Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Poll: If the election were held today

2020 Election  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for right now?

    • Democratic Nominee
      16
    • Trump
      16
    • 3rd Party
      11
    • Not going to vote
      2


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Those are all people going to jail correct?  Care to explain what you would do with two parents who were meth addicts and cooking meth while the children were around.   +++++ing unbelievable.

First of all, this happens long before these people go to jail, if they even go to jail.  They might simply be found unfit by Dept of Family Services.  Got to put them in our court and foster care program, right?

What do you want done with children crossing the border who's parent doesn't turn out to be the parent and/or the parent is suspected of having a criminal or other questionable background?  Do we turn a blind eye to a potentially bad situation for the child and leave the child with this adult.  Or do we take custody of the child to protect them and insure a better and more healthy situation than a calculated alternative?

This isn't an easy law or policy.  There's an unfortunate reason congress' law is f'd up.  There isn't a good answer or solution.  There is only a less worse solution.  All of these kids are in an extremely shytty situation.  There isn't a "right" answer and the USA, while having to be a part of the solution, is not the problem.  The fact that no one in Congress has the better answer/solution speaks volumes to the shytty problem and situation for all involved.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

I will have to vote for Trump.   

The man disturbs me, but his policies are mostly working.  

History shows most of our world's best leaders were/are shitheads.  

Uh, try reading a history book sometime.  And he's not just a shithead, he's a stone-cold moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pokebball said:

First of all, this happens long before these people go to jail, if they even go to jail.  They might simply be found unfit by Dept of Family Services.  Got to put them in our court and foster care program, right?

What do you want done with children crossing the border who's parent doesn't turn out to be the parent and/or the parent is suspected of having a criminal or other questionable background?  Do we turn a blind eye to a potentially bad situation for the child and leave the child with this adult.  Or do we take custody of the child to protect them and insure a better and more healthy situation than a calculated alternative?

This isn't an easy law or policy.  There's an unfortunate reason congress' law is f'd up.  There isn't a good answer or solution.  There is only a less worse solution.  All of these kids are in an extremely shytty situation.  There isn't a "right" answer and the USA, while having to be a part of the solution, is not the problem.  The fact that no one in Congress has the better answer/solution speaks volumes to the shytty problem and situation for all involved.

This is so pathetically disingenuous it's difficult to determine if you're serious or not.  The ONLY circumstance under which the Obama Admin separated families was the exact situation you're describing (which I've bolded).

The difference with the Trump Admin, is they didn't bother to check to see if someone wasn't a parent, or a danger to the child.  They separated ALL families who crossed, regardless of their suspected background, relationship to the child, or any other factor, PURELY for the "crime" of fleeing violence and poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I am not voting. I really want to vote Dem, but I am not confident whoever wins the nomination is someone I can support. I'm about the candidate, not the team. If it is Biden, that will be a tough decision. If it is Warren, it is either 3rd party (I honestly have no idea who the candidates are there) or not vote. I have always voted for a Presidential election so this will be a first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

It's absolutely not a balanced board, because there are zero women here.  Everyone knows FAR more man than women support Trump.  

Ideologically yes, it is pretty balanced.  Politically there are almost as many democrats as repblicans, with a large amount of independents and libertarians.  

Further the split between atheist/agnostic and Christian is close to 50/50 with Christian probably having a few less.   A good cross section of urban/rural. And balanced age demographics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Ideologically yes, it is pretty balanced.  Politically there are almost as many democrats as repblicans, with a large amount of independents and libertarians.  

Further the split between atheist/agnostic and Christian is close to 50/50 with Christian probably having a few less.   A good cross section of urban/rural. And balanced age demographics.

It's like you didn't even bother to read what you were responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

You mean one written by a liberal, or a conservative?

 

Well, historians don't advocate loudly for politics usually, but yeah, they're mostly liberal.  People who are more educated tend to be more liberal.  That should really tell you something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

At this point I am not voting. I really want to vote Dem, but I am not confident whoever wins the nomination is someone I can support. I'm about the candidate, not the team. If it is Biden, that will be a tough decision. If it is Warren, it is either 3rd party (I honestly have no idea who the candidates are there) or not vote. I have always voted for a Presidential election so this will be a first.

What's wrong with Warren?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Orange said:

It's like you didn't even bother to read what you were responding to.

It's like you made a point in support of an assertion but that point was idiotic.  Diversity in gender is not a requisite for diversity of thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's like you made a point to in support of an assertion but that point was idiotic.  Diversity in gender is not a requisite for diversity of thought. 

Yes, it absolutely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pokebball said:

First of all, this happens long before these people go to jail, if they even go to jail.  They might simply be found unfit by Dept of Family Services.  Got to put them in our court and foster care program, right?

What do you want done with children crossing the border who's parent doesn't turn out to be the parent and/or the parent is suspected of having a criminal or other questionable background?  Do we turn a blind eye to a potentially bad situation for the child and leave the child with this adult.  Or do we take custody of the child to protect them and insure a better and more healthy situation than a calculated alternative?

This isn't an easy law or policy.  There's an unfortunate reason congress' law is f'd up.  There isn't a good answer or solution.  There is only a less worse solution.  All of these kids are in an extremely shytty situation.  There isn't a "right" answer and the USA, while having to be a part of the solution, is not the problem.  The fact that no one in Congress has the better answer/solution speaks volumes to the shytty problem and situation for all involved.

So you are mixing multiple scenarios.   If the child is/was in a potentially bad scenario domestic or asking for Asylum then yes the child needs to be separated. Especially with the threat of trafficking of minors in the Asylum case.   And yes those calls are never easy.    

In Trumps case, the separated all children whether their was a threat or not and in some cases created a threat.  It is not remotely analogous to the situation where a potential threat to the child exists.   Seeking asylum does not constitute a threat.

BTW.  The US is part of the problem.  MS-13 originated in the US due to the war on drugs.  We exported that gang to Salvador.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Well, historians don't advocate loudly for politics usually, but yeah, they're mostly liberal.  People who are more educated tend to be more liberal.  That should really tell you something. 

Yes...if you can't be productive....you can always go to school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Yes, it absolutely is.

No, it is not, that is highly sexist as well but that is for another time perhaps.  Diversity of thought and having a platform, the ability and desire to communicate is the only requisit for diversity of thought. 

A poll was just done showing 37% of the board supports Trump. Then you say the board is not balanced because of a lack of women.  Specifically because Trump has a lower approval rating with women, currently 33%.  Trumps approval rating on this board is lower then the general population, which seems to be your primary driver for what "balanced" means. 

I honestly wonder if you just post whatever is on your mind at the time because you frequently make posts that can not be reconciled with something else you recently stated.  It is odd. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange said:

Why are you so obsessed with Clinton?  She isn't running.

Neither is Kasich, why are you so obsessed with Clinton?  She wasn't the only one on the list who wasn't running.

It was a list of morally repugnant scum, a list Clinton fits.   I could have added you to the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
2 hours ago, Orange said:

What's wrong with Warren?

2/3 of her own brothers won't vote for her.

She's done a bad job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Took you off ignore.   Well I agree about Clinton and did vote third party,   The rest hard to make the claim for me they are more morally repugnant than Trump.  I would not want my voting to contribute to that man going back to office.   That being said my vote in CA won’t really matter.  The only place I can impact stopping Trump is voting against him in the primary.   

Trump separated families.  Not why I think he is a bad man, but that is your bone and you think it is all that matters.   Trump is just enforcing existing law that congress and specifically democrats will not change.

Most democrats are for killing babies for convenience.

Why don't you justify that as not a morally repugnant position for me?

 

Not to mention the reason families were being separated to begin with started under the Obama administration.  Has been perpetuated by democrats who will not increase border funding to enforce our laws.   

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-obama-separated-families/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...