The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

this one's interesting too
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/polit...newday-vpx.cnn

I've always wondered about this one - what are her views on capital punishment?

this is one of the 'crucial' topics yet wiki says nothing & even google can't tell (she did once ask for some clemency for a death row convict but that was a jihadist so doesn't count)

does she support it as her religion does or oppose it as a democrat should?

[Coco Pops]

So congress might be agreeing on some kind of budget that is good news.

But then we have to wait for Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to approve of this because the President needs their OK first.

[Chaka-Z0]

does she support it as her religion does or oppose it as a democrat should?

It's a valid question.

[Gatefan1976]

It's a valid question.

No, it's a stupid, partisan HACK of a question.

[Annoyed]

I just noticed you keep focusing on 60K...you do realize that 60K does not qualify, right? It's under 60K. Which, by the way, is beyond the point. The point is that by everyone else's standards, our system is far from generous. You were talking to a Canadian trying to pass off our welfare as generous, when compared to their system, ours is quite comparable if not smaller actually. You were trying to shock him into "how much" money we give, when in reality to him that was nothing shocking. They get free healthcare up there for crying out loud. Though, ironically, the one place where we do got the Canadians beated is in school lunches.

Also, the issue here is also (can I use also twice?) that 60k for a family isn't an extravagant amount either, especially if you consider that rent can go as high as 15k a year with transportation capable of costing 2k assuming the whole family spends only an average of $40 of gas per week (considering that many people do commute long distances for work, it can be nearly twice as much). No family can do with less than $100 for groceries per week, unless they are trimming fat (literally, figuratively, and at possibly at unhealthy levels) or at least not if you want to eat healthy foods, so that's $5,200. Take taxes into account and that's one parent's income. Then you need car insurance, telecom bills, clothing, health insurance, Car and house maintenance, Utilities, and medical bills not covered by insurance companies. Sure 60K can cover that, but just barely with no room for any sort of disposable income. No mortgage, no new cars, no real luxuries or much in the way of middle class level "extras".

You go below 60K and you have to start making sacrifices. $700 a year in school lunches for one kid does all of a sudden make a difference.

And before you go into the "you shouldn't have kids" nonsense, you do realize that if everyone waited until they made 60k individually before having kids, that this country would have a demographic crises worse than anything in either China or Japan? We are talking societal collapse. Families are the bases of any civilization, without them there is no civilization. We as a society have a vested interest in people having kids, at least 2.1 kids per woman (the 0.1 for those that don't end up having kids for whatever reason. If we all adopt your "Only the rich should have kids" approach or even limit lower middle class and working class families to 1 kid, we would fall well below 2.1 kids per woman to the point where it would be irreversible. So yes, even if 50K or 55K or 59K salaries per household could (with creative accounting and sensible austerity) do without free or reduced meals in schools, for the benefit of American (and by extent Western) Civilization, I say it's not a bad thing at all and it is well worth the cost.

I'll go even further, if it means keeping our civilization up, I'd even bump it up to 70k to account for inflation.

Did you not cite the figure of 60K as the eligibility point for free/discounted school lunch programs?

[Annoyed]

So congress might be agreeing on some kind of budget that is good news.

But then we have to wait for Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to approve of this because the President needs their OK first.

Have you noticed the media is using the phrase "in principal" in their coverage?

This ain't a done deal, not by a long shot. It doesn't have anywhere near the level of funding for the wall that Trump wants, and it ain't a deal till Trump signs off on it.

[Gatefan1976]

Have you noticed the media is using the phrase "in principal" in their coverage?

This ain't a done deal, not by a long shot. It doesn't have anywhere near the level of funding for the wall that Trump wants, and it ain't a deal till Trump signs off on it.

I think you missed coco's point.

[Annoyed]

I think you missed coco's point.

My point is that it isn't a deal till POTUS signs it, and I don't think he will.

[Chaka-Z0]

No, it's a stupid, partisan HACK of a question.

I disagree. I think this is the perfect example to point out some contradictions of mixing religion and politics.

What happens when the immovable object meet the unstoppable force? Say an ultra-conservative Christian runs for the democrats, which are pro-abortion, what does that make him? Is he a fake Christian?

[Gatefan1976]

I disagree. I think this is the perfect example to point out some contradictions of mixing religion and politics.

What happens when the immovable object meet the unstoppable force? Say an ultra-conservative Christian runs for the democrats, which are pro-abortion, what does that make him? Is he a fake Christian?

Ahhh, you understood my point..
Here is the issue.
Does religious obligation override political motivation?
More simply, does my choice matter more than yours?
Trump believes it's only his choice that matters, and with that mindset, he will never "win".
He has failed with every venture outside of self promotion, he even lost at casino's and had them turn belly up.
If you want to endorse a leader who ONLY cares about themselves, you are inviting fascism into your society, and accepting that you yourself are fascist.

It does not matter WHO your leader is, all that matters is how you deal with them.

[Gatefan1976]

My point is that it isn't a deal till POTUS signs it, and I don't think he will.

I know YOUR point, that's a non issue, a red herring, a waste of a post.
Consider that until congress signs of on the POTUS's claims, it's not a deal either.
Go into shutdown again because your POTUS does not get what he want's.
Perhaps Obama should have done the same as well with the ACA?

This is your issue.
You think any opposition to what you want should just give up and "roll over", yet see non compliance with your desire to be "anti-American", or unfounded attacks"
Denying Obama was your DUTY.
Supporting TRUMP is your EXCUSE.

I strongly suggest you actually read your POTUS's Twitter feed, and ask yourself, "is this really the person who can represent AMERICA?
You are free to have a Hamburder with Coffeve while you consider that.

[Chaka-Z0]

I strongly suggest you actually read your POTUS's Twitter feed, and ask yourself, "is this really the person who can represent AMERICA?

Here's some reference material for y'all:

Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!

192K
5:54 PM - Feb 9, 2019

All I got to say is... what the f**k?

[Gatefan1976]

Here's some reference material for y'all:

Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!

192K
5:54 PM - Feb 9, 2019

All I got to say is... what the f**k?

Ahh yes, the allusion to the trail of tears, which his son thought was a "sick burn" against Warren because she claimed she was part native American.
Cool...…………..

[Annoyed]

I know YOUR point, that's a non issue, a red herring, a waste of a post.
Consider that until congress signs of on the POTUS's claims, it's not a deal either.
Go into shutdown again because your POTUS does not get what he want's.
Perhaps Obama should have done the same as well with the ACA?

This is your issue.
You think any opposition to what you want should just give up and "roll over", yet see non compliance with your desire to be "anti-American", or unfounded attacks"
Denying Obama was your DUTY.
Supporting TRUMP is your EXCUSE.

I strongly suggest you actually read your POTUS's Twitter feed, and ask yourself, "is this really the person who can represent AMERICA?
You are free to have a Hamburder with Coffeve while you consider that.

I've said many times that Trump isn't perfect.

But I've also said that the open border and illegal immigrant problem has been ongoing for more than 40 years. In my opinion, the best and only way to solve that is with a wall.

Which is why I support just about any action that has to be taken to get one built.

Trump was foolish for backing down 2 weeks ago, and I hope he sticks by his guns even if we do have another shutdown.

[Chaka-Z0]

Not perfect? Come on.

Trump is a blatant racist bigot ruling by division and hatred. His trade policies are sh*t. His tweets are moronic. He is an incompetent slice of baloney eating burgers and watching TV all day. He also wears a wig, without which he would look like Voldemort in a Harry Potter American spin-off.

I do not say this lightly, but I would never share my bacon with such a detritus of mankind.