supreme court reinstates most of trumps travel ban

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ban/103134132/

ye, trump winning more and more

idk why you guys call it trumpcare, its clearly Ryan/McConnell care

It really is an embarrassment of riches at this point.

What is the fundamental issue? That politicians sometimes misrepresent (or misunderstand) statistics and pander to their bases? I don't like this but I'm not sure what I can do about it.

For what it's worth I've heard Obama say that and I didn't like it when he said it.

I assume it's for one of two reasons, depending on the politician. Either

a) They haven't looked into the issue in any real depth and are simply parroting what they've heard, i.e. they believe it to be true.
b) They are pandering, deliberately simplifying a complicated issue in order to rile up their base.

I certainly don't dispute that there is plenty of (b) going on on the left as well.

I don't understand what this means. As far as I know with most issues of racism it's far more relevant to decide who is being discriminated against and what we can do about it rather than who is doing the discriminating.

Again I'm not really sure what this means or why it is relevant.

As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), your story is:

1. You were a liberal, and you accepted all arguments coming from liberals as being completely 100% based on fact with no lying.
2. You found out liberals lie sometimes.
3. Now you absolutely HATE liberals and are a fairly hardcore conservative.

Okay, but why? You admit that conservatives also lie so why is it only liberal lying which angers you so much?

Can you provide another example of a large "liberal lie"? The 23% wage gap for equal work is the only one I remember you identifying.

The tragicomic part of the wil et deplorable al argument concerning the wage gap is that it's not an actual gap because women are choosing to have children so of course they should be paid less.

Like, sure, let's penalize the people ensuring the human race continues to be a thing.

What if you weren't 100% sure it was a man, but only say 75% sure? What do you do then?

Also, wil, ffs, what do you think this article, that you posted in support of one your posts, is arguing?

Oh yeah, I saw that link and I was WTF, I'm pretty sure I cited the motherhood penalty/fatherhood bonus in one of these threads, although I don't think I'd found that specific study. But then there were five other crises and I forgot about it.

ya I mostly look on in disbelief or horror. its really no laughing matter.

nor is it a blanket ban as the initial order presented.

so if a person has a family member, or job, or schooling they likely can still travel here.

Actually, I did link to that article exactly. but also this other study by the same academic in a different post.

Wil: fwiw, this is a pretty good example of why I say I don't think you've ever taken the time to engage with what I've said on the topic. Although it also demonstrates why I need to make some kind of FAQ or something. Too many posts.

Not sure whether wil's here or out on

The issue is that you're building up a fear that isn't applicable to the situation. Additionally, you're creating a lot of bad scenarios for those who are thinking "that **** ain't right with me" than those who just accept.

Plus Jalfrezi and Donkey already stated that your daughter is not their type.

For several reasons, not least of which is that she's got at least one of wil's genes (allegedly).

No, but she may have to look out for the Donald in another 3-4 years.

its not a penalty, its a fundamental part of a free market system

more experience=more productivity=more salary

you can't fix this without government intervention

which in my mind is far worse than the free market work. Men work harder after children, women work less, to force them to earn the same in the name of equity is ridiculous

BitchiBee, congratulations, you have completely and utterly destroyed that strawman.

your "more experience=more productivity=more salary" equation doesn't actually explain the fatherhood bonus at all. It explains part (though not all, according to studies I've seen) of the motherhood penalty.

I tend to agree that cultural change is a better avenue than government intervention on some issues. It's not always the case that taking a year off to have a baby makes someone way less effective at their job, and the evidence suggests a lot of prejudicial attitudes. Just because government may not be the most effective tool to deal with a social problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

In other areas, government intervention might work while being minimum, like with the suggestion to require large public corporations to disclose their wage gaps (but with no other penalties or requirements on top of that).

Speaking of lies:





We are going to cover everyone, haha, just kidding we are going to let people die to fund $800 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy.

In before a deplorable engages in whataboutism.

Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/u...epublican.html

So they are just ****ing over everybody but their donors and billionaires like Trump and his cabinent, huh.

But, but Obama!!!!!

The visible hand is making some mean gestures.

Remember when Trump said:

What he really meant was that hedge fund managers pay too much in taxes and we need to get rid of the ACA surtax on the investment income of the wealthy that funds healthcare because those lucky ducky poor and middle class people aren't paying enough.

Go back to your little kiddie's echo-chamber. That's more your level.

This is the adult forum.

I think of it as Open. In running, they have the over 40, over 50, over 60 classes, and Open. Here we have Liberals Only, and Open.