Total posts: 332
Posted in:
How is our carrying capacity 2.5 billion when we are able to carry way more than that?
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think homework is the problem, but rather, tests themselves.
We all tend to forget most of what we memorized after a test, whereas with homework, it's easier because people can help each other.
Created:
The simplest solution to this would be to tax the robots.
Then again, maybe people whose jobs get taken by robots wouldn't be doomed because when robots are able to mass-produce goods, prices get much cheaper, so even the people who lose their jobs to robots and are forced to work other jobs could still afford the goods since the prices would be low due to high supply.
Created:
Posted in:
I would want a self-driving car as my dream car.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Didn't even know you were gone but...
I think some other people have stopped participating on this site, such as Our_Boat_Is_Right
Several people got banned (King_8 Average12 Wylted)
This person created a debate called "The United States would be better off without Black People" https://www.debateart.com/debates/1179/the-united-states-would-be-better-off-without-black-people
They also made another one with the exact same title and exact same rules. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1180/the-united-states-would-be-better-off-without-black-people
Here they are, demanding that child pornography be legal. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1129/the-fbi-should-make-its-database-of-child-porn-viewable-to-the-public
Some people can be so ridiculous...
Also I'm working my way up to 100 forum posts so I can start voting in debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Based on what you've shown, it looks like, under Obama, the GDP was constantly rising up massively, and then plummeting massively, all they way down into the negatives, at least twice, whereas under Trump, the GDP seems to have remained consistent, not rapidly rising, but not rapidly declining so much, either, compared to Obama.
I don't know what conclusion I should come to. Yes, it's "a bad policy" IF you favored the GDP rapidly rising but also rapidly dropping negatively, but still an okay one or even a pretty good one if you favor the GDP remaining mostly consistent so far, and it looks like it's just remaining pretty high consistently. Do you want a GDP that just goes up and down like a roller coaster, or do you want one that doesn't go up so much but doesn't go down so much either and just rises very slowly, and/or is more consistent?
Looking at 1Y specifically, I guess the reason that it suddenly dropped to 1.1 was because Trump did shut down the government to fund the border wall, which did cost quite a bit of money, but, afterwards, it rose up back to normal. Sometimes it can be necessary to make the GDP go down temporarily for the sake of a greater cause like making the border more secure from illegal aliens. I'm not too sure.
This article shows different factors than can either increase or decrease the GDP. https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/causes-economic-growth/
It does say that "Lower income tax will increase the disposable income of consumers and increases consumer spending (C)." which would increase the Aggregate Demand and increase the GDP, so wouldn't Trump's tax cuts be a good thing? Or is it simply not good enough since it "did help but it didn't increase GDP growth for the whole year only 1/4 of it"?
Also, maybe it's a little too early to compare how Obama handled the GDP, overall, with how Trump handled it, overall. Obama has been president for 8 years (2008 to 2016) and, at the time I am posting this, Trump has only been president for 3 years (2016 to 2019). Make that 2 years if you only start counting from the time that he was inaugurated (which is January 20, 2017) instead of the time that he won the election (November 9, 2016). Maybe in a few weeks or months, Trump might very well beat Obama's "record" and improve the GDP even more, but right now, Trump hasn't had the same amount of time that Obama did, so it doesn't seem fair to compare Obama's 8 years of GDP to Trump's 2/3 years of GDP. Remember that, in 2011, the GDP dropped drastically, twice, into the negatives.
In fact, if you compare the GDP during Trump's first 2 years of presidency, and the GDP during Obama's first 2 years of presidency (2008 to 2010), then you can see that Trump did, in fact, do a much better job at boosting the economy than Obama did.
So far, both Trump and Obama contributed to improving the economy and GDP, but Trump improved it much quicker than Obama did. Maybe this doesn't really matter in the long run, but it's still worth noting.
As for Iran...
Regardless of which side was correct, regarding the drone being shot down, would you want to be friends with the very people who:
promote terrorism and violence towards women and other innocents https://anfenglish.com/women/domestic-violence-against-women-in-iran-increased-by-20-percent-28457
supported the September 11 2001 attacks on the world trade centers? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/judge-iran-pay-6bn-victims-911-attacks-180501120240366.html
and advocate for your death too, calling for death to your country?
To be fair, I can understand why some people on the other side of the issue would still want to pursue some kind of truce with these groups. Generally speaking, most people don't like wars, even those that fight in them. War is quite hellish, and there are often disasters and casualties from both sides due to wars. Many soldiers who die on the battlefield risk being forgotten. Many soldiers who survive the battlefield risk developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or something else that affects them for years to come. Sometimes, one war can lead to many more wars. If one side harms the other and the other side fights back, and both sides keep retaliating with neither side winning or losing, then the war could go on for decades if neither side looks for forgiveness or backs down, and instead decides that the only solution is to keep the war going and keep losing lives. Because of this, it does make sense to seek peace instead of war, even against those that seriously wrong you.
At the same time though, sometimes war is necessary. It was necessary to free slaves (Civil War), it was necessary to put at end to the Nazis (Holocaust/WW2), it was necessary to achieve independence from Britain (Revolutionary War), it was necessary to reduce the spread of communism (Vietnam War), and another war may very well be necessary to keep the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons.
So, yeah, there are some valid arguments for war, and also some valid arguments against war. Both sides of this have fair points to make. I know a war isn't what people really want, but it might be what we could end up getting...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How about becoming allies? Is that out of the question or something?
Maybe it's not out of the question, but at the same time, I don't blame the United States for not wanting to be friends with a country that has massive corruption, massive terrorism, supports hatred/violence, and has already destroyed several valuable pieces of United States property. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/20/18692644/iran-drone-attack-war
Iranian forces just shot down a US military drone, a major escalation that could push the two-month standoff between America and the Islamic Republic into very dangerous territory — and possibly bring the two countries much closer to war.
“This was an unprovoked attack on a US surveillance asset in international airspace.”
The downed surveillance drone was an RQ-4A Global Hawk, Urban added, an aircraft that costs roughly $130 million.
President Donald Trump is unhappy with Iran’s action, tweeting Thursday morning that “Iran made a very big mistake!”
It’s also possible that Iran tried to shoot down a second drone but missed, according to Fox News. There seems to be a pattern: Last week, the US military said Iran tried to strike a US drone with a missile as well.
This isn’t the first time Iran has taken out a US military drone. In 2011, for example, the country brought down a US spy drone flying about 140 miles into the Islamic Republic’s territory, going so far as to show footage of it on state television.
I don't think Trump himself is even sure if we could become allies with Iran or not. He did say, here, that we wishes to be "their best friend," but I don't know if he might change his mind or something. https://www.reuters.com/video/2019/06/22/trump-to-tehran-make-iran-great-again?videoId=565614392
This secretary also tweeted that Donald Trump does not want war with Iran, but neither side seems to be backing down. https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1141400278169788416
Donald Trump himself also talked about how "Iran yelled Death to America". https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055375186907136
He does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons because he does not trust them enough to let them have it, and the more that they say things like this, promote hatred, and call for violence and death to others, I don't think he's going to even consider making friends with them anytime soon, let alone trusting them enough to release the sanctions on them and let them have what they want, anytime soon.
Where is the massive growth that Trump created? It seems to me like when Trump took office the economic growth reduced then he had to reduce taxes so that from his poor start with economic growth went back to numbers Obama was getting.
The first problem with that statistic is that it doesn't account for 2019. It only accounts for the prior years. Maybe we need to wait for it to get updated or something? I don't know. I don't even fully know how GDPs work either, or if they're even 100% accurate, but I do know that GDP (which stands for Gross Domestic Product) is the combined value of all goods/services and/or income in the country each year, so i'll take your word for it.
The second thing is that it doesn't specify which month the economic growth dropped and then rose up again - only the year. This matters because, then, we can confirm that it was WHEN Trump took the office, that the economic growth reduced, and not just prior.
Third, how exactly did Trump becoming president in 2016 > lead to the economic growth dropping? How do we know that it was specifically Trump responsible for this and not Obama, when Obama was still president in 2016 up until Trump got elected?
Sorry for not accurately answering what you said about that. I didn't know that it was specifically a graph that you were looking for... and yeah, I'll put links under each other next time, too!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is likely the US will go to war with Iran and make up some post hoc rationalization like we were threatened, we did it for democracy, terrorism or they are a dictatorship.
I don't think so, because the president requires approval from congress to go to war with any country, and it wouldn't make sense for congress to approve of "some post hoc rationalization like we were threatened, we did it for democracy, terrorism or they are a dictatorship" over an actual legitimate reason to go to war.
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress.
You can even see it in the source you gave me his rationalization of murdering a little threat.
I guess it's better that we're "mudering a little threat" now, while it's little, rather than waiting for that little threat to escalate into a much bigger and more dangerous and serious threat, right?
Where in that source did it start Iran was even a threat to the US again?
Here are 2 articles/studies that explain how Iran has so much terrorism going on.
One of them even says, and I quote: Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been one of the world’s most active sponsors of terrorism. Tehran has armed, trained, financed, inspired, organized, and otherwise supported dozens of violent groups over the years. 1 Iran has backed not only groups in its Persian Gulf neighborhood, but also terrorists and radicals in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Bosnia, the Philippines, and elsewhere. 2 This support remains strong even today: the U.S. government regularly contends that Iran is tied to an array of radical groups in Iraq.
UK has a nuclear but you don't see them firing at the US.
Maybe it's because they don't have so much terrorism, hatred, violence, and corruption like Iran and Iraq do? Maybe it's because were allies with them and not enemies? https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/
The United States has no closer ally than the United Kingdom, and British foreign policy emphasizes close coordination with the United States.
Why not improve our relationship with Iran instead of killing their people?
It's not possible to "improve our relationship" with everyone. Some people will always hate you no matter what, some nations are a lost cause, and I guess the best thing we can do is work on cutting down on all the terrorism, nuclear weapons, and corruption over there, since we don't trust them enough.
Go back the previous point and tell me where you gave the magpill website?
Source please showing from 2009 till now and we'll see the drastic growth occurred or not. Where was the source here?
This article explains the economic growth under Donald Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump
Trump's tax reform plan was signed into law in December 2017, which included substantial tax cuts for higher income taxpayers and corporations as well as repeal of a key Obamacare element, the individual mandate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What exactly did either of those sites say about "sanctions on China"?
What do you mean Trump hasn't built his wall yet and that "it hasn't happened yet"? It's been assembled for like a year now! It wasn't easy, and it wasn't a literal solid wall, but rather a tall fence that you could see through.
What do you mean when you say Iran isn't a national security. It says here that "President Donald J. Trump announced a new strategy on Iran and outlined a number of steps the United States is taking to confront the Iranian regime’s hostile actions and ensure the country never acquires a nuclear weapon." http://www.magapill.com/donald-trump-accomplishments/state-department/United-States-Announces-a-New-Strategy-on-Iran.html
I think it's great that we're making sure that another country can't get a potential nuclear weapon to potentially use against us or something, don't you agree?
