If you are a republican please answer me this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked hard as a software developer

I was replaced by an h1b. I saw many coworkers also replaced by h1bs

When will democrat start helping people like me?

When will democrats fight for US workers. ?

When will you join with Democrats and your fellow workers to get tough with your Republican corporate owner who brought in the H1Bs?

Trump just said you are talentless and hence why the H1Bs will remain. They just need to pay a bigger bribe to his government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you actually walk past a starving child and just shrug your shoulders and say well guess you should have worked harder and pulled yourself up from poverty. Sorry not sorry.

From my view point republicans as a whole at this point would actually not hesitate to shoot a person if they got in the way of their “America (white person) first agenda”. Please tell me I am wrong.

Yep, most do.

There is a TikToker who calls churches pretending to be a single mom with a 2 month old baby who hasn’t eaten in a day because she can’t afford formula. She asks the churches for formula - not money, says she’ll come over and get it - and almost every single church she’s called has said “we don’t do that sorry not sorry”. A mosque and a Buddhist temple both gave her formula.

Even more disgusting, one of the pastors of these churches justified this with “Islam requires mosques to help the poor but Christianity doesn’t”. Another pastor of an megachurch appeared to apologize wearing a $600 shirt.

It’s disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you actually walk past a starving child and just shrug your shoulders and say well guess you should have worked harder and pulled yourself up from poverty. Sorry not sorry.

From my view point republicans as a whole at this point would actually not hesitate to shoot a person if they got in the way of their “America (white person) first agenda”. Please tell me I am wrong.

No one in the U.S. is starving. Come on, even our children are fat.

If I saw a starving child in the street, my first question would be where are your parents and why aren’t THEY caring for this child? If we really cared for these kids, SNAP would not allow people to purchase items that have zero nutritional value. And very strict limits on how long someone can use them. No one should ever be allowed to generationally be on SNAP.

And holy hyperbole Batman with the “ republicans as a whole at this point would actually not hesitate to shoot a person if they got in the way of their “America (white person) first agenda”.

You are not well if you really believe this. Seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you actually walk past a starving child and just shrug your shoulders and say well guess you should have worked harder and pulled yourself up from poverty. Sorry not sorry.

From my view point republicans as a whole at this point would actually not hesitate to shoot a person if they got in the way of their “America (white person) first agenda”. Please tell me I am wrong.

Yep, most do.

There is a TikToker who calls churches pretending to be a single mom with a 2 month old baby who hasn’t eaten in a day because she can’t afford formula. She asks the churches for formula - not money, says she’ll come over and get it - and almost every single church she’s called has said “we don’t do that sorry not sorry”. A mosque and a Buddhist temple both gave her formula.

Even more disgusting, one of the pastors of these churches justified this with “Islam requires mosques to help the poor but Christianity doesn’t”. Another pastor of an megachurch appeared to apologize wearing a $600 shirt.

It’s disgusting.

Helping the poor is one of Christ's core commands in the Gospels. Any pastor who says they do not have a duty to help the poor is a fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you actually walk past a starving child and just shrug your shoulders and say well guess you should have worked harder and pulled yourself up from poverty. Sorry not sorry.

From my view point republicans as a whole at this point would actually not hesitate to shoot a person if they got in the way of their “America (white person) first agenda”. Please tell me I am wrong.

As a conservative, who sometimes votes republicans, I'll give you my perspective. I was not happy with Trump on the withholding of SNAP funds. It was cruel and wrong.

So you are correct - Trump was/is on the wrong side of this.

There are so many big and important policy issues we as a country are fighting over. Despite this one being bad for Trump and the Republicans, it does not move the needle on making the Democrats more palatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I respect that you support SNAP benefits, and I agree that helping families who are struggling to afford food is important. But supporting the idea behind SNAP doesn’t mean we should ignore the serious problems in how related funding is being managed.
There is corruption and inefficiency behind some of these federal nutrition programs, and pretending everything is working perfectly does a disservice to the very people SNAP is supposed to help. If the system were functioning the way politicians claim, we wouldn’t still see food banks overwhelmed, families waiting in long lines, and working people relying on donated meals just to get through the week.
Supporting SNAP shouldn’t mean automatically defending every layer of bureaucracy surrounding it. It should mean making sure the money actually reaches families — not getting lost in administrative waste, questionable contracts, or programs that sound good on paper but fail in practice. When people talk about these issues, they’re not attacking SNAP itself; they’re calling out a system that needs transparency, accountability, and reform.
If we truly care about fighting hunger, we should be willing to look honestly at where the funding goes, where it’s failing, and who benefits from the inefficiencies. Real support for struggling families means fixing what’s broken — not pretending everything works just because a particular political party says it does.

Yes, SNAP has its issues - fraud, administrative overhead and so on. But in comparison to the private sector, SNAP actually has significantly less fraud (1-2% for SNAP vs 5-7% for private sector), administrative overhead (5-7% of program cost vs 15-40% in private sector). In the grand scheme of things, SNAP, Medicare and other government programs are run more tightly and with less overhead than much of the private sector in comparison. And, the problems that do exist are fixable. It's deranged that Republicans want to use those issues as rationale to throw the baby out with the bathwater even knowing that the private sector has a far worse track record.

They run with low overhead because they are not looking for fraud. So lower numerator and higher denominator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After you, OP.

How many dollars have you sent to hungry children?

How many refugees are living in your home?

How many cancer stricken children’s gofundmes have you contributed to?

How many wells have you built in Africa?

How many single moms have you personally assisted?

PS republicans give more $$ to charity than democrats https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-generous-liberals-conservatives-081500677.html

The Republicans, at least in 2013, were giving to their churches, so, I’d be very careful about seeing them as being “more generous “. This might reflect higher percentages of church membership and forced tithing or other factors beyond generosity. Person A writes checks to get their pastor another fancy car. Person B donates a smaller amount to a well regarded charity or donates winter coats to a school. These things are not the same, so a lot more information is needed to support your generalization PP.

My cash donations are very small, but my career was spent making far less money than I otherwise could have made because I worked for nonprofit agencies with at-risk kids. I guess the Republican who gave money to support his church has me beat. I’m not disagreeing with the conclusions— just suggesting that there are many ways to measure generosity that aren’t captured by this article, including the kinds of activities that you yourself described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After you, OP.

How many dollars have you sent to hungry children?

How many refugees are living in your home?

How many cancer stricken children’s gofundmes have you contributed to?

How many wells have you built in Africa?

How many single moms have you personally assisted?

PS republicans give more $$ to charity than democrats https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-generous-liberals-conservatives-081500677.html

[/quote

Np but here are my answers. I’m a Dem.

I donate to food banks and my family volunteers.
Our house is too small to house refugees.
I donate regularly to cancer GoFundMes.
I’ve never been to Africa.
I help out single mons all the time.

You?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked hard as a software developer

I was replaced by an h1b. I saw many coworkers also replaced by h1bs

When will democrat start helping people like me?

When will democrats fight for US workers. ?

Non-English speaker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After you, OP.

How many dollars have you sent to hungry children?

How many refugees are living in your home?

How many cancer stricken children’s gofundmes have you contributed to?

How many wells have you built in Africa?

How many single moms have you personally assisted?

PS republicans give more $$ to charity than democrats https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-generous-liberals-conservatives-081500677.html

NP. Don't be so intellectually lazy. First of all, there is no individual level data on party affiliation linked to giving, just separate population statistics on what percentage was donated vs. which candidate got the most electoral votes. Second, what are they counting as "charity". My guess is they just looked at tax return data. No surprise Utah gave the most...Mormons are required to tithe 10% of their income to their church, which is tax deductible. Continuing down the list, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,... since we have no information to the contrary, it seems to me that plenty of these donations could be to folks own churches, especially those mega churches with roller rinks and movies theaters. I wouldn't assume much at all was going to anyone who actually needed it.

And since you just seem to be choosing random internet articles here is one for you. One good quote: "Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported." https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/

Your article confirms that Republicans do give more. Truth hurts.

Unsubstantiated speculation about the deserving ness of the beneficiaries of the giving is the definition of intellectual laziness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked hard as a software developer

I was replaced by an h1b. I saw many coworkers also replaced by h1bs

When will democrat start helping people like me?

When will democrats fight for US workers. ?

Trump hires hundreds of aliens every year. Why do you think he is helping you?

Exactly. Trump is helping himself.

It is funny as well because you are a Republican asking for more regulation so you can be given a job though a DEI program (putting white citizens ahead of minority guest visa holders).

While I am NOT against this, I do think businesses should be given incentives to hire American workers. I am curious why regulations are okay sometimes, but then pointed at by Republicans as being too much government interference and disallowing the market to work and/or resulting in government waste.

Regulations are necessary for governance.

[Anonymous]

I really wish people would separate their feelings from strategy.

Sometimes it seems to help when you feed a person upfront. But when you continue, you create a dependence , an unrealistic lopsided relationship that is not beneficial to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Or we could pay workers a living wage.

[Anonymous]

Op - I guess it just astounds me how many republicans arguments are

- let’s just get rid of Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and any sort of government aid for the poor (but not social security of course)

- no refugees! Screw them!

- immigrants - let’s end the whole system! We don’t need them!

And then claim to be the party of “christianity”. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I respect that you support SNAP benefits, and I agree that helping families who are struggling to afford food is important. But supporting the idea behind SNAP doesn’t mean we should ignore the serious problems in how related funding is being managed.
There is corruption and inefficiency behind some of these federal nutrition programs, and pretending everything is working perfectly does a disservice to the very people SNAP is supposed to help. If the system were functioning the way politicians claim, we wouldn’t still see food banks overwhelmed, families waiting in long lines, and working people relying on donated meals just to get through the week.
Supporting SNAP shouldn’t mean automatically defending every layer of bureaucracy surrounding it. It should mean making sure the money actually reaches families — not getting lost in administrative waste, questionable contracts, or programs that sound good on paper but fail in practice. When people talk about these issues, they’re not attacking SNAP itself; they’re calling out a system that needs transparency, accountability, and reform.
If we truly care about fighting hunger, we should be willing to look honestly at where the funding goes, where it’s failing, and who benefits from the inefficiencies. Real support for struggling families means fixing what’s broken — not pretending everything works just because a particular political party says it does.

No, it’s because Rs prefer the role of white savior. They get the credit while also getting to choose who they help and who they don’t.