It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul: Ilhan Omar deserves 'rebuke over trying to say we have a rotten country’

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Xtrozero

I’ll enter in a discussion with you. I’m starting by reading about the Green New Deal. It’s a non-binding resolution, so it would serve as an ideal goal.

I think it is factual that climate change is real and will have an effect on the Earth. What to do about it, though? It looks like they want to decarbonize the economy 100% by 2030. That would help climate change, if other countries followed suit, but it might disrupt jobs and will certainly anger a few rich people in the carbon business. I like creative policies, like planting trees and I read of something to do with the ocean. I would recommend doing something, but not 100%.


To accomplish this we need to go full socialism with massive Government control over much of what today is privatized. Once again the left talks about massive changes as if they were easy changes. They are talking about basically shelving our constitutional Republic, so is that what you want? Your "MIGHT" is huge too...The evil rich, I love that narrative to justify everything...what about the poor who can not buy a electric car, can not cut using oil/gas AND they get carbon taxed to death for something they can not change. The rich can change anytime they want...

"IF" Big IF like IF China followed suit...don't hold your breath... here is your "IF"



What about something like plastics? We can dump America but this isn't changing anytime soon.





I have no idea what a federal jobs guarantee is, but it sounds ripe for criticism.


Once again who pays for it? Government is run at a loss, and many of these great ideas come to 10s of trillions in dollars.



These days, there are people working full-time who can barely afford an apartment to themselves. Colleges have gotten more expensive. If this trend continues, it could mean a decreasing middle-class, which is not good for social stability - as you can see here, it leads to policies like this being proposed. It is in everyone’s best interest for it to be possible to earn a living wage in America. We can’t have the wealth gap increase too much while letting the middle-class sink.


"to themselves"

Do you think single living is a right or privilege? I had roommates until I could afford to live on my own, seems not to be the standard of today's younger crowd. At some point you all need to look at what does it really take to live. Much of the world live in groups/families to create synergy in spreading expenses.



At any rate, the solution is not to deport these congresswomen or smear them or spread lies about them, those are retarded tactics that make it look like Republicans have no coherent argument against the proposal. The best tactic would be to offer a conservative counter-proposal that addresses the same issues in a conservative manner.


What Trump said was wrong, and he back away from it. What much of what these women say daily is wrong too but it is OK for them to say it over and over and no one puts them to the test as you all do to Trump. This is called a double standard...




edit on 23-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

How, exactly, is healthcare for all shelving the Constitutional Republic? We already have socialist organizations, such as the military, police force, libraries, social security, etc.

No one is going to follow suit to combat climate change if we don't lead by example. It could be done with little government control. The government could offer incentives to corporations to combat climate change, for example.

As far as going communist, this is simply not the case. The people would still have say, not government oligarchs. Still, it would not be simple to instigate these changes.

Some of the ideas like guaranteeing a job for everyone I could see being a bit crazy, I'm no expert, but that seems like government control would have to be used.

As for paying for things, I think we should enforce the rich paying taxes. Right now, they get away with not paying any, in many cases. Some corporations actually receive money from the government while paying zero taxes. They are not paying their fair share. Trump gave massive tax cuts to the rich that are not going to help the poor (it seems as if trickle-down economics doesn't work in reality). These tax cuts cost 2.3 trillion dollars.

I believe that with hard work and making the right decisions, it should be possible to have a family, own a house, save for retirement, go to college, etc... But this is simply not the case for many Americans. It is not about entitlement, but just compensation for hard work. If we live in a nation where someone is born to a rich family, and with little work, is able to live lavishly while someone born poor works hard every day and has to live in a community living situation, even after getting an education and making the right choices, this is not a healthy society and not a stable society, especially if it starts to affect more and more Americans.

I'll bet that much of the world lives in communal housing, but they would probably be in the "#hole countries" that Trump is so against.

Trump backed off supporting the "Send her back" chant for one day, and then the next day, doubled down and called the people at the rally "patriots." It remains to be seen how much Trump continues this rhetoric, I'm glad you agree it is wrong, some conservative representatives in my state (Washington State) condemned his recent Tweet and the racist chant.

I simply don't think that having a different perspective than conservatives is morally wrong. It is, however, ethically wrong to try and deport people with different views than the President. It isn't a double-standard, it is supporting free speech. The President does not have free speech to shut down people with opposing viewpoints, this would negate the whole purpose of the First Amendment. Now, he is not going to go to jail for his Tweets. People just pointed out that they are a step in the wrong direction for an American President.

Should racism be suppressed? Possibly, since that takes away the freedom of individuals in the United States to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. People probably argued that they had the freedom to keep slaves. Just like murder is illegal - shouldn't we have the freedom to murder? No, because it takes away another's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

If the President disagrees with these four congresswomen, he should engage in dialogue about policy, the same as everyone else. If the country votes for representatives that start socialist institutions using the process outlined in the constitution, that is entirely constitutional. It is not constitutional to stop them with authoritarian means. In order to pass something such as the New Green Deal (which is just a non-binding statement, first of all) Democrats would have to control the House, Senate, and Presidency more than likely. Not only that, there are many Democrats that oppose the measure. So there are checks and balances in place right now to keep radical ideas like that from happening.

However, the poorer the populace of the United States gets, the more likely radical ideas will be legislated. So it is in everyone's best interest to do something about this.

You make good points I agree with about how hard an undertaking like that mentioned in the GND would be, also it could affect the poor, that is possible. It is entirely possible that even if we reduced our carbon emissions 100%, other countries would not follow suit, and climate change would still happen. Climate change will not be an easy problem to solve.

I also think that if we want to combat climate change, it would be an easier undertaking if it were not mixed with those social programs - they should be separate bills or whatever.

Thanks for the discussion, feel free to reply with more. I frequent ATS to get in discussions with conservatives so that I don't remain in my liberal bubble.
edit on 23pmTue, 23 Jul 2019 19:57:13 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
nvm

edit on 23-7-2019 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

How, exactly, is healthcare for all shelving the Constitutional Republic? We already have socialist organizations, such as the military, police force, libraries, social security, etc.


For this about 12% actually need it outside of work that provides. The way it is now it would be expensive, so the whole system needs to be retooled from the ground up. The cost of your free health care is 20+ trillion as it is right now. The rich can't pay for it.



No one is going to follow suit to combat climate change if we don't lead by example. It could be done with little government control. The government could offer incentives to corporations to combat climate change, for example.


Climate change is happening, so what are you going to do with the grand solar minimum that will affect us for the next 30+ years with what is predicted very cold temps?



As far as going communist, this is simply not the case. The people would still have say, not government oligarchs. Still, it would not be simple to instigate these changes.


Really? You really think the Goverment will give people a say...pipe dream. More control means less say, so total control means you are just a number in a sea of masses.



As for paying for things, I think we should enforce the rich paying taxes. Right now, they get away with not paying any, in many cases. Some corporations actually receive money from the government while paying zero taxes. They are not paying their fair share. Trump gave massive tax cuts to the rich that are not going to help the poor (it seems as if trickle-down economics doesn't work in reality). These tax cuts cost 2.3 trillion dollars.


They pay more than 50% of America that pay about nothing, hell my 40k per year is about more than 30% of what Americans pay total...is that a fair share? BTW the rich pay the vast majority of our taxes and if you taxed all rich that make 1 million or more 100% that would come out to only 600 billion per year..100%, so thinking the RICH will pay is a narrative that the liberals push.



I believe that with hard work and making the right decisions, it should be possible to have a family, own a house, save for retirement, go to college, etc... But this is simply not the case for many Americans.


You really believe that? I live well, very well just making the right decisions in life so far. No entitlements...



It is not about entitlement, but just compensation for hard work. If we live in a nation where someone is born to a rich family, and with little work, is able to live lavishly while someone born poor works hard every day and has to live in a community living situation, even after getting an education and making the right choices, this is not a healthy society and not a stable society, especially if it starts to affect more and more Americans.


Have's and have's nots, What do you consider rich to the point of being born rich? Out of 340 million people that number is quite small and somehow they get all the good jobs? lol




I'll bet that much of the world lives in communal housing, but they would probably be in the "#hole countries" that Trump is so against.


There are a good number of crappy countries, but take Japan where many generations live in the same house and share all bills, is that a crap country?



Trump backed off supporting the "Send her back" chant for one day, and then the next day, doubled down and called the people at the rally "patriots." It remains to be seen how much Trump continues this rhetoric, I'm glad you agree it is wrong, some conservative representatives in my state (Washington State) condemned his recent Tweet and the racist chant.


He said he disagreed with their chant...OK



I simply don't think that having a different perspective than conservatives is morally wrong. It is, however, ethically wrong to try and deport people with different views than the President. It isn't a double-standard, it is supporting free speech. The President does not have free speech to shut down people with opposing viewpoints, this would negate the whole purpose of the First Amendment. Now, he is not going to go to jail for his Tweets. People just pointed out that they are a step in the wrong direction for an American President.


Well he actually never said "deport"...he said to go some country and fix their crappy socialism then come back and tell us how you did it. He also never tried to deprt as you may have suggested... lol



Should racism be suppressed? Possibly, since that takes away the freedom of individuals in the United States to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. People probably argued that they had the freedom to keep slaves. Just like murder is illegal - shouldn't we have the freedom to murder? No, because it takes away another's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.


Can only whites be racist, and is everything white racist.. here is the double standard..



Thanks for the discussion, feel free to reply with more. I frequent ATS to get in discussions with conservatives so that I don't remain in my liberal bubble.






edit on 24-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join