This is a question for both sides, is there ANY issue where you can concede the other side has it right, and your side has it wrong? Can anyone here actually praise the other side for being on the right side of an issue while condemning the members of your side?
I don't mind going first. I think the border wall is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard and a complete waste of money, and I for one am glad the Dems are pushing back on this issue.
Any one else care to break ranks with their fellow libs/cons and admit that "their side" is wrong and the other side is right?
I am not if favor of it either, but I certainly understand why many people would be. The fact of the matter is that "walls" or "fences" or "barriers" do actually "work" but it doesn't mean they are infallible.
They are just one piece in a puzzle and not the whole puzzle. I just think we can get a better bang for our buck with drones, technology, etc. So we are in the same church, wrong pew. As if you were ever in a church. lol
For me, and to address your OP more directly, it would be the death penalty. I used to be in favor of it but no longer am. It is too unjust, too costly and WAY too much power for the government to possess over an individual, etc.
People and "systems" make mistakes. We know innocent people have been put to death. The thought of that, in a civilized, western society, is sickening,
but I think the standard needs to be changed. I don't believe a "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high enough standard when we are talking about ending someone's life, as you said "we know innocent people have been put to death" I support the death penalty, but I believe that standard should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
I am still waiting for even a single lefty to actually respond to my OP. I guess you can just call me "blue boy" as I will be in the corner holding my breath, waiting for a serious answer from a dem. Or I suppose these guys really are so delusional that they sincerely believe the DNC is right about EVERY issue and the GOP is wrong on EVERY issue, in which case, is anyone that closed minded really worth talking to?
...Well GaG here I am yer lilly livered lefty pal & I am agenst the death penalty, I think it is a far better crime deterant that convicted capitol crime prisoners be kept isolated in a small cell, fed twice a day washed once a week & forced to view pictures of the victims of their crimes daly.
That a puss of a stance. I bet at least 60 percent of the Republicans deep down inside thought that wall was a fuck up ideal...
Now if you came up with a review of the 2nd amendment or you being on the side of pro-choice, then I'd say you're on to something here...but the "Wall", really?
Are trying to pad your stats here??..It's not to late to have this thread pulled down ya know....jus sayin.
Planned Parenthood - You/Dems give up Federal Funding, which equates to about 1/3 of PP annual operating budget. In dollar terms that equals about $400 Million/Yr. In return, PP can continue unfettered in ALL aspects of providing reproductive services to ALL women, including abortion services. Let's totally remove the Federal Govt in the daily operation of PP.
Seriously think how PP can easily cover the $400M. It's easy.
with term limits. And why Planned Parenthood? It's PRO CHOICE. Forget the PP optics. You against pro choice?
and in the case of several of the posters on this board I would support the right to abort all the way up to about the 300th trimester. Abortion is one of the issues where I am glad to have the loony left standing up to the pious right, and let me repeat I am 100% on YOUR side where it comes to the abortion issue
Ok, I gave you abortion AND the wall, Jack conceded the Wall, St Croix gave partial support to Pro Choice, and so far from the left we have seen NOTHING. Big fucking surprise. lol
Surely you can find "something" where you agree with the Reps, can't you? Or of course if you simply would prefer to admit that you are a 100% partisan hack and that you completely support the party line, that at least would be an answer.
It gets down to the liberals reliance on the Federal Govt, i.e. legally, emotionally, and financially. This might sound a bit crude, but I want the libs to be OK with monetizing vaginas. I would turn PP into a profit organization, but with the charter to provide free and low cost reproductive services to those women in financial need. Think about it, a PP adjacent to each university. Captive audience, and revenue.
Just so that I'm clear, you probably think that all or most that are reliant on the Federal Govt. are liberals, huh?
And what percentage of abortions are performed at PP, I hear it's 3 percent and I'm sure not all are liberals.
I have a feeling I know what gets you, government hand outs...but remember righties are also in line.
-- Modified on 1/22/2018 3:53:03 PM
It's insignificant. Why would I care? Would you agree that abortion and pro-choice is probably one of the top 3 contentious issues in this country? What I want is to marginalize the extremes in this country. Make them irrelevant. If you look at most issues, what is the common denominator? Money! By eliminating a component of the vitriolic debate, maybe, just maybe, we can bring more of the debate to a centrist compromise.
The majority of the Left wants the abortion decision to rest with women. The majority of the Right does not want the Federal government involved, and that means funding, irrespective of the fact that abortions are 1%, 2% or 3% at PP. I am trying to think of ideas that may satisfy both groups (the majority) and again marginalize the extremes.
What is PP's Mission Statement? Does anyone know? It should include free reproductive services to those woman who don't have the financial means to pay for it. Does that sound like a hand-out to you? To me, it sounds like the right thing to do. You don't think we can find that $400M somewhere, and I'm necessarily talking about donations. How about a little creativity? The answer is not always with the government.
Look at what happened today. Did Senator Schumer capitulate to the Republicans on the government shutdown and DACA? The Far Left, aka Progressives, thinks so, and they are pissed. They didn't want Schumer to negotiate. Schumer, by definition, is probably a Centrist Democrat. A pragmatic Democrat. Remember the Tea Party, aka Freedom Party, in the early years of the Obama Administration? Did they want to negotiate during the ad nauseam debates on government funding and debt ceiling? See what's happening?
This board is just a microcosm of the extremes in this country. Unfortunately, it will get worse.
-- Modified on 1/22/2018 9:14:59 PM
Why didn't you say that at the beginning. Next time come in strong or don't come at all....lol.
As for the right, I sorta like the tax reform that was laid out. Not sure of the 21 percent corporate tax cut. I feel it's a little too steep. Maybe 28 and take it from there.
But time will tell of the ramifications and I'm not talking about the debt...I like the direction although I don't think this will really sustain the middle class. I call it the "Corporate Stimulus".
And believe it or not, I'm for the death penalty, but you better be 110 percent sure.
but thank you for being the first from your side of the aisle to concede that there is at least something the right supports that you can get behind too. Maybe there is hope for us yet?
Let me add that one thing that did bother me about the tax deal was the continuation of "carried interest" for hedge funds, although with a maximum corporate tax rate of 21% it certainly mutes the benefit of carried interest, although I think it was a rather ugly ommision and proves just how much influence Wall st has in Washington, and that goes for BOTH parties.
"Don't forget I agreed with BPS about revoking tax exempt status for churches"...lol...Yeah after the fact.
Ok so let's get the evolving Gag score card,
1- The Wall
2- Pro- Choice
3-Exempt Church Status
4-??
Anything else Ga?
Fucking with you..I'm bored today
-- Modified on 1/22/2018 3:49:10 PM
Here's the deal.........
YOU GET "Pro-Choice" as the law of the land. All 3 trimesters.
I GET all government funding eliminated. The $400 + million a year stops. PP can still be a non-profit organization, but no government (Fed, State & Local) funding in any form.
-- Modified on 1/22/2018 11:54:11 AM
...That's a form of government funding. Religious organizations are the most vociferous of the anti-abortion groups. Do you really think they'll be OK with no limits on pro-choice in exchange for de-funding PP?
You really don't give a shit about women, do you Harvey Weinstein? Only THREE PERCENT of PP's funds are spent on abortion services. The rest goes to taking care of women's HEALTH.
That's three points of agreement I have conceded to the lefties of this board, but so far not a single admission from the left that they support ANYTHING from the right side of the aisle.
I know it's early, but you lefties are proving my point about how partisan this board and the posters on it have become.
I am not expecting anyone to switch party allegiance, but can't any of you find even a single point of agreement with the other side? If not, why even have a discussion board as there is really no point of discussing things if no one here can concede even a single point to the other side.
I think it's pretty well documented on this board your contempt, disdain and hatred for women. Don't even try and pass yourself off as some kind of champion for women. The last thing this current women's movement doesn't need is someone with the qualities of a Ray Rice and Woody Allen.
Now back to my point,.,,,,,,,,,,,
Absolutely funding for women that DON'T HAVE the financial ability to pay for any reproductive services. Where do you get that money? For you Libs, the answer is always the government. Let's try the private sector. Sometimes having a capitalist view is good thing.
I don't know what's worse. Your contempt for capitalism, or contempt for women. Probably equal.
-- Modified on 1/22/2018 1:47:39 PM
...white lists I have. Do you think someone with "contempt, disdain and hatred for women" could fool providers into whitelisting him, especially since he doesn't exchange white lists for reviews? My white lists are "pretty well documented" - how about yours?
Why don't you document my "contempt, disdain and hatred for women" and my "qualities of a Ray Rice and Woody Allen?" If you don't, you'll prove yourself to be engaging in Trump's and the righties' favorite tactic - The Big Lie.
All this time I thought you ran some massage parlor or maybe was the owner at Hou's ay one time...Got some crazy whitelist there.
Harass, bully, intimidate and threaten them to do it, NOT because you earned it.
You’re Welcome
At BrokrBackBully We Laugh
Hey, dead fish breath, you are the one who brought this thread back to the forefront.
...I have "contempt, disdain and hatred for women" and I have "the qualities of a Ray Rice and Woody Allen. You said that because you were butt hurt that I said: "You really don't give a shit about women, do you Harvey Weinstein?"
I challenged you to prove what you said is true but you just ran away like the little punk ass you are and went back to lurking. Stick to commenting on the economy and frontin' with the bruthas when you allegedly ball with them.
Middle of the night posting. This board really is your life. That's sad.
I think we can agree that a lot of descriptive words have been hurled your way. But the words harasser, abuser, threatening, hooker bullying, intimidation do have a special meaning. I believe those words were used by different posters regarding a specific incident. And I think you'll agree those words are synonymous with contempt, disdain and hatred. I used Ray Rice and Woody Allen, but I could easily use Harvey and his brother Bob Weinsten, Kevin Spacey, or any of the hundreds of entertainment, business or athletes that have been called out for their behavior. The reason you haven't been called out is because you're insignificant, irrelevant.
In fact, we can probably add racist for an old fat white guy attempting to be ghetto using the words "bruthas", "frontin", and "punk ass". You don't have the chops, let alone the looks or the guts to pull if off in person.
...loser who has nothing, but has to resort to dredging up old lies. You "believe those words were used by different posters regarding a specific incident." You don't know for sure? You're just glomming onto bullshit posted by butt hurt righties and JokeFromTheFunny Farm, the Human Carpet, who does the bidding of an old, ugly hooker who can dish it out but can't take it.
Can't you come up with anything of your own? Oh yeah, you did - "middle of the night posting." Boy, that was brutal!
LOL! Maybe you could come up with something clever for once in your pathetic life if you weren't sweating over the stock market all day, hoping your few shares go up a little so you can make a couple of bucks.
Are you getting ready to help your wife get rid of all the "chametz" in your house? Who will find the "afikomen" this year?
Where do you “fill up” on all the lies, dishonesty and distortion o wait, as a miserable outcast you create it from within like all your, hate, anger and vitriol as it all flows from your mouth with the odor of dead fish.
You’re Welcome
In BrokeBackBully We Distrust
I'm not a religious guy so maybe that's why.
disagree with you? That is if there were no loopholes or ways dishonest lawmakers could sliver around your central premise.
1. Pro choice: A woman SHOULD decide, NOT my business.
2. The second amendment: People SHOULD be able to bear arms, BUT we get a bit too ridiculous, especially the NRA. Who the fucks needs an assault rifle to hunt or protect their personal property?
3. Immigration: Let's be honest about this, we have the ABSOLUTE best vetting of immigrants in the entire world. Yet no vetting system can be 100% perfect. Unfortunately we are letting in "human beings" and they are not perfect either. Truth be told, we have more crime perpetrated in this country by non-immigrants. I am with 80 % of Americans--resolve DACA. We ARE the richest/strongest nation in the world, precisely because we take the best from everywhere.
4. Healthcare: Why is our system so broken? Because lobbyists want it to be broken, big insurance companies and pharma make more money that way. Our politicians CAN do better and CAN work together. Sadly few republican politicians are willing to stand up to those who fund their campaigns and who stand to make the most with our system the way it is. REPUBLICANS broke Obamacare, tore it apart because their feelings were hurt when Democrats went around them to get something. Who gets hurt when instead of fixing they tear it apart--only the American people. Time to work together and fix it.
5. Entitlements: Have been contributing to social security almost my entire life. I want it to be there when I am ready to collect. It would not have even been broken if our politicians didn't steal from the "lock box" that was supposed to be untouchable.
if two guys who fuck each other in ass want to get married. In general, I think the Dems have right about same sex marriage. Although it's very low on my list politically.
There are a number of things I agree with traditional conservatives. Unfortunately that’s no longer what the GOP stands for.
1. Second Amendment. Now more than ever in case Crazy Donnie decides to invade California because we legalized weed and call ourselves a Sanctuary State. I want access to F-52s and Abrams tanks just in case.
2. Conservation of natural resources, expansion of our National Park system to include monuments and National Forests. That was One of the biggest planks for the Republican Party platform at one time. Not every square inch of the planet needs to be strip mined or covered in crude oil.
3. Fiscal conservation. We don’t need to be the policemen of the world nor do we need a Wall with Mexico. Money well spent on infrastructure (a bilateral concern already) and healthcare for all Americans.
4. Lower taxes. This can be done by #3. It doesn’t need to be a give the farm away to big corporations plan.
5. Not a total tax exemption for churches, but tighter control over what is a true church and not some phoney scheme to get laid by underage women tax free.
What constitutes a "real" church from a fake one?
Let's look at this objectively, if you had zero built in biases and had never heard of any of these religions before, and you were to read the Bible, Koran, Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, or any of hundreds of other "holy books" on which the various religions/cults of the world are based on, with an open mind of course, do you really believe that any one, two, or ten of them would jump out at you as being more credible and "true" than any of the others?
Keeping this in mind, just how would you define a "true" church that is deserving of a federal subsidy, (IOW YOUR tax dollars) to spread "their" word to the exclusion of all others not meeting what ever standard we decided to impose?
But basically anybody can form a 501c3 tax exempt church. It costs about $1000.00 depending on what state you live in. Once done, anybody can stick a few beds in their garage and call it a homeless shelter, let their itinerant brother in law move in and be eligible for state and federal aid payments in addition to the tax exempt status. That’s basically how mega Church’s like Osteens scam were started.
Osteen is not really affiliated with any particular religion other than “non-denominational” Christianity, but he does have a large following and has done verifiable good works, so he would probably qualify.
But the first example above should not. The IRS does audit these, but the backlog is several years and is not a priority for them.
and he is EXACTLY the type who should not be getting tax exempt status.
The guy letting his itinerant brother sleep in his garage that he calls a church is more of what the Christians claim to be about than any of the mega churches where the owners are getting rich, and getting rich tax free to boot.
The guy letting his itinerant brother in law sleep in his garage is not doing a charitable act. He gets state and federal aid for running a fake homeless shelter. Osteen started out the same way and is certainly a fraud, but he does do some legitimate charitable acts now.
I’m just providing objectively verifiable examples in response to your initial question about what would qualify for actual tax exempt status as viewed by the IRS. I’m not trying to discuss the merits of any particular church or religion.
But so far I can’t.think of a single one. The only thing I can agree with is there are just as many stupid Democrats who post here as stupid Republicans.
I just think most liberal ideas are proven to not work and are dumb. I am a pragmatist and like to pursue government policies that work. When someone has to stifle discussion and name-call to support their position, to me it shows the weakness of said position. I just think liberals are often mean, wrong and nasty with no consistent intellectual basis for many of their views - it's all emotional to them.
That being said, I don't like Capital Punishment as it is now applied. LE and the law make too many mistakes and prosecutors often have their own agendas (Nifong?). One human life lost to that is too much.
Of course we should take care of those incapable of caring for themselves, but libs take the definition of that to the extreme at the expense of taxpayers.
Otherwise I am pretty conservative leaning to libertarian. "Don't hurt folks or take their shit" is a favorite along with "Do what you want but don't make me pay for it". From what I can tell, libs think our shit is theirs and don't much agree with those statements.
Anyone else being mean, wrong and nasty with no consistent intellectual basis for many of their views is funny coming from you. Have you read any of your own posts on this board?
.
And, what do you think mean and nasty libs are trying to take from you? Your health care? Your Social Security "entitlement"? Your ability to buy an assault rifle at a gun show with no background check? Or maybe they want to give significant parts of the land (and water rights) in your National Parks to for-profit corporations so they can drill for oil and set-up mining operations---as long as they PROMIS not to spill anything or kill off any endangered species?
.
Are they stealing your right to dump your toxic shit in rivers whenever you feel like it because it’s just too financially burdensome for you to be environmentally responsible? Are libs trying to take away your right to pray where and whenever you like by attempting to adhere to an actual separation of church and state? Or maybe you’re angry about libs attacking your right to stand during the anthem at sporting events?
.
Do they want to take away your right to terminate a pregnancy? Or prevent you from buying a fucking cake for your wedding, at the only bakery in your town? Perhaps you’re afraid libs will do everything possible to limit valid scientific research you disagree with, and give the EPA a list of “words” they’re not allowed to use? Legislate what toilet you can use?
.
Maybe you believe that all of the money the heartless libs want to earmark to help people in need is taking money out of your pocket because compassionate republicans would most definitely be giving that money to YOU instead of an already boated military, or their mega wealthy corporate donors?
.
Or…maybe these nasty libs want to come after you for consuming cannabis and toss evil drug users like you in prison for 15-20 yrs at a time? Oh..I know… you must be worried that libs want to take away your job picking fruit and give it to some criminal from central Mex or Central America? No?
.
Then it must be that libs want to eliminate any consumer/employee protections so your customers and/or employees can’t take you to court after you fuck them over? Maybe libs want take something from YOU by finding a way for people who have lived and thrived in the US since they were children to continue to live in the only county they’ve known, instead of sending out the ICE Gestapo to round them up and deport them back to wherever the fuck their parents came from?
.
Surely all of this must be taking something from YOU since I hear this argument repeated so often. But what? I’m confused. What, exactly do you think libs are trying to take away from you?
your terminating a baby instead of a pregnancy. Ironically, the pro choice movement offers no choice for the baby. Nine months is the length of time an abortion is allowed in Canada. Perhaps you should move there. I hear they have free healthcare.
talk about distorting the truth. 90% of abortions in Canada are performed in the first trimester, with only 2-3% performed after 16 weeks.
.
NO physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications that the life of the mother is at risk or that the fetus has very serious malformations. Go ahead--look it up. It is undoubtedly a horribly painful decision to make. But, it is not YOUR decision to determine whether someone else---a woman---or a family---should be forced to carry a severely handicapped child to term.
Perhaps he mixed up Canada with China, though I can' really see it happening there either!
against severely handicapped children and justifying their late term abortion. A 23 week abortion is really bad, handicapped or not. Plenty of handicapped folks live fulfilling lives. Smdh.
Even a pro choice abortionist like yourself surely would agree there has to be limits to pregnancy termination? We now know handicapped kids are goners. How about the other babies with moms who just don't want them and use abortion for birth control?
Simple. No one is trying to force you to do or believe anything against your will. Do you see the difference here?
.
And, of course plenty of disabled kids live fulfilling lives. But, then again...plenty do not. It's a very difficult and personal decision and, again, not yours to make for someone else.
I have a serious problem with babies being terminated and so do a lot of other people. Pro choice has its limits.
congratulations
they kill defenseless little girls!
a LOT of black ones.
about the ONLY thing the little pussies can kill!
they get all pissed when you point out the slaughter.
THEY call the carnage "choice".
But they are happy, snarky little murderers! 
and those monsters are the first to lecture us on morality.
at least they stopped selling the little-girl parts.
God Bless now!
for all of the abandoned and black and disabled children you're taking care of. Very admirable. And, good to know the republican party is so committed to children in need. Without you a significant number of these kids would live in institutions their entire lives if the funding existed.
and throw the little girl babies in the trash can!
Yeah, libs are compassionate!
libs are committing wholesale black genocide and blacks vote for them!
perfect storm of evil and stupid with those two groups
...As a liberal I recognise the need for a program like this, but the EBT food program is harming the health of many of the people using it, this program must no longer pay for high fat & high salt snack foods, soda & cafinated energy drinks, & this is easly done with the bar code system & the program should be expanded to pay for health needs like toothpast & soap. Next is the EBT cash system, instead of such a large amount of cash the low income recipeants could recieve coupons good only for energy bills, child care, or transportation to work, that ought to be enough to make some of the other liberals hate me.
but you would think my Anti Church, pro Choice, pro "leave gays the fuck alone", anti "war on drugs" etc etc etc, would be enough for the righties to kick me out of their club too, but no dice. lol
and while we are in the spirit of "supporting the other side" I will go on record that I believe that "underemployed" people should be eligible for EBT and not be unduly punished for at least trying to improve their lives. I feel a lot better about helping someone who is trying to help themselves by getting a "shit job" that is at least honest labor than I do supporting professional welfare moms who squander the money we give them on cigs and lottery tickets.
...A slice in time where we are actualy attempting to understand each others view pounts without all the insults & name calling, how long can this last ?
It might last a long time, maybe even ten or fifteen more minutes if we are lucky. lol
With the screaming kid yelling at us to "Look at me!!! Look at me!!!" I am surprised we got any actual discussion out of this thread, but truth be told, we got more actual discussion than I thought we would when I made my OP. I even give Jake props for honesty for admitting he doesn't agree with a single things the GOP stands for instead of dodging the question like so many others. As for the usual suspects, is anyone really surprised by their responses?
...Which hair ya talken about sport ? it would have to be my eyebrows or my balls cuz my crainum would never support flames, Partisin support from me is best over simplified by saying that the right is for materials & the left is for people, Of course that is most easily illustrated by republican tax plans moving less tax burden to the wealthy & more to average workers, but what about business taxes, I believe directly taxing business in this country makes American business less competative wiith the rest of the world, what would happen if there were no direct business taxes & that revenue was made up by taxing the people that profited from those businesses ? We would have to withold taxes from foreign investors but any profits made in this country should be taxed here.
and the argument has some merit.
I suppose I need to dumb this down so Planet Stupid knows what we are talking about, VAT is a Value Added Tax.
As for making foreign entities pay taxes on any earnings they make in this country, I am all for that and it's already required in my business. I am allowed to accept foreign investment, but only if it's held by an American entity, whether that be a corportation, LLC, or other legal structure, complete with an American tax number. No tax number, no distributions. It's as simple as that.
...No GaG not even close VAT effects everyone, what I described was nothing moer than an adjustment from taxes directly on business to taxing the people making a profit or income from business.
Just that the argument for what you are proposing is similar.
Actually what you are proposing is that ALL corporations become giant "flow through" entities which is an interesting concept, but would be difficult to implement due to such things as depreciation, expensing. interest deductions, etc which would then need to be done at the individual level, hundreds of millions of times. I can only imagine what a K-1 put out by Apple would look like. lol
...is only a formula for recovering the tax dollars lost by removing direct business tax & moving that same amount lost to that action to the upper income tax brackets, this idea would remove all of the complications business has with tax fileing because there would there would be none. There should be no question that action would make American business more competitve with the rest of the world & most people earning profit income from business are usually upper bracket tax payers, this proposal is a major simplification to the tax system.
Do you have any idea how much money is invested by the "little guys" who have their pensions, IRA's, 401K's etc invested in the stock market?
This link hardly begins to be a complete answer to that question, but it will give you some idea.
I know your intentions are good, but you would be creating a nightmare scenario for the "little guy" just the opposite of what you are trying to acheive.
...Well GaG please tell us what stock market investments have to do with the idea I proposed, that looks like a smoke screen to me.
Your compassion goes beyond the EBT card. You actually want to encourage, help, even control how people use their EBT card. Me, just give them the money. Let them make their own decisions, good or bad. We already give a slice of society money for other programs without restrictions.
Forget by fixing, enhancing, whatever to the system. People will make bad decisions with or without you. They will find a way. Trader Joes accepts EBT cards. Customer service is #1 to TJ. Today, at least the EBT user attempts to buy snack foods, soda, whatever, only to come back the next and return the products. TJ doesn't reload an EBT card. They just give them a gift card. Cigarettes and liquor baby.
Again, I applaud your compassion, but just give them the money, and let it go at that. Let's don't re-engineer another government program.
...If you don't mind using your tax money to support further destruction of Americans health mabey you should think about the cost to all of us of obesity, alcoholism, & opiate abuse. We should be willing to accept the risk of the labling of "nanystate" to help prevent the further decline of the health of Americans.
Is it what issues they are for or against on an anonymous fuck board?
Or, is it to what degree they support a particular party or president on an anonymous fuck board?
Or, is it the degree to which they defend the indefensible?
I vote on issues more than on party. On the national party front, the Republicans leave me little to support. I'm not for trickle down economics. I'm not for increasing income disparity. I'm not against gays, abortion or contraception. I'm not for blurring the lines between separation of church and state, particularly by allowing a bunch of unqualified people to hold government positions to push their religious agendas. And, I'm not for supporting a Kleptocracy, nor any administration that seeks to undermined the institutions that comprise our system of governing. Since Trump, I can't even lean into them looking for strong support for national security and law enforcement.
On a local and state level, I often find Republican candidates that I can support, because of my knowledge of their and their opponent's political history (issues they support and don't support, their voting records, kept and unkept promises, etc.).
I'll leave it all up to you to judge, which you have done so many time in the past!
especially the liberal wing.
Can't say the same about Republicans determined to increase poverty in this country and killing of the poor, old and helpless people.
GaGa is one of the few honest and earnest on here, so I am curious of your opinion.
First to answer your question, with this crowd? Nah, probably not, Bigly and Laffy etc don't seem like sincere seekers of the truth, jsut sort of brainless libtards howlers, so why engage except to give them purple nurples for fun.
Re: The border wall... I know a few friends of that opinion, and their common simply stated reason for them thinking the wall is "stupid" is that "it will never work". As in it will not keep out all Illegals? Conceded, just like anti-murder laws don't deter all homicide...As in it won't do the job unless the wall is staffed and the laws behind it enforced, as in another Obama just opening the gates and putting out more "Welcome" signs couldn't defeat the wall? Conceded. But all locks, walls, alarms, and other security features meant to exclude and include ultimately will fail. With enough time and effort all barriers can be breached.
But your house and mine still have locks on the doors, as do our cars. Partially effective deterrence beats none at all, and the Israeli wall is proving near 100% effective. So, if not an argument based on effectiveness, is your argument a cost benefit analysis, that there are more effective per dollar ways to deter illegals, like E-Verify and work place raids, and other internal Demand side / pull reducing enforcement measures?
I am assuming you don't share the standard Lib approach that the American people don't have a democratic right to regulate and limit immigration in their own interest and against the interest of the non-Americans who wish to come here? You're not of the Immigration is a Civil Right for foreigners persuasion? Also assuming you are not the sort who doesn't understand that regulation will require chosing, and chosing is by nature, discrimination.
If the wall does indeed morph into a "virtual" wall and not the "big beautiful" wall that he campaigned on, most likely I will change my opinion, but I think spending tens of billions of dollars on an actual physical barrier that happens to be mainly on a river front is hardly the best use of our tax dollars.
I am NOT in opposition to doing what we can to secure our borders, I just don't believe this is an effective way to do so.