Ok, unless its a different one, its going to be the one from 1995. He did vote in favor of reducing Social security like Sanders claimed but he ultimating supported balanced budget. THe other thing is, that's from 1995. You have to take recent history into consideration and he's had better record of it.
He has an extremely high approval rating with ARA, so that certifies senior voting support.
This year, he even supported social security benefits with cuts and is calling out for improvements on FICA, raising the cap without retirement age, and shown extremely high signs of social security...
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Great point, but i thought China bought most of its oil from Iran right?
Police have now taken back the area around St. John's Church, and it is not known yet the extent of damage the church basement received Sunday evening.
The leaders of a historic church near the White House say they are praying for the nation to heal after the building was damaged when violence erupted following anti-racism and anti-police brutality protests in Washington, D.C. Bishop Mariann Budde later on Monday criticized President Donald...
www.nbcwashington.com
The following morning (June 2nd), we get the incomplete story that, seemingly without any other motivations, Trump decided to tear gassed protesters to get some photos taken at a random church. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-live-updates/ I wouldn't be surprised if this was some of the news Trump woke up to, given how close the church is and with it being a place of historical importance.
What is the nuance here that I'm missing? Where is the story incomplete? He gassed citizens so he could take a picture for his campaign. His motivation is only to make him look like a strongman.
What does being tougher on destructive people pretending to be protesters have to do with anything? Those people he gassed weren't pretending to be protesters.
Wait, how did republicans push you to the left? You mean the policies or the people? Encouraging businesses isnt a bad thing so capitalism, or even conservative policies arent all bad.
I think Capitalism is great for developing nations, but America is a developed nation while its problems and challenges are like that of a developing one. So its time to encourage some socialist policies, like healthcare.
I don't know if Gary remembers this, but I had a friend on FB who used to respond to anything I posted in regards to gun control or not shooting Black people was Democrat BS, liberal, or left. He accused me of that before I knew anything about politics, so I automatically thought Democrats must be good and Republicans like him must be bad. I was wrong, both are shit.
Then I became centrist, but seeing republicans fight against gun control, accountability for cops, taking away women's rights to their bodies (hypocritically might I add), and other stuff, I just stopped trying to see the good in republicans. Plus, their views on economy is also shit, from trickle-down BS and funding warfare and weapons to giving more money to corps and wealthy people while leaving average citizens lurching. The covid bail-outs, stimulus checks, and etc are great examples of this.
Encouraging businesses isn't bad, but they defend capitalism so much and knock on anything good for people as socialist and thus bad, which makes no sense. I didn't understand their giving labels to everything and being so volatile to the other side. I've personally seen far more right wingers attack liberals and the left and blame them, even when a far right committed mass shooting, and wrote books on why liberalism is a disease and whatnot, whereas I rarely see the left and liberals attack the right without provocation. Yet somehow the left are divisive? Capitalism the way conservatives want it is horrible.
Millions of people in the region were saved from terrorism regimes hellbent on ruining the lives of millions around the world. History looks back favorably upon the results made in leading to the growth of opportunity and democracy in the region.
Everyone who has had that job has been terrible, because nothing they say can spin this President's words or actions. Yet they're still left out there on a raft alone trying to do the job.
Ah, that's the classic Sharkbait that I remember and argued with.
I don't know if Gary remembers this, but I had a friend on FB who used to respond to anything I posted in regards to gun control or not shooting Black people was Democrat BS, liberal, or left. He accused me of that before I knew anything about politics, so I automatically thought Democrats must be good and Republicans like him must be bad. I was wrong, both are shit.
Then I became centrist, but seeing republicans fight against gun control, accountability for cops, taking away women's rights to their bodies (hypocritically might I add), and other stuff, I just stopped trying to see the good in republicans. Plus, their views on economy is also shit, from trickle-down BS and funding warfare and weapons to giving more money to corps and wealthy people while leaving average citizens lurching. The covid bail-outs, stimulus checks, and etc are great examples of this.
