The Harris Trump Debate. Who do you think won.
Since FEMA is the topic...
Never forget!
FEMA Report Acknowledges Failures In Puerto Rico Disaster Response
The Federal Emergency Management Agency failed to properly prepare for last year's hurricane season and was unable to provide adequate support to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico and other areas, an internal report released by the agency concluded.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/62886180 … r-response
And
Trump delayed $20bn in aid to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, report finds
Funding was ‘unnecessarily delayed’ by bureaucratic obstacles, after hurricane killed thousands of people in 2017
The Trump administration delayed more than $20bn in hurricane relief aid for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, according to a report by the housing department’s office of the inspector General.
The efforts to deliver recovery funding to the island were “unnecessarily delayed by bureaucratic obstacles”, according to the 46-page report. The hurricane, which hit the island in 2017, killed thousands of people and left thousands more without electricity or water for months.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ … elayed-aidThat is fair enough, but why do pôsters like those above excuse FEMA actions when it is a Democratic administration? Do they think it is not okay to complain about them since there are Leftist bosses?
I believe Puerto Rico is strategically and culturally important to the United States. But it provides problems when hurricanes occur. I was going to bring up the two hurricanes that Clinton handled poorly. Still, it's worth acknowledging that managing hurricanes in Puerto Rico is inherently challenging due to its geographical location and existing infrastructure issues. These factors, including limited resources, the island's susceptibility to powerful storms, and logistical difficulties in delivering aid, make effective response efforts particularly demanding.
After major hurricanes like Maria in 2017 and Fiona in 2022, the U.S. had to send in workers and resources to help repair Puerto Rico's damaged infrastructure. The federal government deployed personnel from various agencies, including FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and utility workers from across the mainland, to restore power, repair roads, and rebuild essential infrastructure. Hurricane Maria, in particular, caused significant damage, leaving much of the island without power for months, and the recovery required extensive efforts to stabilize and repair the electrical grid and other critical systems. I believe it was a real challenge to rebuild the infrastructure due to sending in offshore workers.U.S. charges FEMA official in Puerto Rico for taking bribes after Hurricane Maria
SAN JUAN (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday announced corruption charges against a senior government official and a contractor who oversaw the rebuilding of Puerto Rico's electrical grid after Hurricane Maria devastated the island in 2017.
In a 15-count indictment, U.S. prosecutors allege that Ahsha Tribble, who oversaw the Federal Emergency Management Agency's efforts to restore electrical power after the hurricane, accepted helicopter rides, hotel rooms and other bribes from Donald Ellison, who was then president of Cobra Acquisitions LLC, which was contracted to do the work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/u … KCN1VV2M6/I find this to be a very big issue. I am thankful Trump has brought it to the attention of the general public. I would ask --- do you want tax dollars spent this way?
In the past two years, FEMA SSP has spent over $1.02 billion on migrants through the Shelter and Services Program (SSP). This includes approximately $259 million allocated in April 2024 and an additional $380 million announced in August 2024, aimed at supporting communities providing essential services to migrants. Moreover, more than $780 million was awarded through the SSP and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program in Fiscal Year 2023(U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/08/28/dep … ommunities
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ma … g-billions
Regarding your thoughts on Trump---
"There’s nobody that’s handled a hurricane or storm worse than what they’re doing right now,” Trump said. “Kamala spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants. Many of whom should not be in our country.”
Trump's statement critiques the allocation of FEMA funds, asserting that money intended for disaster recovery is instead used for housing migrants under the Shelter and Services Program (SSP)--- This is a fact.
Critics argue this diverts resources from essential disaster relief efforts, particularly during hurricane seasons. Trump's comments reflect broader political tensions regarding change in immigration policy SSP, and disaster preparedness, as he emphasizes the negative impact of such spending on hurricane recovery. SSP was enacted to do just what Trump has claimed, and more.
Why do you feel he is lying in this regard?
"The facts?
Trump has lied and criticized the SSP, which "helps local governments and nonprofits support migrants"
Yes, this is a fact... Biden skirted his way around and added SSP to FEMA. So yes FEMA does support migrants many needs.
I have the same problem Trump has --- I don't want my tax dollar spent on migrants. I assume many Americans might agree. How do you feel about SSP?"Trump's statement critiques the allocation of FEMA funds, asserting that money intended for disaster recovery is instead used for housing migrants under the Shelter and Services Program (SSP)--- This is a fact."
This is not true.
"The Shelter SSP is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA's disaster-related authorities or funding streams," a DHS spokesperson previously told Newsweek.
There is no evidence that disaster relief funds were used on immigrants in the U.S. illegally. FEMA disaster money comes from dedicated funds that cannot be used for other purposes.
On its specifically dedicated fact check page, FEMA responded to the claim that disaster relief was “diverted to support international efforts or border related issues.”
“No money is being diverted from disaster response needs. FEMA’s disaster response efforts and individual assistance is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, which is a dedicated fund for disaster efforts,” FEMA said in its post. “Disaster Relief Fund money has not been diverted to other, non-disaster related efforts.”
It is illegal for funding that is appropriated by Congress for one purpose to be diverted and used for another purpose.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna173955Not sure why you feel I would think the SSP is illegal. I have gone to great lengths to offer the facts about this program. I now assume you had hoeI would critique Trump's statement. I will admit I was more concerned about SSP. Just switching up the conversation. So---
Regarding Trump's statement --- "There’s nobody that’s handled a hurricane or storm worse than what they’re doing right now,” Trump said. “Kamala spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants. Many of whom should not be in our country.”
It is not true that when he refers to Kamala spending FEMA money. She would have nothing to do with the appropriation of FEMA funds.
The rest bears truth ---- I could assume he was referring to
FEMA's Shelter and Services Program (SSP) was introduced in 2023. Again as I shared it is my understanding that this program allocated funding to local governments and non-profit organizations to provide essential support, such as shelter and healthcare, for migrants arriving in the United States.
He could be suggesting that FEMA's focus on the SSP—spending billions to address migrant needs—diverted funds and attention away from disaster preparedness and response, resulting in inadequate management of hurricanes and storms. This fits into his broader criticism of how the current administration prioritizes and uses resources.
At any rate, I find it more disturbing to learn that FEMA even has such a provision. I certainly realize many citizens are very concerned with how Trump communicates. He certainly should not have said Harris is spending FEMA money.
If he was going to touch on the subject he should have brought up that since 2023 FEMA does legally have provisions to spend funds that allocated funding to local governments and non-profit organizations to provide essential support, such as shelter and healthcare, for migrants arriving in the United States. The truth would have certainly actually had more impact. I do not think many know of this program, and would not be happy to see taxpayers funding it.
I have posted the facts regarding SSP. I certainly never made any claims that the funds that are being spent on migrants is coming from disaster funds. I offered a link to Home Land Security to source how SSP came about, and its purpose. Perhaps our wires are crossed... I would assume you were concentrating on Trump's statement more than the SSP program itself. It's clear Trump twisted the facts as a political ploy. They are both slinging cheap political ploys. Goose-Gander. I hate this kind ugly of crap.
