The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Just a few items off the top of my head...

The US economy runs on energy.
Under Trump, we've achieved energy independence. In fact, we are now a net exporter of oil, as I understand it. This has done good things for our economy.

You have always had that option, buying oil and coal was a strategic decision so when it runs out in other countries, you still have it. We do the same here.

The Democrats want to destroy that; many of them want to outright ban gasoline. Doing so would decimate the US economy. This would be bad.

Proof?
What if you replaced the system with battery power, and you made a company that could get your tank of a car and boat around? What if it didn't affect you personally to do it?
How much would having the rights to such emergent tech HELP the US economy?
Nah, give me petrol.

The Democrats (and many conventional Republicans) want to continue the flood of illegals who are coming into the country and hopping onto the welfare gravy train. This is a drain on the economy, and obviously bad.

There is almost ZERO proof to support this contention, and in fact there is more evidence to say you have it backwards. Most illegals are in the US because they want to work, and it's more Americans that are on social welfare.
So, check your supposed facts.

This is a weird one. Until Trump came along and actually did something about it, Democrats have generally taken a better position on Trade deals; opposing things like NAFTA. But of course, nowadays, they want free trade to oppose Trump. Trade deals that put the US at a disadvantage as NAFTA and others did are bad for us.

Yet, the new bill keeps the VAST majority of NAFTA intact. You have worked out some trade deals, given an gotten some considerations, but on the whole, it's not that different if you actually look at it. I'll give trump credit for wanting to do that for you folks, but to think it is going to be "bigly greater" is a delusional mindset to have. It will be better for some, and worse for others because that is the very nature of trade.

The Democrats want to keep on expanding legalized murder in the form of abortion. How can that be anything but bad?

That is a moral position, and not one I have heard ANY democrat wanting to expand in any way, shape or form.
All they want to do is maintain the current laws, and some of them are even willing to make the "time of legal abortion" to be rolled back.
So this one falls into the "Total BS basket"
Which Girlfriend of yours as a kid got one, because you have a serious hard on about this issue?

I could go on, in fact, maybe I'll edit this later and add on to it, but you should get the idea; much of what the left wants to do is harmful to the nation and its working people who would end up suffering the consequences such as loss of jobs, wages, etc.

Nope, this is all pure conjecture and supposition.
Trump has cut your revenue, and blown out your national debt.
Where the hell do you think that's going to leave you?

This is why I oppose them, I don't care if you call your party chopped liver, if you want to do what I consider right, I'll support you, if you want to do things that I consider wrong, I'll oppose you.. The name of the party doesn't matter.

That is the most self serving, arrogant and pathetic lie you have told.
Well done.

[Annoyed]

You have always had that option, buying oil and coal was a strategic decision so when it runs out in other countries, you still have it. We do the same here.

I'm speaking of production, not purchasing.

Proof?
What if you replaced the system with battery power, and you made a company that could get your tank of a car and boat around? What if it didn't affect you personally to do it?
How much would having the rights to such emergent tech HELP the US economy?
Nah, give me petrol.

That right there is why you're wrong. "what if". The plain and simple truth is that we don't yet have a portable energy storage or generation technology that can match the energy density of petroleum. So we don't yet have anything to replace it with. It hasn't been invented or made it to the "shelf" yet. Someday we will invent something which will beat petroleum, and when that day arrives, I'll happily use that as a source.

Oh, and I'm not the only person that needs a practical vehicle. The energy limitations of electric make them useless for many people.

As far as "proof", have you listened to what the Kindergartner wants to do? She and her ilk want to remove petroleum as an energy source without having anything to replace it. That will destroy our economy.

There is almost ZERO proof to support this contention, and in fact there is more evidence to say you have it backwards. Most illegals are in the US because they want to work, and it's more Americans that are on social welfare.
So, check your supposed facts.

Or course there are more US citizens on welfare, there are far, far more of them in the population. You're not looking at it right.
What percentage of the illegal immigrant population is on assistance one way or another vs. what percentage of US citizens are?

Yet, the new bill keeps the VAST majority of NAFTA intact. You have worked out some trade deals, given an gotten some considerations, but on the whole, it's not that different if you actually look at it. I'll give trump credit for wanting to do that for you folks, but to think it is going to be "bigly greater" is a delusional mindset to have. It will be better for some, and worse for others because that is the very nature of trade.

Granted, the new agreement didn't go far enough. But at least it's something. Until now, there has been nothing.
And pulling out of that stupid Paris climate deal and not agreeing to the pacific trade agreement are in the same vein; they would have been detrimental to our economy. Additionally, the Pacific deal would have ceded punitive authority over US corporations to 3rd party entities such as some kangaroo court run by the U.N. or some such. Surely you can see how those deals would have been bad for the U.S.

That is a moral position, and not one I have heard ANY democrat wanting to expand in any way, shape or form.
All they want to do is maintain the current laws, and some of them are even willing to make the "time of legal abortion" to be rolled back.
So this one falls into the "Total BS basket"
Which Girlfriend of yours as a kid got one, because you have a serious hard on about this issue?

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Some of the murderers out there have been advocating even later term and even live birth abortions if having a child would inconvenience the mother in any way.

And I've told you before, I've never left any "accidents" behind. It's called responsible behavior.

[Annoyed]

You can't impeach someone before they take office, it's not even a legal possibility.
Impeachment is reserved for serving officials because it is the constitutional remedy, not the legal remedy. If the dems wanted to take legal action against trump when he was candidate, they could have, and some indeed did, and given the actions he has done, I personally think they should have done it. Not because he was a republican, but because of his history.
You need to know the law if you are going to argue this Annoyed, and either you don't know, or don't want to know.
Which leaves you either ignorant, or uncaring about the law.
How Republican are you really these days?

Then explain the calls from more than a few Democrats/Lefties to impeach 20 minutes after he was declared the winner. BEFORE he was inaugurated.

[SoulReaver]

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Some of the murderers out there have been advocating even later term and even live birth abortions if having a child would inconvenience the mother in any way.

says the Sharia fan '_'

And I've told you before, I've never left any "accidents" behind. It's called responsible behavior.

GOP doctrine says you must have children to make future wage slaves for the capitalist exploitation machine and/or future death row inmates, and also because God says so so you never should've left her. commie

Then explain the calls from more than a few Democrats/Lefties to impeach 20 minutes after he was declared the winner. BEFORE he was inaugurated.

explain why they never charged him before he was in office (as a private citizen)

[jelgate]

Because a good priced lawyer can find loopholes

[Gatefan1976]

I'm speaking of production, not purchasing.

Then you are missing the point.
You CHOSE to not produce so when the supply from the middle east ran out, you would still have oil.
Again, it was a strategic decision, not a economic decision.

That right there is why you're wrong. "what if". The plain and simple truth is that we don't yet have a portable energy storage or generation technology that can match the energy density of petroleum. So we don't yet have anything to replace it with. It hasn't been invented or made it to the "shelf" yet. Someday we will invent something which will beat petroleum, and when that day arrives, I'll happily use that as a source.

I'm glad you think you will use it.
How long does it take to replace bronze, iron or steel?
You have to take what you can Annoyed, and if a networks of multiple power sources can do it cleaner than coal or oil, you need to take that as well. You are only looking at the "now" and for the "now" you are right, nothing is better than coal, oil and gas in terms of sheer energy output.
What about the damage they do?

Oh, and I'm not the only person that needs a practical vehicle. The energy limitations of electric make them useless for many people.

I'm not advocating for removal of petrol engines, I'm advocating for limiting them to those who need them. The goal is reduction of CO2, and for people who drive less than 1 to 2 hundred miles a day, electric powered vehicles works. This is like the gun debate, I am not in favour of removing all guns, just people having the appropriate "level of gun"
Can you understand that?

As far as "proof", have you listened to what the Kindergartner wants to do? She and her ilk want to remove petroleum as an energy source without having anything to replace it. That will destroy our economy.

Utter horse crap. Your economy is not based on petrol, you have outsourced that for decades. As for the having a replacement, they do, you just don't like it.
You want to know what destroys your economy?
Running the highest deficit in non war time while reducing your taxable income base, and it's exactly what you are doing now.

Or course there are more US citizens on welfare, there are far, far more of them in the population. You're not looking at it right.
What percentage of the illegal immigrant population is on assistance one way or another vs. what percentage of US citizens are?

Tell me, exactly HOW are you calculating that?
Illegals stay off the radar, so where are your facts to back this up coming from?

Granted, the new agreement didn't go far enough. But at least it's something. Until now, there has been nothing.

Wrong, there was NAFTA.
You may FEEL it did not go far enough, and that's fine, but to claim "nothing was happening", is an outright lie

And pulling out of that stupid Paris climate deal and not agreeing to the pacific trade agreement are in the same vein; they would have been detrimental to our economy. Additionally, the Pacific deal would have ceded punitive authority over US corporations to 3rd party entities such as some kangaroo court run by the U.N. or some such. Surely you can see how those deals would have been bad for the U.S.

You have proven time and time again you have no understanding of how a national economy works, you make assumptions and consider them facts with no evidence, and no basis to do so.
You want a isolated social system, but with all the benefits of trade, and that is just not going to work.
Where are you going to sell your excess production when you have alienated all your trading partners?
Your farmers, you know the people trump championed are already realising this, and it will spread through your entire export chain.
Buyers will dry up, and your economy WILL tank.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Some of the murderers out there have been advocating even later term and even live birth abortions if having a child would inconvenience the mother in any way.

This is utter BS.
The law does not allow for it, it never has, and never will. You are just parroting right wing (or more specifically, evangelical) talking points.
I know you hate education, but please try to learn -SOMETHING- before spewing your crap all over the place.

And I've told you before, I've never left any "accidents" behind. It's called responsible behavior.

You have also told me before you did not always use condoms or make sure the girl was on "the pill"
So were you responsible, or "lucky"?

[Gatefan1976]

Then explain the calls from more than a few Democrats/Lefties to impeach 20 minutes after he was declared the winner. BEFORE he was inaugurated.

Proof?
Got any?

[jelgate]

Do conspiracy theories count as proof?

[Gatefan1976]

Do conspiracy theories count as proof?

Depends on who you ask I guess.

[Coco Pops]

Do conspiracy theories count as proof?

Well in some people's worlds conspiracy theories ARE the proof......

[Annoyed]

Proof?
Got any?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...e-constitution

Note the date. 11/2016. Before inauguration.
Oh, and there's this:
https://www.essence.com/feature/maxi...ent-interview/

The congresswoman says she's been calling for and talking about a Trump impeachment since his inauguration

Whether he did anything or not, they've been trying to get him out of office since the election. They just can't stand that he won, and at such a critical time.

[Gatefan1976]

[QUOTE=Annoyed;14678396]https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...e-constitution

Note the date. 11/2016. Before inauguration.
Note that no one asked for his impeachment. The word is never used in your example.
Yes they called him criminal, because was, is and still is.

Oh, and there's this:
https://www.essence.com/feature/maxi...ent-interview/

Umm, because he is a liar?
jeez, is pointing that out a crime now?
Betraying you oath is fine, but pointing out lies is unpatriotic?
Damn, you are worse off than I thought..

Whether he did anything or not, they've been trying to get him out of office since the election. They just can't stand that he won, and at such a critical time.

No, that's just your excuse.
And you are going to stick with it, no matter what proof or evidence contradicts you.
Pathetic.

[SoulReaver]

what pisses me off is the neocons come up with the conspicary theories & the DNC refutes them
pathetic (the Dems I mean)

hey Dems wake up you idiots the GOP's in power they are Government & you are the opposition/Resistance which means you're the ones who should be doing the conspiracy theories not the other way around
starting with the most obvious & credible theories you know like the fact that Godvernment will most likely rig next year's election to remain in power? they should be airing this 24/7

instead Trump & the GOP makes up the theories & they have the DNC on the defensive

in other words those in power pass off as the victims & paint the resistance as the oppressors

and the Dems are too fookin stupid to see this

[Gatefan1976]

I think they see it, but they are too scared to deal with it. There problem is that unless they have -full- control they just back off.
Stupid?
Yes.

[Annoyed]

I think they see it, but they are too scared to deal with it. There problem is that unless they have -full- control they just back off.
Stupid?
Yes.

Actually, in today's hyperpartisan environment, unless either party has control of the House AND the Senate, it's nearly impossible to get anything done. You end up with gridlock, which pretty much means the govt. can't produce any new laws or do much of anything besides maintain status quo.

Which isn't a bad place to be; if the govt. can't do anything, it can't screw things up further.