How can anyone take Republicans seriously?

When they use the fact that Christie hugging Obama is an evil thing and he should be shamed for it. Is that how vile the right is, where a human can't even hug another human without a CANDIDATE on a NATIONAL debate using it as some kine of "trump card"?

You are looking too far into it.

I dont know. I mean, they have a couple good ideas, but for the most part they rely too much on their religion to make decisions for a country that trys to separate church and government. Michelle Bachmann didnt want to run for office but her husband told her to so since the bible says for women to listen to their husband she did it. That party has too many psychos.

Guns+whiskey= winning

Rand Paul for president! :)

All political parties have far too many psychos.

I come from a very southern and very Conservative family, and while some of us are very stereotypical in our views most of us are not. My parents are both for gay marriage and my Dad is actually an athiest.

Christie hugged Obama as a gesture of thanks or as a way to take a shot at Mitt Romney, hoping that Romney wouldn't win the election that in turn would make it easier for Christie to run now. No way for us to really know what the motives were. As for taking them seriously? I take them as seriously as I do the democrats. Why not? I could fill pages here with the stuff the democrats have done and you can fill pages with the stuff the republicans have done. It wouldn't matter, just as we don't matter and our opinions don't matter. They are going to do what ever they want to do. You can think one side is better than the other if you wish, I don't. Ideologically they are different but aside from that's it. You'll find the same arrogance in Hillary as you do in Trump.

And neither party should be 'taken seriously'.

Some people wish to "conserve" the status quo (from 1955). This essentially means that white males get to skip to the front of every line. There is also an assumption that people will live "normally" (have kids in marriages, not fall in love with the same sex, hide all tattoos, stuff like that). Another running theme is: poor people should just stop being poor, then they could have food, shelter, and meds.

Some people want everyone to start at the same starting line and they are not so judgmental about others' sex partners or family structure. These types tend to look for ways to assist those who can't make ends meet.

So that's all. If the 1955 version of America is your own personal Heaven then you do what you can to keep undesirables from voting and you wince every time some minority group (race, gender, whatever) gets an obstacle removed.

If the 2055 version of America is where you see yourself then you're pushing for true, total equalitarianism.

Well...

I know I'm responding to a troll here, but what can I say? The bait is too good to pass up.

The Democrat policy is you can wait three seconds before a child is born, slice it's head off and then sell it's organs, and among the left, this act is a thing to be celebrated, yet the Republicans are beyond consideration to you because they bicker over petty issues? Better a bickering Republican than a child murdering Democrat.

And for clarity, I'm not saying that all Democrats are bloodthirsty or that Republicans deserve support; I could list a plethora of reasons to oppose both parties, but in this post, I'm just saying that OP's priorities are screwed up.

I'm pretty sure this was nothing more than a simple jab trying to get under Christie's skin.

well anyone that cares about their childrens and grandchildrens future should try to get as far away from the left as possible. (Republicans have started to stray away from supporting the people as the media has warped everyones mind on what can and cannot be said and whats important or not) All they want is an oppressive, thought controlled welfare state where everyone, dems, republicans, trannies and straights are crushed under the government while the corporate fat cats are still the ones hanging out with your dictators. It doesn't happen over night, it takes times but the conditions are coming together for that to a possibility, starting with the socialist bernie supporter that made this thread. How can anyone take YOU serious? Its okay to go to a fantasy world when reading comics, its not okay to constantly live in a fantasy like most of the left.

also just saw your reasoning.... straight up, are you A FAN OF GOAT CHEESE, maybe borderline?

It humors me greatly when I see people complain about the far left or the far right. Especially when they fail to realize that the political spectrum is not linear, but circular. A radical is a radical regardless of party.

To be fair to him, he is highlighting something that is/was happening to Christie. I mean regardless of all the flaws Christie has as a person and governor, shaking hands with the president that had just promised federal aid to Christie's disaster struck state, shouldn't cause a stir.

Christianity. When you can take the bible seriously, you can take anyone seriously.

@outside_85:

I can see how people would perceive the Christie thing as a small deal. My issue is that even if the Republicans bicker over small deals, they are right on some big deals like not killing children, so acting as if this one small deal is of preeminent importance it pretty silly.

Also, the Christie thing isn't that small a deal. The R's criticized Christie for fawning over Obama during the Super Storm cleanup. It's not that he was grateful, it's that he spoke glowingly of President Obama, and at the same time, he rejected meeting with Romney. This occurred right before the 2012 election, and when they did the political autopsy on the lost election, they found that most of the independent votes made their decision that weekend and referenced the super storm cleanup as the thing that influenced their decision, so Christie's hug and snub seems to have directly led to Obama winning the White House. We can't know for sure what would have happened without it, but I'm pretty sure Christie is a smart enough politician to know that a Republican governor with the nation's sympathy fawning over the Democrat President and snubbing the Republican candidate would help Obama and hurt Romney, so it's a fair point to bring up in this election cycle.

How can anyone take liberals and the democrat party seriously ? They're all a bunch of police-state loving commie hippie nutjobs who want to take away your freedom of expression and speech while calling any comment that offends them 'hate speech' or 'bigotry'.

@neonindian: How can anyone take you seriously? You go on a comic book forum to discuss politics. It's almost as bad as all of these Naruto and DBZ related threads.

@batwatch:

Whenever they are right or wrong on the subject of abortion is up for debate, if I have to be honest. But I am not really prepared to engage in that here. (But for the record I am against the idea of 'organ farming' naturally made infants.)

Regarding Christie... Refresh my memory, but wasn't one of the things Romney would do as president was essentially terminate the federal disaster relief program and instead force the individual states to pay for natural disasters themselves? You are right that Christie is smart enough a politician to know what he was doing back then to Romney, but considering Romney was already stumbling in the polls at the time and threatening to deprive Christie's state of relief, it's not like he had a good reason to be all that loyal to him.

I take neither political party seriously.

It's almost like candidates running for office would say things to make their voter base not want to vote for the people running against them. Who'd have thought?

I'm kind of glad Belgian politics aren't this black and white. We have about 6 big parties to vote for, woot.

This ^

I actually think there's a lot of room for discussion on abortion myself regarding when a fertilized egg becomes a person and therefore deserves protection, but I don't think there is any legitimate case to be made that it's okay to take a viable child who could survive independent of the mother and slice off the kid's head a second before it's born, yet that is the position of the Democrat Party.

I had not heard about Romney being against federal disaster relief, but looking into it, you are more or less correct. He wanted to decrease the amount of money going to FEMA saying the nation needed to stop spending money it did not have.

Christie, of course, has as much right as any individual to object to that policy and to support someone whom he believes better represents his values, but it's completely legitimate for the Republicans to point out that Christie's more closely aligned with Obama than Romney in 2012, a position most Republicans would dislike for obvious reasons.

I'll be honest and say I think it's a rather gross exaggeration of what the Democrats are suggesting in that regard. (I dont know exactly what they've suggested, but I am pretty sure it's not like that.)

:)

I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about Chris Christie's politics, but considering he's been a republican for this long and still is now, I have to say I assume his cooperation with Obama is limited to this subject. But that is (as you say) bad enough for the people, who amongst other things, have created a Congress that's been totally unwilling to work with Obama on anything.

The Democrat party line is support of partial birth abortion. If you aren't familiar with the procedure, feel free to look up a video of a partial birth abortion and try telling me that's not a child being murdered.

Schultz, the chairman of the DNC supports partial birth abortion. Hillary voted against a law banning partial birth abortions in 2003. President Obama not only supports partial birth abortions but actually voted agains the Born Alive law which would have kept abortion doctors from killing born children who were supposed to be aborted but accidentally slipped out of the mother before the doctor managed to kill it.

The idea that the Congress hasn't cooperated with Obama on anything is a complete myth. Obama has been tremendously successful at implementing his agenda. Let's take the "government shut down" for instance. This is one of the rare moments the GOP actually offered a little bit of resistance to the Obama administration. They offered to fund every single government program except for Obamacare, and it was Obama who would not compromise and work with the legislature and refused to fund any part of the government unless he got 100% of what he wanted, and after about a month, the GOP caved.

@renchamp: my bad i did forget that after the new language rule

also no baby should ever be aborted after 20 weeks which is where the baby is able to live outside of the mother if i have my facts straight. I cant imagine how anyone could possibly be for killing a baby that can survive outside of the mother.. thats about as clear as can be that thats murder.

whether you agree with it or not abortion boils down to:

a mother taking a childs future away to keep them from facing responsibility from a CHOICE they made

I can't speak for others but I believe the whole premise is not that those who believe a woman has a right to choose believe that abortion itself is to be celebrated. The idea is that in a conflict of competing ideals on the topic we believe a woman has certain rights to her body, especially when the process can have serious ramifications on her health. I believe that abortion is morally wrong myself, but I furthermore do not believe it is my right or in my authority to dictate to a woman whether she must carry a child to term. I also am not sure that there is a uniform Democratic policy (I'm not a democrat) declaring that abortion should be legal in absolutely all cases up until the point of birth. I know that legally the point of viability outside of the womb was established in planned Parenthood vs. Casey as the point where abortions can be legislated. To my knowledge most, if not all states ban 3rd Trimeseter abortions, and I personally agree with this restriction. I would be interested in hearing some examples of Democratic candidates running on a platform of allowing 3rd trimester abortions.

so you cant tell a woman what to do even though its a god damn CHOICE to get pregnant but you dont care about the baby inside?

Alright. Lets address a couple things here.

People who care about their children and grandchildren probably care about infrastructure, education, and making sure they can get jobs they can live off of. Now than, lets look at the cold hard facts.

Gallery

Looks to me like the left is very much so concerned with the future of america. Not to mention that tasty healthcare.

And now those corporate fat cats... You must be joking. That is LITTERALLY the basis of the republican agenda. Trickle down economics is a joke: "Hey, I know, lets cut taxes for the richest people in the world, and make sure they have as little limitations as possible!" Hell, some of them literally OWN big businesses, and are RUNNING off that *cough* trump, bush *cough*. Not to mention this jewel:

That amazing republican turnout for getting big business out of legislation, they are so clearly against big companies tha- oh, thats right, republicans are RED.

And yes, the left is so for PC culture. Thats why gamergate, figurehead movement against political correctness, has the following political leaning:

Wow, there are like no lefties there. Oh, wait... it almost looks like the left is MOST likely to be actively fighting against political correctness. Huh. Interesting. And lets just glance at what happens when even one of the left's most loved comedian/reporters even passingly mentions PC culture being good

Yea. Including his die-hard fans, who blindly thumb it up, and the entire feminist movement, there was a huge backlash from his viewers. JOHN OLIVER was hovering around 50% like/dislikes for about a week, that is mind boggling. Anti-PC culture is not a left-right issue, it is an up/down issue.

And that socialist Bernie Sanders... Lets see what he has co-sponsered.

Is he perfect? No, I don't agree with everything. But he's certainly the best candidate out there. Plus, we know he's actually serious about what he's talking about when he says that he will fight for the people:

Sorry, but you should come up with a complaint other than "He's a socialist!" Stop looking at who says what and start looking at facts. Who votes for what, what economic system has worked throughout history, how often do the candidates switch opinions and does that correlate to donations, ext.

@superdrummer: i honestly didnt feel like looking at random graphs but it was clear i didnt say dems support big business now but they will be when they get their strong central oppressive government going, to say the left isnt the entire driving force behind PC culture is ridiculous and bernie sanders sucks... Moving on

about abortion: you decide what constitutes a human or not, and no most humans dont have 4 legs. 4 arms, 4 eyes and 4 buttchecks so we arent just dealing with a "womans body" all in bold is who they believe doesnt deserve life up to 22 weeks. I'm sure its fun to hear the baby crys at 18 weeks plus or 16 weeks when the baby squirms. So moral such choice

• Day 1 - conception takes place.
• 7 days - tiny human implants in mother’s uterus.
• 10 days - mother’s menses stop.
• 18 days - heart begins to beat.
• 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
• 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
• 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
• 7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking.
• 8 weeks - all body systems present.
• 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist.
• 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working.
• 12 weeks - weighs one ounce.
• 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.)
• 18 weeks - vocal cords work – can cry.
• 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
• 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
• 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
• 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*

From what I read of how the 2003 ban works it's aimed at preventing the abortion of a fetus between 15 and 26 weeks old that's still unable to survive outside of the womb. I'll be honest and say the line for me when an abortion becomes murder is whenever or not the child could actually survive being removed from the mother prematurely or not.

That's not how it's appeared, because what the Congress has mostly offered it's support if whatever the administration suggested was changed to the point of being crippled and useless. And when that failed, they sort of threw a fit and tried everything they could to cripple it another way by dragging it off to court on the count of being unconstitutional and partially/totally defund the program which resulted in the shutdown of 2013. And looking back at that, does it really surprise you that the Democratic President who signed in a law his party had been fighting to implement for nearly 40 years absolutely refused to be the one that crippled it because some fool from Texas couldn't find the money elsewhere?

@rpgesus:

First off, half of pregnancies in the US are unintended.

Secondly, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women. If you dislike abortion, why not make it so people can afford a kid?

Third, 90% of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks

Fourth, forcing a child on a family that can't take care of them/doesn't want one is a good way to potentially ruin at least three lives

so basically instead of putting more responsibility on the women to not screw whatever moves and have a kid, you'd just rather metaphorically cap the baby before its born? I guess thats what they do to full grown people in those neighborhoods as well. Its worked wonders so nevermind just keep killing the babies so parents avoid the consequences of their choices

@rpgesus: Wow, good to see that you are open minded and really intent on making an educated choice on who should run arguably the most powerful nation in the world.

Those "Graphs" are literally just who voted yes and who voted no.

I provided evidence on how PC culture isn't the left's interest, care to refute it?

And I used "Fat cats" and "Big corporations" interchangeably, sorry if I misrepresented your statements.

This is why stuff like condoms and the pill was invented; so people could have sex without it necessarily it resulting in kids. But wasn't making things like this more difficult to get part of the reason the government was shut down in 2013?

@superdrummer: alright I'm on the go I'll analyze the little graphs later and get back to you

@outside_85: that's thing why am I obligated to pay so people can have safe sex. Go buy them nothing in the Constitution about making sure people have condoms and sex isn't necessary to survive as an individual

Because other people are also paying so you can too.

But aside that, getting people cheap or free contraceptives stops them having unwanted kids and saving you from having to pay for those, which is a much larger expense.

As for sex being necessary or not... well there are a lot of things people don't need to survive, like guns and alcohol, but good luck trying to stop people buying them.

@outside_85: no one is stopping anyone from buying contraceptives, people shouldn't be forced to buy some Trojans for people to poor to afford a 20 pack of condoms for like 10-15 bucks

Is no one going to point out "Trump Card?"

The thing is though, you are also paying so you can get the same items at the same reduced price whenever you need it or not. And when you do, it's those poor people who pitch in so you can.

Also, let me remind you that the poor people you are thinking of are also the ones who have to work 2 or 3 jobs with a rubbish pay just to make the ends meet, so 10-15 bucks could technically be considered too expensive for them.

Among many on the left, abortion is a thing to be celebrated though it's certainly true that not all on the left share that view.

I am in 100% agreement that a woman should be able to do whatever she chooses with her own body, but I don't believe a woman should be able to do whatever she chooses with someone else's body. I no more say it is permissible for a woman to kill her unborn child than to kill her born child. To argue that it's human outside the womb and just a clump of cells inside the womb is self-evidently nonsense. Now, there is a legitimate debate to be had about when a fertilized egg becomes a person, but once the unborn becomes a person, I will never in any way approve of of a mother murdering that person for the sake of her own convenience.

You are right that it's not a uniform Democrat policy to support abortion in all cases nor is it a uniform position among the Republicans to ban all abortions with the exception of rape, incest and the life of the mother, but these are the general positions of the two parties.

I already mentioned Obama and Schultz, obviously major Democrat leaders, supporting late-term (or even post-preganancy in the case of Obama) abortions. I also mentioned Hillary opposing the partial-birth abortion though as Outside pointed out, these would affect partial-birth abortions at any age. Hillary has opposed the post-20 weeks abortion ban. Twenty weeks is nearly third trimester, and children have survived removal from the womb at 21 weeks of age. Hillary has not voiced any disapproval in her Presidential campaign for later term abortions. With some quick Googling, I was unable to find a list of Democrats who support late term abortion, but I would imagine it's not a position that many Democrats bring to the forefront of their campaigns.

I think my comment to Lunacyde basically addresses what you said on abortion.

I didn't really follow your line of reasoning on the 2013 shut down, but regardless of "how it's appeared," the reality is that the GOP refused to raise the debt ceiling (that thing which is supposed to kick in with automatic spending cuts when we start incurring too much debt and also the thing which we raise every few months anyway as the massive debt spending grows ever higher) for Obama, so they decided that in exchange for raising the debt ceiling again (something Obama demanded instead of spending within his means) they would represent the American people by striking a compromise which would continue funding for the rest of the government but defund the unpopular and disastrous Obamacare. They sent bills to fund every single other program except Obamacare, and Obama and the Democrats blocked that funding causing the government shutdown. The Democrats and Obama refused to compromise one iota, and the Republicans folded giving them exactly what they wanted and succeeded in their goals or increasing debt and forcing Obamacare on the populace.

The GOP leadership is full of weenies with no spine. The Democrats are the ones who refuse to compromise.