Also, the website did in fact cite sources. Did you miss that too?
Here. I drew a big red circle around the link to the source with arrows pointing to it so you can clearly see it, in case you might have missed it or something. https://i.imgur.com/tPa4hjN.png
It links to this government website. https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2017/10/13/en/new-us-strategy-iran
I don't think the site is claiming that Trump started economic growth instead of Obama, but rather that Trump is drastically improving it.
Maybe I AM just using this to confirm some kind of bias that I have, but either way, Trump is getting some things done.
Maybe he just isn't getting ENOUGH done? Or maybe he just hasn't done anything SIGNIFICANT or anything that truly stands out? I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@TheRealNihilist
Omar2345
Just about every president/candidate has lied/cheated about something or another in their lives, so I won't comment on any of that.
I agree that people who like or dislike someone (whether it's Trump or some other candidate) should at least know why they do so. Some people, however, just don't feel like doing their own research... oh well.
If you want to see a list of Donald Trump's policies/accomplishments, you can check out these sites. https://www.promiseskept.com/# http://www.magapill.com/
RationalMadman
Trump is failing in every single element of Presidency other than impressing his supporters.
I don't have a problem with people criticizing Donald Trump. I do, however, find it extremely childish and ridiculous when these people who criticize Donald Trump exaggerate like crazy and claim that he "is failing in EVERY SINGLE element of Presidency". He might be failing in some things, but he can't possibly be failing in everything! Just take a look at those two websites that I linked to and see his achievements.
He is a pig-headed type
Could you define what it means to be "a pig-headed type," explain how exactly Trump is pig-headed, and explain how "a pig-headed type" like Trump was able to make so much money in this businesses, defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections, make our borders more secure, defeat ISIS, and accomplish so many great things in his life?
who is in a game he is clearly now trapped in.
Being president of the United States is no "game". I don't understand this argument either.
Much like Bush Jr., these low IQ types are severely appealing to the Republican crowd
How do you know that Donald Trump's I.Q. level is low?
he doesn't even feign empathy or pretend to be anything other than the right-wing "haha I don't care, I'm a rich cunt" attitude that the right-wing do truly have.
Yeah, that's called being confident with pride, and there's nothing wrong with that.
To display just how pig-headed he is, read this very curious incident that highlights just how delusional and incapable of apologising he is:
My problem with Vox is that, like CNN, it's full of left-wing liberal bias, and they both heavily dislike Trump. They'll both take just about anything Trump says or does and use it against him, and they've been doing this for years now, to the point where it just gets really old.
Not to to mention, that "very curious incident" happened over a decade ago (13 years to be exact) and isn't all that relevant today.
Lastly, how exactly does this highlight how "incapable of apologising he is"? Trump has apologized for things that he did in the past, and here is just 1 video where he apologizes. https://youtu.be/FRlI2SQ0Ueg?t=770
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
@TheRealNihilist
Dustryder
I'm not sure if you can justify breaking certain rules/laws by saying that you didn't know about them.
At the same time though, sometimes you can be pardoned for certain offenses if it's like your first offense or something. I know my parents were caught speeding this one time and the officer was kind enough to let them go since they haven't commited any previously known offenses.
So maybe crossing the border illegally but then surrendering to border patrol would be okay if they decide that they're okay with it. They're the border agents after all, so it's ultimately up to them to decide whether to pardon the asylum seekers or not, since they didn't do anything too seriously offensive, but not all border agents will take it lightly.
I suppose I can agree with your other points, since they are fair enough.
You also said something about tax laws, earlier? i'll have to research that later so I can learn more about it.
Omar2345
I believe Ben Shapiro said in this youtube video that "Trump had a unique capacity to avoid the kill shot and the reason for that is because Trump is as I said many times a mud monster the guy is made of mud; there's just so much smoosh on him that if you throw more mud at him it doesn't show; it's like black socks; they never get dirty. It didn't matter what you did to the black socks; they were still black" https://youtu.be/rLt197TrAZ0
You'll have to go to 32:14 in the video because that is where he says it.
I think this is true regarding what you said. Controversy won't beat Trump because controversy gets old very quickly, and you can't beat a man like Trump with something that gets old so quickly. People are tired of hearing the same old "Trump is racist Trump is mysogynist" controversial hate comments over and over, to the point where they see that the people who keep saying this are just being ridiculous and annoying, so they just vote for him. So when people keep finding new "racist" things about Trump to stir up controversy, it hardly works because more and more people are getting bored of it. Relying on the same tactic over and over to bring Trump down and expect it to work meets Albert Einsteins definition of insantiy. People who support Trump do so because we want to start focusing on the good things about Trump and stop focusing so much on the boring old controversy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
As far as I can tell, there haven't been any reported cases of a migrant sneaking in infecting a town and then looking for asylum. Technically, this would be a good thing, because if something like that did happen it would be really bad.
However, there have been several cases of illegal aliens finding their way into this country and killing people before getting caught by ICE agents or other officials.
These were just a few examples of illegal aliens doing bad things when they should have been deported. How can you still say that "There is no problem"?? Does something like this have to happen to you, to someone you love, or in your area for you to see how bad this is?
The "cost" that you're referring to would be the amount of time, energy, resources, money, and manpower invested into catching and deporting these illegal aliens, processing asylum applications, and securing our border. The reward would be... just that, less illegal aliens to worry about, asylum applications processed, and a more secure border. None of these security measures are absoutely perfect though, and even with all of these safety measures in places, some determined bad guy could still find a way around all of this.
We want to require asylum seekers to seek asylum at a legal port of entry and actively encourage them to do so. If that involves "endangering" them somehow, then so be it. They shouldn't be coming in illegally anyways. In fact, if we simply allowed them to just cross over without checking in at the port of entry, especially if they simply choose to evade authorities instead of turning themselves over and applying for asylum, and hang out in the country, then wouldn't we be endangering OUR people? Our people should come first, if you ask me, not a bunch of illegal aliens.
Why would a genuine asylum seeker have "no choice but to cross over illegally" anyways? Are these asylum seekers being chased from their home country all the way to the United States by some monster that they have to bypass the border wall and border security to escape it? Can't they just go to the darn port of entry? You yourself said that it would be counter intuitive to cross over illegally "and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally". So if you're trying to escape some monster chasing you something, then it would actually make more sense to actually go to the port of entry, rather than come in illegally, get deported, and be sent right back to said monster, right? In that case, we wouldn't be endangering them at all; they would be endangering themselves!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Whether or not asylum seekers are "a major cause" of these things is irrelevant. The point is that we want to make sure they are safe to come into our country, which we can do when they apply for asylum instead of sneaking in like a ninja turtle or something.
If the articles that I showed you, about how many of these migrants were found to have all sorts of illnesses and some were also found to be gang members, isn't enough "evidence to suggest" that maybe we should take some safety measures for our country, I don't know what else is.
Regarding your argument about bunkers and tin foil hats... I mean, we already have bunkers, border walls, border agents, and all sorts of security measures and lines of defense against foreign invaders and illegal aliens... and I don't know anything about any "mind control technology" so I can't comment on that.
The virgin soil effect may not apply today, but it's still an example of what happened to past civilizations that had no border security of any kind. You could argue that we aren't like those past civilizations anymore and that we have developed antibiotics, vaccines, and other cures in case we were to get another outbreak like that, which they did not have access to... so what's wrong with having that extra layer of security, and requiring people to apply for asylum legally instead of illegally?
The fact that at least 2000 illegal aliens were supposed to be deported and only like 35 were deported should be enough to show that this is a problem, and that ICE agents are fighting an uphill battle to get these illegal aliens out of our country.
I suppose you're right about the law not assuming that all people will tell the truth, but I'm still nervous that people are looking for ways to exploit our laws however they can, and it would be why we have strict asylum requirements in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The basis for these policies seems to be "I don't want these extra people in my country".
I mean, we already have several parts of the country where there is massive poverty, massive violence, massive drug-addiction, and massive homelessness, such as Chicago and Seattle, so it kinda makes sense to not "want these extra people in my country" when we are already having such a difficult time taking care of our own people, which would probably also explain why our asylum process is so stringent to begin with. I don't dislike all immigrants in general, I don't mind them coming in legally and going through the legal process and contributing to our economy, and i'm pretty sure the basis for immigration laws and having a border wall are safety and trust. We just wan't to be safe and make sure these people are not part of a gang or are carrying any disease. We wan't to be safe and make sure we aren't letting serial criminals into this country.
the migrant caravan is a fairly unique situation and having so many people travelling in poor condition means that disease spread within the caravan isn't really unexpected. This probably wouldn't be the case for an average family seeking asylum
You're right. This probably wouldn't be the case, but at the same time, it could very well be. We don't know where these so-called average families are coming from. They may not be fortunate enough to have their vaccines/immunizations. Maybe, back home, their area could be filthy and infested or something. We don't know. They could be carrying something that may not be affecting themselves, but could drastically affect us. You could look at them and assume that they are healthy, when they really aren't.
Do you know about the "Virgin soil effect"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics
There have been times throughout history where people from foreign countries traveled to new countries, but the foreigners either intentionally or unintentionally would end up bringing diseases with them, something that they themselves may have been used to and/or immune to, but the people within the new country would not be immune to that disease because they were never exposed to them, and then those new people would get sick.
We don't want something like that to happen to us, and that could very well happen when people come into this country illegally without first being checked and confirmed to be safe. History has shown us what can happen when we allow foreign travelers, illegal aliens with potential diseases, and/or criminal backgrounds to run wild and/or spread whatever disease they might have. We don't need history, especially that kind of history, to repeat itself.
before you were saying that there could be criminals among asylum seekers and therefore they should not be able to enter illegally before claiming asylum and now you are saying that asylum seekers are unlikely to be criminals?
What I'm saying is this: If someone comes into this country illegally, their options are to either surrender to authorities, or go hide out somewhere such as a friend's place and avoid authorities.
If they choose to surrender to authorities, they run the risk of getting deported immediately, thus undoing all their efforts to come in illegally, and they know this.
So it would be better and/or easier for them to simply go hide out somewhere and remain on the run while avoiding the ICE agents rather than immediately surrender. If they get caught, they can simply claim that they had no choice but to come in illegally. If they are asked why they didn't immediately turn themselves over, they can simply claim that they were fearful or whatever other dumb excuse they can come up with.... and our laws allow illegal aliens to do stuff like this and get away with it and still be able to obtain asylum. That is the loophole that Donald Trump needs to close.
The problem with having a law that allows people to come in illegally and still claim asylum and be protected from immediate deportation is that said law ASSUMES that all immigrants will tell the truth about why they had to come into this country (legally or illegally) even though immigrants can simply make up a story, read off of some script, repeat what some lawyer said to them, or lie and claim that they had no choice but to avoid authorities, or that they had no choice but to come illegally. On top of all that, they can still be legally protected from deportation by their fellow neighbors, like those people who chained up to protect that illegal alien in Nashville.
Also why would someone lie about needing to cross over illegally?
To improve their odds of getting asylum, of course. Illegal aliens know that while they can come here illegally, if that plan fails and they are caught crossing over illegally, they know that they have a backup plan such as lying their way out of trouble or simply evading authorities and then having their friends protect them when the authorities try to hunt them down.
People can and will lie for all sorts of reasons, even if they know they have nothing to gain from it. People can lie to avoid trouble. People can lie just to see if lying works. People can lie just to see if we're smart or if we're dumb. People can lie just because... they can, or because it's just fun for them or something. Who knows?
If they legitimately need asylum they would go through legal ports of entry. If they didn't need asylum, they would cross over illegally. If you cross over illegally and you need asylum, the logical conclusion is that you couldn't go through legal ports of entry.
Illegal aliens that cross over illegally aren't going to care if they have/need asylum or not. They just want to be in this country, and if that includes getting asylum, then so be it, but sometimes it's just easier if they hide from authorities as they remain in this country illegally. Other times they might take their chances and go get asylum and risk being deported, but at least they will be here legally in that case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
@dustryder
1. You have brought up several downsides to asylum seekers entering illegally and then claiming asylum. Are those downsides actually a problem?
Maybe they aren't really a problem, but I would rather stay safe and have people come in legally than take my chances so that it doesn't BECOME a problem in the future. If it's not "actually a problem" like you said, then why not try our best to keep it that way?
For example, are there any stats to support your fears that asylum seekers who have entered illegally bring and infect others with foreign diseases or traffick other humans?
Here is an article from 2018 about the spread (or potential spread) of various disease and illness within the caravans of people trying to apply for asylum in the United States. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/tijuana-authorities-seek-help-sickness-spreads-migrant-camp/
ijuana’s authorities are increasingly concerned about the spread of diseases in the city, as 5,000 members of the migrant “caravan” camp in temporary shelters, awaiting the chance to apply for asylum in the United States.
Here is another one from fox news, which describes "respiratory infections, tuberculosis, chickenpox and other serious health issues," "three confirmed cases of tuberculosis, four cases of HIV/AIDS and four separate cases of chickenpox," "lice and multiple instances of skin infections," and "a threat of Hepatitis outbreak". https://www.foxnews.com/world/caravan-migrants-suffer-from-respiratory-infections-tuberculosis-chickenpox-other-health-issues-tijuana-government-says
There are also several instances of people from a gang called MS-13 being found and deported while trying to enter this country. https://www.foxnews.com/world/25-ms-13-gang-members-deported-from-caravan-in-mexico-officials-say
That article only reports 25, but for all we know, there could be dozens, if not hundreds more, that have gone unreported and/or are yet to be reported.
asylum denial rates are rather high, ranging from 42% to 65% in an 18 year span. To me, this indicates that the process for asylum is actually rather stringent
Good. I like when it's "stringent" because then, it will be even harder for bad people and infected people to come into this country and cause problems for us. If it isn't stringent and strict, then people will obviously find loopholes such as simply lying when they say that coming in illegally was their only option, or lying about fleeing persecution just to gain easy access to the country.
It seems counter intuitive to me that a person would cross over illegally, smuggle in contraband or be a gang-member, and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally and clearly have little moral inhibitions.
I agree, and that's why criminals and other bad people AREN'T going to declare themselves "to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected" if they're smart. Once they come in illegally, they will likely just hide out somewhere such as a friend's place or something rather than immediately turn themselves over to authorities, forcing said authorities to play this annoying "catch-me-if-you-can" cat-and-mouse game in order to get them out of the country. Said friends will sometimes even ACTIVELY DEFEND illegal aliens from being captured and deported.
The other day, ICE agents (Immigration Customs Enforcement) were unable to capture and deport someone who was, and I quote, "a convicted criminal alien ICE fugitive with an outstanding removal order in metro Nashville" https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/neighbors-human-chain-ice-arrest-nashville-hermitage
This was because his friends were literally chaining up and blocking his car, while also giving him stuff like gas to refill the car, as well as other supplies. The ICE agents were forced to leave, and those friends of his weren't arrested for defending the illegal alien, because it, for some stupid reason, is legally okay to block ICE agents from capturing and deporting their targets.
There is even a website dedicated to exploiting our current laws and protecting illegal aliens: https://unitedwedream.org/heretostay/know-your-power/
That's the problem with our law. It is too easy to exploit. At least 2000 illegal aliens were supposed to be deported, but officials were only able to catch... 35? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/us/ice-raids-apprehensions.html
Until our laws change to make it easier for agents to do their job and get rid of illegal aliens, Trump is facing an uphill battle that is not in his favor.
This goes back to my first point. Are these situations actually likely and do they present a significant enough of a problem as to threaten the people who legitimately seek asylum and have little choice but to cross over illegally?
Even if they didn't "present a significant enough of a problem," there's still nothing wrong with trying to stay safe. We also have very little way of knowing for sure if the asylum-seekers really had little choice but to cross over illegally, or if they are just lying about it.
The United States isn't responsible for every single immigrant out there and can't accept such a responsibility. Many of these illegal aliens are going to continue to remain in the country until they are caught and deported, instead of voluntarily turning themselves in. These laws either give too much power to illegal aliens and potential criminals, or have all of these loopholes.
Also, to dylancatlow, yes, that is me in the profile picture, and not some fake bogus picture. It was taken, like, a year ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Huge numbers of past asylum applicants found that entering the U.S. without permission was their only or best way to get to safety and flee the persecution they faced at home.To me this clearly shows that the author has interpreted the law as being purposefully constructed in order to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible which is what you'd hope from a law designed to protect asylum seekers. In which case it is a feature and not a loophole.
I would agree with you if said asylum seekers could also prove that entering this country illegally was their only or best way to get to safely and free persecution by checking all of their options for coming in legally and making sure that none of those options were actually viable. Otherwise, anyone could come here illegally and then claim that it was "their only or best way" even though it could have also been just as easy to just go to a port of entry. Not only that, but that still isn't a good excuse to come here illegally. You still risk introducing foreign diseases to the country since you are coming from a different country with it's own set of germs and bacteria. You could be smuggling foreign/dangerous items. You could be part of a gang. It isn't worth it. When you come to the port of entry, you can be taken care of, receive treatment, and be confirmed to be safe to enter the country and that you are not in a gang or are smuggling any people or objects. That's why I dislike these laws. They are easy to exploit, they give too much power to illegal aliens, and people can just lie and make up something to get past it. Trump is trying to fix this and he is being held back from doing so.
To me this clearly shows that the author has interpreted the law as being purposefully constructed in order to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when they are exploiting these loopholes and coming in illegally?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even confirm that they are genuine asylum seekers and not wanted criminals or gang members who are just trying to escape the police in their own country?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even check them for any illnesses to make sure that they aren't a threat to themselves or to anyone else?
"to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" we have to first protect our borders, protect our country, and protect our own people, BEFORE we start protecting others. You can never take good care of others when you don't take good care of yourself first.
Created:
Posted in:
What I think would be interesting is a debate on whether or not the education system is as bad as many youtubers are making it out to be.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Yeah, so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The problem with those so-called "existing laws" is that they tend to have loopholes that criminals and illegal aliens can exploit, and Donald Trump is looking to fix that.
Here is an article that explains a loophole within our current immigration policy. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-illegal-entry-to-the-u-s-or-lying-and-using-false-documents-at-entry-create-problems-when-applying-for-asylum.html
In the article, it reads:
Unlike many other categories of applicants for immigration benefits, people seeking asylum in the U.S. are not barred by having made an illegal entry; for example, sneaked across the U.S. border.
In other words, illegal aliens can apply for asylum and become legal citizens EVEN IF they come here illegally and break our laws. Trump has got to fix that so that immigrants have to come to a proper port of entry to apply for asylum instead of just coming in illegally, and the judges and ninth circuit are being ignorant about this loophole and holding Trump back, thus allowing these loopholes to continue to exist.
When immigrants come here through a port of entry, they can be checked for weapons and diseases to make sure they aren't doing things like smuggling anything in or introducing any foreign microbes that could make us sick. We can't do that if they just come in illegally.
The article also reads:
If you used false documents (such as a fake green card or visa or U.S. passport) or made false statements to a U.S. government official in order to gain entry into the United States, it should not be held against you when applying for asylum if your reason was connected to your flight from persecution.
In other words, not only can illegal aliens quality for asylum even if they bypass the ports of entry, but they can also lie to officials too and get away with it. That too needs to change. People who are trying to "flee persecution" need to at least be honest about it when applying for asylum, and they can simply just read off of a script or memorize a story or something to tell a border agent to trick them into gaining asylum. This also needs to change, especially since many of these people who are claiming to be fleeing persecution have smartphones/gadgets/expensive clothing, and other valuable items, which shows that they aren't as poor as they seem. They can take good care of themselves, and they obviously just want to come here illegally and leech.
Lastly, the article reads:
Fortunately, when you apply for your green card, illegal entry will not pose a problem. The Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) contains no requirement that asylees entered the U.S. lawfully in order to adjust status.
The main requirements for asylees seeking to adjust are that they have been physically present in the U.S. for at least one year after the grant of asylum, continue to meet the definition of a refugee, haven’t resettled in another country, and aren’t inadmissible. (See the federal regulations at 8 C.F.R. Section 1209.2.)
What’s more, U.S. immigration law specifically says that asylees are NOT subject to certain grounds of inadmissibility, including the one found at I.N.A. Section 209(7)(a), which requires other people applying for green cards to be in possession of either a “valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document.”
This means that illegal aliens can exploit our laws and still gain asylum, even if they come in illegally, lie about their past, and overstay their welcome.
Trump is trying to fix these loopholes, but those third parties block him from even doing that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
Despite still having failed to deliver on his promise to deport the millions of Mexican invaders and build a southern border wall to prevent their return, I find it very hard to believe that President Trump was insincere in stressing the dire need for such changes, and simply did it to get elected.
He hasn't "failed to deliver" on anything. He's trying, but the ninth circuit, as well as a bunch of ignorant judges, keep blocking him from doing these things, and they are holding him back.
They are the ones who are failing us, NOT Trump. They are the ones to blame, NOT Trump.
So one has to ask: why is he not doing more? Is he scared to act, or constantly being sabotaged without his even knowing? Or, on the other hand, is he just not in this all the way, and lacks the will to fight as hard as he would need to? Either way, it’s not good, but that’s different from “hopeless.”
Again, he isn't doing more because those third parties are holding him back from doing more... so, yes, he is, in a way, "being sabotaged". It's that simple.
I say that his support for deportations and the wall is sincere not just for all the obvious reasons, like the fact that he’s still tweeting about these issues to this day, but also because of lesser-known facts, such as the fact that in 2017 he gave what amounted to a White Nationalist rally in Poland.
Cite this.
I hope everyone here has figured out what the “Muslim terrorism problem” is really code for ;)).
Explain what you mean by this. What do you mean by "code" exactly?
It’s also known that his father instructed him very early on about the importance of genetics, and about the falseness of our national dialogue which rejects such facts in favor of absurdities like “everyone of every race is equal”:
Gonna need evidence for this nonsense that you're spewing, too.
One fact that has always concerned me is that Trump was unwilling in the 2016 election to donate any significant portion of multi-billion dollar fortune toward his campaign, and apparently had to be coaxed into donating the small amount he did. Of course, it didn’t matter in the end, and perhaps the money wouldn’t have helped at all, and might have even turned voters off. But if this wasn’t a calculated move on Trump’s part, and he didn’t want to donate any of his riches because he’s just kind of a shitty person who would rather see the world burn than lose even a little of what constitutes his “identity”, I don’t know what to say. If he has even the faintest idea of what’s at stake, he’d know how silly that would be.
You're mad at Trump for.... trying to make the smart financial decision to save money instead of throwing it away? Alright then. Keep in mind that when I am choosing who to vote for to be my president, I do not concern myself with how much they donated to whatever; the only thing I concern myself with is what that president is looking to do to improve the country and what their plans/goals are. I support Trump because he has been aiming to cut down on illegal immigration, cut down on muslims/terrorists entering this country, and make America great again.
So the question is: does he really get it?
Get what? What do you mean by "it?"
Like I said, these circuits, courts, and judges are what is holding Trump back from doing more. It's not Trump's fault at all. Everything you said would be absolutely true if that wasn't the case.... but here are just some of Trumps accomplishments so far, despite all of that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
First of all, if you're going to come here and claim that Trump tweeted some "racist" things, like many liberals have been doing for years, you could at least link the tweets next time so that we can all see them in the full context just to make sure you aren't taking anything out of context, and that we both understand the same thing... so here they are.
Also, just in case they happen to get deleted off of twitter or something, here is a screenshot; https://i.imgur.com/99pvmTf.png
Secondly, I don't see any racism in those tweets. Trump hasn't said one word about the Black race, the White race, the colored race, the Native/Indian race, or the Asian race.... so which race was Trump being racist towards? The liberal race? The race to screw up this country? The race of ignorance??
Third, Trump was talking about how arrogant people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were being, thinking that they knew exactly what needed to be done for this country, not realizing that their stupid ideas such as Democratic Socialism/Green New Deal are unrealistic, and that maybe they should go to a different country to see if those ideas work, and "Then come back and show us how it is done." He wasn't talking about any race at all.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
But... most importantly, as a musician, getting that crowd feedback is everything. It pumps you up like no other bc you know the crowd is into it. That makes you play more passionately and energizes you. You have to realize... musicians are playing the same song over and over and over and over again... if the crowd never got into it and stayed silent.... that would be a miserable gig. So... if you're seeing a band... don't just stand there like a dead zombie... get into it and get others into it... and the music will be all the better.
I agree that getting the feedback is great. I'm not saying the audience should never cheer. I'm not saying the people should act like zombies. I'm just saying they should wait until the music is finished before giving the feedback and cheering. Imagine if you were giving a speech or a TED Talk and the audience started cheering and making noise, even though you weren't done yet. That would be rude. How do you expect people like me to focus on the song when it is being interrupted by something that isn't part of the song?
I'm surprised everyone commenting so far is agreeing with the zombie side (minus stronn i think). If you are going to stand there like a zombie and not cheer... that's just weird, maybe go see someone you're more into... idk. Trust me, the musicians know how to get you to a zombie point too... Just as a musician gets energy from hearing the cheers, they know when they drop something hard on you that sounds deep... it should shut the crowd up. It's an amazing feeling all around as a musician feeling the crowd be under your musical control.
I'm not entirely sure if musicians getting energy from cheers is worth all the disruptive noise. If anything it would probably make the musician lose his/her concentration, because they could be trying to focus on singing or playing the instrument to the best of their ability since it could be something very difficult for them.
I don't want anyone else reading my post and then getting the wrong idea that I want the audience to never cheer or get excited. I apologize if it seems like that's what I wanted.
Created:
If you ever watch any of those shows like Voice Kids, American Idol, and America's Got Talent, you will know what I am talking about. Basically you will have the little girl or whatever, singing on the stage, and it's great and beautiful and all, but then the audience gets noisy for no reason, thus ruining the song.
It's like going to a restaurant to order some amazingly cooked food, but having it spat on by a couple dozen people, thus ruining the cook's hard work. When I listen to someone sing, I want to hear them and them only, not the audience. The audience should be cheering before or after the singing, but not right in the middle of it. How do you all feel about this?
Here's a few examples of covers ruined by the audience making noise. I can't even download the song and listen to it offline because I will hear the part where the audience cheers and it is just so annoying! Sometimes, this results in the singer having to sing louder and harder so that she can still even be heard over the noisy audience.
https://youtu.be/Wmnut7mYNKM?t=8 This one isn't too bad, but the audience cheers loudly for a bit, then goes silent.
https://youtu.be/f6XmSBW2O3s?t=53 Here when the little reaches the "I am titaniummm" part, the audience claps like crazy, even though she isn't done yet.
https://youtu.be/b1NVOsatpF0?t=183 Here it gets even worse. Just a few seconds after the girl starts, the audience act like fanatical banshees on steroids.
https://youtu.be/mskOhEyVARQ?t=42 In this one, the idiot in the green shirt slams a red button for no reason, thus making unnecessary noise, and as if that wasn't enough, it is followed by the audience going wild, making even more unnecessary noise.
https://youtu.be/PgXTzOkCUI8?t=128 Somehow this habit of making unnecessary noise in the middle of performance has found it's way into one of my favorite cartoons...
https://youtu.be/Lm3rheXZiYw?t=48 Again, the audience is clapping and making noise, thus screwing up the otherwise amazing song.
https://youtu.be/Zg3RS-m0_3k?t=66 Doesn't matter whether it's actually a girl or just a talking stuffed animal, the audience still makes noise in the middle of the song.
