What an odd question. The immigrants who speak English and are prepared to go to nursing school come in legally. — frank

It's not an odd question at all, and your point is completely irrelevant. If you retrace the exchange, you can see that it leads back to, "Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at", which is an argument for fewer immigrants, and fewer immigrants means fewer nurses, and fewer nurses where there's a demand results in a worse healthcare system.

It's not an odd question at all, and your point is completely irrelevant. If you retrace the exchange, you can see that it leads back to, "Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at", which is an argument for fewer immigrants, and fewer immigrants means fewer nurses, and fewer nurses where there's a demand results in a worse healthcare system. — S

She thinks fewer homeless refugees in Arizona would be good. Immigrants from all over the world continue to be granted citizenship. Some of them become nurses, I suppose.

She thinks fewer homeless refugees in Arizona would be good. Immigrants from all over the world continue to be granted citizenship. Some of them become nurses, I suppose. — frank

You aren't helping. She thinks that resources to provide healthcare have reached capacity, and that therefore the current rate of immigration is a problem. I know this because that's what she has said or suggested, and I've been reading her comments. And what she's saying or suggesting in that regard is mistaken, as my replies indicate.

Your replies only indicate that you need to change your batteries.

Your replies only indicate that you need to change your batteries. — frank

Do you have anything intelligent to add? Are you done sticking your oar in with unhelpful and naive comments?

Do you have anything intelligent to add? Are you done sticking your oar in with unhelpful and naive comments? — S

Well, I think anytime someone's home is inundated by hoards of people who have nothing to lose, it's best to be sympathetic. Maybe consider giving some money to an aid organization. Maybe ask her who that would be.

I wouldn't tell them to stop complaining because the desperate families could be put to work in an operating room.

Well, I think anytime someone's home is inundated by hoards of people who have nothing to lose, it's best to be sympathetic. Maybe consider giving some money to an aid organization. Maybe ask her who that would be.

I wouldn't tell them to stop complaining because the desperate families could be put to work in an operating room. — frank

Your advice is unsolicited. If I feel I need to consult with anyone here about donating to charity, and which charities they would recommend, then I will make that known.

I don't start with the assumption that the current level of immigration is a negative thing. Tiff presented an argument that it is a negative thing, and specifically addressed the healthcare system in her argument. I have shown the problem with that argument.

You haven't resolved that problem.

You haven't resolved that problem. — S

Simmer down, S. You sound like your head is about to explode.

Not yet brewed. Waiting on the frost to melt with a little sunshine before I am venturing out into the desert which is sitting at 35*f. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

35?? 35!! You lucky dog, it's over 80 here today. Here in Florida we have two seasons, summer, and Christmas Eve.

That is an excellent question for the macro level thinkers but what I am speaking of is our ability, as a state which is a collective of communities, to deal with the influx of those in need. We are a giving community but we have our limits. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I hear you, and that illustrates the larger question I'm asking too. How many people is America able to serve, how many is she willing to serve? We should try to have some idea of that instead of just pushing blindly forward while more communities like yours get overwhelmed. I don't have the answer myself, I have no idea how many citizens is the right amount. All I've got is the question.

So to answer your question, how much is too much for my community, my state? It is when one more droplet of water sends of thousands of little droplets out in ever direction with no plan on how to wring it out. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, how much water can the sponge hold? We should try to answer that question at some point before we find out through crisis.

Simmer down, S. You sound like your head is about to explode. — frank

You're reading way too much into what I said, and that's just another unhelpful comment from you. Goodbye.

Adios.

I'm depressed, not like that's an excuse. :smile: — frank

I hope life is treating you better since I asked. :sparkle:
Depression isn't an excuse but it does explain the shift sometimes. :flower:

In regards to Trump saying that he would have been a great general with his decision to pull out American troops from Afghanistan (so that ISIS and the Taliban kill each other off) despite the advice from his generals not to do so...

Huu? What? How?

Send all the newcomers to Montana and Wyoming. There are only two persons per square kilometer in those states, hence a lot empty area for people to fit there. And basically there are so few people now in those states that their objections don't matter (as elections go). And the foreigners wanting to come to the US will think twice before coming to Montana and Wyoming (as New York and California are off limits). And if people Still want to come, well, the two states are in for an economic boom as they have to basically build new cities for the newcomers. — ssu

ssu, my voice of reason in arm chair immigration debates. :razz:
I jokingly suggested when I was younger and many immigration waves ago, when our nations borders were patrolled by INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) that we just give them Jersey while standing among those who hail from Jersey. I am not sure if you have met someone from New Jersey but they are much like me, hailing from Chicago, in that we take our home town very seriously and any reason to get puffed up chest about them and we will. :smirk:

We really did have this conversation but we arrived at the destination of Idaho. Idaho would temporarily make a great sanctuary state. There is plenty of room, no I didn't look at the population count (we were in a bar) and we were going off of well....Idaho.... :razz:
Okay, so we have an actual location for those people we can reasonably take into our society.
Now that we have a place, we need basic amenities of life: shelter, food, health care, education and respected religious beliefs.
Now what? We cannot expect those who arrive with nothing to know the language, know our customs or know our laws, can we?
The "economic boom" that Idaho would experience would be based on what? Need?
We have homeless citizens in Idaho that we already cannot provide for, if building them a city would help, we would have already built one. Building housing is a very short term solution if you have no money to build a city or a way to create an infrastructure to support the city then you cannot provide the basic needs of life for yourself and must be assisted.
How deep does that assistance go? Well if we are in living in a Utopian world, there would be no bottom of the well of assistance.
But we live in reality and a bottomless well of Utopia does not exist on my ranch and I don't know that it exists anywhere in the USA.
However my ranch, my Utopian desires to help all in need does not make my well any deeper or any more productive. In fact, the water well I have on my ranch, I share with my neighbor, it is both of our blessing and liability. Since we are out in the foothills of the mountains, further away from the city we are able to tap our property for water, which (thank goodness) is still wet.
However in the last 2 years there has been a housing boom in the city and the urban sprawl creeps closer and finally into our community. 30 years ago you couldn't purchase less than 40 acres of this desert at a time, which the original ranch owner did and was only able to sell them off at 7 acres at a time. When she first arrived 30 years ago, she had one well drilled for herself which now serves both of our ranches and the livestock we own.
The houses that have been going in the last two years have been zoned as one home per acre, two acres per private well. I am not sure how good you are at math but I can tell you that there is a lot more taps into our water we retrieve from the ground. How long will it take before I turn on the water hose and nothing comes out?
Will the HUGE undertaking of drilling a deeper well be covered under our home owners insurance policy? No Sir. Will the $5000 sitting in the "Water Well Account" be enough to cover the charges for a new well, IF they can find water?
Not a flippin chance since that estimate was given 15 years ago.
Now, some of the homes that were built on an acre or less are promoting "City Water! Luxury Lot!" which means that our community has already reached our well capacity.
It seems stable at the moment but ssu, the ranch up the street has decided to offer up stabling of others horses for a small monthly fee, $200 per horse. It is a screaming deal for those who are paying for hauled water or are paying for city water but for those of us on wells? It doesn't cost a cent for the extra water being consumed when you take a ranch of 4 horses and are now watering 25 horses! Woo Hoo! What a deal for those providing the service! Yipppieeee!!!...…
...wait.... :brow: What used to be a "fair draw" of water for your privately owned horses for 4 has now gone to 25? 25 horses on one well, to be shared by two ranches?
Confuzzled look as to what to do, who is responsible and what laws do we need to put in place to protect such loopholes from occurring with a resource as precious in the Southwestern desert as water?
Who do I go to when my well runs dry? Do I go to the ranch who has 25 horses on their little side business and inform them that THEY are partially responsible for my well going dry and I certainly hope they set aside enough of their little profit to handle the legal proceedings they are going to incur?
Even after my front door rant, even after my being taken away by the local Sheriff for not obeying orders to "pipe down", even after the po-po ride where I am able to make my case and the Sheriff AGREES with me because his ranch has gone dry too, I will still be left with no legal recourse.
Myself, my neighbor and the rest of us ranch owners will have to pay for city water as hauling it will become a novelty. Why? Because if you own horses or cattle you need well water. Not because they cannot consume city water but because no one can afford to maintain horses/cattle on bottled water. That doesn't include the water necessary to maintain the health of the animals, bathing, removing manure from human areas ect.
Now the ranchers that have been here know this, the newbies don't and there is always someone in the neighborhood that is willing to sell their soul to make a buck. When the ranchers well goes dry, he either thins the herd, sells the herd or keeps the herd and sells the farm to relocate further up out of the city.
What do you suppose is going to happen to the ranch up the street that has been stabling/supporting 25 horses on their well and it goes dry? My guess is there is going to be a rash of calls to the horse owners, to come get their horses, which they cannot stable on their acre property that now has a pool in the backyard. What is the horse owner going to do? Pay for the bottled water that they WOULD have been paying for if they had stabled on property? :rofl: Not a flippn chance because they have NO idea what it costs, for they have never had to go without water and frankly, what is happening at the "ranches" who have water wells really doesn't affect them because they have been paying for city water at their property the whole 2 years since they moved out here.
My forecast? When our wells go dry, as they likely will, regardless of the last 30 yrs of never having it lose pressure let alone go dry, those with older animals will likely pay for the bottled water, which they never budgeted for or relocate. The horse owners who were boarding their horses with no water charge will give up the hobby because of the expense and once again our desert will be disgraced with people who let their pets go into the wild to fend for themselves or another 'feeder farm' will appear and stain our animal loving community.
How deep does the well of assistance go?
Maybe Montana and Wyoming have a better idea of how to handle it for what we came up with is not sustainable.

Shit is hitting the fan.

You mean more than usual... ? What happened?

You mean more than usual... ? What happened? — Baden

He was only given 1 scoop of ice cream.

Shit is hitting the fan. — Wallows

{{{Wallows}}} The "shit" is always hitting someone's fan. The trick is to move out of the way of someone else's fallout or learn to run faster that your own shitfest! :smirk:
I promise you, we are all going to be okay. :strong:

Pray that Mueller delivers this year.

Pray that Mueller delivers this year. — Wallows

Okay but let's think this through before we desire a specific outcome. :pray:
If Muller is able to provide evidence that will give cause to remove the President, as I said before, that would make Mike Pence President, which for me is a scary enough idea but now?
Now? That would make Mike Pence President and Nancy Pelosi Vice President. :scream:
Now that would make for one hell of a shitfest burning in the bottom of a trash trashcan. :fire:

Thanks for the reality check. Pence as president? wow...

Now? That would make Mike Pence President and Nancy Pelosi Vice President. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Pence becoming President would not result in Pelosi becoming Vice President. She would briefly be the next in the line of succession - while remaining Speaker, but only until Pence appoints a new Vice President and s/he is confirmed.

Do his supporters believe Trump is clairvoyant?

I don't know how else to explain their complete trust in every "solution" he comes up with, despite there being no evidence of careful study and analysis. This is my main beef with his pushing of a wall. I have no a priori commitment against a barrier, at least in some places, if it will help - and it will not cause other problems (e.g. environmental or stealing personal property). But it has NOT been studied in full, with a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

That would make Mike Pence President and Nancy Pelosi Vice President. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Hey Sis!

That would not make Nancy Pelosi VP.

In the event of a resignation or impeachment, the current VP Pence would become President and he would nominate his own VP.

Nancy would not be acting in the place of the VP at all. She'd only become President if Pence cannot do the role. Even during the time that ther is no VP in place, she still would not be VP, but would only be the next in line to be President if something would happen to Pence and there was no current VP.

In short, Pelosi would not become VP unless Pence nominates her to the position.

Here's how it works:

Presidential Succession:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6, Constitution of the United States: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

In the case that the president can no longer serve, the vice president would serve as president.
If the vice president cannot serve, the line of succession falls to the speaker of the House, then to the Senate president pro tempore, then to Cabinet members.

The Cabinet line of succession is:

1. Secretary of State
2. Secretary of the Treasury
3. Secretary of Defense
4. Attorney General
5. Secretary of the Interior
6. Secretary of Agriculture
7. Secretary of Commerce
8. Secretary of Labor
9. Secretary of Health and Human Services
10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
11. Secretary of Transportation
12. Secretary of Energy
13. Secretary of Education
14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
15. Secretary of Homeland Security
The 25th Amendment allows the vice president to serve as acting president temporarily in the case that the president is ill or otherwise temporarily unable to fulfill his or her official duties.


This is the current line of sucession at the moment (things seems to change so quickly this could be out of date as I write this): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order

btw... The office of VP was listed as vacant from October 10 – December 6, 1973 until Gerald Ford nominating Nelson Rockefeller as VP.

Meow!

G

Nancy Pelosi for president.

My forecast? When our wells go dry, as they likely will, regardless of the last 30 yrs of never having it lose pressure let alone go dry, those with older animals will likely pay for the bottled water, which they never budgeted for or relocate. The horse owners who were boarding their horses with no water charge will give up the hobby because of the expense and once again our desert will be disgraced with people who let their pets go into the wild to fend for themselves or another 'feeder farm' will appear and stain our animal loving community. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Even if a bit off the topic, thanks for writing about reality about ranching in Arizona and the increasing urbanization. At least that ought to work wonders on the price of the land.

Well, I think having a ranch or farm is something that will shrink even further or become a hobby of the rich. Fewer ordinary people will have horse ranches I guess. Farms will change either to huge enterprises with a lot of robots or be tended by old people them who are barely making it. That's why I'm happy that at least I saw in my childhood at our summer place an active countryside with neighbours having cattle and people still living in the countryside. Our summer place, and old farm established by my great grandparents is an old two-story house built in 1914 with some fields and forest around it. Some forty years ago on the road where the summer place is located lived nine families all year around with three of them having cattle and even some horses. Now only two families live there, all the cattle has been sold in the 1990's, and all places kept or sold to be summer places, which is lucky as abandoned house left to be ruined don't look nice. One old farmer rents the fields of the village. You can see the slow death of the countryside, but it's a logical result since agriculture was basically based on substance farming in the 19th Century up until the 1960's. Unfortunately my children won't see it anymore as I did.

I bet in Arizone that's a huge deal for a family that has had a ranch to sell of the cattle and horses and become people just living on a former ranch.

Now what? We cannot expect those who arrive with nothing to know the language, know our customs or know our laws, can we? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, at least the Mexicans are North American. Their culture (and basically culture in Latin America) is a lot closer to American than European. Far easier to make a Mexican to be a gringo than someone from another continent.

The "economic boom" that Idaho would experience would be based on what? Need? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yep. Increase in population is the most natural reason for an economy to grow. One really has to ruin the economy or simply not have a functioning economy for population growth to be inherently a problem.

How deep does that assistance go? Well if we are in living in a Utopian world, there would be no bottom of the well of assistance. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If one thinks that people need help and assistance, then there indeed is no bottom.

Actually I've come to the conclusion that welfare especially focused on some ethnic people is a sort of evil counterinsurgency strategy to keep the people poor, apathetic and stigmatized. And no, I'm not in favour of the eradication of the welfare state in general, but I argue that the promotion of a free and healthy economy with functioning institutions (education, jurisdiction etc.) is the way to go. Unfortunately too many otherwise smart people think that some sort of planned economy is a better solution.

So, I just checked the news and it seems that now the Democrats are in the House, they are able to give Mueller all the necessary tools he might have been waiting for to put into effect. Such as the ability to subpoena the phone records of Trump Jr. about whether Trump was aware of the collusion, which now nobody within the bounds of common sense and reason doubts, between Russian operatives and the then yet to be president's campaign managers and affiliates. If the phone records show that Trump knew about this, the case now moves onto the federal crime of conspiracy against the US government.

So, yeah, shit is hitting the fan for Trump.

For once, I'm glad we have the Patriot Act in the US.

It's interesting/amusing/depressing how Trump supporters' proclamations about Trump's wall have changed. When Trump talked about building a wall encompassing the US/Mexico border during the campaign, and the myriad problems with such a plan were pointed out (everything from the cost to the efficacy and issues raised by private land ownership and eminent domain), supporters retorted that he wasn't serious about a building an actual wall, it was just sort of symbolic talk about securing our borders. (Why this bizarre form of symbolic communication - as opposed to actual ideas - about policy issues should be acceptable to Trump supporters is beyond me, but it's of a piece with the logical contortions that his supporters went through to endorse him despite his obvious flaws.)

Then this view shifted toward acknowledging that Trump was indeed talking about an actual wall, but that Mexico would pay for it. After Mexico basically told Trump in no uncertain terms that this wasn't going to happen, their view has shifted yet again to "let's build an actual wall, and we'll pay for it: no price is too high to secure America from the brown hordes threatening this great land."

It's interesting/amusing/depressing how Trump supporters' proclamations about Trump's wall have changed. — Arkady

They have quite a time following their extremely insecure leader. Have just few right wing talking heads saying that he "chickened out" and "gave everything away "to the democrats" and you have the debacle of a tragicomedy that is the shutdown.

The ineptness of Trump to handle anything is present here as other persons would have understood that these right-wing talking heads need far more his approval than the other way around. And that the whole issue isn't any kind of life or death for his supporters, some kind of "No new taxes" pledge that would haunt him.

Perfect example of this is Obama... and his promise to close GITMO. Nope, he didn't close the prison, but none of his supporters cared a damn. They were the first to blame the Republicans for keeping it open and were the first people coming forward to defend him that he tried and hence it's not his fault.

So would it be with this lunatic Wall-thing.