barbacoa taco said:

---

Tswizsle said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

So it's okay to elect someone who calls for the dismantling of American government and our rights as long as someone or something stops them from going through with it?

---

What piece of legislation did trump propose or pass that stripped rights ? Ill hang up and listen

---

Wrong framing. It's not just legislation. It's the judges he appoints, the cabinet he appoints, and his allies in the states all pushing his agenda. In addition to the rollback of reproductive rights, his agenda has been horrific for voting rights and labor rights. And a second term would undoubtedly make things worse, given he has every intention of only appointing yes men to his cabinet.

---

And the dems do the same thing to further their agenda.

Do unborn babies have rights? And why say "reproductive rights"? It is all about abortion. There are no such rights in the Constitution.

lame both sidesing attempt.

it's not just abortion. Extreme abortion laws have severely compromised women's ability to get proper reproductive care or treat pregnancy complications. You are a broken record on this topic.

barbacoa taco said:

---

lame both sidesing attempt.

it's not just abortion. Extreme abortion laws have severely compromised women's ability to get proper reproductive care or treat pregnancy complications. You are a broken record on this topic.

---

How do extreme abortion laws "severely compromise women's ability to get proper reproductive care" unless they want an abortion?

nortex97 said:

---

Democrats, the party of death, war and human trafficking, favor assassination of their political enemies by a plurality:

Quote:

---

Just this week, Scott Rasmussen of RMG Research Inc. reported that a survey he conducted of 1,000 registered voters indicated that 28% of Democrats presently say America would be better off if former President Donald Trump were assassinated. And if that's not shocking enough, another 24% answered the same survey question by saying they "weren't sure!"

Yes, you read that right: 52% of Democrats (a MAJORITY!) just told you they can't bring themselves to say that killing an opposing party's presidential candidate is morally wrong.

But this should surprise no one. This "culture of death" that Mother Teresa warned of has been rife in the Democrat party for years. For example, Statista.com now reports that 42% of Democrats currently support abortion with zero restrictions. That includes up to the point that the baby's head exits the birth canal.

---

---

Is anyone surprised?

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

lame both sidesing attempt.

it's not just abortion. Extreme abortion laws have severely compromised women's ability to get proper reproductive care or treat pregnancy complications. You are a broken record on this topic.

---

How do extreme abortion laws "severely compromise women's ability to get proper reproductive care" unless they want an abortion?

---

I feel like I've answered this question to you specifically more than a 100 times and it's still not getting through to you. Honestly at this point it just seems like your mindset is "if I haven't seen it happen, then it's not real"

Which is funny. I just read an article about a mother who voted for Trump twice and had 2 horrific miscarriages that she couldn't properly treat, due to Texas's cruel laws. Everyone thinks it's not real until it happens to them.

yeah, and that's exactly why I don't want Trump to win. Especially given how he's made it clear that all he cares about is loyalty to him alone. The only cabinet members and judges he appoints will check that box.

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

lame both sidesing attempt.

it's not just abortion. Extreme abortion laws have severely compromised women's ability to get proper reproductive care or treat pregnancy complications. You are a broken record on this topic.

---

How do extreme abortion laws "severely compromise women's ability to get proper reproductive care" unless they want an abortion?

---

I feel like I've answered this question to you specifically more than a 100 times and it's still not getting through to you. Honestly at this point it just seems like your mindset is "if I haven't seen it happen, then it's not real"

Which is funny. I just read an article about a mother who voted for Trump twice and had 2 horrific miscarriages that she couldn't properly treat, due to Texas's cruel laws. Everyone thinks it's not real until it happens to them.

---

That is horrible. But that is still a tiny fraction of the baby deaths attributed to abortions.

nortex97 said:

---

Democrat Party, Incompatible with Christianity:

Quote:

---

The Democratic Party has fully embraced feminism and its natural descendent, the LGBT movement. Both have propagated the idea that men and women are indistinguishable. This justifies the party's attempts to mix and match the roles of the two sexes in society. They are opposed to the Christian idea that man and woman were made distinct from yet complementary to one another.

By destroying marriage and the distinctions of the sexes, the party helped craft sexual activity into a vital expression of choice and liberation. These are the party values over the Christian practices of restraint and modesty. It has removed the incentives to abstain from sex and promoted perverse sexual behavior. In doing so, it has helped to normalize sexual depravity.

The idol of abortion also affirms the desire of the Democratic Party to exempt society from taking responsibility for its actions. By dehumanizing children as "parasites" and framing abortion as a right, the party encourages people to blame others for their decisions to have sex. This is despite Christians asserting that all life is sacred and formed by God upon conception.

Intersectionality has had a similar effect. The party has adopted a caste system based on what someone is or claims to be rather than who someone is or what they have done. This places those deemed "victims" over those deemed "oppressors," while Christians view all humans as made with equal value by God.
All of this derives from one source: pride. The Democratic Party lives and breathes on its prioritization of the self. Everything it pedals is based on the idea that man is in control of his own destiny and should be allowed to pursue whatever makes him happy. Anything standing in the way of that is evil. One could say that the Christian, who instead values humility, is a threat to his existence.

---

Harrison Butker endorses Trump as the most pro-life president:

Quote:

---

As Butker discussed his endorsement of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who is up for re-election this year, host Laura Ingraham asked if he was also supporting Trump. "I'm supporting the president that's going to be the most pro-life president," he responded. "That is the most crucial topic for me. I want us to be fighting for the most vulnerable, fighting for the unborn, and that's what we should prioritize, and that's obviously what Senator Hawley is doing as a man of faith."

When Ingraham followed up by asking if he had "any equivocation about supporting Trump," and stressed that "were it not for Trump, Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned," Butker reiterated, "You have to vote for whoever's going to be the most pro-life and we have to be prayerful men that put God first, and I think that's what's going to be best for our country."

…

Butker's appearance on "The Ingraham Angle" and his commencement speech at the Roman Catholic Benedictine College are not the only times the athlete has made his pro-life position on abortion perfectly clear. During an interview with EWTN earlier this year, Butker condemned laws permitting abortion.
"There are some laws being pushed through that I don't think value all human life," he said. "One of those laws is allowing abortion to be legal in this country."

---

---

Amen.

Biden's border policies led to an ongoing explosion of forced prostitution and sex trafficking in Texas cities/nationally;

Quote:

---

At the barbecue joint off Route 75 in Dallas, Lisa pulls out her phone to show me the dozen or so online platforms that traffickers and pimps use to sell girls for sex. The platformswhich include apps like TikTok, OnlyFans, and Facebookare chockablock with ads of women, usually wearing lingerie, their faces covered to prevent anyone guessing their age. The sheer number of ads is astonishing. "Each week, we track over 12,000 ads for women in Houston, 2,600 in San Antonio, 3,500 in Austin, and 14,000 in Dallas," says Lisa.

I ask her if the sex trafficking of migrant girls had increased since the Biden administration threw open the border, leading to 8 million migrants crossing the southern border since 2021. "Yes," she says. "Nearly all of my sex-trafficking rings now are migrant girls. The ads exploded within the first three months of the border being open. We started noticing new sites and ads in Spanish. That was very few before. Then sites dedicated to Latino girls popped up everywhere." Since the border opened, Lisa added, over 90 percent of the ads are for migrant girls.

---

The children/women/girls Democrat voters/politicians claim to 'care' about.

nortex97 said:

---

Biden's border policies led to an ongoing explosion of forced prostitution and sex trafficking in Texas cities/nationally;

Quote:

---

At the barbecue joint off Route 75 in Dallas, Lisa pulls out her phone to show me the dozen or so online platforms that traffickers and pimps use to sell girls for sex. The platformswhich include apps like TikTok, OnlyFans, and Facebookare chockablock with ads of women, usually wearing lingerie, their faces covered to prevent anyone guessing their age. The sheer number of ads is astonishing. "Each week, we track over 12,000 ads for women in Houston, 2,600 in San Antonio, 3,500 in Austin, and 14,000 in Dallas," says Lisa.

I ask her if the sex trafficking of migrant girls had increased since the Biden administration threw open the border, leading to 8 million migrants crossing the southern border since 2021. "Yes," she says. "Nearly all of my sex-trafficking rings now are migrant girls. The ads exploded within the first three months of the border being open. We started noticing new sites and ads in Spanish. That was very few before. Then sites dedicated to Latino girls popped up everywhere." Since the border opened, Lisa added, over 90 percent of the ads are for migrant girls.

---

The children/women/girls Democrat voters/politicians claim to 'care' about.

---

And any kids the migrant workers have are citizens and can vote Democratic. It is truly horrific.

Jabin said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

yeah, and that's exactly why I don't want Trump to win. Especially given how he's made it clear that all he cares about is loyalty to him alone. The only cabinet members and judges he appoints will check that box.

---

He didn't do that his first term, so why are you assuming he would in a second?

In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Trump from the right is the appallingly bad appointments he made. They not only weren't "loyal" to Trump, they also weren't even conservatives. And many, many of them turned on Trump, kicking him in the balls on the way out (of course, he kicked them in the balls, also).

I'm not a fan of Trump at all, but I'm incredulous of the fact-free criticisms and opposition to him.

---

Because he is much more angry and much more vengeful this time. He has made it clear he wants to use a second term to exact revenge on his enemies.

As for his first term, he was still not a politician and did not have that confidence to assume the office yet. He appointed people who were largely experienced in their fields. Some were qualified (Mattis). Some were not (Devos).

But either way, so many people were let go or resigned. It's not because they weren't conservative. It's because Trump is a terrible leader and a nightmare to work for.

Trump has made it clear that all he cares about is loyalty. He will only appoint yes men who wouldn't dare give him any pushback on anything. It's why so many people resigned in his first term. You can't tell Trump he's wrong about something. And he will be even more bold now that SCOTUS has ruled he's immune from absolutely everything.

Stop telling me that Trump has the best interests of the country at heart. He doesn't. He just wants power for himself and to do what he wants without consequence.

Respectfully, then you haven't been paying attention at all. I often hear Trump get downplayed as just being a little too brash at times. This really trivializes the threat he is. He's become even more unhinged lately, even compared to years past.

Trump has made it clear he does not believe in the principle of checks and balances. Which is something that our founders codified for a reason.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Checks and balances? Trump got checked hard in all of the post 2020 court cases. It is the modern Democratic party that disregards the notion of checks and balances. We have a weaponized IRS, justice department, etc. under democratic leadership. Who is having the discussion of court packing whenever a decision doesn't go their way? Adding Puerto Rico and DC as states to add an additional 4 blue senators?

Again, I think you are working up a boogeyman in your mind that doesn't fit reality.

---

Is the "weaponized IRS and Justice Department" claim because they have investigated possible abuse and corruption? Is any investigation of Trump automatically illegitimate to you? Also, I had no idea it was a violation of the separation of powers to add states. May want to look into American history. We didn't always have 50 stars on the flag.

---

I don't care if politicians are justly investigated, Trump included. Don't really like the guy. I would appreciate equal consideration, though. Would you say that the current justice department investigates issues on both sides equally, or do the sweetheart plea deals for Hunter Biden and doddering old man excuses for piling up classified files next to your Corvette not bother you at all? What about Hilary's private server and drive wipe?

And yes, we definitely have means and processes for adding states, but court packing and consideration of deep blue territories for statehood to run up the score in congress is a misapplication of such.

If Puerto Rico wants to be a state, I don't see any good reason it shouldn't be allowed to become one. Hawaii and Alaska are good examples that states don't have to in the continental US. You could argue Washington DC is different due to its small size, but there are more people living there than there are in Wyoming.

And I seem to remember this country once having an issue with "Taxation without representation". That certainly would apply to both Washington DC and Puerto Rico.

PR should absolutely be a state. Right now it is basically a colony--er, "territory." It has a population greater than several states, but no representation in congress, and can't vote for president. It's kinda bull**** really. Either let them become independent or grant statehood.

barbacoa taco said:

---

PR should absolutely be a state. Right now it is basically a colony--er, "territory." It has a population greater than several states, but no representation in congress, and can't vote for president. It's kinda bull**** really. Either let them become independent or grant statehood.

---

Puerto Ricans generally don't want to become a state, which is a minor flaw in the 'they are being oppressed' argument. Arguably, a very small majority do:

Quote:

---

Over the past 50 years, Puerto Ricans have held six votes on status. The first, in 1967, yielded a victory for an "enhanced" version of the commonwealth arrangement that would have stripped Congress of its plenary power. It was an illusory promise, because Congress does not have the power to relinquish its plenary power except by admitting a territory into statehood or granting it independence (with or without free association).

The second, in 1993, did not produce a majority: persisting in their quixotic quest for the constitutionally impossible "enhanced" commonwealth, its supporters took 48% to statehood's 46%. Meanwhile, independence trailed and free association did not make it onto the ballot.

The third vote, in 1998, produced a victory for "none of the above." The fourth and fifth saw statehood prevail, but opponents questioned their validity based on what they considered a problematic process (a two-step ballot in 2012) and a deficient turnout (27% in 2017). The sixth, in November 2020, was a Yes/No referendum on statehood, which statehood won with 52.5% of the vote and a solid turnout of 55%.
Some argue that a status vote is a waste of time because Congress will never act. But their argument begs the question: a status vote is a demand for congressional action. Some propose that Puerto Rico should decide its own future in a constitutional convention. But a convention would not solve the problem that Congress, too, must act.

---

And even that 52.5% was not really…an unquestioned 'victory':

Quote:

---

Question settled? Not quite. Statehood opponents say the vote was invalidit wasn't recognized by the U.S. Department of Justiceand point out that turnout was low, at less than 55 percent. (This was at least an improvement over the 2017 referendum, which was boycotted by the opposition and only got 23 percent turnout.) Opponents also say the vote was a stunt by the PNP to bring its supporters to the polls for the governor's election happening the same day. If that's true, it workedbut just barely. The PNP's Pedro Pierluisi won with just 33 percent of the votes. The candidates from the pro-commonwealth PPD, the Citizens' Victory Movement, and the Independence Party combined for a little less than 60 percent of the vote, which also suggests that support for statehood is not exactly overwhelming.

---

Personally, I'd be fine admitting them, as long as Washington DC is incorporated into Maryland properly finally, and the US capitol moved to some remote location in Kansas or perhaps the border with Mexico, as Hawaiian independence is finally granted as well.

I think you are misunderstanding the point that he is trying to make regarding federal employees. There are many roles in the government that get replaced with each new administration and that's all pretty normal. But Trump wants to, and previously tried to with an Executive Order issued in October 2020 that never had a chance to be implemented, redefine some unknown number of non-political roles within the government as now being political appointments.

This would be an unprecedented change and not at all like what is seen in the normal changes of presidencies. If the Schedule F rules only applied to a small number of roles then no, it might not be a big deal. But if we're talking about thousands of federal positions that are being emptied and refilled every 4 or 8 years when a new party takes office that would cause an immense amount of chaos within the government. Presumably, that's what Trump and company want.

I've worked in the federal government. It is a huge, bloated bureaucracy that prevents any change or innovation.

Regardless of one's political affiliation, everyone not in DC should be very supportive of massive changes and reform to the civil service act and system.

Example: a career civil servant named Eleanor Spector worked for my boss. She was in charge of, among other things, the entire Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations. By inside-the-beltway standards, she was a 600 lb gorilla. We were trying to reform Defense acquisition, reforms that many Democrats supported (Senator Jeff Bingaman and future USDA Jacques Gansler, to name two).

Eleanor Spector fought us tooth and nail. She told me that the Defense acquisition system had been perfected through 50 years of trial and error. My boss ended up trying to fire her because of her instransigent opposition to any reforms, but failed. My boss was a Republican, and my guess is that Eleanor voted Republican as well.

In other words, these issues are not partisan. But because Trump advocates changes to the civil service system, the anti-Trump partisans automatically and reflexively oppose it.

Trump advocates filling the ranks of all layers of government with people who explicitly support his policies. This is not some benign revamping of the civil service. This is a return to the spoils system.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Checks and balances? Trump got checked hard in all of the post 2020 court cases. It is the modern Democratic party that disregards the notion of checks and balances. We have a weaponized IRS, justice department, etc. under democratic leadership. Who is having the discussion of court packing whenever a decision doesn't go their way? Adding Puerto Rico and DC as states to add an additional 4 blue senators?

Again, I think you are working up a boogeyman in your mind that doesn't fit reality.

---

Is the "weaponized IRS and Justice Department" claim because they have investigated possible abuse and corruption? Is any investigation of Trump automatically illegitimate to you? Also, I had no idea it was a violation of the separation of powers to add states. May want to look into American history. We didn't always have 50 stars on the flag.

---

Not two pages from, "Trump's gonna strip birthright citizenship!!" So I guess that was just faux outrage?

---

Is reading comprehension difficult? Trump has said he wants to strip birthright citizenship. He has said he wants to fire civil servants and replace them with loyalists. If you can't see the issues there, it says a lot about your biases.

---

Think critically: if we didn't always have 50 stars, and we didn't always have birthright citizenship, are they really so different? Do democrats put Republicans in office when they win the presidency or do they put loyalists in? Has the FBI and other agencies used voting/political ID to screen candidates and weed out republicans?

There's nothing controversial here to obsess over, aside from your party losing power. It's pretty easy to see through for the rational mind.

---

The civil service is not based on partisan affiliation. You're talking about explicitly political appointees who work in government with the civil service. I'm talking about Trump trying to destroy the civil service. And birthright citizenship was the standard throughout US history with the exception of slaves and Native Americans. The 14th amendment was written to ensure freed slaves could not be refused their rights based on their station at birth.

In your example, should Eleanor be fired because she is not adequately performing her job or because she is a supporter of the Republican administration? Because if you make that role one that is filled by a political appointment, you're going to get Option B. And maybe that's fine in a case of a bad employee like Eleanor. But along with her you're also going to be throwing out good, knowledgeable, experienced federal workers who just happen to belong to the wrong party. Is that a good thing?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Trump advocates filling the ranks of all layers of government with people who explicitly support his policies. This is not some benign revamping of the civil service. This is a return to the spoils system.

---

Hard evidence of that?

I've not heard any Presidential candidate ever propose any meaningful reforms to the civil service, until Trump. I don't like Trump at all, but I get frustrated at the constant mischaracterizations of his proposals and statements. What reforms have any Democratic candidate or president proposed or actually championed in the last 50 years? Clinton put Gore in charge of Reinventing Government (with a guy named Bob Stone actually running it), but never put any gas in it gas tank. It was DOA.

Also, people conveniently ignore that Trump is a classic negotiator - ask for the moon and settle for what you really expect.

Rocag said:

---

In your example, should Eleanor be fired because she is not adequately performing her job or because she is a supporter of the Republican administration? Because if you make that role one that is filled by a political appointment, you're going to get Option B. And maybe that's fine in a case of a bad employee like Eleanor. But along with her you're also going to be throwing out good, knowledgeable, experienced federal workers who just happen to belong to the wrong party. Is that a good thing?

---

You completely misunderstand my point. Eleanor should not be fired because she is a member of either party; she should be fired because she was close-minded, ignorant, and intransigent.

Massive reform of the federal bureaucracy will not be possible without many "good, knowledgeable, experienced federal workers" being let go. That's inevitable. During the Base Closure process, many good, hard-working small business owners around those closed bases went out of business. You can't stop from doing what's necessary at a national level because it might harm some good people.

As Admiral Rickover is famously claimed to have said, the way that he'd reform DoD is by taking all of the employees of the Pentagon outside, having them number off by threes, and then firing everyone numbered 2 and 3. He may well have been right. There is probably no better way of reforming DoD or DC itself, even if good employees get fired in the process.