VOTE REPUBLICAN

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
No it aint. Money don't buy the election Hillary, sorry, you lose, go back to school.
I didn't say money buys an election. I said money buys politicians. You don't need to raise the most money to win. But if your opponent raises 10x the money you do, you are probably going to lose. They will hire so many more people on the ground and run so many more adds that you will get crushed. 

So politicians feel they need their donors in order to win. And once you start owing favors to those donors, then you are compromised. You have to do what they say because if you don't the money dries up and you are screwed. Trump is as compromised as any politician. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Lucy
nah

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
KENTUCKYS GOVERNOR RACE: WERE WINNING
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am actually happy the rich on the left lost 1.2 billion dollars backing Hillary. Don't you like to see the rich on the left suffer?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,331
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
KENTUCKYS GOVERNOR RACE: WERE WINNING

Fs for Bevin :(
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
How in the actual, literal fuck, did Democrats win the governor race for Kentucky? 

I could see this happening in a state like Arizona or Georgia which is a little bit blue, BUT KENTUCKY????


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
when the government loses jobs, the deep state revolts. Not even red states are immune. Teacher's unions are the power behind it.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff

Communism is about taking the means of production. Banning a specific kind of weapon is nothing like that.
Communism is also about taking the things produced and giving them to mooches who don't produce. That is what democrats want to do.

Republicans wouldn't support you owning nuclear weapons, so they must be communists too right?
Please, let's not be silly. I don't already own any nuclear weapons and Republicans have not threatened to take them.

They do not say it openly, because they aren't communists.
Wanting to take from those who produce and give to those who produce nothing, is communism.

Republicans also don't say that they are communists openly, so by your logic they too must be secret communists. 
Republicans do not want the resources of the country distributed to those who contribute nothing.

So Barack Obama turned the american economy around from an economic collapse that occurred under the republicans.
And yet voters rejected both Obama's VP Biden and Hillery whom he campaigned for? Wake up man.

That growth then continued and you give that credit to trump?
What growth? Every single one of you democrats predicted that the economy of the country would be trashed under Trump. Now that you've been proven wrong, you want to claim you were right.

There are also signs that a recession is coming in the near future, fed in large part by the destructive trade wars trump started. But i'm guessing when that happens you will find a way for it to be the democrats' fault. 
As a Democrat, you would love the whole country suffering a recession just so you can blame Trump. TDS - hate of Trump over love of country.

Trump has had no real positive effect on the economy.
Highest employment numbers for women, and minorities? Growth close to 4% for the first 2 years? The fastest growing economy of developed countries? The strength to stop other countries misusing us with lopsided trade deals?

Your comment above makes me doubt your sincerity.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Highest employment numbers for women, and minorities? Growth close to 4% for the first 2 years? The fastest growing economy of developed countries? The strength to stop other countries misusing us with lopsided trade deals?
The distinction here is analyzing what effects Trump has personally had on the economy, verses the growth of the economy that would've occurred had Trump been replaced with a potato sack that simply rubber stamped republican legislative policy.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->@dustryder

Good luck with that bit of tautology.

Democrats went to court constantly to stop Trump from inacting his policies. If Trump made no difference, why were Democrats always in court at every Trump policy?

And democrats said the economy would tank under Trump. That has not happened. When did you figure out that Trump made no difference? It couldn't have been during the election.

The facts are that democrats were wrong on just about every prediction they made about the Trump presidency.

Now dustryder says Trump is neutral, like a potato sack. Considering they used to think Trump was the 2nd coming of Satan, a potato sack is a step up.

If the country's economy improves further, maybe that sack will get some actual potatos in it!
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
✓ Random inane rant against democrats
✓ Misrepresents your argued position
✓ Deflects from relevant points that criticize Donald
✓ Must be ethang5
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Obama crushed Trump selling guns.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
How in the actual, literal fuck, did Democrats win the governor race for Kentucky? 
I'm certainly not an expert, but I read that the governor was quite unpopular. Among other things he attacked teachers when they went on strike to keep their pensions from being slashed. You don't really look like a man looking out for the people when you go after people trying to protect their pensions.

I could see this happening in a state like Arizona or Georgia which is a little bit blue, BUT KENTUCKY????
It certainly makes things interesting. A brash, offensive politician was beaten in the reddest of states. It'll be interesting to see if that dynamic might affect trump. It's also interesting because Mitch McConnell is from Kentucky and he is also very unpopular. I bet he was not happy to see these results. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,543
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You don't really look like a man looking out for the people when you go after people trying to protect their pensions.

Teachers are government leeches. Who do you think is paying for those pensions? It aint the 1 percenters. This is what happens when you give a blank checkbook to the government. You feed the beast, and it bites you.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Kentuckckys governor race: VOTER FRAUD, INVESTIGATE
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Kentuckckys governor race: VOTER FRAUD, INVESTIGATE
It's funny how republicans keep crying voter fraud, but the only voter fraud that I have seen proven was the republicans in North Carolina. Trump even created a group to investigate the "massive fraud" he claimed happened in 2016, but they very quietly disbanded it when they couldn't find any evidence that any significant fraud occurred. 

I agree that any credible reports of fraud should be investigated. But more than likely you will find it either didn't happen, or it was in fact republicans behind it. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
obama cheated
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
obama cheated
When you make statements like this you really need to provide an explanation. You just throw statements that, on their own, are ridiculous. 

If you think these things are true, tell us why you think that and provide evidence. Otherwise you just sound like a hyper partisan who repeats talking points from right wing conspiracy websites. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->@dustryder

✓ Random inane rant against democrats
✓ Misrepresents your argued position
✓ Deflects from relevant points that criticize Donald
✓ Must be ethang5

Lucky for you, you're both debater and judge.

When you put the whistle down and take off the striped shirt, we may have a fair discussion. I win by scoring points, not by blowing a whistle.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@ethang5
You're supposed to put their name in the box where it says "Enter a list of receivers' usernames separated by commas" not in the post itself. You'll know if you did it right when it's in blue.

Also, Democrats, as well as the ninth circuit, have been blocking Trump from making America great again for at least a year now, which is something I've explained to dustryder. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2257/post_links/98563
Yet people still blame Trump for not doing anything.
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@dustryder
Ethang5, this is how you do it, so it looks like this, where their name is in blue. You don't manually type in the "-->@Dustryder" you just enter their name in the box and it does the rest for you.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Christen
Also, Democrats, as well as the ninth circuit, have been blocking Trump from making America great again for at least a year now
The courts have blocked him from doing illegal things. If you think committing crimes is making america great, then we have very different ideas of what that word means. 

And what positive policies have the democrats blocked? What has trump tried to do that they won't let him?


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
The courts have blocked him from doing illegal things.
Quite untrue. Trump has won more than 80% of the cases brought by liberals, it just that his wins are months later and not reported by the fake news media.

The courts have tried to block him from doing legal things.

What has trump tried to do that they won't let him?
Build a wall. Keep out criminals. Save Americans money for Americans. Bring jobs back to the country. Get out of trade deals that are detrimental to America. Ensure religious rights for believers. Keep terrorists out of the country. Support American farmers. Support law enforcement officers.

I could go on, but you get the picture.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
The courts have tried to block him from doing legal things.
If a court blocks it, then it was illegal. That is how courts work. 

Build a wall.
That's funny, because the republicans had control of the senate and the house for the 1st 2 years. They even got a deal with dems to fully fund the wall which they refused. So it is the republicans that prevented that. 

Keep out criminals.
Like what? What has trump tried to do to keep out criminals? I am assuming you mean the wall, but since most criminals don't walk accross the border, and even if they did, they can usually afford the $100 saw that can cut right through it. 

Save Americans money for Americans.
I'm not aware of any plans he has tried to pass for this. 

Bring jobs back to the country. 
He hasn't tried to do this. He has started trade wars which has been bankrupting companies and destroying lives, is that what you mean?

Get out of trade deals that are detrimental to America.
Like what? the TPP hadn't been passed. He made minor changes to NAFTA but left it 99% the way it was.

Ensure religious rights for believers. Keep terrorists out of the country.
What has he tried to do that the dems blocked?

Support American farmers.
His trade wars have been destroying american farmers. I'm not sure why you think he has been trying to support them. 

Support law enforcement officers.
Again, what has he tried to do that the dems blocked?

I could go on, but you get the picture.
You've listed things that either he hasn't tried to do, or that he has had a serious negative impact on. Very few of which were blocked by dems. 
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
I talked about the ninth circuit blocking Trump from making America great again and cracking down on illegal immigration, in a different thread. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2257/post_links/98563

Lile Ethang5 said though, Trump has been getting blocked repeatedly from doing things like funding and building his border wall. He was finally able to build it though.

they can usually afford the $100 saw that can cut right through it.
Well first of all, even if they tried to cut through the border wall, they would still have to deal with surveillance cameras, and/or border patrol agents that would arrest/shoot them on sight for destroying American property. Besides, saws tend to make a lot of noise, which would attract attention and lead to those intruders getting stopped by the border patrol.

You have to remember that the southern border has multiple layers of defense against illegal aliens. Even if they get through one of those lines, they still have to deal with the others. The border wall is meant to act as that extra layer of defense.

Not only that, but most of these migrants are coming from poor countries, so not all of them can afford saws. If they could, you would see all of them sawing through the wall.

Secondly, if you're saying that people can just saw through walls, what's the point of having any wall in America? Do you live in a house or apartment with walls? Why bother having walls around where you sleep when criminals can break through those too? Why bother locking your doors at night when those can be broken down?

Most citizens who are against the wall like the Obamas have walls surrounding their own property, just like how many of them who want to ban guns, like Hillary Clinton, have armed guards for themselves. It's hypocritical.

If a court blocks it, then it was illegal. That is how courts work.
What the courts should block is people like Gavin Newsom from giving free health care and college to illegal aliens using American tax dollars, while ignoring all the homeless people who are camping in tents, sticking needles/drugs in themselves, and pooping/peeing on the ground.
But Gavin Newsom needs to cater to those immigrants for support/votes, because that's far more important to him, apparently.

Trump's tax cuts help the wealthy, which allows them to help the middle class by creating more jobs, which allows them to help the poor by paying their tax dollars for the welfare/SNAP benefits that they receive. That's the basic idea of Trickle Down Economics. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. It's working.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Christen
Trump has been getting blocked repeatedly from doing things like funding and building his border wall. He was finally able to build it though.
No he wasn't. Dems offered him a deal that would have fully funded building the wall. He turned it down. You can't say they are blocking something they agreed to. Also, no he isn't building it. Very little new wall has been built. He is simply taking pictures in front of sections of fencing that had already been scheduled to be replaced before he became president.

Well first of all, even if they tried to cut through the border wall, they would still have to deal with surveillance cameras, and/or border patrol agents that would arrest/shoot them on sight for destroying American property. Besides, saws tend to make a lot of noise, which would attract attention and lead to those intruders getting stopped by the border patrol.
You are talking about literally thousands of miles of border. There is not a guard within earshot of the vast majority of it. Also, if the wall can be bypassed in a few minutes with basic tools, then why would it be worth spending billions on? The truth is that the wall would cost billions and barely slow anyone down. It is barely an inconvenience. 

I guarantee you, most people who are against the wall like the Obamas have walls surrounding their own property, just like how many of them who want to ban guns have armed guards for themselves. It's hypocritical.
The majority of americans do not approve of the wall. Do you think the majority of americans have armed guards? 

But Gavin Newsom needs to cater to those immigrants for support/votes, because that's far more important to him, apparently.
This sentence cracks me up. A politician does something that his constituents want him to do that helps save lives, and you think the courts should stop him. That is seriously disconnected from reality. 

Trump's tax cuts help the wealthy, which allows them to help the middle class by creating more jobs, which allows them to help the poor by paying their tax dollars for the welfare/SNAP benefits that they receive. That's the basic idea of Trickle Down Economics. 
Trickle down economics is a lie sold to poor people by the rich. The evidence is that it isn't working. The rich got massive tax cuts (which massively increased the deficit). But the job creation rate stayed pretty much the same. The rich got to buy an extra yacht, or stay in some obscenely expensive hotel in Dubai, and the country is left with massive holes in the budget. And the republicans will point to that massive debt and say that more social spending needs to be cut to balance the budget. So they are handing money to the rich, and will then demand that the poor pay for it. 
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
Dems offered him a deal that would have fully funded building the wall. He turned it down.
I'm not aware of such a deal taking place. Can you clarify when this happened, and what the deal was about, specifically?

You are talking about literally thousands of miles of border. There is not a guard within earshot of the vast majority of it.
You don't need to have guards at every section of the border. Cameras and motion sensors can help detect some of these people too. It's kind of like a car alarm. When you try to break in, it makes noise, drawing attention. At the border wall, you can use robots/machines with thermal cameras to detect people trying to cross, and then have armed border patrol agents investigate.

Another important thing to remember is that, even if you don't have guards at literally every part of the border, intruders who try to bypass the border wall aren't going to know which parts of the border wall are heavily monitored and which parts aren't.

This means that they would have to take a guess, pick a random part of the wall that they believe is safe, and hope that there's nobody there to shoot or apprehend them. They still run the risk of being caught. It isn't like these intruders have high-tech camera drones that they can use to scout out areas and see which places are heavily guarded and which places aren't.

Also, if the wall can be bypassed in a few minutes with basic tools, then why would it be worth spending billions on?
Because those without tools won't be able to get in. Not everyone has tools anyways. Many of these people, especially from the migrant caravans back in 2018, come empty handed anyways, with or without children. Having no border wall makes it even easier for them.

The majority of americans do not approve of the wall.
How do you know this? Was every single American asked by the government, going door to door, if they approved of it, or did the government just pick a couple thousand random people to see if they approved of it and assumed that the majority of Americans approved of it? Did American children, elderly, disabled, and prisoners also get a say in whether or not they approve of it?

A politician does something that his constituents want him to do that helps save lives
He is saving illegal lives at the cost of legal lives. He is prioritizing illegal aliens over the homeless American veterans who need a place to live. We should help ourselves before helping others. Those illegal aliens should be going through the legal asylum process.

they are handing money to the rich, and will then demand that the poor pay for it. 
If you tax the wealthy too much, they will leave the country and invest elsewhere. This is what happened in Venezuela. They tried to help the poor by severely harming/taxing the rich, and the rich decided they weren't going to put up with it anymore and left.

It's better to tax the middle class than tax the poor or rich. The poor are too broke to afford to have to pay much taxes.
The rich will find loophopes to avoid paying much taxes or leave the country and take their wealth with them if they have to pay too much.
So the middle class pays the most taxes thanks to the rich having more money to pay them.

When the rich get "to buy an extra yacht, or stay in some obscenely expensive hotel in Dubai," that also helps the economy because the people who built that yacht make extra money, the people who operate that hotel and provide hotel service make extra money, and then they can spend or save that money, in order to help the economy.

The deficit does not occur mainly because of tax cuts. "The deficit occurs because the U.S. government spending of $4.75 trillion is higher than its revenue of $3.65 trillion." https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-budget-deficit-3305783
The government is spending too much. It's spending more than it makes. That is what contributes to the deficit. Raising taxes on the wealthy won't magically fix that.
Tax cuts do result in the government making less money, but the government spends too much to begin with.

We're not demanding "that the poor pay for it." We're demanding that the government controls it's spending.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Christen
I'm not aware of such a deal taking place. Can you clarify when this happened, and what the deal was about, specifically?
Here is a link to an article. Basically in january 2018 dems offered to fund trumps wall in exchange for protection for the dreamers. Trump refused and torpedoed any chance he had of getting democrats to fund the wall. It wasn't the dems that blocked this, it was trump and right wing republicans refusing to negotiate. 

You don't need to have guards at every section of the border. Cameras and motion sensors can help detect some of these people too.
Do you have any idea how big the US border is? It is 2000 miles. There aren't border guards withing dozens of miles for large stretches of it. And if camera's and motion sensors are enough to alert guards, then you don't need a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes. 

Because those without tools won't be able to get in. Not everyone has basic tools anyways. Many of these people come empty handed anyways, with or without children. Having no border wall makes it even easier for them.
If they are criminals, then they will be able to afford a $100 saw. If they aren't a criminal, then they will either apply for refugee status, making the wall irrelevant, or they will use a coyote, who can afford a saw. Who do you think the wall is going to stop?

He is saving illegal lives at the cost of legal lives. He is prioritizing illegal aliens over the homeless American veterans who need a place to live. We should help ourselves before helping others.
1) you just said that this gets him votes. Obviously that isn't from the illegal immigrants, since they can't vote. That means his constituents want him to do this. If they didn't, he wouldn't get elected. 
2) this is a false equivalence. You are pretending that helping one group somehow makes it impossible to help another. We can easily help both. You don't need to attack immigrants to help veterans. 

Those illegal aliens should be going through the legal asylum process.
I'm sure they would like to. Unfortunately the system is broken and republicans have no interest in fixing it. In fact they are actively working to make it harder to come in legally. If they had a legal path, many would use it. 

If you tax the wealthy too much, they will leave the country and invest elsewhere. This is what happened in Venezuela.
This is a fake argument. Manhattan has really high tax rates, but rich people all live there anyway. They could save millions if they moved to the suburbs. But there is a great deal of prestige that comes from living in Manhattan. Do you really think the powerful elite of washington or new york are going to move to mexico? It's not going to happen. Not to mention that they are making their money here. if they lose access to the market, they lose access to making money. Most can't just up and leave.

It's better to tax the middle class than tax the poor or rich. The poor are too broke to afford to have to pay much taxes.
So your argument is that the majority of taxes should be paid by people who can just barely afford them while the people who could easily afford them pay little to nothing? That is not a sustainable plan. Alot of societies have faced economic ruin because they did exactly what you are suggesting. The end result is you destroy the middle class and create a system where there is only the rich and the poor. At which point you have destroyed your tax base and ruin the state. 

that also helps the economy because the people who built that yacht make extra money, the people who operate that hotel and provide hotel service make extra money, and then they can spend or save that money, in order to help the economy.
And if the yacht was built in Italy and the hotel is in dubai, you have written off billions in tax revenue to hand that money off to a saudi prince who owns an expensive hotel. The US government is now billions more in debt and billionaires in another country get that money instead. That is not a good plan. 

"The deficit occurs because the U.S. government spending of $4.75 trillion is higher than its revenue of $3.65 trillion
That is correct. So if you give massive tax cuts to the super rich and take in way less money, then the deficit grows because you are lowering your revenue. Then people like you argue that the problem isn't the tax cuts that keep lowering revenue, it is all that social spending. So republicans start cutting programs that help poor people. So the rich get richer and the poor get screwed. The much better plan is to raise revenue by taxing the people who can easily afford it so that you can work to protect the people who can't afford it. 
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Christen
Trump's tax cuts help the wealthy, which allows them to help the middle class by creating more jobs, which allows them to help the poor by paying their tax dollars for the welfare/SNAP benefits that they receive. That's the basic idea of Trickle Down Economics. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. It's working.

If you tax the wealthy too much, they will leave the country and invest elsewhere. This is what happened in Venezuela. They tried to help the poor by severely harming/taxing the rich, and the rich decided they weren't going to put up with it anymore and left.
Are you able to substantiate these statements?
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
if camera's and motion sensors are enough to alert guards, then you don't need a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes.
Having "a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes" is better than no fence. It still helps, and if it keeps an illegal alien from coming here and raping/killing people, then you're saving lives without even knowing it.

The border is meant to be an extra layer of security; another obstacle that invaders have to overcome. It isn't meant to be the silver bullet solution to stopping invaders.

you just said that this gets him votes. Obviously that isn't from the illegal immigrants, since they can't vote.
They are starting to give certain voting rights to illegal aliens to allow them to vote in certain areas for certain things. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna893221


Plus, those illegal aliens can come here and have anchor babies who will be able to grow up and vote in favor of the Democrats and their families.

We can easily help both. You don't need to attack immigrants to help veterans.
You're right. We can help them both, by having those immigrants come here legally instead of illegally, and also by helping the homeless people get into homes and get jobs.

Unfortunately the system is broken and republicans have no interest in fixing it. In fact they are actively working to make it harder to come in legally.
Just because it's hard to come here legally doesn't mean it's broken. The country is being flooded with more people than it can handle, which is why it is difficult and takes long to process asylum applications in the first place.

Instead of blaming our system for being "broken" blame the stupid countries that they come from with all the poverty, violence, and corruption that forces people to flee in the first place.

They could save millions if they moved to the suburbs.
I'm sure they don't want to go through the trouble of leaving their country and investing elsewhere, but people will do that if they have to, are able to, and feel that they have no other choice.

Alot of societies have faced economic ruin because they did exactly what you are suggesting. The end result is you destroy the middle class and create a system where there is only the rich and the poor.
A lot of societies like Venezuela have faced economic ruin because they did not do exactly what I am suggesting. The end result is you make the rich want to leave and go someplace else, and create a system where there is only the poor and the poorer. A society needs to have rich people to function, and there needs to be enough of them. The rich people are able to create businesses, services, products, and/or jobs, which helps the middle class and the poor. Without the rich, who will create plenty of jobs? Without the rich, who will take big risks and make big investments to uplift everyone?

Trickle Down Economics does not "destroy the middle class" like you say it does. Trickle Down Economics is meant to help rich, so they can, in turn, help the middle class, so they can, in turn, help the poor.

If it does destroy them, why hasn't it done so already?

Think about it this way: Say I'm rich, and you are middle class. With my wealth, I can increase your wage, hire more employees, and use my wealth to invest back into the business. With the extra money that you, and the other workers, have, you can pay additional taxes, help the government generate more tax revenue, which helps the government pay for SNAP and other benefits to help the poor.

However, if the government taxes me too much to the point where I am forced to move my wealth elsewhere, there won't be anyone to pay you more, hire more employees, pay them more, or create more wealth and expand. Then you won't have as much money to pay in taxes, and then the government won't have as much money to pay for services for the poor.

I don't know if that's exactly how it works, realistically, but that's the whole idea behind it.

And if the yacht was built in Italy and the hotel is in dubai, you have written off billions in tax revenue to hand that money off to a saudi prince who owns an expensive hotel.
That may be true, however, people from other countries can also do the same thing here, where they buy our goods/services and help us gain extra money. Different countries are helping each other this way. It's risky, i'll admit, but it can also work in our favor.

The much better plan is to raise revenue by taxing the people who can easily afford it so that you can work to protect the people who can't afford it.
What this whole issue boils down to is this: Both of our plans have flaws. Trickle down economics can help us as long as it leads to the rich, middle class, and poor all benefitting, but it can be risky since we could also lose wealth. Your plan to tax the wealthy can help us as long as the wealthy stick around and don't move elsewhere, but can be risky since taxing them too much will make them want to leave, ruining everything.
No plan is perfect, and you are right about the risks and potential downsides of Trickle Down Economics, but so far, it's working out just fine.
Both plans can help or hurt people, but it's matter of which plan would help more, which plan is riskier, and which plan has the biggest downside.