Trump wanted to make America great, (again?)
Biden wanted to build America back better, (than what?)
What if we take both ideas and attempt to Make America Better.
What would that look like?
Even if impossible to do at this point in time, how could we improve America?
or at least begin to improve it?
What principles, ideals or policies would be behind the improvements?
Which President is more capable of bringing about true improvements:
Biden or Trump?
or Someone Else on the HORIZON?
Lets say it is Biden who can bring about the most improvements.
So far, he has done the opposite ... as we ALL know.
For instance, his dealings, negotiations and discussions with Russia and Ukraine could bring about Nuclear war.
This is not improving life for America ...
Do you think we might look beyond our own interests for a moment while Putin and his troops are raping and torturing children in Ukraine? Where is our humanity?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russ … -rcna49168
Are you saying America has no humanity if it seeks to protect itself from nuclear war? Are you saying it is selfish for us to tend to our own lives and our own concerns while the rest of the world does what it does ... to itself? We had nothing to do with the problems of Russia vs. Ukraine. All Ukraine had to do was stay out of NATO.
If Ukraine was a member of NATO., Putin would not even think about invading. Defensive alliances among democracies are not the problem. They are the only thing stopping aggressive dictatorships.
However, ask yourself why NATO has toyed with Ukraine for so many decades. All is not as simple as it appears. I mean sooner or later did the US and NATO not realize that Russia would move in on Ukraine?
Ukraine’s leaders in recent years made pleas about their desire to bring the country into NATO — especially when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, came into office in 2019.
His election came on the heels of a move by Ukraine’s parliament to enshrine the goals of joining NATO and the European Union into the country’s constitution in September 2018.
Three years into his term, Zelenskyy met with President Joe Biden during an official visit to the U.S., and he told reporters openly, he planned to press his American counterpart on the question of Ukraine’s “chances to join NATO and the timeframe.
This certainly could have pushed Putin to realize it was time to strike, and he did.
Could the US and NATO have played down the chances of Ukraine becoming part of NATO? They also promoted the idea they were going to support Ukraine's sovereignty. In my view, the US and NATO instead of calming the situation made it hard for Putin to back out of becoming aggressive, and hence he played his hand and started building up troops on the Ukraine border. Then, there was no turning back.
Is Ken correct, was this a well-played plan? A plan that has now backfired, and further pushed Putin to become even more aggressive?
There have been no calls from NATO for a sit-down with Russia to try diplomacy. Which has always struck me funny.
That's the propaganda line, hook and sinker.
Got all those Neutral countries to join up to NATO quick.
Got them ordering hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment.
All so we can take the Russian speaking, Russian populated Crimea back from Russia.
And risk nuclear war and the complete failure of the global economy to do so.
Meanwhile children are kidnapped and shipped across our southern borders by the thousands.
Meanwhile China has enslaved an estimated 2.9 million Uighurs this includes the forced labor of men, women and children in many parts of the economy, including domestic servitude and forced pregnancies.
Hey, how about Afghanistan, which we couldn't get out of fast enough, so that we could focus on starting this war with Russia. Afghanistan has become hell on earth for those people we abandoned. The situation in Afghanistan is so grim, that some families have been forced to sell their babies so they can buy food.
But yeah... lets get that M___ F____ Putin... F___ it, Nukes be damned, millions of lives lost be damned... lets get them Russians!
"Hey, how about Afghanistan, which we couldn't get out of fast enough, so that we could focus on starting this war with Russia."
It was Mr Trump's White House that agreed to end our involvement in Afghanistan. President Biden only inherited the deal.
And pray tell what deal did he conjure?
I am so tired of hearing 'Biden inherited Trump's agreement"
Frist Biden made his own decisions in regard to keeping Trump's agreement. We as a nation have no Idea how Trump would have continued to handle the problem in Afghanistan. Toward the end of Trump's term, Afghanistan was in most respects following the
agreement. The agreement fell apart early under Biden. He had the opportunity to make all decisions, but he made the wrong decisions.
The weak excuse of Blaming Trump, is ridiculous, a truely unintelligent copout. In my view Trump was a strong president, he most certainly, in my view. handled the situation differently, with diplomacy and strength.
He most certainly himself would have pulled out of the agreement if he saw it go bad.
I am so sick of the incompetent man continuing to blame Trump for his failures. He needs to man up, and realize this job is way above his head. Hey, I continue to share my view, he needs to be removed, I said it from his first months, and it is more than apparent he can't do the job of president of the United States.
Vote Vote Vote Republican In Nov...
Faye, Biden is the president. He most certainly could have come up with his own strategy in regard to Afghanistan. Trump had an agreement, and agreement that most certainly could have been tossed in the can, and the better part of Trump's policies were piling up in the can.
In my view, we have no idea what would have happened in Afghanistan if Trump won, and handled the Afghanistan withdrawal. It is unfair to assume we know what Trump would have done. He may have ripped up the agreement due to seeing it was not being kept. Trump was very strong when it came to foreign affairs, and could have turned on a dime with respect to that agreement.
What is obvious, Biden choose his free will to abruptly just pull out of Afghanistan. It's all on him. he was the new guy in town... So, let's not blame Trump for the disaster that occurred. So, tired of hearing the excuse --- Biden inherited the deal. He also inherited a low inflation rate below 2%, oil at $30.00 some dollars a barrel, and a border under some control, and a nation well on the way to being completely energy independent. And a military that was growing in numbers. And look what a huge mess he made of all I have mentioned... Look at the poor decision making, that destroyed all we had. All Trump left him.
In my, view, Biden has no BALLS, or the intelligence to solve problems. He needed to buck up and do his job. He had and has the power Govern, to do away with any agreement. As Trump did with the Iran deal. The Afghanistan problem was a problem that Trump was working on, he most certainly may have handled the withdrawal differently. Biden needed to handle what was occurring in his time, he did, and it was a disaster. He needs to stop the blame game, and so do all that choose not to understand, Biden is president, and he is responsible for his many mistakes.
I have come to agree with Ken, this was a well-planned war to go after Putin at the expense of the Ukraine people. What now? Putin is not going to be buried easily, and people are perishing.
The plan was poor, and it has backfired.
Russia is powerful by history and tradition. It should have been respected.
R E S P E C T
I blame Zelinsky. Thanks for nothin', Man.
Did they respect The sovereign Nation of Ukraine when they decided to march in and start a war? And now they're brutalizing the people of ukraine? Is that respect
It appeared that Putin made the decision to March into ukraine, telling his people it was a special operation to "de-nazify"the country. How is this somehow contrived by our country? How was it planned by our country?
I was not clear enough. I feel the plan started when NATO and Biden were considering Zelinskys request to become part of NATO. Putin immediately made threats, and started moving first small numbers of troops to the Ukraine border, and then more and more each week.
I feel that NATO and the US /Biden felt they could fight and crush Putin via a proxy war. They underestimated the fact Putin would not back down and is now rallying more troops, and forcing men to fight
This is just my view, due to no real requests for sit-downs with Putin to see if diplomacy would work. It appears very much planned.
If it were me, I probably would have respected the Russian desire to keep so closely affiliated a nation state like the Ukraine out of NATO in return for no invasions by Russia.
I know how much we did not like it when the Soviet Union made inroads in the Western Hemisphere with a threat via Cuba.
Outside of that, there can be no real negotiation when one side wants total capitulation from the other. I doubt that the Ukrainian president is prepared to make any territorial concessions.
The circumstances where we find ourselves is the cumulation of years of American foreign policy. The Biden administration is just where the marble happens to stop on the roulette wheel.
When I think back on the many months of build-up to the war, I did not really note any request for sit-downs with Putin, only lots of threats aimed at him.
I am just trying to point out, it seemed odd not to try diplomacy in the early Russian troop build-up, first before threats Did it either play into Putin's aggressiveness or did the lack of diplomacy push him into aggression? We know he does not want Ukraine to become part of NATO.
I mean many years ago Nations benefited from talks. We choose
threats and it seems NATO and the US should have given diplomacy a go...
I agree at this point there would be little chance the Ukrainian president would be prepared to make any territorial concessions. That ship sailed.
Putin was visited by many world leaders and delegations leading up to his invasion and also even after he went in. President Biden even spoke with Putin virtually in December, months before the war broke out.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/24/10730150 … -diplomacy
When Putin is dead and gone there will be another tragedy going on. Somewhere in the world there is ALWAYS an emergency with people dying.
And America is not responsible for cleaning them all up.
Well then I'd rather not hear Americans, or a certain sector of Americans, continually railing about the sanctity of human life beginning at conception. Sheer hypocrisy. I suppose morality has borders?
Yes, the limits of our morality do have borders. The application of our morality as you infer is no different than the 'sinking lifeboat' analogy.
I don't think there is an argument against it either.
Does surviving on "lifeboat earth" require draconian forms of "social triage" or not?
Note that all of these arguments assume that we live in a zero-sum world that pits the strong against the weak. We are then supposed to choose sides, favoring either the strong or the weak. And note especially that underlying all of the arguments is the assumption of scarce resources.
The claim that resources are scarce is everywhere in political debate, in environmentalism, in much of economic science, and in moral decision theory. But is it true?
Your question was way too broad. Your expansion to 'lifeboat Earth is fine as long as we keep the direction of borders or limits on morality—which must be defined as 'our' morality.
I don't see it as a zero-sum thing, there are degrees between the absolutes. I also don't think we must choose 'zero-sum' sides. We can live with our moral codes—until we can't, meaning we choose not to or we perish trying to.
We can and have had the reality of a strong vs. weak civil structure since our beginning. It keeps evolving because there are always degrees. Each evolution becomes strong vs. less weak, or even strong vs. less strong. Generally, the difference is a change in our morals. We keep what we can survive with and discard or modify the ones we can't hold and still survive.
Sort of like living your moral code until the harm of doing so is worse for you, (generic you), than is the benefit to 'others'. That's where your triage comes in, making that decision.
- well, what do you think? IS IT true,( regarding the scarcity of resources?)
And what is "moral decision theory."
So in focusing on American improvement, you would say we should not see life as beginning at conception?
We should not value the germination of human life in the beginning?
And we should use old bodies as compost in the end?
All the focus seems to be on conception, embryos and fetal life. What about the sanctity of life across it's span? The context fory original comment was in reaction to some having a callous view of the suffering in Ukraine. If one take a pro life view then shouldn't all life matter? And that's when social triage came into the conversation. We divide people in to groups of those who are worthy and those who aren't. In my book, your sense of morality stays consistent across situations.
Thank You for responding. I do not believe that morality can be applied consistently to each and every situation. Not all situations are sanctified.
For instance, the lives of illegal aliens are not in our jurisdiction. They are in the jurisdiction of the country they come from. Those people have left their country and have tried to sneak into ours without proper protocol.
Is proper protocol not to be respected? Are the laws of other countries to be broken at whim? And are lawbreakers deserving of benefits and due regard?
Or what about this report by Tucker Carson?
Encourage Ukraine stay out of NATO. Was that too much to ask?
excuse me, guys, what the heck is this:
-----> draconian forms of "social triage" ?
Social triage argues that bureaucratic decision makers find it inefficient to work with certain groups. These decision makers sacrifice these groups’ needs in order that others (more beneficial to the organization) receive services. Social triage favors society’s “most fit” members. Simply put, it's sorting people into groups based on someone else's criteria. It's who gets a spot in the lifeboat and who gets to drown.
Social triage argues that bureaucratic decision makers (who the heck are they?) find it* inefficient* (inappropriate and vague word) to work with certain groups. (certain groups based on what?) These decision makers (which?) sacrifice these groups’ needs (example please) in order that others who are more beneficial to the organization (how so?) receive services (such as?). Social triage favors society’s “most fit” members. (Huh?) Simply put, it's sorting people into groups based on someone else's criteria. (ridiculous) It's who gets a spot in the lifeboat and who gets to drown. (really, really ridiculous.)
"We (who is "we?") have had the reality of a strong vs. weak civil structure (such as?) since our (whose?) beginning.
This civil structure (what is a "civil structure?") keeps evolving because there are always degrees. (Of what?)
Each evolution (?) becomes strong vs. less weak,
or even strong vs. less strong.
Generally, the difference (of what?) is a change in our morals.
We keep (the morals) that help us survive and discard or modify the morals that do not help us survive.
Can anybody provide For Instances?
Morals are absolute and are not to be broken.
For instance, when opening borders to illegal immigrants, a boundary was broken. This boundary was promised to the people by the government, whose job it is to protect them.
For instance, women need to focus on preventing pregnancy and men and women need to follow the commandment of no adultery, which means no sex before marriage.
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Hubert H. Humphrey, November, 1977
So, are we doing any of that? Many of our children slip into the cracks due to poor education, and homes that take little interest in their offspring. One could say the same about the elderly, some thrived throughout their lives and need little to no help from society. Some were less fortunate and do need help. Our social systems are not as adequate as they could be. But many nations have no programs to help their elderly.
I can agree those that who live in the shadows, such as the mentally ill that call the street their home have been forgotten, the much ignored.
All and all, I feel government handles most social problems
I think we get what we vote for. Which one can see is not what we would wish for. The time is overdue to push out those that do not do our bidding, and have a great turnover if we do not see progress. We keep the same representatives in until they can't even think clearly. NOTE I say WE...
We get what we voted in, and keep voting in... Politicians make promises, but rarely keep them. So, who is the fool them or us?
It just serves as a reminder of what a civilized society should look like. And there is always room for improvement.
While there are many nations that do nothing to help,the elderly, there are many others that do better than us.
Apathy is the curse of the American electorate, we settle for what is available instead of putting our politicians to task to provide what the people want. But there are the oligarchs and plutocrats that see the needs of the masses as irrelevant to what they want, this is struggle rich against everybody else. My government is not for sale.
Again, the government was instituted as law enforcement, not to parent/provide for us. It is up to the parents & individual himself/herself to provide. The government isn't the parent. That is the problem-people elect to act instinctively, willy nilly, not caring about the ramifications of their irresponsible actions. If one can't afford children, DON'T have them. It is beyond morally reprehensible to raise children in abject circumstances.
People have to learn to be responsible for themselves, not look for others to carry them. What is wrong w/people? No one is responsible for you except for you. If one makes a stupid mistake, correct it or live with it.
How far backin time do I have to go with you, Grace? Is it the guilded age of the 1890s. The tenement shops and child labor and such. No contemporary global model of a responsible society operates this way. Don't you ever get tired of the same old Social Darwinism shtick?
People do take responsibility for themselves, but people take advantage as well. What is the defense?
No they don't, they would rather complain about their dire predicament than to do for themselves.
You would think that a sense of urgency would spur them on.
How can they sense urgency when handouts are everywhere for any reason?
- when How to Aquire Handouts are taught to offspring?
- when offspring learn to Expect Handouts.
Did you know that a domesticated horse will loose his ability to find water? When a horse's water source is moved even a few feet way from where he is accustomed to seeing it, he will not be able to find it!
You have been known to complain about the government interference in women' reproductive rights. Who is responsible for that predicament?
So, is it really every man or woman for him or herself?
It is also said that the moral test of government is how they treat unborn children, When the state allows mothers to kill those children because they interfere with their schedule the state has failed.
"It is also said that the moral test of government is how they treat unborn children"
So, Doc, Where is that mentioned?
Does the moral test include having women bear to term after rape and incest?
Does the moral test involve defending a zygote, a clump of cells at the xpense of a life of reasonable freedom for the women?
Does the moral test involve controlling intimate and private relations between human beings by controlling access to contraceptives? Many of the ugliest of rightwing circles are working on it. Have you been to America lately?
We had an arrangement here called Roe vs Wade that allowed for reasonable compromise. But leave it to the Rightwinger to disguise his desire for thumbs on control with actual concern for people and their rights.
Thus my obsession to squash the Rightwinger and his or her ideals like a bug, politically, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Where is it mentioned? I just mentioned it. Sorry if it does not fit with HH.
Roe vs Wade said that states are no longer able to make laws preventing abortions. As a result even those who did not need an abortion for medical reasons were able to use abortion clinics for convenience, a new form if birth control. I realize you and many leftists think that is okay.
Many of us do not consider murdering children okay.
No one considers murdering children okay.
A pile of lumber and supplies is not a house; fabric, buttons and thread are not a shirt, and an embryo or early fetus is not a baby or child. So it’s false and misleading to call embryos and early fetuses “babies” or “children.” You are completely ignoring the stages that distinguish human development.
No, you are ignoring biology. An unborn horse is not another animal until it is born, it is a horse. An unborn child is still a child.
Is a zygote just after fertilization a child, Doc?
I was reading an article about the West Virginia legislature regarding a total ban on abortion in the state.
Just think about it, within their legislative facility, all those old, smug, white men lording over something with which they've had no experience, while female protesters shouted down their deliberations from outside the chamber. It was awe inspiring.
Even moderate GOP women feared the backlash that would come, with such a stranglehold over the women's prerogatives. And by Jove, the Rightwinger will pay dearly at the polls this fall.
Geez, Doc, you are so far to the Right, there is nothing Left.
And like so many Rightwingers, you exaggerate. Roe did not require the availability of abortion on demand, but put the proper balance between rights of the woman against the state's interest in preserving life particularely when the fetus is viable outside the mother's body.
But in the way of the Rightwinger, "it is all my way, or the highway". So, no, I don't agree with your interpretation in this matter.
Is the DNA in a one cell fetus that of a child or an elephant? No, and you can not justify killing children on demand so you attack the West Virginia lawmakers.
Just because someone votes for an issue that suits their current needs that does not make them correct. In this issue I would much rather stand on the side of life, even if it does offend you leftists.
Is it so hard to take your birth control and wear your condoms?
... better yet, marry for love, not sex. And girls really need to make sure that their wombs remain empty until the husband, house, washer and dryer are in place. (In that order.) And if girls would look out for their own self-interest, it would benefit America, as well. Following the precept of sex after marriage would help prevent unwanted pregnancy/ senseless killing/murder. It would so improve America in so many ways.
Maybe in the higher ages, girls will realize the wisdom of this type of self-protection and self-respect. I mention it now, just to put it out there, in case anyone/girl is reading along. Girls today either have the baby or kill it after hook ups. Hook-ups are just part of dating. It is a shame.
This is a fetus at 20 weeks. Can you tell it is a human being, its sex, the fact that it did live? Is it a baby? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-17/ … /100624014
I think many do not realize what a fetus at different stages looks like.
Many women abort have abortions at 20 weeks. This photo well depicts a fetus at 20 weeks.
Even at 12 weeks, one can see the fetus is a human being. It might be wise, and educational if women were encouraged to look at the fetus they aborted It may serve to cut down on abortions if women realized they did kill a living human being. Ultimately this is a fact a fetus is a maturing human being while in the womb.
I think it has become easy for many to deny a fetus is a living maturing human. It seems they just have no concept of the science of any species that form its mother's womb. Whether it is a dog, a cat, or a human being. If one decided to take it from the mother's womb, it is removing the species from its life force.
I think if one wants the right to choose, they need to know what they are ultimately choosing to do. They need to be given the facts, and yes, commit to the fact they are taking a life. Because ultimately that is what is done via abortion.
How could we ever have become a society where at best we can't face the facts about abortion? That we can look at abortion only from a view as a given right, and totally disregard the killing part. Being an RN, I factually know what an aborted fetus looks like throughout gestation. So, I tire of some saying a fetus is not a baby or a human being.
I don't believe anyone said or made the assertion that a fetus wasn't a human. Just that there is a difference between an embryo, a fetus and a child. Just stages of maturation. I don't believe there are a lot of similarities between a child and an embryo in terms of functioning.
I do really take exception to the idea that seems to be continually put forth by the far right extreme that abortions largely happen on a whim. There’s an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don’t bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman’s life.
In my view it's just seems very hyperbolic to say that an abortion at 12 weeks or less is akin to the murder of a child.
"I do really take exception to the idea that seems to be continually put forth by the far right extreme that abortions largely happen on a whim."
This would be your view, I feel many have abortions "on a whim".
" I don't believe there are a lot of similarities between a child and an embryo in terms of functioning. "
I made no comparisons on similarities between a child and an embryo. I offered a photo of an infant born at 20 weeks.
You have shared your thoughts as I have. I will Agree to disagree
"I feel many have abortions "on a whim".
How could you possibly assert that? That's a huge assumption that denies all the other reasons that go into such a decision.
Why do you doubt it? whims come with reasons, which are justifications "that go into such a decision."
"The meaning of WHIM is a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea
or turn of the mind: fancy."
Why do we automatically believe the worst of women? Regardless, the decision process should take place between a woman and her doctor rather than a woman in her senator. There are a multitude of reasons that a woman chooses abortion. I'm not ready to call them all heartless, callous human beings. I'll let their God have the final judgment.
Am I to trust you are an authority on what promotes a woman to get adoption, or what goes into making the decision?
How can you assert some don't get an abortion on a whim? It seems you are compartmentalizing all women into one box.
I don't in any respect put people in compartments. I keep an open mind and look at people as individuals. In my view, Individuals differ in regard to values, and beliefs that shape how they as individuals make sense of a situation and behave in a given situation. So, I totally feel some women are very casual about abortion, and yes, some in my view do put little thought when making the decision to have an abortion.
You don't seem to take it well when our views differ. That would be your problem. Did I not say I think it is time to agree to disagree?
Yet here you are, questioning my thoughts and my views.
Sharlee, I said I believe that there are a multitude of reasons for this decision.
Yes, and some can be very much whimish....
Well maybe just as whimish as those in our country who judge that the lives of the children in Ukraine, who are actual children, aren't worth our support and can be tortured raped and killed by Russians. Like I said before, where is the consistency in morality?
Ya know I don't think anyone here - "judge that the lives of the children in Ukraine, who are actual children, aren't worth our support and can be tortured raped and killed by Russians."
I think much of what has been discussed here is about the history between NATO and Ukraine and the concept that perhaps the war could have been avoided with different measures.
No one has said we should at this point not be supporting the people of Ukraine, the conversation seems to be concentrating on abortion.
You are insinuating something I have not noted in this thread.
I've just pointed out or made that observation for myself in a general way, not pointing to anyone specifically. But that we have groups of very staunch anti-abortion advocates but there seems to be quite an overlap between them and those that oppose any sort of involvement ,even humanitarian , in Ukraine. Somewhere back through the thread the concept of morality was brought up and I always find it interesting when people's morality changes for different situations. Those who use a morality argument against abortion, sometimes don't apply that same morality across situations. They pick and choose. They make judgments. Life is life, right? And I am certainly not saying this is everyone, who exhibits this kind of hypocrisy.
If some do not want us to be the world's keeper than we shouldn't be our neighbors keep her either.
The overlapping discussions of abortion and our involvement of Ukraine just led me to the underlying issue of morality. But it did overlap with a couple of posters back in the thread.
Let me just pose this for everyone's consideration, can you claim conviction or a moral stance on an issue if it changes by situation? If it doesn't remain stable across similar situations?
The killing and murder of war vs the killing of individuals in the womb.
Have you heard of the phrase, "This is comparing apples to oranges?"
You would improve the world by eliminating war, yes, although that can be debated. And you will not improve the world by killing fetuses, although that can be debated.
You seem to demonize Americans who would rather not support Ukraine. I demonize the leaders for being such jerks.
I wish we didn't have to be involved with Russian / Ukrainian affairs. Why do we, in your view, FF?
I'm not demonizing anyone that's far from my own morality. As far as why we should be involved with this conflict. Sovereign Nations have a right to determine their future. If we don't support that, what kind of message does that give to aggressive dictators? In time, they could decide to roll into country after country. This would affect our country eventually. Our economy and prosperity is really tied to peace in the European region. We are interconnected. Also, in terms of morality, what Russia is doing is just wrong. I don't know, I have a hard time understanding how you can take an anti-abortion stance but at the same time desire we have no involvement in Ukraine when the Russians are committing such atrocities. I don't know how the two are separated but I respect your views.
" Somewhere back through the thread the concept of morality was brought up and I always find it interesting when people's morality changes for different situations. Those who use a morality argument against abortion, sometimes don't apply that same morality across situations. They pick and choose".
"Let me just pose this for everyone's consideration, can you claim conviction or a moral stance on an issue if it changes by situation? If it doesn't remain stable across similar situations?"
Do we not as individuals look at different situations differently? One certainly might not support abortion, but support stopping atrocities in another nation. One might not support the war in Ukraine but support the fact we need to be there in one capacity or another. Yes, it would seem to me one does pick and choose what they support due to values, and morals. Abortion is abhorrent to me as is war atrocities on helpless people. I would suppose that shows my values in both cases to respect and empathy for human life. I also feel the US can not be the savors alone to all the world in many senses. It is just not something that I find feasible. I do say all nations should step up when we see people being unduly hurt, and killed.
Abortion and war crimes in Ukraine are very different situations. Abortion is a decision a woman makes to end the growth of a human being in her womb. And some look upon this as killing and promoting the protection of a growing human being in the mother's womb. The atrocities in Ukraine put forth the same situation and decision to protect the living from being harmed or killed.
She wants us to stand on the side of Ukraine and take a strong stance against Russia. This is problematic.
Which is an understatement.
Think it through, for goodness sakes! WHAT IF WE DID?
and in the end, we would have wasted our time, weapons and lives.
We did not help at the appropriate time and now it's too late.
And that's the way it is.
We need to get over it.
... but we won't and we will usher in the third World War.
Our only hope is Republican leaders. Vote them in! I say.
What sort of morality or reason exists in a government that forces a child to deliver her rapists baby? Or a woman to carry to term a pregnancy that resulted from incest? Or the women who will mentally suffer through the rest of their pregnancy knowing they are going to be delivering a catastrophically damaged baby that will most likely suffer itself before he or she dies shortly after? Women are sometimes faced with some awful decisions when they receive this kind of news. Now in many states, we have politicians traumatizing them even more. I can't see the morality there. They are the reasons we need safe legal abortion more than we need the so-called morality of ill-educated politicians. Yes, some women will have an abortion on a whim. You've stated yourself that education could improve that situation. But these women certainly aren't a reason to put other women through hell. Pew research shows us that the large majority of abortions happen before 13 weeks.
As far as Putin and his actions in Ukraine, there is no moral justification or reason for what he's doing. I know it's unpopular but I wish that our country would actually do more for Ukraine on the humanitarian front.
... and risk our safety.
We're trying to improve America here. Not destroy it, point out its flaws and hate it.
"What sort of morality or reason exists in a government that forces a child to deliver her rapist's baby? Or a woman to carry to term a pregnancy that resulted from incest?"
I have always wanted to ask --- how many out of the approx 650,000 abortions last year were needed due to incest or rape?
What is more shocking --- I mean just on Fraeakin face value over 650.000 abortions. I think that said a lot more about our society and our government.
What kind of morality or reason exists in a government that allows a woman to kill her healthy baby?
"Somewhere back through the thread the concept of morality was brought up and I always find it interesting when people's morality changes for different situations. Those who use a morality argument against abortion, sometimes don't apply that same morality across situations. "
It would seem individuals make moral judgments differently in different situations. For instance, I find abortion a procedure that does stop the development of a human in its mother's womb and ultimately ends a human life, I also look at helping prevent war atrocities due to pretty much the same concept, in the end, someone else is making the decision to take another life. My value dictates to promote life.
Yes, it would seem some feel abortion is a choice, and do not look at abortion as I do. Yet, do support helping to stop war atrocities. This is clearly an example of just being of a different mindset, and having different values. -- I could ask why are some groups very staunch pro-abortion advocates but there seems to be quite an overlap between their views in regard to becoming involved in humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. My mindset leads me to think this shows a form of hypocrisy. My point, we are all individuals and have the right to look at situations differently.
One could be very much against abortion, and also against helping stop atrocities. Again individuals have different mindsets for
I am not in any respect going to sit in judgment or push my values on another. Yes, I share views, but I respect others' views and realize I have no right to judge their views.
So in my view, moral stances vary due to a given issue. There is no set-in-stone pattern that blankets all moral issues.
As Credence so vehemently points out, there is a line in the sand. On the left are those that support murdering healthy babies (no matter their age) and on the right are those who are against it. He tries his best to make right sound wrong.
But then, there are those on the Right that are more than willing to revert women to "A Handmaiden's Tale" scenario. Totally flintstonian and backward to the extreme.
It is always difficult for Rightwinger thought to make fine discernment among differences of ideas and concepts. I did not say that I supported abortion on demand under every and all circumstances, which you seem to imply.
Let me ask you a hypothetical? What if women kept a bottle of contraceptives or morning after pills on hand to apply immediately after a "roll in the hay". Would you have a problem with that?
So are you saying now that you would support a lawmaker (those who you call old white men) making a law limiting the availability of abortions to women carrying healthy children?
If you do not, you support abortion on demand.
Do you have a raging case of "tin ear", Doc?
Yes, in West Virginia, that description, (old white men) is more correct than otherwise.
Roe va Wade in its conception placed such limits and was NOT abortion on demand under any circumstance.
"The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman's right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother's physical and mental health; and because there may be "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child". At the same time, the Court rejected the notion that this right to privacy was absolute. It held instead that women's abortion right must be balanced against other government interests, such as protecting maternal health and protecting the life of the fetus. The Court held that the interests were sufficiently compelling to permit states to impose some limitations on pregnant women's right to choose to have an abortion."
The key word is balance, does that concept mean anything to the Rightwinger?
How about answering the question, I asked earlier? I want to know just how far you righty types are willing to go toward strangling a woman with her own umbilical cord, in the face of such moral priggishness on display by your tribe all of the time.
We are trying to improve America here, not focus on its flaws, fling accusations, engage in name calling and pushing negative outlooks/agendas.
The people of each state need their say.
Something wrong with that?
What wrong with it is that Republicans are trying to legislate national bans, that "state makes their own say" is BS from the rightwing establishment.
Until you recognize and acknowledge flaws there is no platform to beginning to improve anything.
Face it, Kathryn, anything that is not crimson red is part of a negative agenda for you.
Face it, you care not a fig for democracy. Majority vote. (... and thankfully, in a republic, the majority vote is offset by many things. For good reason.)
Come on --- women at this point are strangling themselves due to lack of education, and in most cases just lack good judgment. Yes, we have incest and rape. But please come to realize these are a few out of the 650,000 abortions that were performed last year. Women need to stop and show enough comment sense to look at the issues of why we need so many dam abortions. Fix the problems, and we will not need 650.000 abortions a year.
My god, it's time to point the finger at the issues that cause the pregnancies, to begin with.
And in my view, the politicians are playing one against the other.
While there are a multitude of issues that go into the reasons one may have for an abortion, here's one factor that may be at least partially a cause for an uptick in the procedure.
"On April 14, 2021, the Biden-Harris administration released a notice of proposed rulemaking to overhaul restrictive Trump-era regulations, collectively known as the "domestic gag rule," that have had a devastating impact on the Title X national family planning program. Asserting that the Trump-era regulations "have undermined the public health of the population the program is meant to serve," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services intends to restore Title X back to its pre-Trump regulatory framework, with "several modifications needed to strengthen the program and ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family planning services for all clients"
I'm sure we can all agree that better access and education around birth control could help reduce these numbers. We do have quite a few conservative rumblings currently about limiting or taking away access to contraception. Plan b is the first medication they're going after.
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2020 … acity-half
No one going to deny the importance of education in any discussion such as this one.
I think women can look at the issue without authoritarian guidance from the state.
Yes, politicians are playing against one another, haven't they always? But there is going to be backlash against conservatives in what many women are saying is an overreach by government into what should, more often than not, be a private matter.
"I think women can look at the issue without authoritarian guidance from the state."
Oh yes, women should not need Government to dictate family planning. They should be responsible in regards for becoming pregnant in most cases. It is very easy to practice birth control. My gosh so much easier than an abortion. Billions of women across the world have come to understand this. It is a small minority that ends up having the need for an abortion. This should be very telling.
So, yes you are right there will always be a backlash, some women pointing the finger of indignation toward women that don't realize they need to be responsible for their reproductive system.
When it comes to the Nov elections, that's a hard prediction to make. My gut tells me more women are worried about the economy, and crime than abortion options. I almost think the majority of women, although very interested in the abortion issue will not let it be the issue they end up using to make the decision of who they vote for. I might be very wrong on that one. I am just going on what I see in my own circle of friends, which includes moderate Democrats.
I think Biden and his crew have made so many mistakes, many women and men are ready to swing back to the part that is running on all the Country's glaring problems.
I think most Americans can't deny we are living through an
unprecedented Sh--- storm.
But one never knows.
shoot storm. Take away the people's guns, but use every means possible to shoot us down.
"I almost think the majority of women, although very interested in the abortion issue will not let it be the issue they end up using to make the decision of who they vote for. I might be very wrong on that one."
I just know that many more women have registered to vote this fall far beyond that expected for any midterm. So where is this motivation coming from?
Why am I to think that Republicans would do any better in regards to the economy. Do we just helter skelter open up the oil and gas spigots in indifference to the environment or whose immediate environment are adversely affected from such an action. Since when have they not screwed many in order to obtain benefits for a few?
I see your point with women will come out in higher numbers, But I think men will too due to economic concerns.
I don't buy that Biden has done or is doing anything to save the planet. He hopes to open chip manufacturing, the most filthy manufacturing on earth, and he could care less about stopping oil use.
"Following its historic shift to being a net exporter of petroleum in 2020, the United States continued to export more petroleum (which includes crude oil, refined petroleum products, and other liquids) than it imported in 2021. According to our February 2022 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we expect net crude oil imports to increase, making the United States a net importer of petroleum in 2022"
How about answering my question? Admit that you support abortion on demand, (Or do you think balamce means that it is okay to kill babies if that is what a mother wants to do?)
The provision for Roe vs Wade reflects my opinion. Personally, unless there is a fatal malady detected regarding the fetus or the life of the mother is threatened, abortion should not be allowed after the point that the fetus can survive outside the mother's body. Such is the point where the state has an interest in preservation of life.
I am not the expert as to where that point of viability should be, but I do know that the point of conception is not going to fly, period.
And when you are checking international news, you will see how many women at election time here will not take kindly to what appears to be your interpretation.
I personally have no problem with birth control, but as I interpret your statement "the fetus can survive outside the mother's body" does not cut it. Even when the child is too young to live outside of their mother they are still a child.
As far as women voting, that is not really the issue. If you are on the right side of an issue it does not matter if there is a temorary defeat. You think left is right and when the left loses an election do you say "Well, the majority disagrees with my views so I am in the wrong,"?
So, we have an impasse. For you, aborting the fetus before it can live outside the mother's body does not cut it. For me, drawing the line at life beginning at conception does not cut it. That does not make me in favor of abortion on demand. But I don't want a lot of drama over a clump of cells that a woman discovers at earliest point in pregnancy.
Most do not desire an abortion on demand under any circumstances, but will not have the state involving itself in every woman's most intimate and private affairs on zygote hunts, either.
There has to be a line drawn, the Right has overreached this time and the rage of those adversely affected will manifest itself quite soon.
Yes, I prefer the Left over the Right in most circumstances, I won't deny it. But, I respect the ultimate will of the majority of the people even though I may disagree. That makes the difference between the progressive and the Rightwinger
Are you saying that you leftists are more willing to suppport an election? Funny I never heard this "he is not our president" talk until the leftists were angry that they had lost to Trump. Maybe the MSM just didnt report it?
I don't agree with a lot things, but we are resign to allowing the opposition party to rule without resorting to ridiculous lies regarding election outcomes or attempt to undermine the democratic system. That is the difference, Doc, and it should be quite obvious.
BTW I have been hearing that that Bolsenero fellow, the Trump of South America, is going to have a rough time in the upcoming elections there. Will he step down if he loses?
When, for the sake of all that is high and holy, can a discussion ever stay on topic without being hijacked by abortion? The initial question was about the country as a whole. BTW: Abortion at 16 weeks or 24 weeks is still abortion. And the idea that life begins at conception is a convenient excuse for folks who like their birth control method but want to judge someone else's. How many children aren't here today because of the contraception you've used? There is life in the sperm and the egg long before they join. Ask anyone who has been through infertility.
Back to the initial question. President Biden has gotten more done to the benefit of more Americans than Trump did in four years (after losing the popular vote and lowering taxes on the rich). What Americans agree on is easy to determine (reasonable gun control, reasonable cost to higher education, saving the planet from climate change, and obtainable health care). Let's elect someone who will prioritize those issues. Oh, we just did.
Record breaking crime
On an open border 2.5 million illegal migrants walked in, we have over 210,000 unaccompanied children also walk in on Bidens time.
Botch the pull-out in Afghanistan
And has us in a proxy war with Russia.
We are now energy strapped
And a president that can't put two sentences together that make sense.
And --- he has done nothing on gun control.
We have historic drugs on our streets causing historical deaths, and over does.
Not sure we can take too much more of Biden.
Well, Sharlee, I agree, but many people, unfortunately, will not acknowledge the true facts of the matter-at-hand.
They would rather focus on America's imaginary flaws and pinpoint things we should not be blamed for. Of course, by now we aren't the innocent country we started out as, but we are a young country of only @ 250 yrs old. We are learning many things and we need to do many things to improve and correct. However, to find solutions, Truth/Reality must be acknowledged.
If I may be allowed to enlighten you, this quote only represents the beliefs of about 30% of the American population.
That 30% is diehard Democrat and believes what the Left MSM tells them, even if it goes against the reality they are dealing with every day.
Biden passed The American Rescue Plan Act even though we were well past the peak hysteria and effects of Covid, this added significantly to inflation.
Biden halted funding for the construction of Trump’s border wall, reversed his travel bans and embraced progressive policies on the environment that Trump spent four years blocking.
This added to the increase (by millions) of migrants crossing the border and put new restrictions on oil and natural gas production as well as new regulations.
Biden directed the Labor Department to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are either vaccinated or tested once a week. He also signed an executive order requiring all government employees to be vaccinated, with no option of regular testing to opt out.
Those of us who follow the science know that vaccinations neither prevent people from getting the virus, nor prevent people from spreading the virus. The pharmaceutical companies on the other hand, benefit greatly from such mandates.
Even Biden's efforts to target "Climate goals" to ease Climate change, were political show and payoffs to supporters, rather than real efforts to move forward and address the problem The Biden administration went out of its way to snub Elon Musk's Tesla, without which, there would be no transition to EVs (electric vehicles and renewable energy) of real consequence going on today.
Tesla as of now is producing over 2 million EVs a year, this number will continue to rise. The rest of Legacy Auto COMBINED (Chrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc.) will produce less than 200,000 this year.
Legacy Auto would not be producing even that, if not for the fact that Tesla was crushing them across the globe in EV sales and automobile sales in general... Tesla can't produce them fast enough, despite raising prices, they are always behind the demand.
But the Biden Administration can't even mention Tesla, and all they have accomplished, by name, during their glorified farce of a White House "EV" extravaganza.
Finally (though I have not listed many of his gaffs and mistakes) Biden signed off on the Inflation Reduction Act, which in no small irony is going to ADD to our inflation woes as it spends, yet again, more money they do not have. Which in turn lowers the value of the dollar and increases the costs of everything, for everyone.
Jesus actually only made two statements concerning government: pay your takes and soldiers do not complain about your pay. He concentrated his efforts on how we treat each other and where we spend eternity.
"The initial question was about the country as a whole ... Back to the initial question ....
President Biden has gotten more done to the benefit
of more Americans ..." by way of:
1. ) "Reasonable gun control."
2. ) "Reasonable cost to higher education."
3. ) "Saving the planet from climate change."
4. ) "Obtainable health care."
Thank You. Let's see who agrees.
1. ) "Reasonable gun control."
2. ) "Reasonable cost to higher education."
3. ) "Saving the planet from climate change."
4. ) "Obtainable health care."
... are these items even in the sole jurisdiction of the executive branch?
Despite what all the sour grape Republicans would have us all believe, here is another perspective. So, an ex-president not even smart enough to handle government documentation properly was going to make America great again, how so?
https://news.yahoo.com/despite-republic … 41120.html
No rational person should care about Trump or what he is doing.
Trump is not the President, he is not signing off on the Legislation and Executive Orders that are causing Americans to contend with the worst inflation in decades, the worst migrant problem in history, and have us one step away from nuclear war.
One could literally say that all the problems Americans are currently contending with have been made worse by the Biden Administration.
And when the November 2022 elections are over, the chickens are really coming home to roost. I feel bad for anyone living on a pension or fixed income that can't quickly call on tens of thousands of dollars to get through the next couple of years.
"One could literally say that all the problems Americans are currently contending with have been made worse by the Biden Administration."
I wouldn't say that.
I will wait to see if all your predictions for stormy weather ahead is just another erroneous weather report?
I can see why you liked this guy's opinion piece, it reads like many of your comments.
Consider the first of the author's statements of 'proof": "In Biden’s term and since he took office the stock market is stable," Is that also your perspective?
Then the author says "Biden’s speeches are coherent, reasoned and clear." Is that how you see them?
And then there was this: "Republicans want to deflect from the obvious dementia displayed by Donald Trump for four years."
That the author understands this must be proof he is right about the other stuff too, right?
Sure, I like it as a remedy to the endless Biden bashing that I am exposed to daily from a within a forum atmosphere that clearly has a red tint. I am much more satisfied with his performance than that of his predecessor.
How much positive information am I likely to receive from a Rightwinger about Biden?
So what about the jobs, the bill that caps senior medical expenses? We all know that Republican philosophy is too selfish and greedy to ever propose anything that challenges big pharmacy, and their oligarch constituency. They being our equivalent of the House of Lords....
Yes, I abhor them in general and have little if anything to say positive in their regard. It will be a banner headline when that does happen.....
There was a lot in your response that wasn't pertinent to my comment, so I will leave those parts where it lies.
My point was your implied agreement, (you touted the link), with the included quotes. I disagree with all three, and I don't think I qualify as a 'Biden Basher.'
[EDIT] I had to come back for this piece: "the endless Biden bashing that I am exposed to daily from a within a forum". That sounds like what some have been saying for the last few years: 'the endless Trump bashing that I am exposed to daily from within a forum'.
Feels like that Deja vu thing.
Clearly you have to be dealing with an alternate reality to agree with that article, let alone write it.
WWIII is here, America will be informed of it after the elections I am sure, but my non-civilian contacts have clued me in.
Trump was labeled Hitler by the MSM...
Biden will prove to history to be far worse.
I don't think 'they' are in an "alternate reality", they just have their own 'alternate facts.
Oh hell, there it is again, another deja vu moment. (ROFLMAO)
It is interesting to see what can be ignored or overlooked to cling to one's political beliefs.
For too many, politics is indeed a faith, or a cult.
I don't see how people can go into the grocery store every week, go to the pump every week, etc. and not be concerned with their ability to continue to survive, if, as Biden himself has promised, we are heading into food and energy shortages... if I was on a fixed income I'd be very concerned.
As I have said, both the House and Biden have done their best to keep it as rosy as they can prior to the elections... after that the harsh reality is going to start being revealed.
A lot more than just the MSM labeled Mr Trump Hitler LOL.
Remember when GOP Senate candidate JD Vance Vance, expressed concern that Trump might be “America’s Hitler.” He had a well-established record of bashing Mr. Trump before ultimately groveling for his endorsement. And what a disgusting viral moment it was when Mr Trump, at the recent Ohio rally, said that Vance was kissing his a**.
I don't know though, maybe Mr Vance meant the comment in a good way. LOL
Please tell me this is a joke...
"In Biden’s term and since he took office the stock market is stable, unemployment" Those that were on the rolls were on them due to COVID, and returned to work --- hence unemployment stats started to stabilize
Stock market losses wipe out $9 trillion from Americans’ wealth Sept 27 2022 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/27/stock-m … alth-.html
And most likely will plummet more in the following months.
Jobs ---Nominal wage gains since Biden took office have been wiped out by sky-high inflation, now around 8%. All jobs now come with a built-in pay cut that’s only going to get worse unless the prez changes course. Worse, employment will crater if he gets the tax hikes he proposes.
Then there’s the issue of Biden and dementia — his slips of the tongue are epidemic. He can't control his thoughts. The other day at a speech he was giving, spotted a woman in the crowd and said --- she was 12, I was 30 she thought me a lot...
I won't list the long list of problems his policies have caused us all... You live in the US, so ya know.
The article was ill-researched in my opinion and almost leaned toward a propaganda piece. Cred, it was a bad batch of feed.
And at this point, I am sure many Americans are coming to the realization the country is in a big mess, and they are more worried about finances than all the fluffy BS about climate, renaming the Braves, and letting males use female restrooms.
What did AOC say a bit back --- It's all about the Benjamins. The Democrats have the country going backward.
Cmon Sharlee, I don't see the gloom and doom. And when Biden accomplishes positive things have made you note of it?
Republicans in my opinion are closest to embracing tyrannical ideals. But, you already know that I have had this opinion for some time and that I have not just fallen off from a turnip truck.
My articles cannot be any worse than the countless electronic rags so many of reference from Fox and others.
Biden has problems, that I don't necessarily blame him for and he is the source of far fewer problems than that of his predecessor.
I think that Trump was a sociopath, I would take mild dementia over that any day.
The idea of working toward America's "improvement" is wonderful but we seem to have come to a point in time that only one group is working toward that end.
The difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican in today’s America:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/d … -rcna49610
Good point Faye, only one side wants to Make America Great Again.
And how exactly are they going about that?
The things that they tried were undone by Biden his first day in office.
Such as? What was so successful and beneficial that was undone?
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 … ve-orders/
Reversed energy policies, thus driving up the price of fuel.
Ended the ban on immigration from countries that support terrorism. I guess he forgot about 9/11 already?
Halted consruction of the border wall so that more immigrants could come to the US illegally.
"Biden signed an order that will freeze all Trump administration regulations currently in process"
So tell me now why the next Republican president should not eliminate all the programs and laws that Biden supports? After all it was Biden that set the precedent,
The biggest single issue, which we will pay heavily for in the not too distant future is Ukraine.
The determination to take Crimea back from Russia being the focus.
The no-compromise commitment to defeating Russia on "our terms".
Everything else we have dealt with since Biden came in office will be nothing in comparison to the costs we will endure for Biden's fanatical focus on defeating Putin and Russia.
Grave Trouble is definitely brewing. WWIII is here, as you explained, Ken, I also believe.
"Mr Biden has said he speaks to “reassert” US influence on the region in the hopes of countering the rise of China and Russia.
'We will not walk away and leave a vacuum filled by China, Russia or Iran,' he said."
https://www.thenationalnews.com/gulf-ne … di-arabia/
Other stuff in the news I never noticed:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/2 … e-minister
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/ … -countries
We could literally write a book on what this man did in two days, two months two years. he just keeps giving, not sure how much more damage he is capable of. How in the hell could anyone, I mean anyone defend this president's failed policies?
You know Faye, I am not sure how you could say that in light of the mess the Democrats in Washington have made of America in such a short time.
It appears by your article you are very concerned, about "Last week began with the GOP’s wannabe standard-bearer, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, using human beings as political props."
Does it concern you that we daily have many thousand up to 7 thousand a day walking into the country, with no more room to accommodate them in border towns? And that that Biden can't ship them out due to the enormous number weekly? And does it at all concern
we now have about 210,000 unaccompanied children we are responsible for? I see you have concerns about 50 migrants that Desantis sent to Marthas Vinyard. It doe seem you are not concerned about the many problems at our border.
I noted the article you offered did not mention the mess the Biden administration and Congress have made of the country. Inflation, 9 trillion deducted out of the Stock Market, open border, 212,000 unaccompanied children walked in two years, 2.5 million migrants in two years, Crime up the ass... And a war with Russia... Not sure we in our history have witnessed such devastation in our country. He has depleted our oil reserves and taken us back to depending on other nations for our energy. I blame all of this on the Democrats. I never in my lifetime have witnessed the country falter so badly Or that we would keep an obviously confused inept president in the White House.
Every day he is left in office puts the US in danger and ruination. Perhaps it's time for those that blame the republicans for just about everything, better have a long sober look at what this country has become under the Democrats that are ruling the WH, and Congress.
What concerns me most is that Republicans seem to have no specific, real ideas or plans. In terms of the water, Republicans can either be half of the problem or half of the solution and right now they're just choosing to grandstand.
I actually just posted a thread The Republican's Promise To America.
The promise is to all American no it does not cover, the 50 migrants that DeSantis sent to Marthas Vinyad, or making sure the Braves change their name or does it cover the bathroom problems for transgender? There is no promise to do more investigations on Trump nor does it promote the teachers union, it supports the rights of parents.
What it does cover is the economy, crime, education, constitutional rights, immigration, health care, and so much more.
These are issues Republicans are concerned about. One can see the difference in one quick glance. We like Government that does the job of running the Country, not the Government that sees itself as a social worker...
I've read the Commitment to America but it seems more like talking points rather than specifics. It's not fleshed out very well at all. I was even surprised to hear Tucker Carlson say there really wasn't anything in it.
I feel it covers all of the problems Biden currently has on his plate, and does not in any respect seem to be able to handle. The document also provides facts to give evidence of the current problems that we now find ourselves dealing with currently. I certainly, feel the Republicans are serious about making a commitment to Americans, that they will try to solve the many problems we have had occurred in the past two years.
Problems that the Republicans have made a commitment to make all attempts to solve. I don't watch Tucker Carlson.
Republicans clearly will be left to mop up a huge mess, in my view.
The Democrats are running on nothing that interests me as a citizen. They have created many problems, and most will not even acknowledge the problems their party caused. The Republicans see the problem and hope to solve them. The Democrats don't even see the problems and are in no respect trying to fix them. This administration is IMO, floundering grasping at the social problem when we have serious Governmental issues that are affecting the country and its people's security.in regards to economy, and peace. Biden has us in a war.
It might cover current complaints but it sure doesn't give any indication of a pathway as to how they're going to go about addressing these issues in any specific manner. If you want my vote, you need to come up with more than that
Well, I suppose one could look at it one way. Have the Democrats laid out any form of agenda? Actually, most will not admit we have the problems I mentioned.
I think what I see in the Republican Commitment is positive. They do recognize the same problems I see and want to have solved, they are very much about being proud of America, and not willing to just rip at its fabric to gain attention, and spread discord.
I am really pleased to see the Republicans pull together, and support the Commitment to America.
The document is a commitment plain and simple. It's what Republicans are offering, just to confirm to the American people --- we hear you, and will work on problem-solving that concerns you.
And yes, one can see the document does not concentrate on social problems that concern some Democrats. I would think the party is depending on what they feel the majority of Americans are very concerned about.
by Sharlee 6 months ago
"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian fighter jet struck the propeller of a U.S. surveillance drone over the Black Sea on Tuesday in a “brazen violation of international law,” causing American forces to bring down the unmanned aerial vehicle, the U.S. said.Moscow said the U.S. drone maneuvered...
by Ken Burgess 10 months ago
Prior to the American Era... the Greatest Economic Era in human history... there was the Imperial Era.Throughout the Imperial Era, and all of recorded human history prior, countries produced their own food, their own energy, and expanded out and took whatever else they needed, creating colonies or...
by Ken Burgess 5 months ago
President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were filmed saying warm goodbyes as their two-day meeting ended with China’s leader saying they were driving geopolitical change around the world.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/2 …...
by Mike Russo 2 days ago
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 2 years ago
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...
by Sharlee 8 months ago
Biden on Thursday when addressing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee let loose with this --- This statement appears to be when Biden went off script. He was closing and decided to add this ....."So I guess — I said I was not going to talk very long; I’ve already talked too...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|