Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Justice delayed is justice denied. I won't support that system for any reason.
that's stupid. Some crimes are easy to charge. A guy walks into a bank with a gun, it's easy to charge him with bank robbery. But if a guy is engaging in a criminal conspiracy to rob a bank, you need to prove the different pieces of the conspiracy before you can charge him. This is much harder. Trump engaged in a conspiracy with dozens of co-conspirators spanning multiple states and in different branches of government. It takes a long time to fully investigate that. You're basically saying that if someone can make their crimes sufficiently complicated to investigate, then they shouldn't ever be able to be charged. This would make polticians and the super rich even more immune to having to abide by the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't trust a system that waits 4 years to charge someone with a crime.
why? That isn't unusual for complicated investigations. And a criminal conspiracy involving the president of the united states is complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I wonder why no one has been charged?
tons of people involved in the insurrection. Many have gone to prison.
And trump is currently awaiting trial for his crimes around the election. He will likely be going to prison for them after he loses the election.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
crazy people also think he is literally Hitler.
Anyone who thinks he is literally hitler would definitely be crazy. That guy died a long time ago. He is like hitler, but he isn't literally hitler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
no, they impeached him for inciting an insurrection for the purposes of overthrowing democracy. which he did.Right, and Kamala Harris conspired to subvert democracy and destroy the constitution. It's easy when you can just make stuff up.
he did incite an insurrection. This is common knowledge.
Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.Dershowitz is trump's lawyer.You are a cultist who has proven you are immune to facts on multiple occasions. Top examples:
so you're going to quote something I said and then start rambling about something completely unrelated? I will skip that thanks.
He has an opinion about whether there needs to be a crime to impeach
Inciting an insurrection is a crime. did you not know that?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yes that is the pro freedom side.
lol trump has said that if companies release polls that are bad for him, they should be shut down. He has said that news outlets that run stories that aren't flattering should be shut down. He even attacks fox news because they sometimes allow people to say things that aren't kissing his ass.
He also wildly abused his office for personal profit. He illegally tried to overturn the results of an election he lost. He instigated an attach on the capitol when his illegal attempt to overturn the election results was failing.
the list of ways he is a threat to America is a mile long. He doesn't care about america. He doesn't care about democracy. He doesn't care about anything but himself. He would burn america to the ground if he could be king of the ashes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is why he was shot, because people think he is literally Hitler.
no. he got "shot" (I don't think a bullet actually hit him, but that's besides the point) because a crazy person wanted to be famous.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.
that is extremely stupid. So if someone thinks trump is a threat to liberty (which he is), that justifies extremism to stop him? This statement basically just says it's fine to destroy your country as long as you think you're pursuing liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just like they impeached Trump for organizing a rally.
no, they impeached him for inciting an insurrection for the purposes of overthrowing democracy. which he did.
Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.
Dershowitz is trump's lawyer. The man would defend him if trump murdered people. So his statements opinions mean very little. And do you mean the justice curtis that has been dead for over 100 years? Somehow I don't think he has an opinion on what trump did.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Puerto Ricans are not retarded like you are claiming and are actually thanking the comedian for pointing out the problems with waste management in their area.
lol sure. They heard their home called a ball of garbage and were like "yeah that's great". You're delusional if you think that is the case.
Why do you think Ricans are retarded enough to confuse a statement from a roast comedian as a policy proposal?
a man speaking at a trump rally, from a teleprompter (which means the campaign saw it in advance) called their home garbage. I don't think they think it's a policy proposal. They saw it for what it is, a racist joke at their expense. That pisses people off.
Both candidates are acting like Nevada and Arizona are in the bag for trump and now we have trump doing rallies in Virginia and New Hampshire at the last minute and harris focusing entirely on Pennsylvania. What do you think these moves mean?
I don't even know what to respond to. Basically everything you said was false. No one is acting like those are in the bag. I mean maybe trump is, but he is delusional and his staff hide bad polls from him. Harris is not focusing entirely on Pennsylvania.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
1. A typo was made2. Nobody did anything wrongPick one
this is sad. It was a minor typo that was quickly corrected. It is an innocent mistake with no malice. What right wing assholes did with that absolutely did have malice.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
He wins the sun belt, Arizona and Nevada. That means harris has to run the table with the rust belt.
polling says both of those states are toss ups. You are just assuming he will win based on nothing.
We know where California is going as we do Florida and Ohio.
I'd say kamala winning florida is unlikely, but not impossible. There's alot of puerto ricans in florida and the trump campaign called them garbage....
you will look like an idiot tomorrow morning for saying Nevada and Arizona is a crazy prediction
I never said it was a crazy prediction. I said saying they're in the bag is stupid. There is no evidence for that. They are tossups.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Is the media supposed to verify they have correct information or not?
lol seriously? It was election night. They reported the numbers they were given. They didn't have the ability to fact check those numbers. Other than a typo, no one did anything wrong in that scenario. The only wrong thing that happened was right wing assholes using it to push lies about the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's what Dershowitz said about Trump's impeachments. The house didn't care.
This is what he said:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”
basically his argument is that if a politican abuses the power of his office to help him get elected, that isn't ground for impeachment. That's incredibly stupid. But not even really related to what we are talking about. You want to impeach Kamala for something that isn't, in any way, illegal or against the rules. That's also incredibly stupid.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I literally explained how I made it into an exact science
lol no you didn't. you describing what pollsters already do. And it very much is not an exact science. It relies on what voters did in previous elections and making assumptions that it will be the same this time. That is not an exact science.
and told you what states kamala would need in the op
your OP said trump had a bunch of states in the bag. This is 100% not true. That's how this discussion started.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Do you think typos should happen or is it better if mistakes aren't made?
is that a serious question? Obviously it would be better if no one made mistakes. But humans are human. So mistakes get made. This was a typo in an unofficial count that was quickly corrected. The only damage it did was make dumb people believe in a conspiracy theory when a 30 second google search would have shown them it was wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well he won that judgement against Democrats disenfranchising the vote, so it's possible.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. He had dozens of cases thrown out for having no evidence. Which case are you referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her party
that's not grounds for impeachment. It is not illegal. Each party makes their own rules on how their candidate should be picked. The rules were followed.
she was installed and that was not following the legal process.
untrue. She was elected the dem primary.
If she is impeached and tampon boy with her, then the speaker of the house becomes president
I think you've forgotten that impeachment requires 2/3rds of the senate to vote to convict. There is no scenario in which that happens.
This would put Trump back into the White House...and since he was selected as VP by Johnson he could run for President in 2028 and if he won he'd technically have 3 terms.
this would effectively be the death of democracy. Thank god it isn't possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right, Trump isn't farting around this time, he goes to court before the elections.
right. last time he made up lies and got thrown out of court after the election. Now he's making up lies and going to court before anything has even happened. Genius!! why bother even having an election? Obviously we should just appoint trump dictator for life!
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If the pollster is wrong than it is obvious propaganda, meant to discourage Trump voters from voting.
you know that just sounds crazy right? Even if they are wrong, they're probably just wrong. They polled people. People answered a certain way. they reported on what people said. Why is that a conspiracy to keep people from voting?
Why fo you think democrats outperform Republicans in polls?
lots of reasons. a big one is that democrats are more popular that republicans. Seriously, the republicans haven't won the popular vote is a long time. Another is that trump kind of broke modern polling. Him being so bat shit crazy makes polling alot harder.
The day before Reagan won 49 states they had Mondale favored to win
ok, and? Polling is not an exact science even at the best of times.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Okay I am specifically talking about when I watched CNN and saw Bidens total go up 138k votes and Trump zero. A statistical impossibility
seriously? This got debunked a LONG time ago. It was a typo in an unofficial vote count that got fixed in 30 minutes.
Created:
I also think pollsters have other problems too. They are trying to use 2020 as their baseline. They are trying to weight their numbers to get them to look like 2020. But 2020 is before the republicans shot themselves in the foot by overturning roe v wade. Support among women has fallen because the that. So trying to weight your numbers to an election pre-roe is intentionally throwing off your polls.
I think we could see this in the republican primary too. Nikki haley kept getting significant numbers of votes weeks and even months after dropping out. This shows a solid chunk of even republicans that want him gone. But pollsters aren't showing that.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If Trump wins Iowa tomorrow are you going to finally get mad about bring so stupid as to fall for obvious propaganda?
what are you even talking about? What propaganda? That pollster has correctly called basically every election within 2-3 points for like a decade. Including calling it for trump in past elections. But now that they say he will lose, it's propaganda?
Not just mad at the liars but at yourself? Or are you just going to cope and make excuses for their evil?
you're not even making sense.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
11pm like in elections prior to 2020 they will once again wait until after they have an opportunity to do a 4 am ballot dump.
you know those "ballot dumps" are because of state law right? For example, Pennsylvania has a law that doesn't allow election workers to start processing mail in ballots until the morning of the election. So those "ballot dumps" were just because election officials weren't allowed to start processing them. But for conspiracy theory weirdo's, they blame the democrats for this for some reason even though the it's the republicans that controlled the senate and house in Pennsylvania until 2023 (when they lost the house, but still have the senate).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If 15% of the vote is generally black but a poll has sampled 1000 people and 20% are black for example, you can adjust the numbers that way to be more realistic. That's what pulling up the cross tabs means
you know the pollsters already do that right? For example, if in a state 50% of voters are registered republicans and 50% are registered democrats, but their polling sample gets 60% democrats and 40% republicans, they will weight the republicans more to balance it out. It's a standard part of polling.
But honestly, I think most pollsters are pumping trump up. quinnipiac had some polls in the last cycle that were WAY off. huge outlier underestimating trump support. and they turned out to be wrong. They took alot of heat for it and it hurt their ability to make money. So the pollsters are afraid that if they show what their polling is actually saying and they're wrong, they will get the same treatment. So every pollster is saying it's a tie so they can't be blamed. I think their polls are actually showing trump down significantly.
A new Des Moines Register poll (a gold standard pollster) shows Trump down heavily with women in Iowa. This means he is actually losing by 3 points in deep red Iowa. This pollster is one of the most accurate in the country. If that trend extends to other states and other pollsters are missing it, trump would lose BIG. I think other pollsters are intentionally weighting their polls to avoid showing that so they can't be blamed if they're wrong.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is what making up whatever information you want to believe looks like:
this is getting sad. I don't want to listen to you deny reality so you're just going to go off topic and whine about it in other threads?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
we're just going around in circles. I know he praised nazis. You pretend like he didn't. we go around and around. it's boring and pointless. I'm not going to respond any further to this.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
By looking at early voting, as well as eliminating the most left wing and right wing polls and looking at the cross tabs.
most of the states have no polls that show trump up by more than 1. So that's bullshit.
So looking at percent of each demographic and how often each demographic Wil turn out historically and also taking into account voter enthusiasm
gotcha. So by making up whatever information you want to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's what denying a problem looks like.
I agree. you are denying he praises nazis. that is a problem.
You lied, you didn't care
I didn't lie. I slightly misphrased his evil.
You have not reevaluated anything.
I acknowledged that you are right and that I misphrased it. But the fact that he praises nazi's is the critical part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Both stats are mail in and in person.
you don't request a ballot for in person voting. You request a ballot to vote by mail. So when you put the stats for in person and vote by mail together, it is more than the total number of people who requested to vote by mail. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Why is that?
I don't know for certain, but I would guess it is this"59,813,536 mail-in and early in-person votes cast nationally"
They aren't all mail in ballots. Some are in person.
Created:
Posted in:
False law. The court NEVER took the legislative history of the citizenship clause into account. They did a prima facie (a non-originalist) reading of the 14th Amendment without consideration of what the writers of it intended.
they made a ruling on what they believe the law says. Until the law is changed to clarify or the court over rules the decision, then that is the law. Period. Full stop.
Just because they haven't ruled yet does not prove I am wrong. LOL!Talk about faulty logic right there.
you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it proves your opinion on what the law should be is wrong. I am saying it proves that Kamala is a citizenship. The way the law is interpreted today says she is a citizen. She was issued citizenship by the government. So your statement that she is not a citizen is provably wrong. If you want to say that she shouldn't have been given citizenship, then that isn't "wrong", it's just a matter of opinion. But you can't say she doesn't have it.
that's because no one except the Heritage Foundation and a small handful of others have but none have taken the time, effort or money to pursue the matter in the Courts.
I already said that. ". Only a few right wing crackpots say differently." you are describing that no one but the right wing crackpots wants this law changed.
Citing the same dated article doesn't debunk what was just said. As I mentioned above this reply, there has been more follow-up reports and podcasts disclosing more affirming that Kamala is not BLACK.
I'm not going to argue any further about the lies of a right wing loon.
As argued and supported by the legislative history I have cited, among other legal sources, she is not a legitimate citizen.
There, right there is your problem. You said "legitimate citizen". That is the reason you're wrong. You have an opinion that says she should not have been given citizenship. But your statement isn't that she shouldn't have been given citizenship. Your statement is that she is not a citizen. But that is provably false. She is a citizen. You just think she shouldn't be. Your statements seem to acknowledge that she is a citizen, you just think she should not have been given it.
Just because on paper it says she doesn't make it so.
lol that is exactly what it means. That "paper" is the law. The only reason you have citizenship is that paper. She has that paper too. That makes you both citizens (assuming you're american)
Like a law student passing their PhD courses and the bar doesn't mean they are a great or even a good lawyer.
but it does mean they are a lawyer. Just like it means that she is a citizen.
And just because the Court(s) haven't been given an opportunity to take up this legal matter doesn't prove me wrong.
it does actually. The court rules A. You can argue that they should have ruled B. But if you argue that the law is B, you are wrong. It is A until the law is changed or the court overrules the decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For a slight misstatement you act like you'd be damned to hell if you told the truth.
I have no idea what you mean.
How to recover? Start by admitting you have a problem.
because i slightly mis phrased his love of nazi's? He said he wanted nazi generals for god's sake.
This implies that you would not waste a single second on people that won't listen to a single thing anyone says that doesn't reinforce their already held beliefs. Since you are a person who doesn't listen to a single thing anyone says that doesn't reinforce your already held beliefs you would not waste time on typing.
I literally just read what you said, and corrected myself. Thus proving do listen to things you say even if it doesn't reinforce my beliefs. I am not perfect. I can get things wrong sometimes. I admit that. I said he "only" praised nazis after he praised nazis, but also condemned them. I didn't go into the nuance of how he praises nazis and says terrible things, but then walks them back, only to say them again later. Mea Culpa.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Trump has Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina in the bag.
arizona is a tossup. the averages are being thrown off by low quality polls from right wing think tanks. most reuputable polls show it within like a point, maybe 2. and kamala is winning in some of them.
Nevada is also a tossup.no poll puts trump ahead by more than 1. well, well within the margin of error.
Georgia is leaning trump. but only by a point or 2. Still within the margin of error.
North carolina is a tossup. The polls basically aternate of who is ahead by 1, harris or trump.
Why would you think these states are in the bag? They are as close as it is possible to be in the polling.
Created:
Posted in:
Agreeing with the interpretation of the US Courts is a fallacious appeal to authority.
you say appeal to authority. I say IT'S LITERALLY THE LAW.
The Courts often overrule previous rulings, changing or invalidating the previous ruling (e.g. Roe V Wade, Dred Scott, etc.).
true. And a court could hypothetically overrule this. And if they did that, you saying she isn't a citizen might make sense. But they haven't overruled that, so you're wrong.
No serious federal question has been brought to the Courts over the legislative history of the Citizenship clause for over a century because no one has done so.
because no one really questions it. Everyone understands that it is perfectly valid and a good thing. Only a few right wing crackpots say differently.
Then prove it false.
someone else already did that for you. but here you go.
Evidence has been proven via her podcast putting up on the screen birth, death, and marriage records as well as newspaper stories and interviews with people who knew Harris' grandmother personally (who unequivocally stated he is white, not black) and her direct relatives.
candace owens is a liar.
I don't think they ruled wrong, I know they ruled wrong just like they did in Roe v Wade.
lol, you just confirmed it again. You confirmed that the courts have ruled that you are wrong. Ego, you are wrong until a court overrules that decision. You can believe that she shouldn't have citizenship. But it is factually untrue to say she isn't a citizen. And you know that, and just confirmed that you know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
[HistoryBuff] nazi's were rioting. When asked to condemn the nazi's, he would only say "there was very fine people on both sides."
oh my, you caught me making a slight mis-statement where the underlying sentiment was accurate. how ever will I recover....
Until it matters to you that you contradict yourself I will keep pointing out that you are contradicting yourself.
I didn't contradict myself. My point was that trump praises nazis. That was true then, it is true now. I have not contradicted that. I slightly mis-spoke when i said he ONLY praises nazis. But my point was still accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You ignore him denouncing them and wish to imagine non-existent praise. Stop projecting.
