I still vote D, but ...

[EMNofSeattle]

Practically speaking, there are just so many of them here and they are so integrated in their culture, and we aren't getting them out anyway. So we might as well have them out in the open. I support amnesty along with much better security along the border. Also, you aren't going to get the democrats to pass border security without some amnesty anyway. An immigration solution will require compromise on both sides.

Actually it does not, it only requires one side to actually fight the issue. The Republican Party should under NO circumstances agree to legalize tens of millions of democratic voters

 

[Antiwar]

That is not socialism. Socialism is two fold, common ownership of the means of production and social egalitarianism (“classless society”)

government services and regulation, which have been present in every society ever, are not socialist.

You've got a lot of websites and people to "correct":

Social democracy originated within the socialist movement,[33] supporting economic and social interventions to promote social justice.[34][35] While retaining socialism as a long-term goal,[36][37][38][39][40] since the post-war period it has come to embrace a Keynesian mixed economy within a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation and a welfare state.[41]

Link:

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[distraff]

Actually it does not, it only requires one side to actually fight the issue. The Republican Party should under NO circumstances agree to legalize tens of millions of democratic voters

A compromise wouldn't be citizenship for illegals, just a green card. Their kids will be citizens, but thats how it is anyway with birthright citizenship. If you want immigration to be truly fixed, you are going to need democratic votes to get the 60 votes in the senate required. As it is, we have many illegals coming in untracked and millions living here under the radar. I'm just saying having them out in the open is actually better.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You've got a lot of websites and people to "correct":


Link:

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Socialists have an ability to be cunning and insert themselves in institutions. I’m talking about actual socialist philosophy, not the modern rebranding. The socialist states either failed spectacularly or were usurped by the people and defeated like in Chile and Spain. So most people now recognize the revolution of the proletariat will not occur like they envisioned so now they want to muddy the waters and claim socialism is about government services.

it is not about government services.

 

[Praxas]

I still vote D, but I generally DISagree with the D party on the issue of _____________

OTHER Easy.........Gun Banning.

 

[The Mark]

I still vote D, but I generally DISagree with the D party on the issue of _____________

May main problem with the Democratic party is that I don't think they're going to do enough or go far enough to address:
Taxing and spending - wealth and income inequality. They need to tax the rich like the 1930s and 40s. I'm talking 90+% above a threshold of some millions, enough they can live really comfortably but beyond that no.

Environmental protection and regulation - addressing climate change is the most important issue that exists. I do not really think anyone is going to do enough to address it before we start seeing even more significant negative effects.

Abortion - On this I generally agree with them, at least if they're for no bans or restrictions.

Education - we've been REALLY slacking off our education policy, we need to completely fund certain fields and degrees, especially medical. And outside that we need to heavily subsidize them so no one leaves college with debts so heavy they can't consider purchasing a house until they're 40 or something. if ever.

Police funding, tactics, etc. - We need to rethink our policing strategy, redirecting some of their funding to specialists for some things and start treating drug usage as a medical issue instead of criminal.

Trans Rights - I'm really not sure what the policy on this is, but generally speaking it's probably what they're doing best on because it doesn't really cost them anything. Most people don't really care about denying rights based on gender identity or whatnot because there isn't any point in doing so.

Gun rights and regulations - I tend to disagree with bans on specific types and styles of weapons.

Health care for all - there should be health care for all, but how we get there is unsure yet.

Immigration - this has been a really badly done area for the last few presidents or more.

Religious liberty - religious liberty should end at the point it infringes unduly on the liberties of others.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

May main problem with the Democratic party is that I don't think they're going to do enough or go far enough to address:
Taxing and spending - wealth and income inequality. They need to tax the rich like the 1930s and 40s. I'm talking 90+% above a threshold of some millions, enough they can live really comfortably but beyond that no.
Environmental protection and regulation - addressing climate change is the most important issue that exists. I do not really think anyone is going to do enough to address it before we start seeing even more significant negative effects.
Abortion - On this I generally agree with them, at least if they're for no bans or restrictions.
Education - we've been REALLY slacking off our education policy, we need to completely fund certain fields and degrees, especially medical.
Police funding, tactics, etc. - We need to rethink our policing strategy, redirecting some of their funding to specialists for some things and start treating drug usage as a medical issue instead of criminal.
Trans Rights - I'm really not sure what the policy on this is, but generally speaking it's probably what they're doing best on because it doesn't really cost them anything.
Gun rights and regulations - I tend to disagree with bans on specific types and styles of weapons.
Health care for all - there should be health care for all, but how we get there is unsure yet.
Immigration - this has been a really badly done area for the last few presidents or more.
Religious liberty - religious liberty should end at the point it infringes unduly on the liberties of others.

Does refusing a wedding cake for sodomites or mandating religious orders who’s members takes vows of chastity buy abortion pills qualify as unduly infringing on the liberties of others?

 

[Praxas]

Does refusing a wedding cake for sodomites or mandating religious orders who’s members takes vows of chastity buy abortion pills qualify as unduly infringing on the liberties of others?

Depends, if they are an open for public business than they have to follow the same rules as those others open for public business. Don't like it, move your ****ing ass to Iran, they have your values and you have theirs. Don't let the door hit your ass out of the US on your way out fascist. Nazis like you should have moved out long ago.

 

[The Mark]

Does refusing a wedding cake for sodomites or mandating religious orders who’s members takes vows of chastity buy abortion pills qualify as unduly infringing on the liberties of others?

In the first case it seems a bit ridiculous from both sides - why would you care who buys your cake? But at the same time, if a cake shop refuses to take your order, why would you give a damn? Go to another cake shop.
But then again, I don't understand why a cake is so important in the first place.

In the second case its more complicated, the only reason that was even a question is because we have this utterly idiotic system where health care is tied to your employment.
birth control pills or even abortions are medications or procedures that should be covered by your health care, since the point of health care coverage is to prevent you from going bankrupt due to unexpected costs.
So as a result employers have to pay for that kind of thing.

IMO though, we shouldn't have employer-provided coverage, it should instead be a baseline government-provided system with supplemental care an option to be purchased on the private market.
And birth control or abortions should be part of that government-provided care.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Depends, if they are an open for public business than they have to follow the same rules as those others open for public business. Don't like it, move your ****ing ass to Iran, they have your values and you have theirs. Don't let the door hit your ass out of the US on your way out fascist. Nazis like you should have moved out long ago.

So in fact you do not support religious liberty. So you are now an admitted liar.

 

[The Mark]

So in fact you do not support religious liberty. So you are now an admitted liar.

Religious liberty cannot be absolute, there must be a limit.

An obvious one that I think most would agree on is that killing someone in the name of religion cannot be accepted.
Additionally harming someone based on religion should not be allowed.
Although defining harm is where the gray area enters into it.

Some clearly consider denying the service of making a cake harm.

I'm not sure it's enough harm to be worth it though, if it is even harm.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In the first case it seems a bit ridiculous from both sides - why would you care who buys your cake? But at the same time, if a cake shop refuses to take your order, why would you give a damn? Go to another cake shop.

however the far left believes all of society must cater to the disordered perversions of every minority. So going to another cake shop is not an answer.

In the second case its more complicated,

no, it’s really not.

the only reason that was even a question is because we have this utterly idiotic system where health care is tied to your employment.
birth control pills or even abortions are medications or procedures that should be covered by your health care, since the point of health care coverage is to prevent you from going bankrupt due to unexpected costs.

that’s a non sequitur. The point of insurance is to prevent bankruptcy but in a free market you can choose to insure yourself against some risks while leaving yourself open to others.

So as a result employers have to pay for that kind of thing.

no they don’t. That conclusion does not follow from the premise.

IMO though, we shouldn't have employer-provided coverage, it should instead be a baseline government-provided system with supplemental care an option to be purchased on the private market.
And birth control or abortions should be part of that government-provided care.

No, that likewise is not an argument. There is no moral mandate government subsidize a non medical treatment that is bad for society like contraception.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Religious liberty cannot be absolute, there must be a limit.

however religious liberty as defined solely by liberal atheists is not religious liberty. The second Spanish republic claimed to have religious liberty while their enforcers were murdering priests and burning churches and confiscating land without compensation.

An obvious one that I think most would agree on is that killing someone in the name of religion cannot be accepted.

well it took a large amount of military conquest by Christian empires to break up the religion of the indigenous Americas which included ritual sacrifice so the idea no one should ever be killed on the name of religion is an iffy proposition.

Additionally harming someone based on religion should not be allowed.

sometimes acts that would be considered harm are part of devout practice. Donning sack cloth and ashes would be a form of harm.

Although defining harm is where the gray area enters into it.

Some clearly consider denying the service of making a cake harm.

except it’s not.

I'm not sure it's enough harm to be worth it though, if it is even harm.

its not harm at all.

 

[The Mark]

however the far left believes all of society must cater to the disordered perversions of every minority. So going to another cake shop is not an answer.
no, it’s really not. that’s a non sequitur. The point of insurance is to prevent bankruptcy but in a free market you can choose to insure yourself against some risks while leaving yourself open to others. no they don’t. That conclusion does not follow from the premise.

No, that likewise is not an argument. There is no moral mandate government subsidize a non medical treatment that is bad for society like contraception.

I'm tired so perhaps my logic is not working right.
As I understand it, women are legally protected in choosing what they do with their bodies.
Choosing whether to take contraception is part of that.
If they choose to take it, it's a necessary medical expense. If not it isn't.
Some people struggle to pay for medical care, and that is why I think we need baseline government care.

In a scenario where someone is using that baseline government care and they want to take contraception, it should provide that contraception.

Since we don't have baseline government care, whatever care they have should provide it.
Since it's necessary if they choose to take it.

Just like various insurance or health care covers Viagra or other such, it should cover contraception.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Because it's unethical for people to be barely surviving (or not) while others plunder resources, and hold others down.

Nobody is holding anyone down.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm tired so perhaps my logic is not working right.
As I understand it, women are legally protected in choosing what they do with their bodies.
Choosing whether to take contraception is part of that.
If they choose to take it, it's a necessary medical expense. If not it isn't.

This is not good logic. First off there is no moral right to choose to do whatever you want with your own body, since your body exists in a Union with your soul and in a social Union with every other body and soul you do not own your body in a property sense with the right to use and abuse. This is a philosophical argument for another time, but needless to say there is no actual right to use any substance on a personal ownership basis. There is likewise no right to purchase coverage for any specific medication. Nor is there an obligation that companies be forced to write policies their customers don’t want. You can choose to assume financial risks.

Some people struggle to pay for medical care, and that is why I think we need baseline government care.

ok but how is this related to whether or not the Catholic Church should have to pay for a non medical drug that it defines as intrinsically evil?

In a scenario where someone is using that baseline government care and they want to take contraception, it should provide that contraception.

which is irrelevant to the original topic.

Since we don't have baseline government care, whatever care they have should provide it.
Since it's necessary if they choose to take it.

non sequitur

Just like various insurance or health care covers Viagra or other such, it should cover contraception.

does private healthcare cover viagra? Is there a law mandating it cover viagra? First off Is there a current dispute where a religion which teaches that viagra is evil is being forced to provide it to their clerics or members? If not it’s irrelevant as a comparison. Secondly viagra restores bodily function, contraception on the other hand retards it.

 

[Praxas]

So in fact you do not support religious liberty. So you are now an admitted liar.

Nope I don't support ISIS type religion like you support sorry. Call me a liar all you want, you have only proven you are Anti-America and should move to support your friends in ISIS.

 

[The Mark]

This is not good logic. First off there is no moral right to choose to do whatever you want with your own body, since your body exists in a Union with your soul and in a social Union with every other body and soul you do not own your body in a property sense with the right to use and abuse. This is a philosophical argument for another time, but needless to say there is no actual right to use any substance on a personal ownership basis. There is likewise no right to purchase coverage for any specific medication. Nor is there an obligation that companies be forced to write policies their customers don’t want. You can choose to assume financial risks.
ok but how is this related to whether or not the Catholic Church should have to pay for a non medical drug that it defines as intrinsically evil?
which is irrelevant to the original topic.
non sequitur does private healthcare cover viagra? Is there a law mandating it cover viagra? First off Is there a current dispute where a religion which teaches that viagra is evil is being forced to provide it to their clerics or members? If not it’s irrelevant as a comparison. Secondly viagra restores bodily function, contraception on the other hand retards it.

I frankly don't think any employer should need to be paying for or providing health coverage.
I think it should be provided by the government in some kind of single-payer system. I suppose an employer could choose to offer supplemental coverage, but I think the baseline government care should be good enough it isn't necessary.

Medicare, the best example of government health care we currently have, covers Viagra.

I'm operating off the understanding that Viagra is not necessary for health.
Arguably, contraception is in some cases, but even assuming it isn't, it seemed to me that if we provide one unnecessary optional thing we should provide the other, or it's unfair.

Viagra coverage probably varies depending on private insurance provider, I don't know which ones cover it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I frankly don't think any employer should need to be paying for or providing health coverage.
I think it should be provided by the government in some kind of single-payer system. I suppose an employer could choose to offer supplemental coverage, but I think the baseline government care should be good enough it isn't necessary.

well you can write your treatise on health care but it’s not relevant to any point I made.

Medicare, the best example of government health care we currently have, covers Viagra.

I'm operating off the understanding that Viagra is not necessary for health.
Arguably, contraception is in some cases, but even assuming it isn't, it seemed to me that if we provide one unnecessary optional thing we should provide the other, or it's unfair.

Which is totally irrelevant to forcing religious organizations to buy it.

Viagra coverage probably varies depending on private insurance provider, I don't know which ones cover it.

So now you’re admitting you actually don’t know if your own argument for fairness is accurate?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nope I don't support ISIS type religion like you support sorry. Call me a liar all you want, you have only proven you are Anti-America and should move to support your friends in ISIS.

Lol. You actually think this is a smart argument.

 

[Juks]

I think the Democratic Party is moving too far left on gun restrictions. The Second Amendment prevents all mandatory buybacks. T

You do have some strange notion on left contra right that I am not really accustom to. It is like everything that stays the same are conservative and everything that means change are left? (Like gun policies, changing the police force and so on.) If that is the case, why isn’t illegal immigration a left question? Or is it simply because Donald Trump was the one to bring it to the front? So; what makes a question left or right in US depends on who is bringing it up and if that politician is republican or not?

Conclusion is that you never really vote for how your country or state should be manage and develop, but solely on the charisma of the one you are voting for? Which is a little like being on a swing and at the end you will end up on the same place you started from?

The other issue Democrats are moving too far left on is emphasizing public schools to the point that parents on on their own if private schooling is better for specific kids. If a child is struggling in the public school system, a private school might be the solution. Do all Democrats believe in making this school choice? I believe all kids have a right to a free public education, but many kids are better in non-religious private schools and Democrats should not deny them that opportunity.

To me there is only one thing that could save your country from this division, different realities and peoples reluctance to take in adequate information and the none-political political debate (for or against Donald, Biden or Hillary) :

You need to take control of the education system. It need to be financed by the country and not by the separate states. The connection between real estate tax and financing of schools needs to be taken away(to ensure good education for all children in all states, children should not be held responsible or pay for the consequences for parents choices). In Sweden we have a finance system based on how many children the school has(and yes we do have independent schools). That is one way, but I am sure there are others. The schools needs to have national instruction on what the students need to know after each course. Religious or non-religious schools alike (For example are the religious as well as the none-religious schools in my country obligded to educated the children in all religions and what they stand for.)These lore needs to be measured with some kind of regular measurement. Home education should not be allowed, it should be competent educated teachers providing the education.

Please note I am not talking about higher education but the compulsory schooling years.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You do have some strange notion on left contra right that I am not really accustom to. It is like everything that stays the same are conservative and everything that means change are left? (Like gun policies, changing the police force and so on.) If that is the case, why isn’t illegal immigration a left question? Or is it simply because Donald Trump was the one to bring it to the front? So; what makes a question left or right in US depends on who is bringing it up and if that politician is republican or not?

Conclusion is that you never really vote for how your country or state should be manage and develop, but solely on the charisma of the one you are voting for? Which is a little like being on a swing and at the end you will end up on the same place you started from?



To me there is only one thing that could save your country from this division, different realities and peoples reluctance to take in adequate information and the none-political political debate (for or against Donald, Biden or Hillary) :

You need to take control of the education system. It need to be financed by the country and not by the separate states. The connection between real estate tax and financing of schools needs to be taken away(to ensure good education for all children in all states, children should not be held responsible or pay for the consequences for parents choices). In Sweden we have a finance system based on how many children the school has(and yes we do have independent schools). That is one way, but I am sure there are others. The schools needs to have national instruction on what the students need to know after each course. Religious or non-religious schools alike (For example are the religious as well as the none-religious schools in my country obligded to educated the children in all religions and what they stand for.)These lore needs to be measured with some kind of regular measurement. Home education should not be allowed, it should be competent educated teachers providing the education.

Please note I am not talking about higher education but the compulsory schooling years.

Home schooling is a constitutional right in the United States. Why should it be banned?

 

[Juks]

Home schooling is a constitutional right in the United States. Why should it be banned?

Because it doesn't ensure any quality in the education. To become a teacher is to know how to educate children with different requirements and how to adress different problems/issues/disabilities and to know the subjects you are teaching. It requires more than being a good parent or taking an online course in education. For example, in my country you need about 4 years of university education in order to be a teacher. The childrens needs and necessities should be in the center, not their parents . It should be competent educated teachers providing the education.

 

[skeptic llc]

Wow. Voting for what you want is supposedly a bad thing. And I have to adopt every trait of the Green Party candidate, if she's actually concerned about electromagnetic radiation.

Was it Bernie's and/or Jill Stein's fault that Trump "won"?

It's not about individual pols' "fault" though, it's about casting a vote that matters vs a protest vote. I remember the regrets of people I knew who threw their votes away on Nader. That was before Rs became the party of Trump, but even then it laid bare how imprecise/juvenile the "both parties are the same" line of illogic was. The stakes are that much higher now. IMO, any argument fails if, in an election between Stalin and bland D, it would lead you to vote for SpongeBob SquarePants instead of one of the two actual options.

 

[skeptic llc]

if the multibillionaires and multimillionaires are all allied on one side, the other side is toast

My thumbs up is not saying this is how it should be, but that this is how it is. Oh, and that it is OBVIOUSLY how it is.