daz28

Not sure what you're trying to say here. This ruling allows them to follow their new law, which allows them to jail or deport. if the plan is to just continue to ship them out, and not even use the new law, then it would in fact confirm that it certainly was just a political stunt.

As usual, NC was kind enough to bumble his way into providing the proof of the thing he was claiming actually didn't happen. If you go back one page, and look at, ironically, his Election Wizard tweet look right below the part that is circled in red, and it clearly states with an X in the box, "Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll". That was decided by "a preponderance of evidence". I'd like to take a second to thank the unwitting again for saving me from having to take the time to do my own research.

Seems like a good thing on the surface, but... Do you remember Cheech N Chong, when they wanted to go back home and visit, they'd set up a raid on themselves to get a free ride back home w/a sandwich, and then just come right back in? Now there is a provision to jail them for 6 months, and a felony if recaptured. Again, sounds great, right. Well, if the conditions you're fleeing are worse than detention, then 3 hots and a cot, while not as good as freedom in the states, is still better than what they had. Third, Texas is going to find out REAL fast, that they don't have the facilities and manpower to keep up. It's going to cost a TON, and take time to get the infrastructure ready. Texas has a surplus, but it will go fast. Now suppose Biden goes full Trump, and starts denying Texas federal funds, because he wants to be a sore loser. This is hardly a long-term solution, and in fact makes it a perpetual problem. Texans will grow tired of endlessly spending their taxes to detain immigrants. Lastly, this throws yet another wrench into the already complex immigration problem, and infighting just adds another problem to the long list. The REAL solution is comprehensive immigration reform in Congress. Congressional Democrats may even look at this as, "why should we spend money, when we can just let Texas foot the bill". I know a lot of you are conditioned to hate the last bi-partisan proposal, but any new bill is going to have to have self-triggering measures, so the Biden situation can't happen again with enforcement. Right now Trump wanting to play the hero for politics, and Biden being a dummy, along with republicans playing fake lawfare trying to get votes, instead of doing their job are the biggest hurdles. Call your reps and tell them you want immigration reform, NOW!

The graph literally is comparing one stock to another, and claiming it's an indicator of doom. Then at the end it says, "The top 10% of stocks in the US now reflect ~75% of the entire market.", which would mean that there's actually very little speculation happening. Seems contradictory to me, and definitely not the same thing as the dot-com bubble.

So let me get this straight. The argument is that we don't support a rapist, we support a sexual assaulter?

The comment was tongue in cheek.

It's just a legal term, AGAIN don't blame me for it. I believe 30 days is fairly standard. Yes, he's a jerk. Again, poor people often have to come up with money they don't have. He supposedly has $5B. If he can't get a bond, that tells you they either feel he's not trustworthy or he doesn't really have the assets, which would be rich seeing that's why he's here in the first place. BT showed you how the number maybe isn't actually that far-fetched, harmed party or not. if he gained an unfair advantage, he should pay for it.

The only problem is if they continue to give ridiculous salaries to top management and huge dividends to shareholders, the simps will claim it was the workers earning a living wage that crippled the company.

Wait, I had no idea NC allowed you to post in BT created threads. TREASONOUS!

Then why are red states shipping immigrants to blue states depriving them of that advantage, Elon? Uh durrrr

I would assume that because a rich person pays the same parking ticket fine that a poor person pays would mean the appeals court will find it wildly excessive. My personal opinion is that the damages should be punitive in relation to the individual instead. Either way if he's as rich as he says he is it won't hurt him that much. If I went from having $5B to $4.5B I wouldn't be missing meals and having to fly coach.

I don't know if a union has or can try to control that. I did a quick google, and this is what I found: We find evidence that labor unions affect chief executive officer (CEO) compensation. First, we find that firms with strong unions pay their CEOs less. The negative effect is robust to various tests for endogeneity, including cross-sectional variations and a regression discontinuity design. Second, we find that CEO compensation is curbed before union contract negotiations, especially when the compensation is discretionary and the unions have a strong bargaining position. Third, we report that curbing CEO compensation mitigates the chance of a labor strike, thus providing a rationale for firms to pay CEOs less when facing strong unions.

I don't have any idea what to go by. That was up to a judge, and will be up to an appeals judge now. My comments are basically that if a punishment isn't enough, then the wealthy are basically above the law. I already said that what excessive means is the question. I certainly don't have the answer.

There is absolutely no 'winning' in any of that. What trump was asking for was ridiculous. The right wing MSM is going to be all over this as left-wing democrat socialist commie judge.

Huh? If you don't know how unions work, you can google it. The only real problem with it is that they will exploit workers elsewhere in the world. Like I said before, when international workers begin to unite, the elite start a war. If you're interested, Jean Jaurès is really good research. Don't let the socialism word scare you.

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully. Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing.

Calling shareholders "investors" has to stop too. Buying a share of stock puts absolutely no money into the company, but it always draws a dividend(if offered). The actual "investing" happens long before a company becomes public. The shareholders are all part owners. I know it's just semantics, but it makes the simp arguments appear much better than they actually are.

On it's face, it surely appears to be excessive, but only from the tilted 2-tiered justice point of view that favors the wealthy. I'm almost certain that isn't going to change anytime soon.

I just told you how to make it work better. You can agree or disagree with that.

When across the street is exactly the same, and run by a different member of the oligopoly, then there really isn't much freedom of choice at all. Like everything, corporate greed needs checks and balances. The free market and competition doesn't work when there is collusion at the top with no organization of the workers at the bottom to check it.

I'm fairly sure any judge is going to find that him not wanting to sell off assets to pay his fines is a ridiculous argument, especially considering he tried to move assets to Florida after he was instructed not to. Alina Habba is a hack, but this is likely just a political move by trump to garner more sympathy.

The only problem with your argument is that it's punitive in that it's to punish the behavior as well as compensate the victim. Sort of the same issue as there is with bail. Would a $5000 fine punish trump or curb the behavior? A $5000 fine would, however, cripple anyone living check to check. So the question is, what really is "excessive"? One could argue that because his wealth is excessive, the damages are not excessive to him.

There are programs for this already, and I've worked with some of these people. Ultimately, that burden lies on the workers who have to work with these people, and the owner gets credit for being a good community businessperson and maybe a lil subsidy to boot.

Do you dispute that the topic is in bad taste? How about a topic called, 'has your kid been killed in a school shooting yet?' C'mon man.

There hasn't been much details other than that he wants to change the language of the aid to be a loan for Ukraine.