TheUnderdog

Vaccines: Your body, your choice.

Drugs: Your body, OUR choice.

Me: Let people decide if they want to put a vaccine in them, and let people decide if they want to put drugs in them.

I'm one of the few pro lifers willing to admit they are not consistently pro life and here is why:

Feminists: We don’t think you should be forced to take care of someone so we are pro choice.

Me: A deadbeat dad agrees. He doesn’t want to pay child support because he doesn’t want the pain associated with parenthood, just like you don’t want the pain associated with an unwanted pregnancy. Are you fine with deadbeat dads not paying child support?

Femenists: Absolutely not! His money, our choice. He ought to be responsible for the kids he created whether he consents or not.

Me: If he should be responsible for the kids he created without his consent, so should you.

Femenist: If your pro life, you should be in favor of you yourself paying for my kid's healthcare by raising your taxes.

Deadbeat Dad: If you are forcing me to pay child support to take care of my kid; if you care about my kid, YOU should pay for the kid, not me through your tax dollars going to pay for my kid that you seem to care about so much.

Me: You both chose to create the kid from your sexual habits, so that kid is entirely your responsibility and not mine.  Don't make me or your kid pay for YOUR irresponsibility.  Get a job moochers!  If you don't know where they are, get a way up account and search for them.  We have the fucking internet!

Conservatives have a bunch of things they want.  For instance, they want more gun rights because of their, "small government" ethos.  They want to ban abortion because of the safety of the unborn.  Some of them even want to ban homosexuality because "the bible says so".  Pretty much every republican wants to deport undocumented immigrants because of "nationalism; America first".

So there are 4 values here; small government, safety, theocracy, and nationalism.

Conservatives aren't consistent with the first value; small government because if they if their value is freedom, then surely they must also be in favor of the recreational legalization of all drugs, they would be in favor of abortion rights with no restrictions, they would support open borders, they would want to end all the foreign wars, and they would essentially be libetarians.  Conservatism can't mean freedom because if it was, there is a party that already exists that consistently believes in freedom; libetarians.  Conservatism therefore has to mean something else.

Another value conservatives have; safety.  They apply this value towards the unborn.  They call it the "right to life".  I call it safety.  It's the same thing.  However, they don't apply this logic to letting undocumented immigrants in, even though America is a safer place for the undocumented than their home country.  They often claim that the undocumented immigrants are a danger to America (which they aren't)(Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens (wisc.edu)).  They oppose welfare programs which keep the poor safe from starvation.  They support these foreign wars whenever Trump wages a war even though it causes foreign civilians, our troops, and even the United States to be less safe because as we wage endless war, more countries hate us and are therefore more likely to fund terrorist attacks on us.  They oppose the concept of safety on gun, insisting that their freedom to own guns is more important than the safety of others.  You'd figure the conservatives (if safety was their value) would want to disarm everybody to make society as safe as it can be.  Conservatives often claim it's impossible, however THEY ARE THE REASON IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.  If every conservative wanted to ban all guns, they would immediately turn all of their guns in.  This would only apply if the conservative value was safety.

If the conservative value was theocracy (implementing black and white biblical law into society), then conservativism calls for treating the undocumented just like the native born (Exodus 12:49) and a 100% wealth tax on anyone with more than enough money to survive (unless they were a ruler, the bible lets rulers keep their money, just like communism)(Mark 10:21)

If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade, Affirmative action, and not cutting taxes because off of this goes against the status quo/nationalism (the belief that your nation is great just the way it is)

The liberals on the other hand, they have a value, but they never state what their value is, which is how they lose support from the independents who think, "How is this party consistent with any of their beliefs?"  The left wing value is anti pain.  All of their beliefs follow a consistent anti pain ethic.  Abortion?  Let the people abort to minimize pain.  The liberals have mixed views on late term abortions, where some support them if it prevents future maternal pain and others oppose them on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain.

On guns; minimize the pain from school shootings while also trying to appease the conservatives by trying to ban semi automatic guns.  This view is greatly distorted because mass shootings are a small portion of homicides, but the liberals don't care.  They want to minimize pain that they see; they don't care that much about pain they can't see unless it's super graphic.  This is why you see liberals caring a little bit about starving people in Africa.  If those starving people were here, liberals would be demanding that we give free housing and healthcare to the suffering people that we can see merely because we can see them.  If those people are suffering far away, then the left doesn't care as much.

On taxes, they want higher taxes on those whom the sacrifice would be minimal to minimize the pain of other people that they can see.

Conclusion:

The conservatives have no principles.  The liberals have a principle (anti pain ethic (but only for the pain they can see)), but it is based off of emotion, news stories, anecdotal data (they are more upset about a mass shooting that kills 26 people than they are about traffic deaths that are responsible for 30,000 American deaths a year (the deaths from traffic accidents are more painful and graphic usually than dying from a gun), but if traffic deaths were broadcasted as much as school shootings per death, the liberals would want to reduce speed limits).

With one party having no principles, and another party having principles that are partly based on emotion rather than reality, I think both parties are absolutely horrible.  It's time for DART members to break away from the democrat and republican parties.  The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.

I support freedom of speech, and these states don't:

I don't care if you support Israel.  I don't care if you support Palestine.  I don't care if you want the state of Israel to not exist.  I don't care if you want the state of Palestine to not exist.  I don't care if you favor a 2-state solution.  I personally don't have strong opinions on Israel or Palestine as I think the US engaging in foreign conflicts is a waste of money.

I think you should legally be allowed to participate in any protest you want, especially in a country that has the first amendment.

Maybe I'm strawmanning this bill.  If I am, I apoligize, but this is my understanding of the BDS movement.

If I'm wrong, then we will see what these bills propose.  If I'm right, then the hypocritical "pro free speech" right wing now wants to censor views they don't like.

I support the 2nd amendment. 

This means if a female who got an abortion wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from tyranny, that's their right. 

If a BLM supporter wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect themselves from police, I would support their right to do that.

If an undocumented immigrant wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from a tyrannical government (like ICE), I would support that.

The 2nd amendment isn't just for conservatives to act all tough with their guns.  The 2nd amendment exists to protect from tyranny.  It just so happens that most of the groups that are enduring tyranny now are on the left generally.

So does the right support the 2nd amendment for these groups?  Or are they going to be gun grabbing bootlickers to the government?  Because bootlicking authority is unamerican.

Updates: Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers - Inequality.org states that billionaires have a total of about $5 trillion in wealth.  The vast majority of this wealth comes from the stock market; which grows at 10% per year.  A 10% wealth tax on the billionaires raises about $500 Billion every single year.  The reason why I don't support a wealth tax right now is because if a wealth tax was implemented right now, then we aren't able to generate more money per year in the long term.  Wait a year to implement the 10% wealth tax, and we are able to generate 10% more income the next year and every subsequent year.  Wait another year, and we are able to generate 21% more revenue with the wealth tax per year.  But this only happens if the wealth tax implementation is delayed by enough time.  Also, tax the billionaires at a rate that is more than 10%, and it's unsustainable because their wealth would decrease in the long term which means the wealth tax can't be a permanent source of consistent revenue and will eventually lead to a worsened economy in the long term.  I will only support a wealth tax when less than 10% of the wealth from billionaires would be enough to fund everything the government needs to function.

Our government spends about $5 trillion a year when the economy is in the shape it's in right now (about average; not as good as it was in 2016, but better than it was a year ago) (Current US Federal Government Spending (thebalance.com))

Assuming the government decides not to spend any more on any future social programs adjusted for inflation and assuming the wealth in the stock market increases 10% per year, a 10% wealth tax on billionaires would only fund the government's expenditures by the year 2046.  Even implementing a 10% wealth tax in 2046 is dangerous because of 2 reasons:

1) No room for income growth.  If the federal income is tied solely to the wealth tax and the stock market, then we aren't able to have the federal revenue base grow without an income tax, something that not even democrats want to pay, but they merely tolerate it more than republicans generally.

2) If the economy ever goes into a recession, the government will have to go into debt to pay it off, and there is no money for emergencies.

Because of these reasons, I wouldn't support a wealth tax in 2046 at 10% because it doesn't allow for economic growth and is dangerous if this country goes into a recession.

However, a 7% wealth tax implemented by the year 2055 (assuming things expand at their current rates) would give the US government the ability to do the following:

1) Reduce wealth inequality (something the left wants to do) since this idea targets the billionaires.

2) Eliminate the need for an income tax (something the right wants to do) since the government is funded by taxes paid for by virtually no Americans.

So there is a left wing and right-wing reason to support this idea.

There are some cons to a wealth tax that I don't think stand up to scrutiny.  The Wealth Tax: Pros & Cons | taxlinked.net states some.  They are:

1) Double taxation: I don't care.  If I own stock in McDonalds, eat a burger there, pay a sales tax, and sell the McDonalds stock only to pay a capitol gains tax, that's double taxation.  But nobody cares then.

2) Causes Capital Flight: The solution to this; tell every country in the world that by 2055 to implement a 7% wealth tax on all billionaires in their country and get every country to agree.  The billionaires have nowhere to go to, as their wealth is in the form of electronic stock, and you can change citizenships of countries, but every country would tax your wealth.

3) It’s Tough to Calculate: No it's not.  Whatever the value of their stock and cash assets are; tax them at 7% by 2055.  They will probably make it back since the stock market rises at 10% a year, so they will be fine.

Thoughts DARTers?

I don't like Trump, but I hate Biden.  Biden sniffs the children of strangers without the consent of the children.

So, apperantly, 16% of Gen Z people are LGBT and this is significently higher than prior generations.

The argument for justifying this is that gay people were oppressed long ago and this caused people to be in the closect about it.

I think there is some truth to this, but if I were to ask, "Is homosexuality genetic?", most people woujld answer, "Yes".

How can this be the case?  If straight people have sex, they produce a bunch of straight babies.  Gay people don't reproduce, so I don't know how they are able to spread their genes to make homosexuality genetic.

I think the only other way homosexuality can be popped up is by mutations.  However, there are 30,000 genes in the human genome, with an average of 60 mutations.

If the homosexuality gene was mutated the average number of times, this means .2% of the population is gay.  Since this gene never reproduces if you get it, this means that due to evolution, the probability of being gay is probably much less than what it would be if homosexuality was an average mutation given the tens of thousands of years of evolution that has happened where the gay genes died out due to not reproducing and the straight genes carried on.

If homosexuality exists and is purely genetic, this means that less than .2% of the US population is gay.  Instead, we are observing many more gay people in Gen Z.  I therefore think that most people who think they are gay think they are gay because of a few thoughts about men sexually, but I think it's an illusion.

Either that, or the homosexuality gene will in time be replaced by the straight gene.

Abortions almost entirely come from unwanted pregnencies.  Both parties know this so they offer different solutions on how to reduce unwanted pregnencies.

Disclaimer: I refer to "pro lifers" as "opponents of Roe V Wade" because they aren't pro life for every life usually and I refer to "pro choicers" as supporters of Roe V Wade because they aren't pro choice for every choice usually.

The pro Roe V Wade solution is to make contraception free.  The left cares more about reducing unwanted pregnencies than they do about reducing abortions, but they are fine with reducing abortions if it results in less unwanted pregnencies and they have realized that free contraception reduces both unwanted pregnencies and abortions.

The anti Roe V Wade solution to reduce unwanted pregnencies is just to not have sex.  This advice is so bad that not even most people that oppose Roe V Wade follow their own advice.  97% of Americans don't "wait until marriage" and this includes at least 94% of people that oppose Roe V Wade.  Most people that oppose Roe V Wade don't follow their own advice.

Now consider the following scnaraeao: Lets say a white person wants to enslave a black person for 9 months in order to save his life (kind of like how an unwanted fetus requires the slavery of a female for 9 months to save their life).  Would this be morally acceptable?  No; it would not be.  The 13th amendment makes Roe V Wade the law because slavery (even to save the life of a white person or a fetus) is unconstitutional.

But opponents of Roe V Wade would argue that the slavery and the unwanted pain from pregnency are morally acceptable to save a child.  However, if I were to ask many of these anti Roe V Wade people if it would be morally acceptable to vastectomize every male, freeze his sperm, and if he ever wants kids, he uses some of the sperm that was frozen to get the kid (all assuming the female consents to be impregnanted), they would claim it's a violation of their freedom.

This view to me makes no sense.  You think forced vastectomies to save a child's life are tyrannical, but that forced childbirth to save a child's life is morally acceptable?  I'm pretty sure the vastectomy is significantly less of a sacrifice and it achieves the same goal.  In addition, nobody is arguing that an unwanted pregnency is beneficial for the female that has it.  But I can argue that vasectomizing all men and freezing their sperm when they want to have kids produces long term benefits for the men that get them.  For example, now they don't have to worry about pregnency, so assuming they and their partner get tested for STIs and it's proven they don't have any STIs, they can have significantly more consensual sex and not have to worry about unwanted pregnency.

The main reasons why I encourage abstinence is because of the fear of unwanted pregnencies and the fear of STIs.  However, with a vastectomy, the first fear becomes obsolete, and with STI testing and treatment when applicable, the 2nd fear also becomes obsolete.  At this point, some benefits to unprotected sex are below:

I'm a right leaning independent in a blue state, so I want my state, as well as every other blue state that feasibly can to join Canada.  Canada has lower taxes than America.

This is ridiculous.

Here is why I oppose going to war with Haiti.

1) America first; no money going to help other countries.

2) Going to war with Haiti won't help Haiti, it will make their situation worse because when the US military gets involved with other countries, it makes their situation worse.

3) Waste of innocent Haitian lives.

4) Waste of our troop lives.

5) Waste of trillions of dollars while this nation is in debt.

6) Hypocrisy from both sides if we go to war.  Here is how:

       a) Conservatives: We are pro life and like low taxes, so we are going to waste trillions of tax dollars on a war that will result in huge amounts of death.

       b) Liberals: We believe black lives matter and we don't like the cops killing a few hundred black people a year, so we are going to fund this war in Haiti that will                result in thousands of black deaths.

        Me: Why are you 2 clowns running the country?

Genghis Khan was a terrible man.  He is a serial rapist and a war lord.  We need to take down every statue of him because he was a terrible person.  Khan academy should be renamed because Khan was evil.

Ancient Egyptian pyramids are human rights abuses.  They were built by slaves.  Egypt has them as a tourist attraction.  Egypt literally profits from slavery to this day.  Tear down the pyramids.

Muhammad was a war lord.  He raped many people.  He killed people for refusing to accept Islam.  He killed people for territory.  We need to ban anything that states Muhammad was a good person (including the Quran).  Take down every statue of this horrible man.

God is a horrible entity.  He genocided almost all of humanity in the great flood.  He said Isralis are God's chosen people.  God is a racist against gentiles. God told slaves to obey their masters instead of advocating for their freedom.  We need to ban christianity, judaism, and islam, because God is an evil entity.

Me: If none of these things are happening (I don't think they should), but if none of these things are happening, then why should we waste tax dollars on taking down confederate statues and prohibiting people from flying the confederate flag?  Freedom is a trade off.

Murderers deserve the death penalty, even if your a republican who murders liberals for being pro choice.

us population - Bing states that about 330 million people live in the US.

Roughly 10% of the US's population is highschool or college aged.

Therefore, there are about 33 million people in the US that are highschool or college aged.

Lets say that 50% of people in this age group have a minimum wage job.

That would mean that about 17 million highschoolers and college aged people have a minimum wage job in the US.

But the BLS confirms that this number is only about 1 million.

How can these numbers be so drastically different?

My idea is that the BLS is keeping track of Non simulated people, whereas what we think is true is for ALL people (which includes non simulated and simulated people).  If this is the case, then for every 1 non simulated person in the US, there are about 16 simulated people.

If most people are simulated, how do we know who is real and who is fake?  I could be a fake human for all you know and so are 90% of the people you, "know".

I think this would be beneficial for many reasons.

1) Your more likely to agree with the politics of your county than the politics of your state.  This means I am more likely to find politicians that agree with me on most things.

2) It allows for counties to be themselves instead of being bossed around by a state.  It allows upstate NY to be more conservative and it allows for Austin to be more liberal.  Currently, Austin has much conservative influence due to being in Texas and Upstate NY has a lot of liberal influence due to NYC.  Letting every county run themselves to an extent lets Austin be as liberal as they want and it allows upstate NY to be as conservative as they want, provided both of their ideas are in line with the constitution and supreme court cases.

3) Other counties have more autonomy and you have even more experiments within certain counties.  Currently America has 50 states with 50 experiments.  If every county was given the same autonomy a state currently has, we have up to 3143 experiments running.

4) It makes it easier to move to a place that you are more ideologically in line with.  A liberal person from Alabama has to travel hundreds of miles to be in a blue state.  Now they just need to move to the nearest liberal county which will be much closer.  A conservative from New York doesn't have to go all the way to Texas to be somewhere conservative.  They just need to find a right wing suburb if they want to be in a conservative environment.

A team that has 10 wins and 2 losses?

Or a team that has 5 wins and no losses?

Assume all their games were equally as tough.

Liberal christains: Against cruel and unusual punishment and opposes the death penalty no matter what.

Conservative christains: Thinks China is evil for punishing people for disagreeing with the Chinese government.

God: Anybody who refuses to worship me and agree with me on everything by faith burns in hell forever (a fate worse than death).

Both types of Christains: This is fine.

Me: If your against the death penalty or against cencorship, you should call out God for being worse than communists in China for sentencing people to fates worse than death for their freedom of speech.

Donald Trump: Never publicly says the N word.

The media: He is such a racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible: Yes

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

Bible: No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Secularism.

2) Closing borders with non western countries.

3) Universal healthcare.

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

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

6) Legalizing homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) Banning gay sex.

5) Pro life

6) Pro one world nation with the Christian countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Unrestricted until 6 weeks

- Allowed in situations of rape until 20 weeks

- Allowed to save maternal life until birth.

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

Thoughts?

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

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

1) Balancing the budget.

2) Increasing taxpayer count.

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

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

1) Pro choice on abortion

2) Pro choice on guns

3) More social programs.

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

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

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

The constitution for the LU might be below:

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

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

aaa

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

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

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

This I think can benefit everyone involved.

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

Hello yall.  Suck my 7 inch Italian Stallion.

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

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

Me: Do you have ANY self awareness whatsoever?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: smh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone else also benefits.

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

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