Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He had the nominal authority to wage war on the deep state yet he did nothing.
What is the deep state? Matt Walsh asks what is a woman when people claim transwomen are women. I ask what is the deep state when you claim Trump is waging war against the deep state. I define the deep state as the federal government.
There is no normie vote.
If this was the case, then elections wouldn’t swing from republican president to democrat president.
American democracy is dead.
No it isn’t; sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Like if Walker wasn’t a hypocrite, Warnock wouldn’t have power. But he is, so the swing voters supported the democrat; just like the swing voters supported Kemp over Abrams.
All that matters is ballot harvesting and the only chance for a republican to ever win another obviously critical election again is playing the game even dirtier than democrats.
Elections aren’t rigged. I didn’t vote for Biden, but he won fair in square.
What do you think about getting rid of political parties and forcing politicians to run as independents? Then democrats (and republicans) won’t win or lose elections ever again; just independents who have to be held accountable. Most issues aren’t that related to each other. You may be a hardcore pro lifer for instance; it shouldn’t stop you from believing Blaire white is a woman (converse, inverse, and contrapositive apply equally). If you’re right wing on both those issues, fine. But there are 81 issues I found where democrats and republicans disagree. Do you REALLY have to agree with the right on all 81? Don’t you think that’s being a hack?
I define the swamp as whatever group of power holders are working together to maintain the military industrial complex by aligning academia, media, and government policy against anyone who would dare suggest that war isn't a good thing or that US foreign policy should involve fewer sales of weapons or foreign bases.
With the exception of the Ukraine war, ending war is a left wing thing. You define the swamp as power holders. What is the difference between power holders and elected government officials?
None care about Mexican gangs
The gangs are in Mexico. The Taliban run the Middle East; us getting involved there would be pro war. The drug cartels are in Mexico; us getting involved would be pro war.
The Abraham accords also made Trump dangerous to them.
What are the Abraham accords?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you need other people to tell you who to vote for, do the rest of us who don't a favor and don't vote.
This isn’t what I’m doing. I’m asking left and right wingers to convince me to not vote or to vote for Trump.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Somehow, people these days have convinced themselves that they are very smart, even smarter than God.
I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. Like the Bible says that premarital sex is adultury and therefore anyone who has had premarital sex is an adulterer that would burn in hell. You may not have had premarital sex, but 97% of people don’t wait until marraige. Would you ban premarital sex? I think it’s a mistake to have premarital sex, but banning it is too authoritarian.
Abortion is murder.
There are 2 interpretations of this.
The first is a positive statement: That abortion is murder. Positve analysis for those that don’t know is what currently is. Legally, abortion is not murder because if it was, right now, women that get abortions would be tried as murderers and put to death or life imprisonment.
The 2nd is a normative statement: That abortion SHOULD be tried as murder. If abortion is murder, you would be executing 800,000 females a year for the crime of abortion since it would be murder. If you oppose the death penalty, it would be life imprisonment (for 800,000 additional women per year). I would respect it if the man who impregnated them also got this sentence, but that means in 5 years, you would have 8 million additional prisoners. For reference, America’s prison population is about 2 million I think right now. So a 400% increase in the prisoner population; wow!
You do not get to kill anyone if you are raped. In fact, you should consider it enough that you arent forced to marry your rapist, and then you should move on with your life and raise your child which you are lucky to have in the first place.
I don’t think it would be wise to consider kids a blessing no matter what. If one REALLY believed that kids were a blessing no matter what, then they should have no problem adopting. If you’re willing to adopt, it makes more sense to adopt a kid than to accept the kid you got from rape. Children aren’t always a blessing.
The woman, who only exists thanks to God, belongs to God.
There are times when if you create something, you own that something in the context that is your property. If you create a business, that buisiness is yours. But if you create a human being as god did, god doesn’t own that human being. If a parent creates a human being and that human being makes billions of dollars, the parents aren’t entitled to that.
I respect that you’re willing to criticize the left, but America is not a theocracy. If abortion is to be banned, it should be solely on scientific grounds, not religious ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump cut taxes for wealthy people
Anyone who advocates for tweaking the tax code should be specific with how they would tweak the tax code.
Trump cut taxes on the wealthy from 39% to 37%. This isn’t much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The main reason to vote for Trump is that it might cause the collapse of the deep state as they reveal more and more of themselves in their desperate attempts to destroy him.
From 2017 to 2020, Trump ran the deep state.
For example if Desantis wins the primary and they go after him like they've gone after Trump you'll know war is inevitable.
If DeSantis wins the primary, Trump is going to run as an independent and split the GOP vote so the democrat wins by plurality or majority. If Trump wins the primary, Jan 6 made him lose the normie vote.
The main reason not to vote for Trump is that he failed to drain the swamp.
What is the swamp? If you define the swamp as all elected officials, then SOMEONE has to represent Americans and they would be the new swamp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s honestly a simple question. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
4 years ago my net worth was below $10,000. Now it’s over $30000. So I am. But that’s not because of Biden; it’s because I have had more time to build wealth.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That’s an idea, but some students are harder to teach than others. Professors with inheritely stupid kids shouldn’t be at a disadvantage compared to professors in Greenwich or Westchester.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
But There isnt like a group of 5 or so atheists.And a group of 8 over there.Group not here .Now you go.But there is a group of yas on this web site.This will infuriat me. And that would be a point to you.Good gameGood game.
What’s your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Conservatism is about conserving the status quo.
Status quos the conservatives don’t support:
1) Roe V Wade
2) Vaccine mandates
3) The US debt
4) The income tax
Define conservative differently, because being pro status quo is the position of a moderate, it a conservative.
The status quo in America is that white people own nearly everything and maintain the power.
The solution would be to encourage minorities to build up their own wealth. If you build a house and are the only one out of 5 people to own a house, you own all the houses in your group. But rather than give your house to the other people, they should build their own house. The way to promote more wealth ownership among different races is to encourage non whites to build their own wealth.
Created:
I 100% agree.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don’t think citizens ever read the bills, and our politicians are so afraid of criticism that they make bills thousands of pages long.
Operation get out of debt (something I want to pass) is much shorter. I welcome criticism, but nobody is bothered to criticize it and people tend to think it’s good, so I think it has the potential to pass.
Created:
Posted in:
Anytime a head of state sends their country to fight an offensive war, they got to send one of their children to fight in it. The UN makes this international law and enforce this law like all other laws are enforced.
Let’s see how quickly the wars end. This is for Yemen, Ukraine, Palestine; end the bloodshed!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
@YouFound_Lxam
You guys are the people I’m going to tag.
Created:
Posted in:
If you like Trump, try to convince me to vote for him.
If you don’t like Trump, try to convince me to not vote for him.
The Never Trumpers and the MAGA crowd have made up their minds. I have not. If Trump wins in 2024, it won’t be because of the Never Trump Crowd or the MAGA crowd. It will be because of swing voters like me.
So make your case. I’m going to tag one never Trumper and one person that I think is in the MAGA crowd, but anyone is free to convince me to vote, or to not vote for Donald Trump if he runs in 2024 and beats DeSantis in the primary. Let’s say it’s 2024, Biden vs Trump rematch.
Created:
no one can follow the highest ideal of Good or evil.
But they should strive to do so if your definition of good is whatever your religion tells you to do.
This means if your religion tells you not to divorce, you don’t divorce. I don’t care if you do. Just don’t call yourself christain if you’re divorced. This will lead to a lot of atheists, and I’m okay with that.
If you believe in Christianity, don’t watch porn or have premarital sex; these both violate your religion.
Virtually everyone lives like an atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Unpopular opinion:The age for any type of adult activity should be raised to 25.
I think sex counts as an adult activity. If you have had sex before the age of 25, your a hypocrite.
I think the age of consent should be raised to 21. I’m under 21; I never had sex.
Created:
I think the answer is yes. If you don’t like the rules of your religion, then leave the religion. Not mandated by law, but what I think people should do. I’m not religious; I can’t follow the rules of any religion 100%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
And?Divorce happens. It’s a part of life. Not everyone’s. But many.
I think the issue is the Bible is against divorce and there are republicans who do it while claiming to be Christian.
I think on a personal level, everyone should follow the rules of their religion 100% of the time or should leave the religion.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9)
One reason why I’m not religious. But I think we are living in a simulation.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Free college can be paid for by cutting the military budget 10%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I mean, what is "right" and what is "left" is defined by who is associated with it, possibly.
I don’t think it means any particular policy. I would want to get rid of the terms and replace it with single issue parties that form coalitions. If you’re pro BLM, that shouldn’t stop you from opposing vaccine mandates for example. The 2 issues have nothing to do with each other. But most BLM advocates support vaccine mandates because they are both left wing talking points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Right-wing politics "describes the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies"
How is this different from republicanism? And if this were true, they would both support hierarchies based on race where whites are at top and whites at bottom.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think college should be free because it’s not fair how elderly people got college for free when they were in their teens and 20s, but Gen Z has to pay $30,000 a year for college.
If college wasn’t subsidized at all, it would cost about $60,000 a year for students. Then nobody but the rich are going to college and our society becomes poorer as a result.
College should cost the same as high school; free at the point of service paid for by tax dollars.
Created:
Posted in:
So not all republicans are white supremests, but pretty much all white supremests are republicans.
But why? If you believe the way white people have done things in this world is the best out of any other race, you would have to believe the following ideas are great ideas:
1) Secure the border; keep non white people out.
2) Universal healthcare.
3) Free college
4) High taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs
5) Abortion is legal; and paid for by the government for all that want them up until 12 to 20 weeks into pregnancy.
6) Hate speech is banned
7) Transwomen are women
It sounds like claiming white culture is the best culture in the world is akin to saying social democratic policies are the best in the world (except for immigration).
Social democracy is western civilization.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
and called for “preserving the European American culture of the United States.”
This is off topic, but the US does not have a European culture.
Characteristics of European culture:
1) Universal healthcare
2) Social programs
3) High taxes on the wealthy
America is its own seperate thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You’re making good points here. Often, I don’t like the stuff you say, but here, your right.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You don’t like vaccine mandates and you think transgenderism is fake. I have no issues with either of these positions and I agree with one of them. But you might want to change your party affiliation to other instead of progressive. The progressives disagree with you on both of these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If that happened, lash Trump for adultury 20x. But it was long enough ago and I think adultury should get rehabilitation so you would get the lashings and then after that, you are banned from public office for a decade. Granted, I don’t like Trump (I give credit where it’s due, but I wouldn’t vote for Trump in 2024 because Jan 6 pissed me off).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I don’t think the democrats or republicans are racists. They both denounce it.Racists always do.
They might, but I perfer not to give false labels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Again, go to my profile, click on forum posts and sort by thread and scroll in reverse date/time order. Even do a control F for key words to make it easier. It’s your responsibility, not mine.
This is an iPhone; I don’t have CTRL F as a feature.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Having 12% of population on food stamps proves that not everyone is capable of buying enough food.
It’s 12% of the population, but less of the adult population because people on food stamps tend to have more kids (which if your on food stamps, you shouldn’t reproduce and force strangers to pay for your kids). These people should get food from consenting sources (or if there are none, get canned food that has been expired for a day that the store can’t legally sell). I’ve eaten expired food before; they will be fine.
Is a false statement. You do not get to pick which part of the world not to compare to USA.USA is one country. Europe is not one country.I have already listed you countries in Europe that do significantly better than USA in housing. This proves that USA is not the best country in terms of housing, nowhere near that actually.
When you’re a big country like America, you tend to have more average results because you have a bigger sample size than if you’re from a small country. America does not have the lowest rate of homelessness in the world; but we are better than Europe on average.
The consent of the rich is not needed in the case of someone's life, since someone's life is more valuable than someone's consent over the wealth. Thus, the government does not ask the rich "will you help the poor?" when the respect for such consent would mean death for the poor.
If you REALLY believe this, then the government should force you and all communists to adopt a poor child if the alternative is death for that child. If your unwilling to sacrifice for the poor (you’d adopt if you were willing to sacrifice for the poor), why should the rich act any differently?
Not minority, but great majority of the top 1% are living a luxury life, buying expensive things built specifically for the wealthy.
The rich buy expensive houses because they are assets that appreciate with time, but cars and watches don’t.
In other words, you value money over life.
If the government believed human life was worth infinite dollars, it would be morally justified to force every household to adopt as many starving children as they could afford if it saves just one life. The belief that human life is priceless goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Tulsi Gabbard Accuses Democrats of becoming the very 'Racists they claim to hate'Prove her wrong.
I don’t think the democrats or republicans are racists. They both denounce it.
Although if someone said, “death to white people” in a place that is 70% white, the threat has no power. If someone says, “death to black people” in a place that is 70% black, the threat has no power. If someone says, “death to whites” and whites make up 3% of the population there, the threat is credible and should be taken seriously and debunked. Same thing for blacks.
I as a white person have some comfort knowing my race is the majority in America, so waging a race war against the majority is funny to me. If my race was 3% of the population, I would be more scared. If my race was 3% if the population, I would vote for whichever party treated my race the best (and democrats treat black people better than republicans with policies like Affirmative action). But since my race is very common in America, I have less insecurity about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You still haven’t proven that you’re not a child molester.
Most people don’t have to prove they aren’t child molestors because we aren’t on trial for it. Unless OP is on trial for molesting children, he doesn’t have to prove he isn’t a child molester because he is innocent until proven guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
If you think prostitution should be legal (I do for non married people), why would you care if Trump slept with prostitutes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re lazy. You can access my profile and look for my posts directed to/at you. I’m not going to repost them for you.
You know what posts your referring too; I don’t.
Slapping someone has nothing to do with personal Liberty. 🤦♂️ It’s already covered by statute, you know, the one titled “assault.”
Nothing in the constitution outlawed assault. Assault laws are up to the states, and every state banned it.
Now go read what I’ve already written to you and try again.
You seem very angry. You should calm down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You didn’t ACTUALLY read a damn word I wrote.Not a damn word.
That’s cap.
And I’ve already given, more than once, the legal (constitutional) argument how abortion, like the right to travel, marry interracially, etc. falls under “personal Liberty” rights/laws.
Personal liberty has limits, like I’m not allowed to slap you.
Ffs, go back and read my replies AGAIN. Slower. Try to let the words sink in, and perhaps you will comprehend the fact based truth of it all.
Try copying and pasting what your referring to; I’m not re reading dozens of responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Kicking someone out of the country is a subset of prosecution.No, it is not.Do your research.
What’s the difference? Prosecution is when the state punished you for something.
I don't have any political bias when it comes to these issues.
I don’t believe that. Can you state one left wing idea you have? All your beliefs to the best of my knowledge are conservative.
Everyone has their own biases, including both of us.
The key word in your example is visit.
Your still not a citizen of Saudi Arabia, so they won’t deport you for speeding.
All victimless crimes should be legalized.
Gaining citizenship, learning basic English, and having a thorough background check for any criminal activity in the country that they previously were in. Also, basic identification from the country that they were previously in.
What requirements would you impose for gaining citizenship? Gaining citizenship isn’t a valid response.
If the undocumented don’t know English, you can use google translate to communicate or other translation software. I’ve used it with people that don’t know English and it works.
I wouldn’t worry about background checks; California is filled with crime but I’m not worried that Californian migrants to CT are going to bring their crime with them. And let’s say hypothetically they are a murderer from Italy. Italy is going to want that guy back, so they tell America, “You have one of our murderers”, and then America would send that guy back (just like if a murderer from California head to CT, CA would tell us that we have one of their murderers and then CT would send that guy back). I don’t think either situation violates open borders because the only people who can really take advantage of it are people with no criminal record; drug cartels are going to come in here at virtually the same levels no matter how many undocumented immigrants get deported. Go after the cartels; it the undocumented caught in the crosshairs.
What counts as, “basic identification”?
No because people like drug dealers don't need drugs on them to deal drugs through the countries.
How is this the case?
Children can lie. Especially if one child is a part of the operation, and the rest aren't.We need to have strong security measures for these types of people including things like background checks for immigrants.
If a child is being raped, why would they lie to protect their rapists? You can have all the children get asked if these are their parents or sex traffickers to minimize the risk that there is a lie. I don’t think a child is going to lie if it results in them getting raped more.
Yes. If you were in charge. But you’re not.
The whole point of debating is to see how we specifically would do things differently if we were in charge.
FCE and ICE are not God.I don't think you really understand how big of a threat the cartels are to America.The FCE and ICE are too busy trying to find the cartels, that they aren't focused on our borders.
I want ICE to be focused on fetanyl and not kicking out 1 in 30 people living in the US.
Joe Biden has already implemented open borders
He’s deported more people than Trump (and I think this is bad btw). Let’s Go Brandon!
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sure there is. If you want to buy an expensive car while someone is hungry, or in need of help...ect.
Few rich people buy expensive cars; they build their wealth by investing in the companies they started up.
Except those 40 million people on food stamps. Usually, countries that reject Socialism are, to no surprise, forced to implement Socialist policies to save their economy.
Those 40 million people (if adults) should get a job and the government should be the one to supply that job if they can’t get one themselves (but private sector jobs are better). And I said virtually every adult. There are exceptions, but they are more rare in America than Europe or Latin America.
What if a person has no money to buy it?
They get a job if they are old enough to not be living with parents.
Actually, USA ranks up same as China. Even Vietnam has lower rate of homelessness than the USA. Also countries like Norway, Finland and Switzerland have far lower rate of homelessness.
Those nations are outliers. Europe’s homeless rate is significantly higher than America’s.
Socialism is not about making essentials free for everyone.
Socialism is about taking to a very large extent from the productive and giving it to those that are not. If you start up your own business, that counts as being productive.
If we know that a person cant get a job and cant work, we are not supposed to let that person starve or be reduced to begging on the street.
If a person genuinely can’t get a job, they should get taken care of by consenting entities. Parents, religious charities, secular charities. The government is not a consenting organization because it was funded through theft.
There is an entire market of luxury items, expensive cars, watches...ect. So yes, they are buying it.
There are SOME rich people that spend tens of millions of dollars on expensive cars and watches. They probably make up the minority of the top 1%.
You can call it theft. However, it saves lives of poor people. So it’s a beneficial theft.
There are times when beneficial theft is bad. If I forced you to adopt a kid from Somalia that is starving and forced you to pay for him and raise him, it would technically be beneficial theft since the starving child benefits. The starving child may even enjoy being taken care of by a non consenting entity. However this doesn’t make it okay because as many financial transactions ought to require mutual consent as possible and a tax on work shouldn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not all scientists believe this.
What proportion do? I don’t think it would be high because if the percentage of scientists who believe a zygote is a human being was high, IVF wouldn’t exist because of all the embryos you would have to kill to produce pregnancy.
What is the reason that you believe that a fetus is a human, and zygote/embryos aren't? What is different between them, that makes ones a human, and the other not?
Cell specialization; zygotes, embryos, and cancer cells all have human DNA but aren’t specialized, so they aren’t human. A fetus does have its cells mostly specialized, so they are human.
It's pretty stupid to assume that everyone I don't save, I am letting die. Not factually accurate at all.
If you have the ability to save someone’s life and you don’t, you’re letting them die. I have the ability to send all my money to Africa to help children and to prevent them from dying of starvation. But I don’t.
I would argue in this case that since I have no obligation to save those people, and I didn't put them in that situation, then it would be morally acceptable to not pull the lever, because changing the outcome would make me involved in the situation.
I just strongly disagree with that; I would kill one person to save 4 if I valued all people equally. 90% of the population agrees with me.
So, you would kill one kid for money? That is what you are arguing.I would not press the button, because again, that would be murder.
Mr. Beast did this poll where he asked people, “Would you press a button that killed someone and you got $1 million for it?” 45% of the population said they would. Now my position is, “I would do it for $1 billion, but then use some of the money to save more people from more painful deaths, leading to more lives saved than killed and I still have a lot of money.” Nothing that lasts a finite amount of time has infinite value, including the human life.
I would argue to make living expenses in prisons reduced, to make life not likable in prison, that way less people will want to go to prison.
You can make the living conditions as horrible as you want in prison, if 1/6 people are in jail, it’s going to be extremely expensive to take care of them all.
But what you’re suggesting is to kill all prisoners, so we don't have to pay for them, which holds no moral respectability.
I don’t believe I said that. I believe that we should kill the very bad prisoners (murderers, rapists, kidnappers, people that bring fetanyl in the country), and impose alternative sentences for lesser crimes (so if your crime is a DUI for example, you get lashings).
Ok, but the females put themselves into this situation.
They put themselves in that situation because of men like you having sex with them. If you don’t want a pregnancy, don’t have sex.
I believe in basing my opinions on facts and evidence, not just what the scientists and government says is good.
The scientists and the government provide the facts and evidence. Basing your opinions on facts and evidence is basing your position based on what the government and scientists say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The Constitution doesn't cover a lot of things, but they are implied.
The 10th amendment leaves issues not explicitly covered in the constitution up to the states. That’s why slavery was up to the states until Lincoln passed the 13th amendment.
Example: right to travel, it is not expressly written thereof in the US Constitution, but it is implied AND has been ruled a right of personal liberty, one's freedom of movement. Kent v Dulles (1958)
We are all American citizens if born here under the 14th amendment.
Example: Right to marry other races (interracial marriage) isn't expressly written in the US Constitution either, but via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (EPC), it was inferred/implied via personal liberty rights that people had the right to marry outside of their own race. Loving v Virginia (1967)
There isn’t really an argument against interracial marriage that people believe.
What amendments give the right to an abortion? People say the right to privacy. I’m just courious as to how far the “right to privacy” argument goes. Like if I beat up my girlfriend in the privacy of my home, is it now legal under, “right to privacy”?
If the answer is yes, you’ve just legalized beating up your girlfriend. If the answer is no, then you should admit that the right to privacy amendment is not absolute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Except skin, hair, or sperm cells don't have their own distinct DNA
Skin cells still have human DNA. I fail to see the relevance of the DNA being unique or not. If there was a human with my exact DNA, they are a seperate human being. If a new cell is created in my right arm with unique human DNA, that’s not a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If someone is speeding, they are breaking the law of their country that they are a citizen of. Therefore, you don't get kicked out of that country, you just get prosecuted.
Kicking someone out of the country is a subset of prosecution.
The reason I want to kick out the undocumented, is because they are breaking a law of a country that they are not citizens of.
I think the real reason you want to kick the undocumented out is because your party gives you that position. If the GOP said,
We believe in family values and we believe that fathers should raise their children. Many fathers are undocumented. Every father should raise their children, so we aren’t going to seperate families and create single motherhood. Black Fathers Matter and All Fathers Matter.
And the Democrats said
These damn illegal aliens are anti choice misogynists who want to take away a woman’s right to choose what she can do with her body. Build the Wall!!! (I mean, the immigrants tend to be pro life until the democrats support them and they relieze it, then they abandon their pro life values because of the democrats)
Your stance on immigration would probably change. Mine would stay the same, because I don’t look at issues through a partisan lens.
But I digress. If I visit Saudi Arabia, speed 10 mph above the speed limit, I broke the law and I’m not a citizen of their country. But I don’t get sent back to America over it.
There is already a system in place for immigrants to gain citizenship.
Well, we both agree that the system needs to be changed to be more libertarian (me more so than you). What requirements would you impose upon the immigrants to let them stay here without fear of deportation?
I don't know the specifics of how it works, but I think upgrading it would be a useful tool and help a lot of immigrants' families.
Well, if you want the immigration system to change, you need a specific plan. List your requirements for immigrants. I can’t think of any, so that’s why I support open borders.
But it is we the American people.With this logic, anyone from anywhere in the world could flood into the U.S.
In the 1920s, it was basically like that. Freedom won and tyranny lost.
If you open the borders, the child traffickers that were in the bordering country would just come to ours, so those kids who came over the border would be in just as much danger.
Fair point. So would your only requirement to immigrate be that you can’t have fetanyl on you when you come in? FCE makes sure you don’t have fetanyl and once that is the case, you’re free to move here? To keep sex traffickers out, you ask the kids privately if these are your parents. If the kid says “Yes; they are”, then there is no child rape happening so they can enter and if the kid says, “No they are not”, then the parents get killed for sex trafficking children across (why else would the kid say no to that question?)
Agreed. Let's sue Pfizer.
You should be allowed to sue Pfizer if the vaccine produced bad side effects for you. But I’ve had 2 vaccines and 2 boosters with minimal side effects.
You don't get killed in America for selling fentanyl most of the time.
Yea; if I was in charge, I’d be operating differently. But DART is for normative analysis, not positive analysis.
And even at that, the cartels find routes and places to put their fentanyl where they can't be tracked back to them. Only the dealers can.
FCE would get funding to fight the fetanyl coming into the country (and the funding would be bipartisan since nobody but cartels want fetanyl coming in). Take it out of ICE’s budget.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
What many lawyers are overlooking is codified “personal Liberty” civil and federal laws.
The Constitution doesn’t cover abortion under personal liberty; otherwise it would have legalized abortion up until the moment of birth. If the founders wanted to cover abortion, they would have done so in an explicit manner just like guns, free speech, cruel and unusual punishment, and the other amendments. Unless there is a constitutional right to an abortion (with an amendment) that talks explicitly about abortion, there is no constitutional case legalizing abortion in the country, which is why Roe got overturned.
Again, you’re fucking not reading anything I write in reply to you.
I try to; your just very prolific.
Like the kid, Lxam, you cherry pick parts of my comments you “think” you can rebut, but you fail each and every time just like Lxam.
You may think that with your bias (I think you don’t refute my claims effectively), but objectively it’s neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I am asking, why do you believe that a zygote/embryo is not a human being, but a fetus is?
Because it’s what the scientists believe. If this was not the case, IVF wouldn’t exist because of all the embryos you have to kill to get it to happen.
I believe that finances are less important than killing a human being, not just taking care of them in general.
What’s the difference between killing a human being and not taking care of them, leading to their death? Killing vs letting die. It’s possible, but just possible that killing is worse than letting die.
If killing is worse than letting die, then it would mean that with the trolley problem (look it up if you don’t know what it means), if there are 100 people on one track, 101 people on the other one, the train is heading towards the track with 101 people, you pulling the switch and killing 100 people to save 101 would be immoral (and should be illegal) because in this situation, killing and letting die are equivalent.
If they are equivalent, it means that refusing to adopt a starving child and letting them die of starvation is akin to shooting that child in the head and killing them.
Because of this, I’m not sure if killing is worse than letting die.
But consider the following scanareao: If there was a button that if you pressed it, you would get $1 billion and a child dies because you press that button, would you press it? If the answer is no, then you have $1 billion less. If the answer is yes, you can take that $1 billion, fly to Africa with it, adopt the 10 poorest orphans you find and saving them from starvation, and still have hundreds of millions of dollars left over. If you still think killing 1 kid by pressing that button for the money that you can use to save 10 different kids is bad, I don’t understand that rationale. I just don’t.
My point is nothing that lasts a temporary amount of time is priceless; otherwise the government can force us to adopt stranger children to save their lives. The government can force us to give our kidney to save someone’s life since the slight pain we get from losing our kidney is less valuable than a human life if you believe human life must be saved no matter what.
No, because the solution for one death should not be another death. It should be an actual punishment.So, we should imprison the culprits for life.
I don’t approve of incarceration for crimes because tax dollars are going to take care of bad people. We treat our murderers better than our homeless people because the murderers get their living expenses paid for by the state.
Literal abortion doctors have told their clients not to worry, because it is just a clump of cells, and not a baby.
The abortionists and the female don’t care about if it’s a baby. They want the baby killed because of the maternal pain that it caused the female. That’s why pro choicers claim men can’t have an opinion on abortion (which I think is an anti free speech claim). Most pro choicers (not myself, but most pro choicers) care more about maternal pain than the fetus’s life. I just don’t believe a zygote or an embryo is a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You previously asked me where I read the pregnancy doesn’t have rights.
If this is the case, the solution would be to change that, not to accept the status quo.
And Roe V Wade is gone; states can now protect the unborn if they want too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But you when you speed, you are still a citizen of this country.
It doesn’t matter; you broke the law (the reason you want to kick out the undocumented).
If you have a country, you have a duty to protect it.
Protect it from what? Pablo the undocumented immigrant’s taco stand? FCE protects the country from fetanyl. You c an replace ICE with FCE and still effectively protect the country from the fetanyl crisis.
We should also upgrade the process of immigrants becoming citizens, because right now, I will admit, it sucks.
What specific requirements would you impose to come legally? I can’t think of any that merit deportation for a violation. Lack of English knowledge can be solved with google translate (although I believe America should teach only English to those that come here).
Yes..........we the American people.
The constitution didn’t mention the word “American” because this was written during a time of open borders. America went from a British colony to a superpower because of practically open borders.
With this logic we should protect all countries and just let everyone flood in with no precautions, and say, we are protecting the people.
We already protect many countries around the world and democrat and republican politicians have supported it. Trump may be against America getting involved with Ukraine due to costs, but he didn’t have this vigor with South Korea.
...........you ever heard of child trafficking?
Is your solution to deport the child to a country where they will be raped? I think the way to reduce child trafficking in the US is the following policy prescription:
1) Anyone who uses or sells a child for sex gets their head cut off. Child rape should be punished with death.
2) Let the parents come with their kid to the US so they can get a good job, keep their kids, not sell their kids to pedos, and reduce child rape coming into the country.
The government first told us that getting the vaccine would help stop the spread of the virus, and if you get it, you will be safe.Then they told us that if we don't get the vaccine, then we are endangering people with the vaccine.........but I thought they were safe?
You’re safer with the vaccine than without it, but not 100% safer. I’m very anti mandate, but I’m also very pro vaccination.
Also let's not forget the many recent cases of military personal, getting the vaccine, and having unexplained heart attacks at young ages in their 20s. Then they have the doctors telling them that they aren't supposed to talk about it, to the people who literally had the heart attacks.What's a common factor with all of these patients? The vaccine.
These heart attacks are less common than death from COVID that got reduced despite society being maskless now because of the vaccine, although I think you should be allowed to sue a vaccine brand if their product causes you to die or endure significant pain.
That would just cause the cartels to get further into the country to settle and divide states from the country as well.
Cartels aren’t going to go to a place that will kill them for selling fetanyl. I think the federal penalty for selling fetanyl should be death.
I live in a sanctuary state. We have many undocumented immigrants. We don’t have cartels here because the cartels fear police despite ICE having a minimal presence in my state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Alright; so the amendment states that all persons born or naturalized have rights. It doesn’t prohibit states from giving rights to other groups (the unborn if the state wanted, to do that, or the undocumented if the states want to do that). It merely establishes a federal minimum; you must give equal protection under the law to those born or naturalized in the US.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Socialism is mainly about preventing the rich from becoming too rich
No such thing as too rich. The way you get rich in a capitalist society is by making other people’s lives better.
and at the same time helping the poor so they dont starve or die due to lack of medication, and that they have a home.
Food is cheap enough to where virtually every adult can buy their own food. Medicine can be expensive, but the solution is to buy it from Mark Cuban because he sells common drugs cheaply to uninsured people.
America has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the western world possibly because of our absence of socialism. If you make essentials free, people don’t have the incentive to work, so necessities don’t get produced, which means people starve and live in bad homes and get no healthcare. It’s better to work for the things you need to survive (even if a tiny portion of the population is without these things) then to enact socialism, encourage the population to not work (because they wouldn’t have to work to live) and create starvation and suffering for EVERYONE, not just the unlucky homeless population.
So yes, if a rich guy is interested in buying a too expensive car, he should be prevented from doing so. I support banning luxury items.
The rich rarely buy luxury items. Their wealth is in their stock. And banning luxury items in addition to being a loss of freedom, is a slippery slope. You don’t need a new car; you can use a used one; it’s what I do. But people are allowed to buy new cars with their money.
At the same time, if a poor person is starving, that poor person should be helped. Same if he is sick, in need of a job or in need of a shelter.
YOU can help them, just like you can adopt kids. But when you force strangers to subsidize the charity you want to see done, it’s theft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What are they if not human--even though zygote/embryos/fetuses (feti) conceived by humansare by definition human? How can humans conceive non-human beings?
The same way human beings can conceive skin cells, hair cells, or sperm cells. You can have human chromosomes while not being a human being. But if I believed a zygote was a human being, I would want it to be illegal to kill them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why do you believe this?What reasoning do you have behind this?
Proof by contradiction.
Let’s say an embryo is a human being. If this is the case, then IVF wouldn’t exist without the government putting an end to it already because of all the embryos that have to die to produce one healthy pregnancy. This means an embryo, and by extension a zygote is not a human being.
Now granted, out of the 4 states that banned IVF, 3 of them voted for Joe Biden. But their concern is maternal safety, not dead embryos. Texas banned killing zygotes in the womb, but legalized killing embryos in the lab. I don’t understand this. Abortion is a big voting issue for many Republicans. IVF is less of an issue, even though it makes more sense to legalize abortion than IVF (less maternal pain). But if IVF gets to be legal, so does abortion.
Finacines are not more important than a human life.
Socialists agree with you 100%. But if this was the case, it justifies me forcing you to adopt someone and spend all that money to save their life. I don’t want to adopt because of the expense and the same is true for most people. If it was free, adoptions would become significantly more common, but people refuse to adopt others and save their lives because of the cost. Nothing that lasts a temporary amount of time has infinite financial value, including the human life.
The doctors on the other hand who perform the abortions should be charged with murder, because they know what they are doing and they are the ones dismembering the child.
But this will lead to abortionists deciding not to perform abortions anymore, which means the female that wants the abortion will do it herself. So whatever punishment you impose for the doctor you would have to do for women if it is to be banned.
Most women getting abortions are told and tricked by planned parenthood that the babys inside of the womb are nothing more than just a clump of cells, and the mothers when getting the abortion do not realize what they are actually doing.
Not accurate; the slogan is “my body my choice”, not, “We don’t believe a zygote is a human being.” They are totally fine with killing the unborn if they are connected to them and causing them pain.
Created: