TheUnderdog

Conservatives: We want small government.

Me: Then why are you pro life and anti open borders?

Democrats: We want big government.

Me: Then why are you pro choice and want less immigration restrictions?

Conservatives: We want the right to life.

Me: Then why do you oppose UHC?

Democrats: We want choice.  We are pro choice.

Me: Then why do you want to ban certain choices of firearms, like the AK47 and the AR15?

Conservatives: We want personal responsibility.  Right?  I mean, we want you to take responsibility for pregnencies, and we oppose welfare for the common person because they should take more personal responsibility.

Me: Then why do you want to give more welfare to corporations?  At least the poor person needs welfare to save their life.  The corporation is just using welfare to get richer.  I personally don't like either type of welfare.

Democrats: We wish to minimize pain.  Non consensual pregnency is painful and welfare minimizes pain.

Me: Then why are you guys applying cancel culture on many people?  That causes a lot of pain for people, and them getting cancelled causes more overall pain than people's feelings being hurt.  People's feelings last a few seconds, getting cancelled lasts much longer.

Libetarians: We want small government and we want more freedoms.  How are we inconsistent with this?

Me: Well, first off, you support nuclear energy, which is big government.  You claim the energy is safe, but that's a statist argument(they are the ones who want all these restrictions in the name of safety).  If nuclear energy was America's sole source of energy, it would cost taxpayers over $300 billion a year, which is 6x more than what conventional welfare costs the feds, and you think welfare is too much big government.  2nd off, you are against the death penalty, even though it is consistent pro choice ethic (being pro choice on abortion and letting the victims decide if they wish to execute their murderer).  You claim that the government shouldn't have the power to take someone's life.  However, the government doesn't have that power; the victims do, and the government merely executes the will of the victims onto the murderer (get the pun?).  There is the fear of executing someone that is innocent, however, there is a risk that an immigrant commits a murder and there is a risk that an AK 47 owner will commit a mass shooting.  However, you correctly point out that these risks are so rare, that they should not dictate national policy.

Conclusion: None of the 3 most common political parties are consistent and most of their members aren't either, not even the libetarians.  People should, "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" as instructed by the declaration of independence and think for themselves.

When Donald Trump was President, there was a time when he had the house and the senate.  Trump could have enacted a bunch of right wing legislation and the democrats couldn't stop them since they wouldn't have the votes.

Joe Biden is President now.  He now has the House and the Senate.  He can enact a bunch of left wing stuff.  He could ban AR 15s and AK 47s in the entire country.  He could enact his healthcare ideal right now.  I don't want him to do these things, but he has the votes.  Despite this, if he gets this done, it won't be for a long time.  This is like this in every country in the world.  Politicians are so slow.

Why are politicians so slow?

R2d598a0ab459c363b4e3b2a21f534b03 (800×611) (bing.com) shows that the spacetime fabric is below earth by approximately .4*the radius of earth (about 1500 km).  So this would mean that anything that is 1500 km below earth in the picture would cause a hole in the space time continuum.  This would mean that since the moon orbits earth at an 11 degree tilt, it means that anytime the moon goes below earth relative to the north pole would mean that the moon breaks a hole in the space time continuum.  It would also mean that if you launch a rocket from Antarctica and it gets a far enough distance away from earth, then that rocket would make a hole in the space time continuum.  If you launch a rocket from the north pole, you won't get this.

Democrats: We are so scared of blacks getting killed by the police, even though the odds of a black person dying from the police is .1% in their lifetime.

Me: You both are so scared of things that are so rare.  Can't we focus on bigger things like the US debt, which effects every American and will be solved easier with opening America's borders(since it quadruples America's population and therefore quadruples our GDP), or the single motherhood epidemic, which negatively impacts 70% of African American children and 40% of American children?  Lets not focus on super rare incidents and focus on things that impact significant portions of the country.  Make America Great Again(by great, I mean where we don't focus on rare but sensationalized events).

SJW Liberals: Hate speech should be banned.

Me: What do you think is hate speech?

SJW Liberals: Anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings.  The KKK are offensive to black people, ban Klansmen.  The Nazis are offensive to Jews, ban Nazis.  People who misgender on ideological grounds are offensive to transgenders, ban misgenderers.

Me:

The Pro life movement is offensive to women who have had abortions because your dehumanizing them as murderers.  Should we ban pro lifers?

The Pro choice movement is offensive to unborn babies because your dehumanizing them.  Should we ban pro choicers?

The Anti gun control crowd is offensive to victims of school shootings because it doesn't care about their feelings.  Should we force people to support gun control?

The Pro gun control crowd is offensive to owners of AK 47s because they don't care about the feelings of AK 47 owners.  They want to ban these guns regardless.  Should the

US make it illegal to support gun control?

Back the Blue offends black people, should we ban the Back the Blue movement?

BLM offends police officers, should we ban BLM?

Kneeling for the national anthem is hating where America is right now.  Is this hate speech towards America?

Being a Republican entails being hateful towards AOC.  Being a democrat entails being hateful towards Ted Cruz.  Are political parties now hate speech towards politicians?

Very few democrats want to ban Pro lifers, being Anti gun control, Back the Blue supporters, or Republicans.

Very few republicans want to ban Pro choicers, being Pro gun control, BLM supporters, or Democrats.

With the exception of the popularity of an idea (which shouldn't be a justification for banning an idea) there is no principled difference between banning Klansmen (which you could argue is hate speech towards black people) and banning pro lifers or pro choicers (you could argue that pro lifers preach hate speech towards women since they call women who get abortions murderers)(you could also argue that pro choicers preach hate speech towards unborn babies since they dehumanize unborn babies).

We should legalize being pro life, we should legalize being pro choice, and we should legalize being in the KKK.  Legalize all the ideologies.

I think reparations for slavery would be a terrible idea.  Enslaving white people for hundreds of years because blacks were enslaved before violates the 8th and 13th amendment.  It also would cause the repeal of the 2nd amendment, since white Americans would fight their 2nd amendment rights being taken from them.

There are thousands of species on planet earth, probably millions.

Each species on Earth, according to evolution has a common ancestor.

But if every species on earth had a common ancestor, then all of the animals that existed at this time would have interbred with each other and as a result, there would either be only be one species on this planet, or no species on the planet if the species starved to death due to our distant ancestors interbreeding with the ancestors of every other species(which was the same species back then, so viable offspring would be produced)

This is what would happen if science’s view on the origin of life was true.

But we know millions of species exist on this planet.  The alternative to evolution is creationism:

With creationism, every species was distinctly made by a higher power.  This explains the millions of species we know exist today.  

If evolution is real, the animals of the distant past would have interbred into unification.  If creationism is real, it helps explain why different  species exist today.

In Europe and Canada, the conservatives support free college and UHC from what I have heard.  So what separates them from the liberals?  Why don’t they become liberals if they agree with the left on everything?

Atheists: Then why is there evil?

Me: Why does God have to be all knowing, all powerful, and all loving(referred to as the 3 All characteristics?  I mean, is there a possibility that God is none of those things?  Where in the Bible does it say that God meets the 3 All characteristics?  Even if it is said in the Bible that God meets the 3 All characteristics, could that just be a metaphor?  I mean, God uses metaphors a lot.

Would you rather shoot a starving African kid and give them the easy way out(assuming you could get away with it)  or do nothing and let them die of starvation (which is more painful than a shot in the back of the head).

You aren’t allowed in this would you rather to feed them, as people just don’t do that.

It is because of this that I would shoot them in the back of the head; to end their suffering.

Lets legalize everything that doesn't have a victim with the crime.  Make America Great Again.

If the Christian god didn't exist, how did the pope get into power?  The bible says Jesus promoted Saint Peter.  Science has yet to provide an alternative answer.

What do you guys think of this?

The 2nd amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed".  Bearing arms is open carry.  It therefore should be legal in all 50 states.  Make America armed again.

I think food stamps should be banned because they encourage dependence on taxpayers without their consent and there are other ways for poor people to get food like soup kitchens, which are fine with giving food out to poor people.

I say no.  They provide protection against the following:

- The biggest mass shooter in history; tyrannical governments.

- It sets a precedent to ban all guns in the nation once people get used to certain gun bans.  Canada for instance allows cities to ban hand guns now or Treadeau wants to get that done.

They are also responsible for very little crime.  When Bill Clinton banned these guns in 1994 for 10 years, it had very little impact on homicide.

I think they should support free contraception.  It reduces abortions by a huge amount.

I think it would be a good idea to annex Panama.  We get a canal that benefits the US economy and the locals get out of poverty.  Sounds like a win win.

I'd say I support legalizing abortion before 6 weeks.  After that, ban it.  Also, I want to focus on expanding contraception access to reduce abortions.

I don't see a zygote as human, but a fetus is human; their cells have already specialized.  This isin't the case for a zygote or an embryo.

Thoughts on this DARTers?

I'm not, but was wondering if anyone was a flat earther.  I heard RM was one.

Noah's ark makes no sense.  My contentions with Noah's ark are:

1) Noah's ark takes up less space than the titanic, yet holds 4x the passenger count.  The titanic was built by many people with great technology.  Noah was the sole builder of the ark and he did not have access to the same amount of technology.  He probably did not have enough time even in his long life to build the ark.

2) In the Titanic, all the passengers used the bathroom.  All the animals on the other hand, pooped on the floor.  Noah would have to pick up the poop of tens of thousands of animals.  He did not have enough time to get this done and he and his crew would have been overrun with poop picking up all on their own.

3) Noah and his crew would have to pick up the poop of tens of thousands of animals every single day, probably twice a day or so all in the dark.  Electricity was not invented back then, and there was no light getting into the ark except from maybe a window even though window were invented after the flood supposedly happened.

It is because of this that I'm now an atheist.

Thoughts on this?

If you disagree with open borders, I want to know why because open borders seem pretty good to me.  One comment at a time though, I don't want to be spammed.

Seems like a waste of money to me.

I did a similar topic before, but to me it seems like it's consistent pro life ethic.

I honestly don't know too much about this issue.  Which country deserves ownership of Kosovo and why?

I can understand tearing down statues of confederate soldiers, although I would try and make a buck off of it by selling the statues to the highest museum bidder.

But why are we tearing own statues of Abraham Lincoln and Jesus?  Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves from slavery and Jesus freed us from hell.

AMAP.

Stands for Ask Me Anything Political.  I'm bored and out of ideas to talk about.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-overwhelmingly-support-roe-v-wade-but-still-favor-abortion-restrictions-2019-06-07 states that 77% of Americans want to keep Roe V Wade.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx states that only 46% of the population is pro choice.

Something is wrong with how people poll.

https://friedmanoftheplains.com/donald-trump-admits-to-paying-for-abortion-1c4ae9832770.

If abortion is really murder, then what Trump did is unforgivable, if he did it.