Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
DeSantis dismisses 2024 polling decline against Trump: 'I'm not a candidate' (msn.com). DeSantis isn't running in 2024; the republicans who are done with Trump are going to have to pick someone else
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That would mean that doctors are going to be like, "We don't want to face the death penalty, so we're not going to do abortions anymore", and this means the females that get abortions are going to have to do them personally. So whatever punishment you apply to the doctor your going to have to apply to the woman if she does her own abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Platypi
Could you elaborate on why these two questions are of interest to you today?
Because I am of the belief that most people pick 1 or 2 issues that they are passionate about (lets say you are very pro life and anti gun control) and since the GOP agrees with these things, you end up backing the current thing for issues you know nothing about (transgenderism, Affirmitive action, tax policy).
None of these issues are connected through any sort of consistent reasoning that I can think of unless there is a definition of a republican and democrat that is consistent.
If the republican party said, "We believe in family values; end the deportation of undocumented fathers; abolish ICE!" and the democrat party said, "We don't want these anti choice theocrats from shithole countries coming into our country; build that wall!", the people who actually care about immigration are going to keep their stances on the issue (immigrant families), but everyone else is going to change their opinion based on what their party says. This is bad. Whatever your stance is on immigration should not correlate with your stance on abortion, vacciene mandates, gun laws, or any other issue. But most people that are pro life and pro 2A are pro ICE, anti Affirmative action, even though these issues aren't connected in any way except for what parties selected the issue.
Your stance on one issue often shouldn't correlate to your stance on any other issue unless you have a common reference point. Like for libetarians, that common reference point is "minimal government" and they use this to justify their beliefs (except for nuclear energy).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Compared to today's society, those are minor issues.
You REALLY think slavery and marital rape are small issues?
We still have some countries where slavery exists in some forms, where marital rape exists, where forced marriages exist.
Do you think these things should be legal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You could argue that, and I think abortion is immoral. But to BAN abortion, you need a punishment. If you call abortion murder, you would need the death penalty for parents of aborted babies.
Created:
Posted in:
What if in the US, if you could prove you were vegan for an entire consecutive year from April 16 to April 15, you had no federal income tax for that year. It gives people an incentive to not kill animals for food (the dairy industry kills baby calves and the egg industry kills chicks).
Anybody wanting to opt out of income taxes like this would have to do the following:
1) Film all the meals they eat for a year and have it sent to a state
2) Send all the receipts of the meals they ordered to the state so the state can fact check and make sure that no animal products were consumed in that year
Assuming that this vetting process happens, the reward is no federal income tax. I don't think too many people will take advantage of this, but those that do would see rewards for helping make the world a better place.
Those that choose to eat animal products won't get penalized for doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, I would execute people for that.
I just don't agree with that. If applied to abortion, that would mean you would have to kill about 1/6 females (and the 1/6 men that are also the parents of an aborted baby).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
They get put in jail (I prefer lashings to save the taxpayer money), but they aren't obligated to save the life of the person they caused to be dependent on them by sacrificing a body part.
And it's not like me running someone over accidentally while drunk will get me the death sentence like murder should.
So then if the penalty for abortion was a lifetime sales tax imposed on both parents of the aborted baby, that would probably be more fair I think since drunk drivers would endure a similar penalty. It also helps cut taxes imposed on other people who aren't the parents of an aborted baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Didn't ancient people conduct slavery? Wasn't marital rape legal 500 years ago? I'm not so sure you want to copy everything ancient people did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So would you jail someone for the rest of their life if they caused someone to need a kidney from a car accident and refused to give a kidney? I think that's very authoritarian. Granted, your an authoritarian, so you may be fine with taking that stance and I'm not knocking you for it. But I lean more libertarian so I wouldn't want to support that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I would at the very least donate to a charity or political organization that fights against the exploitation of children
You can do that if you want, but it doesn't make you guilty of murder if the iPhone you bought happened to be made with a child that died from making it.
Created:
Posted in:
My definition for a woman: Someone with a high ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
My definition for a man: Someone with a low ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
Lets see if this answers Matt Walsh's question, "What is a woman?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You don't believe that if you hurt somebody that you have some responsibility to make them whole?
If you hurt someone from an action you deliberatly directly did (beating someone up, raping someone), then yes. If what you did was produced from something accidental (making someone's kidneys not work via something you accidentally did to them or aborting from a pregnancy you accidentally created), then no. Otherwise, if I bought 100,000 iPhones and one child died on average making these due to how dangerous working conditions are for iPhones, I would be guilty of murder for buying 100,000 iPhones. But I'm not because I did not deliberatly kill the child, it just came as a side effect of something I bought.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don't think Florida should be banning abortion at all, not even for late term abortions. But I also don't think abortions should be paid for by the government, not even for rape victims. Yeah, you got raped. It's not the taxpayer's problem. Expand the Hyde amendment to include all abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What is conservatism is not important.
I disagree with that. In order to be a conservative, you should be able to define what conservatism means and apply that logic consistently for all your positions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think every LGBT adult should decide for themselves if they want conversion therapy or not. I'm LGBT; I wouldn't go to conversion therapy. But I think the option should be allowed for LGBT people that think being LGBT is something they want to change about themselves. It's a free country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
But the conservative can't even consistently define what conservatism is.
If they claim conservatism is about small government, why are the conservatives pro life and pro ICE?
If they claim conservatism is about preserving American tradition, why are the conservatives anti vax mandate and anti Roe V Wade?
If they claim conservatism is about preserving Christain tradition, why are the conservatives Pro ICE and anti homeless?
If they claim conservatism is about following the law, why do the conservatives want to change many laws such as they want to be able to open carry without a government permit? And wouldn't it mean that if guns were banned, that they would turn in all their guns? If the first amendment was repealed, they wouldn't want to criticize the government anymore?
Created:
Imagine if Bud Light said that abortion is murder. All the dedicated pro choicers would boycott Bud Light. I think that would be immature. I think it's equally immature to boycott Bud Light over them claiming transwomen are women.
You have the right to do it, it's a free country. But if you DO boycott Bud Light, don't be claiming your against cancel culture when you cancel Bud Light for disagreeing with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
First of all, you have an ethical obligation to give that kidney if the accident is in any way your fault.
I don't agree with this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
What's your point? I'm agreeing with you here, so you should be giving me credit here. Instead, you think I'm the bad guy so no matter what I say, woke people like yourself are always going to find a way to complain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
that if a person causes another person to need an organ, then they should be required, by law, to provide it. i know civilized society wouldn't think of it, but who cares. if you cause someone to need a kidney, you should be required to give it to them. it's only fair. id say it's only fair, even if your life ends by giving the organ.
I just can't agree with this statement. And I definitely think abortion should be legal if the woman will die without one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Caring for others is actually not in human nature.Thats why it has to be taught.
If YOU want to take care of others, go for it. Don't tread on liberty.
Even if we completely ignore that abortion is killing of an unborn human, can we ignore that having an abortion negatively impacts women?
Women benefit from abortion; it's why they do it.
Isnt it better when a woman is not allowed to have sex with plenty of men?
Women SHOULDN'T have promiscuous sex. But it's not a requirement.
The unborn baby is powerless. It is not the baby's fault that the mother decided to have sex. Its not the baby's fault that mother doesnt want her. However, baby pays the greatest price, despite being the least guilty for the situation that happened.
The same applies for someone who needs your kidney from an accident you caused. Should we mandate organ donation of living people? I don't think so.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Be careful; the left might want to ban handguns next (except for politicians, they are allowed to have these guns for protection while the rest of us don't).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
"Conservatism is good".
What counts as objectively good?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Here's something you should check out:
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When Elon Musk said he wanted to buy Twitter to protect free speech, I was cheering him on. But then he bans people for talking bad about Tesla or who call Nazis white trash and that's what caused me to not like Elon Musk. He's a fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
Lets say your driving above the speed limit when you don't have too for pleasure (like people have sex when they don't have too for pleasure). Lets say that you end up accidentally running someone over while driving above the speed limit and the only way they will survive is if you give them a kidney. Lets say they were in a cross walk so they were crossing the street legally.
This analogy presents the fact that if you didn't screw up, somebody wouldn't be needing you for help (just like with pregnency/recreational sex/abortion). If I did this to someone and they needed my kidney, I would absolutely oblige since I screwed them up, I would feel a personal obligation to save their life since I caused them to be dependent on me. However, forcing OTHERS to oblige if they are in a similar situation seems too authoritarian to me. You SHOULD save the person that you caused to be dependent on you, but it's not an obligation.
I have to treat an unborn baby the same way up until the moment of birth. I'm not proud of this, but I have to be consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't vote based on gender, but I would rather vote for a woman that is good for the stock market and pays off a decent part of the US debt and that isn't a hypocrite over a man that does none of this.
Gender doesn't matter for me. If you don't want women in power because of your theocratic tendencies, fine, but don't expect me to agree with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The quote was:
Tend toward global considerations in long term survival of humanity = democrat Republican is opposite of democrat, for the most part in the above, they only consider of the financial buck nationality.
How would getting vasectomies and tubes tied in masse NOT be a part of this goal? And there are times when the GOP isn't too concerned with finances. Otherwise, they would be pro choice because women are expensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think your a Trumpeteer who prefers false narrative over truth.
I don't like Trump, but I'll give him credit where it's due. Same with DeSantis, Sanders, Biden, Bush, Obama. I'm not a hack.
I never stated "sole goal" so again, this a false narrative your trying to project on to me. Typical Trumpeteer behaviour from you over a few posts now, and that is just today. You need to go back --and re-read-- to your quoting of me in you post #16, and specify where that quote is from, for starters. No "prochoice" and no "sole goal" is posted by me, only you.This is about you learning how to play fair.
Well, parties need sole goals because if they have different goals, they often contradict each other to some extent. Like if you value freedom above all else (libetarians), you would be:
1) Pro choice up until the moment of birth
2) Pro AR 15 and anti background check
3) Anti vaccine mandate
4) Anti ICE
5) Anti mask mandate
6) Anti income tax
7) Anti war
etc
If you value saftey above all else (safetarians), then you would have to be:
1) Prolife from conception
2)Anti gun
3) Pro vaccine mandate
4) Anti ICE (if you value saftey in general) or pro ICE if you value saftey for just American citizens
5) Pro mask mandate (to save lives)
6) Pro income tax (to fund healthcare for the poor)
7) Anti war
etc
If someone claimed to both value freedom and saftey, these values contradict each other a lot as I showed on abortion, vacciene mandates, and more. Freedom and equality contradict each other on abortion (freedom to abort vs equality for the unborn). Saftey and equality contradict each other on vacciene mandates (saftey calls for vacciene mandates, equality wants the unvaxxed to be treated like the vaxxed).
Now if you value saftey other times and freedom other times and equality other times, that's fine. Just make sure it's because it's what you really believe and not what your party tells you to believe. Like if tomorrow the democrat think tank matrix said, "We believe in equality for all; people of color, women, the undocumented, the disabled, and the unborn. Protect the unborn. Ban abortion" and the republican think tank matrix said, "We don't want to fund foster care; that's socialist. Legalize abortion up until the moment of birth. I want to be able to fuck girls without having to pay for a kid because that's socialist. I earned my money; I don't want to take care of others", I guarantee you there is a good chance you would either:
a) become pro life because the democrats believe this
or if abortion is your only voting issue:
b) become a republican and agree with them all the time because they are the pro choice ones.
I'm saying whether banning abortion is left or right should have NO impact on if you believe in an abortion ban personally.
If the democrats said, "We need to build a wall to keep anti choice immigrants out of America" and the republicans said, "family values, small government, and pro life includes not separating undocumented headed families. Abolish ICE!", the undocumented would go republican, but most other people would either flip parties or flip stances based on what the parties now say. I'm saying what the parties say shouldn't impact your beliefs.
You fear addressing what I state, and prefer going off on some false narrative trying to project it on me.
You said that the goal of democrats is to save the planet by not having as many humans. I was saying if the left was consistent with it, then they would get their tubes tied or vasectomies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
This is what you said:
Longer term survival of humanity is many issues involving human over population for the operating systems we have in place, that, are a detriment to ecology that sustains humanity and many related biological species. Ex 50% of coral of the Great barrier reef is gone. Or so I just read or heard few days ago.Republicans are for most part clueless on ecological issues and the primary causes of these issues. Sort of brain dead erego, my comment above as you quoted
If the sole goal of democrats is to prevent overpopulation to save the planet and this includes abortion laws, then why do the vast majority of democrat voters have kids? If democrat voters have kids, they would be going against what their party stands for if this is indeed what their party stands for. Every democrat man would get a vasectomy and every democrat woman would get her tubes tied if this is what the parties stood for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
@Intelligence_06
@Platypi
What common belief unites all of conservatives? Like for libertarians, the belief that unites them is small government. I can respect that even if I don't agree 100%. The belief of a westernite is pro western civilization. I can respect that even if I don't agree 100%. For theocrats, it is whatever their religion says is what goes. I can respect that even if I don't agree 100%.
What common belief unites all of republican beliefs and what common belief unites all of democrat beliefs? I can't think of any 100% consistent answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
So if someone agreed with the left 100% of the time but was registered as a republican, they would be a republican? I don't think they would be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Tend toward global considerations in long term survival of humanity = democratRepublican is opposite of democrat, for the most part in the above, they only consider of the financial buck nationality.
If democrats cared just about long term survival of humanity, then they would be pro life because that helps humanity survive. If your pro choice, that's fine, but don't claim the pro choice position helps humanity survive; it harms humanity surviving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
These are just generalizations, but basically, conservatives are about conservation, so they tend to favor positions they consider tried and true.
Here are some things conservatives did not want to conserve:
1) Roe V Wade.
2) Vaccine mandates
3) Affirmative action
If conservatives were consistently about conserving, then they would be pro Roe V Wade, pro vacciene mandate, and pro Affirmitive action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This isn't about which party is better, democrats or republicans. This is about what do the democrats and republicans stand for that is consistent with all of their beliefs?
If the democrats cared about making voting easier, this is fine, but what would that have to do with abortion, gun control, vacciene mandates, or Affirmitive action? By your logic, someone can be pro life, anti gun control, pro death penalty, anti vacciene mandates, anti Affirmitive action, and if they want it to be easier for people to vote, they would be a democrat (and vice versa makes you a republican).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The electoral system if not in place would have 4 or 5 big candidates running for office and results where the majority boter could technically be chosen by something like 33% of people when the 77% who absolutely despise them are split among other candidates.
The solution to this is Rank choice voting.
The problem with run offs is dragging out the election a ridiculous amount as to avoid someone winning with a plurality of votes instead of a majority.
The election doesn't have to be dragged out. People rank their candidates from 1 to 5 and if nobody gets 50%, then the 2nd votes are automatically applied. You don't need to drag out the election for months with Rank choice voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Now Democrat means pro-Democracy and Republican means anti-Democracy.
This is cap. The republicans aren't against democracy. The democracy goes right wing sometimes. DeSantis winning in Florida is democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
But what do those parties inherently support? I’m trying to stay off of DART for a while to catch up on school so I might not respond, but feel free too if you want.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I guess I won't be voting for you when you run for president
It's fine; you don't have too. I don't lie about my beliefs to gain votes.
The difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I think health care is a basic human right, and you think it's a luxury like a mansion, a yacht or a fancy dinner.
I think healthcare is a necessity, but necessities should not be taxpayer funded.
Good luck out on the campaign trail.
Thanks.
Created:
My moral code is:
One does not have an obligation to help, just to not harm.
Because of this, I believe the following:
1) No UHC and socialized medicine, food, or housing.
2) Abolish ICE while giving nothing of financial value to undocumented immigrants that are here. Deporting the undocumented is harming them; but not giving them free stuff is just not helping them.
3) Ban abortion beyond 8 weeks; it harms the unborn because they are getting killed, with the penalty being a lifetime sales tax of 10% imposed upon both parents of the aborted baby. I can see the argument for how it harms then woman, but I'll give her 8 weeks to abort (unless she was raped, then it's 12 weeks, or the abortion saves her life, then it's up to 40 weeks) since I don't think a zygote or an embryo is a human, but a fetus is. Expand the Hyde amendment so if rape victims or life saving abortion want to be performed, the person getting them must pay for them. I don't have an obligation to help them out.
4) Pro veganism; when I live on my own, I intend on going vegan 100% of the time and I support ending animal death. The meat industry kills innocent animals it's disgusting.
5) Abolish the income tax, and when the stock market becomes big enough, nationalize a tiny portion of the stock market so the dividends pay for government expenditures without taxes (this is when the stock market becomes big enough). In the meantime, fund all government expenditures with a sales tax on neceseties and luxuries and a capital gains tax.
6) Replace all fossil fuels with nuclear energy to combat climate change; if solar panels were a useful way to combat climate change, Obama would have solar panels. Same with Clinton and anybody that tries to get the US to go solar. Build nuclear power plants to combat climate change and get America relying 75% on nuclear energy. Sell the plants to the private sector.
7) Chop off the heads of murderers and rapists because I don't want society having our tax dollars helping murderers and rapists live. This is harming the murderer or rapist, but it's better than harming the taxpayer by having them fund the living expenses of the worst people in this country. If somebody has to be harmed, it's better for the murderers and rapists to be harmed.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You recognized, certainly, that it costs $10K to execute the adoption of a child, and that the fee doesn't cover one diaper, one stitch of clothing, right?
I meant it costs about $10K a year to adopt a kid you find on the street. There are homeless kids.
I can promise you it costs way, way more than $180K to raise a child from birth.
how much does it cost to raise a child - Search (bing.com) puts the figure at about $230,000 for 18 years, so about $12500 per year.
THe whole point is that while the average American isn't as rich as Jeff Bezos, that doesn't mean by default Jeff BEzos deserves inherently better healthcare and more options than everyone else, while you die because you can't afford another day in a hospital. I don't understand how you can't see this difference, either.
Why not? He earned it. That's what happens when you produce a company that benefits the entire planet. Just like he deserves a mansion and I don't. He deserves 5 star food if he's willing to pay for it and I don't if I am not willing to pay for it. Wealth privilege is a thing, and it's based. It also means I get things the homeless don't. You earn your way in a country that values freedom and doesn't value the theft that socialism and socialists want.
If I knew you were dying and saving your life cost me $1, I'd never think twice about the $1. You disagree because the $1 somehow then obligates you to adopt every baby available or something.
If you REALLY believe this, then sponsor a starving child; that costs about $1 a day. All charity should be mutually consensual, not forced by a fiscally authoritarian state.
Created:
Posted in:
Can anyone give me a definition that it's followers live up to 100% of the time?
If Matt Walsh can ask what is a woman, I think I can ask these questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Health care workers are the most likely to contract Covid, and the most likely to spread it to the most vulnerable people, I don't see why "not wanting to be vaccinated" trumps that.
25% of the US population got COVID. For this statement to be true, you need a source claiming over 25% of Hospital workers got COVID. If they got COVID and already survived, they have natural immunity (and this works better than the vacciene).
Do you think giving a speeding ticket to someone even though they don't want to go the speed limit is reasonable, especially since 99% of people who speed don't kill anyone?
I speed regularly, and if I said the penalty for speeding should be a fine, I would be a hypocrite. I think speed limits should be doubled nationwide and then actually enforced with cops on the streets. It creates jobs and I think it would probably reduce car accident rates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Again, right now does not matter because smaller states in terms of population are red.
You said previously the divide between small states and big states was what mattered as to why the electoral college is a thing. Now you are saying it isn't.
And you still don’t acknowledge that without the Great Compromise we wouldn’t have a USA.
There was a time when the great compromise was needed, but now the states are much more similar to one another, so it's not needed anymore. It would make more sense to rather than give states electoral votes, you give ethnic groups in the US electoral votes. But I don't agree with this since everyone's vote should be equal, so I say the same thing about the electoral college.
Oh my god. Dude you’re literally ignorant.
Ad hominin attack; your sounding woke.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Adopting a child =/= raising a child
What's the difference?
And it has nothing to do with being willing to pay a tiny slice of your healthcare so that I don't have to pay as big a slice of mine when I need it, in the richest country on earth.
The wealth of America is irrelevant. The average person in America could be richer than Jeffery Bezos; it still doesn't give us any obligation to help others. Help others if you want with YOUR money; just don't force me to do it with my tax dollars. The way to do this is by cutting taxes and by cutting spending as well (by not funding socialist programs like UHC).
One merely has an obligation to not harm, not to help.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you really see no difference between adopting a child and contributing a very small amount of money to a collective pool of resources dedicated to healthcare?
Implementing UHC in the US costs $3 trillion a year. Adopting a kid costs $10,000 per year. Since there are less than 300 million taxpayers in the country, it is more expensive to implement UHC on average for the typical taxpayer than it is to adopt a kid.
Created:
Posted in:
"We must ban owning cars for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from car accidents. Take public transit; move to a big city and use their public transit system. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must mandate blood donation for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from not having blood. Nobody needs all their blood and you can lose some to save lives! If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must mandate adopting children for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from not being adopted. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must ban dogs for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from dog bites. Nobody needs pitbulls or any other dog breed If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
"We must ban AR 15s for EVERYONE because of all the children that die from mass shootings. Nobody needs an AR 15. If you disagree, this is LITTERALLY the same thing as wanting children to die."
If Statements 1 to 4 are stupid, so is statement 5. Shall not be infringed!
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'd rather you not have to die for want of money.
So are you willing to adopt starving children you meet on the streets? After all, if innocent human life must be saved no matter what, then that sets the precedent of the government mandating adoption to save lives, as the main thing preventing people from adopting is the fact that they don't want to spend money on other people's biological kids.
Created: