Polls: Society & Politics

www.nbcnews.com/.../shameful-america-two-latino-vietnam-veterans-fight-deportation-rcna5140

This article is from 2021 but still relevant today. Approximately 94,000 veterans do not have U. S. citizenship, leaving them vulnerable to deportation if they violate certain laws - even misdemeanors decades ago - regardless of their service record. Many of you may not be aware that non-citizens can serve in the US military and have done so honorably since 1776. Many historians agree that were it not for Polish, Prussian, French and other nationalities fighting in the American Revolution, it's highly unlikely that it would have been successful.
IMHO Clinton, Bush, Obama & Trump should be ashamed of themselves for all time. The film is no longer a available unfortunately. While liberals and conservatives don't agree on much these days, I'd like to think that on this issue they would make common cause. What does this say about us USA Americans?

This is the current bill (that will be expiring in a month with no guarantee of being introduced next Congress) that has had no action (or co-sponsors) since being introduced into committee by a military disabled veteran senator:

www.congress.gov/.../3280

More current article:
www.militarytimes.com/.../

I'm actually beside myself with outrage and disgrace. I emailed my reps last nite.

Some Arguments FOR Banning Guns at Polling Places:

Prevent Intimidation and Violence: Proponents argue that banning guns helps prevent voter intimidation and potential violence, especially amid heightened political tensions and misinformation.

Protect Election Workers:
Bans are seen as a way to protect election workers from threats and ensure a safe voting environment.

Constitutional Justification:
Polling places are considered "sensitive areas" where restrictions on firearms are constitutionally supported.

Loitering:
Concerns about armed voters loitering at polling places have been raised as it is almost impossible legally to charge people with trespassing or loitering at a polling station.

Some Arguments AGAINST Banning Guns at Polling Places:

Second Amendment Rights: Opponents argue that such bans infringe on Second Amendment rights and do not necessarily enhance safety.

Existing Laws Suffice:
Some believe existing laws are adequate to handle any issues without additional restrictions.

Potential for Increased Crime: Critics suggest that disallowing guns could create "mass-murderer empowerment zones," potentially increasing vulnerability to crime.

Info About Polling Stations:

Vast majority of polling stations in the USA are located in schools, churches, sports halls, local government offices, and sometimes private homes.

Additionally, polling places can be found in community centers, large meeting rooms, gymnasiums, and other municipal buildings

there's no perfect candidate by the way. what are you willing to sacrifice?

Candidate A)

pro-democracy, anti-free speech, pro-guns, closed borders, pro-abortion, anti-LGBTQ on minors, pro-police, pro-war, anti-welfare, high taxes

Candidate B)

pro-democracy, pro-free speech, pro-guns, closed borders, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ on minors, pro-police, anti-war, anti-welfare, low taxes

Candidate C)

anti-democracy, anti-free speech, anti-guns, open borders, pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ on minors, anti-police, pro-war, pro-welfare, high taxes

Rogan: First Amendment In Danger If Harris And Walz Win - www.realclearpolitics.com/.../...and_walz_win.html

If it's only in the capital I was thinking about flying to Cap Haitien next weekend, which is on the other end of the island. I just wanna see the ruins, citadel and voodoo and see some colonial buildings and do some snorkeling and head back. But if it's everywhere I'll go somewhere else.

The main problem is that it doesn't really function like private insurance. It does NOT assess flood risk for EACH property; instead, premiums reflect average historical losses within a property’s risk zone. Moreover, the floodplain maps determining a property’s risk zone are often several decades out of date. As a result, premiums may bear NO relationship to the true risk of flooding. The cost of an federal policy averages about half of what would be a market rate. Congress actually mandates this inaccurate pricing method. In 2014, it hastily revoked a few tentative steps at reform after constituents complained loudly when they tried to charge something approximating market rates for flood insurance.

Who benefits from flood insurance? People in flood-prone Gulf states like Louisiana and Florida, of course. But many beneficiaries also share another characteristic: they are upper income. The program does not charge nearly enough to cover the expected costs of its liabilities. The assessments are not sufficient to build any buffer to cover an extraordinary year, such as what occurred with Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Because homeowners don’t incur the full cost of building in a flood zone we end up with more houses there than if homeowners incurred the full cost of the flood risk, which exacerbates the government’s costs in the next disaster. The optimal solution would be for the government to get out of the flood insurance business entirely and leave it to the private market, which would endeavor to accurately measure risk and charge a price for its insurance that covers the expected costs. Smart reforms would also help Congress refrain from throwing money at disasters, bailing out homeowners who shouldn’t have built in flood-prone areas to begin with. Sensible long-run incentives to mitigate damage would discourage such homebuilding by exposing homeowners and businesses to the real cost of building in floodplains.