Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
Stand your ground doesn't guarantee the target will be armed, and capable of shooting at you.
In certain areas, I would guess that there is at least a 75% chance that there will be a gun in the home.
People don't rob places with armed guards that are allowed to shoot them as much as they rob places without them though, do they?
Probably not, but the analysis isn't as straightforward as your comment implies. People are going to steal art from art musuems less frequently than they steal T-shirts from the local Wal-Mart, regardless of whether there are armed guards at the art museum.
And there aren't kidnappers for ransom anymore in italy, after ultra-draconians laws have been passed (and law enforcement signaled the will to enforce them).
All the assets of the extended family of a kidnapped person get frozen in Italy. Draconian, but it worked, so well that such an insane compression of rights never has to come to fruition, the threat itself changes the incentive structure of criminals enough.
So it's a right-violation norm on paper, that actually increases rights (you aren't kidnapped anymore).
I will readily concede that you can make laws draconian enough to lower crime. For example, if the penalty for drunk driving with your child in the car was that the police officer would chop off your kid's arm on the side of the rode with a machete, I'm sure that driving drunk with your kid in the car would become less common. But it also would be more common to see one-armed kids walking around.
how does 1.1 -1.7 per year become 4.2-6.8 per decade? per decade is 10x per year (actually more than 10x if they account for baseline gdp growth, so a nominal increase in the "cost" of not having illegals)
Percentage Loss= Total GDP / Reduction in GDP ×100
For a GDP reduction of $1.1 trillion:
Percentage Loss= 25,000,000,000,000 / 1,100,000,000,000 ×100≈4.4%
No one expects you to recognize that laws that allow killing for violence towards others mere property arent acceptable to any modern society. We have limitations on when you can kill someone even when they threaten a person with violence. Hence , why luciomtopoia has a population of one.
The "woke" way of thinking is to call them undocumented, even though they came into the country illegally, just like it's "woke" to say "it's a mostly peaceful protest" even though there were flames shooting 100 feet into the air.
Legality only matters when republicans/maga aren’t the target obviously…..
Some illegals came in the country legally PB then lost their legal right to stay in the country and thus became illegals.
True dat, I can't afford one anyway, but on the plus side, my life isn't interesting enough to need one so it's all good.
You did make a claim though. I was just hoping you could put a bit of meat on it. Is all.
Try preceeding your request with "siri," or "hey google," or "alexa" as appropriate.
I don't even know those chicks, why would they help me? Can't you just tell me instead, seeing as you made the assertion? Y'know the time it took for this exchange you coulda told me five times over and it would be done and dusted rather than get all coy like you did. I'm just sayin' like.
And I gotta be honest, it makes me start to suspect that your claim might just not be true and I don't like having such suspicions as it can potentially weaken my trust in people, so can you just confirm to me that thing re US legislation and we can put it to bed and get on with our lives?
True dat, I can't afford one anyway, but on the plus side, my life isn't interesting enough to need one so it's all good.
You did make a claim though. I was just hoping you could put a bit of meat on it. Is all.
Oh? Which claim are you referring to?
Dunno, they might not. Worth a try.
Which assertion did I make?
Y'know the time it took for this exchange you coulda told me five times over and it would be done and dusted
And I gotta be honest, it makes me start to suspect that your claim might just not be true
WHAT CLAIM?
and I don't like having such suspicions as it can potentially weaken my trust in people, so can you just confirm to me that thing re US legislation and we can put it to bed and get on with our lives?
I find it pretty funny that you brought up some crap about how legislation was written and asked me to look it up for you, and now you think I made some weird claim about how legislation is written.
You are the one that brought up the US legislation, not me dude. That's why I'm not jumping through hoops for you. Hope that's clear.
This one
Because they are undocumented. People can't be illegal.
Followed by this one
.
The misuse of the term "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" is a gross attempt at othering.
You are the one that brought up the US legislation, not me dude. That's why I'm not jumping through hoops for you. Hope that's clear.
Yeah cuz you said the term was misued. So again...does the US code refer to them as undocumented?
Because I can't find the word. I did find "unauthourized Alien" and "illegal immigration" though.
Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/crim....
Can you show me where they changed unauthorized aliens" to "undocumented migrants"? Was this recent? Maybe I'm reading an older outdated version or something?
This is definitional.
"contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law."
People cannot be forbidden by law. They can do things that are forbidden by law, but THEY are not forbidden by law. Acts can be illegal. People cannot. Not hard to understand.
It follows from my first point. Calling someone "illegal" implies that their mere existence is forbidden. It is dehumanizing. This should be obvious.
It is, as demonstrated above. Hope that helped.
Did you try Siri yet?
Because I can't find the word. I did find "unauthourized Alien" and "illegal immigration" though.
Neat. Do you have some purpose behind your big adventure into the US legislation documents you want to share or is my feeling of "I don't give a sh" the one I'm supposed to have here?
Can you show me why I should care? This legislation thing is entirely your deal and has nothing to do with me.
Illegal is an abbreviation of "illegal alien" as opposed to "legal alien".
It is not dehumanizing.
Illegal is an abbreviation of "illegal alien" as opposed to "legal alien".
It is not dehumanizing.
For the record, people (alien or not) cannot be legal for the same reason they cannot be illegal, so that doesn't fix the problem.
But your opinion is noted and stored with the other crap I don't care about.
