941–950 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you a citizen, can you prove it at the polling station? I am doubtful you are, and your documents if you have them don't seem legit enough, so I think we'll set your vote aside, or possibly prevent it from being cast; we can't be too sure!
Isn’t the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility act going to stop married women who have changes their last name from what was on their birth certificate from voting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pro-privacy and I still think these retorts just make it sound like you've put zero effort into understanding what the "nothing to hide" people are trying to articulate. E.g. "Can we put a camera in your bathroom?" Very few people are arguing that nudity or bathroom use shouldn't be private, and they are not going to understand what this has to do with their argument that the NSA should be allowed to see Google s…
"I've got nothing to hide." is a rather extreme statement. The people who say it don't mean it literally. But saying something they don't mean aren't really helping their points across. I think OP’s retorts are simply to show how absurd the “I’ve got nothing to hide” claim is, regardless of how effective the retorts are.
But on the internet we often do this thing where we take the weakest version or a distorted version of an opposing side's argument and ridicule that. It's not quite strawmanning because we never specified who we're arguing against, and surely we can imagine someone, somewhere on the internet has the ridiculous viewpoint. But it's not a common viewpoint (that, for example, we shouldn't have privacy in the bathroom). Doing this only gets us pats on the back from those who already agree with us and deludes us about our opponent's position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just described the Bill of Rights. Constitutions should be structured around that.
The Rights are not intended as preemptive. You don't have a right to free speech b/c otherwise maybe the government regulation of speech will get out of hand. You have it because it's espoused as a fundamental right. Same with separation of church and state. It's like "Well maybe a future evil government will regulate the church poorly, so lets ban it completely". It's just seen as an area the government shouldn't de…
The rights weren’t invented out if thin air but to address real issues that happened earlier. Yes, every government has been evil. Power corrupts. That’s why constitutions exist, to address that problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to Why are you presuming this? There is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion. > Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly? If it is being honest about it's intention, yes. I think we have seen an absolute mountain of evidence that this administration doe…
> There is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion. Isn't the point of this data so that they can uncover exactly that? It'd be silly to say you're not allowed to look for evidence of anything unless you already have evidence of it. Also, the qualifier "in any widespread fashion" is weasel words. It makes me think you already know it is happening, and the only remaining question is to what scale.
And as the GP pointed out, it makes no sense to put the president's paramilitary agency¹ in charge of such an audit, rather than qualified auditors, perhaps from the HHS² OIG³.
1. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/us...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_He...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(U...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you being sincere with this comment? I’m in disbelief you could post this with good faith, but this forum requires me to respond to you with the assumption that you’re posting in good faith. First of all, the investigation for the fraud had already wrapped up years ago, with many charged. You’re falling for the propaganda that this was ongoing and swept under the rug, as pretense that apparently an occupying forc…
>First of all, the investigation for the fraud had already wrapped up years ago, with many charged. That was another separate series of fraud trials regarding Feeding Our Future no?.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you put a quote around become illegal? It's illegal indeed, not illegal. You may like immigration laws or not, there is a very clear definition on legal aliens.
the migration was legal. you're not an "illegal" when you drive with an expired license are you? so quotes is appropriate when using the term as a title instead of a verb.
You are. Why do you think licenses have expiration dates? It legally authorises you to perform specific activity within specific timeframe. Any activity without license is illegal.
By same logic you can't stay in the house you legally rented previously.
Surprised those simple concepts need elaboration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other civilized countries routinely ask for proof of citizenship or legal residency when people interact with their bureaucracies and deport people who are discovered by law enforcement to not be legally resident. This happens all the time in every civilized country and in many countries we don't consider civilized.
I've lived in several civilized in Europe, and they don't do raid like it is happening in Minnesota. What is happening in Minnesota makes the front pages in Europe, and a lot of people are saying that according to them, it will never be possible here (I'm not sure I agree with them, but it shows that the idea that the ICE methods are "the usual way to deal efficiently with immigration" is totally crazy). I guarantee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And it's not sensible to structure things with the expectation the future government will be evil Jewish Danes would like to have a word with you about that
Are we supposed to structure out society so we're safer in the case that the Chinese invade and use all our institutions against us? There is a risk-benefit tradeoff to make. Crippling society and institutions in preparation for an a worst-case scenario future hypothetical is not sensible. To get things done you operate from the standpoint that the democratic government is responsive to the desires of the people. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a popular video on YouTube of him eating skin peeled from his foot during a lecture at a college. Not AI, very old, repellant to normal people.
I was in the room and personally witnessed that. It definitely changed my opinion of him and not in a good way.