Total topics: 460
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I’m not a never trumper, but it is just my guess that he funded an organization like NAMBLA and that’s very unpopular with all major parties in America, so that’s why he is hiding it. I have no evidence to back this up. It’s just a guess.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Liz Cheney: Disagrees with the right wing base on one issue (2020 election) and agrees with the right on everything else (abortion, immigration, weed, homosexuality, welfare, vaccine mandates)
The right wing base: Get this RINO out of here.
The left wing base: Liz Cheney is a good republican.
Joe Rogan: Disagrees with the right wing base on many things (2020 election, weed, abortion, homosexuality, Trump, welfare). Agrees with them on vaccine mandates.
The right wing base: Joe Rogan is based.
The left wing base: Joe Rogan is dangerous for spreading misinformation. Censor him.
Me: The right wing base should view Liz Cheney better than Joe Rogan because Liz Cheney is more like them ideologically than Rogan is. And the left wing base should view Joe Rogan better than Liz Cheney because Rogan is more like them than Cheney is.
But people don’t think for themselves and just listen to whatever social media they trust for all of their opinions, so most people don’t even know of this double standard.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Republican logic:
Abortion=murder.
Murder=Death sentence
Let’s say they oppose the death penalty. Then it is:
Abortion=murder.
Murder=Lifetime in jail
Therefore, it would seem that if you really want abortion to be classified as murder, that means the death penalty of life in jail for those that are responsible, from the woman to the man that got her pregnant.
They then say, “We only wish to prosecute the performer of the abortion to this degree.”
To which I would say, “If these were the laws, no abortionist would perform abortions, which means the pregnant woman would have to fill the role. So the same punishment would have to apply for women that perform their own abortions.
I’m not advocating this position. I’m just merely stating it’s logical conclusions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are people who argue that in order to ensure true tolerance, one cannot be tolterant of the intolerance. An example of this is when people claim that Nazis should not get tolerated because they are intolerant of Jews.
However, how far does this argument go? Like if I were to say, “Being Jewish should be illegal”, people say that’s hate speech that should be banned. If I were to say, “Being polygamous should be illegal.” that is also being intolerant, but it’s an intolerance that 83% of the US agrees with.
So what separates, “Ban Jews.” from “Ban polygamous people.”? If virtually everyone wanted polygamy legal, advocating for it being banned would be interpreted as hate speech to some. If virtually everyone approved of anti semetism, then it would be viewed as free speech by even those that didn’t hate Jews.
This is why I think free speech absolutism is the ideal.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1am8aMPQnpDifFbaMqpXHXGD6V72ly0Yvcvfd9ksFEko/edit. If anyone has any disagreements, let me know. I try and hear everyone out.
I also don’t understand why fully grown adults feel pressured to agree with the left or right on every issue just because they strongly agree with the left or the right on one issue.
As an example, let’s say your transgender. You are going to be very left wing on the transgender issue because it effects you personally. Fair enough. But just because you strongly agree with the left on transgenderism doesn’t mean you should be pressured to strongly agree with the left on abortion, guns, vaccine mandates, income tax, war, religion, or any other issue.
If the left decided to disagree with transgenderism while agreeing with everything else they say and if the right switched their stance on transgenderism while agreeing with everything else they are saying, the transgenders would vote Republican because the right now agrees with them on the issue, but all their other stances should stay the same.
Whether or not an idea is a left wing idea or a right wing idea should have no bearing on if it’s an idea that you personally back. This is why I try and not look at issues through a partisan lens and even if I agree with the right 58% of the time, I’m unafraid to give the left credit for the 42% of the time when I agree with them.
What common belief unites all left wing or right wing beliefs? I can’t think of any.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
1) Any man that wants to get sterilized, because that’s his right.
2) Any deadbeat dad. This is needed to prevent him from producing kids that he can’t afford in the future. I’m sick of my tax dollars going to fund other people’s kids and a sterilization would help minimize the welfare state by eliminating all future kids deadbeat dads produce.
3) Any dad that is raising his kid(s), but has been living off of welfare. This point is similar to #2. I don’t want to pay for future kids had by people that can’t afford them.
I think this standard should be implemented internationally. This would significantly reduce childhood poverty and death if the kids never exist to begin with. I also don’t believe in abortion. But if couples are going to have sex, it’s best for them to not reproduce unless they can afford it.
People say this is racist and I deny this. This standard applies to people of all races. Whether your white, black, brown, or other, you don’t get to be a burden on others in a free society.
People say this targets the poor, but I would argue it helps the poor because if poor men stop having kids, it is better for their finances.
