One side seems to have a lot more nuts of late. And most of the recent mass shooters or domestic terrorists have background of far-right politics.

As for Obama and Trump, only one called for violence and incarceration of political opponents.

So mailing pipe bombs is cool since there was that one dude who shot up the Republican Congressional baseball practice.

Sweet logic that "both sides" also applies to violent responses to political rhetoric.

No. And I never said it was cool.


But you guys are all patting each other on the back having a massive left wing circle jerk, LOOK ANOTHER BAD RIGHT WINGER. stroke,stroke,stroke,stroke,stroke



That will never solve anything. It just further draws the line and digs the trench. Congrats.


What I am saying is simply that we need reform and change and open civil dialogue not name calling and blame sharing.

Domestic terrorism is actually up quite a bit in the past few years. It had become incredibly rare last decade. And the trend has dramatically shifted toward more right-wing attacks. In fact, most of the attacks in 2017 were far-right motivated.

Have you seen who the President is? Going to have to look at the top to see who is drawing that line. You know, the person calling people who disagree with him enemies and calling for their incarceration or violence to be done to them.

I don't have a side in this. I'm not really a liberal or conservative. I just know that a lot of the terrorist attacks in this country of late are coming from his supporters. Maybe his rhetoric has something to do with this as there wasn't a flurry of left-wing terrorism under Obama. Or right-wing terrorism under Bush. In fact, the numbers were incredibly low during their times in office.

If anyone wants to look, here is the Global Terrorism Database.

Global Terrorism Database

Worldwide terrorism has actually been down a lot in recent years. Just up in our country.

jesus christ man, hold some dignity. The argument that the president can be completely a part of the blame here is an argument based on objective fact. It has nothing to do with masturbation. I know. Not once has anything trump related come up in my masturbation menu. I mean, ffs, strip it down to what happened, who was responsible for the direct act, and what lead up to this point, and a solid case can be made. It's far beyond simple partisan politics, like well, my guy isn't as bad as your guy. In fact, that argument that you're making, is a political one. Are there bad people who also support left leaning policies? Sure. There, happy now? Do those people suck and are they dangerous assholes? Yes. Does that mean that this entire conversation can now go ahead and be based on objective fact?

I don't like Trump. He isn't "my guy".

That isn't my point.


My point is, duder sending bombs around is a POS, whack job. I dont care who he votes for. Or what soccer team he pulls for. Or what religion he may claim. He is a whack job.


But maybe its really soccer's fault. Soccer has such a violent rhetoric and so many soccer riots. Let me go pull some stats. That will help things.
(In case you missed it his van was covered in Soccer stuff as well)


This is just another weird Red herring attention distraction. Just like the caravan. Lets all talk about some crazy BS and ignore the real issues.

I agree - however that is difficult when the current president is actively shouting down anyone who disagrees with him by insulting them, their intelligence and in the cases of the media encouraging supporters to be violent towards them.

There are very few political figures who do this sort of thing in the US - unfortunately Trump is one of them and gets a lot of air-time.

Until he loses that platform I don't see a bi-partisan solution presenting itself or civil dialog occurring, simply put if it does it would hurt his chances of continuing in power ... he requires division and fear in order to retain his position as this motivates his base to vote.

This is why he claims there are 'left wing mobs' despite there being no evidence of such, its why he is shouting about an immigrant caravan when the last one had pretty much evaporated by the time it reached the border (and most of the people in that prior one applied legitimately and got in fairly) ...

PS - I agree the bomber was a whack job first and foremost and don't left/right politics for his actions - he had mental health issues. That being said however the continued rhetoric of hate is likely to encourage people who are mentally unstable to act. The fact that Trumps response to the bombings has been to blame the press for them is beyond my level of comprehension.

And Rush is telling his listeners that the bomber is a Dem plant.

I agree with this.

Possibly another Michael Rotondo.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...4bbc1f96ccd945

By the way, what's good old Mike doing now ... (still a bum)

Evicted son Michael Rotondo claims trademarked name on his own website | syracuse.com

Evicted son Michael Rotondo takes child support fight to U.S. Supreme Court | syracuse.com

"As of this morning, he had two Twitter followers." That made me laugh out loud in the office.

But was that van down by the river?

If he had mailed the bombs to soccer teams and their supporters, I might agree.

He mailed them to the people his hero called enemies of the people. People that his hero said should be locked up in jail for daring oppose him.

When the actions line up with the rhetoric, it's not hard to point fingers.

Do you seriously think he would have chosen those particular targets absent of Trumps rhetoric?

The problem I have with the two sides argument is that the candidates the Republicans are putting forward in many cases are hardcore followers of the whole Trump style, and all that tells me is that the party leadership is pretty ok with their whole platform being trashed in favor of fear mongering liars with questionable morals and pasts.

Until I see a Republican candidate with some modicum of decorum, some idea of civility, a sliver of sincerity put forward, I know which party gives a shit about the country and which party only gives a shit about winning at any cost. It is indescribably unsettling how many people have come out of the woodwork and revealed themselves to be complete fuckwads since the country made the mistake of electing this "president".

If you want to distance yourself from that, then continuing to support the party which is doing this is a bad way of showing it. The current Republican situation needs to be thrown out completely and replaced with an entirely new breed of politicians who actually want to work to improve things instead of simply screaming "lock her up" and otherwise planting fear of liberals deeper in the minds of the simpletons who are blindly devoted to following the party.

The shit I have seen recently trying to paint Democrats as racists because of how the party voted back when they were essentially who the Republicans are now is blatant misinformation being used simply because it is another talking point.

It's not a policy, its not a stance, its not a platform. It's a charade, it's smoke and mirrors, and it's bullshit. Republican voters who claim to be responsible and sensible should not be standing for the bullshit they're being fed by their own politicians. They should be forcing their representatives to stand for something and show proof of it.

The problem is that sometimes one cannot say "both sides". I'm not circlejerking on this individual. You can read my post history, I'm hurting and in a rage constantly over the state of our nation. Only one side is actively attempting to instill fear to get the vote out, by any means necessary. Many segments on Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, these guys are just blatantly running active scare campaigns 24/7 and have been for almost 20 years. Its Jon's favorite talking point: "Liberals are a bigger threat to the United States than ISIS" and making casual comments advocating for the death of liberal politicians and sometimes liberal voters.

Both sides have nutjobs. Only one side is actively attempting to weaponize their nutjobs and actively trying to instill fear in them for views and votes.

Just like with all the school shootings, I think there is a lot of danger in spending too much time worrying about one specific incident. This one individual may or may not have gone off the deep end without the rhetoric. Arguing as though its a certainty feels hollow to me. Instead, much like with school shootings, this could be used to instead bring the focus to a much larger and more pervasive problem than anything surrounding one individual to try to effect large scale and significant change.

Of course that wont happen. But its a nice thought in my head.

Reminder that the law and order President cut funding to fighting right wing extremists when he took office despite it being the most prevalent form of terrorism in this country.

Trump cuts funds to fight anti-right wing violence | TheHill

So this guy, like many of the others, had posted violent rhetoric, threats, and showed off his weaponry online. Can't fathom that if you were a Muslim doing the same thing, you wouldn't be shipped off to some undisclosed location in the middle of the night. But a certain segment of the population seems to play by different rules.

Let's not forget a few years ago when DHS put out a report on the growing threat of right-wing extremism and the GOP threw such a fit that the report was withdrawn.

And now for some food for thought ...

Republicans and Democrats Don’t Just Disagree About Politics. They Have Different Sexual Fantasies. - POLITICO Magazine

And this was before the fascist won the election today. Things are about to get very bad in Brazil.

Hey when the opposition is garbage, you're allowed to treat them like that, right? Isn't that the entire lesson fascism?

Brazil's about to become Trump 2.0 but on a different, 4D level. Bolsonaro has actively called for the return of the military dictatorship that ruled from 1964-1985. He said that black people shouldn't even procreate.

I guess I'm in the minority of conservatives who has had the opposite reaction to the way Fox News shamelessly covers the news, publicizing any angle they can to fit the President/Republican agenda. You certainly see left-leaning articles/headlines elsewhere - I usually keep open browser tabs to CNN/Fox/NBC just to take it all in for context - but Fox lacks any attempt at subtlety. It amazes me that people don't see it - even ones who agree. It just feels so transparent, like people should know they are being purposely led down a path.

Take the current headline on Fox News. "Prosecutor's take Trump's cue, move to have alleged synagogue gunman executed." Yes, I'm sure if it wasn't for Trump deflecting discussion of the real issues by suggesting the gunman should be executed, the prosecutor would never have thought to consider charging someone who murdered 11 people just because they were Jewish with the death penalty. Thank God Trump brought it up. I'm sure he did that to show leadership, not to score cheap political points by making an obvious statement that most people would agree with and to fill the empty air of what otherwise would have been his statement. That type of headline/coverage is just so flipping unnecessary!

I have not read something that left me with the feeling of "I don't really understand what I just read, but I understand" like this article did. I did learn a lot though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7dfea99253e2

What horseshit.


5000 troops to stop a small number of people a thousand miles from the border.

I think it would be funny if Mexico sent troops to the border in response to trump's "totally going to invade Mexico" military build up.

That should be really helpful on an almost two thousand mile border.

And Sanders refused to rule out suspending habeus corpus or posse comitatus at the border.

Oh, it can be done! Here’s an instructional video on how to do it:


https://youtu.be/WZorfXa5pBc

I wonder if we will hear from any of those Jade Helm people who were protesting the possibility of posse comitatus being suspended.

Well if they would tell us exactly how many of them there are and exactly where they plan to cross a more reasonable number could be sent.


Besides the Charlotte Observer says the caravan numbers in the thousands:
In migrant caravan, safety in numbers and no smuggling fees | Charlotte Observer


According to the NY Times there are between 7,000 according to the Un and 3,200 according to the Mexican government:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...s-history.html


The Washington Post says there are 4,000:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.5fd6564d99d4


So...if there are 2,000 people on the low side. You need quite a group to detain that many, otherwise they just take off running in all directions.


Really of all the things to complain about, the size of the force sent to stop and oppose them seems an odd one. The alternate is have too few and have them resort to less than desirable (to all but JiMGA) detainment methods.

But, unless they do something extreme like suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, there is fuck all troops can do. They cannot undertake any direct action themselves. All they can do is provide logistical assistance to law enforcement, they can't directly detain anyone.

Im not a lawyer or legal expert. Candidly I just read about Posse Comitatus for 15 seconds Im not qualified to comment.


But the National guard has been used many times to help restore order...and even if they dont detain anyone, a show of force can still be effective.


Even if they use HMMWV or similar to form a barricade and funnel?


I dont know. But what is the alternative? Just allow thousands of non citizens to over run a border checkpoint? I mean there is precedence for their intent given how they entered Mexico, right?

I encourage people to check out this video. It is highly instructional.

Well, according to Shep Smith on Fox they are two months away. However, the election is next week, so the need to show overwhelming strength is now.

“There is no invasion. No one is coming to get you. There is nothing at all to worry about."
Fox's Shep Smith rips Trump rhetoric on caravan: 'There is no invasion' | TheHill

They're hundreds of miles away. By the time they get here few of them will be left, and those that show up can be processed like others seeking asylum. A Civil War army could march @15 miles per day. Considering the distance and the composition of the caravan, putting the military on the border now is clearly an election stunt.

Keep in mind a few days ago a WH official was quoted as saying Trump was not being truthful regarding the caravan, but, "that's the play." It's all a con.

I think only a couple hundred made it to the border from that caravan. However many thousands there are now, most of them won't make it through a thousand mile plus march.

It's just an expensive show to placate the base. They aren't doing anything down there but costing us money. The caravan will be pretty small by the time it reaches the border.

Reading that gave me a half-dozen headaches.

Plus, even if there are a couple of thousand that make it, the border crossings handle tens of thousands of crossings each day, with some of the larger ones handling over 100,000 per day. It would take an enormously larger number of people than the composition of the current caravan to completely overrun a border checkpoint.

They aren't concerned with the caravan. It's just to push the "Jews are sending immigrants to kill us all" narrative that their base eats up.

Such a bummer, for me. My favorite sandwich place is now closed 3 days a week because they can’t find any workers.

I was listening to NPR today. They had a guest from Brazil (talking about something else but it got to the elections).

Two things I remember

1) This guy is worse than Trump in terms of rhetoric (more like Duterte)
2) This guy had wide support because apparently people think he is the best chance to curb crime & violence

Apparently crime is really bad.

I read some militia folks are going down to the border. So they are obviously worried. :)

Just glancing at Wikipedia, Brazil's homicide rate is about six times higher than the US. So with hardly knowing anything else about Brazil politics I can see why they might want a law and order guy.

The long term alternative is to hurry and build the darn wall already!

Trump should just concede that Mexico won't "directly" pay for the wall (although he can probably say/lie that renegotiated NAFTA essentially means Mexico is paying for it) and scrap a budgeted $13B aircraft carrier to get started.

It would be an interesting social experiment to put guns in the hands of the "good guys" and see how it plays out.

This list is by cities.

List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia

Mexico has 5 in top 10
Brazil has 3 in top 10
Venezuela has 2 in the top 10

Good guys are in the eye of the beholder, or should I say the eye of the person who writes the history texts. You could look at the Philippines as an example I suppose, and you'd also have to ask if it's worth killing a handful of innocents to get the bad guys, and if you're willing to hand the power over to someone who might just keep the guns trained on the 'bad guys' longer than he needs to, all in the name of public order, of course.

Please explain the logic here. How is a wall going to deter future caravans? If they are coming on foot over 1,000 miles, a wall isn't going to do anything. A wall is a visible sign of failure of policy. There are still going to be border checkpoints people can go to and apply for asylum.

Good point.

Let me amend and say "the wall plus holistic immigration reform".

Then why the wall at all?

Because the wall will help stop/reduce unauthorized border crossing?

Yeah, it's pretty bad.

I'm very interested in the country of Brazil to the point where I study Portuguese, watch news from Brazil, have "chat pals" in the country to practice the language, etc.

Basically, all the stuff Trump was saying in his campaign - the inner cities are full of "carnage" and high crime, tons of corruption in the government, etc. - are no doubt true in Brazil. The crime especially is bad, as people have pointed out. You can't even go out your house without being worried about being robbed at gunpoint, carjacked, etc. The economy is in a shambles. The left-leaning party that has ruled for 13 years are corrupt to a T and the public have (rightfully) lost all trust in them, to the point where a slight majority of them are willing to elect a guy who (A) may have even worse views than Trump on gays, minorities, women, the media, etc., (B) has been a politician for 30+ years (meaning he is competent in a way Trump is not) and (C) favors a dictatorship, has military experience as an army captain and is going to fill his cabinet with former generals (kind of like Trump, but Bolsonaro knows how the military works).

I think one of the differences in these guys and Trump is that Trump is extraordinarily lazy. It sounds like he just wants to tweet and watch cable news all day while some of these guys are all about action.

I do work in Brazil and go down there twice a year. The country definitely has it's issues and it'll be interesting to see what direction they go. Kind of sad to say but it should be good for business for me as this guy will probably open things up more and let other businesses in to raid the country.

And the crime is legit. I remember the first time I was there getting specific instructions on areas I was not supposed to go to. Kind of like a boundary for us where it was safe. And even then we were advised not to carry a wallet full of cash and cards.

Also that first night there was a massive shootout on one of their big highways between the cops and some gang. Like machine guns and all that could be heard from our hotel.

They probably won't help the situation, but yes I believe they'll show up. In terms of people who live at those cross-country cities maybe, but in terms of a caravan from central america no. They're going to travel 1000+ miles then decide an 8-ft higher wall is the deterrent they can't cross?
It is an interesting question. The US market for drugs and the available money from that is probably a little responsible for Mexico having 5, but tying Venezuela and Brasilian cities in would be a stretch.

Obviously much of Africa and places like Iraq aren't counted here if they're "at war", (and I'm shocked no city in Central America makes it), but it's very striking Mexico/SA takes all the top spots here. Given how people talk you'd think a southeast Asian city would be on that list.
Back when I took PoliSci seriously the numbers showed that having a benevolent authoritarian regime interested in expanding a market economy was the best way to expand your economy. I don't have any clue if that also applies to social norms (and I don't think there was quite enough definitive cultural neutral info coming out in the post Cold War period. Or now.)

I'd never describe guys like Duterte or Bolsonaro as good guys, but as to whether they'll be good for their countries long term trajectory? I'm curious more than anything. (Duterte much less so, as I think there was only a relatively small part of the Phillipines that wasn't pro-Phillipines, and the crime rate across the country was actually much lower despite the rhetoric.) But it's clear something was broken in Brasil's transition from military dictatorship to democracy, so why not reset things and see if they can have less violence now and less corruption when they open up again long term? (I mean, obviously the latter won't happen, but the former definitely will... even if it's juking the stats.)

Trump will sign order ending automatic citizenship for children born in US - The Boston Globe


If this is signed, can we be done with the "only the illegal immigrants" narrative? The "we want them to come in the right way" narrative?

Yes, I am biased. I am raising my hand as one who would not have had a right to citizenship though I was born in the U.S.

This is part of the solution for unauthorized immigration (assuming its within his powers) and like it.

I do wish it was part of a holistic package of immigration reform vs dribs-and-drabs so Congress can debate and vote as a whole (e.g. wall, temp workers, H1B reform etc.). However, maybe Trump has it right by doing this in bits and pieces as the big program is too big to do at one time.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/polit...hip/index.html

Good point about "non-citizens" being part of this equation. So the scenario is a legit PR/green card holder having kids. If a parent eventually become a citizen, direct relatives (e.g. spouse, kids) already have an relatively easy way to become citizens, assume that would not change (but its not immediate becoming a citizen). Not sure what would happen if the kid turns 18/21 though.

So he wants to amend the constitution by executive order. I can't imagine that survives any legal challenge, but I doubt he even ever formally signs an order. This is probably just another tactic to get the base to vote.

Yeah, this, the troops to the border, floating the idea of another tax cut... all a couple of weeks from the election. What a surprise.

I still amazes me that any reasonably intelligent person, and by all accounts you are, thinks a wall will stop anything.

This is so rich coming from the side who pretends the constitution is a gold plated statute for guns.

Exactly, living in Arizona the demographic that Trump touts the most in his fear mongering (Drug cartels) don't send their product in on illegals, or migrant "caravans" that sneak across the border where a wall would be. The biggest source of drug trafficking in terms of sheer bulk include the following.

1-Tunnels UNDER the border
2-Product stored in commercial commerce vehicles or private vehicles entering through regulated border crossings
3-Drug Mules that travel legally between countries via commercial couriers
4-Aircraft or boats

A wall would stop exactly 0.00 of these methods.

I'm not supporting or defending Trump. Perhaps this is nothing but a get out to vote ploy.


But from a just logistic conversation.
1) The caravan is moving faster now that the Mexican government is assisting them and is even considering transporting them.
Mexico City sends 47-vehicle aid brigade to support first migrant caravan
2) You do understand that an order to send military personnel to the border doesn't just wave a magic wand and poof all are there right? It takes time to mobilize and deploy troops. And in the sake of being fair to military families advance notice is kind of nice?



Do I think we need 5,000 armed troops on the border?
I dont know. I dont know how many are in the caravan. But I would rather over respond than under respond. Send too few and they get over whelmed and mistakes happen and you have a huge humanitarian story and needless deaths.


Cartman's point about border crossing current volumes is valid, IF this caravan decides to walk down the road and cross at the marked border crossing. Even then I'm not sure how prepared border crossing stations are for 2,000 folks on foot without documentation. Its one thing to stop/block a vehicle folks on foot are a little harder to detain.

I personally think there are 2 distinct and completely separate groups/issues.


1) The drugs/gun/whatever smugglers and I agree whole heartedly with you. You are absolutely correct.

2) The illegal immigrants whose sole mission is to get themselves here. Those folks are flowing in pretty much undeterred.

Even this White House can't believe that you can sign an executive order to amend the Constitution.

Overstaying a visa is still the easiest way to become an illegal immigrant. In 2017 there were an estimated 545000 people violating their visa terms. A wall won't do anything for those people.

Due to the very nature of estimating such things, estimates vary wildly. But the quick research suggests the total number of illegal immigrants in the country is somewhere between 11M and 22M.


If we take the lowest number of $11M those 545k represent 4.9%

I am ok with initiating action that addresses the 95% initially and then we can circle back to the 5%.

It will help to keep them in!

And they will just bring a ladder or shovel instead of bolt cutters.

I kind of stunned how the party of 'no' is so willing to blank check a 25 billion dollar initial expense, that will inevitably lead to a multi-billion dollar ongoing overhead for maintenance and staffing. It's not an insignificant amount of money.

Cameras.
Remote IP addressable.
With laser beams.... :D




I find it a hilarious juxtaposition of the guys who want to ban something in the name of gun control. I.E. Bump stocks (which again I supported their ban) in the name of "even if it doesnt solve the problem it helps and every incremental help is positive" and then the same folks say "a wall wont keep out everyone so why bother"


Dont you think that's a bit inconsistent?

But the savings from not supporting illegals and their tax on infrastructure, I would argue, would be a net positive.

Illegals pay a lot of taxes, get no representation, and are routinely underpaid. I think you're overestimating the actual cost.

How about the savings from not having a department totally devoted to stopping illegal immigration at all? I think I read it was in the 10-20 billion dollar range of savings to end immigration checks altogether.

If you are interested in saving money, there's a bunch right there.

I guess I don't find my personal stance on gun control and immigration control inconsistent, because I don't want immigration control at all. It is a waste of time and money and is just another easy way to keep people of different races apart and at odds.

Plus, you would get to tax all those "illegals" now. It's a win-win.

The overstay number is PER year. For example, 2016 was 700,000 and in 2000 it was 1.6 million

Yep.. In order for it to happen, the 14th amendment would have to eliminated. You know, that one the Civil War was fought over, the one that grants the vote and citizenship to African Americans...

(Not sure if this counts as dog whistle, but getting close)

The ones I see pay virtually no tax and are paid commensurate with legals in the same job. Go on a construction site and find a drywall/painting/plumbing crew. The likely illegals on there are making the same hourly wage as other. They have to be or the owner opens himself up to a discrimination suit. Their tax forms are filled our married and 9 dependents or outright "exempt". In either case nothing beyond FIC is withheld. zero federal or state income tax.


They also cause impact on utility, infrastructure and especially healthcare.





I mean if we want to just ave money, let's just eliminate the Department of Defense. Hell we'd wipe the deficit away in about 2 years.





Im not sure how that stat is calculated, or where it is even pulled from. I was responding to Jphilips statement that:
If their VISA expired in 2016 or 1999 they are still violating it. So if the total number of visa violators is 545k then its a sub 5% impact.
If you are right and its actually as high as 10% annualized...then as soon as we address the 90% lets also start enforcing the 10%...hell lets even do it concurrently.

You're the one that said you wanted to save money. If you want to save money, let's save some real fuckin' money. Might even make money by getting many of these "illegals" into the system. But then they're going to "take our jobs" or something. They're all rapists. I don't know what the argument against is this week.

And I would advocate also cutting the DoD budget way down too, so I agree with you.

I've been pretty consistent in my viewpoint here on immigration. I support massive reform to streamline and reduce the cost of legal immigration. To make it easier to immigrate legally.



In conjunction I support a 1 strike and you are out forever ammendment. In other words we are going to make a simplified and reasonable path to legal citizenship. However if you try to sneak in or otherwise circumvent that process you are ineligible for citizenship, or legal entry for life.


I dont fear mean sneaky rapist, murder, thief Mexicans. I employ 7 Hispanic descent Americans (out of my 53 employees)...I obviously dont fear them.


My sole complaint is on the wide spread lack of contribution and abuse of the system.


Having said that, I support reform of policy but I also firmly believe until policy is reformed you dont break the law to get what you want.

Seems like a false equivalency. The wall will not be paid for by Mexico, as promised, and will be a huge economic drain. Enacting gun control would likely be of minimal cost to taxpayers and have a far greater benefit. I honestly don’t see how the two are remotely related.

I believe that number is based on which people had their visa expire that year. FWIW, my father was someone who overstayed his student visa, back in the 1970s. He soon got an engineering job in PA and got a work visa, and eventually became a citizen. Contributed quite a bit of tax money in those 3+ decades (not to mention the tax money his kids have contributed). Folks that overstay generally are ones who have or are in the market for high paying jobs (and then their work places help them get work visas).

Not drawing any correlation in regards to cost. Just in the sake of incremental progress.


I was attempting to draw a parallel to



lets ban high capacity magazines - but no one at XYZ crime scene was killed with a high cap magazine - Well it will prevent some and some is better than none


Contrast that with


Build a wall - well 10% are here legally and the wall wont prevent and some % will climbe the wall or dig under it...wall is no good.

Just on this or overall? Because I do firmly believe Martin Luther King's statement that there are unjust laws and they should be resisted - such as sitting in white only seats at a lunch counter for example, which is breaking the law after all.

Are they legal? If so, not really germane to this discussion. If not, then you're part of the problem. I would be very surprised if that were the case.

But I think you would ultimately save more money by allowing "illegal immigrants" into the healthcare system and having some of them pay their own way. The others would be treated like the indigent population is treated now, their cost is shared by the whole "system", often by localities instead of the Federal government.

And in this case, I would advocate law-breaking as part of civil disobedience. If we're going to foment instability in Latin America, then we have to pay the price in one way or another.

Trump on US jobs created by reported $110 billion Saudi arms deal
October 13: 450,000
October 17: 500,000
October 19: 600,000
October 20: 1 million

Reality, from @MichaelStone: Lockheed forecasts fewer than 1,000 US jobs, nearly 10,000 new jobs in Saudihttps://t.co/Mq5KqANuAV

— Jack Detsch (@JackDetsch_ALM) October 30, 2018

At this rate, by Christmas time every one on the planet will have a job due to the Saudi arms deal.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

I was referring specifically to this instance.
I likewise support Dr. King's position.


I would clarify/separate the two, personally, this way. As an American civil disobedience is a protest to (perceived) unjust American laws. As a non-American you dont have the right to protest our laws because they dont apply to you. (royal you not specific you - of course).


I would also point out the Dr. King accepted without fight his arrest. he accepted punishment for breaking the law and intended (and succeeded) to use his plight as an example to enact change.


All too often when discussing civil disobedience people want to enable the act and have zero immediate consequences for that act. That wasnt Dr. King's message

Are you/they paying into Medicare / Social Security?

I might argue that King would disagree with that (as he'd indicate an unjust law is no law at all, regardless of your residency or citizenship as we are all Children of God) ;).


Well I don't think he'd complain terribly if they didn't get consequences for violating the segregation law (it was an unjust law after all), but he did prefer that they ran into a Bull Conner or some other over the top response so he could change public opinion.

The SC sales tax is 6%, so they pay that tax on applicable purchases. They pay roughly 39 cents per gallon of gas in state and federal taxes. They are paying about 14% in payroll taxes(there's and employer's share).

FICA is held out of their checks automatically by our payroll processor, currently in all cases. In the past have had an exempt claiming employee who did not have it withheld.






And in that very quote I clarified that I personally separate the two cases based on my belief system. We can go into a rabbit hole discussion here, but its why I dont think foreign terrorist are due due process, or cruel and unusual, or illegal search protection. Those are rights afforded by our governing docs and those not choosing to be bound by those docsarent afforded those rights.

Of course gas tax is collected at the pump.



Sales tax on things bought - yes, though there is quite a diverse and complex sub market you would be surprised by. There are WIC purchases which are then sold for cash to fund non WIC covered purchases. There are regular clients and shopping lists and its a pretty remarkable thing to watch transpire quite honestly. And it totally circumvents some sales tax, though admittedly not all.



But again everyone pays this, and should.


Its the last piece, the payroll tax where things get complicated.
With a married and 9 declaration no payroll tax is withheld. zero. zilch.


If I were to show you a check stub it would say fed withheld -0 state withheld - 0 ytd 0, 0...and these are guys making $60k year.

Ok. I wasn't sure if you were indicating that it was King's position.

Just for clarification, I'm not going to personally protest Japan or Australia's gun control laws because I don't live there and they don't affect me. I don't have a right, in my view, to climb on the table and scream for the rights of their people to won guns. I just choose not to live there.


In the same vein, a non citizen of the US doesnt have the right to protet our citizenship process because it doesnt affect them. If they dont like the process our country set then simply choose not to come here.


To instead insist on coming here and doing it on your terms, is akin to a 5 year old pitching a fit in the grocery store because they want candy and they want it now, in my eyes.

All these strict constructionists who praised Kavanaugh are eerily silent on his executive order that violates the 14th amendment.

I would tell you that the employer is breaking the law.

FICA can't be gamed on a W-4. Everyone has to pay in and employers have to withhold. That's 15.3% on that $60k that you can't get around.

There's also FUTA which is small but still a tax that is paid in that they can't receive benefits from.

So if you take a married man who is making $60k, he's contributing $9,540 toward SS, Medicare and FUTA which he will not be able to collect. Now in your example he's avoiding $6,160 in withholding for federal and state taxes (using your state as an example). So the government and American people are technically $3,380 in the black on this one.