my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 21 of 27
CC: I finished my response to your post, in depth, and corrected the formatting.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, I think I have a decent set of prposals to handle immigration.
Now, IF those proposals are successful we should see a significant decrease in the number of illegal aliens living and working in the USA over tne years ... maybe a 25% reduction. One effect is that the Federal government will be paying out proportionately less welfare than before. Another effect is that there will be less demand for housing and less pressure on infrastructure. Another effect is that farms, construction, and personal services, meatpacking, janitorial services will have fewer cheap labor employees to draw from.
Jobs could open up again for young folk.
I used to make money as a babysitter. Others mowed lawns or delivered the newspaper (od those flyers that get stuck to your doorknob). Housekeeping. (We had to clean the house and do laundry and cook dinner from a young age, that was our contribution to the household.) Kids might have to mow their parent's lawn and wash the family car, as I did. They might know what it's like to have a paintbrush in-hand. To get a summer job on construction, or on farm, or in light assembly. TRULY skilled labor, or labor in dangerous conditions, will have to pay more.
So wages will go up for some things, and some prices will go up accordingly.
Isn't that the same effect as raising the minimum wage?
Anyway, unless someone has somehing on point to offer, I think this topic has been beaten to death. On to the next topic.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:NO.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Anyway, I think I have a decent set of prposals to handle immigration.
Now, IF those proposals are successful we should see a significant decrease in the number of illegal aliens living and working in the USA over tne years ... maybe a 25% reduction. One effect is that the Federal government will be paying out proportionately less welfare than before. Another effect is that there will be less demand for housing and less pressure on infrastructure. Another effect is that farms, construction, and personal services, meatpacking, janitorial services will have fewer cheap labor employees to draw from.
Jobs could open up again for young folk.
I used to make money as a babysitter. Others mowed lawns or delivered the newspaper (od those flyers that get stuck to your doorknob). Housekeeping. (We had to clean the house and do laundry and cook dinner from a young age, that was our contribution to the household.) Kids might have to mow their parent's lawn and wash the family car, as I did. They might know what it's like to have a paintbrush in-hand. To get a summer job on construction, or on farm, or in light assembly. TRULY skilled labor, or labor in dangerous conditions, will have to pay more.
So wages will go up for some things, and some prices will go up accordingly.
Isn't that the same effect as raising the minimum wage?
The primary purpose Libtards want to rise the minimum Wage is to overinflate Union Wage Rates and Pay Scales, thereby overinflating Inflation, to give the wealthy a greater portion of wealth.
Increasing Wages via Market Forces while Leaving Minimum Wage or lowering it decreases the portion of the pie that the wealthy can vacuum up.
Quote:
Anyway, unless someone has somehing on point to offer, I think this topic has been beaten to death. On to the next topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wondered what the heck a private window was. But I found it.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:I'd LOVE to see where they actually say that is their definition of OPINION. Needless to say, that is not the ACTUAL definition of opinion, and they are purposefully misusing the word if this is how they define it.
Originally posted by second:Quote:The NYT labels articles as "opinion" when it happened sometime other than yesterday, since it is not "new" or "news".
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And now I'm getting bored and I really have shit to do today. Maybe I'll come back to this later... assuming of course Microsoft doesn't force a restart of windows and the article is still open. Otherwise I won't be able to even read the article without paying the NYT to read their trash rag.
Do Right, Be Right. :)Quote:This actually gave me a chuckle. I'm surprised I'd never seen this before and that it wasn't played every single night on CNN for 3 months straight.
At a June 2016 campaign rally, Trump pointed to one attendee and said: “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him.”
(Youtube link removed from quote since it messes up the page formatting. Look to Second's original post above.)
That wasn't racism. Obviously he meant "his african american supporter" that he was pointing to, but it could easily be taken out of context to sound like he had "ownership" of the person, since he phrased it as a possessive.
It was just a pretty cringe moment, to be sure. The type of stuff that is almost unavoidable for white male politicians in 2019, yanno, being forced to essentially say things like "I have black friends", and then being roasted afterward for saying it, even though they would have been equally roasted for never having said it. It's just a lose/lose world for white males right now. Especially politicians, or anybody with high profile careers.Quote:This is actually a great tip that EVERYBODY HERE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. Thanks, Second.
If you open the NYT link in private window, you don't need worry about their limit of 10 "free" articles per month. Try it:
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.
html
I can't believe that works. My first thought is, how did the NYT overlook this? My second thought is wanting to know what is different in the coding of how private windows are handled as opposed to non-private windows and how this could be exploited elsewhere. Ad blockers today have been neutered because they are being forced to slowly not block ads anymore by more and more sites. I'm looking forward to the day that a new hacker group that doesn't give a shit comes around and brings us a new one that works right. (You can actually set up a raspberry pi box attached to your router that will do a really good job of this, but it's not for the novice and it does come with its own pitfalls).
