Agreed.

Anyway, since someone brought up "the leechers", let's just suppose that "leeches" are, indeed, a signifigant problem that's worth solving. Cutting in welfare all across the board to "incentivize" people to find work is a typical neoliberal solution that negatively impacts everyone, so let's just dismiss it out of irrelevance. Here we're talking about ways to find and deal with the "leeches", specifically. If that even is to be possible, a couple of questions appear that need answering:

Who are to decide who "leeches" and who doesn't? Follow-up question, how do we prevent this from becoming a bureaucratic and costly nightmare?

What do we do if people are incorrectly classified as freeloaders? Taking away someone's benefits when they actually need them borders on violence. We need to prevent situations where people who genuinely need benefits lose them due to bureaucratic mismanagement. There are already many instances of this happening - people being deemed "fit to work" when they actually have chronic diseases that keep them from working, and who need public money to afford medicine/implants/protheses etc.

Considering these things, is targeting "leeches" even worth the effort? I don't think so. Being a welfare recipient is already a very undesirable scenario, and signing up for benefits is a bureaucratic and discouraging process in most places. Furthermore, most places require unemployed welfare recipients to actively look for work (in Norway, you're not even registered as "unemployed" until you sign up at the Labour and Welfare Administration and agree to look for work. You have to agree to accept just about any job offer you get). If anything, we should be looking for solutions that make welfare less bureaucratic and less demotivating. Some people have proposed implementing a universal basic income (subsistence wage) that one receives regardless of their work situation. If you want people to get employed, fund job training and reeducation programs. Publicly invest in infrastructure - this will boost the economy and create jobs for many people who are unemployed but fit to work. And so on. These are totally realistic and feasible solutions, even for people who aren't anti-establishment.

Socialists (here represented by Elphenor and me) would argue that unemployment is a natural occurence under capitalism that serves to keep down wages and create competition between workers for the jobs. To permanently fix unemployment issues, we need a planned economy that takes care of the interests of the collective rather than the interests of corporations. By allowing workers influence over their workplace and democratic input on the economy as a whole, people will see work as more than just a means of subsistence, but work to better themselves and their community. But that's another discussion.

Yeah, it was campaigning lie by Ronald Reagan that has just stuck around. Not the only time a president fabricates ridiculous stories to legitimize their equally ridiculous policies

The anti-war movement should step up against US aggression towards North Korea like it has done before. The last time the US actually bombed North Korea, a third of their population died. All their cities were levelled. The Koreans have not forgotten that, and this makes US aggression towards them frightening to say the least. Bombing the Koreans would be a mindless decision and an act of evil.

I must admit that for a while I believed that Donald Trump had the potential to be a candidate for peace, who would seek friendly relations with Russia and bring a temporary halt to US interventionism. Now I'm just hoping for as little human suffering as possible and that a third world war doesn't break out in the next couple of years.

As I said before, people should have pushed harder to get anyone other than Hillary Clinton as the Dem. Party nominee if that's the case.

It didn't matter what the people wanted. The DNC was set on getting her through by any meana neccessary.

he said he didnt know it would be this hard https://boxden.com/smilies/55BLFpF.png

I'm a hater so it comes naturally but it is especially easy for me to hate Hillary and Sanders. Not even taking into account their politics. Just the smug condescending I'm smart look on their faces. The way Sanders gesticulates makes me want to punch him in the ****ing face. Like put your hands down you old rich white ****. And Hillary with that power hungry smile. Goddamn she's hard not to hate. Whatever y'all think of me I know more about politics than the average voter. And as much as some of you might hate me, if you remove my politics from the equation my gut reaction to people is very redneck. You may think the typical redneck hated Obama but that's not true. Only political rednecks hated Obama. The typical redneck had a favorable outlook on him because the ****ing guy is likable. It's not politics; it's charisma. It's a very small base of voters that even understand politics enough to vote based on a political foundation. Like y'all know I hate Trump. But the truth is I hate him for political reasons, not personal reasons. Pussy grabber, bashing POWs, mimicking the disabled, bashing minorities on stage, ripping off the poor, amping up the arms race, whatever- but my reasons for hating him are political not personal. I love to hate him. Compared to Hillary who I just hate. Sure it's frustrating but that's democracy. President or Prom King and Queen. It boils down to the same petty bull****.

^ What would you say about a third party that opposes unjust invasions, arms races and political corruption, which speaks for the interests of regular working people as well as minorities, which isn't led by a team of smug people in suits, and which doesn't sell out to Wall Street-backed candidates on the eve of the election?

Let's remember that Clinton defeated Trump by 3 million votes, just over 2%. And if not for 10 years of agressive GOP led gerrymandering, most likely would have won the electoral college.

Trump "won" by the worst margin of any other president in history.

He's also has the lowest approval rating of any other president ever over the course of their first 100 days in office.

The dude hasn't been able to accomplish any of his major campaign promises even though he has a GOP led Senate and House, and he refers to the nation's capital as a swamp - even though his campaign slogan was Make America Great Again.

I have some bridges to sell to any of the 90%+ who say they'd still vote for him today. Denial is not just a river in Africa.

That doesn't really work when you're reading it.

Of course he did. Clinton was a cinch to beat Trump after all.

Unless you want 8 years that's the truth we need to focus on. No need for quotations. I'm as disgusted as you but he is the president.

What smile are you talking about?

Smile A (The Woo, Alright smile)
https://19818-presscdn-pagely.netdna.../1b/deb-10.gif

Smile B (The Monocular Vision smile)
http://blogs.jamaicans.com/gwgraeme/...6/09/crazy.jpg

Smile C (Yeah! Balloons! smile)
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlBC...tCsE/giphy.gif

Smile D (The Heath Ledger smile)
http://ell.h-cdn.co/assets/16/42/1477280856-hillary.gif

Smile E (The Woops, Another Arkancide smile)
http://sukumquat.com/wp-content/uplo...4/hillary3.png

It seems like that because you're smart. In reality, he'd call her "Pocahontas" and the Idiocracy would be like she got TRUMPED!!!

Crooked Hillary was weak ass ****. Lyin' Ted was weak ass ****. I'm not defending it.

I'm just pissed our president is ugly. And if Hillary or Bernie had been elected we'd still have an ugly president. What message does that send to the world? Just look at Obama, Bush Jr., and Clinton. Some fine dudes right there. I'm sure that helped with diplomacy and ****. Who wants to make deals with uggos?

She's very VERY ****able. You can tell she cums easily, too. Well, with a little dick control. I'd make her ***. Hard. I'm beating off right now, by the way.

Worked for me. I was listening in my head.

This is why I vote you off the island.

And I'll vote for him to stay.

**** off.

Other uggos?

My point is that I agree with you on needing to final a solution for Welfare fraud. Ny state does a good job of locking people up that they end up catching but it seems a bit more lax in other areas that you guys have stories from.

Currently other alternatives have been reaching their max because of how much the Republicans have kept pushing food stamp cuts. So people end up having to go to churches that give out food. Food pantries are pulling the load that the government isn't currently meeting. Do you think the food stamp program should be gutted even more just so that a few people gaming the system doesn't get away with it while people that need it are harmed in the process? Rhetorical question. I know how you feel about the two separate groups and I don't need you to repeat it. I am listening to what you are saying.
They do but I believe it varies from state to state which is weird because Bill Clinton put that into place that you either need to be looking for work or go to work sites to do jobs that union workers are getting good benefits for while it pays for assistance. In New York they are called WEP workers and corporations and businesses take advantage of them so much. It is basically free labor for them.

So much this.

I was down in DC marching for green jobs and climate change along with unions. I was pretty busy.

Yep we fight for those trickle down scraps.

Okay so Trump is working on the tax code now but they have a lot of details to flesh out. They want to close off a lot of the loophole deductions and stick to a basic three tier percentage. I really don't agree with the upper bracket only having to pay 15%. How are you going to decrease it that much while still spending so much on the military budget. Someone needs to work on their math skills. He was trying to work on the repeal of ACA because it is tied to taxes with the penalties then work on the tax code which would lead to working on infrastructure. It has to be done in that order.

Greatest Hits Post-Election (feat. Van "Whitelash" Jones)

What I think is, despite the fact that I don't think it's that big of an issue, you guys just don't want to accept that undeserving people leach off of welfare at a much higher rate than you have acknowledged because it goes against your views. The idea of the "welfare queen" is not false. They exist. A lot of them. Like I pointed out. 4 out of the 5 people I knew receiving government assistance did not need it. And I know I'm not alone. Being somebody who fully supports government assistance for people like Chula's son, I can't just dance around this fact or ignore it or dismiss it because that's just duplicitous. Instead, my come back is I'd much rather have these lazy people sit on their ass collecting the scraps that we fight for rather than watch people who can't support themselves starve. It's ideal to fix it though. So more people like my sister in law could receive it while people like my dad could get cut off. It'll never be perfect, life will never be completely fair, and people just have to deal with that. Throw a tantrum all you want but I take much much more pride in myself knowing that I earn my scraps and have no problem with some of my scraps going towards the leaches IF I know it will also take care of somebody like Chula's son.

Edit: Also, to disprove stereotypes, the biggest welfare queen I know is a white supremacist Obama hater who named one of their many kids Aryan.

Donald Trump slams 'archaic' US constitution that is 'really bad' for the country

Goddamn

Random question. If you are an Occult Hawk does that mean you are the one who pecked the eyes out of Jesus and clawed Muhammad and all that other stuff?

He preys on black cats, rats, bats, etc.

Yes.

Why do you know this person?

My best friend's mom.

Trump is gonna get a second term lads.

Yeah, how is she supposed to answer such a ridiculous (hey, it's Ross Douthat) allegation
other than just to pretty much say "whateveh..." It often turns out to be the
"hey, why are these people speaking so loud these days - that's our territory they're butting in on."
kind of mindset and it's best to not argue with them, but to go on informing the folks
or pointing out the absurdities to those that want to laugh and have some fun and
hopefully make changes. Meanwhile, corporate media scratches their head and/or balls.

.

Okay.

Tbh as a male I find feminism more liberating than narrow "men's rights activism"

The thoughts of a disembodied hand don't count.

Han Narrow never liberated ****.

I like you more every day

Seconded.

But he keeps getting mistaken for that guy who helped to liberate the galaxy from the Empire.