Total posts: 2,799
-->
@HistoryBuff
Does this not make you question what fox news tells you when they hype a "scandal" just for it to turn out to be absolutely nothing?
I have no clue what this "unmasking" even is.
I will tell you that this is much less characteristic of right-wing news sources than it is left-wing ones. Jussie Smollett, "Russia collusion"/Mueller Report, hyping up the illegally-taped Melania phone calls for no reason, and multiple other fake hate crime hoaxes were all hyped up and essentially all lies.
Damn near every single BLM martyr this year was some drug addict/drug dealer who got killed while violently resisting arrest or attacking a cop. Those are all hyped up by the anti-White mainstream media then the corrections are silently added to articles or ignored completely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
He's going to squirm like a maggot and I'm going to laugh my ass off.
Biden will probably forget that he is human, then lie on the ground and start wriggling like a maggot. Then I'd laugh MY ass off.
Honestly seems just as likely.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
yes, because they were the only one's they considered to be people. So unless you are considering illiterate people to be non-persons, your point doesn't have much merit.
Well damn, guess you consider 5 year-old to not be people because you don't think they should be allowed to vote. I guess voting is validation of your humanity. Let's let foreign nationals vote while we're at it!
because the power of the vote is the primary thing that gives people a voice in a democracy. Politicians have to at least pretend they are listening to you because your have power over them. As soon as a group is removed from the voter pool, they lose all importance. No politician is going to lift a finger to help someone who has neither the money to help them or a vote they can cast for them. It guarantees they have no voice and no power. It ensures that they are forced into an underclass that no one will help and no one will listen to. A free society should not allow that to ever happen.
Well, we were never meant to be a democracy because that amounts to "mob rule". You learn to read in like first grade. If you are an adult and cannot read at a fifth grade reading level for some literacy test, then I'm sorry but you have shown such little care for yourself and have neglected your civic duty to not be an imbecile.
that makes no sense. People who are forced to or choose to drop out of school are not going to be in a position where whether or not they will be able to vote will be a critical factor. If you have to drop out of school to get a job to feed your family, then losing your right to vote in the future is a small price to pay to protect those you love. You aren't going improve literacy by punishing those who fall through the cracks.
I don't think anyone is expecting you to read Shakespeare to be allowed to vote. If you are at the age at which you can work, and you cannot trudge through a few sentences (I don't know how you are getting jobs to feed your family if you are illiterate), then who is to even say that you will be voting correctly? They can fill out ballots completely wrong by not understanding directions. Seems quite hazardous to me.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your argument is that you want to make an underclass who have no representation because you don't think they are worthy of having a voice. I think America fought a revolution to put a stop to that.
Lmao, I thought you were a history buff. Didn't you know that only White landowners could vote when the country was founded?
I plan on barring stupid people from voting. If you can't even do something as simple as read, why should you impact highly complex issues by voting? I am not against the government funding education. In fact, I support school choice, so my policies would result in better literacy than whatever you would propose.
But if you reject that opportunity, drop out, and cannot read, then I definitely believe that you shouldn't vote.
Created:
-->
@Barney
same spirit? (pun intended)
I always appreciate a good pun, lol
Marijuana laws disproportionately affect a couple minority groups. I don't think that it affects them more is a dealbreaker in itself, but should be worthy of consideration both when the laws are passed and when they are upheld (the harm weighted against the benefit). The lack of benefit from said law, to me that is the dealbreaker. Further, in the standards of fairness, we repealed prohibition; so why then make something less harmful illegal in the same spirit? (pun intended)
Well, this isn't a court. I don't think we should use precedent in our decisions for a supposed fairness. Either legalizing marijuana is a good idea or it isn't. They both have their dangers. Both are bad for the mind, but marijuana really messes up the brain of people below 25 by weakening their memory.