In any case, I will always at least try this when I'm being blocked by a paywall at one of these papers in the future. NYT is hardly the only website that does it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I should remember to post this in the Writer's Resource Package thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, my platform as Presidential candidate, on immigration:
Stop intervening in other nations' internal affairs. (No destabilization campaigns, military assistance and military/security "aid", no invasions, proxy wars, hybrid wars etc)
Withdraw from "free trade" agreements which have ruined the economic livelihoods of small farmers outside of the USA
Build a wall; secure the border
Revert to the original definition of asylum as POLITICAL asylum
Accept only asylees as immigrants for settlement;
Require all asylees to present themselves at an official border crossing,
Immediately deport without hearing (after fingerprinting, photographing, and taking DNA samples of) anyone found to have crossed the border illegally
Hire more immigration judges, streamline the asylum process using a standardized questions and definitions
Fund detention adequately to house and care for detainees, including instituting a program of DNA-testing "family members" to ensure that child-trafficking is not taking place. House children with parents: parents are held involuntarily; children are releaseable and thus not "detained" altho in the same facility
Continue with deportation of illegal immigrants including fining employers who hired employees without the necessary paperwork (Name and Social Security number verified with e-verify. Which, btw, I have used. It's very easy)
Make English the official language of the United States (Constitutional amendment)
Eliminate birthright citizenship from the 14th amendment (Constitutional amendment)
REQUIRE all long-term (25 year) and (otherwise) non-criminal residents to obtain citizenship on pain of deportation
Unless something else comes up that requires a reconsideration, this is my list of proposed policies
*****
Like I said, on to another topic: HEALTHCARE
I start with the idea of MEDICARE FOR ALL, and the following figures
The United States colletively spent an estimated $3.67 trillion dollars on health care in 2018, including Medicare expenditure
https://hctadvisor.com/2018/01/3-67-trillion-2018-us-healthcare-spendi
ng-category/
The total Medicare budget for that same year was $704.6 billion, or about 19% of total health care expenditures
https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2018/budget-in-brief/cms/medicare/i
ndex.html
Medicare currently covers approximately 15% of the total population
https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/fs149_medicare.pdf
So Medicare expenditures are somewhat higher, as a percent of total spending over percent of people covered. However, consiering that Medicare covers the oldest (65+ yers old) and sickest (survivors benefits to Social Security-covered disabled dependents) portion of the population, I'm going on the broad assumption that IF ALL OF THE MONEY CURRENTLY SPENT ON HEALTHCARE WERE TO BE TURNED OVER TO MEDICARE, IT WOULD ADEQUATELY FUND HEALTHCARE FOR ALL
This includes premiums spent by businesses to cover their employees, state and county tax revenues which fund state and county hospitals, miscellaneous local clinics, money currently spent on individual and state-sponsored private insurance premiums, Medicaid etc.
However, although the overall funding would probably by adequate, getting that funding would be uneven. For example, you couldn't just require that companies turn over their premiums to the USA government - it would put the burden on those businesses which were responsible for covering their employees but leave other, less reponsible busineses, untouched.
So there would have to be a "tax" of some sort, possibly simply raising the Medicare tax on wages by a factor of (approximately) five while eliminating the premium payments that (some) employers pay for their employees. The current Medicare tax rate is 2.9%, the proposed Medicare tax rate would be about 15%, which is split between employer and employee.
However, it is a truism that the more you tax a specific activity the more you inhibit it. Taxing wages - while easy - might make employmen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with your immigration policies.
It's not that I don't agree on your medicare policies, but I just don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say on it. I view it as an unfixable problem in 2019. Just like I do the wage issue.
Half of me agrees with JSF about raising minimum wage. Half of me agrees with Second.
I don't think raising minimum wage would improve anybody's life, but at the same time, far too many people are being abused for minimum wage rates and can't even get by in America. Raising the minimum wage would likely just make everything cost more, put small companies who can't afford it out of business almost overnight, and would really screw the people who were making $16/hr vs. a $7.25 minimum wage and are now only making $16/hr vs. a $15 minimum wage.
The whole system is broke. I don't know if that was done intentionally behind the scenes for the last 100 years or if that's just the aftermath of all of the bubbles bursting, but I don't think there is any way of fixing it now.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I wondered what the heck a private window was. But I found it.
I should remember to post this in the Writer's Resource Package thread.
I've always had a vague idea of what it is, but I rarely used it because it actually breaks quite a few sites that rely on whatever it blocks.
I've got to assume that cookies from the NYT that count how many articles you've viewed in the month are stored in your browser, and turning the window private allows you to view the NYT without the check for going over 10 articles being tripped. A lot of sites would either tell you that you need cookies enabled to use them, or just wouldn't work properly in the private window. I'm surprised that NYT lets you do it.
I'm going to do a little experiment and post more when I'm done...
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A few things...
1. I read it wrong. You don't get 10 free articles unless you sign up with your email address first. I'm not exactly sure how many you can view before being blocked before signing up.
It's $2 per week to view unlimited articles. $3.13 if you want NYT Cooking and the crossword puzzle.
2. Yeah. I was right about the cookies...
I opened up the article that Second linked to try out the private window thing with normally and wasn't blocked. (Although I did get the invite to subscribe with my email for 10 free articles per month).
Inside that article, I right clicked a link to a different article and was completely blocked from reading it without subscribing for the free stuff or paying for a real subscription. (article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/us/politics/trump-im-not-a-racist.h
tml?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news )
I know you don't use Firefox, but the following process is probably the same in your browser...
1. I copied the link of the new article and closed any instances of the times that were opened.
2. I went into Options, Privacy & Security, Cookies & Site Data.
3. I clicked on Manage Data.
4. In the search bar I typed NYT
5. A bunch of hits came up for the Times. I deleted all of them and hit save changes.
6. I then put the link I copied for the new article into the search bar and I was no longer blocked from seeing it.
7. But once that new article was up, when I right clicked onto another article in a new tab, I was blocked again.
This is what I figured was going on since the Private Window thing worked. It only works here because the NYT isn't being very invasive in its tech to make sure people are paying to read. They could just as easily do the same thing without you being able to get around it by logging IP addresses and checking them against a subscriber base.
I wonder why they don't? It's kind of cool that they don't.
Since the Private Window thing works without any hassle, there would be no reason for you to go in and delete your NYT cookies every time you read an article there.
But that gave me another idea...
1. I went into the same security options above, but this time I clicked on "Manage Permissions".
2. In the "Address of Website" bar I put the link https://nytimes.com.
3. I clicked the "Block" button under the bar, and then clicked "Save Changes".
Now I can view NYT articles without being blocked or without even remembering to open them in a Private Window. 
I'm going to try the same with a few other news sites and see what happens.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Washington Post...
You can't view articles in Private Mode. It says the following and blocks your ability to read the article:
Quote:
We noticed you’re browsing in private mode.
Private browsing is permitted exclusively for our subscribers. Turn off private browsing to keep reading this story, or subscribe to use this feature, plus get unlimited digital access.
But...
Unlike with the NYT which doesn't require you to delete existing cookies after blocking their website from using cookies, you have to go in and delete all washingtonpost cookies for this to take effect or it will still know that you've read too many articles.
After blocking https://www.washingtonpost.com AND deleting any cookies I found by typing in just "wash" in the the search bar for deleting individual cookies, it seems that I can now browse as many articles as I want without being blocked.
Enjoy this while it lasts. I'm sure they'll change the tech on their end sooner or later.
I think I'm going to make a thread about this, and you guys can try it out on other sites and I'll add it to the OP.
Also, those using browsers other than Firefox can test it out and put instructions how to do it in your browser as well. It's all generally the same, but let's write up a guide so easy a 2 year old could do it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Opera browser is free. Thge high-Speed Browser on a Diet. Fast. Minimal RAM and CPU. And difficult to crash.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Washington Post...
You can't view articles in Private Mode. It says the following and blocks your ability to read the article:Quote:
We noticed you’re browsing in private mode.
Private browsing is permitted exclusively for our subscribers. Turn off private browsing to keep reading this story, or subscribe to use this feature, plus get unlimited digital access.
But...
Unlike with the NYT which doesn't require you to delete existing cookies after blocking their website from using cookies, you have to go in and delete all washingtonpost cookies for this to take effect or it will still know that you've read too many articles.
After blocking https://www.washingtonpost.com AND deleting any cookies I found by typing in just "wash" in the the search bar for deleting individual cookies, it seems that I can now browse as many articles as I want without being blocked.
Enjoy this while it lasts. I'm sure they'll change the tech on their end sooner or later.
I think I'm going to make a thread about this, and you guys can try it out on other sites and I'll add it to the OP.
Also, those using browsers other than Firefox can test it out and put instructions how to do it in your browser as well. It's all generally the same, but let's write up a guide so easy a 2 year old could do it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME