Is this true, or false?

MayCaesar

Well, 7 states with the highest homelessness rates (Washington DC, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Massachusetts) are all heavily Democrat-leaning, so I am not sure who should be angry.

People who say that those who advocate for reduction of welfare spending dislike it when poor kids get to eat free lunches - are intellectually dishonest. Almost nobody likes it when someone is malnutritioned; people only disagree on what the best solution to this problem is. California seems to have the worst homelessness and poverty issues in the US right now, and it also happens to have the highest welfare spending per capita in the US, highest taxation rates, etc. Clearly blunt taxation and welfare spending is not the way to solve these issues, and a more delicate approach is needed.

TKDB

The Truth, some Liberals will protect, the illegal immigrants, and the criminals, and the offenders of the United State's, while at the same time, quietly ignoring the law abiding citizens of the U.S., because they like to play their Pandering Games with the public.

The Republicans, are trying to do the best that they can, without having to negotiate around the Liberal roadblocks, that the Liberals have built, around their pro illegal immigrant supporter, and pro criminal supporter, or pro offender supporter fan- bases, being that some of the Liberals are doing a great job, of in a sense, Politically kissing up to those same fan-base followers?


The illegal immigrants in the United States, for the most part get free medical care, on the legal US taxpayers some.

Race on race gun violence happens every day in the United States, but I've yet to see any individuals of the same race taking to the streets to protest race on race gun violence or murders?

Kids are getting killed just like the adults are, but no one is brave enough to protest race on race murder, or gun violence?

But if a Caucasian police officer, shoots another individual of a different race, the streets are filled with individuals protesting that kind of a shooting?

If a black police officer, were to shoot a black criminal, or offender, will the same black community, that protested the Caucasian police officer shooting, take to those same streets to protest a black police officer, shooting a black criminal, or offender?

The rest of the non Liberal Voters, are angry right now, because they are watching, some of the illegal immigrants, and some of the criminals, or the offenders, getting a free (lunch) or in other word's, Taxpayer Funded Handouts, being given away by those same pandering Liberals, which is grossly unfair, and unequal to the rest of the non Liberal public?

Happy_Killbot

Assuming this is about impeachment, I don't think angry is the best word to use.

Maybe indignant or in denial. The assumption is that the process will die in the senate, that no matter what the impeachment will be overturned and nothing will happen to Trump.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; I find the insinuation insulting and yet laughable and yet hypocritical coming from one who celebrates the mutilation of babies in the womb...the atheist-progressive socialist democrat is the epitome of stupidity, ignorance, foolishness, demonic deception...a true cancerous boil of the butt of America. 

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD I don't get it, why does seeing a poor kid eating a free lunch upset you so much?

Isn't your god supposed to tell you to be nice to people and provide for the needy and such?

If you really followed the word of Jesus it seems like that would be a natural path to acceptance of a new social order through his spiritual message.

Maybe you are just spiritually and mentally ill.

smoothie

@RickeyD I find your insinuation "insulting and yet laughable and yet hypocritical" coming from someone who rallies for discrimination and authoritarian rule over a free country. Hows forcing those babies into poor families and letting them slowly starve to death, or forcing them into foster homes to live a life without their parents' love? Seems much more humane...

Also you repost that picture again and again thinking a christian mom facebook post is somehow factually correct.

1. Most republicans allow abortion in the case of rape or incest, meaning they are pro abortion.

2. Only a small percentage of democrats label themselves as supporting your version of socialism.

3. There are athiest and christian democrats and republicans. They do not fit in one box (party)

4. Republicans want a bigger government when it suits their social conservative values when rallying against LGBT and secularism. It is hypocritical to make this point.

5. The republican party is very split on same-sex marriage and most members (like Trump) have stopped trying to discriminate against it.

6. Democrats are not "anti-gun" they are pro gun control (still allowing guns) and only a handful of democrats want guns confiscated.

I could keep going but I won't bother since im probably muted, and is not the main subject of this thread. Not every member of a party resembles your blanket statement and nobody supports a party entirely.

To answer the question, it is true that most republicans are angry right now.

RickeyD

@smoothie

1) No child should be murdered for the crime of the child's father...you're incorrect.

2) If you vote Democrat in 2020, you vote for socialism. Own it, atheist.

3) You cannot love Jesus Christ and support-vote for Satan i.e. Progressive-Socialist-Democrat.

4) Republicans seek to diminish government influence and intrusion into our lives...again, you're wrong.

5) Same-sex unions are NOT "marriage"...they're sin and will be judged by God as same lest the participants repent and trust in Jesus as Lord.

6) Democrats are anti-gun and their legislation is a slippery slope to gun confiscation...don't be "the fool."

7) You're a deceived, lost, sexually perverse, atheist, living without hope and serving Satan in Time.

smoothie

@RickeyD You only managed to actually counter maybe one or two facts. I am not speaking for myself, I am speaking on behalf of opinions for members of both parties. Can you speak clearly or does your deep hatred seep through your fingers?

You gravely need this...

https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-quiz/

If you need to villanize and promote lies of your opponents to not vote for them because you are so mallable? Go ahead, but do not factually proclaim your propoganda as accurate at all.

RickeyD

@smoothie ; You are a defiant, rebellious, servant of Satan who has made himself irrelevant in both Time and in Eternity...your words carry no relevance or significance as you only seek the will of your spiritual father...I have no interest in your filth or discourse. You have made your choice.

smoothie

Rickey translator 300 says: "My pretentious stereotypes were inaccurate, I lost, better resort to blabbering nonsense in the hope people see me as a savior!"

all4actt

I @smoothie

First of all I want to apologize for the funny emoji put on your response.  I accidentally hit it.

You said>>>4. Republicans want a bigger government when it suits their social conservative values when rallying against LGBT and secularism. It is hypocritical to make this point.

I don't know what you are inferring to in this point.  How has the Republican  party made either part of big government except to take certain issues to court?  I don't see that as "Big" government but as one side disagreeing  with the other.  I see big government more as stuff like Medicare for all with no private obtions.

Back to topic.

I have not heard of anyone complaining about free lunches for kids from anybody only complaints of how it is implimented.  Those complaints have more to do with proceedures that make it obvious to other children that they are getting free lunches therefore embarrassing the kid to the point where the kid would rather skip lunch.  Another has been about giving seperate type lunches to kids on the free lunch program thus causing the same problems as the fist.

People, not just Republicans, are angry about the impeachment b/c it was done soley on political lines.  There were no crimes involved.  No fact or first hand witnesses to any crimes.  That is the first artcle.  The second artlcle has no legal basis. 

The House screwed up by rushing it and not doing their duel diligence to investigate or prove their case.   Every rep who voted for it should be embarrassed by their vote because if they were being honest jurors how could they have been able to come to that vote without facts or actual crimes being involved. 

If you were on trial would you want to be convicted on such flimsy evidence?  Would you want to convict someone you didn't know or have any preconcieved notions about  him or her on that evidence?  I would think no matter what your feelings of a person is that any  reasonable, rational person would not.

I don't think this a presiddence that that we as the people of the USA should want to see set.  An impeachment should rise to the level of beyond reasonable doubt with actual facts backing it as it did in the last impeachments. 

This case did not have these elements and that is one of the reasons why the Democrats are so desperately wanting to call witnesses in the Senate. They are praying that these witnesses can prove the case for them in the trail phase.  The same witnesses they should have taken the time to call before deciding on impeachment but didn't want to take the time to do.  Rushing through it claiming it was a national emergency, which  has shown also not to be true since they knew they did not have a case that was compelling enough to remove the President and they are stalling on  moving the case further.

The founders I believe intended that an impeachment should contain enough evidence that it would compel a bi-partisan vote for it as there was iprevious impeachments.  

Just because the Democratic Senate did not find the arcles against Clinton to be a reason for removal does not undermine the fact that they were factual and President Clinton  did have to again face those charges and pay for them after his presidency.  Of course he got a sweetheart deal and I don't know if the other 9 indictments  were wrapped into the deal.

As in the case of Nixon.  Again guilty without a doubt and if he had not resigned probably would have been impeached and removed  on a bi-partism vote, which is why he rsigned..

I don't know enough about the first impeachment but what I've heard there was a scandal and.underhanded dealings that surrounded it.

In any case I think I have made my case for why people, not just Republicans are rightfully upset about this impeachment.

smoothie

@all4actt

I don't know what you are inferring to in this point.  How has the Republican  party made either part of big government except to take certain issues to court?  I don't see that as "Big" government but as one side disagreeing  with the other.  I see big government more as stuff like Medicare for all with no private obtions.

I infer both political parties having certain aspects of a bigger government. It is more obvious with the democrat party but labeling the republican party the "small government" party is just a false blanket statement. When you put both the republican and democrat parties on a political axis, both will lean authoritarian.

The (biggest) big government laws republicans have ever advocated for, was the war on drugs. It is the pinnacle of big government. I don't think I need to explain this.

When some republicans rally against same-sex marriage, they usually tend to advocate for the government to not recognize them at all and forbid their marriage. Many of these republicans advocate for amending the constitution (government) itself for marriage to say "one man, one woman. I see this as bigger government interference. Also advocating for refusing LGBT in the military, I see as bigger government interference.

Another big government item that republicans support would be daily prayer in schools. I see this as bigger government, forcing religion into the public (federal) education system and telling children to religiously pray.

https://reason.com/2018/05/19/stop-calling-the-gop-the-party/

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/conservatives-suddenly-love-big-government-when-it-comes-to-punishing-blue-cities-for-passing-progressive-local-laws/

piloteer

MayCaesar said:

Well, 7 states with the highest homelessness rates (Washington DC, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Massachusetts) are all heavily Democrat-leaning, so I am not sure who should be angry.

People who say that those who advocate for reduction of welfare spending dislike it when poor kids get to eat free lunches - are intellectually dishonest. Almost nobody likes it when someone is malnutritioned; people only disagree on what the best solution to this problem is. California seems to have the worst homelessness and poverty issues in the US right now, and it also happens to have the highest welfare spending per capita in the US, highest taxation rates, etc. Clearly blunt taxation and welfare spending is not the way to solve these issues, and a more delicate approach is needed.

@MayCaesar

Not in a manner of harping on Republicans here, but I think you pulled those statistics out of your a$$. New England states always rank the lowest on homelessness rates, so Massachusetts would obviously not be on that list. And Massachusetts and Maine shelter 95% of their homeless population. Florida usually ranks as one of the highest, and they aren't a democratic state. Nevada is another bad one, and they're in the red. Texas is also another that ranks highest, and they're as red as you can get. Political affiliation doesn't influence homelessness rates in states.  

all4actt

@smoothie

Using left leaning media reports gives only one side of the story.

You said>>>The (biggest) big government laws republicans have ever advocated for, was the war on drugs. It is the pinnacle of big government. I don't think I need to explain this.

I think you do need to explain.

You said>>>When some republicans rally against same-sex marriage, they usually tend to advocate for the government to not recognize them at all and forbid their marriage. Many of these republicans advocate for amending the constitution (government) itself for marriage to say "one man, one woman. I see this as bigger government interference. Also advocating for refusing LGBT in the military, I see as bigger government interference.

Now that is a difference of opinions.  I will add it is not one I agree with but it is the right of people, even Republicans, to have a different opinion than yours or mine for that matter.

You said>>>Another big government item that republicans support would be daily prayer in schools. I see this as bigger government, forcing religion into the public (federal) education system and telling children to religiously pray.

Again something I don't believe in b/c what type of religious pray would they be using?  Besides there is suppose to be a seperation of church and state.  So if is a state paid for school prayer needs to be left out of the classroom.  If people want their kids praying in school then they should place them in a private school that supports their choosen religion.  If they can't afford that then they just need to continue teaching their children in their homes and places of worship.  I do also believe that even public schools need to respect a childs religious beliefs.

Anyways I don't really hear a push for prayer being brought back into schools by politicians.  Maybe your hearing something I've missed.  Besides I think if the issue was brought in front of the courts it would be struck down.

It is not just Republicans using Governor's and federal laws to surpress local decisions, Democrats do it too. 

In some cases when Federal law is in opposition to State or any municipalities laws it is the right of the Fedral government to step in.  Especially laws that were but in place by Congress which is represented by every state and party.

If the States or municipalities disagree with it they are free to take it to court.  If they do take it to court they are likely to lose if the judges follow their mandates to follow Federal laws.  Basically if anyone finds it important enough it would have to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to decide as to whether the Federal law is constitutional.  Just like they did the marriage law.  Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the right of same sex marriage. If  Congress was to legistlate against it I believe it would be immediately relooked at by the Supreme Court and they would have to decide whether or not to overturn themselves, change the parameters of their past rulings or standby the original rulings.