Republican NBC News debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican is fine with the unjust death of an innocent person in the pursuit of executing guilty persons. In other words Republicans thinks the execution of an innocent person by the state is just collateral damage and a trade-off for the ability of the state to kill guilty criminals.

Democrats think that one innocent person's death is too much of a sacrifice to justify allowing the state to kill its own citizens.

Np- go ahead and pull that thread a little further. Pro choice voters are not ok with risking the health and safety of a single living woman. Forced birthers believe that a few dead women is just the price of making sure imaginary sluts are punished with a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican is fine with the unjust death of an innocent person in the pursuit of executing guilty persons. In other words Republicans thinks the execution of an innocent person by the state is just collateral damage and a trade-off for the ability of the state to kill guilty criminals.

Democrats think that one innocent person's death is too much of a sacrifice to justify allowing the state to kill its own citizens.


Because many are bullies, who need stuff oversimplified …which is why they like Trump.

They either don’t get or don’t care about morals, principles, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley is so damn reasonable .

Are you sure she is a Republican?

She and maybe Christie at times are clearly the only people on that stage that can articulate a case for being considered for POTUS.

Agree. I would feel comfortable with either of them as POTUS and I generally vote for democrats. Depressing that Trump is so far ahead.

+1, I think they are doing a great job staying the course for when Trump inevitably is convicted of something in one of the criminal matters. The Dems should be worried if Haley somehow emerges with the nomination. I’ve never voted for a R for president before but I would vote for Haley over Biden.

I really don't see republican voters lining up behind Nimarata against Trump.

Haley won two terms as governor of in the conservatively red state of South Carolina. Republicans didn't hesitate to line up for her then and they wouldn't in a general presidential election either. Overtaking Trump for the nomination may not be possible but as the PP noted, if/when Trump was forced out with legal troubles, Republicans would have a replacement they could actually be proud of.

A much better case scenario for the country would be both Trump and Biden dropping out with the parties instead nominating people like Haley and Whitmer. What a breath of fresh air it would be for the country to have a choice between two experienced executives that are in the prime of their careers and moderate enough to lead all the people in fair manner. Both Whitmer and Haley are obviously more fit than Trump and Biden to serve the country well as POTUS and it would be entertaining for all the right reasons to see them together on a debate stage as opposed to the Trump/Biden debates of 2020 that were frankly an embarrassment for the country. The political policy differences between the parties aren't the cause of our dysfunction in government; it's the people in leadership positions in government that are causing the dysfunction. I certainly wouldn't agree with many of the political viewpoints of both Haley and Whitmer but I would be content with either of them in office knowing we have a very decent and highly competent person serving in the most important and powerful position in the world.

Dream on. This country won't elect a competent woman or we would never have been stuck with trump for 4 years. One day yes but in 2024? We just overturned roe for Pete's sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds like a good idea to me.

+1
Also, does "Angry Staffer" really think he's still relevant?

More relevant than you

Sick burn, middle schooler!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

I really don't even know how to respond to your stupidity. JFC. This is not a "gotcha." This is beyond pathetic - how embarrassing for you.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

+1
I'm pro-choice and I can understand this. The PP is just a deliberately obtuse fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican is fine with the unjust death of an innocent person in the pursuit of executing guilty persons. In other words Republicans thinks the execution of an innocent person by the state is just collateral damage and a trade-off for the ability of the state to kill guilty criminals.

Democrats think that one innocent person's death is too much of a sacrifice to justify allowing the state to kill its own citizens.

Well, except for all those innocent babies... funny how those are just "collateral damage" to Democrats. Do you even hear yourself?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley is so damn reasonable .

Are you sure she is a Republican?

She and maybe Christie at times are clearly the only people on that stage that can articulate a case for being considered for POTUS.

Agree. I would feel comfortable with either of them as POTUS and I generally vote for democrats. Depressing that Trump is so far ahead.

+1, I think they are doing a great job staying the course for when Trump inevitably is convicted of something in one of the criminal matters. The Dems should be worried if Haley somehow emerges with the nomination. I’ve never voted for a R for president before but I would vote for Haley over Biden.

I really don't see republican voters lining up behind Nimarata against Trump.

Haley won two terms as governor of in the conservatively red state of South Carolina. Republicans didn't hesitate to line up for her then and they wouldn't in a general presidential election either. Overtaking Trump for the nomination may not be possible but as the PP noted, if/when Trump was forced out with legal troubles, Republicans would have a replacement they could actually be proud of.

A much better case scenario for the country would be both Trump and Biden dropping out with the parties instead nominating people like Haley and Whitmer. What a breath of fresh air it would be for the country to have a choice between two experienced executives that are in the prime of their careers and moderate enough to lead all the people in fair manner. Both Whitmer and Haley are obviously more fit than Trump and Biden to serve the country well as POTUS and it would be entertaining for all the right reasons to see them together on a debate stage as opposed to the Trump/Biden debates of 2020 that were frankly an embarrassment for the country. The political policy differences between the parties aren't the cause of our dysfunction in government; it's the people in leadership positions in government that are causing the dysfunction. I certainly wouldn't agree with many of the political viewpoints of both Haley and Whitmer but I would be content with either of them in office knowing we have a very decent and highly competent person serving in the most important and powerful position in the world.

Dream on. This country won't elect a competent woman or we would never have been stuck with trump for 4 years. One day yes but in 2024? We just overturned roe for Pete's sake.

This country will absolutely elect a competent woman - the CORRECT competent woman.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haley is so damn reasonable .

Are you sure she is a Republican?

She and maybe Christie at times are clearly the only people on that stage that can articulate a case for being considered for POTUS.

Agree. I would feel comfortable with either of them as POTUS and I generally vote for democrats. Depressing that Trump is so far ahead.

+1, I think they are doing a great job staying the course for when Trump inevitably is convicted of something in one of the criminal matters. The Dems should be worried if Haley somehow emerges with the nomination. I’ve never voted for a R for president before but I would vote for Haley over Biden.

I really don't see republican voters lining up behind Nimarata against Trump.

Haley won two terms as governor of in the conservatively red state of South Carolina. Republicans didn't hesitate to line up for her then and they wouldn't in a general presidential election either. Overtaking Trump for the nomination may not be possible but as the PP noted, if/when Trump was forced out with legal troubles, Republicans would have a replacement they could actually be proud of.

A much better case scenario for the country would be both Trump and Biden dropping out with the parties instead nominating people like Haley and Whitmer. What a breath of fresh air it would be for the country to have a choice between two experienced executives that are in the prime of their careers and moderate enough to lead all the people in fair manner. Both Whitmer and Haley are obviously more fit than Trump and Biden to serve the country well as POTUS and it would be entertaining for all the right reasons to see them together on a debate stage as opposed to the Trump/Biden debates of 2020 that were frankly an embarrassment for the country. The political policy differences between the parties aren't the cause of our dysfunction in government; it's the people in leadership positions in government that are causing the dysfunction. I certainly wouldn't agree with many of the political viewpoints of both Haley and Whitmer but I would be content with either of them in office knowing we have a very decent and highly competent person serving in the most important and powerful position in the world.

Dream on. This country won't elect a competent woman or we would never have been stuck with trump for 4 years. One day yes but in 2024? We just overturned roe for Pete's sake.

This country will absolutely elect a competent woman - the CORRECT competent woman.
DP

Ok. Sure. So much respect for women out here.

This country will end up with a pro-choice male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

DP, you missed one of the points the PP made. How many have been put to death wrongly? How many are serving life sentences wrongly?

Answer: a lot

You cant undo a death penalty where DNA or other evidence exonerates the (wrongly) convicted.

Fewer than you think. And far, far too many violent criminals are walking free. Google the horrible story of Jillian Ludwig and get back to us.

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican is fine with the unjust death of an innocent person in the pursuit of executing guilty persons. In other words Republicans thinks the execution of an innocent person by the state is just collateral damage and a trade-off for the ability of the state to kill guilty criminals.

Democrats think that one innocent person's death is too much of a sacrifice to justify allowing the state to kill its own citizens.

Well, except for all those innocent babies... funny how those are just "collateral damage" to Democrats. Do you even hear yourself?
DP

You are talking about fetuses and embryos? That a woman or girl decides she does not want to gestate to become a baby? Because she is a life here in this world and her life and bodily autonomy matter.

It’s not the state ending those pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

+1
I'm pro-choice and I can understand this. The PP is just a deliberately obtuse fool.

PP is reiterating the dogma of the Catholic Church. Are they being bride about their position on respect for life?

It’s easy to love the innocent. Far harder to love the not so innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

+1
I'm pro-choice and I can understand this. The PP is just a deliberately obtuse fool.

PP is reiterating the dogma of the Catholic Church. Are they being bride about their position on respect for life?


*being obtuse
It’s easy to love the innocent. Far harder to love the not so innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will vote for Haley if she bans Tik-Tok!
Mom of 11 year old boys

You know you can ban it in your house, right? Or put controls in their phones.

Haley doesn’t. So how bad can it really be?

WTH. Haley’s children are adults. Her daughter is a married adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymousi wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally! A Republican says that if you are pro-life, it has to cover the whole life, not just in the womb.

Points to Chris Christie for highlighting the party’s hypocrisy on this point. (Another obstacle to MAGAS supporting him!)

I have long wanted a journalist to confront so-called “right to lifers” to reveal their stance on the death penalty!!

You do know that the death penalty... is for violent criminals, right? Wow.

Violent criminals…who are alive.

So, if you are PRO-LIFE..,

The life of an innocent baby is more valuable than the life of a violent criminal.

No, it's not. If you're pro-life, you believe in the sanctity of life. That doesn't change based on if you like the person or not. Also, consider the number of people who have been wrongly sentenced to death. More than one should be a no go for pro-lifers, but it's not for some odd reason. That doesn't even begin to untangle the systemic failures of our justice system, and the reality that an imperfect system should NOT be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies.

It absolutely is. A baby is 100% innocent. A violent criminal is anything but. If you are so stupid and immoral that you don’t see the difference between the two, there is little hope for you.

So much for the sanctity of life “from conception to natural death” amiright?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is the biggest problem the GOP has right now - they lack ideas. Their only ideas are to either try to
a. keep pushing the same old ideas that have already been proven failures, or
b. to just take a knee-jerk opposition position to the other side's ideas, or worse yet,
c. to oppose the other side's ideas and then take credit for them when they prove popular and successful.