- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
LOL! I just started using this site today, and so far all 3/3 of the posts I've clicked on you have had something politically to comment, even on this point which isn't political at all.
1) Do you disagree with compassion?
2) Are you saying conservatives don't have compassion?
3) How are you doing? Besides politics I mean. I hope you're having aa nice day
There is a difference between imprisoning your political enemies, and imprisoning someone who is guilty of a crime. We should be putting Trump on trial. The only reason he is not being indicted is because of a "policy," not a law, that a sitting president won't be tried in office. But as confirmed by Mueller, he is NOT exhonerrated, and if Trump was not currently a sitting president he would go on with indictment.
Also to clarify your claim on "socialist presidential candidates," not one democrat candidate socialist. Some are democratic socialists (there is a difference). But to clarify, we are living in in a mixed capitalist-socialist society as of now, and we are more democratically socialist than capitalist.
I ask you, do you have a problem with the currently Republican run government?
I don't quite understand how you come to this conclusion.
1) The "pro-choice" standpoint doesn't mean "yes let's abort all babies," or "let's abort all babies with special needs." It means people should have the choice to decide, based off of many different factors that may be relevant in their life. If you disagree with someone aborting a fetus that is developing Down Syndrome, you disagree with that specific person's choice, not the entire "pro-choice" concept.
2) You aren't actually refuting the claim, "Sending Donald Trump to El Paso is like sending an arsonist to the funeral of his victims." If anything, it sounds like you agree. I don't understand your particular example though. I'd like to hear why you specifically disagree with the claim regarding Trump.
I agree with the statement on Trump because his rhetoric, claiming Hispanic people are "invading" this country, have been inciting violence around the country, and this specific El Paso shooter refrences much of the same rhetoric in his manifesto. Long story short, Trump encouraged and motivated the shooter, so he is in the line of "being at fault."
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!