daoneandonly wrote:doclinkin wrote:dobrojim wrote:Most ethical? Really?
I suppose that's because the rest were all baby killers?
And if baby killing is the only issue does anyone really think that Trump who pays porn stars to keep silent has never and would never pay a woman to have an abortion?
When he was directly asked the question he dodged it.
--==video where he is in support of partial birth abortion==--
A stance that only changed when he ran for president.
Make no mistake, it pained me to see him win the primary,
And yet he is the most ethical? You can't admit that he is a conman who has no principles at all except self-promotion? It's not possible you got conned?
Or I guess it doesn't matter if you did or not because the right people maneuvered him into selecting a Supreme Court justice who supports your single issue. If that's the case then okay, at least I can understand that. But I wouldn't then defend him on any other grounds or twist yourself in circles trying to find reasons to support him. He has been a terrible president and weakened our standing world wide and is morally bankrupt the same way he has been a literally bankrupt businessman.
If I were you I'd root for him to bow out of the next race and pass it to Pence. Who for my part I think is a dangerous zealot and a snake who has been backdealing info on Trump to the media, but at least he actually has principles of his own. Repugnant though they may be.
I've been wrong before. I liked Obama personally but never liked his middle-of-the-road pandering to folks on the other side of the aisle who had no stance other than to be against whatever he stood for. Who commonly rejected policies they had written and proposed so as not to hand him a win. That lesson should have been learned in the Clinto vs Gingrich "Contract on America' days. (sic)
I never liked Hillary even while I admitted she was the most professionally qualified and experienced candidate we had ever seen run for the job. Given that she was essentially the top advisor to President Clinton as the most activist First Lady since Roosevelt, and wrote key policies for him then swiftly moved up in her Senate career, and then worked as Sec State.
I didn't like her as a candidate even as I respected her smarts.
I do like Warren. If you read her policies, they are well researched and well written and carefully thought out and supported with financial data. Yes she asks that the top wealth earners pay a bit more in order to help prime the pump of our economy in various ways. Nothing like the 50% tax on multimillionaires that helped build our middle class and gave us the national highway system and NASA etc in the post WW2 era.
2% bump on multimillionaires worth over $50 million
3% bump in billionaires
The increase going to:
Universal child care for every child age 0 to 5.
Universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year old.
Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges.
Forgive student loan debt for 95% of those with such debt.
$100 billion over 10 years to combat the opioid crisis.
So young parents can afford to work. Young kids can get a head start. Public school extends to college level, understanding that the next economy requires smart well trained people. And removing the hobble from young energetic idealistic people who no longer have to live with mom and dad as grown-ups and instead of paying the equivalent of monthly rent to predatory lenders who will ruin their credit if they slip so they have no chance of starting businesses etc.
Recall the economic boom we had in the dotcom era when young energetic smart people made multibillion dollar corporations out of enthusiasm and bright ideas. We actually had a surplus under Clinton.
I know an entire generation of young people that I have seen grow up who have so much energy and bright ideas who have been forced into debt and retreating to their parents homes trying to escape student loan debt. But if not for that, they would be buying homes, starting businesses, making money for construction trade and web designers and who knows what all else.
And given that drugs prescribed by doctors have lead the addiction boom, it doesn't make sense to find some way to wean the country off that dangerous slope? This is not streetcorner commerce. This is every color and economic strata of addicts. This is Michael Jackson and Prince as well as middle aged suburban moms and the kids taking from their medicine cabinets. As well as millionaire trap artists advertising "Molly Percoset". I know professional skaters who had injuries. FBI analysts. Grandmothers. And waitresses. A construction worker who fell off an I-beam. All who got addicted because a doctor prescribed it. Because drug companies effectively pay them to push it, and lied that the effects were minimal and easily handled. And when they tried to taper they realized they were getting sick and terrified. If you dislike drug addiction why not find a way to cut it off and stop people from getting hooked in the first place and figure out treatment for people who did get hooked.
If you're more sympathetic for growing the wealth of billionaires than you are for young people who just want to work then I dunno what kind of America you really think we should have. It's not going to hurt the ultra wealthy to help out a little more.
daoneandonly absolutely got wrecked. Wow. So much for caring about those innocent babies and Religious values (of course except for when babies are thrown in cages)