If they're going to have a girl sing on stage with audience making noise, the least they could do is have an alternate version of that song where there is no background noise from the audience, so that I can just hear the girl and nothing else that I do not want to hear. Do you get frustrated about this stuff too, or am I just making a big deal out of it?
Created:
Posted in:
Don't confuse introverts with misanthropes. Introverts are people who expend energy socializing with others and need to regain it by being alone. Misanthropes avoid and irrationally fear others entirely.
An introvert tends to be less valued by their peers and by having less friends they have less people to rely on when they have an issue they need help with. This can lead to introverts being good at being independent but I argue that tends not to be the case. Instead it leads to depression by a feeling of not really belonging somewhere.
This is because we introverts know that we can't always depend on others, and that being an extrovert can lead to you depending on others to a point where you will just get depressed even harder since you're so used to others. Not only that, but when you're an introvert, it's easier to concentrate on things like schoolwork, because you aren't worrying so much about "peers".
About the topic: It is justified why introverts are looked down upon. They are less valuable in economies, in relationships and advancing change. This all needed into making a functioning society where an extrovert tends to provide these benefits. If there was a way in which introverts can be valuable in society then it wouldn't be a problem.
How exactly are introverts "less valuable in economies, in relationships and advancing change"??
Created:
Posted in:
I never understood the idea of not eating meat. Don't we need a healthy balanced diet? Didn't we used to hunt and kill buffalo for centuries before farming became a thing? http://meatandhealth.redmeatinfo.com/red-meat-and-health-the-facts/eating-a-balanced-diet.aspx
Created:
Posted in:
Do separate bathrooms teach kids that we see boys and girls as not equal?
Gender equality is a lie. We're all different, not equal. I don't see males and females as equals, nor will I treat them as such. I treat a man like a man, and a woman like a woman. That's why we have separate bathrooms. Not only that, but, as Outplayz said, there will likely be sexual harassment if we did have same-sex bathrooms. Sure, some countries and states may have them, but not all of them do.
Created:
Posted in:
I can relate to this.
It's a combination of several different factors at work (not necessarily all of them):
- Learning things the hard way
- Fixation/Obsession
- Repeating scenarios to find catharsis
- Obliviousness
Learning Things The Hard WayMost people have to learn things for themselves, rather than following instruction. This especially is the case for emotionally involved situations (such as love), but can apply in any situation. For a neurocognitive basis for this, some people are predominantly No-Go learners, whereas others are Go learners; this predisposition is genetic, and affects dopamine expression in the reward centers of the brain.No-Go learners respond best to negative consequences; Go learners respond best to positive outcomes. Someone who always learns the hard way might be a No-Go Learner.
Do keep in mind that a person does not necessarily have to be either a pure go learner or a no-go learner. They could also be somewhere in the middle, which is where I see myself. Sometimes, I've had to learn the hard way, and other times it was better to learn the easy way. It's like a spectrum. On one side, you have the go learners. On the opposite side, you have the no-go learners, and then you can have that middle ground. You could also be leaning slightly towards one side or the other on the spectrum, but not completely towards it.
Fixation/ObsessionNothing will make you keep hitting your head against a brick wall like being fixated/obsessed by someone/something. It'll encourage tunnel vision, and make you lose sight of the big picture and get lost in the details.
We humans tend to focus on negative stuff more than we do positive stuff. If a young child is complemented 99 times, but harshly insulted once, that child will likely focus more on that 1 negative comment and can feel put down, even though they were praised 99% of the time.
Here's an old article from 2003 that talks about this. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200306/our-brains-negative-bias
Repeating Scenarios To Find CatharsisPeople have a tendency to repeat traumatic events in their lives so that they can change the outcome of that experience - or at least process it. This may cause someone to keep acting out seemingly strange behaviors, which lead to a negative conclusion - until they can break the cycle (or find a safe way to discharge the emotional payload and process it).This is particularly common in people who have PTSD and may be tied to specific circumstances, or anniversaries of events - even if they're not consciously aware of the connection.
The greatest example of this that I can think of is shown in an anime called The Legend Of Korra. In this show, Korra, a girl with the power to control air, water, earth, and fire, endures a traumatic event where she is kidnapped, and barely survived a lethal dosage of mercury. Because of this, she has to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder, and this limits her abilities, as she can't seem to let go of the past and move on. So she visits Zaheer, the man responsible for trying to poison her, and, as you've said, repeats this traumatic event in her life so that she can change the outcome of that experience or at least process it. It's obvious that the writers of this show wanted to give their audience a character that they could relate to. The scene can be watched here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3dTCSrfXFY
ObliviousnessMaybe they're just not paying attention to what they need to be to help them? You should probably give them a nudge in the right direction.Ahem.
This is tricky, because you don't always know what constitutes "the right direction." In your attempt to help that person, you could end up actually hurting them. This is a risk I am personally not willing to take, so I often just let people decide for themselves what they should do without my influence.
Created:
Posted in:
I feel like Negroes and the white Southerner have innately different learning styles, and that integration hurts us both.
So why not just separate them based on their learning styles instead of their skin colors? Keep the visual learners in one group, the auditory learners in another, and the kinesthetic learners in another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
College can't be "free". Someone is paying for it.
Created: