Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Prepares Draft Order To Declare National Emergency u0026 Build Wall" video.

What law did he break?
8
@kevin6293 , one can argue this is a state of emergency. We do have an immigration problem and democrats refuse to act simply because of politics. Democrats, in the past, supported stricter immigration laws and methods of stopping them, but now they don't because their hatred towards Trump. Democrats don't vote with Trump on major issues, there is a clear bias towards him. So you have a major issue that the federal government is responsible for, immigration, and congress refusing to act due to a clear bias towards the president despite him making several deals. So at that point it is arguably a state of emergency.
5
It will get shot down in Congress. Congress does have the power to veto this through 2/3 vote in both chambers. Members of congress don't want to see the economy be destroyed by one crazy man. Plus, Bernie will never be president.
3
Different issue. It is arguable that some of those deaths are because of their own lifestyle choices.
3
@888strummer , true. This will be a big victory for Trump and a major loss for Democrats. Democrats are so extreme now they can't see what is happening. They are losing. The democrats were given a deal to help the DACA kids but refused. Now Trump will just go this route and get a wall and democrats will get nothing. For this democrats will lose come 2020.
2
@MomoTheBellyDancer , yep, the SC is full of extreme right wing fascist morons with their recent ruling on funding for planned parenthood.
1
@liberalsocialist9723 , the economy will tank with single payer. You can't change 1/6 of our economy that drastically and not expect things to change.
1
@Nanny State NoNo's , it isn't going to be cheaper and won't be more effective. Also, establishing it will destroy our economy. You can't change 1/6 of our economy that drastically without an economic downfall.
1
@jaredgreathouse3672 , is climate change a major issue? Also, what can the federal government do? National emergency is not clearly defined so the courts will have to interpret it. The issue is that climate change does not have a clear solution, so the courts will shut it down. Here Trump has a solution, build a barrier. Will it solve everything? No. But his solution and problems are clear so the courts will most likely support it.
1
Eh, there is Constitutional question to this. Congress is not acting and this is an issue. This is a foreign affairs issue which the federal government can be involved it. I don't agree with it because it does give the president too much power, but Congress is clearly not acting and democrats refuse to work with him. As for Medicare for all that is not a national emergency as there are arguments that many health problems are self inflicted. Also, Medicare for all cost way more than the wall. As for the violence claim, those are hard numbers to get. If an illegal commit a crime on an illegal the chances it is reported is low due to fear of deportation.
1
C W , they passed bills to create barriers and in the past they said more needed to be done, including Chuck. Also, Trump supported drones and more troops, but he also supported a wall. In fact, he went down to a steel barrier. This is how deals get done, both sides have their ideas and come to the middle. Trump was willing to negotiate and did and gave democrats some things they wanted. They refused to work with him. I would understand if Trump refused to budge, but he did, democrats aren't and never work with Trump. There is a clear bias that will be easy to display in court.
1
C W , because he needed more money.
1
@anticorncob6 , you did not give me examples. Also, a problem can be an emergency.
1
@BaronSaturday66 , no they can't. To start, "national emergency" is not defined by law, thus it will have to go to the courts to decide what is a national emergency and what isn't. It becomes case by case. Next, Congress can override it with 2/3 vote. Trump does have a strong case in how the democrats have a strong bias towards him and have changed their stance simply because they hate Trump. And immigration is a problem. A problem is not getting fixed because one side simply hates Trump. That is something that can be defended in court and can lead to a Trump victory. Fact is that the wall issue will be the death of the democrats. Them refusing to work with Trump will lead to this national emergency and will get them to realize they need to become more moderate or get voted out.
1
@anticorncob6 , they strongly disagree with his cabinet picks where very few voted for them. On the defense budget, it was modest so they voted for it. How about the tax reform? Or how about the justices? Saying a handful to senators voted for his cabinet is nothing. Also, one can argue that immigration is a case of national emergency. The fact is that if this happens this will be a strong victory for Trump. During this time he has show to be willing to work with democrats, they refused. Trump was elected because the democrats are too extreme and they are doubling down on how radical they are. This will be viewed as Trump can get things done and that democrats are now worthless and will have to become moderate or lose come 2020.
1
@jennybugsification13 , it isn't splitting hairs. Plus, congress will just veto it as the vast majority don't want Medicare for all.
1
@jennybugsification13 , also, the SC will shut down any Medicare for all push if it were pushed as a "national emergency".
1
@mecher3k , not really.
1
@franklance9167 , it is easily arguable that their deaths were due to life style choices. Katherine Baicker brought that point up. But I guess you will ignore arguments from experts on the other side.
1
@anticorncob6 , I would argue immigration does make the top 25 list, especially for federal issues. Also, it is an issue because democrats simply refuse to work with Trump. They were all for immigration reform in the past but now are against it because Trump is president.
1
@franklance9167 , here https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 Even when given access to healthcare their physical health did not improve. Why? Because their life style choices did not improve. Also, people in that condition face many problems. Read the book "Being Mortal". There the author discusses how people look towards modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but really live another 5 or 10 months. So if they receive care and live a few more months, is that a success? Fact is this issue is complex. You asked for evidence and I gave you sources on the issue. I suggest you stop listening to Kyle and actually read up on these topics from actual experts.
1
@bernman23 , I know genetic diseases are not due to life style choices. But a lot of health problems are related to life style choices. No nation guarantee healthcare. You are confused on what punishment is. So you want to force doctors to work? Your punishment argument is highly asinine. You can't say illegals commit less crime as it is impossible to get accurate stats on that. If an illegal commits a crime towards another illegal it never gets reported due to fear of deportation. Also, illegals are not on record so they can commit a crime and not get caught because of that.
1
@franklance9167 , I gave you evidence. Those people are poor and bad health due to life style choices is associated with being poor. Also, if you did give them care and they live a few extra months and then die, is that a success? Yes, it did increase the use of health services, but physical health did not improve. Detecting diabetes does not mean they saw a cure for it. I can point to someone who is fat but that does not mean they will lose rate. That is the point, their physical health did not improve. I did not say there weren't positives, but the reality their lifestyle did not change making them at high risk for bad health. Here https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/ "Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health. "So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said." "Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, told us in an interview that he, too, thinks the number of deaths is impossible to nail down. In addition to Kronick’s skepticism, he pointed to a study of Oregon’s Medicaid experiment (which Baicker co-authored and PolitiFact looked at here) that found no significant improvement in health outcomes, including conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar, between a group of new Medicaid enrollees and uninsured Oregonians who could not get on the Medicaid rolls." That source had everything to do with lifestyle choices. Did you even read it? I mean, I thought leftists were supposed to be the educated one? Why am I the one citing experts with counter arguments here where you simply tell me to "fuck" myself?
1
@franklance9167 , the issue is there is a lot to this argument. This argument is complex. You can't get say that 45,000 is accurate as it is impossible to get accurate numbers there. That study showed that even with access to healthcare their physical health did not improve making that a high risk for early death. And as the book "Being Mortal" pointed out, people in that condition a lot of times live only a few more months after care. I noticed how you did not mention that book at all? You know for how "educated" leftists are supposed to be I seem to be the one who have actually read studies and books on this issue.
1
@franklance9167 , do you call me a "piece of shit" and run away? How "liberal" of you. Enjoy your echo chamber.
1
@franklance9167 , it isn't about a specific claim. The issue is that these topics are complex. On that 45,000 stat there are counter arguments against it, that is my point. I provided evidence towards that and quotes from experts. You are looking for a clear, 100% answer on an issue where none exist.
1
@_Atzin , define "preventable"? Also, as I said, if you give them care and they live only a few months more, is that a success?
1
@DemiAngel75 , most people are poor because of their own choices.
1
@franklance9167 , yes, it is arguable that some of those deaths are due to life choices. Did I say all? No. Did I say lack of access did not play a role? No. I said one can argue different points. I gave you quotes from experts on it. So experts is not evidence? Tell me, what does it feel like to be this lost?
1
@uzumakiangelus , not true
1
@uzumakiangelus , you don't understand the general welfare clause
1
@Username-ei4ff , people make poor life choices, that is on them. Why should we cater to them for their mistakes? Also, yes, I said some. I am accepting the fact that there are some people who may die due to lack of access to healthcare, that happens in all nations. So the question becomes is that 45,000 high, low or the average? You can't say as there is no similar study to compare to. Also, it isn't about punishing them. Who am I punishing? Am I throwing these people in jail or killing them? No. No one is.
1
@_Atzin , you have a low standard of success than.
1
They have the power to stop it but it requires 2/3 of the vote.
1
The stat Kyle mentions about illegals committing less crime is deceptive. If an illegal commits a crime on another illegal chances of it getting reported is low due to fear of deportation. Also, we can't track illegal so one can commit a crime and never get caught due to no records of them thus no finger print evidence, for example, can catch them. Kyle, once again, shows his stupidity.
1