Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, May 17, 2018.
which is amusing in the most fucked up way when you realize immigrants lower crime.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Careful there. You may blow the minds of some right wingers here.
might do them some good.
But they have been remarkably adept in the areas of rational, logical, technological innovation.
Twenty year (50's-60's) discussion resolved to: gangs are the result of (systemic) economic disparity. Things have changed since then, remembering that domestic (U.S.) gangs were less violent than South American gangs. U.S. gangs (arriving from Europe) were simply uncivilized (aka intentional barbarians).
U.S. gangs were fighting an economic war, while South and Central American gangs fight a territorial war, at least from their viewpoints. Economic war involves taking money. Territorial war involves taking heads. Domestic gangsters solve the head-takers problem in the U.S. simply because they vastly outnumber them, and because U.S. citizens are armed. South and Central American citizens, by and large are not armed, mostly because weapons are expensive.
People who are wealthy enough to own a car, and go shopping at a mall have enough resources to exercise their intolerance for territorial violent crime. That's why you don't see it on this side of the border. While there are domestic gangsters that try to jump on the territorial violence bandwagon, because it looks good to them, they soon discover the way to win in this country is to become a lawyer.
At least until recently. With the war on education, that will soon change.
What, billvon? "The war on education" should have legs under it. The war on education that I see is the continual demand for more money for administrators and pension funds (not that pensions are a bad idea, mind), and less in the way of competent teachers and students willing and eager to learn.
I would appreciate some clarification.
Some foreigners who belong to criminal organizations, including organizations known to be trafficking people and drugs and weapons and dirty money,
are not animals, in Trumpworld, but welcome allies:
So more funding for education is a "war on education?" Fascinating. If you donated to a veteran's charity, would that mean you had declared war on veterans?
The war I am referring to is the war on education being waged by the right wing. Trump has come right out and said it - "I love the poorly educated." This is because the undereducated were his strongest supporters in the last election, so he has good reason to ensure they stay that way. 58% of Republicans and right-leaning independents think higher education has a negative impact on the nation. Nixon once famously said "the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times."
One of the reasons for this divide is that schools and universities tend to teach objective fact. Today, the right wing has introduced bothsiderism - the concept that anyone's opinion on science (or any topic) is just as good as anyone else's. Schools and universities stand in the way of that, since they teach things like science and math, subjects where an uninformed opinion is not considered to be just as good as proven science (for example.) Thus, a biology course that teaches evolution is an evil left-wing conspiracy intended to brainwash children, at least in the minds of the right wing. There is even a bothsiderism effort underway in states like Texas, often referred to as "teach the controversy." This is to guarantee that students are exposed to both creationism and evolution, in the hopes that children will reject science if presented with conservative religious beliefs.
Many schools, of course, refuse to do this. And are thus considered enemies by the right wing.
Another reason is that schools often express liberal opinions on topics like gay rights, minority rights, climate change etc. Indeed, such movements as women's rights, gay marriage, opposition to the Vietnam war etc had their roots in universities. Once the students of such campuses graduate and become part of the voting public, such policies are often enacted. Hence, anti-minority, anti-gay conservatives often see college campuses as "the enemy" where new and radical ideas (women's right to vote, women's rights in society, gay rights) are conceived and promulgated.
The result of all of this is that cutting funding to universities, increasing taxes on them, and attacking them publicly and privately are now red meat for conservatives. Few things make conservatives cheer more than an attack on something stupid some university does. Trump's budget proposal cut the Education Department's funding by over 13%, cut overall education funding by 11 billion and eliminated 2 billion in teacher professional development. He completely cut funding for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), literacy, history and civics. Also completely cut were gifted programs, mental health programs, bullying prevention and enrichment programs.
All that being said, there is one aspect of education that conservatives do support - private religious schools that are not bound to teach things like science or math. Support for these has gone up tremendously - indeed, the only area where the budget increased educational spending (by over a billion dollars) was on vouchers.
OK. I should have known....
What I would expect from a school principle (administrator) would be the goal to make the school some power percentage of dollars more self-sufficient that it was the year before by connecting to institutions within the system, and businesses out of the system to ensure the schools were providing value to the partners in return for their investments. This might require a reengineering of the school systems to bring them in line with a new paradigm that requires that schools provide a monetary value to their investors. That's not child labor. It's good financial sense. Kids could paint murals, sing in public, lots of valuable things that are not considered child labor, but rather healthy experiences that produce valuable goods and services. Put the education system into the loop.
The purpose of using an image of subhuman criminals to justify one's immigration law enforcement is of course to allow that enforcement special rights and privileges, that would be denied if requested to be used on decent people and fellow Americans.
For example, ICE is allowed violations of the 4th Amendment within 100 miles of an international entry point - i.e. the land border of the country. They can set up checkpoints to stop and search cars and people without probable cause or warrant, and take people into custody for things like not having suitable ID on them, and so forth - actions normally forbidden by the 4th Amendment, according to the Supreme Court in unchallenged decisions. That is Executive Branch policy and regulation.
Here is a map of the region in which ICE can do this - the area within 100 miles of an entry point: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PR9htjQv...600/web18-100miborder-map-2400x1000px-v01.jpg
Something approximating 2/3 of the population of the US is no longer protected by the 4th Amendment.
And that is one of the consequences of installing a President who refers to brown-skinned foreigners as "animals".
In that case Trump is a traitor to the Constitution. Vote for me for president instead.
#whitesupremacism | #WhatTheyVotedFor
A point that cannot, and, clearly thus could not, be stated either clearly enough or, quite simply, enough, has to do with dehumanization and equal protection.
• Notice how the Citizenship Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause refer to citizens, but the Equal Protection Clause specifies person. That's why it's important when a President of the United States calls anyone "animals". (#13↑)
• Donald Trump ... handed a law enforcement official explicitly bound by the Equal Protection Clause not only the kind of rhetoric the courts are holding against the federal government ... what amounts to cover for disqualifying suspected Hispanics from personhood and therefore human and civil rights including the equal protection of the laws. (#16↑)
• The sworn defender of the Constitution has just told a state official the people they're throwing out at record rates aren't people, but animals; if they are not people, then the States have no obligation to observe and respect their Equal Protection. (#20↑)
Still, some people think they know better. Something about larger context goes here.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pretending surprise at the President's public abnegation of his oath would be inappropriate.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What alternative to Trumps dehumanizing regime is there?
Apart from complaining there appears to be no alternative solutions being offered.
To be a credible opposition there needs to be alternatives presented that captivate the USA's imagination.
Trump: "The status quo is not acceptable, and this is what I am going to do".
Democrats: "The status quo is not acceptable, and we have no idea what to do"
see the problem?
Sad. The one goal of a school principal (not principle) should be better education of the students under his care. Of course, far more power is vested in the school superintendent. who makes the decisions on curriculum. It is sad that, to you, the only value in education is an immediate monetary return.
There is no doubt in my mind that the establishment of a large refugee/asylum seeker camp needs to be formally put in place near the border. One that is supported, subsidized and managed by the UN.
Unfortunately Trump's administration has demonstrated repeatedly that it wishes to go it alone and believes it does not need the support of the UN or International law.
There is a great need to manage this rapidly growing (Global) problem in a humane manner.
Acting impulsively as the Trump administration has been doing, using unnecessarily emotive thus divisive language is fundamentally detrimental to the effective management of this problem. IMO
Many Dems see what to do. No Reps see what to do - at least, not that they can state in public. Of course it is a problem.
The Crowley defeat illustrates one step that needs taking: the geriatric and sclerotic Dem leadership is an obstacle, and a painful one. It's an obstacle because they are committed to their course of action as established thirty years ago and defeated since. It's painful because they are so much better - as legislators, as human beings - than anyone in the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, we have the leadership of the Republican Party referring to the border refugees as infestations, as animals, etc. We have a hundred mile border zone in which the Constitution - and in consequence the rule of law as we know it - has been suspended, set aside. That means further horrors are still to come.
The Mexican government has a say.
Americans are actually forbidden from speaking the obvious.
But you aren't? Curious...
Separate names with a comma.