Trump's immigration plan is a ludicrous hodge-podge of impossible promises and frightening intentions.
Trump says he'll start building the wall and flying undocumented immigrants out of the US on day 1 but where's he going to find the money, airplanes and buses to move up to 10% of the population? And what impact will that have on the economy?
Pure idiocy.
Who? Trump?
Yes. Here listen to the first 15 min or so.
Regarding Syrian refugees, burkinis are a problem worth mentioning?
It's obvious that Crowder has no real understanding of economics if he believes that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Every time an undocumented immigrant purchases something, the location or individual he purchases it from acts as a tax collector for the county. Every time a corporation pays taxes, the cost of that tax gets passed down to the consumer.
Finally, a wall does nothing regarding documented immigrants who remain here after their immigration visa has expired.
I'd like to understand why burkinis are a problem. It makes no sense.
France's debate over the burkini ban, explained
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12623296/france-burkini-ban-explained
I made it to two minutes. Yeah.
I said 15
Whatever Trump says or does is for the sole purpose of collecting votes. It is intrinsically irrelevant beyond that. The CEO of the US corporation is not who is in power in the freak show ;-)
Who is in charge, in your opinion?
We have mountains of trails in a very complex story.
It is easier to locate who is not in charge than who is. There are institutions and works available that provide strong evidence that those that are in the limelight are not those that are in charge.
Those that do know more than what is being discussed in the public realm are not sharing what they know for obvious reasons.
Both Trump & Hillary are diversions to consume valuable time from too many. That is my opinion.
But I'm grateful for those that at least try to wake up the masses...
Elections are a diversion, I think, but I don't buy into many of what you might call conspiracy theories. Sure, there is of course, Congress, the Supreme Court and the hellish federal bureaucracy but there is enormous power in the presidency.
Good write-up on Trump embedded in the whole overall situation - over a year old already but the good stuff is often timeless ;-): http://www.chase-the-rabbit.com/blog/the-trump-card
Where voluntary communities are concerned, do you advocate making use of existing CC&Rs, which can be viewed as a contract of adhesion -- where such decisions are enforced by an elected board -- or would you recreate the jurisdiction of a community to only include those households who would agree to such policies as part of their common law right to use their land for lawful purposes?
All existing voluntary agreements should IMHO be grandfathered in. But it's ultimately the decision of each property owner. In the situation of a community of apartments or houses, there's going to have to be cooperation in order for it to continue working.
I live in a community with about 120 other families and we vote as a group and for a junta. I have no problem with it because it's a private and voluntary organization with highly limited powers, like a corporation or a co-op.
Frankly, I don't see that many things about the law and agreements changing in a transition to a voluntary society. Most things will still work as they do now. It's just that governance will be decentralized and by consent only.
To specifically answer your question, it depends on the community. If it's a tower, people have to cooperate for it to work. If it's duplex houses, ditto. If it's houses on a street with a gate at the front, less cooperation is required. Ultimately, each community has to work it out amongst themselves.
What do you think?
Sorry for the late reply. Just noticed this. Steemit settings to be notified of replies to comments?
My concern is the tyranny of the majority. Yes, people need to work together or cooperate, but it doesn't have to be done at the expense of individuality and diversity. It will all depend upon what minimum level of individual and property rights are mandated to be preserved and can't be overridden by that majority.