US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8340

On August 09 2017 15:35 xDaunt wrote:

Yes, I can see why people might be displeased "on principle," but shouldn't we aspire to make decisions based upon factual reality rather than emotion? All I did was make a very fact-based argument for why the change was not a big deal, and why the headline to which I was responding was misleading.

On August 09 2017 15:45 IgnE wrote:


Yeah ok but you are putting this "it's not a big deal" defense in a frame of "shouldn't we aspire to make decisions based upon factual reality" without articulating a single reason for why we are making a change at all. If it's not a big deal why change it at all? And you must know that "it's not a big deal" is not a reason in itself.

So far as I understand it, your reasoning seems to be: 1) it's not a big deal because most people with claims less than $100k will prefer arbitration usually anyway and 2) the companies wanted it to protect themselves from class action lawsuits therefore it's ok to change it. But everyone here is saying, "hey no if it's not a big deal don't bother changing it at all if that will protect companies from legitimate class actions through contracts of adhesion."

You seem to have taken the unspoken position that this law will actually make it better somehow for most people since most people have lawsuits less than $100k but you haven't really made the case that we need to change it because the way it is now the companies are fucking people over by avoiding arbitration. In other words, there is no quid pro quo for point 2 as far as I can see, unless I missed something.

Steady improvements in American life expectancy have stalled, and more Americans are dying at younger ages. But for companies straining under the burden of their pension obligations, the distressing trend could have a grim upside: If people don’t end up living as long as they were projected to just a few years ago, their employers ultimately won’t have to pay them as much in pension and other lifelong retirement benefits.

In 2015, the American death rate—the age-adjusted share of Americans dying—rose slightly for the first time since 1999. And over the last two years, at least 12 large companies, from Verizon to General Motors, have said recent slips in mortality improvement have led them to reduce their estimates for how much they could owe retirees by upward of a combined $9.7 billion, according to a Bloomberg analysis of company filings. “Revised assumptions indicating a shortened longevity,” for instance, led Lockheed Martin to adjust its estimated retirement obligations downward by a total of about $1.6 billion for 2015 and 2016, it said in its most recent annual report.

On August 09 2017 15:55 xDaunt wrote:


As I usually do with legal things, I took a completely neutral view of the change and simply reported what the bottom line was. There are sufficient grounds to argue the issue either way, which should be clear from my posts on the topic. This isn't some cut and dry "Trump is doing something stupid" issue as it has been presented. I really don't have a policy preference here because 1) the actual impact of the change is fairly minimal overall, and 2) the changes that are introduced are not purely bad for consumers for the reasons previously discussed. Getting excited over this change requires some serious mental masturbation.

On August 09 2017 16:05 a_flayer wrote:

Corporate fascism.

On August 09 2017 16:40 KwarK wrote:

It's nothing to do with corporations. The chief beneficiaries are public pension plans and, of course, social security.

On August 09 2017 16:53 a_flayer wrote:

They all work in tandem.

For example, the greed of the health care system reduces people's life span. The for-profit prison system encourages the government to lock people up and brutalize citizens, further reducing life spans. Sending people off to war, etc. There are many factors contributing to this, everything essentially related to corporate and 1%er greed.

Lockheed Martin then adjust its estimated retirement obligations downward by a total of about $1.6 billion for 2015 and 2016 because people don't live as long. Banks benefit, etc.

It's not some giant conspiracy, it's just individual influential actors all working against the plight of working people for their own benefit. And it's fascism, because people are dying as a result of it all.

Its billionaires funding propaganda that enable them to do this kind of stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6sbg46/twitter_suspends_army_of_fake_accounts_after/dlbknum/

CHAMPLAIN, N.Y. (AP) — They have come from all over the United States, piling out of taxis, pushing strollers and pulling luggage, to the end of a country road in the north woods.

Where the pavement stops, they pick up small children and lead older ones wearing Mickey Mouse backpacks around a “road closed” sign, threading bushes, crossing a ditch, and filing past another sign in French and English that says “No pedestrians.” Then they are arrested.

Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, migrants who came to the U.S. from across the globe — Syria, Congo, Haiti, elsewhere — arrive here where Roxham Road dead-ends so they can walk into Canada, hoping its policies will give them the security they believe the political climate in the United States does not.

“In Trump’s country, they want to put us back to our country,” said Lena Gunja, a 10-year-old from Congo, who until this week had been living in Portland, Maine. She was traveling with her mother, father and younger sister. “So we don’t want that to happen to us, so we want a good life for us. My mother, she wants a good life for us.”

The passage has become so crowded this summer that Canadian police set up a reception center on their side of the border in the Quebec community of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) south of Montreal, or almost 300 miles (480 kilometers) north of New York City.

It includes tents that have popped up in the past few weeks, where migrants are processed before they are turned over to the Canada Border Services Agency, which handles their applications for refuge.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are adding electricity and portable toilets. A Canadian flag stands just inside the first tent, where the Mounties search the immigrants they’ve just arrested and check their travel documents. They are also offered food. Then shuttle buses take the processed migrants to their next destination. Trucks carry their luggage separately.

How this spot, not even an official border crossing, became the favored place to cross into Canada is anyone’s guess. But once migrants started going there, word spread on social media.

Under the 2002 Safe Country Agreement between the United States and Canada, migrants seeking asylum must apply to the first country they arrive in. If they were to go to a legal port of entry, they would be returned to the United States and told to apply there.

But, in a quirk in the application of the law, if migrants arrive in Canada at a location other than a port of entry, such as Roxham Road, they are allowed to request refugee status there.

Many take buses to Plattsburgh, New York, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) south. Some fly there, and others take Amtrak. Sometimes taxis carry people right up to the border. Others are let off up the road and have to walk, pulling their luggage behind them.

Used bus tickets litter the pavement, their points of origin mostly blurred by rain that fell on nights previous. One read “Jacksonville.”

One Syrian family said they flew into New York City on tourist visas and then went to Plattsburgh, where they took a taxi to the border.

The migrants say they are driven by the perception that the age of Republican President Donald Trump, with his calls for bans on people from certain majority-Muslim countries, means the United States is no longer the destination of the world’s dispossessed. Taking its place in their minds is the Canada of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a member of his country’s Liberal Party.

Most of the people making the crossing now are originally from Haiti. The Trump administration said this year it planned to end in January a special humanitarian program enacted after the 2010 earthquake that gave about 58,000 Haitians permission to stay temporarily in the U.S.

Walking toward the border in a group on Monday, Medyne Milord, 47, originally of Haiti, said she needs work to support her family.

“If I return to Haiti, the problem will double,” she said. “What I hope is to have a better life in Canada.”

Jean Rigaud Liberal, 38, said he had been in the United States for seven months and lived in Florida after he left Haiti. He learned about Roxham Road from Facebook and said he thinks “Canada will be better than America.”

“We are not comfortable in America,” Liberal said. “We are seeking a better life; we don’t want to go back to Haiti.”

On the New York side, U.S. Border Patrol agents sometimes check to be sure the migrants are in the United States legally, but they said they don’t have the resources to do it all the time.

Besides, said Brad Brant, a special operations supervisor for the U.S. Border Patrol, “our mission isn’t to prevent people from leaving.”

Small numbers continue to cross into Canada elsewhere, but the vast majority take Roxham Road. U.S. officials said they began to notice last fall, around the time of the U.S. presidential election, that more people were crossing there.

Francine Dupuis, the head of a Quebec government-funded program that helps asylum seekers, said her organization estimates 1,174 people overall crossed into Quebec last month, compared with 180 in July 2016. U.S. and Canadian officials estimated that on Sunday alone, about 400 people crossed the border at Roxham Road.

“All they have to do is cross the border,” Dupuis said. “We can’t control it. They come in by the hundreds, and it seems to be increasing every day.”

Canada said last week it planned to house some migrants in Montreal’s Olympic Stadium. It could hold thousands, but current plans call for only 450.

In most cases, once the migrants are in Canada they are released and can live freely while their claims for refugee status are processed, which can take years. Meanwhile, they are eligible for public assistance.

Brenda Shanahan, the Liberal Party member of Parliament who represents the area, visited the site Monday. She is proud of her country for being willing to take in the dispossessed, she said, but there is no guarantee they will be able to stay in Canada.

“It’s not a free ticket for refugee status, not at all,” Shanahan said.

Opposition Conservative lawmaker Michelle Rempel said the Trudeau government lacks a plan to deal with the illegal crossings, even though a summer spike had been anticipated.

“All that we have heard is that we are monitoring the situation,” she said. “The government needs to come up with a plan right away to deal with this,” she said.

It will further backlog a system in which some refugees are already waiting 11 years for hearings, Rempel said. Canadians will question the integrity of the immigration system if the “dangerous trend” of illegal crossings continues, she said.

On August 09 2017 13:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hereby submit a proposition. Anything linked, must contain an opposing comment. It's too easy to find material that makes trump and co look like morons. So we must, from now on, submit 2 links. 1 in favor and 1 opposed.