Yep, while there are times for having bottled water like being on an outing or something, when I'm at home the water thats filtered and comes out of my fridge ice cold is more than fine.

But yeah Nestle should PAY for all water pumped just like every household that uses water does. This is just corporate welfare at its finest.

1) Because they didn't succeed in a vacuum, they benefit from civilization, so are obligated to support it to at least the same extent if not more because they are able while others aren't.

2) swap dumb with rich and Trump is the bazillionaire he claims to be. You can't just swap dissimilar unrelated concepts and say "see, proved it" without looking like a braying moron.

3) Yes it should without question, our best and brightest don't come from the privileged class as a higher percentage. Actually the opposite because they don't have to do their best to survive, poorer people do, and drive matters immensely. If we want to compete internationally, we must educate the uneducated and undereducated, even those who can't afford $500000 to fake a crew history or SAT score. That education needs to be better than the countries we compete with, and it is all too often simply not.
That is a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

4) equating wealth to gpa, like this moronic video does, means Trump, like everyone else, should start at 0 and not get a bonus from daddy. If that happened, he would be zero. He is not self made, he did not only get a small $14 million unrepaid interest free loan. He did squander the money, failing at venture after venture until only Russian gangsters will loan him money, loans he needs because he squandered the money....then he repeatedly lied about it immorally squandering billions from hundreds of duped investors too...THAT is evil, yes.

5) We make $30000 for two people and don't take a dime, even overpaid my taxes...not everyone has my opportunities, privileges, and abilities. You are just spouting nonsense straw man arguments. In a perfect world, we could all be self sustaining with equal opportunity to succeed, we don't live in that communist/socialist utopia.....no one ever has.
I believe we are better off when the least privileged don't have to resort to violent or immoral crime to survive. I believe we are better off as a nation when our best people have the opportunities to succeed that our worst but most privileged are afforded. I believe we are better off being protected from the irresponsibility of purely profit driven commerce that, by design, must walk the razors edge of acceptability to maximize profit and minimize obligations by any means necessary, usually leaving them for socialist programs to clean up/repair. I believe we do more good ensuring the starving among us are fed food humans would willingly eat before ensuring some unrepentant apocalyptic bankers get their multi million dollar bonuses and a free pass on their crimes, and before those making multi millions a year get to hoard more and pay even less of their share.

6) What you are spouting is bat shit insane, not even AOC advocates pure socialism....not even Russia had pure socialism. Your ilk, however, calls any government program that doesn't directly benefit them or their Trumpian masters "socialist"....education, infrastructure, all regulatory agencies, social security, even the fbi have been labeled socialist by Trumpists in the zeal to discredit the report they assumed would expose criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (ps, it found exactly that dozens of times over), while military welfare programs for equipment we don't want and won't use, bailouts for banks and agribusiness, public funds for private ventures like golf courses and troll roads, (edit:Freudian slip?) and don't forget the unmentioned elephant, the military itself...all that socialism is fine, you think it's not even socialism. *facepalm

I'll say it again.

Asinine.

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”

Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.

Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”

The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.

History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.

Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.

The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.

As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?

No social welfare?

If she can do it Why can't Americans.

To imply that not having a ID to vote racist is BS.

Everyone of age has an ID.


You need an ID for nearly anything important.
Buying
Smokes,
Liquor,
Airplane tickets

Getting a job
Getting a Gun
To drive
To get a passport
Buying groceries and paying with a check.
Buying some forms of medicine

Opening a bank account
Apply for food stamps
Apply for welfare
Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
Apply for unemployment
Rent/buy a house
Drive/buy/rent a car
Get married


This false argument is brought up by Democrats every election.

I disagree that there is net benefit from illegal immigrants.

Yes, they do pay taxes. They do not collect retirement benefits.

They also tend to not pay for medical insurance and their jobs do not provide it (for the most part). Generally when they have medical issue, they either go to a free clinic that is there for poor people or they go to a non private hospital emergency room. They cannot be turned away. This cost gets passed on to people paying for their insurance and hospital costs because Hospitals hike up insurance costs to make up the difference. It also causes massive delays at the ER, making it harder for them to deal with people really needing emergency care.

They do utilize public schooling without paying similar amounts of costs. For example, here in Austin, most of the areas that are predominantly Hispanic do not have to pay the same level of property and school taxes as I do. I don't even have kids, but if I lived in East Austin, my taxes would be significantly lower. It has led to East Austin starting to have a Gentrification problem as people/businesses move their to exploit the lower taxes.

Many illegal immigrants carry the minimum or no insurance. My wife's car was totaled some years ago, almost killing her, by an illegal immigrant who had no insurance. We had to use our insurance for her treatment and for the replacement of her vehicle. The man who hit her disappeared.

They utilize fake id and ssid to get welfare benefits. They do get caught now and then, but they flee the area and get new info.

They also do get married to citizens and then, if they get divorced, they flee to avoid child support/alimony. I know of at least 3 friends/acquaintances that had this happen in the last 10 years.

I don't think they are more likely to commit crime than anyone else, but they are more likely to flee the country if caught.

The money they do earn is, in many cases, spent at local ethnic shops that usually are also owned by illegal immigrants. It has become so prevalent that many local stores have tried to modify how they are setup to attract illegal immigrants.

It has been shown that they save and send money out of the US, many times doing their best to avoid any custom duties that would be attached to larger sums.

Because they are violating the law and crossing the border, we spend a massive fuckton of money trying to stop them. This is probably the largest outlay of cost and the one everyone feels, even people living outside of a state affected by illegal immigration.

To be fair, maybe I am getting a skewed picture as I live in a city that has basically said "Fuck the laws, ya'll c'mon in and live here!"

Honestly, if we aren't going to stop them or deport them, then just fucking give them legal status so they are treated like everyone else. At least then they can be hounded by bill collectors too.

Israel is not, and never has been our ally.
Our support of their racist, genocidal regime is baffling in the extreme.

Nobody asked why? I think it's likely because they didn't want anyone recording their other war crimes. Blaming someone else with hopes of bringing us into their war on their side was probably a secondary motive.

And two days ago Israel restarted it's illegal expansion by once again breaking international law and the Geneva convention by renewing efforts to forcefully 'evict' the native Bedouin living in Khan al-Ahmar since before Israel existed and leveling the township.
This sparks the beginning of another genocidal round of expansion and military bluster from Israel, another one we will undoubtedly turn a blind eye to, or perhaps we'll blame the displaced natives like we do the Palestinians.
The UN has previously warned that international humanitarian law requires an occupying power to protect the population of the territory that it occupies, ensure its welfare and wellbeing, as well as the respect for its human rights. Any destruction of property by the occupying power is prohibited, except when rendered absolutely necessary by military operations, the UN says. The extensive demolition of property is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may amount to a war crime, it adds.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45420915

Eating Vegan does NOT equate to eating healthy as this video of a bunch of "Doctors" would have you believe. People who push being vegan do it for animal welfare above all else, NOT for your health as they often pretend to care about. Go ask your doctor what the best thing you can do dietarily to becoming healthy. I'll bet you the first thing they say is cut out sugar (processed foods) and eat more fruits and vegetables. ALL of my doctors have, and i have a few

I assume Vegans find more success going on about your health and the environment now, as the animal cruelty aspect isn't tapping into as many people as they would like. That would be my guess when i see videos like this.

(edit) also "The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicines" tax filing shows its activities as "prevention of cruelty to animals." Nothing about human health. Just saying. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.irs&ein=521394893

To be clear, 99% of Americans don't have any problems with socialism as long as they belong to the group getting the handouts.

Case and point, $12 billion in farm welfare to ease the "temporary" (yet to be seen) pain Trump's trade war is causing farmers (so much for free market economics). You won't find any Republican farmers turning that money down just because they hate socialism, but those same people denounce welfare for the un and under employed, the hungry, and the homeless as harmful and unAmerican.

As to affirmative action, keep in mind the specific case mentioned was about reversing sexual discrimination too, not just race and class. How, exactly, they think public institutions can achieve the diversity of genders and races many are required by law to achieve without looking at gender or race is beyond me.

It bears noting, the people claiming to hate socialism (but who love our socialist programs like the military) invariably don't think giving the disenfranchised and those denied opportunity preferential treatment is OK....until that includes them.

Disclaimer: I am actually in favour of legalising drugs, but to answer your question....

The state does have a responsibility to protect you, even from yourself. Hence things like warning labels, etc.

Also, for most countries, there is a social and economic cost associated with drugs. Even leaving aside criminal activity (i.e. committing crimes to feed a drug habit), there is a cost for healthcare, lost productivity (heavy drug users are often unemployed) and in social welfare.

This is the same argument applied to increasing controls on smoking (taxes, plain packaging etc).

However, my main problem with all this is that it just doesn't work. The "war on drugs" is a total failure. People continue to use drugs.

Of course they need to minimize the cost of feeding the poor, how else will they pay for the $1.5 trillion a year tax breaks to the rich? Certainly not by cutting corporate welfare or military parades, not by cutting exorbitant spending on office furniture and first class vacations on our dime, and absolutely not by enforcing livable wages for workers. Much better to save money by privatizing it for profit with the lowest bidder....that's worked so well every time we've tried it (I'm looking at you, prisons).

*doublepromote exposing how humans have spoiled one of the most remote and beautiful places on earth. Notice how hard it is to differentiate between plastic bags and jellyfish. That's why most sea turtles have a stomach full of plastic bags.
As a species, we should really *fear the implications of the ocean food web collapsing but, clearly, arguing about politics, guns, welfare, collusion, trade wars, and pussy grabbing comes well ahead of actually working towards planetary survival on most people's agendas.

The last couple of decades I've really begun to see the military as corporate welfare. We have a force capable of crushing, literally crushing any non nuclear power nation 20 times over. We can never use that force against a significant nuclear power nation like Russia or China lest we risk WWW3, the war that will REALLY end all wars (by humanity at least). Our tech is also pretty much useless against a guerrilla force because they can melt across borders and into the local population.

Our outdated technology still would destroy any of the nations other than Russia or China. We have shit mothballed and decaying that would do so. We have a fucking stockpile of main battle tanks that we will never use, but we keep building them and storing them because, apparently, if you let the people go who know how to make them you can never replace that knowledge.

All the while, we let people get mired in school debt, credit debt, and increase our national debt because we need to crush some unknown force. We spend a fraction of what we should be spending on space exploration and colonization. I could go on, but why bother.

If you have any doubt, just look at the F35. By the time it is all said and done, we will have close to half a trillion sunk into that fucking debacle and it STILL isn't functioning capably. Russia and China haven't got anything close to it and we don't need it against anyone else. You could take that money and give close to 2 grand to every single man, woman, and child in the country. Instead we basically are lining Lockheed Martin's pockets.

I think this would count as another form of corporate welfare like walmart not paying their employees enough or giving them enough hours so that the employees have to claim foodstamps

Earlier today, I was sent a link to an article in Bloomberg titled Why Workers Are Losing to Capitalists. Marx in Bloomberg? Impossibru!

But nevermind Marx. That opinion piece is 800 words, give or take, on labour's share of income. Yet it doesn't mention policy once. Not a single time. It's automation, it's globalisation, it's Gremlins. But not a single peep on policy.

Nothing on union busting. Nothing on taxes on capital vs taxes on labour. Nothing on minimum wages. Nothing on welfare. Nothing on the public sector.

If you read about inequality and related issues in these papers, there's rarely any agency. It's always something abstract like market forces, globalisation, innovation, etc. Nothing on decisions made by people in power, parliament first and foremost, that often had the explicit aim of reducing wages to "increase competitiveness".