Total posts: 4,340
-->
@FLRW
In a lot of nations (like Canada and the UK), it's possible for their leader to not win a majority of the vote as well.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
But in the EU; it's about half.
People that live in countries with UHC don't go to the doctor's every day; they may go 3x a year (whereas now, people may go 2x a year if they have healthcare, 0x a year if they don't).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Patients go to doctor much more often than they normally would
So you don't like patients taking good care of their health?
driving prices up
If the taxpayer pays for UHC, this is irrelevant.
creating long waiting lines.
Then you hire more doctors.
There was even a case of a dentist intentionally lying to patients and pulling much more teeth than necessary because government payed him per pulled tooth.
Then he should lose his lisence.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
There's a world of difference between1. changing the laws so these crimes carry the death penalty and2. killing everyone convicted of such in the past when a different penalty applied, and including those who've already served their sentences and are free.
I only advocate position 1 and anyone who is currently in jail for a murder/r@pe charge. Those who already served their sentence I would not execute; it's pointless; but I would eliminate their welfare even if that leads to their deaths. I would also clear criminal records for all crimes where the prisoner did their time; I would free all the nonviolent drug offenders; I don't see anything wrong with smoking weed or being undocumented; but murder and r@pe should carry a death sentence. I'm high slope.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You didn't address the rest of what I said. Typical from fake libertarians, all about cutting government spending until it's time to pick a program. Just join the DSA or something; they are more in line with your ideology.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For the person, death penalty is often less bad than life in prison.
Irrelevant; my concern is spending money on prisoners; not their pain (from a humanist or sadistic perspective). The death penalty when you get rid of appeals saves the US taxpayer $25.2 billion/year (which if you are libertarian, then you like this).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
But that doesn't matter to people who are inclined to vote for Trump
If this is true, then Trump can fire Vance and his base won't care; I wouldn't even care and I hate Trump.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not a fan of free healthcare, because people abuse it.
How would people abuse healthcare?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
your dollar is more important to you than a kid you don't know, full stop.
Yes; this is just libertarian/fiscal conservatism ideology. I just have enough honesty to admit it; although if you prefer the left wing belief, that's fine. Think that's too cruel? Then donate your money to an orphaniche.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
because there is no will to kill them and no sense of economy in government.
Yeah, but libertarians claim to be against massive government spending, and if you don't cut spending on murderers, then it's pointless to cut it anywhere else because murderers deserve the money the least. People that call themselves libertarians are not about that life.
This is like saying "government should build restrooms" then upon learning that they steal $100,000 per stall per year you say "restrooms are far too expensive, it would be cheaper to just defecate on the sidewalk and have the government clean it up"
Restaurants have bathrooms. Go there if you need to.
So then get rid of the appeals. You get one trial; if you are found guilty, then you get killed within 2 minutes.Of course I know he's either playing a stupid game or has a large dent in his skull so there is very little point trying to explain anything to him.
Ad homing attacks are irrelevant. Why can't you get rid of appeals for murder charges? Government spending must be cut according to libertarian ideology. Believe I'm stupid if you want; but the lives of prisoners don't matter to me (as they shouldn't for any consistent libertarian). Like, cutting government spending is uncomfortable for even most people that call themselves libertarians when they have to name a bunch of programs they would cut to balance the budget; so don't call yourself libertarians; call yourselves green party members; they are anti foreign war; they are anti drug war.
I'm not mad at green party people or DSA or any left group like that; I'm not against you converting over to the green party or the DSA; they want free healthcare for not just murderers, but everybody in the US, and I'm not against them believing that, but just be honest about what you believe; that's all. You more into guns? Then socialism would be the party for you (not an insult; I respect the socialist ideology; but just be honest with what you believe; that's all).
Created:
You see this child:
Lets say this child comes to the US with their parents, doesn't have papers, and gets sick enough to where they will go in the hospital and one of the 2 following things will happen:
- The child has their health bills paid for by US taxpayers.
- The child dies a painful death.
I am willing to prefer option 2 to option 1 because my tax dollars matter more to me than the life of a stranger child (this applies to all children regardless of citizenship status). I don't care if the child looks like this, or this or this. I do not want my tax dollars going to take care of other people's kids; my tax cuts matter to me more than their lives, so I am literally willing to look at these poor desperate kids and turn them away and let them die.
If you select option 1 and you are on the left, then I respect that; I really do. You believe unwanted pain should be reduced, so you logically from your brain patterns would pick option 1 and I don't agree; but I can respect it. But most conservatives and libertarians don't have the integrity to say what I said because they are afraid of looking unpopular to normie America, who doesn't care how much it costs; they don't like seeing children suffer, so they would tolerate the tax hikes they don't notice to save more people. At least the leftist is honest; I can respect that. But most of the conservatives and libertarians aren't honest. Conservatives and libertarians should pick an option and I don't care with what option they pick; but if they don't pick option 2; then they should leave the party; no hurt feelings towards them; you can pick option 1 and I won't be upset; but just be honest.
Created:
-->
@Savant
So then get rid of the appeals. You get one trial; if you are found guilty, then you get killed within 2 minutes. Some innocent people would die, but the money saved is a tradeoff (and the uncomfortable truth is human life does not have infinite value; if it did, then the state can force you to adopt as many children as you can afford if it saves just one more life than foster care). If an innocent child's life does not have infinite value, then neither does an innocent adult believed to be guilty.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It doesn't actually cost that much money to imprison people (especially with forced labor)
Sentencing them to hard labor causes them to run off and it's too dangerous.
But we spend enough money (currently) taking care of murderers and r@pists to give every public school teacher in this nation an annual $8400/year raise. And if (from the libetarian perspective) undocumented immigrants should not get free healthcare, then neither should murderers and r@pists because murderers and r@pists are worse. From the socialist perspective, it makes sense (even if you don't agree; tax the globalists and use the money to help the poor. The libetarian ideology of giving free healthcare to murderers but not the undocumented is a contradiction because murderers are worse.
We need to do a Halocaust on murderers and r@pists because cutting taxes matters more than their lives. I got the balls to say this; most libetarians don't.
No. You're wrong, and you don't get to pick and sort people into two (and only) two buckets even if you were right.
Then what particular government program do libetarians want to cut to the extent where the budget gets balenced? Our defecit to spending ratio is about 20%; meaning you are going to have to cut government spending by 20% and this means government employees (teachers, cops, soliders) are going to be worse off. The alternative is raising taxes (something libetarians are opposed too).
Saying, "Cut taxes/government spending" is easy.
Saying, "Cut government spending on (CGSO) education" or CGSO police or CGSO military (a 50% reduction in military spending means half of military employees get laid off and lose their jobs) or, CGSO the national parks or CGSO social security, medicare, or medicaid is something libetarians and fiscal republicans don't have the balls to say, but is necesesary to actually cut government spending.
If people as bad as murderers get free healthcare in jail no matter the cost, then America will stay a fiscally left wing country for the forseeable future and republicans may win political power, but fiscal conservative policies that cut government spending won't get implemented because cutting government spending is unpopular; increasing government spending is popular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
San Francisco = Harvey Milk = flamboyant gays
I didn't associate SanFran with gays, but it makes sense. I just thought it was super duper left wing because of all the tech workers there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You being proud of Kamala Harris being a SanFran liberal.
Created:
I tend to frame popular ideas in an unpopular way. For example, I think we should commit a full blown Halocaust against the murderer and r@pist communities because I don’t want tax dollars going to feed them.
If that turns you off, then fine. But the majority of America agrees.
My tax cuts matter more to me than murderer lives. My tax cuts even matter more to me than the lives of other people’s kids. If you think that’s hate speech, it’s just fiscally conservative speech.
Some poor people will suffer if you cut taxes and government spending. That’s just harsh reality. Accept that or become fiscally left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
While Technically true, how is framing her like that going to win over independents and the genuinely undecided?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
True, but JD Vance should state why he changed his mind on trump and walk through his thought process as to how he went from anti Trump to Pro Trump.
Created:
@gp
Anyone that triggers you guys is a badass.
Mao triggers me. Hitler also triggers me. Do you think he’s a badass? Take your statement back or become a communist Nazi hybrid.
Created:
If the democrats can re select Biden as their POTUS candidate, then Trump re-selecting his VP pick is not as unorthodox I think. Whoever his VP pick is, Roosevelt will claim they are a bad VP pick and I think republicans in general would like it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
They may not be able to take on the world, but they can still help.
They may be able to help by sending $200 million in a year to help us (it won't be their whole military budget). We spend $4 billion helping them when they are more likely to need our help than vice versa. Ukraine is about as likely to help the US if we get invaded as Israel is. Although, if the US gets invaded, then who would actually do the invading? No way is Canada going to invade the US.
BUT since they are allies we have to live up the alliance.
The left says this with Ukraine. They have their excuses for Ukraine and the right has their excuses for Israel; but excuses are like assholes; everyone's got one and they all stink.
If they can prove their "jewishness", no. But don't you think the US enemies would claim asylum as a Jew too?
If a hypothetical Gazan hated America, then why would they move here? It's like expecting a hardcore Trump supporter from Texas to move to San Fransisco; it won't happen. If a Texan does move to San Fransisco, they almost certainly are left of center (pro San Fransisco). If a Gazan moves to America, then they are almost certainly pro America.
If those groups of people are "home grown" or if they come in from outside the nation, they are still a threat. So I never said to kick them out because we don't know who they are. I said to vet them to make sure we know who they are.
So then if you think someone whether foreign born or native born is a terrorist, then have the FBI go after them; not ICE. If your solution is to vet the undocumented without the threat of deportation (execution if they are a terrorist; citizenship if they aren't), then that's fine; but then you would have to go into Queens and similar areas just to give everyone papers in their home.
Deport the illegals and you will catch the terrorists too (too broad of a brush, I know).
You just said this:
So I never said to kick them out because we don't know who they are.
Broad brushes are collectivist. People should be treated as individuals, not groups. This is why I don't agree with any AR 15 ban because the vast majority of AR 15 owners aren't mass shooters.
I'm all for immigration and I do think the immigration system is broken and much too slow for anyone wanting to come here for a new life.
Name me a single requirement you would impose on all immigrants that if a native born citizen does not meet it, then you would kick them out of the US. I can't think of any, so I would have to support open borders/abolishing ICE or whatever term you want to use.
I live in Phoenix and so I personally KNOW and work with undocumented people ALL THE TIME. I want those people to come here and get a better life, BUT we must make sure we bring in good people and not crooks, cartels and terrorists.
Unfortunately, it's a package deal; deporting the crooks, cartels, and terrorists also means deporting the undocumented people you know and don't want to get kicked out. The alternative is to execute the terrorists, the cartels if they target kids, and the crooks would be sent to community service and if they run off, then they get recaptured and whipped so they complete their service (revenue generated goes to the victims of the crime). Theft should be designed to rehabilite thieves so they are less likely to steal, but also the victims should be compensated paid for by the ex thief's hard labor.
You open the flood gates and you get the carp(nasty) with the bass fish(tasty). Make it specific and we can get the best of both worlds.
I don't fish (and I'm assuming you don't either because you live in a desert state) but the difference is you can tell these fish apart by looking at them. You can't do that with the terrorist/good immigrant dichotomy. It's better to kill the ones that are terrorists; let the safe ones in; maybe an Ellis Island approach that is extremely cheap and quick.
I want more people in the US to grow GDP the most to make it easier to pay off the debt and to keep America ahead of the communist Chinese.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Israel is our Ally and so we support them when the need arises. That's how alliances work. It would go the other way if we were to be attacked.
The left says the same thing about Ukraine. If the US gets attacked (highly unlikely given we are in NATO and NATO combined has close a majority of the world's military spending and no way will the rest of the world unite against NATO to invade a NATO nation). The US population is 340 million people; Israel's is 10 million. Israel won't' be able to help us much in the rare event the US does get attacked.
I think we should not allow gobs of money and supplies to be sent there. They are a dead man fighting, only propped up with the stick of US funding. Israel is much different.
How? Without US funding, Ukraine loses land to Russia; without US funding; Israel loses land to Palestine. Neither are America's problem.
The Jews are not fleeing for their life though. They are actively kicking butt.
Alright; so the Jews in Israel don't need our help, so don't give it to them.
If the need arose for them to flee, then we would create some sort of asylum for them, but this is not the case.
What if the Jews came here undocumented (some will)? Would you send them back to the middle east where they get bombed?
"MAGA" doesn't allow a free for all at the border because we don't know who is coming in.
There are 340 million people in the US; I don't know who the vast majority of them are and that's fine; they are strangers. They should not get kicked out just because I don't know who they are. I'm an American Citizen; I would prefer it if an ever expanding bureaucratic state knew practically nothing on me because I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful tyranny.
There are a lot of terrorists being caught but that doesn't count for any of the "got aways" that have not been caught or even noticed.
If someone commits a terrorist attack, then they should get killed. However, the vast majority of the undocumented are not terrorists.
You may say
You need to prevent terrorist attacks
Here's how you do that deportation free:
You need to understand what terrorist target. 9/11 happened to the twin towers; not a nuclear power plant (even though millions of people rely on a few nuclear power plants; only a few thousand people rely on the twin towers); because terrorists go after symbols (which the twin towers are and a nuclear power plant is not). Causing suffering is not the goal of terrorists; going after symbols is the goal.
So what do you do to prevent future terrorist attacks? You protect the symbols. Lets take the Twin towers as an example; the new equivalent of that is the freedom tower. To prevent the freedom towers from being destroyed, you hire 2-5 pilots whose job it is to circle the freedom tower making sure nobody tries to recreate 9/11 and shoot down any plane that gets too close (due to us thinking they would destroy the towers). You also have airport style security at the freedom tower so nobody could walk in and plant bombs in the freedom tower.
This is a much better way to deal with terrorist attack prevention than deporting millions of people that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Hamas attacked Israel. Israel COUNTERATTACKED.
I don't want Israel counterattacking if the American taxpayer has to pay for it. I believe in America first, for both Ukraine and Israel.
You may say:
Israel is our ally
The left says the same thing about Ukraine.
Or:
Israel helps us against the Muslims!
The left says the same thing about Ukraine and the Russians.
Funding Ukraine or Israel is not putting America first!
You want to help the Jews? Then let them move to the US documented or not. MAGA world won't allow that though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Great news for socialists: a new study has found that intelligent people are more likely to hold left-wing views.
If I were to say, "Great news for Richard Spencer: a new study has found that intelligent people are more likely to be white or Asian.", then I get kicked off for bigotry. If we were being logically consistent, this is anti-conservative bigotry.
Created:
@wylted
For example you most likely oppose strong border security because things like building a wall sound xenophobic to you, so instead of looking at the best arguments for a border wall, you just base your belief on the feeling that it is xenophobic and have the knee jerk reaction to opposing it.
Why should we have a border wall and why can't ICE be abolished? I'm legitimately looking for the best reasons right now.
Created:
I've noticed when the right so strongly believes in an issue (like being pro deportation), the most extreme proponents of that belief will argue that it's, "not political" when in fact it is. The far left does this with abortion legalization, "Abortion isn't political; many republicans get abortions".
The people that tell you Issue X is not political are wrong; the issue is strongly political; they just assume nobody disagrees with them on immigration, abortion, guns, taxes, or anything like that when in fact, they are incorrect.
If you have a strong opinion on an issue, at least acknowledge that you are being political.
Created:
What's the difference?
Seeing immigrants as human beings means seeing Pablo (married to Maria), with his 6 year old son that likes Trucks and 4 year old daughter that likes dolls, Edwardo (married to Suzanna), who has a 9 year old son that loves sports.
Seeing them as population means seeing 4 adults and 3 kids (interests of stranger's children is irrelevant to me; I don't care so no need to bring it up), not wanting to kick the adults out even if undocumented, but not giving them welfare even if it means their kids starve because your personal lives in harmless cases are irrelevant to me. I don't care about where you are from; be fiscally productive and take care of your own kids.
Immigrants aren't human beings; they are population.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
He grabs them by the pussy. He doesn't even ask.
He said they let you do it, implying it's consensual.
Created:
Posted in:
In the US, an immigrant is not allowed to legally run for POTUS. I don't see the point in that law.
If you are a left winger, then who would you rather have as POTUS? Cenk Uygur or Donald Trump?
If you are a right winger, then who would you rather have as POTUS? AOC or Elon Musk?
In both situations, people would pick the immigrant.
Also:
If you are a left winger, then who would you rather have as POTUS? AOC or Donald Trump?
If you are a right winger, then who would you rather have as POTUS? Bernie Sanders or Will Witt (PragerU representative)?
In order for the left and right winger to pick someone from their party, they would have to pick someone under 35 (and they would), so neither party has a principled stance against those under 35 from being POTUS.
Because of this, I think the minimum age to become a POTUS should be 0. Now, if a 5 year old is running against a 45 year old in a primary, then the 5 year old isn't winning, but if a 34 year old runs against a 46 year old and the 34 year old is very good at arguing, then it's fine if the 34 year old wins the primary and eventually the general.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Imagine if everyone was like Trump: greedy, insulting, corrupted, power hungry, pussy grabber... what a great country you would have!
Corruption is wrong and I hate Trump; but I don't see anything wrong with greed or consensual pussy grabs as a capitalist.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
A woman is shot in the face in her own kitchen by a Illinois police officer.
Qualified immunity should absolutely be repealed and if the cop is guilty of murder, then they should be executed. But this woman is a stranger to me; and I don't care too much about the lives of strangers.
Created:
@wylted
He is talking about doing such a great job that it will make most people republican when they see all the good he has done for the country.
This is the right wing argument. The left wing argument is Trump is saying voting won't be an option due to Trump becoming a dicator. But what is his plan to make the US better? It's easy for a politician to say, "Vote for me because I want to make this country very great for everyone in it!", but it's a lot harder to come up with a plan to get it done. Without the plan, it's a platitude (with the right wing interpretation). The left wing interpretation is it's Trump signalling to everyone that he wants to end elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I find conservatives are far more likely to lose composure or "crack" than liberals because liberals stand steadfast on a pillar of humanity. And it amuses me.
Correct; the left is consistently against unwanted pain; the right therefore is more sadistic. Don't like being with a sadist party? Then leave the conservative party; like what do you want me to tell you?
Created:
Posted in:
@wylted
It depends on how it is subsidized. If you look at Devry university for example their entire model m is built on how much money they can milk out of government subsidies and loans, which increases prices for those not taking Pell grants.
How is this any different than public school?
I would also say that there are too many businesses demanding college education for jobs that train you on the job or don't need it anyway.
I would say though the college process filters out a lot of the people that think they can do the job, but can't. Like, when I was in HS, I thought I could become a chemical engineer. I try some of the math for the intro course, I sucked at it. But I'm better at actuarial math.
My opinions on property tax, which is what funds school is more nuanced and probably more in line with the liberal position. I would also likely be speaking over your head by going into property taxes, how schools are fun a Ed etc.However other taxes than that should be low enough not to disincentivize work or cause money to move out of the economy by sending companies overseas.
States subsidize education to a significant extent. I don't agree with an income tax, but the idea that corporations will pack up their bags and move to where there are low taxes is not well thought out. There are 193 nations in the world; only one of them has the lowest tax rate for corporations in the world (unless there is a tie). If your argument was true, then corporations would already move out of any area that did not have the lowest tax rate in the world.
I would also say that yes, it is easier in general to live in places with lower taxes like Texas than high tax liberal utopias like sanfransisco or LA. You can cherry pick some states like CT, but when you look at things like the economic freedom index there is a very high correlation between economic freedom and high standards of living.
There are good and bad left and right wing places to live. CT and Westchester are good left wing places; Putnam County and Orange County, CA are good right wing places; the rust belt has a lot of bad right wing areas; Bridgeport has bad left wing places. The Economic freedom index argues Scandinavia has high economic freedom (and it's what Bernie Sanders wants to turn America into).
Him specifically it probably harms them that he has disposable income to influence elections, but in general it is best if billionaires keep their money in the United States.
So then you only believe in high taxes for billionaires that choose to corrupt politicians? This would apply to Elon Musk as well. Why not just get rid of Citizens United (aka drain the swamp)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Adverse Childhood Experiences lead to a very specific kind of trauma.
I hear that, but JD Vance believes that he can both live with his trauma and be a VP. If lets say Trump wins and JD Vance decides he can no longer take it; he can step down anytime he wants too.
Who would you want Trump to pick as his VP? Because would you rather have it be JD Vance or Ron DeSantis? You hate both options; and you would hate any realistic VP pick Trump makes and you would have some alternative reason that has the illusion of objectivity as to why they would be poorly fit to be his VP. Maybe with DeSantis, a woman accuses him of r@pe. Maybe with Vivek, it turns out he is a deadbeat dad. Maybe with Kid Rock, it's that Kid Rock is the parent of an aborted baby. Maybe with Tucker Carlson, it's a DUI that he would have done. You will always find some dirt on the people you would dislike even if you could find no dirt on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
A woman argues that being r@ped at any age is worse for her than murder. I don't believe what JD Vance has endured is as bad as him getting murdered.
And it was long enough ago to where he almost certainly has gotten adequate therapy on it and he's mostly healed. People can largely heal; he wouldn't run for VP if his childhood was harming him.
Cori Bush was still a minor when she got r@ped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
They affect a person’s mental and physical health and do permanent damage. J D Vance no doubt has a very high ACE score.
Plausibly, but also Cori Bush was r@ped, so she probably has similar stuff (like PTSD). I don't want to set the precedent of banning r@pe victims or really any trauma victims from POTUS or VP. It's victim shaming; basically. I'm sure JD Vance went to therapy over it (as did Cori Bush) and they manage it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thanks to vaccines and modern medicine, the weak ones survive, but their weakness does not go away, but spreads to next generation through reproduction.
Technology has also made us weaker. So are you going to get off the internet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I’m simply trying to educate the people on this site, particularly the MAGA MORONS, because I know they won’t read his book and they are not using media sources that will give them a complete and accurate picture of his background.
MAGA world doesn't care about Vance's childhood and even I (who hate Trump) don't care what JD Vance went through as a child. You could be r@ped as a child hundreds of times; I'm not going to judge the child for that. I would judge the abuser.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Israel has to defend itself.
Not with the US taxpayer dime. I believe in America first, not Israel first. Same thing with Ukraine.
You may say:
Israel is our ally
The left says the same thing about Ukraine.
Or:
Israel helps us against the Muslims!
The left says the same thing about Ukraine and the Russians.
Funding Ukraine or Israel is not putting America first!
You want to help the Jews? Then let them move to the US documented or not. MAGA world won't allow that though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
It is about the social & moral decline of America. If America turns into a communist country (no morals, no freedom, etc)
Morals restrict freedom; sometimes it's justified (no murder, no r@pe, etc) and other times it is not justified (banning AR 15s, weed or adult gay sex). But it is a contradiction to have no morals and no freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Then why do Europeans live longer on average
More food regulations
Regulating the free market to make food healthier is left wing buddy.
College education costs have risen due to hoe much of it is now socialized and also the value of a degree has went down now that is has been made easier to get.
So you believe subsidizing college leads to college being more expensive for the consumer? Everything that is subsidized becomes cheaper to the consumer; we have free highschool; why not free college?
Obviously sorts is not the only one that benefits of policies thay cause a strong economy such as low taxes.
You think CT has a weaker economy than Alabama? CT has a lower poverty rate and a higher GDP per captia (probably because our wonderful public school teachers get better funded). Low taxes -> less money for education.
But how does lot taxes for George Soros lead to Hillbillies from WV being better off?
Poor people also benefit from the economy being good
This is obviously true, but the economy is better in CT than Alabama.
Created:
Posted in:
Poor people are fine. Republican voters are fine. When you are a poor republican voter on the other hand, you make no sense to me. You may not want Lia Thomas to compete with women in sports, but is that really a bigger issue for you than your healthcare bills? Or your child's college education costs? If George Soros is paying more money in taxes, then why would you care? You are not George Soros.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
For someone who spends so much time preaching about 'thinking for yourself' you sure seem to be projecting the opposite.
That was not the implication. I respect Musk being pro Palestine. But I would assume a lot of right wingers would cancel him over it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
JD Vance thinks women should stay in abusive marriages.
His main argument for wanting to make it harder to divorce is the woman taking half of the man's money if they divorce (which prenups don't always protect against). I wouldn't want to lose half of my assets in a divorce. All it takes is for the woman to cheat on you and then you either have to deal with a cheating wife or you divorce her and she takes half of your money. Although if the relationship is abusive, then there probably should be a divorce (but don't socialize funds). When you are a capitalist, your money matters more to you than your wife's pain. Don't like that? Then become socialist; like what do you want me to tell you?
Women shouldn't have the right to control their own bodies
Well when you are republican, a zygote's life (70-90 years) matters more to you than a woman's pain (9 months).
and men should have the right to beat them.
I don't think he said this, but I might be wrong.
This is the GOP going after the woman vote LOL.
Most women that vote GOP are still going to vote GOP (and the gender gap between voting patterns is only like 6%). A republican has a higher chance of being a woman than a libertarian does of being a woman (and libertarians are pro choice). Not all women care that much about abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If this was the case for Kamala Harris, then would it be enough for you to vote against her? If not, then don't act like this is a genuine reason for people that like Trump to all of a sudden change their vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
That's the respectable answer. There are normally 3 answers the right would give:
- I will change my mind on this issue because Musk is Pro Palestine.
- You can like Elon Musk while disagreeing with him on Israel.
- Elon Musk is a radical RINO!!
#2 is the most respectable I think (which is your answer).
Created:
Posted in:
You guys can give your thoughts; the issue for me is just too far away for me to actually care.
Created: