American Politics

[z.5]

But is drunk driving regulated? "On average, every 39 minutes a drunk driver claims a victim in the United States." 1

I hate to break it to you, but driving whilst drunk is illegal - punishable by the loss of your license and possible prison time.

I'd be pretty damn happy if owning a firearm was subject to the same punishments.

 

[SharkBait]

So basically, you're against giving people a chance to become successful. Colleges should be free, and I'm pretty sure the government can help make it free by cutting the spending on defense and putting it towards more relevant stuff. Hell, certain colleges can be free.

You do realize many people who can afford colleges are same as well, right? I've read of few wealthy kids who didn't do jackshit but party at college, whereas poor kids who were intelligent and more deserving were not able to get into said colleges because they were not wealthy enough or had proper connection. Making people pay doesn't guarantee anything, and thinking otherwise further proves that you have not experienced real life or don't know many people. I know plenty who paid for college and did poorly or dropped out.

But is a kid who is born into a wealthy family successful? By definition I do not give a free pass to kids of wealthy people as they too need to make good life decisions and stay on the successful path. Its also why I said people need to pay for college, they wasted money if all they did was party or pursue a degree that insures them a low brain powered job or something that doesn't advance society.

if someone did poorly in college why should I care? I would be mad if someone got a free college tuition and did poorly and dropped out. That snatched a spot from someone who wanted to be successful. Thats a waste of my money and the governments money. The amount we spent on them could in turn fund multiple next generation homeland security defenses.

I'm pretty sure the government can help make it free

Sorry but thats a waste of money in our already bloated government. Why would we increase debt by supporting at risk or kids who wont succeed in college.

Kids don't get rewards for making the honor roll, they only get recognition. Their reward though is more likely to be successful as good grades mean better school, and better school means better company with better pay.

Schools give them rewards, extra candy, pizza parties, gift certificates, passes to local amusement parks, and in college financial rewards such as scholarships.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. Someone could study eight hours a day and still fail. Or, they may not want to continue with PhD for one reason or another. I"m also pretty sure it does cost money to get PhD. A quick Google search shows that it does cost money to get PhD, so I don't know what you mean by no cost.

In science programs most peoples advisers or government grants or universities support them with both paying the tuition and giving them a salaried stipend. No one is taking out a loan to get a PhD in a hard science related field in the USA.

And I'd like proof that people who didn't make it were lazy, or that laziness will be why they won't do it even with every resource available. Do you know what lazy means? From how you have continuously used lazy in this thread, you have no idea what it means. But then again, you do not know what refugee means and why it's important to distinguish it from immigrant. Sad!

Lazy is defined as not doing the work to be successful. If you aren't successful you are lazy.

If laziness has nothing to do with being successful, then what would explain their lack of success If you say they didnt have the resources provided to them, then a successful person would have gone out to seek the resources they needed to succeed. If you say they werent successful because they didnt have money, then a successful person would have gone out to earn the money they need to become successful. People can break out of the caste you keep trying to box them into.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 30, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 30, 2016 ---

I hate to break it to you, but driving whilst drunk is illegal - punishable by the loss of your license and possible prison time.

I'd be pretty damn happy if owning a firearm was subject to the same punishments.

It isnt being regulated though, if it were we wouldnt keep having drunk driving offenders, and repeat drunk driving offenders.

People ought to not focus on mass events and focus more on the silent killers before us.

 

[z.5]

It isnt being regulated though, if it were we wouldnt keep having drunk driving offenders, and repeat drunk driving offenders.

I doubt there is a person alive with the muscle mass required to facepalm hard enough for a comment like that...

People ought to not focus on mass events and focus more on the silent killers before us.

Yeah, stupidity can be a remarkably dangerous affliction...

 

[SharkBait]

they ignore mental health issues and sweep the conversation under the rug. I'm sure democrats are guilty too, but conservatives are way worse.

how do conservatives ignore mental health issues. The common sense legislature being proposed goes against that which you are saying

"The full House will also take up Pennsylvania Republican Rep.Tim Murphy's committee-passed bill which seeks to prevent gun violence by providing improved care for mental illness."

 

[M3J]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/28/12046626/phrase-islamic-radicalism-meaningless-counterproductive

This was an interesting read.

but true, and one good thing Bush did correctly. in any case, the US needs to focus on gun control, not Muslims or terrorism.

But is a kid who is born into a wealthy family successful? By definition I do not give a free pass to kids of wealthy people as they too need to make good life decisions and stay on the successful path. Its also why I said people need to pay for college, they wasted money if all they did was party or pursue a degree that insures them a low brain powered job or something that doesn't advance society.

So you would not call Trump successful? He was born into a wealthy family and received a $1 million from his father, and then inherited millions of dollars that probably kept him afloat.

You don't know what good life decision is or the difficulty of making good life decision, so it is weird that you always bring this up. Same with low brain powered job, given they're just as important as "high brain powered" jobs. People don't need to pay for college, they should be allowed to get free education, which allows them to make good. Many people who want to go to college or are intelligent cannot afford college, and thus their talents are wasted. This is the same argument you made for being anti-abortion, and the same can apply to college and refugees. Making poor students pay for college doesn't advance society, and many of them are forced to do labor job.

if someone did poorly in college why should I care? I would be mad if someone got a free college tuition and did poorly and dropped out. That snatched a spot from someone who wanted to be successful. Thats a waste of my money and the governments money. The amount we spent on them could in turn fund multiple next generation homeland security defenses.

You wouldn't be mad if someone paid for college tuition, did poorly, and dropped out, snatching a spot from someone who would have gotten free tuition and would have done better?

Defense and warfare is a waste of my money and the government's money. We spend too much, and compared to other countries we don't have much to show for it. Cutting the spending in half and using it for welfare, college, and infrastructure is much better and beneficial to everyone. For some inane reason, you seem to be against this and would rather spend money unnecessarily on weapons that our enemies could steal.

Sorry but thats a waste of money in our already bloated government. Why would we increase debt by supporting at risk or kids who wont succeed in college.

We wouldn't increase debt if we cut spending in defense and warfare. It's hypocritical of you to support increasing debt for something that's bad over something that would be good. There's no way to tell who will and won't succeed in college, and that's not your call. If you are a nice person like you claim, you shouldn't have an issue with this. Or if you like advancement, you should be supporting giving kids a chance to learn and advance society.

Schools give them rewards, extra candy, pizza parties, gift certificates, passes to local amusement parks, and in college financial rewards such as scholarships.

Really? Never happened at any school I was at. Any proof of this? Or that the kids didn't get these rewards for different reasons? The only reward we got was going to an indoor fun center for graduating.

In science programs most peoples advisers or government grants or universities support them with both paying the tuition and giving them a salaried stipend. No one is taking out a loan to get a PhD in a hard science related field in the USA.

I need links. Google is saying otherwise. I can believe few people getting grants or supports, but not all of them. Pretty sure that's an exaggeration or lie. I don't trust most things you say, given everything.

Lazy is defined as not doing the work to be successful. If you aren't successful you are lazy.

No, you don't know what lazy means, nor do you know anything about real life. The more you post, the more you make it clear you do not live in reality, and that you cannot be taken seriously whatsoever. There are many people who work extremely hard who aren't successful, and many people who are lazy but successful. In real life, success depends on various factors. A kid from a wealthy family is more likely to be successful despite being lazy due to connections and being able to afford good education and bribery, whereas a hardworking kid from a poor family is less likely to be successful due to not having enough money for good college or bribery or having connections.

If laziness has nothing to do with being successful, then what would explain their lack of success If you say they didnt have the resources provided to them, then a successful person would have gone out to seek the resources they needed to succeed. If you say they werent successful because they didnt have money, then a successful person would have gone out to earn the money they need to become successful. People can break out of the caste you keep trying to box them into.

Clearly, circumstances, environment, family, and social status. All of these should be common knowledge, but I'm sure you were raised in a bubble due to well-off parents, because nothing you say applies to real life or makes sense, at all.

That's what they're trying to do in jobs like fast food worker or cashier, and yet you judge them as lazy, even when they work three jobs to make ends meet. I am boxing no one in, you're the one who consistently boxes everyone or make analysis that shows you have little knowledge on anything.

It isnt being regulated though, if it were we wouldnt keep having drunk driving offenders, and repeat drunk driving offenders.

People ought to not focus on mass events and focus more on the silent killers before us.

It is being regulated. People get put in jail, fined, and/or lose their license for a while. The problem is, it's not more strictly regulated, and it still wouldn't stop people from driving drunk. And still different from guns.

So it's okay to let mass murders slide by? You seem to be okay with murder. You are not moral or ethical at all.

how do conservatives ignore mental health issues. The common sense legislature being proposed goes against that which you are saying

"The full House will also take up Pennsylvania Republican Rep.Tim Murphy's committee-passed bill which seeks to prevent gun violence by providing improved care for mental illness."

I rarely ever see any politician (not just conservatives, actually) bring up mental health issues. Only time that ever happens is during mass shooting when they want to defend guns.

I don't give a shit about what they move to do, it means nothing if GOP are against it in any case. They should support keeping guns out of people's hands with a history of violence or domestic violence, as well as not being mentally sound or mentally ill. If they really cared about making America safer and reducing shootings, they'd make the gun control laws stricter and make it harder for bad people to get guns. That is a moral and ethical thing to do.

 

[kkck]

but true, and one good thing Bush did correctly. in any case, the US needs to focus on gun control, not Muslims or terrorism.

Ok? The article had absolutely nothing to do with gun control.... You might as well have concluded the US needs to focus on student debt....

 

[M3J]

Thank you, professor. I never said the article had anything to do with gun control, but it is talking about terrorism, Muslim, and radical Islamist. I'm saying instead of focusing on that, we should focus on other things.

 

[xi0]

Thank you, professor. I never said the article had anything to do with gun control, but it is talking about terrorism, Muslim, and radical Islamist. I'm saying instead of focusing on that, we should focus on other things.

It doesn't have to be either-or...

There's a difference between saying that the West has an issue with the threat of radical islamic terrorism and acting like it's the only issue we have. I mean, even Trump, as basic and brazenly manipulative as he is, doesn't focus on one thing.

 

[M3J]

But people act as if it's the biggest problem we have when it's so far from the truth.

 

[shionoro]

The biggest threat any civilization usually faces is its own incompetence.
There are of course instances, like world war two or any other imperialist politics focussed on wiping out a civliziation (instead of just making it pay tribute while leaving it alone), where the outward threat is the biggest one, but in our stabile time in the west, the only thing terrorist attacks can do is destabilizing our country.

The stability of a country however is mostly dependend on inner political reforms and actions.

A country which is lead well and whose inhabitants are mostly satisfyed can withstand terror attacks without being shaken up too much.

France would be such an example. It got many devastating terror attacks lately (two big once, and some smaller ones like the toulouse shooter).
However, france is a mostly stabile and prosperous nation.
The much bigger threats arising in france are poverty and crime in the suburbs mixed with ethnic tensions and the arising rightwing populism from front national.
Those threats are largely independend from terror strikes, even if you'd intuitively think otherwise.
People are in fact able to differentiate. The RAF in germany didnt lead to an enduring hate against leftwingers, if anything it brought the country closer together due to many leftwingers being apalled by the terror strikes.
Terror can only be effective once there already is big tension. The french terror hurt the country more because there already is a moderately large jihadist scene in and arround france and there already are some infamous muslim ghettos. But those things are hommade in france due to bad inner politics (and no i dont mean too lax immigration laws). If there ever is chaos in france, the root of it is bad inner politics, not terrorism.

And the same goes for the US. Th eproblem of mass shootings stems from US politics. The problem of high crime rates stems from inner politics.
Ethnic tensions stem from inner politics. Poverty does, too.
And these things are the actual threats the country faces.
These threats wont go away, no matter how many terrorist attacks are potentially stopped and no matter how many mexicans someone throws out.
They are straw men and nothing else.

The countries in which islamic terror REALLY is able to instill fear and control regions are far from the west. They put up with this since decades on a weekly basis.

I always found it smarter to vote due to agreeing to inner political viewpoints than outer political viewpoints.
Yes, outer politics can be devastating, as seen in the bush era, but if you are really thinking 'what is best for my country', going by the idea of who tries to tackle actual big topics instead of strawman is a good rule of the thumb.

This is why i would, initially, have supported sanders because he was not going to indulge himself into the largely irrelevant but fancy topics like immigration , terror and stuff like that.

But it should at least be acknowledge that islamic terrorism and mexican illegal immigration are definitely not the big threats the US faces.

I am not a US citizen, but i could think of at least 5 topics which are far more important and urgent than that for the US.

 

[xi0]

But people act as if it's the biggest problem we have when it's so far from the truth.

Because they pose an existential threat. Whether someone is statistically more likely to get struck by lightning than be involved in a terrorist attack doesn't make it less important or newsworthy. So you'll have blowhards like Trump using it as a means to fire up the people who would vote for him, and liars like Clinton insisting on "unity", when the people committing these acts and many people in Islamic societies around the world don't value much of the same things western societies do. Banning all muslims isn't going to solve anything, but neither is lying to ourselves about the problem, minimizing it and/or making excuses for heinous ideologies.

 

[M3J]

Because they pose an existential threat. Whether someone is statistically more likely to get struck by lightning than be involved in a terrorist attack doesn't make it less important or newsworthy. So you'll have blowhards like Trump using it as a means to fire up the people who would vote for him, and liars like Clinton insisting on "unity", when the people committing these acts and many people in Islamic societies around the world don't value much of the same things western societies do. Banning all muslims isn't going to solve anything, but neither is lying to ourselves about the problem, minimizing it and/or making excuses for heinous ideologies.

They do, but why not let the people hired to deal with that worry about it? All we can do is keep an eye out and let the proper authorities know (which probably saved tons of lives in the US). Spewing hate and accusing Muslims do nothing but disenfranchise them. Sure, many Muslims don't value much of the same things Western societies do, but that doesn't make them incompatible. Six Flags holds an annual event for Muslims, and they've been friendlier than non-Muslims, if not cheaper.

What is the problem? I'm sure one of the goals is to get Muslims hated to make it easier to recruit them, and it's working. France and Europe in general focusing on radical Islamist makes sense because they're not as safe as we are and have lax screening process, whereas ours is probably the best. What we need to focus on is why. Why are ISIS and like organizations recruiting Muslims? How do Muslims get swayed to join such evil groups? Although the West is deluded into thinking it's Muslims/ISIS vs. West, it's actually ISIS vs. the world, including Muslims.

 

[kkck]

But people act as if it's the biggest problem we have when it's so far from the truth.

Well, ISIS is the biggest problem the US has as far as foreign policy is concerned. You are talking about an 20000 strong organization that has managed to indoctrinate nationals from other countries with whom they have never had any actual contact. You are talking about an organization that has committed and attempted genocide. Their objective is an actual apocalypse. It's one thing to point out that the "moderate" conservatives at the republican party want to deal with this without giving it any actual thought and in south of moronic manners (and that's the moderate conservatives, trump or cruz are an entirely different thing considering their actual proposals are literal crimes). It is another to suggest that ISIS is not one of the greater challenges any current president would have to face today. Honestly, I can't fathom anyone believing, let alone saying, otherwise. To me that would generally imply that person is either ignorant or lying. The point of the article was not even that, it was that obama was using terminology which considered the middle east and Muslims are not a single group but rather a culturally diverse group and made it clear to US allies that the US and the west was not out to get muslims, it was out to get terrorists who kill mostly muslims. Gun control is obviously important. It is painfully obvious that gun violence claims far more lives at the US than terrorists ever will. Heck, gun violence claims more lives than terrorists do even in countries that have had terrorist attack and less gun violence than the US. But this in no form or context suggests it should be one thing instead of the other. Both are issues and both should be dealt with appropriately.

 

[shionoro]

Well, ISIS is the biggest problem the US has as far as foreign policy is concerned.

i would put the ukraine conflict and the thus arising cold conflict with russia far above that to be honest.

 

[kkck]

i would put the ukraine conflict and the thus arising cold conflict with russia far above that to be honest.

Wouldn't a "cold conflict" with russia be, well, cold? On one hand you have the middle east and ISIS thing with thousands dead, genocides, planned apocalypses, refugees flooding europe and so on. The ukraine thing has produced about 10k dead over the past several years and then there was the annexation of crimea but even then it doesn't seem like the situation is quite as bad as at the middle east, particularly concerning Syria and ISIS. Unless of course I am missing something here.

 

[M3J]

Well, ISIS is the biggest problem the US has as far as foreign policy is concerned. You are talking about an 20000 strong organization that has managed to indoctrinate nationals from other countries with whom they have never had any actual contact. You are talking about an organization that has committed and attempted genocide. Their objective is an actual apocalypse. It's one thing to point out that the "moderate" conservatives at the republican party want to deal with this without giving it any actual thought and in south of moronic manners (and that's the moderate conservatives, trump or cruz are an entirely different thing considering their actual proposals are literal crimes). It is another to suggest that ISIS is not one of the greater challenges any current president would have to face today. Honestly, I can't fathom anyone believing, let alone saying, otherwise. To me that would generally imply that person is either ignorant or lying. The point of the article was not even that, it was that obama was using terminology which considered the middle east and Muslims are not a single group but rather a culturally diverse group and made it clear to US allies that the US and the west was not out to get muslims, it was out to get terrorists who kill mostly muslims. Gun control is obviously important. It is painfully obvious that gun violence claims far more lives at the US than terrorists ever will. Heck, gun violence claims more lives than terrorists do even in countries that have had terrorist attack and less gun violence than the US. But this in no form or context suggests it should be one thing instead of the other. Both are issues and both should be dealt with appropriately.

I'm not sure if they are the biggest problem, but they're definitely a stick up our asses that we need to remove. Question is, how do we go on about doing it? Fighting ISIS and killing them doesn't solve shit long term, there'll be more people that will carry out similar actions. What we need to do is find out why. Why do people join ISIS, how do they become terrorists, and why.

But, as you said, why not let the president and the right people deal with ISIS and security in the US? I never said the ISIS isn't a challenge, at least to the president, but as citizens, we should focus on other stuff as well. There have been far more mass shootings and death by shootings than there have from terrorism committed by radicals on the US soil. Even if these radicals are wiped out, there still could be an issue with the mass shootings in general. The US is safer from terrorist attacks than most other countries like Turkey and France.

I know what the point was, and I agree with Obama that we shouldn't use terminology to lump Muslims in with the terrorists. What we should do is talk with them about confronting the terrorists and make them do more. I can't help but feel we'd be faring a lot better if Muslims from other countries were more proactive, though given the stories, I don't blame them for being scared.

 

[shionoro]

Wouldn't a "cold conflict" with russia be, well, cold? On one hand you have the middle east and ISIS thing with thousands dead, genocides, planned apocalypses, refugees flooding europe and so on. The ukraine thing has produced about 10k dead over the past several years and then there was the annexation of crimea but even then it doesn't seem like the situation is quite as bad as at the middle east, particularly concerning Syria and ISIS. Unless of course I am missing something here.

Cold, but more important.
Russia has a much bigger possibility to divide the EU than the refugee crisis ever had. Russia even actively used the refugee crisis to stir trouble in some european nations. For example, russia today (which is in fact controleld by the state like most russian media, even their foreign outlets) actively faked news about refugees raping russian girls in germany and was able to create big facebook controversies among german rightwingers and german russians in the process, even if it was all a total fabrication.
They send a lot of stuff like that and get responses out of it. They do the same in a lot of other european nations, trying to be the voice of the whole anti US crowd and enhancing it.
That is bothersome for the US, and for the EU.

ISIS is a problem, but it is not a real US problem. The US is not really threatened by terror strikes from them for reasons i stated and the terror risk would not be significantly lower without isis.
The refugee crisis however is a much bigger thing than the syria conflict. Stability in northafrican regions and economical wealth would do a better job of helping europe through that on the long run.
And for now, a few european nations like sweden, germany and austria and the benelux (hope i forgot noone) handle the syrian refugees without being really divided by it.
There is and was controversy about this topic, but it's not the nations which take the refugees which become divided, it's most those who dont and (welcome back to inner politics) use them for their own goals.

Poland takes absolutely no muslims at all and still the government which is right extremist uses them to go the 'IF U VOTE ME WE WON'T HAVE RAPING MUSLIMS' route and claims the EU is evil and decadent.
The handling of this crisis has nothing much to do with isis. The refugees are there, and isis is on the retreat.

The ongoing war the US has actively its hands in is the yemen conflict, supporting radical islamists in saudi arabia which have their little shia vs sunni battle there because saudi arabia is useful to the US.

So, all things considered, the only force at the moment which actively tries to divide europe and stop economical extension of the US and the EU (and has the means to do it) is russia.

And a divided europe or even anti US europe (and russia tries to bind some european countries or at least a big chunk of its inhabitants to it by using anti us propaganda) is a much bigger problem for the US than people slaughtering other people somewhere in syria.
It's not like the US has too much of a problem with letting people slaughter other people, the problem her eis that the US has connections with iraq and its allies from the arab league, at some point, and also national feelings on Isis urged them to go in there.

 

[kkck]

Cold, but more important.
Russia has a much bigger possibility to divide the EU than the refugee crisis ever had. Russia even actively used the refugee crisis to stir trouble in some european nations. For example, russia today (which is in fact controleld by the state like most russian media, even their foreign outlets) actively faked news about refugees raping russian girls in germany and was able to create big facebook controversies among german rightwingers and german russians in the process, even if it was all a total fabrication.
They send a lot of stuff like that and get responses out of it. They do the same in a lot of other european nations, trying to be the voice of the whole anti US crowd and enhancing it.
That is bothersome for the US, and for the EU.

ISIS is a problem, but it is not a real US problem. The US is not really threatened by terror strikes from them for reasons i stated and the terror risk would not be significantly lower without isis.
The refugee crisis however is a much bigger thing than the syria conflict. Stability in northafrican regions and economical wealth would do a better job of helping europe through that on the long run.
And for now, a few european nations like sweden, germany and austria and the benelux (hope i forgot noone) handle the syrian refugees without being really divided by it.
There is and was controversy about this topic, but it's not the nations which take the refugees which become divided, it's most those who dont and (welcome back to inner politics) use them for their own goals.

Poland takes absolutely no muslims at all and still the government which is right extremist uses them to go the 'IF U VOTE ME WE WON'T HAVE RAPING MUSLIMS' route and claims the EU is evil and decadent.
The handling of this crisis has nothing much to do with isis. The refugees are there, and isis is on the retreat.

The ongoing war the US has actively its hands in is the yemen conflict, supporting radical islamists in saudi arabia which have their little shia vs sunni battle there because saudi arabia is useful to the US.

So, all things considered, the only force at the moment which actively tries to divide europe and stop economical extension of the US and the EU (and has the means to do it) is russia.

And a divided europe or even anti US europe (and russia tries to bind some european countries or at least a big chunk of its inhabitants to it by using anti us propaganda) is a much bigger problem for the US than people slaughtering other people somewhere in syria.
It's not like the US has too much of a problem with letting people slaughter other people, the problem her eis that the US has connections with iraq and its allies from the arab league, at some point, and also national feelings on Isis urged them to go in there.

Ok, i am at least partially sold.

 

[xi0]

They do, but why not let the people hired to deal with that worry about it? All we can do is keep an eye out and let the proper authorities know (which probably saved tons of lives in the US). Spewing hate and accusing Muslims do nothing but disenfranchise them. Sure, many Muslims don't value much of the same things Western societies do, but that doesn't make them incompatible. Six Flags holds an annual event for Muslims, and they've been friendlier than non-Muslims, if not cheaper.

You could use the same logic about any issue that the government has and should have oversight with. Doesn't change the fact that issues are issues, and they will never not be a topic of conversation, especially during an election year.

You have examples of people not reporting things, like in the San Bernadino shooting, because they were afraid to be labeled "racist" (never mind that Islam isn't a race). Such things are a direct result to shaming those who have the audacity to question ideology linked to something like religion. This is what is wrong with the regressive left, censoring/criminalizing free speech and criticism, and makes them closer to the authoritative/extreme right than even a bible-thumper could hope to be as a result.

 

[M3J]

You could use the same logic about any issue that the government has and should have oversight with. Doesn't change the fact that issues are issues, and they will never not be a topic of conversation, especially during an election year.

You have examples of people not reporting things, like in the San Bernadino shooting, because they were afraid to be labeled "racist" (never mind that Islam isn't a race). Such things are a direct result to shaming those who have the audacity to question ideology linked to something like religion. This is what is wrong with the regressive left, censoring/criminalizing free speech and criticism, and makes them closer to the authoritative/extreme right than even a bible-thumper could hope to be as a result.

What issue is that? Does the issue directly affect the lives of Americans daily, and the government/proper authorities aren't doing a spick-spack job of dealing with it? Because terrorism doesn't really do that, we're safe for the most part.

Is that true though? Did the lady not report the couple because of PC, or is that a lie to make people be against political correctness? How do we know she was aware of what the couple were up to? Dunno, just felt like bullshit to me. Weird that political correctness would stop someone from reporting suspicious activities, especially if she can call it in anonymously.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 3, 2016 ---

Fuck Trump and anyone who whines about immigrants stealing jobs.