US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
General Trump Banner.png ​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
If the SAVE act allows for your drivers license/ID to be tied to your voter ID, and it be at no extra cost, I think it should be fine. If people want a separate voter ID card to put in their wallet, they can, but I don’t think it should be necessary. People already need IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and so showing photo ID to vote should work the same. This is only racist if you think blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID of any kind in the first place.
 
Kiwi Lime Pie said:
I've been contacted by pollsters, but after one that was particularly long and repetitive, I tell them I am not interested in participating. After saying that to one pollster, they subsequently mailed me a letter expressing their wish I'd reconsider with a $1 bill presumably intended to sway me. It didn't.
Click to expand...
If I have the time, I will do them if only to brazenly support Trump. It does matter because a lot of these pollsters will use a relatively small sample size, sometimes only a few hundred, and a few extra people saying communists should be thrown out of helicopters flown by @JosephStalin can't hurt.
 
ThisIsGonnaBeGood said:
Is this different than the SAVE America Act?
Click to expand...
They're the same bill.
Endless Torment said:
Here is the article
Click to expand...
In his book “Dominion,” the historian Tom Holland describes how it wasn’t until Christianity came along that Western civilization derived the popular conception that the weak and the vanquished had any inherent moral value at all. Telling an ancient Greek or a pre-Christian Roman that their treatment of slaves was morally wrong would have inspired not argument but bewilderment, as if you had told them they were evil for the way they treated their kitchen utensils. These pagans generally believed that their gods favored the strong and were indifferent to the weak.
Christianity upended these assumptions. Christianity took the Jewish God, who cared for the weak and knew the difference between good and evil, and made his message universal. It taught that all humans are God’s creation. To oppress any person, even a slave, is an offense before him. Even more than that: the weak are closer to God than the rich and the powerful.
Click to expand...

This moral instinct is so ubiquitous today that we barely recognize it as Judeo-Christian, or even as religious. Adherents of the world’s other great religions have largely integrated it into their ethical frameworks even if this tenet is not central to their faith. It is the basis for the American Declaration of Independence and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Mr. Holland noted, even anti-Christian revolutionaries, from the Jacobins to the Communists, owe their secular claims of human equality to Christianity; indeed, they are the most radical expressions of it.
Click to expand...

That’s not to pretend that those lofty principles have effectively restrained great powers. Mr. Carney is correct that international law has always been, in part, a lie. International norms haven’t stopped the U.S. military from carrying out atrocities all over the world. Christian morality didn’t prevent medieval kings and the Catholic Church from massacring civilians, persecuting Jews and committing genocides in the New World. The American founders, so proud of their Christian piety, betrayed their religion in the most profound way: many of them owned slaves.
Unlike the pagans of antiquity, however, those rulers had to answer to charges of hypocrisy, which corroded their credibility in a way that the Athenians never had to contend with. Purportedly Christian great powers could do what they wanted to, just as the Athenians declared. But unlike the ancients, they did so at a cost to their political legitimacy.
Click to expand...
The article is basically the meme.
1770860849051.png
 
JosephStalin said:
Someone over the age of 80 on Medicare has the same right to live that you have. Many of those people worked throughout their working lives, have families, earned any benefits they get.
Click to expand...
I agree with the overall sentiment and am not in favor of revoking benefits from beneficiaries but they didn't "earn" those benefits. It's a promise by the system, not an account being paid into, and that promise is a big part of what's bankrupting this country. Not Medicare alone, but it's a huge chunk of the mandatory spending slice. It is a matter of time before it crumbles and then people who "earned it" will not get what they "earned." This notion of "earning" benefits is a great lie that I assume traces back to FDR as a way to convince people his programs wouldn't cost more than they consumed.
1770861608190.png
1770861631140.png
 
Harvey Danger said:
Until that payoff happens, "work hard to build intergenerational wealth" is propaganda that should be discarded until the promises are paid off.
Click to expand...
How did you ever believe that enough wealth existed for everyone to be able to achieve intergenerational wealth?
 
Aidan said:
I agree with the overall sentiment and am not in favor of revoking benefits from beneficiaries but they didn't "earn" those benefits. It's a promise by the system, not an account being paid into
Click to expand...
There's been a Medicare payroll tax since 1965. The 65+ crowd has earned at least some of its benefits.
 
JambledUpWords said:
If the SAVE act allows for your drivers license/ID to be tied to your voter ID, and it be at no extra cost, I think it should be fine. If people want a separate voter ID card to put in their wallet, they can, but I don’t think it should be necessary. People already need IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and so showing photo ID to vote should work the same. This is only racist if you think blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID of any kind in the first place.
Click to expand...
You could probably link a REAL ID driver's license to voting registration, but you would have to bring a birth certificate to your local voting office when you first register since REAL ID stars get issued for legal non-citizen residents in some states and are not themselves proof of citizenship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom