Dying Democracy

1. 61

   Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years ago

   
   There has been increasing momentum of polarity happening in the U.S. punctuated by violence, confusion and corruption. Are we beginning to hear the death throes of Western culture?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings Jessie, Your statement would be as valid as a description of 1866 as it is for 2017. So, are you just hearing the echoes of those death throes?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Russian
         authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican
         presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years. Source
         asserted that the TRUMP operation was both supported and directed by
         Russian President Vladimir PUTIN.
         
         Speaking separately in lune 2016, Source [the
         former top level Russian intelligence officer) asserted that
         unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the
         authorities there with enough embarrassing material on the now
         Republican presidential candidate to be able to blackmail him if they so
         wished
         
         https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … tions.html
         
         Denied but never discredited.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Nor proven.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               . Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities does not mean 100% proven. proof only really exists in math. In the real world almost nothing can be truly proven,

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Wouldn't 'preponderance of speculation' be more accurate ptosis?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     That would be your prerogative.
                     
                     If readily believe Russia was grooming HRC and then she lies about it by saying, "“no reason to think the Secretary was a target of this spy ring.”
                     
                     and yet need a math theorem level of proof for Trump - simply shows bias.
                     
                     http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu … to-hillary
                     
                     "A day after the arrests of the sleeper ring, another event captured the FBI’s attention.
                     
                     Thousands of miles away in Russia, former President Clinton collected a $500,000 check for giving a 90-minute speech to Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-connected bank, then scored a meeting with Putin himself."

                     replyreport
      2. 61

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Good point, GA.
         I suppose it would it would be foolish to think of now as an isolated problem instead of a recurring truth about our nature. But I wouldn't confine my statement about polarity to the context of the Civil War.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I wouldn't confine the thought to that period either Jessie. That just seemed the example that I think most folks would have understood as the point being made.
            
            We could probably go back as early as 1804 when the power and influence of political parties - which our Founders warned against, first surfaced.
            
            I don't think it is foolish to consider today's divide as you did, every generation perceives events in the context of their time. It is not easy to first consider the historical context of an event that is affecting your life, before reacting to that event's effects. Kinda of like almost every presidential election being declared "the most important election of our lifetime"  by one party or the other.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I appreciate you not invalidating my position.
               
               I have underwent an enormous political renaissance since Sanders was railroaded by the DNC. I was a young liberal out to make the world a better place. Since then I've seen the monster of extreme ideology begin rear its ugly head. I've been treated poorly by my peers in the University setting. I was admittedly in the dark about Capitalism and the function of government. Over the last year, I've saturated with myself in the study of Philosophy, Communism, Fascism and American History. Now I find myself on the Right side of the tracks but only in a compensatory way to uphold what I believe to be classic liberal values.
               
               I'm not even sure what I'm looking at today, in terms of the state of the union...I only concern myself with the truth which I find to be increasingly difficult to pin down.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  " I've been treated poorly by my peers in the University setting."
                  How so?

                  replyreport
   2. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No. Democracy equals freedom. Our form of democracy is in the form of an extended republic. Do you think people will willingly give up freedom? Maybe the ones who equate work with slavery rather than freedom.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         "'Democracy' does not mean freedom." -- Mark Da Cunha
         
         "The issue here is liberty, and democracy is far from a synonym for that." -- Perry de Havilland

         replyreport
      2. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The people will always figure out how to attain freedom. If they give up a little, they will suffer. They will always figure out how to get it back …. eventually … after much suffering, wars, slavery, tyranny, death and a lack of food, health, privacy and independence.
         
         Unless they are turned into automatons.

         replyreport
      3. 61

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         We become either slaves, tyrants, or we negotiate. If we decide to negotiate then people actually have to negotiate instead of tearing each other to pieces whilst jockeying for dominance. You might say negotiation is one of the hallmarks of a democracy. But I believe its much more than that. We have to retain certain values and attitudes. I'm not just some young paranoid person claiming the sky is falling. I know very well what happens when entire nations lose sight of the truth. We can't find the truth if we don't negotiate. I see much of the opposite happening.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            … negotiating for the sake of what? Sometimes, its not a good idea to negotiate. Sometimes its a good idea to just say, "No."

            replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      We are seeing a shift toward wealth and political power concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
      
      Oddly enough, it's one thing that Russia and the U.S. have in common.They just go about it in different ways.
      
      So yes, democracy is declining while authoritarianism and an extremist form of republics are increasing.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         promisem, In keeping with the context of the OP, I think your lead statement could also be just as applicably referred to the mid-nineteenth century situation.
         
         As for the rest of your comment - I think a dose of optimism would do wonders. When political events of the day have you feeling the most pessimistic, go outside and watch the sunset, followed by the moon rise. Then get up early the next day and watch the sunrise.
         
         That has happened in the U.S. since our first elections, and we have survived through to today's elections . We will survive tomorrow's too.***
         
         *** Now don't blow-up on me bud, although I do think it good advice, that last thought was intended as a bit of a humorous jab. Imagine how dull our political conversations would be without your perspective. ;-)
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I agree with your first sentence. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's happening now.
            
            I don't agree with your next sentences. The situation today is much more complex and risky -- we didn't have nukes in the 19th century -- than it is today.
            
            As far as the sun and moon, I also love my wife, my children, my dogs and much more in life. I just don't love today's politics or some dangerously ignorant voters.
            
            GA, on your final point, you seriously misunderstand me. I don't blow up at people who have a different opinion than mine. I get upset at people who attack me personally when I simply ask a question. See my response to your comment on the Niger thread.
            
            Thank you at least for saying my contributions aren't dull.

            replyreport
   4. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What you mistake for 'death by polarity' is actually  your lack of understanding and comprehension of the  face and personality of the american political system and the operation of it FROM THE BEGINNING days   of America .    The American congress was made up of polarizing and opposing  political ideals then and continues as such today .
      
      So many people just need to actually read a American history book .

      replyreport
      1. 81

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Some people need to tone down their snotty smugness in their posts.

         replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   NO power is a very good power when someone is trying to scam you. Discernment is a good skill to develop. Clearly seeing the true intentions of someone is required before one agrees to negotiate with him or her. "Lets create a Nation where you give us your money and we will redistribute it fairly. You can trust us! Sure you c@n!!!! We are really good guys! See our halos???? And we NEVER-EVER take them off!!!"   
   
   halo 1
   a disk or circle of light shown surrounding or above the head of a saint or holy person to represent their holiness.

   replyreport
3. 81

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) delivered a scathing speech about President Trump from the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, as he officially announced that he will not run for reelection in 2018.
   
   see it here:
   http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/35 … oor-speech
   
   “We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals,” Flake said. "We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country, the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms and institution, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency, the reckless provocations — most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing to whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have been elected to serve."

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I hope you don't mind that I steal this to give its own thread ptosis.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Go for it, I'm already onto the next fiasco:
         Congress to Public: F U!
         
         Senate Votes to Kill Rule Allowing Class-Action Suits Against Banks
         
         yup that's correct, so when Wells Fargo opens up accounts in your name without telling you and then charges you fees. - well - okeey dokey then -
         
         or when Equixfax profits from security breaches that help sell their credit watch services - well can I have some grease with that shaft job, once again?!

         replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Pretty hard to argue the point I'm making though ,  not many Americans , especially younger ones , know their history today , perhaps they are too attuned to the re-writing of it to suit their needs for P.C.  today .

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      …  no one knows their history.  well maybe, except for those who lived through it and the history teachers of olden-days … I remember one knowledgeable history teacher in the late sixties … the others were so interesting, I do not remember a thing I learned. One was a WW I and II buff and I could've cared less … in high school. Recently, I found out that Stalin was involved with Hitler in WWII. and that Hitler made many blunders related to Russia based on personality flaws. Like Math teachers, History teachers need to find a way to stimulate and enthuse their students ... be more interesting and somehow relevant to the reality of human nature.
      
      PS Welcome back, ahorseback.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         There is a word in the last sentence of this article which seems to be relevant to your point.
         http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ … nt-page-1/
         palimpsest
         a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you Kathryn ......,What many fail to learn is as  any true history buff knows ,  that our History is written in many forms ,--just as it is learned --.  Not by one hated class in H.S. , not by one author's  attempt at  one  volume or  one source . Not by unattended U.S. history 101 in college .
         
         They too will learn ,All our U.S. history can not be conveniently re-written for the benefit of our newest P.C. culture.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "They too will learn ,All our U.S. history can not be conveniently re-written for the benefit of our newest P.C. culture."
            
            Of course it can - we already see it happening.  All it takes is a concerted, long time, effort and a few decades.  A great way to begin is with textbooks for our kids - book printers in Texas can give some great, specific, pointers here.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Yes , my friend ,  if one is  young , immature , idealistic ,  One can be trained to accept the newly  introduced re-writing of our history , We can only hope that through  aging , wisdom , continued self education , public or private that one might gain the ability to "see through ' the  present liberal  indoctrination's .

               replyreport
   2. 81

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Rewriting history? That’s how history is written in the first place
      
      Historical negationism, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts.
      
      Like Bretibart with Bannon in charge:
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/maga … annon.html
      
      Maher and Alex are sitting in one of those weirdly dislocated sitting areas that you find on talk shows and in upscale trailer parks, and after some prefatory glad-handing, they get into Breitbart’s gossamer-thin coverage of the Russia investigations.
      
      ‘‘You do ignore stories, would you not agree to that?’’ Maher asks.
      
      ‘‘On purpose,’’ Alex replies.
      
      ‘‘Do you agree that Russia did meddle and try to fix this election?’’
      
      ‘‘Russia absolutely was trying to interfere,’’ Alex says.
      
      Lee Stranahan, who has quit the site and now works for the Russian state-backed media organization Sputnik, posts a YouTube clip of his own. Under the headline ‘‘TRAITOR IN CHIEF,’’ he denounces Alex for acknowledging the Russian hack; then he starts a campaign for Alex to be fired, sends an open letter to Breitbart’s co-founder and chief executive, Larry Solov, and tells a reporter at The Daily Caller that Breitbart is coming undone not only because Alex is ‘‘standoffish,’’ ‘‘arrogant’’ and ‘‘smug’’ but also — and here’s the kill shot in right-wing media — because he ‘‘does not get basic narratives.’’
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It's been a pleasure reading everyone's responses.

         replyreport
5. 81

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   What is Democracy? Is it a form of government based on a set of ideals or wallpapered thuggery?
   
   The founders of the United States were heavily influenced that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate. (which in reality was not extended to blacks nor women)
   
   Explain how this very sick girl is a threat to U.S.A.?
   
   
   
   Why are CPD wasting resources on this? Can anybody explain why? What bothers me the most was she was on a ambulance .
   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/g … ation.html
   
   
   " ... the agents had at first tried to persuade the family to agree to have the girl transferred to a Mexican hospital, pressing the family to sign a voluntary departure form for her ... immigration agents had taken her to a facility in San Antonio where migrant children who arrive alone in the United States from Central America are usually held, even though her parents, who both lack legal status, live 150 miles away in Laredo."
   
   Arresting medically helpless children - it that liberty of life? What sort of morally empty corrupted maggot would think that these actions are correct?
   
   If disabled and sick child is returned to Mexico without her parents,  - does that mean that only citizens of the US can expect rights that are universally recognized?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "The founders of the United States were heavily influenced that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate."
      
      Where do you get the idea that nature gives all people the "right to life, liberty, and estate."?  Natural laws cannot be violated (think of defying the law of gravity here, and floating into the sky without any force being used), but this so-called "right" is violated every day!  It cannot be any form of natural law at all - the only "natural law" even approaching this is "eat or be eaten".
      
      As far as the "Universal declaration of human rights", it's just as unreasonable.  That a portion of humanity decided to speak for ALL peoples is ridiculous on the face of it - that they have "granted" rights that they then cannot and do not provide is even more so.  If the UN truly has given all peoples the rights listed in their fine speeches and documents then they must provide them, not just make speeches that that's what they would LIKE to see for all.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         What about the kid?
         
         I wonder why:
         The kid is arrested right after emergency surgery but yet the parents aren't?
         
         Can you give a reason why not all three weren't arrested?
         Or, why none of them be arrested?
         
         Why just the sick little girl?
         Why? Seems to be so psy ops on  the parents by the CPD because it doesn't make sense.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "Where do you get the idea that nature gives all people the "right to life, liberty, and estate."?  Answer that and you may find the answer to the rest of your questions.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Old one horse trick eh?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  ??  Although I have almost no knowledge of this matter, the fact remains that she does NOT have an innate right to anything you said nature has given her; if she did nature would have supplied her with treatment.  Nor does she appear to have a right, from either nature or any person, to be in the US or use it's facilities for her own benefit.
                  
                  Does that explain why she was arrested?

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     No, it does not explain why she was arrested and yet her parents were not.
                     
                     All I got from your answer is that you do not believe in innate rights. I think your position is natural and legal rights are two types of rights.
                     
                     I do not understand why CPD wanted a little girl with emergency surgery on a transport ambulance to be diverted to a Mexican hospital and then arrested her after surgery - meanwhile her parents were not arrested also.
                     
                     Personally I think arresting a little girl with serious medical problems and then transferred to a holding facility when parents are right there is ... odd. Strangely unneeded brutality.
                     
                     There is a distinction between Improper Entry v. Unlawful Presence
                     http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/0 … sence.html
                     
                     "Both improper entry and unlawful presence should be avoided by any immigrant to the United States, but an illegal alien cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented."
                     
                     _____
                     This one example show that it is not the best use of limited of resources. Instead of concentrating on  arresting gang members and sex offenders, why concentrate on the little girl?

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Is it your stance, then, that whether or not to enforce laws mandated by Congress is to be left up to the cop on the beat?  Our cops (whether city cops, ICE, FBI etc.) are the moral judges, determining which laws shall be enforce and which shall not?
                        
                        As for the parents - you do understand they were not at the hospital, but hundreds of miles away?  That there is no indication ICE even knows where they are, except perhaps a city?  That they may be arrested any day?

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I understood that she was escorted in the ambulance by a family member
                           
                           "Rosamaria’s cousin, Aurora Cantu, a United States citizen who was riding with her in the ambulance and accompanied her to the hospital, told Rosamaria’s mother and others working on the case that the agents had at first tried to persuade the family to agree to have the girl transferred to a Mexican hospital, pressing the family to sign a voluntary departure form for her." - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/g … ation.html
                           
                           Using the The Nuremberg Defense does not negate the unconscionable and unspeakably cruel actions of the CPD agents involved. She was taken to a shelter against her primary care physician's orders.   Arresting a post-surgical disabled child against doctor's orders is disgustingly abhorrent.
                           
                           Castro, D-San Antonio, said “[The Department of Homeland Security] claims to be prioritizing its apprehensions, but Rosa Maria is not a threat to anyone’s safety. We ask that she be released to her family.”
                           
                           
                           It wasn't: "hundreds of miles away", you're trying to depict the parents as if the child was abandoned. Shame on you. You know perfectly well that Hernandez was transported to the hospital by ambulance 150 miles away from where her parents were.
                           
                           You're a liar when you take something and twist it to portray that her parents are unfit to be her guardians. Shame on you.

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              "hundreds of miles" or "150 miles"; is there really that much difference?  But twisting something - I never insinuated unfit parents; they did the best they could for their child, knowing it may well result in their deportation from the country.  You made that comment, not I.  The reference to distance was solely directed at the question of why parents were not arrested; because they are far away, in a different city and possibly at an unknown address.
                              
                              If it is your wish that all 10 year old illegal aliens with cerebral palsy and in the hospital for gall bladder surgery be granted asylum (temporary or not) then you should submit that to your Senators.  Or if you think that any person managing to sneak across the border be given unlimited health care (while Americans forego it because they can't afford it) then submit that.  The point being that until the law is changed it shall be enforced; no blind eyes because the cop, or Ptosis, thinks it is immoral.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 This is akin to the situation to the nurse refusing to illegally giving blood without a warrant. That cop was eventually fired from both his jobs.
                                 
                                 Surgery takes a long time CPD, the ACLU was there, possibly trying to get a judge. All I know is that protocol was not followed since she was arrest and put in a place that is meant for unaccompanied minors who just crossed the border.
                                 
                                 If cops refuse to follow the law, then that's why there is such little respect for them.
                                 
                                 The protocol is to return the child to Aurora Cantu, a United States citizen who is her relative. They didn't do that. Why? That was the OP: why arrest this little girl?  Nobody so far has given a decent answer since they did NOT "just do their job"  what they did was against protocol.  Why did they arrest the little girl? It doesn't make sense  - unless there was malice intent involved. Add malic intent and then it all makes sense.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 75

                                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Wait.  The protocol for illegal aliens, if children, is to turn them over to the nearest relative so they can continue their illegal occupation?  Where in the world do you get these ideas?  Under that theory any US citizen can harbor illegal aliens for life as long as they claim they are a relative.
                                    
                                    They arrested her because she is an illegal alien, residing in the US without permission.  That should be clear, and it doesn't take "malice intent" to determine that.  Again, if we don't like the law saying that people here illegally will be deported, then change the law so that any illegal alien with cerebral palsy, 10 years old, female undergoing gall bladder surgery may stay forever.  Do not arbitrarily decide that it should not be enforced because you don't like the results - that is not the task of enforcement personnel.
                                    
                                    Personally, I like the idea of DACA (in general - it should be firmed up with citizenship requirements), but if we are to use the philosophy of granting immigration to such people then it needs to be the law.  As it isn't, and the law requires deportation, that's what we have to live with until Congress gets off it's behind and does its job.  As there is zero indication that they will ever do that, it isn't even in the cards to grant a temporary stay - all that's left is to enforce the law as it is written.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 81

                                       ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       I didn't make up the rules, you should read more.
                                       https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/un … s-by-state
                                       
                                       "adults who are suitable to provide for the child’s physical and mental well-being and have not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child. All sponsors must pass a background check. The sponsor must agree to ensure the child’s presence at all future immigration proceedings. They also must agree to ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order."

                                       report
                                       1. 75

                                          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          "All sponsors must pass a background check. The sponsor must agree to ensure the child’s presence at all future immigration proceedings. They also must agree to ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States"
                                          
                                          And these relatives that took her to the hospital, while parents remained at home 150 miles away, have agreed to be a sponsor, provide for her physical and mental well being and guarantee the child's presence at immigration and deportation proceedings?  While Mom and Dad stay home without their child?  Don't make me laugh.

                                          report
                                          1. 81

                                             ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             You are so silly. There was one woman,
                                             
                                             1) The ACLU was already involved in the transport of the little girl - that's why they already had a letter to show CPD at the checkpoint.
                                             2) The relative, Aurora Cantu, already had power of atty - or CBD wouldn't have asked her to signed a release form which she declined.
                                             
                                             Hope you're sides hurt from laughing so hard.
                                             
                                             I see giving you links is useless since you don't read them

                                             report
                                             1. 75

                                                wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                There was one woman what?  That had gone through the process of becoming a sponsor?  I don't think so... 
                                                
                                                Are you confusing carrying a POA from parents to equate with an actual intention of being a sponsor and taking the child into her home?  But perhaps you should read your own link - the first sentence reads:
                                                
                                                "When a child who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian is apprehended by immigration authorities, the child is transferred to the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Federal law requires that ORR feed, shelter, and provide medical care for unaccompanied children until it is able to release them to safe settings with sponsors (usually family members), while they await immigration proceedings."
                                                
                                                Are you now trying to tell me that the relative had legal guardianship, gone through the courts and all?  I don't believe it.

                                                report
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Liberal   , ' free --health-- care--for --all  'advocates can throw all the pictures from the net into the fray that they wish ,  every illegal invalid , every illegal sick child , every disabled  illegal immigrant as they so wish ...... Anything at all to portray those who would repeal the economically  failing A.C.A . ....as devils in republican clothes . 
   
   Remember ,.......... "Republicans are going to push grandma over the cliff "
   Bottom line is that  these abuses and abusers are still , by  law , considered illegal immigrants .  Even to the point where free services [ paid for by others ]  is simply and knowingly exploited  for political  purposes .
   
   It doesn't even matter that no one -NO ONE - goes without  health care provisions in the US .whether  one can pay for it or not . Anyone who knows a poorer , for whatever reason ,  American  citizen  knows that .
   
   Recipients of free health care in America ;
   -  Welfare  recipients
   -  Poorer Elderly
   -  Lower income
   -  S.S.I. recipients
   
   But hey , nothing stops the politics ?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I need to make some radical changes: I fit 3 of those categories for free health care, but believe me when I say my health care is NOT free.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Well perhaps I do too but  my point though is that no one goes without health care here , we all know that . Yet  there are many who claim that we're all going to die without an approved single payer system . Whoever eventually pays for that .  Too bad for the illegal immigrant  , 
         Is she being arrested for  stealing health care ?
         For crossing the border ?
         For her parents having crossed the border ?     
         
         No she's been arrested to make a political point , simply by the influences of one or the other party . Yeaaa , ........another supreme court sideshow .

         replyreport
         1. 75

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Personally, I see her arrest, and that of other DACA kids, as a push by Trump to get congress to amend the law.  This girl specifically was never targeted for that purpose, but WAS caught up in the politics going on.
            
            Most of us recognize a desperate need for immigration law reform, but congress has done nothing for years or decades.  No one will push them to do what they need to do...until Trump appeared and said "No, I won't ignore the laws Congress passed: I will enforce them as every president has sworn to do".  Hopefully it will be enough to convince at least some of our "leaders" to address the problem.  Illegals have been made brownie points by one side or the other for far too long - it's long past time to end it.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Many do not understand that Trump is an excellent poker player in politics , I believe he will fool a lot  of people of both parties , ie. immigration reform , tax reform , trade reform , etc.   Most of us want the "wall "  but more than any simple structure wall , we want reform and accountability in politics , in existing law and in congress.
               
               Term limits next perhaps ?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps.  Term limits would not only benefit the country greatly, but likely help Trump as well.  Which means, to me, that it is not unlikely he would get behind the idea and push.

                  replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   We have talked term limits for forty years and then some , If Trump accomplished that alone , Imagine ........just imagine .

   replyreport