But "ending the drug war" is an increasingly common position from more leftward types and they commonly cite that some minority groups are incarcerated more. This isn't a victimless crime, and I am saying that if certain minority groups are committing more harm by contributing to overdoses, then I have very little consideration that people causing harm are locked up. I look exclusively at the harm and ignore the perpetrators.
So it seems that we are more or less in agreement, just that I think that prosecuting drugs is something important enough to ignore the disparity in imprisonment.
I just think we should look exclusively at the harm committed and ignore whatever the demographics of the perpetrators happen to be. As I pointed out earlier, it seems like a big barrier to improving the country would be rejecting good policies just because we don't want to lock up or bar more of one group of people from doing something.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I'm hoping you meant to say dealbreaker, as opposed to even a consideration.
I’m a little confused. Could you provide an example of this being a dealbreaker vs not?
I would have a lot less problems with such a low now
Yeah, 80 years ago, when you still had Plessy v Ferguson, it was very obvious what the law’s intent was. They were actively trying to “keep a brother down”, so it was a racist law. Now, not so much
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
in what way is that a good law? You are talking about disenfranchising people because the system has failed them. If the system worked properly, there wouldn't be any illiterate people. How does removing what little voice those people have in society benefit anyone except those that want to completely ignore them?
I don't know about the system failing them or ignoring them. African Americans receive more funding per pupil than White students.
Some groups may value education less than others. However, education is important to making an informed voting choice, so I see little problem with telling every citizen that we have some bare minimum requirements for being able to substantially impact how the country is run.
Created:
-->
@Barney
On a side note, I think this clearly outlines one of the downfalls of living in a "diverse society" full of different racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.
Even if a law, like literacy tests, is a perfectly good idea, you can't implement it. For instance, let's say it disproportionately keeps African Americans from voting. Then the law gets repealed because of that.
My question is: WHY? It didn't suddenly become virtuous to be an illiterate voter. It is still bad to have illiterate people voting, but because a racial, cultural, or ethnic group is impacted more, we have to disregard a good, logical law.
I don't think we should choose laws that way. I think they should be passed purely on merit.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I don't think that disproportionately affecting some groups should be in consideration assuming that the actual law is logical.
Like a literacy test. I'm assuming in this context that means that you should see if people are literate before they can vote. I think that is a good idea. Now, it would be problematic if the government then took active steps to reduce literacy among certain groups.
But more men get arrested for crimes, and I don't think we should legalize crimes as a result. In the same spirit as I outlined above, I don't believe in legalizing drugs because black people get arrested for drug law violations more since I believe drugs are objectively harmful. However, if the law is unequally applied, then it becomes problematic, but I find combatting the unequal application to be the correct measure and not legalizing the crime.
So, I don't think this should be fair game for consideration of racism unless it was a) a law that was objectively bad in nature created to cause racist disparities or b) a good law in which clear, active steps were taken to create racist disparities.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
saying something is, by definition, an action. So your sentence is basically, actions speak louder than actions. When trump spews racism out to his millions of cult followers, that is a racist action.
If you want to play a semantic game instead of engaging with what you know I am arguing, then that's cool and all. Not very productive, though.
And if by "racist" you mean "things I disagree with because I like having wrong opinions" then yes, he says a ton of racist stuff.
This is a question about Trump as a person. He didn't come into existence the moment he became president. He was racist before he was president and he still is. I am referring to actions trump took that are undeniably racist.
He is asking about Trump supporters, which is implying Trump as president. If you could pinpoint some overtly racist policies and not "muh disproportionately affects" types of policies, I'd be happy to hear them.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
saying something racist is an action.
Actions speak louder than words. All he does is pander to minorities.
trump illegally lied to black people to keep them from living in his buildings. That seems to easily meet your definition.
This is a question about Trump as president. You are referencing a 1973 lawsuit that was settled out of court. Are we assuming that everyone is static and that nobody can change opinions or attitudes after almost 50 years?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I would think to consider him or anyone a "racist", it isn't merely just holding a racist belief. To let that be a defining feature of you (to actually be a "racist"), you must allow it to guide your actions. So, if his policies had obvious racist intent, then I would say he is probably racist.
Like not hiring someone because of race would make you a racist. Thinking that some race of candidate is less likely to be a good candidate (because of education statistics, culture, etc.), but then judging them fairly would mean that you are not racist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
For him to declare any person is either qualified or incompetent in any way due to the color of their skin, regardless of any particular shade of skin.
You mean by practicing affirmative action?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I mean, I don't deserve to be killed if I just stole some ordinary guy's wallet. Crimes has weight and I doubt Breonna Taylor is guilty enough for death penalty.
When your boyfriend starts shooting at cops, then that's kinda what happens. She wasn't shot for aiding a drug dealer. Had he not tried to kill a bunch of cops, everything would have gone peacefully. But no, it is always "THE COPS KILLED HER OVER DRUGS REEEEEEEEEEEEEE. THEY SHOULDN'T DO THATTTTTT"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You say "he will run our nation into the past" like it is somehow a bad thing. Conservatives like traditional values, which we used to have lol. Please take us back there, Donny!
And yes, I'll vote for Trump instead of that senile buffoon who will ruin the country through DACA amnesty, promotion of critical race theory among public servants, and abandoning all of the values that made this country great.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Biden is better than Trump. Trump is everything the US was and not the future, and he will run our nation into the past if he is there for another 4 years.
I hope so! I sure as hell don't want to continue on the path we have been going.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I liked Yang a lot because he was the only democrat who didn’t seem like a radical (Sanders) a transparent puppet (Biden, Buttigeg) or someone who has a seething ethnic hatred towards people like me (Warren, Harris). His policy focused approach was extremely refreshing even if I thought many of his policies were bad.
I thought Tulsi was pretty decent compared to the rest of them. I didn't mind Yang, either. He made a lot of good points about the dangers of automation for the working class.
If you are indeed worried about ethnic hatred towards you, I don't think that it is currently possible to vote Democrat, personally. They just push me further right every day lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Yeah, I was a little irked when Wallace started laughing with Biden. "I am having a hard time myself, teehee"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Bloomberg proved that no matter how deep your pockets, you cannot buy a nomination. It is all about connections and, more importantly, name recognition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Considering that was supposed to be the most "pro-Trump" """""MODERATOR""""", that was horrendous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I thought Trump did pretty well in his 2-on-1. Lots of dumb interrupting, as you said, though
What did you think of Chris Wallace’s “moderation”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Or just drop some anthrax on them. I don't want to pay for their contraception.
That percentage of world population wasn't really a big point of interest for this thread though, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It is uncertain because some of these benefits are activated based on how many kids you have. So, based on personal choices, there could be more or less spending. I would also foresee this taking government spending away from other government programs like government housing.
There are a lot of places that we can take funding away from to afford this, like ending forever wars. So assuming all of that is true, I wouldn't foresee a huge change in taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, this obviously isn't meant to be some comprehensive guide. There are a lot of variables that need working out. Like what happens if they are later determined to be unfit parents? Do you preempt that with some sort of interview? What happens during a divorce? A lot of relevant questions that don't necessarily need answering right now. I'm proposing this policy in a vacuum to see if self-described conservatives would hypothetically support a similar plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I would think that this program would be just like the one you preferred. In your case, the desired result of the lender is a 3.7-4.0 GPA. In my case, the desired result is larger families. They get paid after said result is achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
To be honest, probably both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I see it working like financial aid, you get it, use it, even if you flunk out, don't use the degree or find a job, you don't have to pay it back.
Could you dig a little deeper into that? Explain what you would like to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well the disappearance of certain subgroups would make the world a whole lot worse, so we should attempt to keep certain subgroups around
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I strongly support this, and other pro-natalist policies. Population growth and sustainment needs to come from the existing people, not through immigration.
Well this, ladies and gentlemen, is what you like to see. I have been noticing that we agree on more than I expected. Thought you were #YangGang
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
So I guess what separates this is that people are still expected to be decently self-reliant. It simply makes it possible for younger couples have children. Then, if they choose, it is possible to have more children than would otherwise be possible if they start at age 30, when fertility starts rapidly declining.
It also helps kids have a better life since parents are more likely to own homes, not raising kids in a small apartment. The American Dream includes owning a house :^) Overall, I would rate this as a conservative and pro-American policy. Even if it hypothetically wasn't conservative, I would still favor it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if u support financial aid for child rearing, and support affordable housing and such.... how are you different than a liberal? is it more your style? do you feel u r pushing smart policy whereas liberals push throwing money at problems?
I mean, like I said at the top, I don't really think that a truly conservative movement is just about the government not spending money.
It could be considered some sort of centrist policy I guess, because this is a conservative goal. Supporting the family and raising population domestically, instead of importing foreigners, to maintain cultural homogeneity is important.
This isn't designed to be some liberal "take care of you for life and coddle you" type program. It is offering good financial incentives to get you started out. Frontloading some low-interest loans and some grants to help you buy cars and a home for your kids seems a lot more conservative than saying "sucks to suck. You're poor, so I guess you just can't have kids".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well yes. It is obviously ok for having white skin. It is also ok to have black skins, blue skins, rainbow skins.
What about pigskins?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are agreeing with a good interpretation of events?
You know who else agreed with people sometimes? Hitler.
What's next, enforcing White supremacy??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
please show how this relates to white supremecy??
I've read through a couple times and have no clue how we went straight to that unhinged response.
Guessing he doesn't know any facts of the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Should we allow a random poem from over a century ago to dictate our immigration policy? Nope. It is no kind of foundational government document.
The Statue of Liberty was given to us by France to celebrate our freedom from Britain- something entirely unrelated to immigration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Financial barriers are a problem for the poor. If increasing the birth rate is desireable (or reducing the abortion rate) there is evidence from the fracking boom that increasing incomes among non-college educated men results in significantly more births.We confirm that these localized fracking booms ledto increased wages for non-college-educated men. A reduced form analysisreveals that in response to local-area fracking production, both marital andnon-marital births increaseThe point estimate implies that one thousand dollarof fracking production per capita is associated with an increase of 5.96 birthsper 1000 women (standard error of 0.96). In the peak years of the boom,simulated production per capita in the most intensive fracking counties wasbetween $500-$600 per capita, which would suggest that total births increasedby 3-3.6 births per 1000 women, or around three percent. This is consistentwith a positive income effect of income on fertility, as has been found in previousworkTBH I'd argue that deporting illegal aliens would probably do the trick, as this group of immigrants significantly depresses wages among those without college educations.
That is actually a very interesting point. I had no clue that something as simple as fracking could have such a profound effect on births.
I certainly would agree with deporting illegal aliens, and I also favor restricting legal immigration. Creating a tight labor market can increase wages and could perhaps reduce part of the need for the program I listed above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If the GOP doesn't get their head out of their rear end and start supporting pro-family policies soon, then they are finished, and rightly so. A classical liberal movement masquerading as a conservative movement doesn't deserve to last.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well we already have some tax credits, but they aren't significant. And unless you plan on making it a refundable and large tax credit, it probably wouldn't help people unless they are fairly wealthy. But then, refundable credits are more like reimbursements and that assumes people have the money to spend upfront. Preferential loans provide the capital upfront so that the program can be used widespread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well for one, I don't support subsidizing the Third World having far more children than they can handle.
Second, it is good to have children with strong roots in the country. I don't subscribe to that "nation of immigrants" silly business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think that conservatives lose by focusing on being against "welfare" policies. Their goal is to support the family, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with this program in my eyes. Building childcare facilities, making homebuying more affordable for families, and providing low-interest loans can help them get their lives in order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do that when you can make Americans at home and skip over that whole "assimilation" business?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm afraid that I don't follow. Are you advocating for the destruction of individual cultures?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not entirely sure that they didn't care about their child dying before.
And there is a large difference between an induced abortion and infant mortality. One is a deliberate act by the parent(s), and one is a terrible consequence of nature.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you mean by responsibility? Do you mean that because of dependence, she should get to choose if she kills it or not?
Created:
-->
@Death23
This is precisely why it is necessary to launch a preemptive strike.
That's cheating! Against the Geneva convention!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The US currently has 4% of the world population, and our native population is dying. If anything, the Third World should be having less kids, not us.
Created:
-->
@Death23
That isn't a fair fight! Give them 25 years to reach the peak of their abilities, then try to kill them!
Created:
-->
@Death23
Whenever they would be classified as one cell instead of multiple, scientifically speaking. That fusion of the gametes indicates that a new organism was created, and thus that is a new life, different from either parent.
Created:
Posted in:
I feel like a lot of conservatives jump on the "fiscal responsibility" and "low spending" bandwagons, while the conservative movement throughout history has centered around the family. Almost a quarter of abortions are because of monetary concerns.
Many married couples both have to work to be able to buy a house, car, and the average age for having a first child now is 26.9 years old. This number was 21.4 in 1970. This includes a lot of concerns such as decreasing fertility and parents having less children. This has resulted in an aging population and people with an average birth rate of 1.77, which is below replacement. So, our population is decreasing without considering immigration, leading to a cultural shift.
Based on a shifting culture and many people having to put work over children for a significant point of their life, I think that below is a great position that conservatives in America should support.
So, Hungary has recently released a seven-point plan to support families. It goes as follows:
- 1. Every woman under the age of forty who gets married for the first time will be eligible for a preferential loan of up to HUF 10 million($32,000). Repayment of the loan will be suspended for three years after the birth of a child, and for another three years after a second. In addition, one third of the principal of the loan will be written off after the birth of a second child. If a third child is born, the remaining debt will be cancelled in its entirety.
- 2. Preferential loans available under the already established family housing benefit scheme will be extended. At present families with two children can receive low interest loans of HUF 10 million($32,000) for the purchase of new homes, while families with three or more children have access to corresponding preferential loans of HUF 15 million($48,000). In the future, families with two or more children will also be able to use such loans for the purchase of existing properties.
- 3. Up until now the Government has provided mortgage repayment relief of one million forints for large families when a third child is born, and a further one million forints($3,200) for each subsequent child. From now on the Government will provide this relief of one million forints($3,200) when a second child is born, a further HUF four million ($13,000) for the birth of a third child, and one million forints ($3,200) after the birth of every subsequent child.
- 4. He said that women who have given birth to and raised four or more children will be exempt from personal income tax for the rest of their lives.
- 5. He also announced the introduction of a car purchase program for large families. The Government will provide families raising at least three children with a non-repayable grant of HUF 2.5 million ($8,000) for the purchase of new cars with at least seven seats.
- 6. Mr. Orbán went on to say that universal crèche care will be made available. Over a period of three years, 21,000 new places will be created in crèches(childcare facilities): 10,000 this year, 5,000 in 2020 and 6,000 in 2021. This means that by 2022 every family will be able to place their young children in crèche facilities.
- 7. The seventh point of the action plan is the introduction of childcare payments for grandparents: if parents so decide, grandparents will be able to receive childcare payments instead of them. He also announced the modernization of language teaching in secondary schools, which will enable every secondary school student to attend two-week language courses abroad in the summer breaks of their 9th and 11th years in education.
Is there anything you would like to add or criticize if you would consider yourself a conservative? (The libs and lefties can offer input, too, I guess. I'm assuming you would have different reasons for supporting or criticizing such a policy than that I have outlined, though).
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Really, the only consistent argument would be at conception, outside of the mother dying from giving birth.
Anything else like "viability" or "sentience" is just arbitrary criteria.
Either all innocent lives matter or none of them do.
Created: