Liberals/Democrats will get what they deserve...more Trump

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately its not liberals who run the democratic party, if it were maybe we'd already have those things as well as fair hours and pay.

Yeah they want to give everyone a puppy too. Yay.

Lol, why did the DNC cheat the guy who was promising free healthcare in 2016?

That is just the sales pitch. What they want, and do not seem to realize it (I guess), is a tightly controlled and regulated society. They want to replace big business with big government that is in total control of virtually everything down to what people say, think and do. Or at least that is the impression I get from them.

What do you consider to be fair hours and pay for base labor?

Why is healthcare and college expensive?

"79% of Americans rate the quality of their health care as “good” or “excellent,” and 71% rate their coverage as “good” or “excellent.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernies-fata ... 00079.html

Sanders plans to end their good/excellent health care, and replace it will likely lower quality "Medicare for All".

That's regressive, backwards, insulting, and un-American.

I hope Trump wins. I like Trump. Him and I have the same stance on life issues.

Biden also looks like he's hungry for blood. Clinton looked as though she was hungry for blood. We don't need a fly trap running America.

By which you mean people with uteruses shouldn’t be able to control those uteruses and you prioritise small clumps of cells over human beings.

Beliefs like that ruin lives for absolutely no benefit. And you’re saying that you like someone if they support your campaign to ruin lives, even if they go around saying they want to grab people by the genitals, or calling other countries “s**tholes”?

Don’t be too sure about Trump’s support btw. When he ran for President in 2000 he said he supported abortion in all cases. And don’t for a second think that toerag has any respect for people’s lives given his sabrerattling with North Korea, his tearing up of the Iran Peace Deal, his defunding of life saving charities, his ban on refugees, and his attempts to restrict immigration into the USA.

Given the culture they helped to create, I guarantee you that all four members of the Kinks supported the right to choose.

Not that Trump is any good but Biden better,actually Biden is worse.

And yet, objectively looking at this issue, couldn't the other side of this argument be thinking along the lines of "no refunds for change of mind" (or "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"), where the person who is in this situation almost always had "precautions"\preventative items\actions available, yet through their choice, did not use\take advantage of them? (I say "almost always", as sadly there are times when one "party" has no control at the appropriate time).

As to the "small clumps of cells", I'm sure there are many people who are unable (for medical or other reasons) to create their own clumps and would gladly accept these clumps should they be permitted to increase in size and become a human being, rather than know that they are being discarded for being "inconvenient" to the person currently in possesion of them yet who had willingly (enthusiasticaly?) participated in their creation.



I seem to recall the statement was "could" as in "had the ability to do so" not expressing any desire to "want" to do so (Much like how someone "could" go rob a bank: they may have the ability to attempt the action, but it does not imply in any way a desire to do so).



Isn't his job to look after the citizens of the USA, not the whole world? From what I understand, North Korea (and possibly Iran) were threatening the country he is supposed to be "protecting" (or not abiding by agreements which they had previouslty made). The actions taken would potentially have been designed to show that availability of actions that could be taken (as opposed to more "talks" with no obvious downside for not abiding by the results as had occurred in the past).

I'm not sure about the charity side of things, but the immigration and refugee acts were likely based around what HE and his party saw as being in the best interests of HIS country, rather than what may (theoretically) be in the best interests of those citizens of other countries. After all, letting in people who you have no knowledge of (whether crossing a border to avoid having your background checked and/or reason to be in the country determined, or coming in from a country with lax identity records) has the potential to expose the population he is there to help protect to the possibility of "bad things" occuring to them.

Besides the potential "physical" bad things there are also the less obvious ways in which immigration affects the population: Many (most) of those who will try to enter the country through means other than the "official" ones (visa and\or crossing at desiganted places) will likely end up working in low-paying jobs. These people will, as such, be taking work away from people who are legitimately in the country, as well as increasing the pool of available workers, and so placing down-ward pressure on wages (Why pay more when there are so many other people who would do the job for the same or less), as well as increasing (potentially) the number of people making use of the education/medical/residential systems, without an increase in taxes (if person working illegally) to fund these services, or accurate numbers being available for budgeting purposes.

An alternative way to look at it: Would you allow a homeless person who you do not know anything about (and cannot personally select) to move into your house, where you will personally pay for their needs with no guarantee of having any costs incurred repaid, nor any guarantee of their actions while there? Now expand the "house" to a country and the homeless person to an unknown number of people...