I don't ignore. I hear him denounce. I also hear him praise. Just as I heard him say "peacefully" but also that his cultists had to fight. If I told you not to murder your wife, then told you to murder your wife. I still told you to do it. It doesn't matter if I say both things. Trump says it both ways. You choose to point to the times he says what you want to hear. Then you ignore the times he says what you don't want to hear. Just like all trump cultists. To me it doesn't matter if he contradicts himself. If you say the terrible thing, there is no walking it back by saying the opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thing you won't listen to because it doesn't reinforce your already held beliefs: https://youtu.be/JmaZR8E12bs?t=117
we've been through this conversation before. You just ignore what I say. But I will repeat it anyway. This is what trump does, he says completely opposite things knowing his followers will choose to believe what he wants them to. So he denounces nazi's, then praises nazis. He says go to the capitol peacefully, but then says "'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'".
This is what he does. His cultists hear they parts they like and ignore the rest. They hear the call to violence and ignore the call to be peaceful. They hear the praising of nazi's and ignore him denouncing them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
thank you for the context. I wasn't going to waste even a single second on that since I know Amber doesn't listen to a single thing anyone says that doesn't reinforce their already held beliefs. But it's nice to see the evidence for what I was already confident was the case. IE that Candace owens is full of crap.
Created:
Posted in:
The US Constitution's Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, legislative history on the Citizenship Clause = truth.
that is something we agree on. However, I agree with the interpretation the US courts have used for the last 100 years. You have a different opinion.
Her father is not 'black,' he is Indian-Irish-Jewish. Candace Owens has proven this as a fact of her family heritage.
any sentence that starts with "candace owens has proven" is almost certainly laughably false. Provide evidence of this, or I will disregard it.
No, the court has not ruled that I am wrong. They misinterpreted the 14th, just as SCOTUS did over Roe v Wade and reversed itself on it 50 years after the fact.
lol you say the court did not rule something, then immediately confirm that the court has ruled that way. You just think they ruled wrong. Do you even read the things you write?
I've mentioned Candace Owens over a dozen times, and in your response(s) you keep making fallacious allegations of racism about her
oh gotcha. yeah she went SUPER far right and that has lead her to saying all kinds of horrible things. And yes, she is engaging in racist bullshit against a black woman.
Yes, a podcast is evidence when she is bringing the receipts: news clippings, photos, birth records, death records, family tree history, discussions with actual family members and individuals like Judge Joe Brown who knew Harris' parents - personally!
If these things exist, please provide them. If you cannot, I will ignore this as more bullshit.
I have linked to the podcasts; you refuse to watch it and see the evidence she gives on chicken bullshit excuses of racism.
I'm not going to do your research for you. This is a debating site. Provide proof of your claims or stop making those claims.
(PS. Why am I not surprised that you only have two people willing to be added to your friend's list, and one of them is FLRW, your DebartArt twin *FP*)
I don't even know what a "friends" list on an anonymous debate site would be for. But thank you for calling yourself out for being creepy and looking through my profile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She wants to be special but she is a mutt breed like 100% of every human alive today.
how is it "special" to be the things your parents are? That is literally the norm.
If you want to say you are anything because you are an arbitrary part of something, that is by definition the "one drop rule"
i never said that. She is half black, half indian. That is not "one drop". That is literally half of who she is. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's confusing because by that "one drop" standard, everyone is both black and white, oppressed and oppressor at the same time, racist and a victim at the same time.
when did I, or anyone else, say "one drop"? Her dad is black, her mom is indian. She is both of those things. You are trying to make this more complicated than it is and it's weird, and probably racist.
Created:
Posted in:
when you make up lies about black people not being citizens, that's racist. Why is that confusing?Still impotent in proving it is a lie.
I've already proven it multiple times. She was born in the US that makes her a citizen, like millions of other americans. The fact that you are choosing to lie about this is super racist.
Kamala is not black.... Both already proven facts.
Her father is black. Her mother is Indian. She is both Indian and black. How is this confusing for you?
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
you can make that argument to a court if you want. But courts have ruled for 100 years that you are wrong. Until you get that 100 years of judicial rulings overturned, you are wrong.
I have already provided numerous facts since post #1 and all you've done is say "nuh huh, all lies"
nope. I disproved your nonsense a couple of times now. The most important of which is the fact that she has citizenship. She has the paperwork to prove she is a citizen. Do you think the government issues those to anyone who asks? No, they have to prove they have a right to citizenship. You choose to believe a flawed interpretation of the law. But the courts do not support your chosen interpretation.
You're calling an actual black woman a racist, eh? How original.
Are you saying you're a black woman? Or do you think i'm calling harris a racist? If it's the 1st, then congratulations, you're a black woman who is racist against black women. that's a special level of shitty.
The podcast is evidence presented, you're just too chicken sh*t to review it and be proven wrong.
lol no. A podcast is not evidence. They can provide evidence in a podcast. But if that is the case, then you should be able to provide the evidence here. You have failed to do that. All you've done is give your opinion on how the law should be read. But that isn't evidence, it's opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
That's fine. Like, if you can't afford to move, then don't move. I don't support giving randos in Serbia free trips to America.
my point was that you would end up with a disproportionate amount of investment bankers or something. You wouldn't get an even assortment of workers spread across the economy. Certain industries would get flooded with people.
Lets say the population quintiples: 1.5 billion people and 75000 Actuaries. The ratio of people to Actuaries is 20K:1. The demand for Actuaries relative to the supply has doubled, leading to higher wages for Actuaries.
fair point. But in order for that to happen, the prices actuaries charge would massively increase. So it might be good for the people in that industry, but it's still bad for everyone else and bad for the country, since there are now lots of people who can't get the services they need.
Tell that to the Pilgrims. They built their settlement in 1-2 months with hunger, no bulldozers, and no mexicans.
lol their infrastructure was what, log cabins and some dirt roads? We are talking about building hospitals, schools, highways, houses, funeral homes, massive expansions to the power grid etc. Comparing the two is just silly.
It will be easy to acclimate the new population that won't have hunger (construction sites have food)
and where is that food going to come from? The infrastructure america has is designed to move and store food for 300ish million people. You add a billion people and there aren't enough warehouses to store it, or stores to sell it, or trucks to move it. You are talking about millions dead, mass food riots etc.
It will probably take a few months.
you think you can build 100's of millions of homes in a few a months? You cannot be this delusional.
That 1 project housed more people than the number of workers making that one project. Therefore, you won't need 1 billion people making 1 billion projects; maybe 1 million (1000 people per building).
i'm not even sure how to reply to you any more. You clearly have little to no understanding of how logistics or construction works. You seem to think that things will just magically appear where they are needed and people will be able to magically build trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure over night.
The Empire State building is very high quality and has no major problems.
i don't know why you are so fixated on one building. Yes, with extraordinary expense and manpower it is possible to build one building safely and quickly. Do you think the world is so simple that you can just wave your hands and make that happen for a billion different buildings all at the same time?
Try to think it through. There isn't enough concrete in the world to do what you are saying. Where is all the steel going to come from? How would you get it to america? there aren't enough ships. How would you unload it in america? there aren't enough ports. How would you move the construction materials around? There aren't enough roads or trucks. The logistics of what you are suggesting aren't just impossible, but they are ludicrous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
This is true, but if open borders happens, then it's not like every person coming here is going to be a car mechanic.
true, but certain industries are more likely to have a high standard of living in other countries (and therefore not be inclined to move), while certain industries will not. Certain people will have the economic resources to move across an ocean and successfully find a place to live and work. So there will be some selection bias. You won't get a completely random population.
Some jobs will get lower wages, other jobs will get higher wages.
why would any jobs get higher wages? A sudden spike in workers weakens the bargaining position of workers. Wages wouldn't fall in every industry, but I can't really see a reason why they would go up in any.
People who work the low wage jobs might find a higher wage job and systemically, everything sorts it's self out.
that's not how that works. When you place millions of workers into a new environment that isn't set up to absorb them, there won't be enough jobs to go around. It takes time for infrastructure to be built and for businesses to expand to take advantage of the new work force. You will get a sudden, drastic lowering of wages and living standards. Over the long term things will eventually recover, but that could take decades (depending on how many people you are talking about).
Why? It's like Dallas turning into Chicago (a city with about twice as many people).
because if you have enough housing for 1 million people, then suddenly have 2 million people, now you have 1 million homeless people. Over the course of years, you would be able to build more housing, expand businesses to make jobs for them etc. But if you do it too fast, you create poverty and death.
You sure about that? The empire state building was built in only 1 year (and the building still stands).
yes, I am sure. You are talking about a single building. They had lots of workers working on 1 single project. You are talking about 1 billion different projects, all at the same time. It's literally impossible.
Imagine how quickly a supermarket can be built iff you have 1940 style building regulations (what the empire state building was subject too and it still stands).
building regulations aren't just about making sure it doesn't fall down. They are about making sure it's safe. They are about making sure it is energy efficient (you wouldn't want to have to build a million coal power plants because you built shoddy housing with bad insolation). There's good reasons why we made regulations for buildings. Skipping them might let you build faster (it also might not) but you are going to get lower quality buildings and have alot more problems down the road.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
would assume the vast majority (maybe even over 99%) of the migrants and refugees increase the power of the nation.
Overall I would agree with you. But it needs to be a managed process. If you allow too many people with the exact same skill sets into the country in a very short period of time, you create a large amount of unemployment. Or you drive down wages for that industry because there are too many people competing for limited jobs. And if you get way too many people in too small of an area, you can overwhelm the services of that area. There's no problem with a city growing, but if it doubles of triples in population in a year, that is going to cause TONS of problems.
If the infrastructure of America can't handle 1.2 billion migrants, then you just build more infrastructure.
you can absolutely do that, but it would take decades to build. If you could magically drop a billion people in the US tomorrow, most would die from starvation, exposure etc. There simply isn't enough housing, hospitals, grocery store etc to support that many people. And you can't possibly build enough to support them quickly enough to keep them alive.
I hope they are economic migrants and not refugees; they're richer; more productive. Why turn down any economic migrants?
I've already described some reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
I don't think this really makes sense. Immigrants fall into 2 categories. Those who are moving for an emergency, IE refugees, and those who are moving for a better life. For those moving for a better life, you want to make sure that them moving benefits your nation. For example, canada has a population of about 38 million people. If they had "open borders" you would probably see millions, maybe even 10's of millions of people move there. There's no way the infrastructure of Canada could handle that. People would come because it would still be better than lots of other places. But for Canadians, the standard of living would fall.
For the refugees, it's less about "does it benefit your country" and more about helping people in need. But you still want to make sure the number of Refugees doesn't swamp the services available to support them. You also want to make sure that they are actually refugees and not just economic migrants trying to jump the line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Canada literally tries to end free speech. They literally tried to end Jordan Petersons career for not endorsing woke politics.
you mean his career as a psychologist? Because if so, no you're wrong. His career got messed up because he violated the ethical standards of his profession. The governing body of his profession (please note this is not the government of canada) ordered him to take classes so that he wouldn't do it again. His refusal to take them is what almost ended his career. It had nothing to do with the government and was only tangentially related to his views.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re joking right? Biden did not continue Trump’s policies by any means
what specific policies did he change?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
FEMA was reported to provide housing and care, including cell phones, meals, and temporary shelter, to migrants at the southern border .
2 things. 1) you would need to prove that the small amount spent on this program is more than the billions in tax revenue taken in.
2) you know that if they're asylum seekers they aren't illegal immigrants right? so spending money on migrants doesn't necessarily have anything to do with illegals.
In 2023 and 2024, FEMA, through its Shelter and Services Program (SSP), allocated over $780 million to support communities dealing with migrant arrivals.
keyword migrant. This funding is for helping all migrants. not only illegals.
The concern of giving the same leaders another four years to "fix" problems they directly played a role in creating is shared by many critics. Instead of focusing on durable solutions, like reforming immigration laws, re-implementing remain in Mexico policies, tightening amnesty rules to discourage economic migrants, or securing the border effectively, the current trajectory seems to recycle ineffective approaches that play well in focus-groups.
lol, biden continued trump's border policies. You blame democrats when the republicans don't do anything different.
Real change will require stronger enforcement policies and practical reform, not just fancy promises and increased spending on temporary relief programs, which ultimately serve as band-aid solutions at best and incentives for America's destruction at worst. The reality is that without meaningful policy adjustments, the same problems will persist, regardless of who's in office.
I agree, but there is no enforcement solution. certainly not on it's own. It's like the war on drugs. It doesn't matter how many drug dealers you arrest, as long as people want to buy the drugs, more dealers will take their place. As long as people are desperate for a better life in south and central america, they will pay people to smuggle them in. And as long as the law solely focuses on the migrants and gives the rich assholes hiring them a slap on the wrist, there will keep being a demand for their labor in the US. The only way to address the problem is to make people's lives better in the places they are coming from, and prison sentences for the rich assholes exploiting their labor in the US.
Created: