If You Are in Favor of Open Borders. Why?

[Xzi]

They had a chance of bringing in 27 billion in tax revenue.

"A chance." What the hell does that mean? You also have a "chance" of becoming a millionaire through scratch tickets. You base your assumptions off of past experience, not chance, and as I said, Amazon paid $0 in taxes last year. That's exactly how much they'll pay every year until we get a president who isn't a bitchboy willing to bend over backwards for megacorps.

 

[SG854]

Except "the far left" != Democratic Party any more than "the far right" == Republicans. So, no, the point is to condemn the Democrats for not condemning the few (a couple) far left just like the Republicans had to condemn the few (a couple) far right they have. One could argue this reasonable tit for tat, I guess, but it's pretty absurd to argue the Democrats are anti-Semitic when they're the ones being constantly hounded because they seem to go overboard on taking any possible offense at words used to conjecture anti-Semitism/anti-gay/anti-black/anti-woman was intended.



Reading that is quite horrible, although it sounds like the issue is she followed a user who themselves have posted hateful things. Should she, if she disagrees, remove that person from her list? Yes. Does the fact that one person you follow says horrible things automatically make you an anti-Semite? Or that you get funding from people who are anti-Semitic? By the same logic if I replace "anti-Semite" with "racist" would that still hold? The point isn't that I believe Rashida Tlaib isn't anti-Semitic. It's that the standards you're using to decide this have to be consistent.

As for retaliation and self-defense, it sounds like Tlaib was saying that Democrats and Republicans alike are Islamophobic, not anti-Semitic. So, who was making the claim that Republicans were anti-Semitic? Is it self-defense to not refute the claim against you but claim someone else is equally bad with another religion/ethnicity? Is the issue that we care about only some groups and not others? Is the outrage that a Muslim said horrible things, not a white guy? Or was it because it was in Congress and not at the State level? I tend to think it's the last part.

The Democratic is extremely fractured right now, from moderates to far left. It would make sense for a few people in that party to be racists since it has many different groups. Have you heared about the femenists that say men will never be women or vice versa. There is a movement coming up that is against the 80+ genders, so they all don’t fit in they category of social justice warriors. Not all are intersectionalist.

Whether it’s anti Semitisim or anti white. That’s how they are seen as racists. Tlaib from her past comments it’s doesnt seem like the Instagram is a mistake. She does seem like she really is anti Semitic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"A chance." What the hell does that mean? You also have a "chance" of becoming a millionaire through scratch tickets. You base your assumptions off of past experience, not chance, and as I said, Amazon paid $0 in taxes last year. That's exactly how much they'll pay every year until we get a president who isn't a bitchboy willing to bend over backwards for megacorps.

A chance meaning they didn’t get to do this because Cortez led protesters against them. So they weren’t givin the chance to bring that revenue in, since they were protested away. The 27 billion was expected to happen if they came to New York. They weren’t going to pay zero taxes, that’s not part of the deal.

 

[Xzi]

A chance meaning they didn’t get to do this because Cortez led protesters against them. So they weren’t givin the chance to bring that revenue in, since they were protested away. The 27 billion was expected to happen if they came to New York.

I'm telling you right now that she ultimately saved the state money. Amazon is a drain everywhere else they're headquartered, and there's zero indication that New York would've been any different.

Tlaib from her past comments it’s doesnt seem like the Instagram is a mistake. She does seem like she really is anti Semitic.

Gimme a break. Even Bernie defended Omar's comments, and it's obvious she stepped on a hot-button issue here. Bunch of spineless Republicans and "business" Dems accepting assloads of cash from Israeli lobbyists, while Netanyahu is allowed to be as corrupt and murderous as he wishes. It's not anti-Semitic to discuss conflicts of interest with a government that has been using the US as their own personal dogs of war for decades.

Netanyahu is no better than Mohammad Bin Salman, they're both terrorists and extremists. Only makes sense that they'd both be best buddies with Trump.

 

[kuwanger]

The Democratic is extremely fractured right now, from moderates to far left.

The party as a whole is and has been for quite a long while. But those who are elected to Congress are rarely far left or far right--by US standards of course.

It would make sense for a few people in that party to be racists since it has many different groups.

The only group that I've seen any consistent negative racism/sexism by Democrats is against white, male privilege and the presumption that such exists. So, yes, one could go as far as calling that racism--institutional racism, even. But it's never been directed towards Jews or Muslims. Anti-Catholic? Possibly at least to the degree that Catholic doctrine conflicts with ideas about women rights. And on this issue, I do take issue in that this could be construed as dual loyalty when in reality I believe many Catholics, indoctrinated just like Protestants, still end up as adults choosing their own path and beliefs. It's not as simple as arguing all Catholics are alike.

Have you heared about the femenists that say men will never be women or vice versa. There is a movement coming up that is against the 80+ genders, so they all don’t fit in they category of social justice warriors. Not all are intersectionalist.

No doubt. There's plenty of feminists who are misandrist, misogynist, or maybe just misanthropist. Definitely, plenty seek to use hatred of groups for their own power, not unity against those seeking power. The point is, by no means would I call Democrats angels. I definitely disagree strongly with those who preach hate. If Tlaib is one of those people, she should be censured in Congress. My point, though, is of all the many sins the Democratic Party is guilty of, anti-Semitism doesn't seem one of them. That one of its members happens may be? Well, that's reason to condemn that member, not conflate that one member as the party.

 

[SG854]

Gimme a break. Even Bernie defended Omar's comments, and it's obvious she stepped on a hot-button issue here. Bunch of spineless Republicans and "business" Dems accepting assloads of cash from Israeli lobbyists, while Netanyahu is allowed to be as corrupt and murderous as he wishes. It's not anti-Semitic to discuss conflicts of interest with a government that has been using the US as their own personal dogs of war for decades.

Netanyahu is no better than Mohammad Bin Salman, they're both terrorists and extremists. Only makes sense that they'd both be best buddies with Trump.

I wasn’t talking about Mohammad. I was talking about Tlaib.

The Rat with the Star of David saying “the real plague”. You don’t see that as anti Semitism? This account with this picture that Tlaib is following is not anti Semiticsm to you?

I'm telling you right now that she ultimately saved the state money. Amazon is a drain everywhere else they're headquartered, and there's zero indication that New York would've been any different.

No to job creation and no to taxes because you think Amazon won’t pay taxes? How did you come to that conclusion. Amazon is a big company they bring lots of jobs and are a big contribution to the economy. Even Cortez is backtracking what she did now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ny.cur...19/2/14/18225029/amazon-hq2-nyc-deal-canceled

 

[Xzi]

I wasn’t talking about Mohammad. I was talking about Tlaib.

I know who you were talking about, I was also talking about her comments. It's not surprising that the right-wing tried to take stuff out of context and use it against her, but the in-fighting among Democrats is ridiculous. After Bernie defended her, that should've been the end of it, especially since he's the front-runner for 2020 right now.

The Rat with the Star of David saying “the real plague”. You don’t see that as anti Semitism? This account with this picture that Tlaib is following is not anti Semiticsm to you?

Are you just making shit up now? Is Free.Palestine.1948 somehow supposed to be Omar? I can't find a single thing verifying this.

No to job creation and no to taxes because you think Amazon won’t pay taxes? How did you come to that conclusion.

How many times I gotta repeat it? AMAZON. PAID. ZERO. IN. TAXES. LAST. YEAR. The better question is, what evidence do you have that proves this was going to change for New York? You're just assuming.

 

[SG854]

Are you just making shit up now? Is Free.Palestine.1948 somehow supposed to be Omar? I can't find a single thing verifying this.

No I’m not. From following that account to her comments it isn’t a simple criticism of the Jewish Religion and certain aspects of the culture, which is fine. It’s straight up Anti Senitism depicting them as rats and calling them a plague.

https://theresurgent.com/2019/03/09/rashida-tlaib-follows-viciously-anti-semitic-instagram-account/

I know who you were talking about, I was also talking about her comments. It's not surprising that the right-wing tried to take stuff out of context and use it against her, but the in-fighting among Democrats is ridiculous. After Bernie defended her, that should've been the end of it, especially since he's the front-runner for 2020 right now.


Are you just making shit up now? Is Free.Palestine.1948 somehow supposed to be Omar? I can't find a single thing verifying this.


How many times I gotta repeat it? AMAZON. PAID. ZERO. IN. TAXES. LAST. YEAR. The better question is, what evidence do you have that proves this was going to change for New York? You're just assuming.

I know they payed zero taxes last year. Trump has criticized them a lot for this.

Fine i’ll give you this one. I don’t know if they’ll pay taxes, and I have nothing to prove to you they will.

But jobs will be created. That’s a benefit. But according to Kyle Kulinsky opinion they won’t create jobs either, so? They’ll take welfare and destroy jobs.

He is wrong though at the end, both the Left and Right are against Corporate welfare. The right doesn’t like welfare, and corporate welfare falls in that list. The left doesn’t like corporate welfare either, and it’s politicians being bought off by corporatists like corporate republicans and democrats.

 

[Xzi]

No I’m not. From following that account to her comments it isn’t a simple criticism of the Jewish Religion and certain aspects of the culture, which is fine. It’s straight up Anti Senitism depicting them as rats and calling them a plague.

If we're condemning people based on who they "follow/like" now, we have a long list of government officials to burn through before getting to Tlaib. If she had been posting this stuff herself, then you'd have a valid criticism.

But jobs will be created. That’s a benefit.

Again, New York isn't hurting for job availability. If they wanted to make a real difference they'd headquarter in a far less dense state.

He is wrong though at the end, both the Left and Right are against Corporate welfare.

Oh please. Trump is the one who's responsible for Amazon and so many other corporations paying nothing in taxes last year. He cut the corporate tax rate in half. This is definitely one of the biggest corporate welfare giveaways in history.

 

[the_randomizer]

If we're condemning people based on who they "follow/like" now, we have a long list of government officials to burn through before getting to Tlaib. If she had been posting this stuff herself, then you'd have a valid criticism.


Again, New York isn't hurting for job availability. If they wanted to make a real difference they'd headquarter in a far less dense state.


Oh please. Trump is the one who's responsible for Amazon and so many other corporations paying nothing in taxes last year. He cut the corporate tax rate in half. This is definitely one of the biggest corporate welfare giveaways in history.

It was still a dick move what AOC did to prevent Amazon from making a distribution center there, costing jobs, but that's for another topic. Her Green New Deal is a joke, and will cost 90 trillion dollars, but again, I digress.

 

[Xzi]

It was still a dick move what AOC did to prevent Amazon from making a distribution center there, costing jobs, but that's for another topic. Her Green New Deal is a joke, and will cost 90 trillion dollars, but again, I digress.

The Republican plan for dealing with climate change is nothing. I'm really sick of this type of contrarianism for that reason; they need to bring some of their own ideas to the table or STFU. Mass extinction is on the line, and not only for humans. Meanwhile, more than half our government spends all day sucking off oil executives.

 

[the_randomizer]

The Republican plan for dealing with climate change is nothing. I'm really sick of this type of contrarianism for that reason; they need to bring some of their own ideas to the table or STFU. Mass extinction is on the line, and not only for humans.

And eliminating airplanes and costing the economy 90 trillion sure as fuck won't solve anything either. It's a bullshit idea, AOC can take her New Green Deal and shove it. I agree that neither party has a good solution, but this isn't it. We don't want another New Deal, didn't seem to work well when FDR was in office.

 

[0x3000027E]

The Republican plan for dealing with climate change is nothing. I'm really sick of this type of contrarianism for that reason; they need to bring some of their own ideas to the table or STFU. Mass extinction is on the line, and not only for humans. Meanwhile, more than half our government spends all day sucking off oil executives.

"Climate" change research gets plenty of funding. Sadly, it draws from funding normally allocated to important medical/technology research that aims to enhance our quality of life.

 

[Xzi]

And eliminating airplanes and costing the economy 90 trillion sure as shit won't solve anything either. It's a bullshit idea, AOC can take her New Green Deal and shove it. I agree that neither party has a good solution, but this isn't it.

This isn't even accurate, and that's another problem entirely: the majority of critics don't even bother to read or understand what it is they're criticizing.

I also don't see how the budget should matter much here. Yes, we'd save tens of trillions by just letting ourselves be wiped out by massive natural disasters in roughly ten years. Does that make it a good idea?

"Climate" change research gets plenty of funding. Sadly, it draws from funding normally allocated to important medical/technology research that aims to enhance our quality of life.

I have no idea where you got that idea. The research is in, 99% of scientists say climate change is real and man-made. It's just that one of our political parties doesn't believe in science.

 

[the_randomizer]

This isn't even accurate, and that's another problem entirely: the majority of critics don't even bother to read or understand what it is they're criticizing.

I also don't see how the budget should matter much here. Yes, we'd save tens of trillions by just letting ourselves be wiped out by massive natural disasters in roughly ten years. Does that make it a good idea?


I have no idea where you got that idea. The research is in, 99% of scientists say climate change is real and man-made. It's just that one of our political parties doesn't believe in science.

Is eliminating airplanes a good idea? I'd rather find a viable alternative fuel or energy source, but removing airplanes, trains, etc is a pretty dumbass idea for them to consider.

Hate to say it, but the Dems aren't exactly infallible or perfect either. That moron Nancy Pelosi claims that immigration laws violate the rights of illegals.

 

[0x3000027E]

This isn't even accurate, and that's another problem entirely: the majority of critics don't even bother to read or understand what it is they're criticizing.

I also don't see how the budget should matter much here. Yes, we'd save tens of trillion by just letting ourselves be wiped out by massive natural disasters. Does that make it a good idea?


I have no idea where you got that idea. The research is in, 99% of scientists say climate change is real and man-made. It's just that one of our political parties doesn't believe in science.

Eh... scientific theories are, and will always be up for debate.
The unfortunate matter, as you illustrate here, is that "climate" change became a political matter. Any serious discussion of the topic is usually obscured by some partisan political agenda.

 

[Xzi]

Is eliminating airplanes a good idea? I'd rather find a viable alternative fuel or energy source, but removing airplanes, trains, etc is a pretty dumbass idea for them to consider.

That would be a dumb idea, that's why it isn't part of the Green New Deal. It's just more nonsense for the alt-right to latch on to so they can keep pretending she has the same intelligence level as the president.

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming made similar claims when she warned in a subcommittee hearing on Feb. 12 that the Green New Deal would “outlaw” plane travel, gasoline, cars and “probably the entire U.S. military.”

The Green New Deal doesn’t call for any of these prohibitions. But documents about the resolution released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office did address some of the issues raised by Trump and others.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/

What it says is context is that we likely won't be able to rid ourselves of air travel in the next ten years, thus we'll have to offset those carbon emissions some other way. So why mention getting rid of it at all? Because we have no idea what technology will look like ten to twenty years from now. We might have electric bullet trains, or hover cars, or even teleportation. Who knows. Lots of possibilities there for reducing carbon emissions during travel.

 

[0x3000027E]

"A chance." a president who isn't a bitchboy willing to bend over backwards for megacorps.

Current president a "bitchboy", yes.
However, you neglect to mention the former president, who granted a legislative monopoly to one of the most corrupt industries in the US (health insurance). Not to mention the ear marks in the same bill that granted only a small handful of financial institutions the ability to offer loans of a particular type (student loans), while being subsidized to keep interest rates low.
The corruption stems from both sides of the isle, to be sure.

 

[Whole lotta love]

With the looming threat of climate change, borders are genocidal as the global south, which already experiences the most poverty, are the first ones being affected by climate change (by the wealthiest people in the world who are contributing the most to climate change). Keeping black and brown people out western countries as the symptoms of climate change increase is simply unethical.

People ought to have the right of free travel regardless.

We didn't used to have borders and nation states and we can get back to a place where such constructs are not needed or utilized. Why should people in the first world experience a better quality of life simply because they were born within some arbitrary lines on a map?

 

[chrisrlink]

and what if a said country is run by a dictator who is hell bent on purging an entire religion or faction (hitler/sadaam husein to name two) what I'm saying is sometimes illegals do this to prevent getting murdered in their own countries terrorism will exist regardless and to put islam as the only real threat is dead wrong we have neo nazi's and anarchist already in the US just waiting for the right time to strike, you know the saying "the enemy from within"?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Current president a "bitchboy", yes.
However, you neglect to mention the former president, who granted a legislative monopoly to one of the most corrupt industries in the US (health insurance). Not to mention the ear marks in the same bill that granted only a small handful of financial institutions the ability to offer loans of a particular type (student loans), while being subsidized to keep interest rates low.
The corruption stems from both sides of the isle, to be sure.

wrong it was the republican controlled congress during obama's years made the AHCA the way it was they wouldn't pass it til they got their greedy little hands on it,Obama wanted it differently more like canada's universal health care system that what it started out as the republicans love people not in the know like you for the votes

 

[Captain_N]

Well, I partly agree and disagree with this.

Yes, less poverty affecting citizens does mean less crime. However, I'm speaking UBI for people who are too lazy/stupid to learn the skills needed for the jobs of the future. People make the mistake that education can fix everything and bring a whole family out of poverty but that isn't true. You have to have a combo of a good IQ and the work ethic needed. You can give an education to a retard but they are still a retard.

Its not right to just give people that are stupid and/or lazy money. How is that fair? Plenty of people bust their asses daily to put food on the table. Why should they have to pay for those lazy asses refusing to work? It needs to be that if you can work but choose not to then you have to deal with the consequences of that action. People that cant work because of medical/ disability conditions can collect disability. that is fair because they cant work. Next time you see a beggar in the street , why dont you write him/her a check for $2000. I dont think you will. I usually tell them to get a job. If your standing out in the sun all day begging, then you should be able to be at-least a walmart greeter.