Do you have any concerns over ---- In the past two years, FEMA SSP has spent over $1.02 billion on migrants through the Shelter and Services Program (SSP). This includes approximately $259 million allocated in April 2024 and an additional $380 million announced in August 2024, aimed at supporting communities providing essential services to migrants. Moreover, more than $780 million was awarded through the SSP and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program in Fiscal Year 2023(U.S. Department of Homeland Security)"I have posted the facts regarding SSP. I certainly never made any claims that the funds that are being spent on migrants is coming from disaster funds."
But Trump did.
"Trump's statement critiques the allocation of FEMA funds, asserting that money intended for disaster recovery is instead used for housing migrants under the Shelter and Services Program (SSP)-"
He lied . He has attempted to claim that FEMA has no money for hurricane recovery because of money spent on migrants, something that is not true.
My posting revolved around the concern that Trump has lied about the current administration's response to the hurricanecurrent where FEMA is now --- Politico FEMA is facing a significant funding shortfall, particularly as the 2024 hurricane season progresses. The agency reported a DEFICIT of around $6 billion in September 2024, prompting it to halt reimbursements for state rebuilding projects. This decision affects the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund, which is critical for both long-term recovery efforts and short-term emergency expenses like housing and food during major disasters.
As of October 4, 2024, the Biden-Harris administration has allocated over $45 million in assistance for Hurricane Helene survivors. This funding aims to support individuals and families in North Carolina and several other affected states.
Gosh, I did some research, and I’ve learned that FEMA is currently facing a great shortage of funds due to the high number of disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. Their Disaster Relief Fund is nearing exhaustion, which has forced the agency to limit spending to only the most critical, life-saving efforts, like emergency responses during events such as Hurricane Idalia and the Maui wildfires. As a result, funds for longer-term rebuilding efforts have been put on hold.
President Biden requested an additional $12 billion in emergency funds for FEMA on August 10, 2023, as part of a larger $40 billion funding package. This request aimed to address the depletion of the Disaster Relief Fund caused by a series of natural disasters that overwhelmed FEMA's resources. ( I found nothing indicating these funds were allocated)
In 2024, President Biden reiterated his need for funds for FEMA. In June, his administration sought $23.5 billion for disaster response and recovery, including $9 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. Then, in August 2024, he requested another $12 billion to replenish FEMA’s funds, which were running low due to ongoing emergencies.As a result, FEMA has been operating under strict funding limitations, focusing only on critical emergency responses. ( I found no info on these funds being allocated)
Politico current --- FEMA last received significant funding through a continuing resolution passed by Congress on September 30, 2024. This resolution allowed FEMA to lift its immediate needs funding status, meaning the agency could resume funding projects related to previous disasters, rather than limiting expenditures to only critical life-saving measures(POLITICO)
However, FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is projected to exhaust its remaining funds later this year or early next year, indicating that Congress will need to act on supplemental appropriations soon (POLITICO)
The agency had been under pressure due to the high number of disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires, which had significantly depleted its resources( POLITICO)
It does appear they have been suffering from very low funds for some time. However, No, FEMA is not moving disaster relief funds into the Shelter and Services Program (SSP). These funding are completely separate and appropriated by Congress for distinct purposes. The Disaster Relief Fund, which FEMA manages, is specifically designated for disaster-related efforts.
His statement was not based on pure facts. Again I felt it was political. It was hyperbolic, as was Harris's many statements when she stated " Donald Trump "intends to cut" Medicare and "promised that if he wins reelection, he’ll gut Social Security and Medicare."--- (Was she lying?)
"almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost under Trump before the pandemic." (his statement is inaccurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Trump administration actually gained over 400,000 manufacturing jobs between January 2017 and February 2020, (Lie or twisted facts)
Harris stated that under Trump's "Project 2025," he would sign a national abortion ban. However, the project does not specifically mention a national ban, and Trump has distanced himself from the project and has not explicitly committed to such a ban. (This appeared to be a bold lie)
Again I look at the concept goose -gander. No shortage of twisting facts... Do you consider Harris's lies or only Trump's?Another popular refrain that has gained traction on the right in recent days is the claim that FEMA has no money for hurricane recovery because of money spent on migrants, something that is not true.
The money used in the aftermath of Helene and other major disasters is not part of FEMA’s operating budget, but instead comes from the Disaster Relief Fund, which is appropriated by Congress.
October is the start of the federal government’s fiscal year, and a stopgap spending measure approved by lawmakers last month replenished the DRF at last year’s baseline level of $20 billion, though some of that money is reserved for ongoing recovery efforts from previous disasters and projects to mitigate future impacts.
The White House, in a release on Monday afternoon, said FEMA "has sufficient funding to both support the response to Hurricane Milton and continue to support the response to Hurricane Helene -– including funding to support first responders and provide immediate assistance to disaster survivors."
The scale of Trump's lies are unlike we have ever seen. Plus, his economic plans will put this country under water. Ruin the economy.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/07/nx-s1-51 … elief-fundI have spent far too much to much time on something I feel I did well research, and offer my findings --- It is pretty clear you shared your thoughts too. When I engage with someone who seems to accept the lies of one political candidate while ignoring those of another, I find it helpful to encourage critical thinking. I emphasize the importance of evaluating all candidates based on their statements and actions, rather than focusing on selective truths. I also try to discuss how personal biases can affect perceptions of honesty, helping them recognize that we all have biases that shape our views.
As I shared, I am much more concerned over the funds, and the outrageous amounts SSP is spending on migrants as well as states. Trump should get the facts straight and pound the subject every chance he gets.
From 2022 to 2024, the Shelter and Services Program (SSP) has allocated substantial funding to support migrants. In Fiscal Year 2023, over $780 million was awarded through the SSP and related programs. Additionally, in 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an additional $259.13 million in April, followed by another allocation of $380 million in August 2024
U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityQuite simply, economists agree that another Trump term will have disastrous outcomes for the country. That fact is the main driver of my candidate choice, along with the fact that the man has absolutely abhorrent character.
What? We have beat that dead horse... Divert much? Come on. I have offered a long list of well-known very respected economists that are supporting Trump's economic plan. I have been having an ongoing conversation with PeoplePower where I share my more in-depth thoughts on Trump's economic agenda.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/361 … ost4344814
When I think about Trump's character, I see a man who doesn’t need the challenges of this demanding job but still tackles every obstacle that comes his way. He possesses a remarkable ability to solve problems and sidestep potential issues, showcasing a strategic mindset that’s impressive. I would say, and I emphasize “one” because I’ve seen a few, that he is one of the strongest individuals when it comes to his resolve regarding his beliefs. While he may not always be articulate, he expresses his thoughts and isn’t afraid to share his common-sense perspectives. He has earned the love and respect of his family and friends, and I believe he has the love of most likely half our nation. I’d describe his character as very unique, and I can’t help but feel a bit jealous—who wouldn’t want to be known as someone who stands out from the crowd? He has undoubtedly cemented his place in history and will be remembered, studied, written about, and perhaps even regarded as a hero by many over time. He is not about the power, he is all about the people...Shar,
You forgot to mention another important aspect of President Donald Trump's character. Courage. He is hit with an assassin's bullet and doesn't cower but does a fist pump and yells "fight, fight, fight. He then goes back to the place where he could have lost his life and holds another rally that has a huge level of attendance.
At the Butler rally, I love how they had the same chart up he was looking at when he was shot. He comes on stage, looks at the chart, looks back at the crowd and says, "Now, as I was saying..."
He has not backed down in the face of bogus impeachments, all the bogus lawfare waged against him or the vast array of lies told about him, he keeps focused and doing what he believes is right.
It's obvious by his actions, President Donald Trump is a true leader.Yes, how could I forget that crucial point — it’s truly something to admire, watching him press on without letting anything get in his way. The courage is simply astonishing. Meanwhile, we’ve got another candidate who won’t even face the press. One word sums up that kind of cowardice — sickening.
I might add we have some Americans ready to put this airhead in the White House.I honestly think that President Trump is going to win Pennsylvania this November. If he does, that will be good inasmuch as it means that he will be reelected as president.
It’s no surprise that I’m hoping he wins the election. I believe he’s the stronger candidate, with a solid track record of job performance, and I see him as a genuine problem solver who truly loves our country. He’s a fighter who has taken on a pretty tough political machine. I think we’ll see his poll numbers start to rise in the coming week. On the other hand, I see Kamala Harris as a walking disaster. Interestingly, I remember feeling the same way about Biden not too long ago. It’s hard to argue against the idea that he’s made quite a mess of the country, even though a few might disagree.
Agreed. Kamala Harris is pretending to be something that she's not. I don't want to be listening to her giggles on camera for the next four years.
It's very interesting, half of the country sees Trump in one light while the other half sees him in a total different light. Is the glass half full or half empty? The New York Times seems to think Trump's glass is half empty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/p … =url-shareI can lightly critique the article you offered... I think it safe to say the NYT is a biased outlet.
The article presents a critical view of former President Donald J. Trump, portraying him as confused, forgetful, and disconnected from reality. However, this perspective seems overly biased and selective in its interpretation of his statements.
First, the claim about the debate with Vice President Kamala Harris lacks context. It’s essential to recognize that the empty hall was a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected all candidates' debate formats. Many politicians have had to adapt to unprecedented circumstances, and the emotional resonance of a debate can still be felt, even without a live audience. Mr. Trump’s reference to the audience reaction could be interpreted as a metaphorical expression of his belief in the support he garners, rather than a literal recounting of events.
Additionally, the article's assertion that Trump frequently misremembers details seems to ignore the fact that public speaking can be challenging for anyone, particularly when addressing a wide array of complex issues. Many politicians, including his opponents, have moments of confusion or mixed statements during speeches, yet they don’t receive the same level of scrutiny or criticism. This selective criticism raises questions about the fairness of the article’s portrayal.
Moreover, Trump's digressions during speeches, such as mentioning golf or his physical appearance, could be viewed as attempts to connect with his audience on a personal level. Political communication often involves storytelling and engaging anecdotes, which can resonate with supporters and detractors alike. These elements can serve to humanize a candidate, making them more relatable, rather than detracting from their message.
Lastly, the notion that Trump expresses fear regarding foreign threats is not unusual for a leader. The world of geopolitics is fraught with complexities, and it’s not uncommon for politicians to address their concerns about various countries in a somewhat generalized manner. This reflects a broader issue of international relations, where threats may shift rapidly and require leaders to remain vigilant.
Note - I find your first sentence intriguing and think it would spark an interesting conversation: "It's fascinating that half of the country views Trump in one light while the other half sees him in a completely different way." This disparity prompts us to reflect on why many citizens feel not only confident in his ability to lead the nation but also genuinely like him for who he is. Despite his rough edges, a significant portion of the population sees his character in a vastly different light and has come to trust and appreciate him. Makes for good conversation with those that have an open mind.Curiosity struck like a bolt of lightening crashing onto a lonely tree on the edge of a great forest at the break of dawn.
Donald Trump favorability in the United States in October 2024, by political party (Oct 4, 2024)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/144 … -party-us/
According to a survey conducted in early October 2024, around 54 percent of Americans had a very unfavorable view of the former president and 2024 presidential hopeful. As of March, Donald Trump secured the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, with over 80 percent of Republicans holding either a somewhat or very favorable opinion of him.Good point
I gave an approximate guess how many might be supporting Trump. It seems Americans are very fickled and quick to approve and disapprove of candidates. I mean one must remember the very low approval ratings Harris had just weeks before she became the candidate. Go figure.
Kamala Harris's approval ratings in 2024, before she announced any potential candidacy for president, were notably low. Various polls throughout early 2024 showed that she was struggling with public approval. In some cases, her approval ratings were as low as the mid-30s to low 40s.
One poll from YouGov in January 2024 indicated that she had an approval rating of around 38%, with a 52% disapproval rating, reflecting significant challenges in public perception. Another Morning Consult poll around the same time reflected similarly low numbers, with approval ranging from 39% to 41%. Yikes...
It would seem if one looks at polls today, many had an epiphany.
Now regarding Trump, you are pretty much looking at his disapproval rating for the last 6 years to mimic what you offered in your stats. He always hooved around 50% - 54% disapproval rating. So, the values that you have offered are right on the mark. Seems he hoovers at that level. He has never enjoyed a high approval rate. See chart
Asked about the issue of Republican governors transporting illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and how the federal government was supporting cities with large illegal immigrant populations, Jean-Pierre explained that FEMA regional administrators had been working with various city officials to coordinate federal support from FEMA and other agencies.
“Funding is also available through FEMA’s emergency food and shelter program to eligible local governments and not-for-profit organizations upon request to support humanitarian relief for migrants,” Jean-Pierre told reporters at the time. “We’ll continue to do what we can as a federal government to support these cities as we rebuild our asylum processing system after it was gutted by the Trump administration.”
In Sept 2022 the White House said FEMA was distributing funds to cities for emergency food and shelter for migrants and that the Biden-Harris admin would continue to support those cities in this way.
Watch it here on X
https://x.com/libbyemmons/status/184260 … igrants%2FMajor North Carolina newspaper knocks Trump over Helene response ‘falsehoods’
A leading newspaper in North Carolina is blasting former President Trump over what it calls his “falsehoods” about the government response to Hurricane Helene, which devastated a large swath of the state last week.
“This is not a situation to capitalize on for political gain. But former President Donald Trump has politicized the situation at every turn, spreading falsehoods and conspiracies that fracture the community instead of bringing it together,” the editorial board of The Charlotte Observer wrote this week. “By every indication, state and federal agencies have been working to help people in need. They’ve been airlifting food and other supplies to affected areas.”
The Observer noted Trump’s statements in recent weeks claiming Democratic state and federal officials are “going out of their way to not help people in Republican areas,” and saying Vice President Harris “spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants.”
“There’s no evidence to support any of those ridiculous claims,” the newspaper shot back.
“Let’s be clear: Western North Carolina is not a political football. This is not a campaign opportunity,” the outlet continued. “The most unhelpful thing any politician — or anyone else — can do right now is spread misinformation and tell people that their government isn’t doing anything to help them.”
Public polling shows North Carolina as one of several key battleground states less than a month out from the election, with Harris and Trump virtually tied there.
“Sowing the seeds of political division is always an unnecessary and tiresome endeavor,” the Observer continued. “But doing so in times of great need, when unity is paramount, is particularly shameful.”And those of us who can recognize the misinformation campaign, and those who readily spread those lies, will continue to push back. People who spread his lies are not much better than the one telling the lies to start with.
"He lied . He has attempted to claim that FEMA has no money for hurricane recovery because of money spent on migrants, something that is not true.My posting revolved around the concern that Trump has lied about the current administration's response to the hurricane."
But he didn't, it is true, listen for youself to those you trust:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/qskNBanYt15WKoY4/I'm sorry, it is true that he lied. I've read the response from FEMA myself.
Well I haven't read it, but even if they've assisted with only $25 pp x millions of illegal aliens, that's going to add up! Money that is no longer there for my family in the Carolinas, money that is no longer
there for my fellow Floridians (another monster storm is headed for us as I type) Money that will no longer be there for you or your neighbors if, God forbid, you are hit with a natural disaster. It's wrong and even though... I don't want anything from the Gov, it is the principle! It's wrong on every level that, We the People, American citizens, are in dead last place, as far as the Biden-Harris-Walz team and the Democrat Party are concerned!Angie, Prayers coming your way...
I completely understand your concerns and frustrations. Even a small amount like $25 per person for millions of illegal aliens really adds up, and it’s frustrating to think about how that impacts resources available for the families in the Carolinas and Florida. With another storm on the horizon, support will be needed. It’s infuriating to see American citizens pushed to the back of the line while those in power seem to prioritize non-citizens. I agree with you; it’s not about wanting handouts from the government—it’s about fairness and ensuring that American's needs are met first. We all deserve to be a priority, especially in times of crisis! Stay safe, my prayers are with Florida, my sister lives there in Mt Dora. She feels the storm won't be bad in her area. But I always worry.Thanks Shar, I am taking this one very seriously, your sister probably should too!
And of course you are willing to believe that they would never lie?
There is video of Karine Jean-Pierre clearly stating money from FEMA is going to illegal aliens.
Yes 2 separate funds but isn’t it just grand that SSP funds are still flowing to migrants instead of addressing the needs of Americans in distress? You mentioned a valid concern about HS Johnson possibly not returning to approve much-needed hurricane relief funds. Maybe FEMA could pull some strings with Congress to reallocate funds from the SSP program to actually help Americans.
So, I ask again, are you in favor of SSP?What are the alternatives to SSP?
SSP, as I see it, is out of necessity, is it not?
Migrants have the right to seek asylum at the U.S. border. U.S. law says that any person who is physically present in the United States or who “arrives” at the border must be given an opportunity to seek asylum.
Additionally, there is no limit on the number of individuals who may apply for and be granted asylum each year, nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum.
Under U.S. law, migrants seeking asylum are allowed to remain in the United States while their asylum claims are pending adjudication, meaning they can stay in the country while awaiting a decision on their application; this is considered a legal right to seek asylum and remain in the country while the process is ongoing.
I'm sure you see where I'm going. So what next? We only have so much detention space.
In terms of FEMA reallocating or shifting funds, I'm not certain that they are legally able to do so.There are no numerical limits on the number of asylum seekers who can enter our country.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … stem-works
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us … sylum.html
I would think that FEMA can not shift funds out of SSP. It would take Congress to approve.
Yeah, because the people of MAGA do not understand that FEMA oversees the grants that were given by Congress to assist in migrant housing are separate from the disaster relief that Congress has also allocated.
Remember when you vote, what this Administration has prioritized, funding the continual death and destruction abroad, while Americans from Hawaii to North Carolina are given crumbs after everything they own is lost from natural disasters.
Highly recommended:
What Is Actually Going on in North Carolina?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlLjFMXTKY
A government more concerned with supporting the death and destruction of people half way across the world, rather than taking care of its own and doing everything it can for them, is a BAD government.Ken, it's clear we have an administration completely ill-equipped to handle any problems. They create issues with their implausible agendas, and the mess they’ve made of the country is undeniable. Hopefully, more people will wake up and face the facts. Many are blinded by their hatred for one man, willing to watch the country spiral just to spite him. They hang on every word Trump says, all while ignoring the real trouble we’re in. Look at the current FEMA crisis—low on funds despite massive budgets under Biden. And, as you mentioned, we're fighting global wars we have no business in, witnessing nothing but death and destruction of innocent lives and lands.
Or it has bad citizens for spreading disinformation about recovery efforts. Which will, in turn, hurt their fellow citizens. Telling people that there is no money could prevent them from applying for the money they need to rebuild if they believe the lies.
And I plan to remember to vote for justice for the person who tried to overturn an American election. For the candidate who thinks women deserve equal rights. For the candidate who will add less debt and not give away tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. To the candidate who will fight with our allies against aggression."For the candidate who will add less debt and not give away tax breaks to the wealthiest among us."
For the candidate who feels the wealth in America belongs to her (via government) to spend as she thinks best, not to the person that earned it and has their own thoughts on how to spend it. For the candidate who has made it clear that those that can afford buy what she wants them to must do so. For the candidate that feels those with more don't actually own it; that she does (along with those with less and those with average); it all belongs to her, not the one that earned and owns it.
A little difference in viewpoint, right?Thank you --- common sense certainly is an eye opener...
I completely agree with your perspective. It's concerning when a candidate believes that wealth in America is a collective resource to be managed by the government rather than recognizing that it belongs to the individuals who earned it. This kind of thinking can lead to policies that stifle personal initiative and freedom, as it implies that the government knows better how to spend hard-earned money than the individuals themselves.
Moreover, this approach can create a sense of entitlement, where the government mandates what people should buy or how they should spend their money. It undermines the fundamental principle of private ownership and can result in disincentives for hard work and innovation. While a focus on wealth redistribution might appeal to some, it often overlooks the true value of personal responsibility and the importance of allowing individuals to make their own financial decisions. It’s definitely a significant difference in viewpoint that can have profound implications for our economy and society as a whole.
This perspective is in stark contrast to our current form of democracy, which is built on principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government intervention. A democratic system thrives when citizens have the autonomy to make choices about their own lives and finances, fostering a society that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. When a candidate seeks to centralize control over wealth and spending, it undermines the core tenets of democracy and can lead to an overreaching government that diminishes individual rights and freedoms. It's definitely a significant difference in viewpoint that can have profound implications for our economy and society as a whole.
I need not put a name to what this candidate is striving towards.So, all those years that the country had higher rates for higher earners was just government thinking that all wealth belonged to them? Yeah, that's an odd viewpoint alright.
You do remember that the person you are planning on voting for said that the government has no control over mens bodies and only over women? It is so convenient that she forgot that all the males have to register for draft.
So, forcing someone to have a medical procedure is akin to the government keeping a list of people that could be called to serve if we go to war. Got it. Thanks for the latest false equivalency.
I do not think you are unable to understand this is not a false equivilancy and are just trying to deny her stupid comment. She was asked point blank if there are any laws controlling mens bodies. She said no, conveniently forgetting that there is a law in the US requiring men to register for the draft. Men have been drafted to fight in wars several times in the past. Telling someone that they have to go die on a beach in some foreign land is the government controlling your body.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kiaMlHQ9DXI
You can take a minute and see your candidate in action or remain ignorant. Your choice.Now name the medical procedure that exists for men, that the government can force a man to have, to save another life. There are plenty of laws that govern a government control of its citizens actions, but none that invade the person's body. Hence, the ignorance in this case, is trying to compare the draft, something not used in 50 years, to medical equality. Especially when all a man needs to do is pay off a doctor to say they have some bone spurs to avoid that draft.
What is the "medical procedure" that you think women are forced to have done to them to save another life?
The process of a natural birth, without medical intervention at all and with nothing whatsoever done to her body?She was asked if there are any laws that effect mens bodies. She lied or purposefully ignored half of Americans and said no.
Thats your candidate.Either way, this election would be over if not for the reversal of Roe.
87% of Americans are FINE with Abortion, it is a major losing cause that allows the worst elements in politics to maintain control...
If it were not an issue the focus would be on the economy, wars, massive influx of migrants allowed into the country... a influx funded by the Biden Administration ensuring the UN and NGOs had billions to put towards its efforts...
But for many, abortion is the key voting issue that supersedes all others...
Without it, they had no chance... not after such a dreadful 4 years.Unfortunately I realize that a large majority of the population is in favor of murdering unborn babies. It just amazes me that this is so many people are using to decide who to vote for though.
At least Valeant is honest. He knows that Kamala is going to wreck the economy and is an existensial threat to the future of democracy in your country, but admits he is voting for her so he can get back at Trump.
This is his exact qoute when asked if he was voting based on the economny "Hell no. I'm voting to see Trump brought to justice for his 2020 coup attempt."Yeah, you can skip the fabrication of others' beliefs. As usual, they are completely delusional. The economy is doing just fine under the Democrats, as it always does. The global inflation we have seen from the effects of thousands of businesses closing in Trump's final year has finally eased, while avoiding a major recession as everyone was projecting. The jobs market has remained strong and the stock market is at record highs.
So, the invention that any Democrat thinks 'Kamala is going to wreck the economy' ignores what the actual economists are saying about the two candidates' plans. Harris will add half the debt that Trump will and Trump's tariff plans have been found to add to the inflation and not help lower it like we've seen in the past two years.
And then another distortion. It's not 'getting back at Trump,' as you claim, it's holding him to account for his many crimes. Even when proven beyond a doubt that he cheated to win the one election he was successful in with mountains of evidence, MAGA cannot accept the results of a jury of his peers that he had to cheat to win. The MAGA supporters of this forum seem to condone their party cheating and making attempted coups to overturn the results of legal elections that they lose. It's a reason many of us on the left really don't have much respect for those kinds of people much longer. They accept that illegality from their leaders, 'because I like their policies.' Give us a break.Fascinating. We have now gone full circle from Trump claiming election fraud and liberals refusing to examine his claims to a liberal claiming Trump lost the election from fraud, still without evidence.
Truly fascinating.And it's fascinating that some people just invent words in other people's posts. Where did I used the word fraud?
What he did do was break campaign finance laws to hide vital information from voters. That is called cheating.
Reading. It's important.Breaking laws results in fraud, at least in the common vernacular. A lawyer may disagree, but anyone with common sense understands what is meant.
(Fraud means cheating occurred, by the way).Not going to argue with you on this. The main difference between 2020 and 2016 is that there was a mountain of actual evidence that the courts were willing to accept about Trump's illegal actions in the 2016 election. We're still waiting for any court to find that Trump provided any proof of his claims in 2020.
You're right - best not argue about it, for we will never agree on what is evidence or what it might point to.
Possibly true. But then the right is running the candidate that led us into some of the dread of those four years. His economy tanked to end his term and he has a hand in the major thing that people fret over - inflation. Could even make the case that his final year led to that influx of immigrants, since the US had the vaccine and Biden was steering the fastest recovery from that pandemic.
I have no rebuttal for the wars as Biden has culpability in both, even though we are not directly engaged with our troops. Just as the right has no rebuttal for Trump's attempted coup, which is definitely an issue for the 10% of Republicans now supporting Harris in this election.
By that definition, forcing people to go to prison is law that effects bodies. Like I said, the usual false equivalency from the right. Cannot answer the medical procedure that is forced on men, now can you? So, my candidate's answer is just fine when you want to talk equivalencies in the realm of healthcare and not deflect away from that.
What medical procedure do you think is being forced on women?
You really do not understand that childbirth is a medical procedure? One that is life threatening as many women die each year during it?
I am not sure where you learned biology, but a female human cannot become impregnated without a male. Except in cases of rape no one is forcing women to become pregnant. Why are you unwilling to understand that, or is this just another attempt by you to justify murder?
Nice deflection. Still unable to provide any medical procedure that is forced onto a man, despite me asking over and over again, because you have no equivalency when we're talking healthcare.
And why are you trying to justify rape, as well as incest by casually omitting it from the examples of people forcing women to become pregnant?
As to your false claim of justifying murder, many in this country, as well as the courts, have differing opinions on when life begins. The religious right certainly believes it to be at conception, which you appear to be applying. I have stated a differing opinion which you cannot seem to process. I'll add that to the list of things the radicalized in this nation cannot process, like what constitutes voter fraud.Deleted
In the same manner that you accused me of justifying murder. Glad you can recognize what those accusations make those that make them.
You do support murder of unborn children. At least admit it.
I support the woman's right to choose whether to carry a fetus to term. And I trust her to make the best decision for her. And I don't recognize a fetus as an 'unborn child' until it can exist without the woman hosting it. Something you still can't even begin to process, apparently.
If that weren't a moving target, if it didn't change every year and with every new, "earliest" child being born, I would agree with you as a reasonable definition.
But it IS a moving target and it DOES change all the time. It is also completely impossible to determine with any certainty which fetus, if removed from Mom, will live. It's still a crapshoot in the youngest ones, and IMO that means it is not a reasonable definition.Moving? It hasn't changed since 2020. And that was 21 weeks and 5 days. But create your own reality if it makes you feel better.
There have been no children born, in the last 4 years, that was earlier than 21 weeks and 5 days? Worldwide?
I would find that very difficult to believe. But even if true it WILL change - the medical field is not static and a great deal of effort is always being made to save the life of premature babies. We WILL improve.
Richard Hutchison, born 6-5-2020 was 21 weeks, 2 days. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ne … day-663394
Curtis Means, born 7-4-2020, was 21 weeks, 1 day. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59243796
Looks like a moving target to me...
?? Equivalency to what. exactly? What is this strange "medical procedure" being forced on women that you wish to compare to?
Birthing progeny, just like every other mammal on the planet, mammals that do not require a "medical procedure" to accomplish the task? And you wish a male equivalent to that? How about existing?
Many in society condone abortion, which involves ending a life. It always baffles me how we arrived at this point. How did humanity reach a place where taking a life is seen as acceptable, even framed as a right?
Removal of a living tumor is "taking a life" as well. Or a diseased appendix, or a leg that is too damaged to repair. When that fetus is recognized as not being a person, with the rights we enjoy, there is no moral reason not to remove it at will.
It is always interesting, for instance, that the fetus created by rape or incest has no right to life. It is the same fetus that has rights, (according to some) - the exact same fetus - but has somehow lost it's right to life without doing a single thing.
That decision is made for convenience...and if one can be done for that all-important reason, so can another.Your sentiment really captures the essence of where some people in our society currently stand. They view human life as nothing more than an inanimate object, merely a clump of cells. It’s unfortunate that those who hold this perspective often lack a solid understanding of cell biology and the various types of cells that exist.
"Removal of a living tumor is "taking a life" as well. Or a diseased appendix, or a leg that is too damaged to repair. When that fetus is recognized as not being a person, with the rights we enjoy, there is no moral reason not to remove it at will."
Do you think people have come to view a fetus as comparable to cancer, perceiving it as a horrific condition akin to the challenges of motherhood? Is an unwanted child seen as a growth that can take over a person’s life if allowed to develop, similar to cancer, or a hot appendix can lead to sepsis and death? Are you suggesting that an unwanted pregnancy might be regarded by some as just as undesirable as cancer? Or perhaps you mean that because cells exist in cancer, in a swollen appendix, or in a limb requiring amputation, they could all be considered merely objects within a body/host that contains cells. However, I’ve never witnessed any of those conditions possess a heart, brain, face, toes, or fingers. If left in its host, a fetus has a very good chance of living independently outside the body, whereas cancer, a dead leg, or an appendix will never take a breath. They will be contained in a red hazard bag, and disposed of--- just as any remains end up after an abortion.
It's also perplexing to me that the same fetus, which some argue has rights, suddenly loses its right to life simply based on the conditions of its conception. This raises significant ethical questions about how we define the value of life and the rights that come with it. It’s a complex issue that deserves more nuanced discussion rather than a blanket approach that fails to acknowledge the unique and tragic circumstances involved. This one is a difficult subject that is perplexing.I find it interesting that conservative right to life people are all about a women has no right to do what she wants with her body. But after the child is born out of wedlock or by someone who can't afford the child or they are born with some incurable malady, the right to life people are the first ones to complain about the nanny state and welfare. They could care less about the child once it is born.
Tough noogies mom, you are not getting my tax dollars to take care of your kid. Go out and live on the street for all i care. We don't want big government to support you..It seems you may not have fully followed the conversation or the comments I was responding to. My response to Dan was straightforward and rooted in my background in human anatomy as a Registered Nurse, allowing me to provide insights into the topics he mentioned. I feel confident discussing my basic thoughts on abortion. For example, I can confirm that a cancerous tumor looks very different from an aborted fetus, with notable differences in cell types and formations. It appears that some people become upset when straightforward scientific facts are presented. My intention was not to express a personal view on abortion but rather to contribute to the scientific discussion initiated by Dan.
Your comment indicates that you're concentrating on the emotional aspects of abortion, which is just one of the many facets of this complex issue. Personally, I tend to avoid emotional discussions. Given my background in science and my experience as a nurse dealing with abortion firsthand, I find it challenging to be an unbiased observer in these discussions. I acknowledge that I see the issue from multiple perspectives."...do what she wants with her body..."
This, too, exhibits the same problem, for it has nothing to do with the woman's body or her desire to do something to herself. Instead it is about the murder of the child she created - the one that you pretend is non-existent.
"Is an unwanted child seen as a growth that can take over a person’s life if allowed to develop, similar to cancer, or a hot appendix can lead to sepsis and death?"
No one, least of all me, mentioned any children at all. Only bits of flesh that, while alive, are not a human being. That you put it the way you did only puts you in the same camp as those that ignore the feelings of some that it is a child, except on the other side. YOU refuse to acknowledge the feelings of so many (probably the majority) that a fetus is NOT a child.
You can go on and on about a tumor not having a brain or heart, but then neither does an early fetus. Pretending that all, or most, abortions are AFTER the development of all parts necessary to be called human (or at least some of them; some don't develop for many years) again lands you in the same position, just the opposite view.
I absolutely do not agree with your last paragraph; two early fetus's do NOT have one of them imprinted with "RAPIST" or other indication of it's conception. It does NOT lose any of it's rights because of what we have decided is an immoral conception. There is nothing complex about this at all...except to the pro-life person that suddenly decides that THIS fetus (but not THAT one) does not deserve to live. And that is nothing but hypocrisy as far as I can see.I don't think you understood my comment. I was speaking more about the psychology of how I believe our society views abortion. I was sharing what I think some people in society may believe, particularly about how they perceive a fetus. I also drew from my own knowledge of science and personal experience. It's easy for people who haven't witnessed an abortion, including a spontaneous one, to form opinions based on a gestational week and how they imagine the fetus might look or feel. In some cases, the fetus may even be alive for a short time after a miscarriage but unable to survive. I don't believe that online sources, like "Dr. Google," can fully capture the nuances of these situations. What I was trying to convey was a scientific perspective on how different cells function, and that a human cell is not at all like cancerous cells. I usually avoid discussing my personal views on abortion because it's such a difficult topic. However, I do feel that facts need to be shared about the procedure, and I want to defend the science surrounding the development of a fetus, especially when it comes to gestation. It’s clear to me that some people are deceiving themselves by believing that the end result of an abortion is just a clump of cells.
The point at which a fetus is considered a human being is largely a philosophical and ethical question, as it depends on one's views about when personhood begins. From a biological perspective, key developmental milestones occur at different stages of gestation. Between conception and 8 weeks, the embryo is developing major organs and body structures, and it is around this time that the term "fetus" begins to be used. By 10 weeks, the fetus has a recognizable human shape, including limbs, fingers, and toes. Around 20 weeks, the fetus develops more refined features, and the mother can start to feel movement, a stage known as "quickening." At 22 to 24 weeks, the fetus reaches the point of viability, meaning it has some chance of surviving outside the womb with medical assistance, though survival is still uncertain and risky. While the fetus has human DNA from conception, the question of when it becomes "a human being" depends on individual beliefs, which can vary widely based on cultural, religious, and legal factors.
I do not support abortion, I have seen the ugliness of it and the true results. I feel that any woman that considers abortion should be given information on not only gestation of fetal development, and when a fetus can feel pain.
I have only witnessed spontaneous abortion, and I have had Mothers and fathers ask what sex their baby was... At 14 weeks I can tell them the sex of the fetus was. So, the blob of cells bit is unrealistic, not actual.Cancerous vs human cells: you do realize that a cancerous cell within our body IS a human cell? It came from a human, just mutated some. Like the advent of blue eyes; they simply mutated from what was in the past. Or any of the other millions of mutations that our species has seen over it's lifetime. The cancer is just a deadly mutation, that's all, just like most of the mutations that we see happen to our progeny. That's a major reason for the high rate of failure of fertilized eggs. (Are those zygotes that have mutated beyond viability still human?)
It is that "personhood", or "humanness" that concerns me. You and I have discussed this before - to put it simply your stance then appeared to be "It looks like a person so it IS a person", disregarding that it would be the ugliest person alive were it born and grew with the looks of a 10 week old fetus.
But what it looks like is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. It is your primary "test", but it is completely useless for any kind of actual determination of that illusive "personhood", for appearance is not what separates us from other animals. Indeed, the appearance of any of the great apes (including humans) is quite similar at early stages of development in the womb.
I also think we are forgetting the age factor; as I recall you seemed to agree that a 4 day old zygote is not human yet. I do not, however, recall just when you thought it became a human, a person with rights. I do think you are now speaking of later developments, while I'm stuck with earlier stages. Is that right?Yes , a cancer cell is considered a human cell because it originates from normal human cells.
"It is that "personhood", or "humanness" that concerns me. You and I have discussed this before - to put it simply your stance then appeared to be "It looks like a person so it IS a person", disregarding that it would be the ugliest person alive were it born and grew with the looks of a 10 week old fetus."
My stance is that what is aborted is a human being. While it may lack personhood at birth or during any aborted gestation, it is evident in our society that many are unwilling to acknowledge that a human organism is being terminated. The scientific evidence and outcomes clearly indicate that a human fetus is killed in the process. People can convince themselves otherwise, but it was not a cancer tumor or an organ that needed removal; it was, if one chooses to see it that way, a clump of cells developing into a human being. Yes, at 14 weeks it is an ugly fetus, but a fetus with arms, legs, fingers, toes, an ugly face, and a visible sex organ. It has no personality, it has no voice.
However, it is a recognizable human being that is killed and placed in a red hazard bag. Many people seem to believe that because it has not yet become a person with any life experience, it is acceptable to terminate it. I don't agree with this mindset.
In the early stages of embryonic development, there is no resemblance to a fully formed human being, and the embryo lacks the physiological structures necessary to feel pain, such as a functioning heart or brain. During this initial phase, the embryo consists primarily of rapidly dividing cells, with critical organs and systems yet to develop. Because of this, proponents of abortion often argue that these early embryos should not be equated with sentient human beings, as they do not possess the capacity for consciousness or pain perception during this stage. This changes around 8 weeks of gestation. Personally, I believe that if one chooses to abort a human being, it should be done before this 8-week mark. My stance is influenced by my religion, my innate empathy, my experiences as a mother, and my background as a nurse. I lean pro-life but recognize there are some exceptions due to the complexities of what our society has made necessary.Does those things that distinguish a person from all other life on this planet matter at all to you when it comes time to define "personhood"? Or is it just shape and appearance?
Is an (older) fetus, say around 30 weeks, but deformed and without limbs, still a person even though it looks nothing like a person? Is a fetus, deformed into just a husk without a forebrain a person even though it looks perfect?Again--- I lean pro-life but recognize there are some exceptions due to the complexities of what our society has made necessary. This includes a malformed fetus. I feel in these cases mercy comes into play. Mercy for a fetus, as well as the mother. So, I must ask you a question. If full-term born and found to be imperfect, what would you feel should be done? This would rarely happen due to mothers as a rule having ultrasounds --- but what if?
Regarding personhood --- I feel to become a person one must undergo live, experiences that life offers them a path to gain personhood throughout their lives. I do not believe a newborn has personhood at birth. That is my view.Deformities: Can be very difficult, depending on the malformity. Missing an arm; absolutely give birth, as missing that arm does not make it a non-person. Missing 4 limbs becomes more problematical and mercy might come into play. Missing a forebrain; abort as it will never be human.
Personhood - we must all make our own definition. It is just my hope that that term, or another one, can eventually be used to prevent destruction of that creature. Zygote, fetus, embryo, child, adult; whatever the term is, if it is a "person" it is not to be destroyed and discarded.
Women fight to maintain control over their bodies, including the right to abortion, which some see as ending a human life. On the other hand, men, when drafted, lose the right to decide their own fate and may be required to risk their lives in service, without a choice in the matter. If a person is drafted into military service, they cannot simply say no without legal consequences. In countries with mandatory conscription, such as during past U.S. drafts, refusing to comply can result in legal penalties, including fines or imprisonment. In the U.S., women are not currently subject to the draft. Perhaps they should be...
Replenishing FEMA's disaster fund requires an act of Congress....
Mike Johnson won't commit to bringing House back before the election for more hurricane relief.
Oh well I guess? Better to use this issue as a political cudgel?
Even in this, situations of life and death, we have folks that want to play politics.Are you curious to know why money for Lebanon is available without Congress and yet money is not available for hurricane victims without Congress? harris has pledged $157 to Lebanon, a country controlled by Hezbollah. Only $100 million is pledged to help Florida.
This ISN'T right!great point... This administration just digs themselves in deeper and deeper. Hard to keep up. However good timing for Republicans... So hard to really comprehend how mismanaged the country is at this point.
Mike is a bit off-subject but I was just thinking about how poorly this administration treated our need for oil reserves. Which Bide tapped for purely political purposes. --- Hold on to your hat!
As of April 19, 2024, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) contains approximately 365.7 million barrels of crude oil. This amount is significantly lower than in previous years, down about 38% from 593.7 million barrels at the end of 2021. This depletion is a result of substantial oil sales authorized to address rising prices.
Given that the U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day, the current level of the SPR would only cover roughly 18 DAYS of U.S. oil needs, underscoring concerns about the government's capacity to manage potential supply disruptions.
Yeah, we need this bunch back in office!Yeah, weird that departments, like the state department, have their own funding for international issues that Congress has approved for them to spend. Like when Trump used $25 billion of department of agriculture funds to bail out farmers.
What's not right, is that MAGA doesn't seem to understand how funding works and make that point clearly with every additional post in these forums.
This is politics, and it appears the Republicans have picked up some questionable tactics. In the past, their focus would have been on doing what was best for the people. But this time around, it seems they're relying on the public to realize just how poorly this administration has managed nearly every aspect of running the country. They'll likely quickly return--- but use this to underscore how we've now inserted a program (SSP) into FEMA that supports migrants who are awaiting hearings that, due to the outrageous backlog, could take 7 to 10 years. Johnson will do the right thing --- that's what Republicans do.
However, Republicans will use this as a BIG OLD political weapon, flooding the media with facts to drive the point home and direct criticism at Harris. In the end, they will likely approve funds, but not without exposing how FEMA, under SSP (Special Support Programs), is using tax dollars to pay for many of the migrants' needs. Meanwhile, it will point out to Americans that they are being left with the short end of the stick by this administration. This situation is bound to resonate with voters, especially as frustrations grow over the imbalance in how resources are allocated. I doubt that many Americans are aware of the SSP, and the billions that Biden has spent on migrants everyday needs. Have no worry Congress will do their job, and the media will be all over why they even need to add emergency funds with the huge budget they have been provided under Biden. And many will become aware of where their tax dollars are being spent, and that migrants are taking a big chunk.
The American people deserve to have facts... Hopefully, the House proves its point and gets to approving more funds to FEMA, and offers reasoning as to why FEMA is running low on funds after being given so much cash over the past 3.7 years. And why the SSP was ever adopted and funding illegal migrants.
Johnson is making a good political ploy, and I am sure Congress will be back very soon. It's Congress's job to represent " We The People", and provide answers to how they spend our funds. I for one want answers on why the hell we are supporting migrants.
Consider the following...
According to current medical standards, death is considered to occur when all brain function ceases...A fetus's brain is considered fully developed at around 24 weeks of gestation.
That we've been able to devise and apply uniform clinical standards for when life ends, but not when it begins? Nonsense.
When life begins is now up to politicians in your state.??? A fetus's brain is not fully developed for over 20 years!
A fertilized egg, a zygote, is alive. Not a human, but alive.A human zygote is formed when a sperm cell from the father fertilizes an egg cell (ovum) from the mother. Both the sperm and the egg are unique human cells, each carrying half of the genetic information needed to form a new human individual.
A human zygote can be considered alive scientifically. According to biology, the zygote is a single, living human cell that meets all the fundamental criteria for life. It has a cellular structure, which is the basic unit of life. After fertilization, the zygote engages in metabolic processes, absorbing nutrients and producing energy necessary for growth. It rapidly divides through mitosis, initiating the process of development that eventually forms a complete human being. Additionally, the zygote responds to internal and external stimuli that regulate its cellular activities, and it has the potential for reproduction in the form of cellular division. It also maintains homeostasis, ensuring the internal conditions necessary for its continued survival and development. From a purely biological perspective, the zygote fulfills the scientific requirements for being classified as a living organism. I think you are sharing the broader question of when "life" begins, which is the subject of philosophical, ethical, and legal debate.I think you are sharing the broader question of when "life" begins, which is the subject of philosophical, ethical, and legal debate.
Thanks to Trump and SCOTUS, every state now has its own definition and laws as to when life begins and when it should end regarding abortions. It's now just like gun control. if you can't buy a gun in one state, you just simply go to a state that will sell you a gun.
In my opinion, there are somethings that are better governed at the federal level because of consistency and certainty across all states and that applies to abortion laws as well. They should have left well enough alone...just saying.Yes, I think you are right. Hence my last sentence: "I think you are sharing the broader question of when 'life' begins, which is the subject of philosophical, ethical, and legal debate.
"Thanks to Trump and SCOTUS, every state now has its own definition and laws regarding when life begins and when it should end concerning abortions."
This is factual. I believe it seemed like a good idea if each state left it to the people through a majority vote. However, this is not happening, and I see that as a problem. Some states are not even considering putting the issue to a vote, as we did in Michigan. I wonder if some of these states will respond with protests from the people and demand it be brought to a vote.
Regarding Trump, I think a president needs to weigh what all Americans want. Millions of Americans are pro-life. Should they be ignored? It seems the Supreme Court thought they should not be ignored, which is why they sent the issue back to the states, thinking it was a fair solution.Millions of Americans are pro-choice. Should they be ignored? The majority ruling by the supreme court was all from Trump's appointed justices. He is still boasting what a greats job he did for the country by appointing those justices and "Killing Roe V. Wade."
He knows not or cares not what he has done to this country. It was not and is not a fair solution for millions of women who take offense with state governments controlling their bodies..And the people, male or female, that are forced to stand by and watch (and often pay for) the murder of innocent children? Is it fair to them to take the resources they need and use it in such a manner?
I see where this comment is coming from, but I believe it oversimplifies a complex issue. While it's true that Trump's policies have sparked significant debate and discontent, particularly regarding women's reproductive rights, attributing the situation solely to his actions misses the broader context. The issue of state control over abortion has been contentious long before Trump took office.
I certainly recognize that many women and advocates have been fighting for reproductive rights for decades, and their concerns about state control are valid and deeply felt. However, I think it’s essential to acknowledge that Trump’s stance on this issue, while polarizing, reflects a larger cultural and political divide in the country. There are many who support his views on limiting abortion, believing it aligns with their values.
Additionally, the responsibility for legislation around reproductive rights doesn’t rest solely on Trump but involves various state governments and legislatures, each with their own agendas and constituents. The situation is far from black and white, and I believe that a fair solution must consider the diverse perspectives of women across the country.
I imagine that, given time (years or decades) it will settle out. But I don't like that something that important varies by state; it should be the same country wide. Republic or not, some things should be the same.
I've come to share the same perspective. When the ruling was announced, I initially thought it might lead to a positive outcome. I believed that each state would develop laws that would meet the needs of most citizens and vote on those laws. However, that hasn't been the case in the majority of states. I think it will take years for citizens to elect new representatives who align with their views and create viable voting solutions.
Just so. For the time being, legislators are listening to the loud voices and that's about all. Time will (I hope) convince them that those voices are NOT the majority, are NOT what the people as a whole want. And that they will then (I hope) adjust their own policy and change the law to what people actually want.
Would disagree that they should have a plainly wrong law alone, but would also certainly like to see Congress provide some guidance here. I has quite happy with RvW and would cheer its return.
No, I meant life begins exactly as you outlined. A zygote is alive. Certainly not a person - the only thing that might qualify it as a person is a DNA strand, but nothing else. No emotions, no brain, no thoughts, none of the things that distinguish us from other animals but it IS alive. So is a plant seed and a bacterium.
When Doc listens in and there's two heart beats, that means there's two separate individuals and they will be treated as such, long before 24 weeks gestation.
But, I do understand this human need to justify the unjustifiable.A heart can keep going with the aid of a machine even after the brain has ceased to function.
Wasn't there a chicken heart or something that was kept alive for decades? Long after normal chickens die.
Wildnerness? I did hear an unusual story about a chicken who continued to live after its head was chopped off. The owner of it had to feed it by sticking pieces of corn down its throat through the opening that was where its head used to be, so that it would not starve to death. I don't know how all of that would have been possible, but I did come across a story of that nature.
Not sure about that one. The body will bleed out in seconds if not stopped somehow.
But I found the one I had recalled. It wasn't a chicken heart, just some heart tissue. Still, it was kept alive for decades somehow, growing all the time.
You always make my case!
A brain damaged person is still the same person, to those who love them.Terry Shiavo. If you're not familiar with the case, google it.
Related Discussions
- 119
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
by joebialek 8 months ago
Donald Trump had four years to lead the United States and failed us by his own choosing. Whether it be in foreign policy or domestic policy, he did not protect the nation as commander in chief. Trump talks a lot but doesn’t say much other than to hurl insults and make false statements.Quality...
- 92
Kamala Harris will win 2024 Election
by Ken Burgess 8 months ago
Prior to the Debate... and then Assassination attempt... and then Biden stepping down...My evaluation of how things were trending weeks ago led me to believe that (fair election or not) the Democrats were going to win the election... as I have often noted on here before:Women make up 52% or more of...
- 158
QUESTION: Donald Trump's a Serial Liar: Why Do His Supporters Not Care
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Without Question, Donald Trump has produced more Mostly False and Totally False statements as well as Outright Lies than any other major politician in American History. This is an undeniable Fact and fits with his psychosis.What is amazing to me is that 30%, or so, of Americans either 1)...
- 63
Demeanor Detour -- Harris in the Hot Seat!
by Sharlee 10 months ago
Demeanor refers to the outward behavior or manner of an individual, often reflecting their attitude and emotional state. Character, on the other hand, encompasses the set of moral and ethical qualities that define a person. With these definitions in mind, I invite everyone to share their...
- 18
Does Kamala Harris guarantee a landslide victory for President Trump?
by Stevennix2001 11 months ago
After talking to some of my family members that happen to be conservative, they believe that Biden's pick of Kamala Harris, as his running mate for this year's election, virtually guarantees that not only will Trump win again this year, but he'll do it in a record breaking landslide victory. ...
- 76
Trump's Fitness for Office
by Willowarbor 14 hours ago
Whether it be cognitive decline moral depravity, open corruption or blatant lies...put your examples, thoughts here.