drewpey
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by drewpey
-
-
4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
The caveat I would put on a pathway to citizenship would be only post wall completion, and actual illegal crossings would have to be virtually stopped both according to CBP/ICE and border state law enforcement (to prevent number fudging).
Sooo....never then? The only way you are going to "virtually stop" illegal immigration to the US is to 1. Significantly increase the number of visas given to these countries or 2. help improve conditions in their country to dissuade them from making the trip. These people are already so desperate to leave that they have already accepted kidnapping, trafficking, and even death as an outcome. Building a wall isn't going to make someone change their mind. They will just find another way around it, and the smugglers will because it will become even more profitable to do so. Strategically we need mexico to be a stronger neighbor, and we should be working to help them become that...moreso than other countries we have been courting.
Republicans love the two bucket method of negotiations (can't put that in the close bucket, but instead put what you want in the far bucket and we promise to get to it), and should never be trusted to follow through with any sort of deal like this. It's hard to trust the other party will provide a path to citizenship and increase legal immigration when things settle down when a significant part of the base is screaming to end family reunification visas, and the visa lottery. That's not how negotiations in congress work, and each party has to give and take to get something everyone can agree on. If you split the issues they you end up with party line voting and we get nowhere until someone gets a supermajority.
-
2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
I guess you missed the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling supporting the Christian baker and his right to refuse service on religious grounds. This baker chose to stand up for his right not to participate in a practice that he believes is morally wrong and goes against the true design of Biblical marriage. I guess that trumps your protected class argument.
Political affiliation is not a protected class, but choosing to refuse service to someone you disagree with politically is not helpful to where we find ourselves today. Can’t we get back to being normal where we don’t make the simplest things like eating at a restaurant about politics? It’s all so exhausting.It was a narrow ruling that doesn't support using religion to discriminate. It was a bit of a cop-out, and while it'll be the last we hear of the baker, it won't be the last time this topic is brought up to the supreme court.
There are lots of things being done over the last several years that would fall into the "not helpful" category, but the left is always duped into taking the high road. I'm happy to see them finally giving the right a taste of their own medicine.
53 minutes ago, HeloDude said:Probably as much as you support not deporting illegal aliens.
Our immigration system is fucked, no doubt, and I support deporting illegal aliens as long as it's done legally and without dehumanizing them. I don't want to lose my rights because over-zealous CBP or ICE folks want to look good for their boss. I hold no malice towards most illegal immigrants, but the right wants to make every person coming to the US into a MS-13 gang member...they want to act like it's not large corporations hiring these people money to incentivize them coming here. The right wants to make it out to be a black and white problem that will only be solved with a wall, getting rid of chain migration, visa programs and no path to citizenship. It's a much larger problem that we need to work with our neighbors instead of against them. Safe and functional countries make good neighbors. If someone has ill intent on the US, a wall isn't going to stop their long journey to the US. That being said, legal immigration is good for our country, and I think it should be expanded as we draw down illegal immigration within reason.
Just to throw another log onto the fire...how about that SCOTUS gerrymandering decision?
-
1 minute ago, snoopyeast said:
The left is beating the "just because it's legal, doesn't make it right" drum right now. So can we selectively apply that phase too?
Legality vs ethics. The left is due for a big wake up call when the Mueller report comes...I've been saying this all along. There will likely be a lot of uncomfortable things in there that are perfectly legal. Hopefully at some point in the near future Congress can sit down and have a civilized discussion of where we want those boundaries of acceptable behaviour to fall for candidates and pass laws to clearly define that.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, di1630 said:
I’m quasi left in my social views but...
...you still support illegal treatment of protected classes?
-
8 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
But bankrupting small business owners because they have a religious objection to baking a cake for a gay wedding is ok?
Private businesses either can refuse service or they can’t, which is it?They can as long as you arent being prejudiced against a protected class...it's called the rule of law...aren't republicans supposed to be the party of law and order? Only pay attention to the laws you like.
-
On a tangent...lots of snowflakes melting down online about Sarah Huckster-Sanders being booted from a restaurant. Lots of twitter rage, and completely nuking any review website for the restaurant...very comical. Seems like you regressives have a bit of cognitive dissonance problem with what powers private businesses should be allowed to do.
-
1 hour ago, Lawman said:
Trump didn’t show up day 1 in office and flip over the damn desk on the deal.
He went a year, certifying, threatening, and finally making good on his promise to either move this crap deal that was nothing more than a bunch of concessions in blood money to keep the Iranian backed militias collocated with us in Iraq to not start shooting at us. Ever hang out around the PMF guys at Q-West? Remember the 24 hour stop supports we had for particular groups in Mosul because of overt threats they gave to the accompanying Americans?
Iran continued to do plenty of nasty crap and the insinuation their program was stopped when we deliberately weren’t allowed to check military sites is a wishful hope at best.
Turn the sanctions back on and hit them repeatedly in the stomach until they come to the table. But instead now because everybody has to #resist they are more interested in empowering the mullahs and saying we should be nice to them than recognizing that his form of hardball diplomacy where you actually back up threats (as apposed to Obama’s redlines) has actually made headway where the “smart people” said it was impossible.
I hope you are right, but Obama tried the sanctions routine as well and you can see where that got us. Sanctions are great against countries with few resources, but economies adjust, and Iran still has lots of oil, and plenty of connections with bad actors to get what they want.
Here's my prediction: Trump starts tough talk with Iran, similar to North Korea...brings us close to a crisis, similar to North Korea, then defuses the situation he created with a fancy piece of paper saying "we'll work towards something", similar to North Korea, and we can pat ourselves on the back, and claim that "these things take time, please keep electing us" similar to North Korea. Meanwhile Iran sees the writing on the wall, and restarts their nuke program.
Also comical that you wedge the resist thing in there. Republicans love to whine about not being in lock-step with the president until the other team gets in power, then they lock things up. How can the democrats not play the obstruction card? There have been no attempts to cross the aisle, and repeated attempts to bargain in bad faith by creating hostage-like situations (DACA). Plus it paid out in spades for you over the past 6+ years, and we didn't get anything from our efforts to cross the aisle. It's your recipe...don't act like you've never tasted it before.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, HeloDude said:
Hard to then take you seriously when you say you care about people less fortunate than yourself. But I appreciate your honesty!
So you can only be taken seriously on causes you donate money to? There is a lot of organizations out there that need help, and I donate to those that hit closer to home than ones that provide healthcare to the unfortunate.
-
On 6/14/2018 at 11:02 PM, Lawman said:
Gee things different about the two.
The fact that the Iran deal was not negotiable because they refused while this is still an active negotiation...
The fact it lapses after 10 years...
The fact we were allowing them multiple loopholes to continue enrichment and centrifuge research at military sites we weren’t allowed to inspect by our own agreement... as well as refine their ballistic missile capability.
Look the Iran deal sucked. This deal could very well suck. Difference is the Iran deal was “done” as far as every party outside of us was concerned and was no longer negotiable so we go back to sanctions in the hopes of forcing them back to the table for the same reason they originally showed up. This.... is still the opening stage of a long term discussion and actions. Trump hasn’t agreed or brought some treaty for anything that is final. Let them run this out because the sanctions, the huge military apparatus, and the willingness to turn the hurt back on didn’t go away yesterday with a handshake and some sound bites on CNN. Same as Reagan and Gorbachev didn’t suddenly turn off MAD/Afghanistan/SDI/NATO after the first press junket.Some people just want to excercise in a self exhaustive effort of sport bitching.
The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but that's the Republican mindset right now...everything is a zero sum game. There is no compromise, and if we want to win, someone else has to lose or "bend the knee". Many experts agreed that while the JCPOA wasn't great, it at a minimum largely froze their program and significantly extended their breakout timeline. We aren't going to get a country to voluntarily give up nukes, be it Iran or North Korea.
We've trashed the JCPOA for what? Nothing. If you had a better deal then great, but so far there is nothing. You feign concern that Iran could possibly circumvent the JCPOA, so you invalidate it entirely and start aggressively posturing and expect things to get better. Iran saw what happened to Lybia, and Iran saw what happened to North Korea...what path do you think they will choose? At least with the JCPOA we had 10 years worth of negotiations and culture change in the country to possibly produce a different outcome. We just took the 50m target and moved it up to the 5m mark.
For North Korea they already have the bomb, and a means to deliver. They have made no real concessions of substance, and for some reason despite North Korea stating numerous times in the past that they want to denuclearize, THIS time we believe them, and it's a total win even though there are zero specifics.
In the end I honestly don't care if lil Kim keeps the bomb, as long as we don't get dragged into a bloody war and he keeps his nukes secured. Opening up relations with a dictator sucks, but the best you can hope for is to pipe in some K-pop, NBA and ISP blockers and go for the long-term cultural victory. If Trump can convince his base this is the "best deal ever" then so be it. My concern is that Trump believes himself that lil Kim will actually denuclearize. When Trump finds out that's not the case, he will likely feel like his loyalty was betrayed and push us closer to war.
Remember perfect is the enemy of good. Trump says he wants perfect.
-
1
-
-
On 6/15/2018 at 10:55 AM, HeloDude said:
So how much of your personal wealth are you voluntarily donating to charities that help provide healthcare/pay for healthcare expenses of those less foryunate than you? And which specific charities do you use?
$0
-
1 hour ago, dream big said:
The Donald may be on the verge of one of the biggest peace breakthroughs in recent history and people are getting wrapped around the axel regarding Trump (returning) a salute to a NK General. We really are in trouble. People focus more on optics than the actual issue. (For the record I thought it was stupid regarding people getting spun up about Obama bowing.) Plenty of material to criticize any President on, this is not one of them.
I keep hearing how great this deal Trump made with lil Kim in Singapore was, and how bad of a deal the JCPOA was. Can someone on the right break it down for me how they compare with specifics?
I'm all for peace and hope it works out, but I see the denucleariation talk similar to Obama saying we should work towards a world without nukes...it's largely aspirational and not going to happen. I'll be happy to eat crow on this one, but we've seen this movie before.
-
1 hour ago, brickhistory said:
If Trump did something illegal and is tried/impeached/convicted, out he goes.
Hillary did, by her own admission, performed actions regarding classified that would send you or I to Leavenworth. With or without intent, the statute regarding is pretty clear. Yet she's still slowly cavorting about.
One rule of law or not?
Edited to add:
Oh, and the feeling of seeing the election go the other way after the entire political industry - politicians, media, and loud liberals just knew it was a lock for Hillary, is one I cherish.
Enough people from enough of the country gave a giant collective middle finger to that same industry.
Glorious.
Have you read the new IG report? It largely supports Comeys actions. Do you give it the same weight as the IG report that investigated McCabe?
-
3 minutes ago, brickhistory said:
My God is not in the White House.
But neither is Hillary.
Both of those facts are important to me.
Nor is there an emperor. Just a strange guy who isn't part of the entrenched on both side political machinery. One who beat 16 other GOP candidates who were various iterations of the same ol' same ol', and defeated Hillary.
Who was given a run for her suspiciously gained money by someone who wasn't even a real Democrat.
And neither side listened to the massive numbers of people who don't like DC and its circle-jerk shenanigans.
Sooooo...no then?
-
Maybe military folks with dependents should be required to sacrifice more for the increased costs of dependents on TRICARE? Additional deployments, longer ADSCs, more Friday night morale lines. Then we could allow TRICARE to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Sorry about that heart murmur kid...tell your parents to stop being poor and pay cash!
Tricare isn't the greatest, but ultimately it keeps people generally alive and helps them be a productive member of society. It's in the US's best interest to do so. Same goes for the general populace...if we can afford it. The debate used to be about whether it was possible to do given the costs...now it has devolved into "they don't deserve it". It's sad to see people's lives be destroyed because they lost the health lottery, and even sadder to see such a large amount of people have no empathy for those who are caught in the tail spin. I agree we can't give everyone everything for free, but people shouldn't be going bankrupt for health issues outside their control. More healthy people means more production, more tax revenue.
-
20 minutes ago, brickhistory said:
Still glad it's not Hillary in the White House.
Hypothetically speaking...for those who keep saying this...is there anything that could be uncovered about your god-emperor that would change your mind or are you doing incensed by Clintons you're willing to blind yourself to potential illegal/immoral/unethical/shitty actions?
Collusion...money laundering...human trafficking...abortions...conspiracy against the US...treason...establishes universal healthcare, UBI and repeals the second amendment?
It seems to me the "at least it's not Hillary" mantra is just the y'all quaeda reminding themselves that nothing really matters to them as long as their team won.
-
On 6/7/2018 at 11:49 PM, MooseAg03 said:
If you don’t think we have a good healthcare system, why do people travel here from all over the world to seek treatment? Our medicine is excellent, it’s the bureaucracy both in the government and insurance companies that drive up costs. If I had the solution, I’d be making tons of money as a consultant but I believe it lies in free market principles. When five different patients are charged five different amounts for the same treatment based on their insurance plan or how much the provider can inflate charges to maximize reimbursement amounts, there’s an issue. Why not walk in and see an actual list of prices for services?
Sure we have some of the best doctors in the world, but that doesn't make our healthcare system great. Sure these elite doctors exist, but those flying into the US are rich, and going to see the top 1% of doctors, not to visit the clinics people like us are relegated to. Most countries have competent doctors, and having taken a sick kid to overseas ERs on a couple occasions I've received better healthcare and service while in foreign countries, and the bill was a fraction of what it would have been in the states. The complaints you mention are prime example of how jacked our healthcare system is, and I agree with you. There are several examples of healthcare systems that work efficiently around the world, but everyone is stuck on the nationalism train to realize that we may not be the best at something.
edit: Just to add if there was a universal healthcare option, a public plan, etc the government could use it's bargaining power to significantly lower costs like it does with some aspects of medicare. This would require politicians to shed their bonuses from big pharma and piss a lot of donors off, but in the end it's whats best for the people...so it's likely not going to happen any time soon...
-
2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.
And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.Well the starting point was a republican healthcare plan, and there was Republican and Independent amendments submitted and there were a few accepted. They unfortunately listened to Lieberman and took away the public option. Ultimately yes they compromised with who they needed to in order to reach their required votes...isn't that how congress works? What rules were violated?
So your family doesn't have healthcare coverage and you "fine with that"? Out of curiosity does your family live in a state that accepted money to expand medicare? America's healthcare system is fucked, everyone can admit that...but the ACA is more popular than the president right now. It's not great, but it's all some people have keeping them alive. The republicans haven't offered any solution to many of those people. If they would many voters on the fence would come flocking to the republican party, but somehow the republicans think they can keep the old and frail by continually maiming the healthcare system.
The US isn't some unique flower that can never have a good healthcare system...we just need to elect people who stop giving into corporations who are profiteering from sick people. Yes they need to make money, but it's ridiculous. Republicans want the government to step out and let the market work itself out, but you can't have a free market if both parties can't simply walk away from the transaction.
-
Word on the street is there will be no non-vols.
-
4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
Wait a sec Chuck, didn’t your party pass a little 3,000 page piece of legislation a few years ago literally titled the “Affordable Care Act”?
The ACA was built through compromise, so it was an imperfect but acceptable plan until something better could be worked. In case you've forgotten, Dem's don't hold the levers of power right now, and it's up to the (R)s to do it. Trump promised healthcare for everyone "that is far less expensive and far better". Up until now all they've done is repeal the individual mandate which has raised costs more than they were rising before.
-
On 6/5/2018 at 12:32 PM, matmacwc said:
Good Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/health/federal-right-to-try-explainer/index.html
I know the arguments against, but it's just noise.
It's good progress. I was really hoping he would stick to the medicare drug negotiations as well but he backtracked that promise.
-
I'm not too keen on cozying up with China either...so why are we helping out ZTE so much, given what we know about them? Seems a bit against our goals.
-
4 hours ago, HeloDude said:
Again, if it's it's "drastic" to undo what Obama did then logically that means that what Obama did in the first place was also "drastic". Unless you're just arguing that what Obama did was good and Trump undoing it is bad--which just means that you're a partisan or an ideologue, you tell me.
So once again I ask: What has Trump done that is "sooo far to the right"? Undoing what Obama did just means we go back to pre-2008, so how is that going "far to the right" if Bush was a centrist as you say? Be specific instead of just complaining that he is undoing Obama's executive orders, which by design, are meant to be changed with each President...because let's not pretend that the next Presifent who is a democrat won't likewise undo everything Trump has done. Dude, I get it--you didn't vote for him and you don't like him.
Did I ever claim not to be partisan? Obama's progress over his 8 years was a drastic change economically and socially. It wasn't in a year, it was over 8 years. I'm not saying it's unexpected...Democrats and Republicans have political footballs they kick back and forth (planned parenthood) on changeover but there used to be areas of shared interest. Now every. single. issue. is a party line issue, and there is 0% chance of compromise, even on things that have massive public support (DACA, net neutrality, background checks for all weapon sales). We used to value a strong state department...now they are deep state! We used to value protecting our environment and keeping our parks public...now we are selling public land off to the highest bidder and rolling back protections en mass. We used to listen to scientists, and now we put non-experts up to create a "Fair and balanced" perception. I will concede that Trump himself isn't necessarily far-right, but he seems to mirror the thoughts and ideas of those around him at that particular time, and he seems to have surrounded himself with far-right folks and consumes a steady diet of Fox News.
2 hours ago, HU&W said:Obama's 'pen and phone' set the landscape for what Democrats fear most from the current administration. Perhaps the greatest lesson both parties should learn from Obama is that the pen of executive fiat is always inherited with an equally potent eraser. Arduous though it is, bipartisan compromise is almost always the better path to lasting change.
I disagree with the first sentence of your statement but agree with the rest. Obama adopted the "pen and phone" strategy in response to a deadlocked congress who refused to work with him. He worked well with Boehner to reach compromises but the rise of the Tea Party quickly put an end to any sort of compromise, so Obama kept working fight against being a lame duck with 2 years left in the seat.
-
12 hours ago, brickhistory said:
Indeed. And, in my mind, one who felt most entitled, Hillary, is not in the White House. So there's that.
But to the post at hand, then
https://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/29/obama-i-do-think-at-a-certain-point-youve-made-enough-money/
now
http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/barack-michelle-obama-netflix-deal-1202817723/
Or, traveling in the way, way back machine, how a broke Barry Obama scored a really sweet real estate deal on some choice Chicago property and the guy who brokered the deal is doing time for shady real estate shenanigans. Purely coincidental.
Interesting to also note the Hillary Clinton income stream has dried up since her loss. Wonder why?
You wouldn't be arguing in bad faith would you? It would seem to me a Trump supporter wouldn't be bringing up someone else's shady real estate dealings or the questionable wealth of people close to the president.
10 hours ago, HeloDude said:Wait...so the "drastic changes" that Trump is making is just undoing some of Obama's executive orders? So in essence, Trump is undoing Obama's "drastic changes"?
I get it dude--you and the other half of the country who are repulsed by Trump's rhetoricstyle and thought Hillary had this election locked up are still very upset. But your arguments are full of emotion/opinion and little of substance...would you like to take back your "drastic changes" argument?
Not all were executive orders, but yes he is trying to undue everything Obama did. Doing a 180 on several fronts is a drastic change. Are you trying to say it wasn't a drastic change and Trump is just a continuation of Obama? Sure, it's to be expected once you switch parties, but up to this point both sides have generally elected more centrist politicians, and now Trump has swung far to the right.
8 hours ago, TreeA10 said:The problem with programs or policies enacted via a pen or a phone can be undone just as easily with a pen and a phone. Drastic indeed.
I agree. Obama did what he could with the congress he had, but ultimately that's the price of doing business in the manner he decided to. If we see congress flip this winter I'd expect to see the sentiment reciprocated. I can almost see the Fox News headlines now "unprecedented obstruction!" while conveniently ignoring a good portion of the Obama-era congress.
-
2 minutes ago, matmacwc said:
run by a few elites
Trump literally shits in a golden toilet. I get there are some "elites" on the (D) side, but I seriously can't help but chuckle every time someone wants to talk about him being a man of the people fighting against the rich and entitled.
-
1
-
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Voter ID laws are about discouraging the impoverished from voting. Minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty. I think a nationwide photo ID system would be great as long as it doesn't create any time/financial burden on people. I can almost hear the high-pitched whine of republicans when they have to squeeze a few more tax pennies to make this happen though. They should just tie it into selective service registration, and have everyone do it at once.