Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.
No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.
The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.
What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.
I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.
People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.
Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.
A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.
I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.
Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.
They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.
They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.
My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.
Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.
So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....
FIrst of all, I specifically said, those who vote for celebrities.
Your assumption that they are voting for the celebrities based just on their fame is unsupported and unlikely. and unfair.
Fame gets you the first step, ie a listen.
If what you have to say is more of the same old crap, not many people are going to be trilled by that.
Trump had fame to get his listen. But he was very careful to make sure that those that listened heard something that would get him a second listen,
He did not win because he was a Reality TV Star.
He won because he identified a large group of voters that had been forgotten and were desperate for their concerns to be voiced by someone.
First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.
Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.
Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?
Trump won by shouting nonsense, and Clinton lost by doing nonsense.Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?
What it says about the country is that almost everyone in the USA is feeble-minded and brainwashed (and hysterical most of the time), and is incapable of putting two thoughts together that have any connection with reality.
.
People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.
Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.
A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.
I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.
Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.
They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.
They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.
My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.
Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.
So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....
FIrst of all, I specifically said, those who vote for celebrities.
Your assumption that they are voting for the celebrities based just on their fame is unsupported and unlikely. and unfair.
Fame gets you the first step, ie a listen.
If what you have to say is more of the same old crap, not many people are going to be trilled by that.
Trump had fame to get his listen. But he was very careful to make sure that those that listened heard something that would get him a second listen,
He did not win because he was a Reality TV Star.
He won because he identified a large group of voters that had been forgotten and were desperate for their concerns to be voiced by someone.
First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.
Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.
Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?
Trump's trade policy has been validated by the recent WTO airbus ruling that showed that we are losing jobs to our trade "partners" because they are cheating. Thus, the exact opposite of nonsense.
Trump's immigration policy is to enforce our laws. That you can say with a straight face that that is nonsense shows how fucked up America is. And Trump is not the problem, he is the solution.
I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.
Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.
They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.
They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.
My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.
Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.
So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....
FIrst of all, I specifically said, those who vote for celebrities.
Your assumption that they are voting for the celebrities based just on their fame is unsupported and unlikely. and unfair.
Fame gets you the first step, ie a listen.
If what you have to say is more of the same old crap, not many people are going to be trilled by that.
Trump had fame to get his listen. But he was very careful to make sure that those that listened heard something that would get him a second listen,
He did not win because he was a Reality TV Star.
He won because he identified a large group of voters that had been forgotten and were desperate for their concerns to be voiced by someone.
First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.
Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.
Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?
Trump's trade policy has been validated by the recent WTO airbus ruling that showed that we are losing jobs to our trade "partners" because they are cheating. Thus, the exact opposite of nonsense.
Trump's immigration policy is to enforce our laws. That you can say with a straight face that that is nonsense shows how fucked up America is. And Trump is not the problem, he is the solution.
Trump's immigration "policy" is just a suggestion, and often people have decided what his "policy" is without knowing squat about what it actually is. Building a wall isn't an immigration policy.
Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint fucking care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.
I have no idea what you're saying. Try English.
You libs only speak cup cake. English wont help. Go find a safe place to be happy in. The next 4 years are going to kind of suck for you.
English kind of helps when you're trying to communicate.
yawn.
Yes, it's so boring. Ignore list. You're a waste of time.
Trump's immigration "policy" is just a suggestion, and often people have decided what his "policy" is without knowing squat about what it actually is. Building a wall isn't an immigration policy.
I did say they lost for lots of reasons.
Trump didn't put the security at risk? He's never been in govt to have shown whether he would or wouldn't.
Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.
Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.
I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....
Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.
So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?
The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?
This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.
Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?
Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.
Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?
How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.
Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.
But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".
I don't get your scenario.
I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.
You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.
Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?
Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.
In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?
Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.
To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.
Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.
Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.
The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!
If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.
When did they ever ask? Well every time. You could choose not to pay them, then they demand and cause you problems. You can look at it however you want, it makes no difference. You make a social contract with the society you live in, you could leave, you choose not to, so you pay taxes. You pay taxes to use the stuff around you. Do you not use the roads?
No, companies don't use food stamps. But they use airports, they use roads, they use rail, and most of all, they use the security. Look at Somalia. No govt. Wow, right wing heaven, must be people making money all over the place.... hang on a minute, they're not. Somalia is much poorer than the US. Why's that?
Also some use the military. They use the World Bank (fuck the World Bank).
Bolivia is a perfect example. The World Bank went to Bolivia and said "hey, we'll lend you money but you have to privatize your essential industries",
The Politics of Water in Bolivia
" Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, "Our dream, a world free of poverty.""
This, by the way, is complete bullshit.
In Bolivia they privatized the water industry. Private companies bought the water industry, not Bolivian companies. Why? Well foreign companies have more money, hence why the World Bank wants them to open up to privatization. Makes foreign companies rich.
https://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF
"
In February and March of 2000, protests broke out in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in response to the skyrocketing price of water. Many people saw their bills triple or even quadruple,"
Makes the local people poor.
"
For thousands of families, the rate hike meant up to half of their monthly income went to paying for water."
In La Paz, the capital, 25% of people lost access to clean water.
The company that was involved in this took a Spanish name, Aguas del Tunari, but don't be fooled, this was a part of Bechtel, a US company. They make $32 billion a year (in 2015).
The same happened with the dairy industry. Large foreign companies buy up the dairy industry, pay the farmers less, charge the consumers more, take the profits out of the country. And this is supposedly how you help poverty.
Sure as hell makes US companies rich though.
No, the federal govt was not designed to help people with personal problems, things have changed since 1789 though. There are problems. The country is going downhill, the solutions are clear, the desire to enact the solutions aren't there, the US is suffering massively as a result.
I'm not talking about encouraging irresponsibility. I too believe that people should take control of their lives. However it's not happening right now, and it's not happening because in the modern world it is increasingly difficult to do so. People need skills, they need an education because they can compete. The family structure is disappearing and this is causing so many problems for kids. There's a massive inner city problem with gangs, too many people in prisons. Something isn't working.
It's your country. Do you not want to see it get better?
Many of the problems you cite are because of Democrats and liberalism. It's the left that promoted single-parent households particularly the group known as N.O.W. Single parent households are the foundation of crime, poverty, lack of education, and lack of morals. It's the left that rewards people for failure and penalizes success. Have more kids, bigger welfare check, bigger SNAP's card, larger HUD home in the suburbs. Create more wealth, more taxation, less to leave to your heirs through a death tax.
What has changed since 1789 is government DID get involved in personal problem solving over time. And it still exists today by the left. Look at what they ran on! Hillary promising free college, although as we all understand, it's not free, she just wanted to make somebody else pay for it. Paid leave for men and women for any idiotic reason one could think of. Who pays for that? Free and government subsidized healthcare with ruined many lives including mine. Forced birth control and abortion coverage for employees regardless of the employers personal or religious objections. Forcing restaurants to put calorie count on the items in their menu because Americans are too stupid to figure out a double whopper with cheese combo may not keep you slim and trim.
Yes indeed, much of the leftist agenda is attempting to solve personal problems that are better left to the person and not government.
No, I think you're wrong.
It's not about left and right, it's about any factors.
Countries Compared by People > Divorce rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
According to this the US is highest, then Russia, then the UK, then Denmark.
Okay, the UK is more liberal than the US, Russia is very conservative.
Worldwide Divorce Statistics
This one has:
1. Belarus 68%
2. Russian Federation 65%
3. Sweden 64%
4. Latvia 63%
5. Ukraine 63%
6. Czech Republic 61%
7. Belgium 56%
8. Finland 56%
9. Lithuania 55%
10. United Kingdom 53%
11. Moldova 52%
12. United States 49%
13. Hungary 46%
14. Canada 45%
15. Norway 43%
16. France 43%
17. Germany 41%
Why do people get divorced? Number one reason is because they can, obviously. Some countries prevent it from happening. Some countries don't prevent it, but society does.
Yes, liberalism has helped to raise the rates. People have more freedom, they are less willing to put up with crap. But this is more a factor of the modern world than anything else. Money buys freedom. Long gone are the days when people lived hand to mouth. Now they can socialize etc.
I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days when people were essentially slaves. It might have meant lower divorce rates, or no divorce rates, but it wasn't a better time.
But within the structure that exists, of freedom, there are countries with higher and lower divorce rates.
What makes a difference? Liberal policies? Conservative policies? Policies?
Number of hours worked probably makes a difference. This is more a right wing policy than a left wing policy.
But here are some reasons:
The 8 Most Common Reasons for Divorce
1) lack of commitment. 73% said this was the reason. A right wing policy? A left win policy? Or just modern life?
2) Too much arguing. 56% of people said this was the reason. A policy? Or just life?
3) Infidelity. 55% said this caused their split. A policy, or just life?
4) Marrying too young. This one is interesting. In the US people marry far younger than in other western countries.
List of countries by age at first marriage - Wikipedia
The US is 28 years old.
UK, 31.6, Sweden 34.6, Germany 32.2, Denmark 31.9, France 31.9, Australia 30.6.
This is definitely a right wing policy. Abstinence programs lead people to marry younger so they can fuck. It's that simple in some cases, but then it becomes a part of society, and people expect to marry younger.
5) Unrealistic expectations. A policy, or modern life?
With those that seem to be "that's modern life", how many of them are because people aren't made to think about their relationships, don't understand what they're getting into, don't have any idea about it all? I had a discussion about marriage with a girl from Nebraska, 21 years old, she basically believed you got marry and were happy ever after. Er... what?
How many of these happen because education isn't good enough? How many of these divorces happen because people are told to just figure it out for themselves, no one gets help? Traditional society has broken down everywhere, entertainment, money, freedom, they've changed the world. Govts need to change with them, or see the problems rise.
Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.
So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....
FIrst of all, I specifically said, those who vote for celebrities.
Your assumption that they are voting for the celebrities based just on their fame is unsupported and unlikely. and unfair.
Fame gets you the first step, ie a listen.
If what you have to say is more of the same old crap, not many people are going to be trilled by that.
Trump had fame to get his listen. But he was very careful to make sure that those that listened heard something that would get him a second listen,
He did not win because he was a Reality TV Star.
He won because he identified a large group of voters that had been forgotten and were desperate for their concerns to be voiced by someone.
First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.
Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.
Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?
Trump's trade policy has been validated by the recent WTO airbus ruling that showed that we are losing jobs to our trade "partners" because they are cheating. Thus, the exact opposite of nonsense.
Trump's immigration policy is to enforce our laws. That you can say with a straight face that that is nonsense shows how fucked up America is. And Trump is not the problem, he is the solution.
Trump's immigration "policy" is just a suggestion, and often people have decided what his "policy" is without knowing squat about what it actually is. Building a wall isn't an immigration policy.
You keep pretending that Trump has no immigration policy. That will be a great comfort to all the illegals who are worrying about losing their American jobs, and being deported while they watch the Wall go up.
Trump's immigration "policy" is just a suggestion, and often people have decided what his "policy" is without knowing squat about what it actually is. Building a wall isn't an immigration policy.
Sounds like a pretty good start to me. And watch after he is inaugurated how that southern border will be backed up with people trying to go back home.
I did say they lost for lots of reasons.
Trump didn't put the security at risk? He's never been in govt to have shown whether he would or wouldn't.
Yes that's true, but Hillary has. That's the point.
Why will they be trying to go back home? Has he suggested anything other than doing what Obama's been doing?
Deportation Numbers Unwrapped
Obama removed far more illegal immigrants than Bush did per year at over 400,000.
And isn't the point that character witnesses for Trump aren't exactly good either? I mean going out and doing the bidding of the leader of another country, like Russia, isn't exactly good for national security either.
Pretending. He has a policy for anything? He flip flopped on everything and then called them "suggestions". So you decide he said something therefore that's a "policy", doesn't make it so.
The biggest problem with a lot of Americans is they don't understand that immigrants do jobs that Americans don't want to do. Well, we'll get you doing low paid menial labor then.....
The only thing is that soon the illegals will have to be made legal in order to fill those jobs. Remember who likes employing immigrants? Oh, yeah, TRUMP.
Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?
Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.
Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?
How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.
Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.
But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".
I don't get your scenario.
I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.
You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.
Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?
Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.
In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?
Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.
To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.
Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.
Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.
The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!
If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.
When did they ever ask? Well every time. You could choose not to pay them, then they demand and cause you problems. You can look at it however you want, it makes no difference. You make a social contract with the society you live in, you could leave, you choose not to, so you pay taxes. You pay taxes to use the stuff around you. Do you not use the roads?
No, companies don't use food stamps. But they use airports, they use roads, they use rail, and most of all, they use the security. Look at Somalia. No govt. Wow, right wing heaven, must be people making money all over the place.... hang on a minute, they're not. Somalia is much poorer than the US. Why's that?
Also some use the military. They use the World Bank (fuck the World Bank).
Bolivia is a perfect example. The World Bank went to Bolivia and said "hey, we'll lend you money but you have to privatize your essential industries",
The Politics of Water in Bolivia
" Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, "Our dream, a world free of poverty.""
This, by the way, is complete bullshit.
In Bolivia they privatized the water industry. Private companies bought the water industry, not Bolivian companies. Why? Well foreign companies have more money, hence why the World Bank wants them to open up to privatization. Makes foreign companies rich.
https://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF
"
In February and March of 2000, protests broke out in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in response to the skyrocketing price of water. Many people saw their bills triple or even quadruple,"
Makes the local people poor.
"
For thousands of families, the rate hike meant up to half of their monthly income went to paying for water."
In La Paz, the capital, 25% of people lost access to clean water.
The company that was involved in this took a Spanish name, Aguas del Tunari, but don't be fooled, this was a part of Bechtel, a US company. They make $32 billion a year (in 2015).
The same happened with the dairy industry. Large foreign companies buy up the dairy industry, pay the farmers less, charge the consumers more, take the profits out of the country. And this is supposedly how you help poverty.
Sure as hell makes US companies rich though.
No, the federal govt was not designed to help people with personal problems, things have changed since 1789 though. There are problems. The country is going downhill, the solutions are clear, the desire to enact the solutions aren't there, the US is suffering massively as a result.
I'm not talking about encouraging irresponsibility. I too believe that people should take control of their lives. However it's not happening right now, and it's not happening because in the modern world it is increasingly difficult to do so. People need skills, they need an education because they can compete. The family structure is disappearing and this is causing so many problems for kids. There's a massive inner city problem with gangs, too many people in prisons. Something isn't working.
It's your country. Do you not want to see it get better?
Many of the problems you cite are because of Democrats and liberalism. It's the left that promoted single-parent households particularly the group known as N.O.W. Single parent households are the foundation of crime, poverty, lack of education, and lack of morals. It's the left that rewards people for failure and penalizes success. Have more kids, bigger welfare check, bigger SNAP's card, larger HUD home in the suburbs. Create more wealth, more taxation, less to leave to your heirs through a death tax.
