Raider5678

Pelosi has responded with her own deal(Before Trump had even stated his publicly). If Trump signs a bill to reopen the government, extends DACA and TPS protections permanently, the Democrats will discuss potentially increasing border security. https://wsvn.com/news/politics/pelosi-dismisses-trump-proposal-as-non-starter/ Additionally, Trump has offered three other things that Democrats claim they support. INcreased infrastructure investments at our ports of entry, including additional ports and roads. Advanced technology to scan for drugs, weapons, and contraband where the vast majority of drugs come into our country and advanced technology to detect unauthorized crossings. More customs personnel including filling the more than 3,000 customs and border patrol vacancies

Trump has offered a three-year extension for DACA, a large increase in immigration lawyers for processing legal immigration cases, extending the TPS of 300,000 asylum seekers by 3 years, and $800 million in humanitarian aid(I didn't catch who he specified it for) in exchange for $5.7 billion for the wall. Pelosi responds that it's a non-starter because it doesn't include a permanent solution for DACA nor those who need TPS. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426172-pelosi-trump-proposals-to-reopen-government-a-non-starter A three-year extension is long enough for Democrats to regain the presidency and the legislative branch, and come up with their own "permanent solution" for DACA. Edit: This seems like a relatively solid deal to me. Especially to get the government reopened. Additionally, if the Democrats turn this down then they're going to be accepting a huge majority of the blame for the shutdown. Because, regardless of what the Democrats might say, he has offered quite a bit in exchange for the wall, and in the eyes of the public he's going to seem like he's compromising and they're not. Edit 2: I previously stated he was granting TPS to certain asylum seakers. I was wrong. He was extending the TPS of 300,000 asylum seekers by 3 years.

If the statement was specifically about work and it's environment, it seemed a bit odd to bring it up in my opinion. Kind of like if you're talking about whether or not it's okay to say curse words, and you start saying how you wouldn't say it in front of your grandmother. But anyways. Whether the person wants to hear something or not, is in my opinion, irrelevant to the equation. There are exceptions for things like personal matters, etc, but in terms of broad topics like science itself, I don't think I should be expected to ignore certain topics simply because of what they do and do not want to hear. Especially on a larger scale. If you're talking on some talk show, there is basically nothing you could say politically that won't offend someone. Under that reasoning, we wouldn't have anyone talking about politics publically. Which would be disastrous in my opinion.

I don't think that was his position. His reasoning, as he stated was: So I could be wrong, but I felt as though he was saying that it was because he didn't want to disrespect them, and it had less to do with the environment.

And this is where I think we'll probably never agree. I think the truth is more important than offending people. Regardless of what someone believes, I'm not going to avoid talking about something. I'm not going to go out of my way to shove my views in their face or anything, but I still won't avoid it. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You don't compliment people. It's not your place to tell them if they are or are not intelligent.

Perhaps. Though on a personal note, it gives programmers somewhere to look for when trying to program AI with abstract knowledge.

Shouldn't the study have been more of a percentage point thing? Instead of a binary "which is more" you could find out just how much each side was leaning.

I'd disagree. The system for legal immigration is severely flawed.

As with everything, there is a balance. Agreed.

She faced that vote about half an hour ago. I watched it live. SHe won, by the way.

I was asking if the study included DACA immigrants or not because I was trying to understand some statistics regarding it. Something seemed off to me about the statistics and I was trying to have it clarified. There. This is what I was wondering. Thank you CharonY, for actually answering my question instead of mocking me like TenOz.

Ah, I didn't catch that.

Except, I wasn't talking about illegal border crossings. Neither was the article. SO this entire post here is meaningless to me. FFS man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion.

Just out of curiosity, did that include the 690,000 DACA immigrants? I mean they went from illegal to authorized(so not illegal). From the graph, a significant decline was from 2007 to 2012, before DACA was even implemented. But after that it does seem to go down about 700,000, which fits with DACA immigration. Except, if that included DACA immigrants, that would indicate that the decline in illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. basically came to a stop after DACA was implemented, other then those gaining basic protection under it.

Ah, but I'm offended that you spelled meter as 'metre' instead of meter. Even though that's your culture, and how you guys spell it, I feel that since you know it offends me you should spell it as meter instead. I mean, it'd be just plain rude to know that it offends me and not change your actions.

I'm thoroughly offended that you used the word meter. I'm American. Please don't use metric units. Even if it's just referencing something else entirely. It's ignorant of my culture.

I understand that, but where did combined mass enter into the equation? F = G*(m1*m2/r^2) That's the basic equation. The equation that was presented was: F = G*(m1+m2)*(m1*m2/r^2) ANd that equations answer is going to be significantly different.

How dare you tell geordief what they can or can't be upset over. Shame on you. (This is said in full humor, as I see your post as ironic.)

They got tired of being mocked for using uncreative names by non-scientists, so the scientists got their revenge by naming them creative but completely unintuitive things. This equation seems to have an error. Where did the * 150kg * come from? (m1 * m2/r^2) = * (80kg * 70kg/(3m)^2) Which then you simply need to put in the gravitational constant again at the beginning. But seemingly, 150kg has appeared from nowhere, which is slightly confusing and may be contributing to your error. This equation should be: F = G * (m1 * m2/r^2) = 6.674×10−11 N. kg. m2 * (80kg * 70kg/(3m)^2) 6.674×10−11 N. kg. m2 * (5600kg/9m^2) 6.674×10−11 N. kg. m2 * 622.22...kg/m^2

According to your own source, two pilots simply had a powerful laser shined at them. It could have been anyone or anything. Also, being destroyed is totally different from having a laser shined on you.......

Then he's a racist.

Not really a precedent as an example of why it doesn't work. Assuming the Judicial branch does its job and strikes it down. The U.S. was designed as a country with a lot of checks and balances. While I'm not particularly pleased with how it works out on the smaller things, it does a very good job of keeping it from literally falling to pieces as so many democracies/republics have before, including the first United States(articles of confederation), or the French Republic. Eh. I heard things back when Kavanaugh was being nominated. Things like "If he gets in, then the first thing Republicans will do is defund planned parenthood." Still sitting here waiting for them to do that. Additionally, I heard the same type of thing when Obama was in office, whenever he went to appoint a judge. Except for the other side. "If he gets in, it's all over." Basically, it really doesn't matter who is in office, as a general pattern the U.S. government continues to operate and continue. The doomsday scenarios that are predicted with basically every election/appointment simply never happen. There are certain lines that just don't get crossed. Allowing the President to declare a national emergency over basically nothing in order to go around the legislative branch is one of them. This is, of course, simply opinions. In no way am I saying this is a fact, it's what I generally see it like.

If Trump get's struck down by the supreme court, I suspect the same exact thing would happen to Democrats if they tried declaring it for climate change and medicare for all.

Because Trump has never struck me as a nice humble guy. His prides a pretty big deal to him, and backing down would be equivalent to kicking his pride, shooting it a few times for good measure, and then burying it 12 feet under just to make sure. In his mind at least. I really doubt Trump will back down. That being said, let me make a prediction on what I think will happen. Trump will declare a national emergency, knowing full well that it'll get picked up by the supreme court and basically immediately struck down. After that, the budget is forcibly passed without funding for the wall, and the government reopens. Trump stands up and blames the Democrats and the judicial branch for stopping the wall, Democrats stand up and say they stopped the wall. Neither side loses any major support from their base, government reopens, and by the next election cycle, most of this is forgotten. I'm fairly certain Democrats expect Trump will take the easy way out and declare a national emergency, and are simply trying to out wait him there.