I feel politically lost
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I'm the PP who was called troll/racist/amoral above. Yes, exactly. That person would have my vote. Democrat or Republican. Because, really, I don't want to vote for Trump. But, I don't see that in any of them. Tough on crime? Nope. Against illegal immigration? Nope. Reducing the middle class tax burdern? Nope. Not going to happen with Medicare for All. |
Anonymous
You are not being honest. Or you are getting your information from dishonest sources. At some point you need to take responsibility for your choices and your lack of real information. |
Anonymous
Can you explain what is dishonest? Just because you disagree with someone, doesn’t mean that person is being dishonest. I see nothing dishonest about either post. |
Anonymous
Decriminalization is not the same as open borders -- that's just a Faux News twist. Decriminalization means removing criminal penalties for illegal entry/overstay, not that anybody is allowed entry. It does mean no more concentration camps and baby jails, though. Providing health care without checking immigration status is a measure to reduce healthcare costs. Healthcare via emergency room visits is the most expensive way to provide healthcare and at least so far we provide emergency care regardless of criminal status. So until we're comfortable checking everyone's immigration status before treating them in the emergency room and we're will to kick people out to die on the street, just maybe, we should consider cheaper ways to provide care. There isn't a lot of intellectually consistent middle ground between providing universal healthcare and letting people die on the street. |
Anonymous
In this case, it does. Most of the D candidates have almost all of these things in their platforms. Some also want criminal justice reform, but that is not in conflict with being "tough on crime." Republicans are about raising taxes for the middle and lower incomes but dropping them for the very wealthy (including why amazon has a 0 tax bill on 11 billion in income). Literally NO DEMOCRAT is for that. If you include health care costs in with tax burden then every candidate is on board with reducing those costs for middle income families. I mean, there are differences between their plans but they all have the net effect of what this poster wants. No D candidates want illegal immigration. You can't really put up a list of things that are almost all the way covered by almost all the d candidates and say you don't see anyone doing them, and not get called out for dishonesty. |
Anonymous
NP. I'll take "tough on crime" for 800, Alex. "Tough on crime" is coded language for the system that has resulted in 10% of our adult population in incarcerated in for-profit prison. It a system where the decision to incarcerate and the length of incarceration have been proven to have strong racial bias against black and latino defendants at both the state and federal level. We've had multiple cases where the juvenile justice system has involved direct cash payments for conviction and the prison lobby spends millions of dollars every year to secure their revenue stream. Meanwhile, violent crime continues to be down across the board. On a somewhat related note, Prohibition has proven to be 1) completely ineffective in reducing drug usage and 2) disastrous for American foreign policy and stability in Latin America. |
Anonymous
Or disingenuous. Yeah. Several D candidates are Rs by the standards of previous generations. |
Anonymous
+3 nothing new under the sun |
Anonymous
Your 10% figure is not correct! Where I live, homes and cars get broken into ALL the time! There is drug addiction, tons of homelessness. I live in a nice area, too! Poor neighborhoods have it worse, it isn’t right. In addition to “tough on crime” (you said nothing to dissuade me, btw), I believe in a robust, aggressive program for low-income families to prevent pregnancy, provide parenting programs and mentors, and try to stop circle of violence and poverty. |
Anonymous
|
Some of these issues should be championed at the local state level, and should be expectations you have from STATE representatives. Can you articulate what your state congress person has done for your state in the last few years?
Yes, of course top cover in the u.s. Congress and presidency on the initiative adds power and substantiates issues, supports finding. But choosing a President based on who will better fix all the potholes in DC is silly. Presidents handle the problems that the toughest experts in the world haven’t been able to resolve. Domestic violence, poverty, welfare, drug addiction - because those are community issues that are really close to home, it’s really important to have someone outside of the Oval Office also advocating in your district. Just something to consider for those voting in ANY election. |
Anonymous
|
"Tough on Crime" has resulted in a woman inadvertently voting in the wrong precinct and another woman sending her kid to a better school and another woman selling churros on a subway all being incarcerated while white collar crimes like extortion, bribery, voting fraud, police shooting people in the back, police murding people sitting in a car getting off with nothing, or not even being charged.
How is Mike Flynn not in jail? How did Papadopolous only get two weeks? |
Anonymous
I feel you. The two party system is so antiquated. I am socially progressive and fiscally libertarian. Luckily there is a perfect candidate for millions like myself -- Andrew Yang. He doesn't judge the voters of either political spectrum, and only talks about the merits of a set of forward thinking solutions. Yang doesn't believe illegal immigration is the cause of the loss of millions jobs in the swing states. But he understands why many people felt that way. He intends to solve that problem. |
Anonymous
How? |
Anonymous
| At the end of the day, you have to decide if you are ok with the lies and corruption on Election Day 2020. We are way past policies at this point. |
Anonymous
Yup. It’s past thepolicy, and now about the principle. |