What has changed since 1789 is government DID get involved in personal problem solving over time. And it still exists today by the left. Look at what they ran on! Hillary promising free college, although as we all understand, it's not free, she just wanted to make somebody else pay for it. Paid leave for men and women for any idiotic reason one could think of. Who pays for that? Free and government subsidized healthcare with ruined many lives including mine. Forced birth control and abortion coverage for employees regardless of the employers personal or religious objections. Forcing restaurants to put calorie count on the items in their menu because Americans are too stupid to figure out a double whopper with cheese combo may not keep you slim and trim.
Yes indeed, much of the leftist agenda is attempting to solve personal problems that are better left to the person and not government.
No, I think you're wrong.
It's not about left and right, it's about any factors.
Countries Compared by People > Divorce rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
According to this the US is highest, then Russia, then the UK, then Denmark.
Okay, the UK is more liberal than the US, Russia is very conservative.
Worldwide Divorce Statistics
This one has:
1. Belarus 68%
2. Russian Federation 65%
3. Sweden 64%
4. Latvia 63%
5. Ukraine 63%
6. Czech Republic 61%
7. Belgium 56%
8. Finland 56%
9. Lithuania 55%
10. United Kingdom 53%
11. Moldova 52%
12. United States 49%
13. Hungary 46%
14. Canada 45%
15. Norway 43%
16. France 43%
17. Germany 41%
Why do people get divorced? Number one reason is because they can, obviously. Some countries prevent it from happening. Some countries don't prevent it, but society does.
Yes, liberalism has helped to raise the rates. People have more freedom, they are less willing to put up with crap. But this is more a factor of the modern world than anything else. Money buys freedom. Long gone are the days when people lived hand to mouth. Now they can socialize etc.
I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days when people were essentially slaves. It might have meant lower divorce rates, or no divorce rates, but it wasn't a better time.
But within the structure that exists, of freedom, there are countries with higher and lower divorce rates.
What makes a difference? Liberal policies? Conservative policies? Policies?
Number of hours worked probably makes a difference. This is more a right wing policy than a left wing policy.
But here are some reasons:
The 8 Most Common Reasons for Divorce
1) lack of commitment. 73% said this was the reason. A right wing policy? A left win policy? Or just modern life?
2) Too much arguing. 56% of people said this was the reason. A policy? Or just life?
3) Infidelity. 55% said this caused their split. A policy, or just life?
4) Marrying too young. This one is interesting. In the US people marry far younger than in other western countries.
List of countries by age at first marriage - Wikipedia
The US is 28 years old.
UK, 31.6, Sweden 34.6, Germany 32.2, Denmark 31.9, France 31.9, Australia 30.6.
This is definitely a right wing policy. Abstinence programs lead people to marry younger so they can fuck. It's that simple in some cases, but then it becomes a part of society, and people expect to marry younger.
5) Unrealistic expectations. A policy, or modern life?
With those that seem to be "that's modern life", how many of them are because people aren't made to think about their relationships, don't understand what they're getting into, don't have any idea about it all? I had a discussion about marriage with a girl from Nebraska, 21 years old, she basically believed you got marry and were happy ever after. Er... what?
How many of these happen because education isn't good enough? How many of these divorces happen because people are told to just figure it out for themselves, no one gets help? Traditional society has broken down everywhere, entertainment, money, freedom, they've changed the world. Govts need to change with them, or see the problems rise.
Divorce is less of the problem than it is leftists creating this immoral society where single women having kids are not even looked down upon any longer.
Years ago an unwed woman would hide in the shadows until she could no longer keep her secret quiet. Afterwards she was frowned on by society, so many women made sure they didn't get pregnant in the first place.
Our liberal society created an environment of no shame. I even see this of social goodies. I've had that fat black women in front of me with four or five kids unloading that heaping cart of groceries and proudly paying with food stamps many many times. I've heard them talking with other customers about how much they get while putting those cigarettes, alcohol, pet food, cat litter, greeting cards, flowers on the belt and paying for that with cash. They are so shameless they don't even unload their groceries in their car, and come back to make those purchases. They do this repeatedly in front of whoever is looking.
Most things in society were much better before liberalism. People used to have pride; they used to have dignity; very few admitted defeat unless they absolutely had no other choice, and even then, look down at themselves as failures in life. No longer.
And isn't the point that character witnesses for Trump aren't exactly good either? I mean going out and doing the bidding of the leader of another country, like Russia, isn't exactly good for national security either.
And just how did he do any "bidding" for Putin?
Pretending. He has a policy for anything? He flip flopped on everything and then called them "suggestions". So you decide he said something therefore that's a "policy", doesn't make it so.
The biggest problem with a lot of Americans is they don't understand that immigrants do jobs that Americans don't want to do. Well, we'll get you doing low paid menial labor then.....
The only thing is that soon the illegals will have to be made legal in order to fill those jobs. Remember who likes employing immigrants? Oh, yeah, TRUMP.
No, Trump is not employing illegals, and if you want to site the case of Trump Towers, that was more left-wing lies.
Americans will do any job for the right price. Come here in the middle of winter during a snow storm with winds blowing at 30 mph, and watch those linemen on the polls trying to restore power. Watch those guys trying to repair a water line in their boots when it's -5 degrees outside at night. How much do you think our solders get paid for going overseas and risking their lives?
My industry is flooded with immigrants. They are keeping our pay down because companies can import these clowns to try and do our jobs. That stops pay increases because they don't have to increase pay as long as these jokers are coming here off of boats to take our work for much less money.
Well, again, do women have children outside of wedlock because they're more free to do so, or because of some policy?
So, years ago a woman who had a child out of wedlock was shunned. Yes, it's not exactly a nice affair, but it happened then and it happens now. We're in a world of more freedom, and you're suggesting that this freedom is a bad thing, and is as a result of liberal policy. What?
It's funny, because the argument that guns should not be taken away, even though they destroy lives, is that they give freedom. So....
However I agree with you about food stamps. The idea in principle is not a bad one, however there's a big problem with it and no one will do away with it. To say it's a liberal policy when Congress was totally Republican for 10 of 12 years between 1995 and 2007 and with a Republican president from 2000 onwards, is a little rich to say in the least.
I disagree with your rose tinted glasses view of the world. You say "before liberalism", well, the founding fathers, in the majority, were liberals. So, you're talking before when exactly? The reality is that liberalism is a relative thing, you can't have "before liberalism" because if you only have two men, one will be liberal and the other conservative.
The fact is people had pride, not the slaves they didn't, not the people who worked 16 hour days, 7 days a week, the reality is that things have changed, there are problems with BOTH liberalism and conservatism, and they have come together to form an alliance that is destroying the country.
I think you need to look far more at reality, rather than trying to blame liberalism for the problems. Get away from liberalism and conservatism, and look at solutions. Taking the partisan line, then shouting that the other side is bad while ignoring your own side, and all that crap, is a waste of time. Thinking about policies and how they can work or not work is the way forward.
Why will they be trying to go back home? Has he suggested anything other than doing what Obama's been doing?
Deportation Numbers Unwrapped
Obama removed far more illegal immigrants than Bush did per year at over 400,000.
Maybe that's because he changed the definition of deportation since Bush whereas if the border patrol makes somebody go back, that's considered deportation under the DumBama rule:
High deportation figures are misleading
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/u...in-last-five-years.html?ref=juliapreston&_r=1
I didn't say Trump was employing illegal immigrants, did I?
As for Trump Towers, why is this "left-wing lies"? Because it's uncomfortable for you?
Americans will do the job for the right price. Often the "right price" for them is too high for the rich overlords.
The problem here is that the US should be a highly educated country. It has the money to make sure that education is at high levels and that American workers are getting high level jobs. Instead everyone's looking at getting low paid jobs. Whereas other countries in the first world are doing something different. The US is the ONLY first world country demanding low paid manufacturing jobs be brought back to the country....
