TheUnderdog

Donald Trump: Never publicly says the N word.

The media: He is such a racist.

Eminem: Says the N word regularly in a context that if Trump said it, the left would be energized enough to vote him out.  Also says, “Orange man bad”.

The media: What a hero!!!  Oh my gwad.

Me: I don’t care if a liberal or a conservative says the N word.  Nobody should lose their job or get beat up for hurting someone’s feelings.

I think the vacciene is better for preventing covid and given that conservatives tend to be the tried and true party, they ought to support vaccienes more than Ivermectum.

Life just gets in the way man, you know.  I get tired, I get stressed, I am busy with schoolwork.  I just need a break from DART.

I just want to see how far SJWs are willing to go. 

Would you ban a pro lifer for hate speech?  What about someone that opposes BLM?  Is that now hate speech towards black people?  Is misgendering based on the belief that there are more than 2 genders now hate speech towards transgenders?  Is believing that marriage is between a man and a woman now hate speech towards gays?

All of the positions I stated are backed by significant portions of the US population.  If you make it illegal to say these things and punish them for it, it would lead to mass incarceration.  Given how much the left wants to reduce our prison population and they blame the war on drugs (even though drugs only account for 15% of why people are in jail), it would be surprising that they want to ban and jail ANYONE for speech given how much they want to reduce the prisoner population.

But don't expect extreme people (from either side) to be principled with what they want done.  Both sides just want to appeal to their base by getting more extreme.

If your like normal America, I recommend watching the video below:

Society: We think it should be illegal to have sex with animals because we care so much about animal rights and animal lives matter.  Sex where the animal consents is wrong because the animal must be protected.  It doesn't matter that it feels good to some people, we must ban it.

Also society: Refuses to go vegetarian because eating meat feels good even though vegetarian diets have been proven to be healthy for people to eat and vegetarians tend to live longer than meat eaters.

Me: If you care about animal consent, why aren't you vegetarian?

I'm not here to advocate pedophilia, but America's age of consent is higher than the world average (R.a917a681b9943965b214397d34f60216 (1393×628) (bing.com))

I think that to reduce our prison population and to expand freedom in the land of the free,  the US should reduce the age of consent to 13.  This is well within the global normal for the age of consent and it expands freedom in the United States.

Margorie Taylor Greene is one of the few republicans that don't take corporate money so she's not curropt.

I also give AOC credit for not being curropt, but I don't like her stance on UHC so I don't support her.

MTG believes in some crazy ideas like she supports Qanon, and I don't think this is a plus, I'm just willing to overlook it if she's not curropt.

Liberals: One black person dies from the cops a day.  We must be tougher on who gets to be a cop.

Conservatives: One person dies from a terrorist attack in the US every week.  We need to be tougher on Muslim immigrants.

Me: WE ARE ALMOST $30 TRILLION IN DEBT!  This is a bigger issue than both of these combined!

Conservatives: We believe in freedom of speech.  If your a racist, we disagree but you should be allowed to state racist opinions.  You can be as theocratic as you want and you should get freedom of speech.

Also conservatives: We can't let these Muslims in here; they will vote for socially conservative policies such as banning abortion and implementing Shriah law.

Me: You'd figure the conservatives would want more immigration and liberals would want less of it because immigrants tend to be socially conservative on issues like abortion and religious freedom.

Conservatives: We support the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government.

Hypothetical undocumented immigrant: Uses 2nd amendment to defend against a tyrannical government (ICE)

Conservatives: Disarm the terrorist for daring to buy a gun.

Me: But you just said you support the 2nd amendment to defend against tyranny?

Conservatives: We want less government spending, even though the states that receive the most amount of government spending are red states.

Me: Why isn't rich California and New York voting republican and poor Tennessee voting democrat?

Question to the Bible: Should foreigners be treated the same way as native born people?

Bible: Yes

"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”"  Exodus 12:49

Bible: No

“At the end of seven years, you shall have a release of debts … Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)

Me: If God exists, he can't be all knowing otherwise he would have foreseen his contradiction and rectified it.

Just now from DART, I got an ad that stated that Amy Klobuchar wants to end citizens united

Citizens united is the supreme court case that allowed corruption in the US government.

So why am I calling her a hypocrite?  Because she is very curropt herself.  About $130,000 of the money she raised is from PACs.

She is railing against the corruption and the swamp that she herself is part of.  Typical politician.  Lying to your face about being agreeable and then being the exact thing she thinks is wrong with the country.  This would be like a pro lifer who tells people to not have sex if they don't want a kid ending up having having sex.

What a joke.  Don't trust career politicians like Klobuchar.

We have heard of the democrats, republicans, and libetarians.  What about another party called the western party.  They believe in the following:

1) Preserving the values of western civilization.  This includes:

1) Secularism.

2) Closing borders with non western countries.

3) Universal healthcare.

4) More miltiary money to invade non western countries and to make them western.  Note; western is not a dog whistle for white as places like Japan and South Korea are pretty western as is Latin America.

5) Abolishing the death penalty for all crimes, as the only western country that has the death penalty (the US) resembles the 3rd world in it's conservatism on this issue and others.

6) Legalizing homosexuality.

7) Pro choice on abortion up until the moment of birth (because they seen how much pro life laws have failed in Africa).

8) Pro EU, and wants to change the EU to the WU (Western Union) so the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, Japan, and South Korea can join.  The flag for this nation is the flag below because the west was the one that spread these ideas:

In addition, we would also have a Christian party, a party that is consistent with the values of the church and the bible.  This includes supporting the following positions:

1) Theocracy, or at least ruling by the Bible and the 10 commandments.

2) More military money to invade non Christian countries and to make them Christian under penalty of death (Deuteronomy 13:13-18).

3) Implementing the death penalty for any crime the Bible deems appropriate.

4) Banning gay sex.

5) Pro life

6) Pro one world nation with the Christian countries.

Any issue (such as BLM) that isn't consistent with either party is left up to the candidates for this party to decide their stance.

I don't support any of these parties all the time, but wouldn't it be nice if America had either principled parties like the ones above or had no parties at all?  For instance, the democrats and republicans have so many principles that they contradict themselves unlike the western, Christian theocrat, pro science party, and libetarian party.  The democrats for instance are pro gun control (so you could say on guns they are pro life) yet they are not pro life on issues like abortion or nuclear power (the most pro life energy source).  They claim they agree with the science on climate change, yet they oppose the science on GMOs.  The republicans support a small fiscal government, yet they are fine with more money going to the military; one of the biggest social programs the US government funds.

Libertarians: Want the government out of everything, whether it is social or economic.

Socialists: Want the government out of everything the left agrees with and want the government involved in everything the left agrees with.  In other words, an opinionated and politically passioned leftist.

If you believe in left economic policy, quit calling yourself a libertarian because your not. There isn’t anything wrong with being a socialist, but there is something wrong with incorrectly labeling yourself.

I think by DART's standards, my score is low.  Everyone here is writing essays in debates and I have a hard time merely reading any of it.  My score is a 520.

So, I've been doing some thinking and research.

My original justification for being pro choice was that if every single unwanted pregnency got aborted, the foster system would run out of kids to take care of so they would have to rescue kids from elsewhere to keep their business alive.

Leading Causes Of Death In Africa - WorldAtlas states that only around 284K Africans die of starvation a year and worldwide this number probably isn't much higher as Africa is the only continent in the world where extreme poverty is significant (134-eb9a-51e7.jpg (1600×990) (howmuch.net)).  This is a far cry from the 9 million people I previously thought died and I think the majority of these starvation deaths are from adults who should be independent.  Trading with Africa would help reduce the death count by starvation due to more trade.

There is the claim that an unborn baby isn't a human being and to an extent this is correct.  I wouldn't be arguing that a zygote or an embryo is a human being and I would claim that pro life people, especially pro life females (if they believe a zygote is a human being) aren't consistent with this belief unless they are going out of their way to save zygotes from experimentation by volunteering to be impregnanted with zygotes.  The only people that agree to be impregnanted by artificial insemination are people who have an infertile partner and have no choice if they want to be a Mom.  If a pro life female wanted to be principled with their pro life belief, they could never have sex with their partner and get all their babies via artificial insemination and they could due this as much as they could to save as many zygotes as possible from experimentation if they believe a zygote is a human being.  But you don't see people doing this and a zygote cell resembles cancer which also contains the DNA of a human being, so calling a zygote or embryo a human being seems kind of silly.  Pro lifers will claim that a zygote is the start of a human being, but it doesn't matter what something could be; it merely matters what something already is.  Just as you don't treat somebody like a criminal until they actually become a criminal, you don't treat someone like a human being until they are actually a human being.

However, a fetus is a different story.  A fetus not only has the DNA to become a human, but their cells are specialized unlike that of a cancer cell.  Calling a 6 week old fetus cancer I would argue is dehumanizing since I fail to see how they aren't human.  They have the DNA, their cells are specialized, so they are human.

However, there are other organisms that are obviously humans that you don't have to take care of.  I don't have to adopt a kid even though a kid is a human being.  However, I think one difference here that I think is relevant is that I never created the kid, so initially the kid isn't under my responsibility.  The only way I can get rid of my responsibility to a kid is if I transfer it to a consenting person.  A new mother can easily transfer responsibility of the kid to a foster agency and they will take the kid.  But this comes to the question, should you be responsible to take care of a kid without your consent?  To this, I would look for an analogy; deadbeat dads.  Everybody that I know believes that a deadbeat dad should take care of his responsibilities to a kid that he creates.  If a male is forced to take care of kids because he created them unless he agrees with his wife to set the kids up for adoption (and even pro choicers agree with this), then we have to apply the same standard to a female.  Yes; a female endures stress and pain from pregnency, but a male also has to sacrifice so much stress and finances from pregnency as well.  If pregnency was easy, you would see millionaires having like 12 kids, but males and females both take a toll from pregnency.  The female endures pain, the male has to make economic sacrifices since he has to provide for a wife since she often will take time off.  He also has to endure a stressed out wife for 9 months.  I believe the female sacrifices more from pregnency, but both genders sacrifice a lot for a kid.

There are the exception cases (primarily rape, maternal life, and fetal defects).  I think almost everyone can get behind abortion if the mother needs her life saved; I don't see how someone can be fine with sacrificing a mother's life to save an unborn baby.  Rape is tough.  There is a 31% chance that the mother will develop PTSD from rape.  The ideologue pro lifers will argue that a fetus concieved from rape still shouldn't be aborted, but all they focus on is the fetus; never the female who pro lifers expect to sacrifice whatever it takes to save a fetus through sexual activity that was not her fault.  Making her be pregnant from something she did not consensually take the risk for would be a lot like forcing the pregnant female to sacrifice whatever it takes to save even one life in Africa.  The creation of a rape concieved fetus and the existence of a life in Africa was not something that isn't the fault of the female, yet pro lifers expect her to do whatever it takes to save the fetus and not the kid in Africa?  I'm not saying you should be forced to give to people in Africa, but because of that belief, I can't get behind banning abortions in cases of rape.  As for fetal defects, I don't think someone should be killed for being defected.  This is akin to killing all retarted people.

To what extent should abortion be allowed?  A zygote or embryo isn't a human being, but a fetus is and you become a fetus at about 6 weeks into pregnency.  There are times such as saving maternal life that abortion is acceptable.  I can't get behind banning abortions with rape.  Here are the conditions for which I would be fine with legalized abortion:

- Unrestricted until 6 weeks

- Allowed in situations of rape until 20 weeks

- Allowed to save maternal life until birth.

Any abortions outside of these parameters should be punished with around 50 hours of community service.

Thoughts?

I don't like politicians being partisan hacks that will say and do anything to get elected.

Every politician running should be an independent.  People will know what they stand for by having their 3 main goals written down on a ballot and if these goals were bipartisan, this would be better.  For instance, if I was running, my 3 goals would be:

1) Balancing the budget.

2) Increasing taxpayer count.

3) Repealing the income tax and replacing it with a capitol gains tax.

#1 and #3 are currently backed by the right and #2 is currently backed by the left.  That is fine because unlike over 90% of politicians, I think for myself.  Somebody can run against me that advocates for the following:

1) Pro choice on abortion

2) Pro choice on guns

3) More social programs.

If your a politician, nobody should care what your party is, only where you stand on issues.  Politicians on both sides are partisan hacks that should think for themselves.  But due to the groupthink of both parties, we see politicians often lying to their base to get elected.  This has to end otherwise people treat their party like a religion, agreeing with the party no matter what instead of being a free thinker.

I'd say this is the best way to contain communism and to get China to become a free society for the purposes of joining the LU and getting the trade benefits with it.

We also get to save money on the military since currently the world spends $1.6 trillion on the military a year and china spends about $200 Billion a year.  A world united against the communist countries can save $1 trillion a year on the military, still outspend China 2 to 1 and some of that money is used to improve the LU, some of that money can be used as a tax cut.

The constitution for the LU might be below:

If the world unites against the communist countries, we don't have to spend as much on the military per taxpayer and some of that money can go to social programs(liberals are happy), some of it can be used as a tax cut (conservatives are happy), and communism inevitably falls (America is happy).

If you want to ask me a question, it must be by sending me a question and not by asking on this thread.  Otherwise I don't plan on responding.  I'm trying to get the badge.

aaa

Pop swap definition: sending a native born of place A to place B and sending a native of place B to place A.

My idea is to implement a 4 million person pop swap between the US and Puerto Rico.  This means that 2 million consenting Puerto Ricans move to the US and 2 million consenting Americans move to Puerto Rico.  The purpose of this is to assiliminate the Puerto Ricans who move to the US by exposing them to anglophones and to make Puerto Rico into a more American, anglophone place by sending 2 million English speakers there which can set up PR becoming a state in the near future.

People would consent to the idea by them being offered enough money to move from PR to the US or vice versa.  Puerto Ricans would want the better opportunity in the US, Americans would want the tropical climate in PR.  Statehood for the island and privatization of government companies would reduce costs for the people in PR whether they be Anglophone of Hispanophone.

This I think can benefit everyone involved.

Who do you think it is?  I'm biased, so I'm going to claim that I have the biggest dick on DART.

Hello yall.  Suck my 7 inch Italian Stallion.

Pro lifer conservatives: 800,000 painless abortion deaths is a tragedy.

Also pro life conservatives: 600,000 extremely painful covid deaths are no big deal.

Me: Do you have ANY self awareness whatsoever?

If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage?  Marriage is a religious institution.

Because of this I think gay people should get civil unions/secular marriages so they aren't forcing the church to do something that violates their religious beliefs.

If your all powerful, can you create a stone so heavy that not even yourself can lift it?

If the answer is yes, then you are not all powerful because you cannot lift such a stone.

If the answer is no, then you are not all powerful because you cannot create such a stone.

Therefore it is impossible for God to be all powerful which would explain why he rarely answers our prayers, if he exists and is worthy of worship.

My priest if I told him this, "Think with your heart".

Me: "Facts don't care about your feelings".

The United states has 5% of the world's population yet 25% of the world's prison population.

This brings us to the question, how to reduce those numbers?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K3DSydn3aTWATPtm1q7PImKgqbR56IYI3af7suBuULk/edit#gid=0 states how we can reduce our prisoner count pretty drastically.  Some prisoners get freed, like those that are there for drug offenses, other crimes (like car theft) get less jail time and more of a rehabilitation approach.  Other crimes (like murder and rape) the death penalty gets applied for.  Repeal Kennedy vs Louisiana and Coker V Georgia so we can put rapists to death.

Combining these 2 things would reduce our prison population by around 70%, bringing our prison population more in line with the world average.

The US debt is perhaps the biggest issue this nation is facing that few are talking about.  Fortunately, I made a plan that I think is pretty effective on how to get this nation out of debt easily.

Of course, I made this idea myself so it could use some work from outside people.  If you like the plan, be sure to say so on this thread.  If you don't like this plan, feel free to place your criticisms on this thread.

SJWs: We believe in tolerance and being open minded, but if you disagree with BLM, Femenism, or Bernie Sanders, we will hate you for being priviliged.  But remember we are the tolerant ones.

Christians: God loves you and we love you.  If you don't like God or us, we will think you deserve to burn in hell forever.  But remember we love you.

Me: smh.

The British empire: Genocides tens of millions of Africans to expand their empire.  Based off the British ethnicity.  Authoritarian.

The French empire: Genocides tens of millions of Africans to expand their empire.  Based off the French ethnicity.  Authoritarian.

The Spanish empire: Genocides tens of millions of Native Americans to expand their empire.  Based off the Spanish ethnicity.  Authoritarian.

The Portuguese empire: Genocides tens of millions of Native Americans to expand their empire.  Based off the Portuguese ethnicity.  Authoritarian.

The Belgian Empire: Genocides 15 million Congolese for rubber.  Based off Belgian ethnicity.  Authoritarian.

The Chinese empire: Kills millions to expand their empire and to implement communism.  Based on authoritarian communism.  

The American empire: Genocides less people to build a democracy.  Based on enlightenment values.  Based on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  You are in charge of your own destiny.  The epitome of capitalism and freedom.  Attracts more immigrants than any other country(More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could (gallup.com)).  Motto: E Plurbus Unum.  Out of many one.  Out of many ethnicities, one nationality.  Out of many states, one nation.  Invents the 1st amendment and writes a 2nd amendment to protect it.  Implements the 8th amendment and many others.  Is the only superpower country to have a constitution that expands victimless rights and restricts government instead of restricting rights and expanding government.  A country that initially had not lived up to it's promise of freedom but gradually (and working on it) implementing more victimless freedoms.  Not perfect, but getting closer to perfection every day on average.  Double the per capita income of countries in the EU.  Only superpower to have an actual libetarian party (the UK's yellow party is on the left(What do the Liberal Democrats believe? (markpack.org.uk))).  Creates peace in other countries, like the ones in NATO and the Korean peninsula.

This is why people want to move to America instead of ethnostates like Britain, France, or Germany.

1) Believe women.  Currently I support the fifth amendment.

2) God.  Currently I don’t worship any higher power.

3) Abortion.  Currently, I’m pro choice.

4) Possibly others.  I don’t have a lot of time to make this list.

I support it right now, but I don't know the other side that well.

My dad is very against the school choice movement because he cites that autistic kids will suffer.  I think autistic kids would do better with school choice because they get to have more of specialized education that allows them to do better in their chosen field.

Everyone else also benefits.

I hope the mods don’t ban me for this.  This is merely a joke.

Time to use these migrants to get us out of debt!

Politics: There are over 20 political issues, such as, "Should abortion be legal?",  "Should taxes be raised", "Should we have more gun control" etc.

Religion: There is only one issue: Does God exist?

How come there are more posts from this one singular issue (The existence of God) then there are from every single political issue COMBINED?  There are more posts on the religion forum than all the political issues on the political forum.  WHY?

If you ever saw someone else you knew was from DART, how did you react?

Trump supporters: The election is rigged.

Gays: The erection is licked.

I thought it was kind of funny.

I just thought it was weird.

@Everyone:

Anyone seeing this thread can vote on who should be president of DART.  Currently your options are:

1) TheUnderdog

2) Wylted

The reason why this is a thread is because Wylted's profile says, "Current president of Dart until I am challenged and a process is set up for an election."(Wylted (debateart.com))  He is being challenged and this is an election.

@Wylted

Your presidential spot is being challenged.

I agree with the GOP roughly 65% of the time, but when prominent republicans say shit like below, I got to call it out:

If slavery becomes political, I might have to switch party allegiance.

Suppose you ask 100 random people, "Do you prefer freedom or tyranny?"  Most people would say they prefer freedom.

Suppose you ask 100 different random people, "Do you prefer anarchy or law and order?"  Most people would say they prefer law and order.

But as someone who realizes this inconsistency, I discovered a euphemism for anarchy is freedom, and a euphemism for tyranny is law and order.

If you ask 100 random people, "Do you prefer anarchy or tyranny?" or, "Do you prefer freedom or law and order", most people (since people are stupid) will be unsure which they prefer.

I don't like it.  Can't politicians get rid of euphemism in their rhetoric and focus on policies?  If someone claims to be a libetarian, I could claim they support a moderate anarchy.  If someone wants law and order, I could claim they support tyranny.

Keep euphemisms consistent.  If you refer to small government as, "freedom", you should refer to big government as, "law and order" and the same is true for the negative connotations of the words, "freedom" and, "law and order".

Thoughts?

I think the following units of time should be totally and completely eliminated:

-Hours

-Minutes

-Weeks

-Months

And 1 second of time should be a different amount of time.  Currently, there are 86400 seconds in a day.  I think a second should be slightly shorter in length so there are 100,000 seconds in a day.  The unit of time are:

1 day = 10 decidays

1 deciday =10centidays

1 centiday = 10 milliday

1 milliday = 10 decaseconds

1 decasecond = 10 metric seconds

Then units of time will be much easier to convert.  This is after America goes completely metric in all other regards in 2 years.

Screen-Shot-2018-11-13-at-10.34.52-AM.png (1382×1092) (whyy.org) states that the single motherhood rates are basically at all time highs for all races.  This site also states that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in single motherhood homes than whites.  This partially explains why blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in prison and why they are more likely to end up in poverty than whites. 

This isn't due to a racist police force that has as many minorities as a proportion of its population as the US population.  The lurking variable that many of our left leaning friends and family members fail to realize is the single motherhood epidemic that effects blacks and Hispanics more than it does whites.  Why this is the case is anyone's guess, but deadbeat African American dads not honoring their parental responsibilities is certainly not due to the perceived racism of society.

So this brings us to the question, how to reduce single motherhood so less people go to jail and less kids grow up in poverty.  My idea is to punish deadbeat parents for abandoning their parental responsibilities.

This consists of deadbeat dads getting a mandatory vastectomy and deadbeat moms getting their tubes tied.  The funds for this are paid for by the government and intended to be a deterrence to people to not abandon their parental responsibilities in order to provide their kids with hopefully a better life than they had.  If you abandon your parenting responsibilities once, you easily could do it again. 

This idea and deterrence reduces the foster kid count in addition to reducing the poverty and incarceration rate in the long term as anyone unwilling to get a vastectomy or their tubes tied would suck up the parenting responsibilities that they owe to their kids.  If they have to set their kids up for adoption, this is fine if they get their tubes tied or a vastectomy before they set their kids up for adoption or decide to be a deadbeat parent.  Otherwise, you might make the same mistake again.  This also helps reduce overpopulation.

This idea also allows very horny people to get sterilized, and then have all the sex they want without the fear of becoming a parent.

I fail to see the problem with this idea.  It reduces long term poverty rates, incarceration rates, foster kid rates, it reduces overpopulation, it reduces the welfare state, and it allows horny players to get all the consensual sex they can get without fearing being a parent.

I personally wouldn’t be against it.  Our senators and representatives  could get more factual information than they could from random complaints done by people that are less factual than the people on DART.  Next time I see my representative, I want to tell him about DART.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lQfy1PQl2STiQ69vFs_ZJrR9gCW82WD3_I8qKCZohrA/edit.Page 1 starts out all the times God advocates the death penalty for a group that does not deserve it.

Many Christians say, “The New Testament erases the Old Testament”.

Page 10 of this document shows the New Testament stating that the Old Testament is still valid and as a result, the New Testament advocates the death penalty for all the times the Old Testament did.

Because of this, I say good riddance to Christianity.  Unfortunately God still exists, but I need to find a different religion other than Christianity.

I honestly don't know too much about this bill.

If you support the green new deal, you can tell me why I should support it.

If you oppose the green new deal, you can tell me why I should oppose it.

Lets say you do something morally neutral such as buy a red car.  Society is pro choice on owning red cars.  But society would cease to be pro choice on red cars if the government offered to give them for free to low income people.  If the government did that, the government would be picking a side and encouraging poor people to get red cars.

Similarly, pro choicers often want the government to stay out of the abortion business.  However, they appear to be inconsistent with this idea because the majority of pro choicers (including Biden) want the government to pick a side on the abortion debate by giving women free abortions that want them.  If you want a red car, you pay for it yourself, since the government doesn't have a stance on whether or not you get a red car.  With the same logic, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.  The government should not be giving free abortions to people paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds.  Just as I wouldn't force a Christian to fund a satanic temple (even though I think they should be allowed to exist), I wouldn't have a Christian who opposes abortion be forced to fund abortions, which they don't approve of.  I want the amount of things people are legally forced to fund be minimal.

The political compass test often looks like this:

My objections with this is it has 2 axises:

1) An economic scale (left vs right)

2) A social scale (libetarian vs authoritarian)

The economic scale is out of whack.  The economic scale should be measured in authoritarian vs libetarian.  Economically left is the same thing as economically authoritarian (people in this category tend to favor Medicare for all for instance, which is not a libetarian idea) and economically right is the same thing as economically libetarian (lower taxes).  

With this new definition, the following becomes true:

-Someone who is "libetarian left" is libetarian on social issues and authoritarian on economic issues.  They are therefore a leftist.

-Someone who is "libetarian right" is libetarian on social issues and libetarian on economic issues.  They are therefore a libetarian.

The 10 commandments of the bible are:

Thoughts?

I support the believe women movement because all genders (men and women) are significantly more likely to be raped than they are to be falsely accused of rape.

FactCheck: Men are more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape – Channel 4 News states the following about the subject:

And many conservatives don't support believe women out of the fear that some are innocent.  However, most conservatives also support the death penalty even though there is a chance that some convicts are innocent.  I am willing to take a little bit of risk to secure justice.