A thread to discuss how ****ed up America is. (No Posts About The Wall)

Thread Rating: 7 votes, 4.43 average.
(7 votes)
Results 7,201 to 7,225 of 9889

  1. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    How do illegal immigrants get benefits?
    From the exact way anyone else does.

  2. Post
    Lethargic wrote:
    I haven't seen a single statistic you've referenced in this thread. That may be because I have missed it, but feel free to bring it up again.

    Also I haven't said any statistics or data is "bad", I said they're not documented well. I read earlier you dismissed guestimates because they came from "right wing think tanks". Your side is the one that is wanting to dismiss any data.
    That's... literally how they describe themselves though? It's even the first thing Wikipedia says about them. I'm not being a jerk about that; that's what they are. gneiss linked to other reasonable bits about them. They take Koch money, which it's worth understanding, isn't a good thing.

    You're right, I've not cited statistics because I've responded to usurper's and not brought any up because I think almost any study on the issue is currently not worth the paper it's written on.

    *You* said:

    The stats are so desperate because it's an unrecorded phenomenon
    You're right! If, study to study, the margin of error on the illegal immigrant population swings from 3.7m people to 22m people (and the top end of that estimate comes from Yale, of all people, whereas the 3.7m comes from Heritage), then that should make it pretty clear that we're not in a good place to derive any valuable information.

    I don't understand why you keep pressing for some form of statistic from me here? I've been pretty straight up about it; I think the statistics we've had posted come from biased sources and aren't to be trusted. It'd be intellectually dishonest to present statistics that say "immigrants are actually great!" when I think they're just as biased and aren't to be trusted. I've not once said "illegal immigrants in the US are a good thing for the country", I've not once said "they're a bad thing for the country". I've said I'd like it if the US was still a land that defined itself as a nation of immigrants, but that's for personal reasons.

    I've said, repeatedly, that we just do not know at this stage. When some form of peer review or consensus emerges, sure, I'll be happy to start forming an opinion. I'm not going to post left wing propaganda just for the sake of balance.

  3. Post
    darkness_nz wrote:
    Sanders running is a bad idea, and if Hillary ran it just shows nobody has learned anything.
    I reckon if Sanders ran in 2016 he may have won. The fact he didn't become the democratic candidate was odd to me.

    At this point I think Kamala Harris should run. If Hilary runs again Trump will definitely win.

  4. Post
    Frederick James wrote:
    WTF Reb?!?! That was dubbed by George Clooney - címon mate you know this; enough with the fake news, please. *sigh*
    ClavulanateV2 posting fake news I will remember this for long time, his merit just went way down.

  5. Post
    frio wrote:
    That's... literally how they describe themselves though? It's even the first thing Wikipedia says about them. I'm not being a jerk about that; that's what they are. gneiss linked to other reasonable bits about them. They take Koch money, which it's worth understanding, isn't a good thing.

    You're right, I've not cited statistics because I've responded to usurper's and not brought any up because I think almost any study on the issue is currently not worth the paper it's written on.

    *You* said:



    You're right! If, study to study, the margin of error on the illegal immigrant population swings from 3.7m people to 22m people (and the top end of that estimate comes from Yale, of all people, whereas the 3.7m comes from Heritage), then that should make it pretty clear that we're not in a good place to derive any valuable information.

    I don't understand why you keep pressing for some form of statistic from me here? I've been pretty straight up about it; I think the statistics we've had posted come from biased sources and aren't to be trusted. It'd be intellectually dishonest to present statistics that say "immigrants are actually great!" when I think they're just as biased and aren't to be trusted. I've not once said "illegal immigrants in the US are a good thing for the country", I've not once said "they're a bad thing for the country". I've said I'd like it if the US was still a land that defined itself as a nation of immigrants, but that's for personal reasons.

    I've said, repeatedly, that we just do not know at this stage. When some form of peer review or consensus emerges, sure, I'll be happy to start forming an opinion. I'm not going to post left wing propaganda just for the sake of balance.
    That politico article is nothing new. The US has always, politically, been orientated around money.

    The heritage study claims that illegal immigrants are a burden, financially, on the economy. If the number of illegals (ones living in sanctuary cities and so forth) could be double, triple, quadruple.. that study, then that suggests the financial burden is worse than what is suggested.

    For sake of time and clarity, are you are categorically refuting that illegal immigrants (those that do not enter a country legally), should, from a government/policy perspective be irrelevant to this discussion for humanitarian reasons?

  6. Post
    Lethargic wrote:
    That politico article is nothing new. The US has always, politically, been orientated around money.
    So -- you acknowledge that Heritage is a conservative think tank then? You acknowledge that it is funded by a hard right political interest?

    And then... you still think the work Heritage produces is trustworthy?

    Lethargic wrote:
    The heritage study claims that illegal immigrants are a burden, financially, on the economy. If the number of illegals (ones living in sanctuary cities and so forth) could be double the recorded facts, then that only goes to suggest the financial burden could be worse.
    Sure, if it's a trustworthy study. Which we have no way of knowing because there's no consensus on the issue, because it's an extremely hard issue to understand the truth of, because these people do not want to be found.

    Potentially the impact could be greater, sure! Potentially it could be lesser. We literally do not know. I'm sorry if you find my interpretation disappointing; I find it disappointing because I'd love to shut the **** up about this.

    Lethargic wrote:
    For sake of time and clarity, are you are categorically refuting that illegal immigrants (that do not enter a country legally), should, from a government/policy perspective are irrelevant, on a humanitarian basis?
    I've never said that, no.

  7. Post
    Thunderstorm wrote:
    ClavulanateV2 posting fake news I will remember this for long time, his merit just went way down.
    It was a joke ffs.

  8. Post
    Thunderstorm wrote:
    ClavulanateV2 posting fake news I will remember this for long time, his merit just went way down.
    What merit?

  9. Post
    frio wrote:
    So -- you acknowledge that Heritage is a conservative think tank then? You acknowledge that it is funded by a hard right political interest?

    And then... you still think the work Heritage produces is trustworthy?
    Financial backing shouldn't equate to a trustworthiness judgement. As a general rule I can see why people think it should be a valuable assumption.

    frio wrote:
    Sure, if it's a trustworthy study. Which we have no way of knowing because there's no consensus on the issue, because it's an extremely hard issue to understand the truth of, because these people do not want to be found.

    Potentially the impact could be greater, sure! Potentially it could be lesser. We literally do not know. I'm sorry if you find my interpretation disappointing; I find it disappointing because I'd love to shut the **** up about this.
    I don't find your interpretation disappointing.
    I presume the methodology is sound. If it isn't, then yes, it can be discredited.

  10. Post
    I guess that's the difference then; I don't presume it's sound. All I'm saying is that I also don't presume the stuff on the other side of the aisle is sound, so I'm not keen to post it just for the sake of argument, although I can ultimately see how that's (sadly) going to undermine further discussion on the topic. I hate how easy it is to confirm biases through five minutes of Google.

    Good talk .

  11. Post
    Agree to disagree

  12. Post
    nice to see some adult conversation, held in good spirit, good work team

  13. Post
    Thunderstorm wrote:
    ClavulanateV2 posting fake news I will remember this for long time, his merit just went way down.
    Just when we thought you had already hit rock bottom

  14. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    It was a joke ffs.
    common it wasn't a joke, and I was stupid/ dumb this time to fall for it and that's not how Frederick James saw it, He was being a troll posting fake crap because he had nothing else better to say when replying.

    SirGrim wrote:
    What merit?
    yes well there none now.

  15. Post
    i would post a video of what george clooney sounds like but how do we know it wasn't overdubbed by Putin before it was uploaded to youtube


  16. Post
    Is the trump administration trying to give Saudi Arabia nuclear technology fake news or is that something everyone is ok with because ****ing lol if you think that's a good idea.

  17. Post
    They want a bigger 9/11 imo

  18. Post
    JC wrote:
    They want a bigger 9/11 imo
    Don't worry the Commander in Chief Donald Trump can get us through anything

  19. Post
    Excitement builds
    A.G. Bill Barr "is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller's confidential report, according to people familiar…"
    Edit: Interesting that Barr has only been in the job for six days and suddenly its wrapping up.

  20. Post
    This is a leak of an unaired interview by Tucker Carlson completely losing his cool talking to some guy about taxes and about how the elite have too much power: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...82209834950657

    Highly worth watching. It's really good we get stuff like this.


    gneiss wrote:
    Excitement builds


    Edit: Interesting that Barr has only been in the job for six days and suddenly its wrapping up.

    This is making the rounds but there's rumors going both ways: https://twitter.com/AmandiOnAir/stat...04888236527617

    Yeah the timing has to be part of a big move by either Trump or Mueller.

  21. Post

  22. Post
    Thunderstorm wrote:
    common it wasn't a joke, and I was stupid/ dumb this time to fall for it and that's not how Frederick James saw it, He was being a troll posting fake crap because he had nothing else better to say when replying.
    Not sure what your beef is with Reb, but I was just poking a bit of fun dude - no malice or seriousness in it at all. Shit gets pretty heated in here, and many members get very wound up about stuff they basically have zero control over. Nice to lighten the mood on occasion

  23. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Excitement builds


    Edit: Interesting that Barr has only been in the job for six days and suddenly its wrapping up.
    Yea I can't wait to see, then we can finally put it to rest.

    you mean the rest of the wall is going up. So who was all the people in here saying over the last 2 years that I am ignorant and that trump will never do the wall? One was ClavulanateV2, CODChimera, sorceror, mutton, St4lk3r, Quasi ELVIS?


    ClavulanateV2 wrote:
    how do people still believe he is going to build a wall lmao
    https://www.gpforums.co.nz/threads/5...ica-is/page173

  24. Post
    Thunderstorm wrote:
    you mean the rest of the wall is going up. So who was all the people in here saying over the last 2 years that I am ignorant and that trump will never do the wall? One was ClavulanateV2, CODChimera, sorceror, mutton, St4lk3r, Quasi ELVIS
    1) that's replacing existing wall not "the rest if it" its a fox news article so I'm sure you read it, it said he isn't doing new stuff for a couple of months

    2) did I say he wasn't getting a wall? I mean sure I struggled to believe he would but I'm not sure I said that. I definitely think you're ignorant though, the amount of times people have shown you trump isn't the magic man you make him out to be yet you either ignore it or explain it away as fake news makes you absolutely ignorant.

    3) I have seen and heard enough to form a steadfast opinion on trump as an irredeemable ****it, nothing he could say or do will ever change my opinion of him president or not, he could run into a burning orphanage and single handedly save every child and I'd still think he was a **** wit and completely unfit to be a president, but that's OK because I'm not from America so I don't have a dog in that fight, I'm just here for the roller-coaster of stupidity that rolls out of his and die hard supporters mouths on a daily basis. My only actual concern is Ive been there a couple of times now and am going again soon and during these times I've made some very good friends who have to live through the devisive shit storm that numbnuts has blown way higher than anyone before him

  25. Post
    This is the forum equivalent of sticking your dick in crazy.