|
Instant Sunrise posted:gender neutral bathrooms are cool and good I've been in several large gender neutral bathrooms central sinks with only stalls and Ally McBeal was both correct and way ahead of it's time.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yes, I just don't understand why. People seem to agree that Nevada citizens shouldn't be entitled to California services. People seem to agree that Mexican citizens shouldn't be entitled to California services. Why does that change when a Mexican citizen sneaks across the border with false papers? Actually, I’m pretty sure everyone agrees that the Nevada citizen should be entitled to Californian services as long as they’ve contributed financially to California (by living there and paying taxes and contributing to the community). Conversely, Californian citizens who are not California residents would also not be entitled to these Californian services either. Do you understand that there can be a difference between a person’s current residence and their origin?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Man if we have universal healthcare in California there's going to be a surge of Mexicans coming across border to get a peace of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Man if we have universal healthcare in California there's going to be a surge of Mexicans coming across border to get a peace of that. If only Mexico could provide universal healthcare for its population. It could be, I dont know, some kind of Seguro Popular
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Man if we have universal healthcare in California there's going to be a surge of Mexicans coming across border to get a peace of that. well that'll be a change from the surge of Californians going across the border to Mexico to get cheap health care/prescriptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:If only Mexico could provide universal healthcare for its population. It could be, I dont know, some kind of Seguro Popular If only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Sure would be terrible if we improved life here so much that other people tried to get here to have a better life too. Better make it suck instead, don't want anyone trying to come here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think our border control and immigration systems are legitimate, and their enforcement is legitimate. I'm going to stop you right there because this statement is more controversial than I think you realize. Putting aside that "legitimate" and "just" are completely different things, there is much that is manifestly illegitimate about our current immigration process. For instance, employers cheat. All the time. The work visa and green card systems give the employer an inordinate amount of power over the lives of immigrants and the agencies that should be checking that power have almost entirely abdicated their responsibilities. Corruption is rampant. I don't think you understand how many people enter the US by perfectly legal means and then become "illegals" when their visas lapse (which can happen for as simple a reason as their employer neglecting to fill out the paperwork). Others are convinced they are entering legally or that everything will be "taken care of" and then find out that this was never the case. In both cases, these immigrants are stranded in a foreign country having already been branded with "criminal" status and with little recourse. If you were in that situation and had few options, would you turn yourself in? The ICE detainment and deportation process is the definition of "illegitimate." The detention centers (largely private prisons) regularly hold people for an unconstitutional amount of time, in unconstitutionally harsh conditions, without the constitutionally granted right to counsel. Immigration courts are criminally under staffed, so people trying to do things the "right" way have years-long waits to become documented (or have their existing documentation reaffirmed) and are subject to arbitrary detention and the nightmares of deportation in the interim. Every year, refugees and asylum-seekers that US law says have a right to enter die waiting for visas that never come because the bureaucracy is backed up and at every step of the labyrinthine "vetting" process they can be rejected without cause or recourse. Why is it that the employers can break the law and get away with it, the immigration courts can break the law and get away with it, ICE can break the law and get away with it, but it's only when immigrants break immigration law that that something "illegitimate" has happened?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:well that'll be a change from the surge of Californians going across the border to Mexico to get cheap health care/prescriptions. but we absolutely cannot help a single californian until the mexican scourge has been purged from state lines
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
While we're at it, this is a pretty hilariously bad quote.Dead Reckoning posted:Lol, pretty sure there are better things for California to be doing with its budget than subsidizing the homeless program of every other state that would rather buy them Greyhound tickets, even if we could afford it (cue chorus of, "But if we just appropriate all of Peter Thiel's money...") "LOL, silly liberals trying to help homeless people by taxing absurdly rich people"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Fund someone's chance to live life with dignity and purpose (or treat their loving mental illnesses), or continue to let some rich guy douche with teenager blood. God what a headscratcher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty sure "illegally entering the United States -> residing in the United States" is a much more direct result than this or any of your other examples. Trying to extend the doctrine of the "fruit of the crime" from direct material proceeds of a crime to indirect consequences that can be traced back to a civil violation at some point in the past is a huge can of worms that you're refusing to address. Dead Reckoning posted:I see you've jumped to a financial argument again. I asked earlier if that was your reasoning, but you chose not to answer. Is your objection to cutting out illegal aliens financial or moral? Moral. Your financial objection, that a state social insurance program can't remain solvent if everyone in America can take from it but only California residents contribute, is an argument for residency requirements. It's not an argument for excluding residents based on immigration status because your financial objection doesn't apply to people who are contributing to our social insurance. Dead Reckoning posted:Illegal immigrants aren't legitimate members of the community. We've created a legal process for those who wish to join the community on a temporary or permanent basis, and they chose to ignore or subvert it. Again, why do see fraud as different if it occurs at one remove? Why is defining "the community" as "people residing in California" morally superior to defining it as "people legally residing in California"? OK but why should we define it the way you want? Why would we want that? You've been given a ton of reasons why that's a bad idea. It's inhumane; it's unconstitutional; it's a greater burden on taxpayers and on the state treasury because preventative and routine medical care is cheaper than paying for the explosively expensive ER bills that result from neglecting the medical needs of the population; it's a public health risk when people can't get early treatment for infectious diseases; it exacerbates poverty which is a driver of unrest and crime. It makes America a poorer, sicker, meaner, more violent place for all of us to live, why would I want that? What, so I can have the satisfaction that a carpenter from Sonora and his family, who are "skating" because lack of federal funding on immigration and enforcement, will suffer needlessly somewhere from treatable illness? That doesn't make me feel better and even if it did, it's not worth making America worse in every way just to achieve it. This is what I just don't understand about the authoritarian mindset and maybe you can explain it to me. I understand just and proportional consequences for lawbreaking when it's shown that applying them makes society better. But why do you want unjust, inhumane, and disproportionate punishment for lawbreaking even if it provably makes society worse? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:I'm going to stop you right there because this statement is more controversial than I think you realize. Putting aside that "legitimate" and "just" are completely different things, there is much that is manifestly illegitimate about our current immigration process. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/26/560149316/10-year-old-girl-is-detained-by-ice-officers-after-emergency-surgery quote:Federal immigration officers intercepted the child as she and an adult cousin, who is a U.S. citizen, were in an ambulance being transferred between two hospitals so that she could receive emergency gallbladder surgery. lmfao imagine being as lovely a person as DR, just imagine
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:Why is it that the employers can break the law and get away with it, the immigration courts can break the law and get away with it, ICE can break the law and get away with it, but it's only when immigrants break immigration law that that something "illegitimate" has happened? It's the same thing throughout the justice system. A lot of people don't really understand why human rights and due process are important and are on board as long as the illegal behavior is only hurting people they think are criminals, probably, and therefore deserve it anyway. Everyone involved can break the law: cops, prosecutors, judges, everyone and it becomes okay because anything their victims did wrong ever in their entire life will be dug up in order to justify their unlawful imprisonment or murder. In the case of immigration, big business takes advantage of this by spamming endless propaganda against illegal immigrants while working with government to keep the immigration system and enforcement broken so businesses can maintain a massive pool of desperately poor immigrants with effectively zero legal rights that they can exploit to drive down wages throughout the economy. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's the same thing throughout the justice system. A lot of people don't really understand why human rights and due process are important and are on board as long as the illegal behavior is only hurting people they think are criminals, probably, and therefore deserve it anyway. Everyone involved can break the law: cops, prosecutors, judges, everyone and it becomes okay because anything their victims did wrong ever in their entire life while be dug up in order to justify their unlawful imprisonment or murder. also even “legal” immigration is horribly exploitative by employers with H-1B visas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
So trump gave us the middle finger with no funding for disaster aid request http://www.timesheraldonline.com/article/NH/20171117/SPORTS/171119809 quote:While the request includes anemic supplemental funding for states ravaged by hurricanes, it contains no funding whatsoever for rebuilding the communities in California devastated by the recent wildfires. This mother jones article reports that republicans boycotted the request but I can't find claims against this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Sure would be terrible if we improved life here so much that other people tried to get here to have a better life too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Cascadia thread is that way You got me all excited; I thought there really was a Cascadia thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II Although 'Cascadia Thread' would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Always comforting to see that the primary alternative to Newsom is a professional grifter, in the unironic, literal, unexaggerated sense. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article185945633.html quote:Villaraigosa has told The Bee he is proud of his work with Herbalife and Banc of California Also, quote:$50,000 from Cadiz Inc., which was founded by his friend Keith Brackpool, who for years has sought a water-pumping project in the Mojave Desert. This sounds like a lucrative and not at all retarded project, exactly the kind of thing I would like my governor to be involved in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Villaraigosa - gently caress no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
for some reason SoCal loves him which only confirms that anyone south of Fresno or Merced is beyond saving
