TheOriginalGregToo

As well you should have been. If you can't see how this is problematic then I truly think you should sell professional help. You are not the morally justified party in this scenario.

How does the cost break down in terms of private insurance versus single payer+private insurance? Basically what I'm wondering is if I currently have private insurance and it covers me for most things, what would be the difference if we switched to single payer (which covers far fewer things) and then I was also required to supplement with private (to fill in the gaps for what used to be covered but now isn't under single payer). I suspect single payer is great for people who don't currently have private insurance, but far worse for people who do.

Do you like to eat? Because the people hanging out with that dirt are the people producing your food. Have some respect. Your cities are far more fragile and dependent than you like to pretend.

This right here confuses me. The people claiming that government numbers can't be trusted are the same people who regularly rolled out government covid death numbers are the gospel truth during covid. My personal belief is that those numbers were wildly overblown, so I'm willing to believe that in this case you might be right and the migrant numbers are also overblown. That being said you can't have it both ways. We're the covid death numbers false?

What do you make of people coming from continents besides South America? Do we owe it to Russian or Chinese citizens to offer them asylum? From my perspective asylum is something you offer your direct neighbors who are fleeing threats on their lives. Offering asylum to literally any citizen of the world seems a bit extreme. If someone in China fears for their life, certainly there are closer and more accessible countries they can flee to.

So in your estimation what do we owe them before they're put on busses?

That's entirely possible, no system is perfect, but rather than countering my statement with something that happens the least, perhaps you could offer up an idea on how to handle what happens the most. How do you think we should handle maliciously evil (for lack of a better word) people who commit heinous crimes?

My understanding is that the US has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. Is that not the case?

I don't know that we do it to make any such statement to the guilty party. I personally think we do it to 1. deter others from going down that path for fear of the consequences, and 2. remove an individual from society who has shown themselves incapable (in the most malicious and extreme way) of properly functioning in society. They are a danger to society, therefore they need to be removed. Obviously you could make the argument that we could simply banish them somewhere or lock them up for the remainder of their lives, but in my personal opinion that's not definitive enough. They could escape, be let out early, and harm someone else.

What should you punish murder with? Genuinely asking. I see many who want to do away with prisons and switch to rehabilitation. In some cases I can certainly understand that, and I am against for profit prisons, but I also know that a certain portion of society is just fundementally born with dysfunctional brains and no amount of rehabilitation will ever correct that. What do you do with the person who is sadistic and sociopathic in their disdain for other human life?

Explain to me how Trump's actions rise to the level of Confederate soldiers who literally killed fellow Americans. I bet you also think "silence is violence".