POLITICS THREAD

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8501 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@aros001 said:

I can only speak for what I've seen of Bernie Sanders, not Buttigeg, and the reason I brought up the Dilbert strip is because you remind me of the guy Dilbert is talking to.

The "surplus population", as you called it, in this specific case refers to babies born to parent whom had no other choice but to have the baby. By providing easy and safe access to abortion and birth control (so methods that include not even getting pregnant in the first place) that surplus population goes down over time because now the people who don't want children no longer have to have children. This will predominantly affect poorer countries where the average woman does not have access to birth control but, as Bernie says in the clip itself, it's the right of women in the USA too and they are affected as well.

And you've managed to take that and turn it into "Democrats want to kill black and brown babies". You've ignored all context, especially the specific inclusion of providing women with access to abortions and birth control if they want it, meaning they get a choice in the matter, just to call Bernie a racist.

So what you are saying is that Bernie Sanders Climate Change plan is not about eugenics but infanticide., or least killing the most innocent and helpless of human life. OK, that's a fair distinction. Just so you are aware, I always discuss abortion using black babies. I find that lefties don't see the unborn as victims unless you label her as "black". Sad, but very true. I don't see Sanders driven by racism but depravity.

1) It is unrealistic to think that developing nations contribution to CO2 will not increase. As these countries' economies grow their energy, CO2 output will grow exponentially regardless of how many innocent human lives die. Poor countries are too focused on survival to be overly concerned about climate change (that's why China and India are exempted by the Paris Climate Accords, even though China's energy production now has more coal power plants than the US with a 25% increase on the way within years and 100 plants that were supposed to be closing - actually engaged in new construction). Caring about global warming is the domain of rich countries. That's reality. How do you deny developing countries the right to grow their economies as the rich countries have done? Answer: You can't.

2) Bernie's inclusion of population control in his Climate change plan is ridiculous. Again, even if you assume that you will kill half of all the black and brown unborn babies in developing countries over the next 100 years. The CO2 output will actually be going up, not down in those countries. Sanders has to know that. His commitment to population control is more about his obeisance to planned parenthood (founded by a supporter of eugenics).

3) Abortion has become a sacrament to the Democrat party. The dismembered body and pooled blood of the unborn has religious like meaning to the Democrat party. Not a single presidential candidate doesn't support abortion through at least the 3rd trimester (most even tacitly allow for post birth abortion scenarios in cases of botched abortions). That's an extreme position which ignores science. 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). When a preemie can survive from 22 weeks (there are a few instances of surviving earlier), it is hard to rationalize how a baby girl born at 22 weeks gestation has value but a child at much older gestational age does not. due to her physical location.

Avatar image for aros001
#8502 Posted by Aros001 (3803 posts) - - Show Bio

@aros001 said:

I can only speak for what I've seen of Bernie Sanders, not Buttigeg, and the reason I brought up the Dilbert strip is because you remind me of the guy Dilbert is talking to.

The "surplus population", as you called it, in this specific case refers to babies born to parent whom had no other choice but to have the baby. By providing easy and safe access to abortion and birth control (so methods that include not even getting pregnant in the first place) that surplus population goes down over time because now the people who don't want children no longer have to have children. This will predominantly affect poorer countries where the average woman does not have access to birth control but, as Bernie says in the clip itself, it's the right of women in the USA too and they are affected as well.

And you've managed to take that and turn it into "Democrats want to kill black and brown babies". You've ignored all context, especially the specific inclusion of providing women with access to abortions and birth control if they want it, meaning they get a choice in the matter, just to call Bernie a racist.

So what you are saying is that Bernie Sanders Climate Change plan is not about eugenics but infanticide., or least killing the most innocent and helpless of human life. OK, that's a fair distinction. Just so you are aware, I always discuss abortion using black babies. I find that lefties don't see the unborn as victims unless you label her as "black". Sad, but very true. I don't see Sanders driven by racism but depravity.

1) It is unrealistic to think that developing nations contribution to CO2 will not increase. As these countries' economies grow their energy, CO2 output will grow exponentially regardless of how many innocent human lives die. Poor countries are too focused on survival to be overly concerned about climate change (that's why China and India are exempted by the Paris Climate Accords, even though China's energy production now has more coal power plants than the US with a 25% increase on the way within years and 100 plants that were supposed to be closing - actually engaged in new construction). Caring about global warming is the domain of rich countries. That's reality. How do you deny developing countries the right to grow their economies as the rich countries have done? Answer: You can't.

2) Climate change is just a pretense for population control. Again, even if you assume that you will kill half of all the black and brown unborn babies in developing countries over the next 100 years. The CO2 output will actually be going up, not down in those countries. Sanders has to know that. His commitment to population control is more about his obeisance to planned parenthood (founded by a supporter of eugenics).

3) Abortion has become a sacrament to the Democrat party. The dismembered body and pooled blood of the unborn has religious like meaning to the Democrat party. Not a single presidential candidate doesn't support abortion through at least the 3rd trimester (most even tacitly allow for post birth abortion scenarios in cases of botched abortions). That's an extreme position which ignores science. 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). When a preemie can survive from 22 weeks (there are a few instances of surviving earlier), it is hard to rationalize how a baby girl born at 22 weeks gestation has value but a child at much older gestational age does not. due to her physical location.

I'm aware that you always discuss abortion using black babies. That's why I thought of Dilbert strip, because anytime anyone on this thread talks about supporting abortion, you turn it to try and claim that the only reason a Democrat is in favor of abortion is because they want to kill non-white babies (ignoring that white women get abortions too).

And again, you are deliberately ignoring that Bernie is arguing for abortion and birth control services be provided FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT. No one is forcing any of these women, be they in the USA or otherwise, to get an abortion or give up their child. The services are for if they don't want to have a child, if they don't want another child more than they already have, or if the mother and/or the baby would be in real medical danger if she tried to give birth. There's a reason it's called Pro-Choice, because choice is the main factor.

And wouldn't having more women in the workforce or more women with control of their lives be contributing more to a poor nation's economy? The very article about Planned Parenthood's founder that you posted talks all about this, as well as argues against Margaret Sanger having any race-based views on eugenics (she did definitely have views that were eugenics based on selective breeding, which your article again points out was all too common in the 1920's and 1930's among doctors, scientists, and the general public).

Sanger’s stated mission was to empower women to make their own reproductive choices. She did focus her efforts on minority communities, because that was where, due to poverty and limited access to health care, women were especially vulnerable to the effects of unplanned pregnancy. As she framed it, birth control was the fundamental women’s rights issue. “Enforced motherhood,” she wrote in 1914, “is the most complete denial of a woman’s right to life and liberty.”

You're right, a poorer nation has bigger concerns than climate change. CO2 output will continue to go up regardless, but there are ways we can lower that output to a more manageable level of increase, just like how the population of Earth is going to keep increasing but giving women more control can help it naturally lower to a more manageable level. Giving women in any country the ability to choose whether or not to have a child is one small way of doing that without destroying the quality of life for people in a poorer country. If it's what the woman wants, she can have as many children as she wants. But if she doesn't want a child, or doesn't want another among those she already has, then having access to abortion, or better yet birth control so that she doesn't get pregnant in the first place, lets that woman live a life that is not burdened by something she couldn't handle.

It's not like Bernie or even most other Democrats are demanding something like China's One Child Policy be put into effect. Most people who are in favor of abortions and birth control are so because of the belief in choice. All the infants that are born because the parents had no choice but to give birth to them are part of a "surplus population", as you called it. And that surplus goes down over time when women have access to abortions and/or birth control, because now they have other options besides just "celibacy or another child".

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8503 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@aros001 said:
@just_sayin said:
@aros001 said:

I'm aware that you always discuss abortion using black babies. That's why I thought of Dilbert strip, because anytime anyone on this thread talks about supporting abortion, you turn it to try and claim that the only reason a Democrat is in favor of abortion is because they want to kill non-white babies (ignoring that white women get abortions too).

Nope, you miss the point. I am not accusing them of being racists. Now, they may feel like racists for claiming that an unborn black baby is less than human and of no value. But, I am discussing the issue in terms where they can better see the innocent human life as a victim. To many lefties refuse to acknowledge the most basic fact that abortion kills an innocent human life.

And again, you are deliberately ignoring that Bernie is arguing for abortion and birth control services be provided FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT. No one is forcing any of these women, be they in the USA or otherwise, to get an abortion or give up their child. The services are for if they don't want to have a child, if they don't want another child more than they already have, or if the mother and/or the baby would be in real medical danger if she tried to give birth. There's a reason it's called Pro-Choice, because choice is the main factor.

I don't oppose birth control methods that prevent conception like condoms or the pill. But Bernie goes beyond that and includes using taxpayer money to pay for the killing of black babies that could survive outside of the progenitor. I don't believe it is OK to kill innocent human life "FOR THOSE WHO WANT" too. Well, I would make an exception if the physical life of the mother is at stake. I think then it is a life for a life situation and someone can definitely defend their right to life. However, I don't believe someone has the right to take an innocent person's life, even if they are the baby girl's "mother".

And wouldn't having more women in the workforce or more women with control of their lives be contributing more to a poor nation's economy? The very article about Planned Parenthood's founder that you posted talks all about this, as well as argues against Margaret Sanger having any race-based views on eugenics (she did definitely have views that were eugenics based on selective breeding, which your article again points out was all too common in the 1920's and 1930's among doctors, scientists, and the general public).

Sanger’s stated mission was to empower women to make their own reproductive choices. She did focus her efforts on minority communities, because that was where, due to poverty and limited access to health care, women were especially vulnerable to the effects of unplanned pregnancy. As she framed it, birth control was the fundamental women’s rights issue. “Enforced motherhood,” she wrote in 1914, “is the most complete denial of a woman’s right to life and liberty.”

Major economic advancement will not come with women working in rice patties. Energy consumption and technology will have to be a part of equation.

Sanger was a eugenics movement support, that was the only point I am making. I don't know why she was the keynote speaker at the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey. You are reading racism into her actions.

You're right, a poorer nation has bigger concerns than climate change. CO2 output will continue to go up regardless, but there are ways we can lower that output to a more manageable level of increase, just like how the population of Earth is going to keep increasing but giving women more control can help it naturally lower to a more manageable level. Giving women in any country the ability to choose whether or not to have a child is one small way of doing that without destroying the quality of life for people in a poorer country. If it's what the woman wants, she can have as many children as she wants. But if she doesn't want a child, or doesn't want another among those she already has, then having access to abortion, or better yet birth control so that she doesn't get pregnant in the first place, lets that woman live a life that is not burdened by something she couldn't handle.

If population control lowered CO2 then China should have the lowest CO2 output on the planet, but instead, they now have the highest energy CO2 output. Climate change is real and there are logical steps that we can take, but let's be honest - we do not yet have the technology to solve the problem. According to the Heritage Foundations study on the Green New Deal:

But here’s the key thing: Even if Americans were on board with this radical change in behavior and lifestyle, it wouldn’t change our climate.

In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.

Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century.

Did you catch that? Even if we eliminated our carbon emissions by 100 percent it would not make a significant difference in stopping global warming. So getting rid of gas powered engines, outlawing airplanes, ships, trains, cars, and shutting down all power plants but nuclear, and even plugging every cow's ass in the country will not solve the issue.

Our only hope is a technological breakthrough. I believe that will happen in time. Fracking has been a God-send and has helped the US met its CO2 reduction goal where all other G7 countries failed to do so. But, much more will need to be done. Solar and Wind are much more expensive, even than clean nuclear, and can not scale like natural gas or nuclear. And there is currently no viable replacement to the combustion engine. I'm not opposed to moving to clean technologies, but we need to be honest about the costs and benefits of them. Forcing a change to quick will cost millions of jobs and raise the electric bills of the poorest the most (one impact analysis of Obama's Clean Power Plan said it would cost the poorest quintile 20 percent of their take home pay).

It's not like Bernie or even most other Democrats are demanding something like China's One Child Policy be put into effect. Most people who are in favor of abortions and birth control are so because of the belief in choice. All the infants that are born because the parents had no choice but to give birth to them are part of a "surplus population", as you called it. And that surplus goes down over time when women have access to abortions and/or birth control, because now they have other options besides just "celibacy or another child".

You think too little of those "surplus" people. Knowledge about birth control has been around for some time. Abortions have been around for thousands and thousands of years. They don't need the "white" man to show them how to kill babies. Again, you speak of "choice" - like someone has the "choice" to kill another innocent human life. Please don't give me the "its a woman's body argument" because it isn't the woman's body that's killed. If it was, then she would be dead. Abortion kills an innocent human life. Now you may think that it is OK to kill unborn "white" babies because they aren't really human or of any value. I just don't agree.

Avatar image for cyborgzod
#8504 Posted by CyborgZod (961 posts) - - Show Bio

LOL Trump just fired his idiot warmonger national security advisor. God, Trump and the Republicans are a total dumpster fire.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d7ad417f1919
#8505 Posted by deactivated-5d7ad417f1919 (115 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm curious on how people feel bout this whole sharpiegate thing with Trump.

Avatar image for dernman
#8506 Edited by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio

LOL Trump just fired his idiot warmonger national security advisor. God, Trump and the Republicans are a total dumpster fire.

Criticizing a man for firing someone from a job you think they shouldn't have had. Yes this is the world we live in.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#8507 Edited by buttersdaman000 (23240 posts) - - Show Bio

@cyborgzod said:

LOL Trump just fired his idiot warmonger national security advisor. God, Trump and the Republicans are a total dumpster fire.

The turnover in this administration is ridiculous. Normally, when the turnover is this high, be it in government or regular business, everyone would agree that it's the fault of poor management and leaders. But some people are way past normal at this point.

We should take bets on who he elects to replace Bolton -- Kushner, Jr., Ivanka, Putin, or some Taliban leader??

He also didn't have the balls to fire Bolton face to face, which further fuels the rumors that Trump is a gigantic wuss lol

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#8508 Edited by buttersdaman000 (23240 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#8509 Edited by buttersdaman000 (23240 posts) - - Show Bio

It's just hilarious that Trump decides to fire Bolton for something he was (finally) right about lol

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8510 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@paperbag said:

I'm curious on how people feel bout this whole sharpiegate thing with Trump.

Both the media and Trump over reacted in my opinion.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8511 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@black3stpanth3r: Why do Democrats hate black kids so much? Did you see that California is not going to allow schools to remove disruptive kids from the class room. The Democrats argued that "that students of color are disproportionately affected by such suspensions."

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234912107.html

That almost sounds like Democrats care about black kids doesn't it. What was left unspoken is this - students of color disproportionately suffer when disruptive kids are left in the classroom. Children of color fall further and further behind in classrooms where there are behavioral issues inhibiting the learning and are more likely to be in classrooms with behavioral issues occuring. How frustrating it must be for a black parent to learn that her child is in a classroom that is out of control and that he may fail for the year because he isn't learning.

As Thomas Sowell observed, "Letting kids who are behavior problems in schools grow up to become hoodlums and then criminals is no favor to them or to the black community. Moreover, it takes no more than a small fraction of troublemakers in a class to make it impossible to give that class a decent education. And for many poor people, whether black or white, education is their one big chance to escape poverty."

Avatar image for godzilla44
#8512 Posted by godzilla44 (7963 posts) - - Show Bio

It's good to see Big Tobacco still owns the Government.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8513 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

Trump ordered NOAA statement supporting claim that Alabama was at risk from Dorian

If this report is true, it is disgusting. Asking a government official to participate in a misleading narrative for something so petty is an embarrassment and should be condemned, if true. Fair is fair. I condemned Obama when he had his people say that the raid in Benghazi was about an anti-Muslim video, when it wasn't. I condemned him for wiretapping a Fox news reporter and having him falsely labeled a person of interest because he didn't like the coverage he was getting (not to mention the erasing of information on a CBS reporter's computer whom he didn't like, wire tapping all of the NYT reporters phone calls, etc). When Trump behaves badly we must condemn him.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8514 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for noone1996
#8515 Posted by Noone1996 (13074 posts) - - Show Bio

I love how Trump firing people in his administration is viewed as something that makes Trump look bad, but not them. He’s had so many establishment individuals working with him and he wants to “drain the swamp”, but there’s no correlation there at all.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#8516 Edited by AbstractRaze (3248 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for dernman
#8517 Posted by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

Avatar image for ryokuma100
#8518 Posted by Ryokuma100 (1086 posts) - - Show Bio

Sooooo Brett is being accused again out of nowhere by the Dems.

No evidence, but that doesn’t matter, right? Let’s just rehash what ALREADY happened...

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#8519 Posted by Iron_Tiger (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

Candace Owens and Judge Jeannine are smokin' hot.

Avatar image for dernman
#8520 Posted by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for iron_tiger
#8522 Posted by Iron_Tiger (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: Yes, and...? Hell, Judge Milian is in her 50's, and she's hot, too.

Avatar image for dernman
#8523 Posted by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio

@iron_tiger: Whatever floats your boat. I was just asking.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#8524 Edited by Iron_Tiger (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: And I was just answering. Seems like you had something else to say.

Avatar image for dernman
#8525 Posted by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for just_sayin
#8527 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

I saw where the NYT ran a correction to their Kavanaugh story today in the editorial section. They "forgot" to include exculpatory evidence in their initial report that has been available since before the Kavanaugh hearings. It seems completely understandable that a media company that claims to be "fair and balanced" would leave out the detail that the woman that Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted told friends she doesn't remember the incident ever happening, that no other people other than the man who made the claim has corroborated the allegation, and that the FBI did not think the claim substantial enough to investigate further. I wonder why the NYT even bothered with a small late correction after all the weekend news shows gave wall to wall coverage of the NYT's allegations of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting another woman. Surely, he's guilty - the NYT ran a page one story suggesting just that. Even their own newspaper today gives more room to calls for impeachment than they gave for their correction. Surely, such small exculpatory details are not important. Truth doesn't matter; the socialist agenda matters.

No Caption Provided

UPDATE: The writers of the article say they included the exculpatory information about Kavanaugh in their piece, but the editor took it out. See NYT doing its job to make sure that the innocent are declared guilty - at least in the media.

Avatar image for faradaysloth
#8528 Posted by FaradaySloth (12214 posts) - - Show Bio

A year later and Liberals gonna catch another L by Kavanaugh

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8529 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@black3stpanth3r: Hey mi amigo! I've been waiting to see what slogans the Democrats trot out this election cycle. I've come up with some typical Democrat type slogans, and found others on the internet. Tell me which ones you like best:

  • If they speak "reason", we yell "racism"
  • Abortion separates children from their families - so keep unborn children parts locked in bio-hazard trash cans.
  • Bitterly clinging to taxes and abortion
  • Anytime is a good time to kill an unborn black baby
  • Reducing America's carbon footprint, one job at a time
  • If poor black kids got a good education they wouldn't vote Democrat anymore, so oppose school choice
  • We can't tax terrorism, so who cares?
  • We don't destroy your freedoms, you can visit them at the smithsonian
  • Impeach Trump Now, make up a charge later
  • Get good grades and a good job, so we can give your money to those who didn't!

So buddy which are your favorites?

Avatar image for abstractraze
#8530 Posted by AbstractRaze (3248 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Death penalty for the Democrat leadership.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8531 Posted by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

Maggie Haberman Admits The Times Had Bombshell Info That Nuked Blasey Ford’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh

The New York Times had information that Blasey-Ford's camp threatened a witness to change her testimony, and that the witness said that she didn't believe that the story was possible and the NYT buried the story during the Kavanaugh confirmaiton hearings!!!!!! But now, they are trying to make money off of a book about their behind the scenes knowledge!!!!!

No Caption Provided

No Caption Provided

Does anyone still believe that the NYT is a reputable news company? If so why?

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#8532 Posted by Iron_Tiger (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

For fudge sake, they're still crying over Trump's taxes. Let. It. Go. You freaks.

Avatar image for dernman
#8533 Posted by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio

What the hell happened to Bernie? He use to be an ok candidate but he's taken the train to crazy town. Is it age? Being screwed by the DNC? He's not the same man he use to be.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#8534 Edited by Iron_Tiger (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: The dude was damaged from the start. I knew the moment he opened his mouth that he would soon fold and let pieces of trash walk all over him. Remember those black girls and dude that invaded his speech to scream over him and take his mic? The fact he allowed that to happen was the moment people began to lose interest.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
#8535 Posted by Thekillerklok (10244 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

This doesn't seem... Legal.

Avatar image for dernman
#8536 Edited by Dernman (26468 posts) - - Show Bio

@thekillerklok: yeah I saw that and was going to post it. I didn't though because it's not so much about Trump but promoting any political figure while representing the school. So it's more understandable. Now if they were in regular cloth and not repping the school then I would have more of a problem. Though to be honest I doubt they would have a problem if it was a democrat candidate they were promoting but I can't prove that.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#8537 Posted by decaf_wizard (17373 posts) - - Show Bio

So apparently Beta O'rourke had an awful reddit AMA where he stated as such.

Specifically, he got reamed on his weapon ban politics. The idea that a mandatory buyback would work is completely insane at this point, and he specifically just says "Americans will comply with the law" as an answer for how it will work.

What happens when they don't comply though?

NY SAFE Act has seen about 4% compliance with Assault Weapons Registration.

CA Assault Weapons Registration has seen only 3% compliance

New Jersey has seen essentially 0% compliance with their magazine ban.