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:for some reason SoCal loves him which only confirms that anyone south of Fresno or Merced is beyond saving That's often said but he barely won his reelection and there's no one I talk to that has an inkling of excitement for him. Even the political chicano/latinx base is tepid, largely due to his loving cheating scandal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Always comforting to see that the primary alternative to Newsom is a professional grifter, in the unironic, literal, unexaggerated sense. It would be good if Chiang could get into gear already. He's theoretically been running for a while, but I don't really see any sign of him attempting to notify Californians of his existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:That's often said but he barely won his reelection and there's no one I talk to that has an inkling of excitement for him. I sort of defended him a while back because he's an Angelino and it bugs me that the Bay liberals seem to own our state party, but yeah he's a shithead. I'm voting Chiang.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
hope everybody enjoyed their super hot thanksgiving
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If only. I have good news for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
One of my cousins who came to Thanksgiving was talking about her kids' school district being nice because whenever budget cuts threaten a program, the (pretty well-off) community bands together and saves it with a donation drive. I baited her by saying, "Obviously, the real solution is to repeal Prop 13!" and got an almost-curt, "I actually don't believe that." in reply. Felt good! That was the only issue resembling controversy during Thanksgiving; we spent way more time agreeing with each other about how much Joe Buck sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
CPColin posted:One of my cousins who came to Thanksgiving was talking about her kids' school district being nice because whenever budget cuts threaten a program, the (pretty well-off) community bands together and saves it with a donation drive. I baited her by saying, "Obviously, the real solution is to repeal Prop 13!" and got an almost-curt, "I actually don't believe that." in reply. Felt good! It's nice how her wealthy community can donate to offset those budget cuts while poor schools just cut them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:It's nice how her wealthy community can donate to offset those budget cuts while poor schools just cut them. Also lol at all the fundraising for things like band, theater, and color guard that poor schools couldn't afford in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
In actual good news, CPUC told SDG&E to gently caress of trying to charge rate payers for the 2007 wildfires: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-sdge-wildfirecaseruling-20171130-story.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
None of you motherfuckers have actually been on governmental services, have you? I was when I moved to California from New York. I was on unemployment at the time. The state of New York continued to pay my unemployment while I lived in California. In America, we associate "insurance" with employment. It's an odd artifact of history but it can work for us in this case. If you have a job in California and are paying taxes towards California UHC, then you get to have UHC. If you are homeless in California, you should probably talk to your social worker because they can hook you up with a lot of great things, like UHC. If you just moved to the state because of your expensive terminal illness and want to get on the UHC . . . well, I hope someone hired you or you are already homeless and connected with social services. You'd have to tie it to the payroll tax (that is what it is already going to be tied to) to avoid people buying property as an insurance investment subsidized by Prop 13. But, like I said, that's already going to happen. And even if it doesn't, it's a niche concern. The Venn diagram of "people who would buy a small $20K plot of land for subsidized insurance" and "people who refuse to buy regular insurance" is super small provided that the lawyers drafting the law are smart enough to avoid a Delawarization of Health Insurance to California. And if that happens, well, it'll be bad for America. But Kaiser is a damned fine system so maybe it'll be OK in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Brb checking Zillow for $20,000 plots of land. Edit: Just found a listing way out in the boonies that lists, "Some usable land." CPColin fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
There is plenty of hella cheap unlivable land for sale in California. Nobody buys it because it is worthless. But if there were a compelling reason, gently caress, why wouldn't someone buy that empty space "for development" in a suburb of Ukiah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Using Zillow. You are already so wrong and you don't even know why. It's sad really. Let's start with an easy question: Why does land have value? People moving in from out of state don't need a 4 bedroom Victorian in a good San Francisco Neighborhood. They need a plot to prove they own land in California. You are so loving dumb and wrong I don't even know what I can do to engage with you. It's like when someone says 1+1=3. I can actually provide the proof for 1+1=2 but it's a loving hard proof. The kind of person who insists that 1+1=3 isn't going to actually understand that proof and instead just reject it and double down. Psychology has seen this phenomenon many times. Like, how dumb are you? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Brb checking Zillow for $20,000 plots of land. Enjoy low crime & beautiful Trona! https://www.landwatch.com/Lassen-County-California-Land-for-sale/pid/25092076 https://www.landwatch.com/Inyo-County-California-Homesite-for-sale/pid/25056166
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Enjoy low crime & beautiful Trona! See? Even Trab gets it. And aside from :&account: he might be the dumbest person here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
So whose rereg are you? Because you sure hit the ground fired up!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
CassandraSupreme posted:None of you motherfuckers have actually been on governmental services, have you? Kinda sounds here like you want UHC to be means tested which defeats the entire point of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Kinda sounds here like you want UHC to be means tested which defeats the entire point of it. Have you actually engaged with the social services within our society? Social workers can hook you up. The median income here is hella high. You can be single with no kids and get medical. We know it isn't hard to create a system that serves people, avoids most (not all, sure, but who cares?) grifters and isn't meaningfully means tested while having a nominal means test. We can do it because we already are. Why no piggy back on that system and expand it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 02:23
|
|