This is not a UBI Universal Basic Income; this is a CBI Conditional Basic Income. The conditions are currently being selected and being homeless.
Also this program basically already exists. It is just TANF selected for homelessness instead low-income families with children.
Edit: Universal not Unconditional
Just to help you out. When an apologist is in action, what are they doing? I will give you a hint. It isn’t “apologistizing”.
deleted by creator
Is your reading comprehension so low that you do not realize that I am “apologizing” for gay people who are supporting gay rights?
It makes it sound like you think gay people are evil.
Definitely some odd choices here. Condemns the main abuser to a life-time of penance and prayer and then totally dismisses any claims that the abuser’s protege may have seen the abuse.
It does seem he eventually changed his tune, but not before seriously harming his credibility on the issue.
In April, the pope publicly acknowledged that he had erred in handling the situation, saying he had made “serious mistakes” — and summoning Chile’s bishops to an emergency meeting in Rome. Francis said he had misjudged Barros and the events in Chile because he hadn’t been given “truthful and balanced information.”
In May, all of Chile’s 31 active bishops offered to resign their posts, issuing a statement in which they asked forgiveness and apologized for “the grave errors and omissions that we committed.”
The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.
This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their “divorce” amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.
It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren’t actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.
Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don’t blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.
Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.
We will see if they make good on it next year.
That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.
More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination
With these departures, progressives are expected to propose changing church law at the next General Conference in 2024 to allow for same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ people.
No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.
Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.
We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.
top ignoring and turning away the victims of your priest’s rape and abuse
Same list as I dropped on your other post. Took like 30 seconds in a web-search to call that claim into serious doubt. Also, I searched for him turning away sexual abuse victims and found nothing.
Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.
2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/
“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.
2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html
Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.
In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.
Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence
Where did you hear that? These articles seem to say the opposite.
Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.
2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/
“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.
2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html
Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.
In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.
Glad you enjoyed the edit. I am doubly glad someone actually read all that, even though it was mostly irrelevant. 🙃
Edit: Wrote this whole wall of text about Mexico being conquered. Posted. Then came back to check if I had answered your question correctly. Realized you weren’t even talking about Mexico being conquered. Meh… I am leaving it.
It doesn’t matter if Mexico is ripe for conquering. There is no appetite for conquering Mexico by any major portion of the US. The reasons are many and complex, but I can think of six major ones off the top of my head.
First, the general perception of most Americans is that there isn’t much of interest in Mexico except pretty beaches, cheap drinks, and Aztec/Mayan architecture. All of which are already currently accessible to Americans.
Second, it would be expensive, there are a lot of aspects of Mexico that would need complete overhaul to begin to match US regulations and expectations. Many existing states would demand the Federal government pay to bring them up to code, the expense of which would end up being footed by the American people.
2.1: The expense couldn’t even be passed on to the Mexican states through taxes since they would almost certainly be brought in as territories. US territories and their populations have no voting power in the federal government but also have no Federal taxes because of our history with Britain. “Taxation without representation” and all that. More on Territories in the third segment.
2.2: Cleaning up the cartels would be a huge expensive mess under the American legal system and would like cause even more oppressive laws to be implemented to the detriment of current US citizens.
Third, voting and politics, Mexico’s 31 states would have to be added into the US in some fashion. Even if they started as territories, the population of many of them are too great to leave them in that status quo for long. Bringing in new states would be a huge issue and quite possible would help push us to civil war, like last time we added a bunch of states. Pre-Civil War new states were added in pairs; one slave state, one free state. Something like that would need to happen again. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would allow a new state to be brought in that gained the other side a majority.
Fourth, the people of Mexico are pretty different demographically from most of the US, not just in culture, language, and skin color, but also in the variety of religion or non-religion practiced. (This was the largest paragraph but it was getting way into the weeds so I pared it down.)
Fifth, would have to be an open travel, outsider, racism, etc issue. Whatever you want to call it, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of any American to move to any other part of America freely and many of the newly joined citizens would want to utilize it. There is a clear majority (currently) of Americans that think we have an issues with too many immigrants. Even people who are vehemently against Trump’s wall may support decreasing immigration. Absorbing Mexico would be throwing open the flood-gates in the eyes of those who want to slow immigration down.
Sixth, American relations with the International community. Any way you spin it, an offensive war to conquer more territory would be viewed poorly by our allies, and used as justification to increase expansionism by our adversaries. Most Americans have no stomach for continuing to be viewed as colonial, or the consequences of such an action, even if we wouldn’t mind some of the benefits.
The dictation software we have is pretty shitty though.
As someone who used dictation software when said software needed to be trained first and also trained its users how to speak more clearly, it always amazes me when I hear people say things like this.
The problem is human speech is lazy and inaccurate. Half of the time I have to listen to a voice clip there are two or three words in the clip that are barely intelligible. If I don’t catch it by the third pass I stop and just guess by context. It is the same thing the AWESOME dictation software we have today does, but saves me the time and effort and gives the sender a chance to fix their own mumbles.
Of course, I’m one of those people whose voicemail message used to be, “Don’t leave me a message unless your call went straight to voicemail. I will see your missed call and call you back.”
I had to re-read it a few times, but I think they are trying to say if the other 97% is divided into 30 categories they will all be about 3% also. The implication being that every percent counts.
This is a little disturbing and should probably be its own post.
I am a fan of a UBI (Universal Basic Income) but these limited CBI (Conditional Basic Income) trials are not really comparable to a long-term implementation of either version.
Taking a specific number of people and giving them cash is certainly going to improve their lives. Giving cash to everyone in a city or state, including new arrival, is asking for local inflation and a population explosion. If the area is empty and has abundant natural resources that can be converted into jobs it will probably work out, at least for a while. If it is a major city with most of the resources and land already in use, and there is not much demand for workers, then the program’s budget is likely to be overrun fairly quickly.