When arguably the most left leaning states in the country cannot get any serious level of compliance with these types of laws, how do you imagine it will go better for you nationwide when including all the other states with serious gun cultures? Will he mobilize the police? Go full tyrant and mobilize the military?

Furthermore, he has shown to be ignorant about gun deaths

Real, unbiased gun death statistics

There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms on average, this number is not disputed.

U.S. population 328 million as of January 2018.

Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.

Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. It's not even a rounding error.

What is not insignificant, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths:

• 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws

• 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion.

• 489 (2%) are accidental

So no, "gun violence" isn't 30,000 annually, but rather 5,577... 0.0017% of the population.

Still too many? Let's look at location:

298 (5%) - St Louis, MO (6)

327 (6%) - Detroit, MI (6)

328 (6%) - Baltimore, MD (6)

764 (14%) - Chicago, IL (6)

That's over 30% of all gun crime. In just 4 cities. All blighted, democrat run, urban centres with strong gun laws

Avatar image for willpayton
#8538 Posted by willpayton (22202 posts) - - Show Bio

Trump keeps racking up the impeachable offenses... first obstruction of justice and now trying to coerce a foreign power to help him politically. This is not surprising, since he basically asked the Russians to help him in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-ukraine-call-clear-impeachable-offense/598570/?fbclid=IwAR2sAtapbJPMrqzLvIhFEs5ajxBox_nJmbueAm2uGVdfB-r1xhZdE83ZBBc

The sad thing is that Trump keeps violating the Constitution and abusing his position to make money, and Republicans are just fine with all this. It's truly sad what this party has come to.

Well... Trump better hope and pray that Biden doesnt become the next President. Because if he does, things are not going to be looking so good for Don.

Avatar image for willpayton
#8539 Posted by willpayton (22202 posts) - - Show Bio

I love how Trump firing people in his administration is viewed as something that makes Trump look bad, but not them. He’s had so many establishment individuals working with him and he wants to “drain the swamp”, but there’s no correlation there at all.

Who hired all those people in his administration in the first place? Oh, right, Trump. If all of them are criminals, incompetent, or just terrible at their jobs... then there's only Trump to blame. This is the guy who claimed he was better than everyone at everything, who was going to spend his time working and have no time for golfing, and who said he was going to have the most transparent administration. None of that was actually true. If any CEO of a company was as terrible as Trump is at his job, he'd have been fired after the first month.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#8540 Edited by just_sayin (3891 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

Trump keeps racking up the impeachable offenses... first obstruction of justice and now trying to coerce a foreign power to help him politically. This is not surprising, since he basically asked the Russians to help him in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-ukraine-call-clear-impeachable-offense/598570/?fbclid=IwAR2sAtapbJPMrqzLvIhFEs5ajxBox_nJmbueAm2uGVdfB-r1xhZdE83ZBBc

The sad thing is that Trump keeps violating the Constitution and abusing his position to make money, and Republicans are just fine with all this. It's truly sad what this party has come to.

Well... Trump better hope and pray that Biden doesnt become the next President. Because if he does, things are not going to be looking so good for Don.

Willie, first there was no obstruction of justice. The DOJ cleared Trump of that. Why do persist in the falsehoods?

Coerce a foreign power to help him "politically"?!!!! The Ukrainian foreign minister has explicitly stated that there was no coercion. And even the whistleblower admits he did not hear any discussion of US reduction of funds by Trump. BUT ... Willie, you might want to sit down for this ... a very high ranking government official threatened that if a Ukrainian prosecutor was not fired within the hour, he would see to it that a billion dollars of US promised aid was not delivered to Ukraine. That politician's name was Creeper Joe Biden. The Ukraine prosecutor that Biden had fired was investigating Joe Biden's son and his company on 3 corruption charges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4

Loading Video...

If you watch the video you will see that the whistleblower on Creeper Joe's criminal activity is none other than Creeper Joe himself. He brags about using his political influence to get a prosecutor fired who was investigating 3 corruption charges involving his son. Now, Willie, that is a real impeachable offense; but Creeper Joe is no longer VP.

Trump was right to ask the Ukrainian government to resume its investigation of Hunter Biden, because of the US's undue influence in hindering the investigation in the first place. The investigation into Hunter Biden and his company should happen. And if Creeper Joe impeded that investigation like he admits he did, he should be investigated also.