Which generic statement do you believe more? [Vote first, then read below]

[ModernDiogenes]

Neither without substantive, corroborated, evidence to back up that statement.

 

[Jessie C]

Well, Trump is too incompetent to be able to succeed in taking rights away. Besides, he only has a vague idea of what U.S. rights ARE, never having read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. He does have Mein Kampf on his bedside table though. Go figure.

DC, if he gets back in the Whitehouse, he does have the ability to decimate the rights of all of us.

He's too stupid to realize that by doing that he will eventually squash the rights of his sorry base and once their live fall apart, they will hate him too.

But it will be too late. If he gets back in power, he will ruin this country. Count on it.

 

[AZRWinger]

The same can be said of illegal immigration. Not a single Republican politician has any interesting in stopping illegal immigration, no matter how forcefully they campaign on it. The day there are no longer illegal immigrants flooding into the US on a daily basis is the day that Republicans no longer get elected.

219 House Republicans, all, voted for HR2 comprehensive immigration reform. Using your preposterous analysis they voted against their own interest. Worse, Democrats voted to to keep Republicans winning by rejecting HR2. Brilliant analysis.

But don't worry, the Democrat Senate leader just pretended the Republican immigration reform bill didn't exist. What.a patriotic fellow.

 

[Ethel2]

I am generally more likely to believe that a politician will attempt to limit my freedoms than to protect them. Politicians' bread and butter is promising to pass new laws so that they can campaign on the promised results. New laws are far more likely to limit my freedoms than to grant me more freedoms.

Politicians bread and butter is protecting their power and their jobs. That’s why the important issues keep getting kicked down the road.

 

[eman623]

I never mentioned Roe v Wade. How about Alabama axeing IVF?

Are you paying attention? Alabama did not axe IVF.

In any case, a single cherry picked data point doesn't change the fact that Democrats love restrictions and regulations more than Republicans.

 

[Jessie C]

Are you paying attention? Alabama did not axe IVF.

In any case, a single cherry picked data point doesn't change the fact that Democrats love restrictions and regulations more than Republicans.

Do you have access to the news other than fox? I don't have time for your endless nonsense. Name ONE restriction the democrats have put on your life. Not going to wait for it.

 

[eman623]

Do you have access to the news other than fox? I don't have time for your endless nonsense. Name ONE restriction the democrats have put on your life. Not going to wait for it.

No problem. Right after you prove your nonsense assertion that Alabama "axed" IVF. Which MSNBC host told you that anyway?

Unlike you I will wait. No doubt forever.

 

[lwf]

219 House Republicans, all, voted for HR2 comprehensive immigration reform. Using your preposterous analysis they voted against their own interest. Worse, Democrats voted to to keep Republicans winning by rejecting HR2. Brilliant analysis.

But don't worry, the Democrat Senate leader just pretended the Republican immigration reform bill didn't exist. What.a patriotic fellow.

Yet Republicans rejected the bipartisan 2024 supplemental security package with historic improvements to the asylum system and increased funding for border security, which would have made it much easier to deny asylum, and would have sped up the immigration process for those who qualified, essentially robbing Donald Trump of the "Biden is weak on the borders" angle in his upcoming election. Remember, you don't need every Republican to vote against tougher immigration, you just need enough to ensure the bill doesn't pass, so you can continue to campaign on "tougher borders." Illegal immigration has never been as high as it was during Bush's tenure, went down during Obama's, and it went up during the beginning of Trump's administration, only falling during the COVID lockdown.

Republicans campaign on tougher borders, but they don't actually solve the issue. Their plans are always window dressing that doesn't actually do anything except waste your tax dollars. They like it because their donors profit off of illegal immigrants and it scares those who don't know any better into voting Republican against their own interests.

 

[LouC]

Who is Candidate A?

Who is Candidate B?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I looked up a recent YouGov poll as I was researching Joe Biden's (potentially) final State of the Union address When I looked up freedoms, I noticed something very interesting: More Democratic leaners (something like 70-80% depending on the rights in question) were likely to believe that Joe Biden would strengthen or preserve their rights than to believe that Donald Trump (50%-60% depending on the rights in question) would take their rights away. This got me thinking: Is this a universal effect? So, this poll is going to test this. I want to see if this forum has a definitive leaning towards one wording or another.

I don't think either one has any real interest in "rights" one way or the other.

 

[choiceone]

The liberal media follows Joseph Goebbels #1 dictum: "if you tell a big lie often enough the people will accept it as truth.
Yet another NAZI maxim the Democratic Party has embraced.

You seem to have the wrong party here.

 

[choiceone]

Are you paying attention? Alabama did not axe IVF.

In any case, a single cherry picked data point doesn't change the fact that Democrats love restrictions and regulations more than Republicans.

Because of the Republicans' proven desire to end abortion, the possibility that they will try to end contraception and make consensual sex outside of marriage illegal and ban same sex marriage, I don't that very much. The issue isn't how many restrictions they love - it's the actual quality of the restrictions. Keep your laws off other people's bodies and private medical and bedroom lives first. Then we'll talk.

 

[Bullseye]

You seem to have the wrong party here.

The fact you think that actually proves I don't have the wrong party.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Alabama's decision de facto killed IVF by making embryos people. This means that if the embryo had problems through no fault of the IVF organization, they could get in serious trouble.

 

[uptower]

It's fairly clear that Trump and the GOP have a platform of taking rights away - though pointedly not gun rights. They keep telling us. On the other hand, the Dems and subsequently the Biden admin have a record of protecting rights since 1965.

I think even red state voters know the GOP will suppress rights and freedoms - just not theirs, or so they believe...

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I know my description was of Biden and Trump, but interesting how most of you seemed to go there before you voted.

How about this pairing? Which do you believe more:
Candidate A: -I- will protect your rights
Candidate A: -Candidate B- will take your rights away

 

[ttwtt78640]

... I am going to need mountains worth of popcorn for a thread like this. (Pull up a chair and join!)

Yep, because no specific rights were mentioned.

 

[ttwtt78640]

LOL! Yeah, the republican attack on womens rights is proof of that!

Hmm… like the right to have men compete in women’s sports?

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, they don't. If you disagree, prove it, provide evidence of more of your rights going away under Democratic administrations compared to Republican ones.

For one thing, Republicans support "states' rights", which is always code for giving states the right to limit individual rights.

Hmm… which states are more likely to limit 2A rights?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I am generally more likely to believe that a politician will attempt to limit my freedoms than to protect them. Politicians' bread and butter is promising to pass new laws so that they can campaign on the promised results. New laws are far more likely to limit my freedoms than to grant me more freedoms.

/thread

 

[choiceone]

Hmm… like the right to have men compete in women’s sports?

Professional sports organizations are making the call for professional women's sports. And they should. I'm really tired of politicians making the call when they have none of the professional qualifications.

 

[choiceone]

Hmm… which states are more likely to limit 2A rights?

The really highly populated ones.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Professional sports organizations are making the call for professional women's sports. And they should. I'm really tired of politicians making the call when they have none of the professional qualifications.

Most schools have (segregated) female sports programs.

 

[choiceone]

Most schools have (segregated) female sports programs.

Yes, and here the schools are free to decide, hopefully with at least an eye to the professional sports organizations related to the sport, as that would relate to rewarding competition for, e.g., special awards, scholarships.