Looking from the outside, it looks like they are taking anyone that's willing to speak.Many of them are breaking regulations and laws when they do. (Pompeo's not supposed to even attend a partisan event, let alone speak at one from overseas, and using the White House as a venue is against the Hatch Act, for everyone but the president, personally.)Will you be voting for Trump, or Democracy and the rule of law, this year?
@goaded All 3. I am going to vote for Trump, our Democracy and for the rule of law.
Oh, dear. You have a choice between two parties, one of which has a playform of "follow the leader", is literally lying to your face and proposing outrageous things, like this, cancelling social security, stopping millions of people's health insurance coverage, while breaking the law in their national convention, and you're going to vote for that one in the name of "democracy and the rule of law"?
@goaded as usual you have no idea what is going on. nobody has suggested the things you listed
Yeah you can't have it both ways, Trump has repeatedly enabled police brutality and been blatantly corrupt in ways that can only be enabled by a Republican senate, attempted to undermine our election by removing voting machines from mostly swing states, and has generally thrown gasoline on every single protest and tried to make it worse.Last night he used the White House to hold a campaign event, something literally against the law and something no other president has done
@007kingifrit They kept the 2016 platform, word-for-word, with a foreword that there wouldn't be any debate because they "would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration;" and "did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement;" (so the small contingent decided to keep the old one, ignoring the supposedly "ever-growing Republican movement", because they've never heard of conference calls).How is social security funded? Payroll taxes. What did Trump say about payroll taxes when he ordered a deferral? The deferral "may be permanent". Trump's "Department of Justice said it would no longer defend PPACA [Obamacare] in court, [against a lawsuit from Texas and nineteen other states to rule it unconstitutional], but seventeen states led by California stepped in to do so.". Trump, let me remind you, has been promising a better-than-Obamacare health care package since 2016. Have you seen it?While we're at it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq0CtHbYIzAInb4 hur dur CNN fake news. Fake news is what got Trump elected.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
"democracies by far the worse when everyone can vote." But isn't that the very foundation of what a democracy is? If large groups of people can't vote, it's not a democracy is it? And under your plan the millions and millions of Americans who rent would not be allowed to vote or someone who lost their job and has been out of work for an extended period wouldn't be able to vote? Just rich landowners, right?I'd love to better understand what kind of warped, addled, distorted, diseased mind would even think to himself "Here's exactly what we should do cause this makes perfect sense."
Democracy doesn't mean everyone gets to vote it just means they're voting. Yes renters should not be allowed to vote. Think about it logically. A renter best interests is the area stay the same or gets worse. Because then the rent goes down or stays the same. Someone who owns the property it's in their best interests for the area to get better because then their property value goes up.So when you allow renters a vote your getting policies that actually damage the area and stop growth. It's all about the incentives. And not all land owners are rich. So you're just calling anyone who own land rich then thinking that's an argument.Your problem is you're thinking too much with feelings not looking at results and thinking logically. Why would you want someone who can't even take care of themselves have any say on how stuff is run it's obvious their ideas doesn't work.
In large cities, many people spend their whole lives renting. 30, 40 years they've lived in the same apartment. They care as much if not more about their community as someone who bought a house 9 months ago. When the area gets better, their quality of life improves. Renters aren't rooting for their area to get worse just in the hope their rent will decrease which never happens. I've never heard a landlord tell a renter, you know, the area isn't as nice as it used to be so I'm lowering your rent. Does. Not. Happen. Ever.And there are 25 million unemployed right now largely due to the pandemic, many of whom will never see their jobs return. So you'd disqualify all of them on the belief "they can't take care of themselves"?The manner you're looking at this is just so warped and bizarre, I'm at a loss for words. Thank goodness people who can think clearly and rationally are making these decisions, and not a fringe loon like you.
They don't have to live in a city they have to rent in no one is making them they choose to do that. Their lost a it out loud but the policies they will support will be to keep the area at the same or to make it worse because if it gets better their rent goes up.Yes you're just proving why the government should not close down everything over the flu. But the problem is we have democracy that allows everyone to vote so emotional people get into power who don't know what they're doing causing tremendous damage with their action you're proving my own point without realizing it.
They tried systems similar to what you mention both the early u. s history but for much longer in the Roman Republic, which turned from a republic to a brutally corrupt oligarchy which was one of the Primary factors in the the death of the republic.There's a good reason we dropped a system of government like that.Because not only does it not work, every time it has been tried and not dropped it has turned some form of a democratic system of government into a brutally corrupt oligarchy that caused the downfall of the country that tried it.If you were actually historically literate you wouldn't spew things this stupid
Jesus Christ, another wacko who thinks keep everything open, it's just the flu? I just can't with you clowns anymore.I'm not proving anything except how ridiculous and bizarre your arguments and thought processes are.
It was much better what fucked it up is everyone voting.
Again what you are proposing was literally a major factor in the death of the Roman Republic.So maybe you should read your history before you vote so you don't make mistakes so incredibly stupid that the idiocy behind them was shown literally over 2000 years ago
No it was not it was Too much deflation of the currency to expand at the same time allowing the people they conquered to join the army making the army basely foreigner Democracy the terrible system would everyone can vote just look out for well everything got in in a very short time since we took away just land owners voting
@OpinionOwner Dude, your sentences are barely coherent. You write like you're using a random word generator. Maybe you're not the best person to decide such weighty issues as who can vote or what form of government works best.
No argument just name calling proving you have nothing. The fact is democracy is a terrible system when everyone votes.Here is an easy example. Let's say you're married and have 3 kids are you going to allow the kids to vote on everything the household does or just you and your wife? You can see keeping Easily see Giving a vote to someone who doesn't understand how the money is made the value of it or how much work it was to be made will just vote for stop and cause everyone to go bankrupt. Just look at a lot of politicians now as well they just promised free stuff vote for me. Because now you have a lot of kids voting to take money from their parents to go out to get pizza every day. Like I said democracy is a terrible system when everyone can vote you have nothing other than calling names because you realize you have no real ideas
@OpinionOwner First of all, I and others have been punching logical holes in your "argument" for two days. People have made their arguments. You just don't want to hear them. And continually repeating "democracy is a terrible system when everyone votes." over and over is not an "argument" on your part.Second, you can't compare a family to a country in terms of who gets to vote or how decisions are made. Would I let a 2 year old, a 3 year old and a 5 year old vote for what foods are served for dinner? No, because they'd vote to make the whole meal ice cream and cake. If, however, my kids were 18, 19 and 21 and were home from college for the summer and we wanted to take a family vacation, even if I wanted to go camping in the woods, if all of my kids and maybe my wife wanted to go to someplace warm where there are beaches and good restaurants, I would probably agree cause I love them and want them to be happy and also because I'm not a dictatorial asshole. But again, people do things for their family out of love, they wouldn't do for strangers, so the comparison is pointless. Also, if someone is 18 and can be sent off to die for their country, they've earned the right to vote, period.Lastly, I didn't do any name calling. I made a factual statement. Your writing is incoherent to the point of being borderline gibberish. Even your last comment "You can see keeping Easily see Giving a vote to someone who doesn't understand how the money is made the value of it or how much work it was to be made will just vote for stop and cause everyone to go bankrupt."... on what planet is that an intelligent, coherent statement? What the hell does that even mean? If I wanted to name call, I would have asked you at what age you first realized you had suffered serious brain damage or simply told you you're a fucking moron. But I didn't do that, did I? Pointing out your incoherent writing is not name calling. Do you now understand the difference?
You have no arguments other than you want failures you cannot even take care of themselves to have a say in other peoples lifes.Tell me this if their ideas are so good why can't they take care of themselves why can't they meet the very little requirements I out?
@OpinionOwner You know who shouldn't be allowed to vote? People who are so stupid, so ignorant, so poorly educated, they struggle to think and write at a 5th grade level. These people are so lacking in basic intelligence and cognitive skills, they should under no circumstances be allowed to ever make decisions for anyone else. Do you know who wouldn't get to vote under that qualification test? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count.Seriously dude, take your ridiculous ideas, your lack of any real ability to express yourself or your thoughts in a minimally intelligent manner and move along. I'm done with you.
So you agree people should not be allowed to vote just because they're alive. Look at results not just your feelings it's quite easy to have results in the real world.Like I said for federal elections a $1000 federal income tax over the last 4 years average.Sate and local elections you have to own property there as your primary residence. You actually agree everyone should not vote you just realize if you look at results you probly don't get to vote under what I'm saying so you want it to be one with a lower bar look at results not your feelings.
@OpinionOwner Don't even try to twist my words. You're not nearly smart enough to be able to do that. Seriously, you're a profoundly stupid person. Stop worrying about who can vote and start worrying about bringing your reading and writing skills up to a 5th grade level.
Again you have no argument you're just calling names even though you agree with the premise that everyone should not be allowed to vote you even said earlier you don't want 4 year olds to vote so you agree there should be a barrier. It's just I want it based off of results you want it based off of your feelings.
@OpinionOwner Being 18 years old is the "barrier".You clearly are mentally impaired. I don't know what it is that attracts so many people like you to this website. Seek professional help.
Yes and that barrier your needs to be changed to results not just some arbitrary age. You have no argument other than name calling and you think it's me quite funny there's a reason why the founding fathers even agreed with out what I'm saying. you need you think critically not with emotions
@OpinionOwner You want to talk arbitrary? How arbitrary is it for you to have unilaterally decided that a family renting the same apartment in a big city neighborhood for 30 years where they've raised all their children doesn't care as much about the community getting better than someone who bought a cheap piece of property there 9 months ago. That's the very definition of an arbitrary standard.Dude, get the fuck outta here.
They don't care they're obviously failures if they have to rent that long
@OpinionOwner You're obviously a fucking idiot who literally keeps repeating the same thing over and over and thinks he's making a great argument. Your comments are borderline gibberish. Clearly, you have a serious mental impairment. I've continued to respond out of amusement just to see what you would say next but it's really boring now. So buh-bye asshole.
You're the one giving no arguments I'm pointing out facts based on results you're crying no base it on emotion. Like I said look at results and you realize how your entire world view is wrong.
I haven't really read about it much, but I think it was a tweet, not at the RNC.
i know you're joking but i would at least like you to pay a net positive in taxes for a few years of your life before you can vote
1 vote per household I believe. And she said in a "godly" home the husband gets the final say. It was a tweet on twitter, not her speech at the RNC.
@Danny98 A silly notion by one person. It is really moot. No one believes that and it is illegal.
Oh, I don't believe anything like that will come into law either.
@goaded "In a godly household" = Not in every household and not mandatory.
I'm not sure what you're saying, here. The Republican who spoke at the convention is clearly... well, I'm not sure what she is, other than a liar for Jesus type, but I think it's clear that that's the attitude Jen was responding to, which means she wasn't being sexist at all.
Just because she wants a household vote and thinks it's the duty of the man doesn't mean she wants every household to be forced to have the man vote. Those are two very different matters. And you should be able to differentiate between the two.
You're right, it's two things.Firstly, should every adult get a vote? Johnson says no. Jen disagrees.Secondly, who in the household should get to choose? Johnson says the man. Jen disagrees.Johnson's clearly using the phrase "godly household" to insult any household where the woman would get the choice. What religious household wants to be labelled ungodly?It doesn't matter if Johnson wants every household to be forced to have the man vote, it's what she clearly believes should be the case (although, as I said before, she does tend to lie a lot). Saying women can make decisions for themselves has nothing to do with the first part, and it is the opposite of the sexist second part.
@goaded Again those are two separate issues. I also considered giving household votes for various reasons nothing to do with wanting the man doing the vote. You are still conflating her stance for wanting household votes and thinking if household votes were a thing it would be ideal if the man has the final vote.If you are incapable to separate those two things, then the issue is with you to be honest.
No, and for the last time, I'm saying Johnson's thinking the man of the house should get the vote is sexist, and (separately) the whole idea is a bad one.
@FakeName123 She said in a "godly" home the husband has the final say. Like @goaded shared before.
Some couples might decide to not even get married, so they get 2 votes. But if it's one vote per household, regardless of how many people are living in it or their age like I think it is, than a parent living with the couple, or children old enough to vote but haven't been able to move out wouldn't get to vote either.
but you're a depressed angry child incapable of basic critical thinking. you can't know what is going on in the world
@007kingifrit ah yes, your old throwback.You are angry and depressed.Are you that fucking dense.Your orange god is destroying the country I live in and the future for my entire generation, in your pea sized brain what is leading you to think I should be fucking happy with that
Thank you for your trolling. 👏👏👏
@bamesjond0069 I call them like I see them.
She didn't say it was in her speech.
It was in a tweet on her twitter. I believe she first said it back in this may, and then she tweeted it again after the RNC.
@Danny98 oh well. i don't plan on making any changes to voting but its her opinion
One vote per household, and she thinks the husband/father should have the final say.
@goaded Really? That is a different idea but it sounds like it would disenfranchise many younger people and it would be used to control the demographics of the voting population. I say that we only allow property owners of every gender and race to vote. Until someone reaches the age where they can buy a piece of land and/or a mule, they can't vote. yes that disenfranchises those who aren't successful (yet) and those who don't like mules... but it ensures that the voters all have a stake in the taxation that they may be supporting
You do that, and I'll buy a square mile of worthless land, and sell it off at a cent per square centimetre! Everybody owns property of some kind, why not t-shirts? (And they'll have paid sales tax on that!)
@goaded Silly Goaded. We saw that coming and there will be a litmus test to prevent that. We're still working on the details but it will be tied to one of the following1. Property Tax minimum $ or Property Tax as a percentage of total for a given region2. Size of property - minimum contiguous size3. Property usage - primary Residence, Small business which employs others and meets a threshold limit for certain payroll taxes4. Other things that the President asked me not to disclose until his second inauguration. please check back in January for more details
Darn, foiled again!