Koalas March posted:

Koalas March posted:

My posts are tax exempt

mcmagic posted:

I would put it under 10% chance of passing.

Fitzy Fitz posted:

So, killing DACA can only lead down two paths:

A. This is the worst thing the administration will do to immigrants, and all subsequent policies will be *only* equally harmful or less harmful.
B. This is not the worst thing the administration will do to immigrants, and some subsequent actions will actually be *worse*.

The administration definitely wants B (we have every reason to believe that they will only get worse, not better), and ending DACA is probably a bridge to expanding action against legal immigrants or coming down harder on illegal immigrants. But what can they actually get away with that's worse than this?

skylined! posted:

oh man

i got swept up in the flood of derails

i can't believe i stormed in and waved around such depressing questions

next time i'll hurri-consider the point of topic before surging in with a response

evilweasel posted:

tax reform is basically dead, but that's different from "gently caress it, massive temporary tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, gently caress this reform nonsense" which is what wall street is really pricing is, is the fallback plan that becomes much more likely as tax reform becomes even deader

evilweasel posted:

tax reform is basically dead, but that's different from "gently caress it, massive temporary tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, gently caress this reform nonsense" which is what wall street is really pricing is, is the fallback plan that becomes much more likely as tax reform becomes even deader

Fitzy Fitz posted:

So, killing DACA can only lead down two paths:

A. This is the worst thing the administration will do to immigrants, and all subsequent policies will be *only* equally harmful or less harmful.
B. This is not the worst thing the administration will do to immigrants, and some subsequent actions will actually be *worse*.

The administration definitely wants B (we have every reason to believe that they will only get worse, not better), and ending DACA is probably a bridge to expanding action against legal immigrants or coming down harder on illegal immigrants. But what can they actually get away with that's worse than this?

Google Butt posted:

https://twitter.com/woodruffbets/status/905124781221085184

Javes posted:

Has the phrase 'I (we) have been clear...' always been in political parlance? Seems like everyone has it in their back pocket now.

evilweasel posted:

tax reform is basically dead, but that's different from "gently caress it, massive temporary tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, gently caress this reform nonsense" which is what wall street is really pricing is, is the fallback plan that becomes much more likely as tax reform becomes even deader

Javes posted:

Has the phrase 'I (we) have been clear...' always been in political parlance? Seems like everyone has it in their back pocket now.

Al Borland Corp. posted:

Would you like to move to Alabama, I'm selling a 3br 2ba house of 1567 sqft for $80000. New windows.

skylined! posted:

do you know where the closest evac shelter is and how to get there?

do you have both hurricane and flood insurance?

Retro42 posted:

Killing DACA killed any chance the House had at bipartisan tax reform or anything else really. There is zero reason for Dems to help dig the GOP out of this.

twice burned ice posted:

It's probably not politically possible, but is there any realistic way for Dems to tack DACA continuation on to the debt ceiling increase?

Many of DACA'S opponents on the right are HFC dunces. Could an otherwise clean bill get enough Republican support?

Hastings posted:

I don't want to derail too much, but I want to answer this since I think it highlights an important difference between the Catholic Church and the evangelical church present in America.

First of all, bible translation was not the issue so much as distributing it. Before the reformation, the Bible was present in the homily, meaning it was collectively heard as a group. This is because the Church largely sees themselves as a united front and they wanted the same message being presented every where. From what I have discussed with other Catholics and thought about on my own, the Catholic Church was misguided in holding the Bible back from the masses, but there is a good reason for doing so: they were afraid of the Church becoming too individualistic and having all of these new interpretations creating chaos when there was a consensus. Also, Catholics had a raw spot from Protestants claiming that Catholics actually were adding to the word of God and making up their own gospels (Catholics have extra books in their Bible). Secondly, the Bible was created solely by men (yes, the stories in general were passed down and are the inspired Word of God). However, it is important to consider the fallibility that comes from the fact that councils and regular disagreements took place to put it together. We also have to consider the fact that the Bible is also built on metaphors and Jewish poetry styling, so we end up building literal doctrine from what is supposed to be a generalized teaching. So Catholics believed that without a proper education for how to read Scripture would lead to these misunderstandings and make the Word dangerous, a weapon. Catholics generally hold to tradition because it can be pinned down. We know that Jesus himself put Peter in charge. We can historically point to events as proof. The Catechism (which honestly, I am not that big a fan of) is heavily regarded because it emphasizes the communal value of the Church: this is not about you, you are a part of yourself, and these celebrations create unity and holy reflection.

I do not support the Catholic Church on contraceptives (I am a Polish Catholic for this reason) and I certainly do not support the sex abuse. I'm a fairly lapsed and relax Catholic...but I do get where the theology comes from. America is a heavily individualistic country that sees overworking as a blessing and our politics reflect a "you get what you deserve, bad things happen to bad people" dogma. This I would argue, is largely because of the Protestant/evangelical hard on for Sola Scriptura: faith must be personal, the individual can receive meanings just for themselves from the Word, a heavy focus on Pauline work instead of the Gospels which result in a hyper focus on total depravity. There is certainly more personal intimacy, but also less provision for accountability. The Catholic Church is certainly a dry, not fun organization, but bringing everything to a general focus and being all things to all men makes the Gospels the roots and there generally is less fear of eternal damnation. Catholicism is pretty much a case for theological socialism.

mcmagic posted:

I don't think that can get 50 votes in the Senate. You know right off the bat that Paul and Lee are no's.

twice burned ice posted:

It's probably not politically possible, but is there any realistic way for Dems to tack DACA continuation on to the debt ceiling increase?

Many of DACA'S opponents on the right are HFC dunces. Could an otherwise clean bill get enough Republican support?

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Isn't the planned rollout for the elimination of DACA better than what we feared it might be a couple days ago, IE. it's over and you're getting deported tomorrow? At least now DACA people have time to fight back and Dems can run on it in 2018 right?

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what exactly is going on with this.

Beachcomber posted:

Too hot. Also, I don't think there's much of a tech industry.


Closest is the fire station just up the road.

Flood insurance, yes. I think our regular insurance covers wind damage. Something like 2 hurricanes have hit California since 1900, and we've got mountains on both sides. I hadn't even heard of hurricane insurance until I started reading the Harvey thread.

Retro42 posted:

Killing DACA killed any chance the House had at bipartisan tax reform or anything else really. There is zero reason for Dems to help dig the GOP out of this.

KickerOfMice posted:

Wrong coast, dingus.

Bay Area is almost always describing San Francicso.

e- Esp. when capitalized.

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Isn't the planned rollout for the elimination of DACA better than what we feared it might be a couple days ago, IE. it's over and you're getting deported tomorrow? At least now DACA people have time to fight back and Dems can run on it in 2018 right?

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what exactly is going on with this.

moostaffa posted:

It just gives ICE and private prisons time to prepare to catch and detain them as soon as possible.

Fitzy Fitz posted:

So, killing DACA can only lead down two paths:

A. This is the worst thing the administration will do to immigrants, and all subsequent policies will be *only* equally harmful or less harmful.
B. This is not the worst thing the administration will do to immigrants, and some subsequent actions will actually be *worse*.

The administration definitely wants B (we have every reason to believe that they will only get worse, not better), and ending DACA is probably a bridge to expanding action against legal immigrants or coming down harder on illegal immigrants. But what can they actually get away with that's worse than this?

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

But doesn't the plan allow everyone whose vulnerable after March to apply for a 2 year extension that is (supposedly) guaranteed to be processed?

Push El Burrito posted:

If you swapped your first and second gifs you would be set.

skylined! posted:

ya i thought you meant the tampa bay area, as floridians refer to it as 'the bay area'

there's more than one bay ya'know

KickerOfMice posted:

The storm on the heels of Irma is named tropical storm José, lol.

moostaffa posted:

You seem to be under the impression that these people will approve anything for dirty immigrants...

Deteriorata posted:

DACA is a two-year rolling exemption. People who have to reenroll before March 5, 2018 can get one more two-year extension. For everyone else, they're done.

Thus, deportations will start on March 6 unless something is done by then (and it won't).

KickerOfMice posted:

The storm on the heels of Irma is named tropical storm José, lol.

Beachcomber posted:

I almost said Silicon Valley


This seems like really really bad timing to use that name.

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

But doesn't the plan allow everyone whose vulnerable after March to apply for a 2 year extension that is (supposedly) guaranteed to be processed?