Encouraging businesses isn't bad, but they defend capitalism so much and knock on anything good for people as socialist and thus bad, which makes no sense. I didn't understand their giving labels to everything and being so volatile to the other side. I've personally seen far more right wingers attack liberals and the left and blame them, even when a far right committed mass shooting, and wrote books on why liberalism is a disease and whatnot, whereas I rarely see the left and liberals attack the right without provocation. Yet somehow the left are divisive? Capitalism the way conservatives want it is horrible.
I think centrist and moderate is a very fair place to be.... I find myself in the middle of most issues as well, but more left leaning on social issues and center or slightly right in economic issues.... in some like immigration, i am completely divided. I have enjoyed the fruit of American immigration policies but democrats seldom talk about legal immigration seriously, they just focus too much on the illegal and make it sound emotional rather than factual or serious. The way this administration has handled it is the worst though....
I am also iffy on calling myself completely left specially because on the socialist connotations, but i do feel for a developed nation like US, healthcare just be taken seriously for all its citizens. Canada does it better even with its flaws....
All the social democractic countries Bernie talks about are capitalistic in their economic policies, or atleast way more than what you would associate with. so you can have a capitalistic system, and shit talk about health care and education as basic rights.
Lets get some facts:
Bush: bombed 5 countries
Obama: bombed 7 countries
A lot of what Bush did was in response to a terrorist attack in the country, what excuse did Obama have? I am not trying to say Bush was better, but calling him a war criminal and asking him to be hanged in public is outrageous and does nothing more to the argument, then selective data like i did.
Also, hanged in public is a poor usage of words, i am sure you aren't serious about it. But the fact is whatever would apply to him, would apply to other US presidents as well, he wouldn't be the only 'war criminal'... It would be Uncle Sam itself..
I think centrist and moderate is a very fair place to be.... I find myself in the middle of most issues as well, but more left leaning on social issues and center or slightly right in economic issues.... in some like immigration, i am completely divided. I have enjoyed the fruit of American immigration policies but democrats seldom talk about legal immigration seriously, they just focus too much on the illegal and make it sound emotional rather than factual or serious. The way this administration has handled it is the worst though....
I am also iffy on calling myself completely left specially because on the socialist connotations, but i do feel for a developed nation like US, healthcare just be taken seriously for all its citizens. Canada does it better even with its flaws....
All the social democractic countries Bernie talks about are capitalistic in their economic policies, or atleast way more than what you would associate with. so you can have a capitalistic system, and shit talk about health care and education as basic rights.
Probably is, but most people don't make it look good at all. Most I've seen are usually more right-leaning or a label change away from being right/republican. I think I lean left on most issues, if not nearly all.
What's wrong with legal immigration?
Lets get some facts:
Bush: bombed 5 countries
Obama: bombed 7 countries
A lot of what Bush did was in response to a terrorist attack in the country, what excuse did Obama have? I am not trying to say Bush was better, but calling him a war criminal and asking him to be hanged in public is outrageous and does nothing more to the argument, then selective data like i did.
Also, hanged in public is a poor usage of words, i am sure you aren't serious about it. But the fact is whatever would apply to him, would apply to other US presidents as well, he wouldn't be the only 'war criminal'... It would be Uncle Sam itself..
There is no excuse over this lol, He invaded Iraq because Sadam was no longer a dog for Amercians, They wanted to make him an example to tame Arab leaders not to do the same and to listen to their orders.
Yeah Obama is bad as well. Infact all U.S presidents are criminals and pro Israelis but Bush is the worst to me since i lived my childhood watching Iraq war crimes on TV. Statues been destroyed, Kids having their heads missing. Extreme humiliating of civilians, Artifacts and gold being snatched by soliders, Oil being looted and shipped to U.S. All those pictures are still in my head. Whatsoever saying that he promoted democracy and ended terrorism is being over deluded.
Lets get some facts:
Bush: bombed 5 countries
Obama: bombed 7 countries
A lot of what Bush did was in response to a terrorist attack in the country, what excuse did Obama have? I am not trying to say Bush was better, but calling him a war criminal and asking him to be hanged in public is outrageous and does nothing more to the argument, then selective data like i did.
Also, hanged in public is a poor usage of words, i am sure you aren't serious about it. But the fact is whatever would apply to him, would apply to other US presidents as well, he wouldn't be the only 'war criminal'... It would be Uncle Sam itself..
Bush did not do that in response to a terrorist attack, that was just an excuse. He claimed there were weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found. He is a war criminal, just as Obama is, but he's worse.
I think centrist and moderate is a very fair place to be.... I find myself in the middle of most issues as well, but more left leaning on social issues and center or slightly right in economic issues.... in some like immigration, i am completely divided. I have enjoyed the fruit of American immigration policies but democrats seldom talk about legal immigration seriously, they just focus too much on the illegal and make it sound emotional rather than factual or serious. The way this administration has handled it is the worst though....
I am also iffy on calling myself completely left specially because on the socialist connotations, but i do feel for a developed nation like US, healthcare just be taken seriously for all its citizens. Canada does it better even with its flaws....
All the social democractic countries Bernie talks about are capitalistic in their economic policies, or atleast way more than what you would associate with. so you can have a capitalistic system, and shit talk about health care and education as basic rights.
Lets get some facts:
Bush: bombed 5 countries
Obama: bombed 7 countries
A lot of what Bush did was in response to a terrorist attack in the country, what excuse did Obama have? I am not trying to say Bush was better, but calling him a war criminal and asking him to be hanged in public is outrageous and does nothing more to the argument, then selective data like i did.
Also, hanged in public is a poor usage of words, i am sure you aren't serious about it. But the fact is whatever would apply to him, would apply to other US presidents as well, he wouldn't be the only 'war criminal'... It would be Uncle Sam itself..
Trump just called ANTIFA a terrorist organization. He never did that to the people who did mass shootings, or even the neo-nazi rallies. Do you still think he is not racist?
This George Floyd issue handling is proof of Trump's incapability of handling anything. Even Bush would've handled it better. What you do matters, and during situations like now, what you say matter too. Bush wouldn't have spoken divisively. Whatever's happening shouldn't happen, but just saying that this shouldn't happen is ignorance on the fact as to why it is happening. The way is Ahmed Arbery, Amy Cooper and George Floyd. Its 3 incidents at a time when abot 20% of the population is out only. And yet, its happening. This is ridiculous beyond measure.
White supremacy internet forums like stormfront have declined significantly over the last few decades. Their presence in this world which can be measured is nearly non-existent.
Someday people might wonder how state level government california can legalize federally banned substances like marijuana for medical purposes. What does the term "state sovereignty" mean. Do they support a world where Trump is able to overturn these types of policies?
Bush did not do that in response to a terrorist attack, that was just an excuse. He claimed there were weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found. He is a war criminal, just as Obama is, but he's worse.
Bush had reasons. Obama didnt and was terrible. He killed civilians with drones and airstriked a hospital. A hospital! No excuse. He also harmed our own people. He was part of that benghazi fiasco.
He was involved in the attacks by Ansar al-Sharia?
Or, by 'fiasco', do you mean he was part of all of those investigations that (as expected) found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoings by his administration?
Or, by 'fiasco', do you mean that he was the subject of those investigations?
If so, aye, I'd agree that those really were a fiasco
'Benghazi' has turned into a [lack of] talking point that people sprinkle into arguments against Obama/Clinton, when their mind blanks on actual talking points to use against them (it isn't like there aren't some actual, legitimate, arguments to make against them, without having to resort to conspiracy theories)
Iraq had literally nothing to do with the 991 terrorist attack. The terrorists were not even from that country. Bush simply bamboozled the US by pretending there were WMDs at iraq while in reality this was a simple and blatantly shameless oil war.
As for Obama, I would make a distinction in regards to his wars compared to bush: Obama didn't actually start the wars. Obama got involved in wars and conflicts that were already ongoing. As in, obama did not invade syria out of nowhere, there already was a civil war and obama decided to get involved and try to push out asad. Libya was about the same situation, a civil war started and obama bombed stuff to get rid of Gadaafi. Obama should not have gotten involved in the wars he did (the US has been without exception a destabilizing force in the middle east) but he simply was not nearly as bad as bush in that regard.
one thing we also have to consider... the US isn't the only third party in the middle east. China and russia are also pushing for their own interests in the region.... in that sense the US simply backing out is not necessarily healthy. Not sure of what US response should be to this sort of thing tbh.
And yeah, bhengazi is a blantant lie, there is no wrongdoing by obama or clinton in this regard... The whole thing is so shameless that when the committees who did the investigation were asked about results they said "People should read the reports and make up their own minds". That's not how investigations work. They are the investigators, they are supposed to tell us what they found and fully explain the context of what those findings are. The lot of them are hacks without an iota of integrity who are simply there to serve a political agenda regardless of truth and basic decency....
Regarding the Black lives matter movement. I'm not against it. I'm just pissed at how people try to justify their looting and sabotage including black and whitepeople. But i do hate when black and white people justify it and link it with the past slavery oppression and how it impacted the black morals and how it held them back in these standards which ain't an excuse and actually an insult for current blacks.
For me non lives matters but good people who are getting killed left and right.
Regarding the Black lives matter movement. I'm not against it. I'm just pissed at how people try to justify their looting and sabotage including black and whitepeople. But i do hate when black and white people justify it and link it with the past slavery oppression and how it impacted the black morals and how it held them back in these standards which ain't an excuse and actually an insult for current blacks.
For me non lives matters but good people who are getting killed left and right.
I dont think you can group it all together.
-justify sabotage snd destruction - see people toppling over defacing monuments to confederste generals/controversial racial mayors/police chiefs/politicians, seems vslid to get rid of them when cities have beem against them
-burning the precinct where the police officers originated-justify as pain and anger against a slow moving system that this building symbolizes
-grouping it as all current blacks feel insulted - no, hence why its a debate, seems mixed feeling thst some destruction/financial hurt to businesses snd corporations that do play a role in systematic racism (wells fargo bank for example), also its a widely held belief that the media would have largrly ignored this if there wasn't destruction/financial injury to businesses and it has enabled us to see numerous examples of police heavy handededness play out on live tv (atlanta cops tazing and destroying the college students and their car on live tv, reporters pushed and shoved and hit in peaceful crowds, elderly people shoved to the ground, cops running people down with their suvs)
-on another level the destruction of businesses can go into how the system has denies more minoroty owned businesses of loans and aid as compared to white ones (or giving minority owned business owners higher interest loans when all else is equal)
-why loot in the first place- well consider minoroties were harder hit by the pandemic and thus didnt work or have much if any income coming in (reduced hours if they did), thus, dome could he compelled to loot to resell the goods for a quick buck.
otherwise there are some people that just want to destroy and light fires
personally. there've been peaceful protests amd walks that are routinely ignored and get no response. why are we in this situation today agter so much protesting since BLM became a thing years ago?
Probably is, but most people don't make it look good at all. Most I've seen are usually more right-leaning or a label change away from being right/republican. I think I lean left on most issues, if not nearly all.
What's wrong with legal immigration?
Yea, i think we are alike in most issues, by the sound of it...
On immigration what i mean is, America will always need immigration and has great laws for it.... The abuse has to be stopped and if its an issue, illegal immigration has to be curbed. But when republicans get into power, they affect the legal immigation process making things harder... when democrats get back power or talk about the issues, they dont bother about the legal part, only talk about emotional side of things and illegal immigrants... Not all of them of course, but lots of them....
I think America has the best forms of Legal immigration. It considers what's required for the country to grow and is quite friendly to it.
There is no excuse over this lol, He invaded Iraq because Sadam was no longer a dog for Amercians, They wanted to make him an example to tame Arab leaders not to do the same and to listen to their orders.
Yeah Obama is bad as well. Infact all U.S presidents are criminals and pro Israelis but Bush is the worst to me since i lived my childhood watching Iraq war crimes on TV. Statues been destroyed, Kids having their heads missing. Extreme humiliating of civilians, Artifacts and gold being snatched by soliders, Oil being looted and shipped to U.S. All those pictures are still in my head. Whatsoever saying that he promoted democracy and ended terrorism is being over deluded.
If you read my posts, i am not defending Bush. I agree with you that he's made terrible foreign decisions... I am just calling out on you cos you are talking about a democratically elected person to be barbarically executed like an autocratic nation would..... We can argue over how bad he was or wasn't but we agree that he wasn't the best in foreign decisions.... But if you are going to call him a war criminal, you must call all American presidents as one, including LBJ and everyone after...
So the war criminal isn't Bush, its Uncle Sam himself. That is the point.
Bush did not do that in response to a terrorist attack, that was just an excuse. He claimed there were weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found. He is a war criminal, just as Obama is, but he's worse.
It was in response to the terroist attack. It was the wrong decision, but it was clearly with the failed intelligence received on chemical weapons ans WMD. You can say that he used 9/11 as an excuse and did it to profit if you want, but the fact is that he did do it in response to the attack. Again, that's just semantics and we can agree that the intention was profit / oil etc., but they wouldn't have got the opportunity without the attack on american soil....
And what does that have to do with the fact that Trump NOT CALLING white supremacists or mass shootings as one? PETA has a violent history, with attempts on bombing and stuff...not sure about green peace but it doesnt answer ANTIFA rally being called terrorist and white people not...
Iraq had literally nothing to do with the 991 terrorist attack. The terrorists were not even from that country. Bush simply bamboozled the US by pretending there were WMDs at iraq while in reality this was a simple and blatantly shameless oil war.
As for Obama, I would make a distinction in regards to his wars compared to bush: Obama didn't actually start the wars. Obama got involved in wars and conflicts that were already ongoing. As in, obama did not invade syria out of nowhere, there already was a civil war and obama decided to get involved and try to push out asad. Libya was about the same situation, a civil war started and obama bombed stuff to get rid of Gadaafi. Obama should not have gotten involved in the wars he did (the US has been without exception a destabilizing force in the middle east) but he simply was not nearly as bad as bush in that regard.
one thing we also have to consider... the US isn't the only third party in the middle east. China and russia are also pushing for their own interests in the region.... in that sense the US simply backing out is not necessarily healthy. Not sure of what US response should be to this sort of thing tbh.
And yeah, bhengazi is a blantant lie, there is no wrongdoing by obama or clinton in this regard... The whole thing is so shameless that when the committees who did the investigation were asked about results they said "People should read the reports and make up their own minds". That's not how investigations work. They are the investigators, they are supposed to tell us what they found and fully explain the context of what those findings are. The lot of them are hacks without an iota of integrity who are simply there to serve a political agenda regardless of truth and basic decency....
Fair point kkck. I'd like to add saying Obama did campaign saying he'll pull out troops immediately, but didnt. Reason of course is its more complicated than that and one being 3rd parties like you mentioned, the other being catering to your allies. America has been involved in the middle east forever and although its involvement has increased in recent times, withdrawing isnt straightforward.
Regarding the Black lives matter movement. I'm not against it. I'm just pissed at how people try to justify their looting and sabotage including black and whitepeople. But i do hate when black and white people justify it and link it with the past slavery oppression and how it impacted the black morals and how it held them back in these standards which ain't an excuse and actually an insult for current blacks.
For me non lives matters but good people who are getting killed left and right.
Lets not equate the looters and the protesters. Looting and burning happens in this nation even when their favorite teams win. Its an effect caused because of limited police mobility. The same is applicable here... Accusing the looters is acting like a distraction from the movement itself.
I saw someone post this line that really struck a chord
"All lives cannot matter till black lives matter". I think you mean the same but its important to make distinction. Saying anything but black lives matters at this point is failure to acknowledge alll the troubles these people have....
It was in response to the terroist attack. It was the wrong decision, but it was clearly with the failed intelligence received on chemical weapons ans WMD. You can say that he used 9/11 as an excuse and did it to profit if you want, but the fact is that he did do it in response to the attack. Again, that's just semantics and we can agree that the intention was profit / oil etc., but they wouldn't have got the opportunity without the attack on american soil....
So Afghan terrorists commit a terrible attack you invade Iraq? That makes no sense. That was obviously a the public excuse but anyone with a basic knowledge of history can clearly tell Bush killed millions of people for oil.
This lady is terrible. 
