people and places specifically because we dont look at the issue from only one perspective and have only one opinion that matters a perspective that shouldnt change with the fickle opinions of who is the temp running the department "
by agreeing to meet with the nk delegation he did what no prior administration would do he gave up the carrot of merely meeting with him a tasty carrot when youre a world pariah the world now knows that its ok to blow up your own people with antiaircraft guns and to have gulags where babies are born into slaverycaptivity the us president will still meet with you nbd the meeting itself was a bargaining chip and gives legitimacy to an illegitimate regime if youd like the breathless take on it just ask yourself what did fox say when obama met with castro then multiply it by a few hundred thousand subjects in a gulag now kju is legitimate on the world stage trump met him without preconditions which we were assured was bad paraphrasing trumps position on negotiating with us enemies betrays a profound misreading of history he will lower the prestige of the office of the president
thank you for your comment there is a distinction between refugees and asylum seekers refugees generally have to make a claim while in their home country or in a refugee camp elsewhere and wait for it to be processed however the fact that these families are trying to claim asylum should not be surprising seeing as trump ran on essentially ending the refugee program indeed the cap on the number of refugees accepted has been cut to less than half of what it was 45000 a year and refugee resettlement offices have been closed across the country political opinion 45000 a year is an unacceptably low number for such a large rich country that spends so much money and effort involving itself in wars across the globe since there is essentially no way a central american refugee will actually be accepted as such it makes sense for them to attempt tomatoes their case as an asylum seeker
i dont know about that switzerland probably has the strictest rules and is the most costly but id say 5k in lawyers fees alone 1140 for a green card application725 if you lived here long enough to apply for citizenship is no trivial amount especially for an unskilled laborer coming from a poorer country we also have a huge pool of applicants with people even holding phds getting denied i know some personally for green cards and there is a set cap for the number of applicants accepted every year so if you have to reapply thats even more money then double that if you have a spouse yes the cartels are screwing up mexico especially at the border cities but its not just corrupt government officials i mean what country doesnt have those its partly the us war on drugs forcing smugglers from south america to use routes at the border and trying to take control of those communities