- 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.
How do figure he is preventing the working poor from having health care?
The best way to ensure people have better and cheaper access to any product or service, health care included, is to remove artificial constraints from the free market.
Health insurance (NOT the same as health care) for the working poor is being taken care of by the booming Trump economy, particularly by the increase in demand for labor. This is forcing employers to compete for workers by paying more and offering better benefits packages.
The worst way to get high quality/affordable services to people is to put the government in charge of it. NOTHING is more expensive than a government program to provide "free" anything to people.
I do not see any evidence that atheism is intrinsically based in anger and hate, nor that agnosticism is intrinsically based on logic. People are a mixed bag.
Some atheist are angry and hateful, but some are not. Similarly, religions have histories replete with hatred and anger (the Inquisition, crusades, and American conquest; sectarian violence in India, Muslim history, etc., ad naseum) but they also include instances of compassion, tolerance, and affirmation of beauty and life.
Sure, being emotion-oriented is often at the root of believing unproven propositions, but not always. Sometimes, given lack of evidence, people simply choose to believe an option for reasons other than emotions or reasonableness of a proposition. Often, in order to fit in, people just go along with whatever their families or friends believe. Sometimes for the sake of standing out, people choose to believe something counter to beliefs of others in their social group.
By the same token, while agnosticism can be a logical acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for the existence or non-existence of god, it can also be a default in lieu of actual thought. Often when answering a question about anything they do not want to spend effort to consider, people simply say, "I don't know," not because it is a logical answer, but because they are lazy or indifferent.
Cause we've told you countless times why voter ID is racist
The problem is that the Democrat premise regarding voter ID is what is racist. The whole argument comes down to Democrats saying that blacks are less capable than whites, even to the degree that blacks are less able to get their lives together well enough to get and maintain valid ID.
There is nothing racist in Republicans (and the non-racist Democrats) saying EVERYBODY, REGARDLESSS OF RACE, needs to follow the same rules and meet the same basic standard in order to vote, and in order to protect the integrity of the election.
Dude, why would you align yourself with the Democrat party, whose main platforms depend on categorizing people by race; ascribing characteristics by race; and allotting benefits, privileges, protections by race?
Not this ridiculously stupid idiocy again, please. Antifa literally stands for "anti-fascism". The "expression of ideas with which they agree" is your doublespeak for FASCISM.
Suffixes matter, in this case, the suffix, -ic, which means "relating to" or, as I applied it, "having the form or character of". For example, if I say my daughter is angelic, I am in no way saying she is an actual angel, but rather that in some way she has the form or some characteristic of an angel (beauty, purity, or some other trait attributed to angels.)
Likewise, when I write that ANTIFA is fascistic, I am saying they exhibit characteristics fascists were known for. Face it, we don't hate and fear fascism because we don't want a command economy. We have a serious problem with Fascism (and fascism) because of how the Fascists treated people who disagreed with them. The Fascists shouted down dissenting voices, then excluded independent thinkers from universities and employment, then used violence and fear tactics to silence those who continued to openly display affinity to ideas with which the Fascists disagreed.
When a bunch of people in ANTIFA smash windows and start fires in order to prevent a conservative speaking engagement, they are exhibiting characteristics of the Fascists in 1930s & 1940s Italy and Germany.
When some ANTIFA jerk punches a guy for nothing more than wearing a MAGA hat, that is right in line with how the Fascists treated people.
Furthermore, you are inaccurately describing the fascist regimes in the first place, which were actually so successful because of the MASSIVE WAVE OF SPIN AND PROPAGANDA which accompanied everything they ever said and/or did.
You are absolutely right. These are marked characteristics of Fascism. Two perfect examples of non-Fascists using spin and propaganda blitzes in a fascistic way to disguise their trampling individuals rights to freely and safely disagree are the Soviet use of propaganda to justify the police state and gulags, and ANTIFA calling themselves "Antifascist" when they are no more in favor of freedom of thought and expression than were the Fascisti and the Nazis.
You bring up the important point that what things are called has nothing to do with what they are, particularly in politics.
Well, both parties ARE engaged, and Trump has turned this Into a "sham republic". Republics with "strong leaders" have great reputations! The Republic of Iran; the Republic of Cuba; The Peoples Republic of China; The Union of Soviet Socialists Republics; on and on.
China, Cuba, and Iran are not republics; they just call themselves that.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is a lot of things, but democratic is not one of them.
By the same token, Trump is not really a Republican in many aspects. He just ran on the Republican ticket. In many (not all) ways, his policy goals and practices are very much in line with 1990s Democrats, particularly with regard to immigration, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and staying out of foreign nations. He is a remarkable example of being a moderate patchwork of both traditional Republican and traditional Democrat policy goals.
Ironically, ANTIFA employs the particularly fascistic tactics of violence, intimidation, and concerted efforts to silence free expression of ideas with which they disagree.
So-called "liberals" have come to push for policies and rules that run counter to individual freedom, especially in universities.
Banking "regulation" by both Democrats and Republicans is not aimed at actually implementing real control over banks.
And on and on and on.
Now we have our own "strong leader wannabe"! Both parties BETTER RE-engage, or, we WILL become another "republic with a strong leader"!
Forgive me if I misunderstand your intent, but it your quotation marks imply Trump is attempting to institute a strong man basis for authority.
Your quotation marks are misplaced. Every time there has been a legal or Congressional challenge to any of his policy actions, he has only used mechanisms of the Constitutionally created government, or of the First Amendment.
Absolutely he is bombastic, but he subjects all executive policies and actions to the checks and balances instituted according to the US Constitution.
Trump did not use members of the executive branch (e.g., FBI or the IRS) to harass opponents, arrest associates of opponents, or refuse to charge allies for crimes opponents' associates were charged with. Neither did he nor his allies intentionally mislead the FISA court to circumvent judicial oversight.
These things were in fact done by Trump's opposition.
Protect our democracy! VOTE AGAINST THIS TREND!
Absolutely! We agree on this.
Neither option works for this question because there are some VERY big differences in how different people came to be homeless.
Most homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to illegal drugs. The rest made some poor decisions, did not plan ahead, etc.
Only the first groups has a problem they cannot address themselves, and need the government's help to solve it. In the case of people who are mentally ill to the degree that they cannot run their lives, yes, that is a situation where government intervention is appropriate, including housing and psychiatric care.
In the case of drug addicts, they alone can solve the root problem, and until they do, government housing is just a warm, dry place to get high. Taxpayer-paid housing is just a waste of money that will not solve the problem.
In the case of those folks who did not plan well, and hit some bad luck, they tend to be able to get off the street reasonably quickly without more help than being left unmolested.
Laws against homelessness are too unspecific to be useful. I understand it being illegal to trespass, defecate or urinate outside of a toilet, start a campfire outside of a designated firepit, block a sidewalk, etc., but outside of that, anti-homelessness laws tend to be unreasonably intrusive, and merely make it unreasonably difficult to solve the problem of being homeless. There is no benefit to a society by making it illegal to sleep in your car UNLESS YOU ARE DRIVING while sleeping.
Sane adults should be held responsible for supporting and caring for themselves, but they should also be left alone to run their own lives.