In addition, the carrying capacity of this planet is only 2.5 billion people and the world population is 8 billion. We could all become vegans and have this rise to 10 billion. But society loves their meat (even though I want to be 100% vegan when I’m living on my own). In other words, the people with kids right now that can afford kids the least shouldn’t have any more kids. We have too many people and abortion is an unjustified killing. Therefore not reproducing is the only option for those with kids that can’t afford them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Argument 1: A zygote isn’t a human being.
Me response: That opinion goes against the opinions of 95% of biologists.
Argument 2: A zygote is a human being, but bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
My response: If that’s what you believe, then you would have to be fine with a conjoined twin killing their twin in the name of bodily autonomy. They are connected, so if bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life, then you would have to support one conjoined twin’s right to kill their twin. I have met people that defended that view and I think most normal people don’t. But if it’s not acceptable to kill your conjoined twin in the name of bodily autonomy, what makes abortion any different?
Argument 3: A kid set up for adoption gets messed up so badly it’s worse than death.
Response: The vast majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years and the foster system makes sure the parents are competent and not child rapists or abusers.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If it’s okay to get rid of the profit motive in healthcare and make healthcare free for everyone because people need it to survive, what’s stopping Bernie Sanders supporters from advocating free housing and free food for everyone at the point of service? Are IPads going to be free then? People need technology to survive nowadays.
If everything someone needs to survive gets paid for by the government, people only need to work to buy luxuries that they want. But what if you don’t want luxuries? I really don’t want luxuries and 90% of what people buy isn’t luxury. If 90% of the stock market gets nationalized, then that turns us into the USSR.
If it’s bad to nationalize food and housing, how is nationalizing healthcare any different? Is the profit motive acceptable in EVERY industry if it’s acceptable with food and housing? I think it is.
I support price ceilings for essential goods where there is a monopoly control, but other than that, a 100% free market approach is ideal I think.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Time for me to distance myself from libetarians because I roast the left and the right. Time to roast the down wing (down for small government).
Libetarians: We need to pay off the debt.
Me: Raising taxes would help pay off the debt.
Libetarians: Not like that. Pay off the debt without taxes as taxation is theft.
Me: So what’s your plan to pay off the debt? If you eliminated all spending and all taxes (both nonstarters), the debt will still go up because of interest payments.
Another issue I have with libertarians:
Libertarians: COVID is not serious. Keep the public schools open.
Also Libetarians: Shut down public school; homeschool your kid.
Me: You can use COVID as an excuse to homeschool your kid even if you don’t think COVID is a big deal.
Another issue I have with libertarians:
Libertarians: The government is bad.
Libertarians: Trust the government with spending billions of dollars on taxpayer money for nuclear power plants.
My response: Support nuclear power if you want; just don’t call it libertarian; it’s not.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Conservatives: We support the confederate flag because it’s a rebel flag.
Me: If you support rebels so much, do you support the undocumented? They got Rebel Pride too.
Conservatives: No. They need to comply. But not us.
Me: Smh.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Let’s say there are 2 Siamese twins. One of the twins hates being a Siamese twin because of the lifelong pain associated with being a Siamese twin (pregnancy, but for your whole life), and doesn’t think it’s his fault he is in this situation (pregnancy from rape). Let’s say he decides to kill his twin to make his life easier (let’s say he does this in a way that doesn’t harm him but only kills his twin).
Would we allow that? Or would we call it murder? I think pretty much everyone would call it murder.
So why should we treat a pregnant female any different? If the Siamese twin is not allowed to exercise his bodily autonomy by killing his twin, why should a pregnant female be any different?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
https://carm.org/islam/contradictions-in-the-quran/ contain some.
I know practically nothing about holy books, but we got a new Muslim guy (forgot his name). Maybe he can sort some of these out.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20central%20dogma,meaning%20and%20he%20cannot%20lie. contains some bible contradictions.
These are the religions that I know that have the highest stakes (meaning they each claim you must believe in them in order to avoid hell). The rest I think base whether or not you go to hell solely on your actions while on earth (so I don't have to believe in them to go to heaven). I might be wrong here, but I'm only guessing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I don’t think the left or right has a good answer for this question.
One right wing definition: Someone with female chromosomes. 5 year olds don’t know what chromosomes are. Come up with a better definition.
Another right wing definition: Someone who can get pregnant. Some bio females can’t get pregnant. Come up with a better definition.
One left wing definition: Someone with a female brain. 5 year olds can’t tell a male brain apart from a female brain; they aren’t doctors. I can’t tell the male and female brain apart, and I’m 20 years old. Come up with a better definition.
Another left wing definition: Someone who presents as female. There are young cis males who grow their hair out and are thin. People think they are girls. Similarly, some cis girls when they are young wear their hair short and people think they are male. Come up with a better definition.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In general, I oppose vaccine mandates, but I think the following groups of people should be subject to a vaccine mandate:
1)Soliders. Soliders have to be in good health. I would equate this with a mandate to do 50 push-ups a day.
2)Children; it is precedent and children don’t have agency.
3)Anyone on government health insurance. If the government is paying for your health insurance, they have a vested interest in keeping you healthy. This means I would force anyone on government health insurance to be vaccinated, work out, I’d mandate veganism for them because it’s healthier. If they don’t like these restrictions, then get a job mooncher. If you are going to life off government health insurance, you need to be as cheap as possible to insure. If you don’t like these restrictions, get a job!
Other than that, you should be allowed to opt out of a vaccine, but it’s not recommended. I also would ban companies from having a vaccine mandate (just like I wouldn’t let them fire you for being LGBT). But they would be allowed to charge more for health insurance premiums if your unvaccinated or sexually active as these behaviors are costly for health insurance companies.
None of my exceptions apply if you have natural immunity. If you have natural immunity, you don’t need to be vaxxed, but I recommend it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What I try to do to determine an abortion stance is, “What if a guy did something similar?”
When it comes to aborting zygotes, if hypothetically a girl got pregnant and the guy ditched her because she was pregnant with a zygote, that guy is a deadbeat and should have to pay child support. Doing what he did should be illegal, even when it’s a zygote.
You should hold the female to the same standard. If a guy isn’t allowed to ditch the zygote he chose to create, then neither is the female.
People may say, “It’s the female’s body whereas the deadbeat only sacrifices mere money.”. I would argue that bodily sensations that are temporary aren’t worth infinite money.
So how much is a pregnancy worth? The rate that surrogates charge for a pregnancy is about $25,000. So this would be a good estimate for the worth of a pregnancy (which takes into account all the pain and all the direct expenses that come with pregnancy). We force deadbeat dads to pay $135,000 for child support even if their girlfriend is pregnant with a zygote over the course of the child’s life. I personally think this should triple to $20,000 per kid per year. So I have to force the female to sacrifice a smaller fee in pregnancy labor for her kid.
Now if a female was raped and got pregnant, let’s equate this to a deadbeat dad getting raped and the girl gets pregnant from it. I would not force that guy to pay child support if he was raped. So I would let a female abort if raped. Either that, or compensate the female with enough cash paid for by the rapist’s hard labor and ban abortion for rape victims under those circumstances (if a hypothetical female rapist paid the child support once she got pregnant, I’d be fine with that if I got compensated enough for the trauma of being raped by a female). Whatever amount the female rape victim gets from the rapist from the mere trauma of being raped should be the same as when a male gets raped by a female if he is drunk and she rapes him when drunk.
If abortion is needed to save someone’s life (just like if child support can’t be paid in order to save the life of the deadbeat), then you can abort. But try and have the deadbeat find another way to pay child support. You can’t really do this with a female who is pregnant.
If the fetus is retarted, it doesn’t matter; being retarted should not be a death sentence.
Thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Conservatives: We believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is to protect people from tyranny.
Me: Do you support the undocumented arming themselves to defend from tyranny (I.C.E)?
Conservatives: Absolutely not! The government needs to be tyrannical to the illegal aliens!
Me: You don’t support the 2nd amendment then. The 2nd amendment isn’t just for conservatives. It’s also for people you dislike.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are 4 following issues in my head:
1) Believe women (which I agree with the right on).
2) Death penalty (which I agree with the left on)
3) The Ukraine war (which I side with the right on)
4) The Iraq war (which I side with the left on)
5) Firing someone for being gay/trans (which I side with the left on)
6) Firing someone for being unvaccinated (which I side with the right on)
Why do most people I come across either agree with the left on all of these issues or agree with the right on all these issues? Why are there few people that look at each issue individually? Is it because people are partisan hacks?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Before 1994 and from 1994 to 2004, the mass shooting rate was comparable. After 2004, it went up significantly (more like after 2006) because the internet became more ingrained in our lives. The way I think to reduce mass shootings is to ban the internet. But I think that’s too authoritarian to implement. So mass shootings will continue to rise due to the rise of the internet and I think that’s fine because I don’t want to ban the internet.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don't think abortion should be banned if the female gets raped (this doesn't apply to consensual sex). The fetus is a human being, but so are starving African children. I'm not going to force you to adopt a starving African kid even if it saves their life, and adopting a kid is less of a sacrifice than being pregnant. If I was raped, I aint paying child support. So nobody rape me because I aint raising your kid.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Feminists wanting abortion sounds a lot to me like an anti covid vaxxer demanding the right to be in pain from covid. Abortions are painful for those that endure them. The feminist would argue that it is less pain than unwanted pregnancies, but wouldn't it be ultimately less painful for the female if she never got pregnant and therefore never needed an abortion so she doesn't have to endure the pain from an unwanted pregnancy or an abortion?
To me saying, "I have the right to have premarital sex and get an abortion from it"(assuming a fetus isn't a human, I think a fetus is a human being, but this is a different issue), sounds a lot like saying, "I have the right to refuse a covid vaccinee and suffer from covid for several days because of it". This would mean it wouldn't be wise to abort and get pregnant even if there was only a zygote (which I don't consider to be human) inside the pregnant female due to the maternal pain associated with it.
So wouldn't it make sense for feminists to be opposed to premarital sex due to the possibility that females get pregnant from it and therefore having to endure one of 2 painful options; abortion of a zygote or unwanted pregnancy?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
A well stoned populace, being helpful for the happiness of a free state, the right of the adults to keep and smoke weed shall not be infringed.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My math major has showed me some signs of a higher power like the following:
1) sin(x)=x-(x^3/3!)+(x^5/5!)-(x^7/7!)+(x^9/9!) ...
2) cos(x)=1-(x^2/2!)+(x^4/4!)-(x^6/6!)+(x^8/8!) ...
3) 4(1-(1/3)+(1/5)-(1/7)+(1/9)-(1/11)+)... = pi.
There's more, but I don't think this could all be by chance.
But when I converted to Christianity, their god initially told me to call him, "God". I did this and I got my prayers answered. Then he switched to, "Jehovah"(Jehovah's witnesses believe the exact same thing as standard Christianity except they call their God a different name(Jehovah)). That worked for a little bit, but then he insisted on changing his name again.
This led me to believe that religion is in my head.
So if I'm not religious nor atheist, there needs to be an alternate source of the universe's existence.
This leads me to be a simulationist. I think we are living on a planet that's in a universe that's in a computer simulation run by aliens and they sent math as proof of their existence. They invented all these religions as an experiment to see what would happen if they gave humanity many different religions. There are probably universes where there is only 1 religion and the aliens are collecting the data they are interested in. The aliens are curious so they experiment on us by presenting stimuli and seeing how we react to this. They are not all loving nor all powerful, they are just curious to see what happens when certain stimuli is produced .
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I've noticed that with few exceptions, the places with the lowest taxes, the least regulation, the highest amount of abortion restrictions (Africa, Latin America, rural Dixieland) are shitholes. Conversely, the places with the highest taxes, the most amount of regulation, and the easiest abortion laws (Yankee America, EU, Canada) aren't shitholes. I wonder what the conservative response to this would be.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think trans men can take said hormone and grow a penis.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
I didn’t vote for that piece of shit who increases the debt and can barely form complete sentences, but he is my president. It’s so sad how we are stuck for president between someone that sniffs children (Biden) and someone that cheated on his wife (Trump) with little signs of remorse. If these are our options, I’m probably doing a write in because presidents need to be people of good moral character. You don’t need to be nice, but you can’t be an adulterer like Trump or a child sniffer like Biden.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Left wingers: We don’t want to deport the undocumented. No human being is illegal. Stop separating families!
Right wingers: We do want to deport the undocumented. They are taking our jobs.
Undocumented: We are very socially conservative on the church and abortion, but we just want to earn for our families without being harassed by strangers.
Me: I know how ALL of you can be happy. Let’s send all of the undocumented immigrants, their spouses, pets, and anchor babies to blue counties by the standards of the 2016 Us presidential election. Democrats are happy because we aren’t separating families and sending them to countries where they often die, Republicans are happy because they don’t have to worry about job loss, and the undocumented can be happy because they aren’t being harassed by random strangers and ICE. They also get to be with more of their kind. We also get to build up our cities by bringing in more people.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
They are both far left politicians. Le Pen supports all of the following policies:
1) She is an open feminist.
2)She Is pro choice
3) She supports Medicare for all
4) She supports gun control
5) She opposes the death penalty.
6) She supports Putin, the leader of the country that was the core of the USSR.
7) She hasn’t spoken out against Macron’s tyrannical vaccine passport.
8) She supports France being in the EU
So France has 2 far left politicians running for public office. The French people are under the illusion of choice.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My mom says it is, but she's kinda woke, so I don't trust her judgement. But family guy was able to say it and nobody cared(Chocolate people - YouTube).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
How about lets eliminate every single penny of welfare that goes to red states? If you really want welfare and you're in a red state, move to a blue state. Let blue states take care of you and leave the red states out of paying for welfare that they don't want to do.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Pro: Why should I be forced to pay for somebody else's kids?
Con: It is needed to prevent kids from ending up on welfare.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The left: Trump is tough on immigration. This is horrible and racist. No human being is illegal.
The right: Trump is tough on immigration. This is putting America first and patriotic. Build the wall.
Me: Trump isn't even tough on immigration; he's deported less people per year than Biden and Obama. If you're going to praise or criticize Mr. Rich Orange Man, at least have your reason be accurate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Bernie Sanders on the Issues indicates Bernie Sanders is as far left as you can be.
There is nothing wrong with being far left. Just don't call yourself a centrist if you are.
The political compass test is a backwards far left test that makes anybody who isn't as left as Sanders on the right. They claim America has no left wing, but they make the same claim about Canada and New Zealand (2 countries most people would say are left wing). How is Bernie Sanders a centrist? What right wing policies does he support?
This is why a better political compass test can be found below that is much better than the most famous political compass test:
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The left: Police disproportionally kill people of color.
The right: Private schools disproportionally benefit people of color.
The left: Abortion bans disproportionally impact women of color.
The right: Aborted fetuses are disproportionally people of color.
The left: Systemic racism disproportionally impacts people of color.
The right: Single motherhood disproportionally impacts people of color.
Me: STOP MAKING YOUR ISSUES ABOUT RACE!!! I don't care what racial group gets more impacted by an issue. I care about it's impact in American society. Both of you guys want to play the race card and any non-racist person doesn't care what racial group gets impacted because that would filter in race. Don't filter in race for your complaints.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
My reason for supporting the death penalty for the crimes of murder and rape are the following:
1) I support eye for an eye. Not everyone supports eye for an eye and this is fine, but I support eye for an eye as my reason to support the death penalty for murder.
2) I'm fiscally conservative. Murderers and rapists cost taxpayers too much money. Usually, the most popular alternatives to these crimes is life in jail (with a small portion of people advocating for rehab for the murderers and a larger advocating this for rapists) but this still calls for jail for a certain amount of time and that is an expense I don't feel conferrable forcing the rape and murder victims to pay.
America (like most of the small dick west) treats their murderers and their child rapists better than the homeless. If your homeless, you have no home. You often have no reliable food source. You can murder someone or rape someone, get life in jail, and then force the victims of the crime to spend their tax dollars on keeping you alive. This is crazy and not something I can support.
Now the death penalty is more expensive than life in jail because of trials
The solution to this isn't to abolish the death penalty, but to make the process cheaper and quicker. If your convicted guilty of murder or rape, you have 1 hour left to live and after that, the state executes you (not by lethal injection, it's too expensive). If a murderer murders:
Up to 1 person: Death by firing squad.
2 people: Death by electric chair.
3 people: Death by guillotine.
4+ people: Death by hanging.
Multiply these numbers by 2.5 and the same penalty is applied to rapists.
We will make more mistakes, but the amount of money saved is a legitimate trade off to saving lives as what precedence indicates.
If you ask the typical person,
Are you willing to spend $1/day to save the life of a starving foreigner?
Most people would answer no since sponsoring children is done by a minority of Americans.
Life in jail for 25 inmates (because only 1/25 inmates are innocent) costs about $100 million.
If society is unwilling to spend $1/day to save the life of a child in poverty, why is society willing to spend $100 million on saving the life of a falsely convicted murderer or rapist (if they are innocent)?
Our murderers and rapists are treated better than poor foreign children and that isn't something I support.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm trying to think of some good arguments to go against taxing the rich to Eisenhower levels (93%), but it's hard.
They will flee the country if they are taxed this high
Most rich people aren't ideologue; they just pay the taxes. Otherwise, the country that taxed their income the least (the UAE) would have all the billionaires. But the rich pay whatever tax is imposed upon them because they are beta males (not an insult) who just go along to get along.
They earned their wealth and taxing them would discourage the future earning of their wealth
When you earn more than what is needed to survive, earning money is like a game. The rich would still continue to produce to try and earn more. If they were taxed at 100%, then they would cease to be productive since there would be no point. But 93% still lets them keep some of what they earn.
This is socialist/communist (I don't know the difference between these terms)
Was America socialist in the 1950s when we were fighting communism? Because taxes on the rich were at roughly 85% then.
I'm just thinking out loud.
This isn't my ideal tax method (my ideal tax method is outlined here and raises the money for all that I think is needed to fund). But it is my plan B incase the plan doesn't go as planned. We are able to balance every budget if we taxed the rich at 90% of their wealth. Then we can afford a tax cut for everyone under $200,000.
Thoughts DARTers?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It sounds like to me that they are.
For example, their bible states that most people will burn in hell forever (Matthew 7:13-14)
When pointing this out, Christians say, "They deserve to burn in hell if God puts them there"
This is bootlicking; because God can do something as horrible as burn people in hell forever and the Christians have no problem with it.
There is not a single crime you can do that is so horrible the just penalty is an eternity in hell. The worst crime you can do (murder) can be punished by hell for only a minute because hell is extremely painful. Rape (possibly the 2nd worst crime you can do) can be punished with 24 seconds in hell and given the painfulness of hell, 24 seconds would be justified. But anyone who is not a murderer or a rapist should not spend one instant in hell without their consent. To disagree and advocate that your typical Joe and Jane deserve to burn in hell forever because the bible says so is bootlicking God, and bootlicking is unamerican.
Christians also have said, "Just repent and change your ways and God will send you to heaven".
However, they should NOT be forced to repent.
Lets say someone genuinely hates Joe Biden because of a political disagreement. Now lets say Joe Biden said, "Anyone that hates me should change their ways or else I will jail them the rest of their life and give them white room torture. Keep in mind that I love these people and I give them free will but their options are support me and everything I do or life in jail with white room torture". If Joe Biden said this, it would be incredibly tyrannical and authoritarian and anyone who likes Biden at that point would be a bootlicker.
If you happen to dislike Trump, imagine the same scenario as above, except Trump is saying that to a never Trumper. Anyone who likes Trump at that point is a bootlicker to Trump.
If you agree with someone torturing someone in hell forever because the prosecuted merely dislikes the person in charge, then you are a bootlicker. Bootlicking is unamerican and anti liberty.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I can think of a few pros to this idea:
1) We don't have to spend anymore money on the military, because what nation would we have to defend ourselves from if we were all in the same nation. This allows tax cuts to be implemented across every country.
2) Freedom of movement (and the economic benefits that come with it). Not everyone thinks this is a good idea, but fears with the idea and the pros to this idea are addressed in the following presentation: Open borders presentation - Google Slides
3) The surrender of all international nukes to the UN from every country (and the UN destroys the plans to make nukes and the nukes themselves to become nuclear power for the planet). No more nukes -> humanity is significantly less likely to become extinct from an apocalypse.
4) Countries fighting over territory when they are in the same nation is like Wyoming and Montana fighting over territory. The only time there was a war in the US over territory was over the Toledo strip and it was far less bloody. Countries fight with each other over land, but states tend to not do this because any Ohio resident that wants to be part of Michigan can move to Michigan instead of fight to make Toledo part of Michigan. This can help bring world peace.
I'm unsure if I support this, but there are pros to the idea, so what are your thoughts on this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Between Russia and Ukraine, Americans say either stay out or side with Ukraine - CBS News poll - CBS News states that only 4% of Americans support Russia.
53% want to stay out and 43% want to join Ukraine.
So if you support Russia and your American, your pretty much alone on this.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are about 100 million Bernie Sanders supporters and about 500,000 homeless people and about 153 million worldwide orphans. Lets send all of these people to the homes of Bernie Sanders supporters, because they claim it's bad that there are orphans and homelessness and they want OTHER people to do something about it.
If they think this is too radical, then maybe we just shouldn't care what happens to the homeless? They want the homeless and the orphans to get housed, lets put them in THEIR house.
Problem solved.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Conservatives tell Latin Americans: Your welcome here, but don't bring your 3rd world socialist values with you.
Taxes-1024x520.png (1024×520) (vividmaps.com) states that Latin America has lower taxes on their rich than America does generally. Even Venezuela has lower taxes on the rich than America does. If the Latin Americans didn't bring their "shithole values" with them, they would be advocating for higher taxes on the rich. They also would be opposed to UHC, because most Latin American countries have UHC and America doesn't(Universal Healthcare by Country 20191229 - List of countries with universal health care - Wikipedia).
How can a region that has UHC have lower taxes than America? Yeah, America spends a lot on the military, but only around 3.5% of the US's GDP goes to military. If the US spent a comparable amount on the military to Latin American countries, our taxes on the 1% would be about the same.
I also don't understand how any poor person votes republican. Yeah, they promise lower taxes (in reality, it's lower taxes for the wealthy), but lower taxes means less government services, and I'm sure the poor use government services more than what they pay in taxes (as do most people). If you have 1 kid in school, you are using $12,000 of government services per year. The average parent has about 2 kids in school, leading to them costing the government $24,000 a year, yet they pay less than this in taxes.
When people say, "We want lower taxes", they might as well say, "We want lower taxes for the top 1% and we will cut the education budget to pay for it". If they said the ladder statement, I'd at least respect the right. Instead, they gloss up their policies as, "Lower taxes". The democrats are being idiots, because they never tell the GOP and their base, "Lower taxes means less government services that your base disproportionally relies on" and as a result, the democrats end up not dominating elections.
If everyone voted solely on their best interests, you would see democrats winning elections by margins of 99% to 1% (the bottom 99% vs the top 1%), because the typical person gets more from the government over the course of their lifetime than what they pay in taxes. This applies to everyone but the top 1%. Even if they are in the top 1%, if they aren't too religious or prochoice, they would be willing to pay higher taxes to keep abortion legal.
This means most conservative voters vote for reasons OTHER than their best interests. They may be pro life, so they support the Unborn's life over their own, and as a result they are willing to sacrifice their own livelihood to save a stranger fetus. I don't understand how they can care about stranger fetuses but not care about their own kids that they know by advocating for higher taxes on the rich to give their kids a better education and to give them free healthcare. They may support the right to own an AK 47 (a right most of these conservatives don't use as there are only about 20 million assault weapons in the US (U.S. Has At Least 20 Million Assault Rifles. A Ban Wouldn’t Reduce That Number. (forbes.com)) and the people that own them tend to own multiple of them, leading to most people advocating for the right to own an AK 47 not owning one themselves).
Granted, I'm not saying liberals don't do similar stuff. Most liberals who advocate the right to smoke weed don't smoke weed, and many that are pro choice will never get an abortion, but there are reasons that benefit themselves (more funding for healthcare to save them some money) and others for the typical person to vote democrat. There are only reasons that benefit others as a reason to vote republican.
This brings me to the question: Should people vote on their own best interests, or the interests of others? If the former applies, democrats win every election by about 99% to 1%, but I could argue voting on your best interests is selfish (granted, there are times where being selfish is morally justified). If the ladder applies, then people care more about others than themselves (even if done irrationally by preferring to spare a stranger fetus over educating their own children and giving them free healthcare), but it also means democrats have to compete for votes, instead of painting the GOP as the party of the 1% (which the GOP kind of is and I would prefer it if they just admitted that they want to cut taxes for the 1% and cut spending on government programs because it's socialist).
I'm just rambling. What are your thoughts on this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Roe V Wade seems to be in line with the13th amendment
13th amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime shall be allowed in the United States.
If conservatives want to repeal Roe V Wade, that's fine, but I hope they have the mental IQ points above room temperature to realize that it would require the modification or repealing of the 13th amendment.
The 13th amendment can be modified to:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime or to benefit one's kids shall be allowed in the United States.
If this was what the 13th amendment was modified to, then it could be used for all the following policies:
1) To ban abortion when a fetus becomes a human being.
2) To force deadbeat dads to pay child support (because forcing someone to pay child support against their will is slavery).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The following ideas I don't like because of a reason you can figure out and nobody has a plan for how they will do it:
1) "Lets reform education." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you reform education?
2) "Lets end single motherhood." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you end single motherhood.
3) "Lets reform the immigration process." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you reform immigration?
4) "Lets make it harder to get a gun." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you make it tougher to get a gun?
5) "Lets increase taxes on the rich. My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How much are you going to raise taxes on the rich and what would be the point of it?
6) "Lets cut taxes (in general)" My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How much are you going to cut taxes and what government programs are you willing to cut to make it a reality? Will we go deeper into debt. If you or a parent is a federal employee, are you willing to but their salary to make your tax cuts a reality?
7) "Lets reform/fix up the foster system". My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How, specifically, are you willing to reform the foster system?
All these lazy thinkers (on both sides) advocate these very vague, good sounding ideas to try and make America better in their view. But nobody has a plan for how they would accomplish their goals.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Republicans: We want to deport the undocumented. They are taking our jobs. The democrats are unamerican because they aren't putting Americans first.
Democrats: We don't want to deport the undocumented. They are improving our country. The republicans are being racist because the Latin Americans are often brown people.
Republicans: Clearly we disagree on this issue, so I present a compromise. How about lets send all the undocumented immigrants and their families to your counties? If they improve America, then your counties would benefit from this. If they harm America, our counties won't be effected.
Democrats: That is a terrible idea! You can't just dump migrants into our counties. That would destroy our cities.
Republicans: But you just said they would be beneficial. Lets send all peaceful undocumented immigrants and their families to your counties.
Democrats: No! I only don't want the undocumented in MY county. I want them in yours though.
Me: If you want America to not deport the peaceful undocumented immigrants, why not let them and their families come to your county? I live in a blue county; I want more undocumented immigrants here as long as we don't give them government assistance and as long as my state replaces the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax (so they end up paying the state's bills since they would be paying taxes). But these left wing politicians don't want that. They just want the undocumented in red states. My guess is they are trying to flip those states blue.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
America has 2 main religions. They are called Democrats and Republicans.
Why do I call political parties religions? Because most people take their most passionate issue (for example, someone who is prochoice on abortion) and they use their prochoice stance (which the democrats happen to back) to determine all their other stances on issues. This is a problem as it leads to people not thinking for themselves and it leads to people being partisan hacks.
If someone does something because of their faith based religion (a Muslim praying to mecca, a Jewish person being kosher, etc) then this is totally fine. We all have our guess as to who is the true God that will send us to heaven (except atheists and agnostics ) so it makes sense that for faith based religions to treat these faith based ideologies like religions, where you do and believe something because of your religious beliefs.
However, people unfortunately apply this same logic to policy based ideologies. They may say, "I think abortion is wrong because it kills a child" or, "I think abortion is okay because a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body", but unless abortion is their voting issue, they are more often than not just parroting talking points from the party that they hooked up with based on a different issue. They might as well say, "I think abortion is wrong because of my republican religion" or, "I think abortion is okay based on my democrat religion"
Political parties should not be treated as religions. Every issue should be analyzed with a fresh lens not corrupted by any other issue.
For example, Abortion Trends by Party Identification (gallup.com) states that republicans have a 31% chance of wanting all abortions banned, a 54% chance of wanting abortions legal under certain conditions, and a 15% chance of wanting all abortions to be legal. I could argue that the average republican has 112 prolife points (31x2+54) and 84 prochoice points (15x2+54).
The same site states that the typical democrat has 57 pro life points and 141 pro choice points.
If people really thought for themselves, then the number of pro choice points each party has would be about the same and the number of pro life points each party has would be about the same. But the reason there is such an enormous difference in points for either abortion position is because most people from BOTH parties pick an issue they care a lot about (it's usually not abortion), and if the democrats agree with them, the person ends up agreeing with the democrats on the vast majority of issues (and vice versa for the republicans).
If the next democrat presidential candidate said, "We should fight for equality, and that includes for the unborn, so I'm pro life", and the next republican presidential candidate said, "I oppose the welfare state, so I'm pro choice because it minimizes welfare use" then both parties would flip on abortion. All of the members of either party would do one of the following things:
1)(If their voting issue was abortion) Switch parties, and switch all of their other stances along with it to fit into their new party.
2) (If their voting issue was a different issue) Change their stance on abortion (they would think they are thinking for themselves when in reality, they are just letting a party think for them)
3) (If they are truly thinking for themselves) Not changing their stance on an issue because some politician hundreds of kilometers away advocated for some position.
Hopefully, people pick #3, but most people are going to pick #1 or #2.
This is a problem. Your stance on abortion should not correlate with your stance on guns, immigration, white privilege, stance on LGBT organizations, taxes on the wealthy, military spending/war, climate change, or any other issue.
Think for yourself!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm getting so many different answers from this one Jewish site that I am so confused.
The Torah, the most important Jewish text, has no clear reference to afterlife at all. It would seem that the dead go down to Sheol, a kind of Hades, where they live an ethereal, shadowy existence (Num. 16:33; Ps. 6:6; Isa. 38:18)
Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence (Dan. 12:2; see also Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1 ff.).
Thus, IV Maccabees, for instance, though on the whole tending toward Pharisaism in its theology, promises everlasting life with God to those Jewish martyrs who preferred death to the violation of His Torah, but is silent about resurrection
This year remains a purgatorial period for the soul, or according to another view only for the wicked soul, after which the righteous go to paradise, Gan Eden, and the wicked to hell, Geihinnom (Gehinnom; Shab. 152b–153a; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8). The actual condition of the soul after death is unclear.
I'm not even 25% done with the article, and the site found 4 contradicting things that happen to you when you die.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I think if the answer is yes, more people would be willing to take the vaccine.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics