Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
So was I:
The Bronx: 1,432,132
Brooklyn: 2,582,830
Manhattan: 1,628,701
Queens: 2,278,906
Stated Island: 476,179
Total: 8,398,748
The other than is to list the one exception that is not deportable. Here is the full quote again
Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.
So a "single offense for own use of 30 grams or less" is not deportable. Every other controlled substance violation is. So you get caught twice with 29 grams, or once with 31 grams it is deportable.
Please go ahead again, explain how it's not.
3) Just a correction here.
Population NYC is 8.3 million (NYS is 19.4 million). 8.3m * 0.212 = 1,759,600 infected with a fatality rate of ~0.6%.
It you use a more up to date count (15411 as of yesterday) and add to that another 3000 likely NYC deaths rate over another the next 10 days (since some of those tested yesterday represent people who will die over the next 10 days), it comes to about 18000. So 18000/1759600 = fatality rate of ~1%.
Similar for NYS as a whole: 19.45 million at 13.9% = 2.7 million with current at 20861 = ~0.7% currently. Add 6000 likely NYS deaths over next 10 days = 27000 = fatality rate of ~1%
As we, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, respond to the Wuhan pandemic by hunkering down, whimpering at the thought of society reopening, and searching in vain for a new set of brown trousers to wear with our fashionable face mask, an interesting experiment is underway in Europe. In Sweden, which has done basically nothing at all in response to the virus, the death rate per one million of population remains significantly lower than American states that have instituted the most draconian regulations.
That’s right, you can actually have your economy and a life that isn’t limited to hiding under your bed and deal with Wuhan virus, too.
Unlike here, some European countries are concluding that the virus isn’t quite as dangerous as the modelers and public health nazis would have us believe. Switzerland has announced that it will reopen schools on May 11.
According to the Federal Council, all compulsory primary classes, closed since the government declared the state of emergency on March 16th, should resume on May 11th. This includes two years of kindergarten, followed by six years of primary school.
Secondary and vocational schools, as well as universities, are expected to resume on June 8th.
Why would they do that?
The Washington Post, in an article by Philip Bump, rips President Trump for having underestimated the number of Americans who will die from the Wuhan coronavirus. Earlier this month, Trump said, “I think we’ll be substantially, hopefully, below the [100,000] number, and I think, right now, we’re heading at probably around 60-, maybe 65,000.”
In making this statement, Trump was doing what the Post and other critics constantly accuse him of not doing. He was relying on experts. Trump relied on the IHME model, which had lowered its estimate of U.S. deaths to a little more than 60,000 through the end of July.
I never believed the number would be that low. With U.S. deaths mounting quickly throughout the month of April, I said we might reach 60,000 by the end of the month, and that May would also be quite deadly, given the number of new cases in March and April.
However, I don’t see why Trump should be criticized for relying on a model that most analysts and policymakers appear to consider the best one available. Did the Post criticize the IHME model until very recently? Maybe. I’ve stopped comprehensively reading its horribly skewed coverage of this pandemic.
But in the articles I’ve held my nose and read, I haven’t seen a critique of this model or its forecasts. Absent one, Philip Bump’s condescending article is as unfair as it is offensive.
It’s also worth noting that Trump never wedded himself to the 60,000-65,000 figure. He said that “hopefully” the number will be substantially below 100,000 and suggested that it could be 75,000.
What are you, 12?
Answer my question if you think you have a valid point. How does:
"other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana"
Translate into something other than a single offense of 31 grams of more can get you deported?
Detroit Democrats plan to vote Saturday to censure and bar any future endorsements of a Democratic lawmaker who credited President Donald Trump with advocating for the drug that she said cured her of COVID-19.
State Rep. Karen Whitsett, D-Detroit, broke protocol by meeting with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence during an April 14 meeting of COVID-19 survivors, during which she credited hydroxychloroquine for saving her life.
“Thank you for everything that you have done,” Whitsett told Trump at the meeting. “I did not know that saying thank you had a political line. … I’m telling my story and my truth, and this how I feel and these are my words.”
I think the gov over did the COVID-19 panic [duh!] and now the hospitals are paying the price.
Tweet from Andrew Cuomo:Four things stand out to me:
(1) NYC lock down likely didn't accomplish its goal because it was so late.
(2) Contact tracing at this point would be utterly futile.
(3) The Covid-19 fatality rate of NYC (~11,267 died at time of this post, population NYC ~18,800,000 * 0.212 = ~3,980,000 infected) would be ~0.28%.
(4) The two antibody studies in California may still be flawed, but it looks like they happened to yield fatality rates roughly consistent with the New York findings. An attempt at an age-adjusted rate of the Princess Diamond was ~0.5%.
I can also underline stuff...
other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana
That's one statement. It doesn't have an or in there. Ok, show to me if you have 31 grams for your own use, how it's allowed?
Yip. Every Chinese investor is effectively under the Chinese government in some shape or form, right. The state asked this particular (state-owned) company to stop all investments into US companies as a result of Trump's rhetoric. We were one of them.
Which part of real estate taxes do you think I don't understand? Is there any system that doesn't calculate real estate taxes based on a percentage of value?
No I wasn't. Quote me. Unless you think by "blue state penalty" I meant something to do with a state tax.
That's a term that is used to describe the federal changes that Trump made when he capped state tax deductions to $10k.
My state is a net payer, not a net receiver of federal taxes. So no, the federal government is not subsidizing our state. Isn't that the case with almost all blue states anyway? It was that case a few years ago at least. Not sure about now.
Really, that's what you want to hang you hat on? That I said 28 grams instead of 31?
Even though my exact quote was:
ounce of weed on you (or whatever the limit is that the feds are interested in - I honestly won't know)
Gee, you got me.
Really, that's what you want to hang you hat on? That I said 28 grams instead of 31?
Even though my exact quote was:
ounce of weed on you (or whatever the limit is that the feds are interested in - I honestly won't know)
Gee, you got me.
Sigh. It takes very long to look these up. The USCIS link I posted above corresponds to:
8 USC 1153: Allocation of immigrant visas
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
(1) Priority workers
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(4) Certain special immigrants
(5) Employment creation
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1153&num=0&edition=prelim
If you think the USCIS is running afoul of the law, then I leave the burden of prove on you to show where it is. I'm not going to keep digging through the INA one after the other to find each of these when the USCIS references are much easier.
I'd assume by now a lawyer that wanted to make money would have gone through it all and sued the USCIS for wherever it runs afoul of the law.
