Topic: Democrats are moving the goal posts, shifting from Russia to Racism (Read 637 times)

Labeling Trump supporters as racist like him is a sure way for those people to not vote for them.  It's like the Democrats are doing Trumps work for him.

You know they are just manufacturing this racism scare when there are Latinos voting for Trump because they too feel the effects of unchecked immigration (more competition for the low-income jobs). Heck, even Mexico is trying to keep these people out of their country!

biggest joke of all

-> trump is a racist.

Because they had a debate with 12 candidates?


I hear this a lot and sometimes I feel the same way.  But when you look at where we are and how fast we got here it's really quite impressive, and the system is really the main reason.

I feel like constant fighting among political parties is a far better alternative than just letting one side do whatever they want.  Right now things are pretty crazy, but I really think a lot of it is because technology is evolving much faster than politics,  I think we'll figure it out eventually though.

The whole system is trash. Politicians should try to 'defeat' the other politicians with better policies, plans, etc. They should show why they are actually better for the country not stupid shitty 10-year old personal attacks. Hey, Trump is an idiot so vote for us, but what are we actually going to do when we get the power? Ehh, we will see.

this is why democrats won't be able to defeat trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfz-44ivia4&t=46s

In the abortion argument happening up above ^. I do think there is an interesting thing to think about when it comes to the fungibility of money. Think of it like this.

If Planned Parenthood currently has 100 and has to spend $100 on abortions at their facilities then they take this $100 and put it towards that goal.

If the US government gives PP $50 as reimbursements for other things that PP does for the US government, as they are now legal in new states or medicare is now reimbursing or something along those lines. That means that planned parenthood can now do such:


$50 goes to funding Dem candidates

$100 goes to original abortions

This is what is called: fungiibility of money. Hopefully I explained that correctly.

Have you checked the numbers this article is claiming?  Something seems off, I'm not an expert in PACs, but I think they are separate from the actual company.  ("Planned Parenthood Votes" is a PAC)

"Planned parenthood will spend $45 million in 2020 to help elect pro-abortion candidates"

https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/planned-parenthood-will-spend-45-million-in-2020-to-help-elect-pro-abortion-candidates/

Interesting how closely that number aligns with the amount received in their Title X grants...

I appreciated the level headed response.  Apologies if I got a little assy earlier

 I dont have a problem with every organization getting taxpayer money.  Heck, most people would be surprised where much of it goes. I handled govt (mostly USN) purchasing contracts after i got out of the Navy in the '90's.   Govt money goes everywhere. And I doubt we all give two shits about the political preferences or donations of a company that embroiders the flight suit patches for a fighter squadron.

I dont have a problem using tax dollars educating the public on health matters (PP family services).  But a large portion of tax payers feel quite used when handouts are given to folks who ignore that education, and voluntarily engage in risky activity.

The taxpayers feel absolutely used and taken advantage of by the portion of the population who abuse the services and enjoy being a burden on the system.
  (Reference an earlier post of mine about "Intervention" and "My 600lb Life"

I never said the NRA and PP are the same. I agree with you. They are different.  PP obviously depends on federal money and the NRA obviously doesn't.

I only posted those links because you said the NRA doesn't use taxpayer money.  They do.  Under TECSHAREs idea (any entity that receives even $1), this would prevent the NRA from donating to or lobbying politicians. (a long with a lot of other individuals, businesses and associations)

I didn't say TECSHAREs idea was a bad one either, I don't think it necessarily is, it's an idea I haven't considered before.  I just listed some pros and cons I thought of.  Just trying to have a discussion.

Wtf?  The wtf is you dont get it, and dont ever give it a second thought to try see see the difference.

 Probably shouldn't even bother wasting the keystrokes. But, I'll try to explain this in easy terms.  

Lets say you are the boss of a law enforce the agency. You have a budget. You have to spend money on training. The cheapest option for the firearms training is an NRA sponsored class. The instructors are FBI agents certified by the NRA, or other local offers certifies by the NRA. The NRA is the premier expert in the field, and offers the best price for a required activity.  The fee you pay "to the NRA", the NRA uses to pay range rental, pay the instructors, etc... the NRA doesn't pocket the money... it goes in a circle back to training officers that need training. NRA organizes the circle. The costs to train the LE agencies actually exceeds the fee they charge. They use voluntary donations to make up the difference and fill the gap.

You have saved taxpayer money by not paying higher costs for less quality training offers by other for-profit companies

But thats probably over your head

Can we get back to free cigarettes?  I want the taxpayer to cover my voluntary poor decisions.  Maybe pay my independent informed decision to attend college too.

Talk about moving the goal post.

I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said:


So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said:


So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond:


I mean wtf?

Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google.  Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc.  That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors.  Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up.
  
And your birth control argument fails to note that its not just Medicaid covered prescription.... other "programs" within offer "free" or discounted, and I'm sure they know how to work the system.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-do-i-get-birth-control-pills

Would you feel the same if Medicaid or "other govt programs" offered free or discounted cigarettes to low income folks? How is that any different?  It's a conduct that one could voluntarily just not engage in.

Here's a few. I'm sure there are lots more.

https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/23767473
https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520472
https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520780



If we don't allow doctors to write prescriptions for birth control to people on Medicaid, their access to birth control will be restricted.  They're on medicaid because they make less than $17k a year and don't have health insurance.  You really think they will pay a couple hundred bucks a month (or every 3 months) to visit a doctor without insurance and then go pay full price at the pharmacy?

This is all besides the fact that birth control is prescribed for lots of reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

I really did not want to continue going down this road, and wanted to get back in track with the original topic..... but some things in your post I just cant ignore.

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

Next one that piques my interest every time I hear it...."restricting access to birth control".   I beg your pardon kind sir. Access is not restricted at all. Access is still available. The "access' would just not be funded by those who work for a living and actually contribute to society. They can still buy pills, condoms, and learn alternate methods.  Of course I was being a raunchy smart ass when I said pull-out, swallow ,etc...   but those are free methods, as is abstinence.   The local church does not charge a fee to teach abstinence. Poverty has nothing to do with this at all.

Most of the left's argument skirt the big picture by using buzz words like you use on specific issues. 
The Left loves to make everyone a victim.... unless we can tax the ever living hell out of the workers. 
    Those who actually pay taxes and contribute to society are sick and tired of seeing their hard earned dollars go to waste, being abused and squandered by those who manipulate the system, rely on hand-outs, or are just unmotivated to work.   
   These are the people who vote for Trump. Employment is at an all time high, for every racial section of US society. This is the mindset of "teach a man to fish".    I have no problem helping someone out. I love to teach people how to correct their issues and their lives. But no one likes being used for their money.

Yeah.  I basically already said all this.  Although I think they get closer to $100 mil for title X.  

That's a fair argument.  This would result in a lot less money going towards campaign donations and reduce taxes overall.  But it would also increase government spending and lower the quality/value of things they spend their money on since their market would be reduced.

For example, the NRA would probably just turn down offers to train law enforcement so they could continue to spend money on campaigns and lobbying.  So the government would have to find someone else that, I assume, wouldn't provide the same quality  and/or price.

It would also be very complicated and difficult to enforce.  If a small business owner wants to make a campaign donation, whose responsibility would it be to make sure that no government employee claims any of their sales on an expense report?





Taking away access to birth control for women on medicaid would result in more unwanted pregnancies.  Even if you teach them "Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt."  This has been proven over history.

Unwanted pregnancies make it exponentially harder to get out of poverty and a child born into poverty is much more likely to live their life in poverty, contribute less to society, pay less taxes, commit more crimes, etc.  It's a vicious cycle.

Actually, I think barring anyone receiving federal funds from contributing to campaigns or lobbying would be great for this country. The current system is an incestuous revolving door of government going to industry and back again, each step along the way finding new and creative ways to drain the US citizenry of their hard earned tax dollars. Such a policy would foster not only independence but create a clear line of delineation  preventing what essentially amounts to buying votes with federal funds. That said, this will never happen for obvious reasons.

Now  back to reality, Planned Parenthood also receives $50 to $60 million dollars a year under Title X grants, which is far different than Medicaid reimbursements. Speaking of Medicaid reimbursements, The Hyde Amendment only restricts federal funds for being directly used for abortions. States are still using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Medicaid. Furthermore, the federal funds, tho restricted from being used directly for abortions also frees up money that is indirectly used for abortions or to advocate for abortion for example in the form of payroll, facilities, lobbying, and campaign contributions.

Regarding PopoJeff, why is this a ridiculous argument? A refutation without substantiation is a very low form of debate. People object to taxpayer funds being used to subsidize people's bad life choices, and rightfully so. How is this argument flawed?


https://tennesseestar.com/2018/05/21/fact-check-does-planned-parenthood-get-over-500-million-a-year-in-government-funding/
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services/

racism is a big problem in the world though although racism is nowadays mostly in africa, today we are dealing with black supremacism.

africans have a massive and a huge continent, but stily they are flooding tiny europe with trouble bringing refugees. instead of building their own big continent they are acting like villains.

not to mention nazisim problems spanning from china, india, iran all over the world.

regards

Tons of businesses, and individuals receive money from the federal government.  You think they should have to wave their right to contribute to a political campaign or lobby congress?

Should CVS, Walgreens, and every other pharmacy all be forbidden from spending money on lobbying because they accept Medicaid to fill prescriptions?

Should the NRA be forbidden because they are paid by the government to train law enforcement officers, rent out shooting ranges to federal agencies, and have a 10 year $40k/year grant from Fish and Wild Life Services?

What about any hotel, Restaurant, or store where a federal employee spends money for their job and uses government money?

What about a student that receives a federal grant for tuition?  Should they be allowed to donate $1 to a campaign?




I think this is a ridiculous argument.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

 How the heck do you get that from what I said. No they shouldn't be doing more abortions.   I'm amazed that 27% of their expenses are spent on helping people shirk their personal responsibly, and enabling reckless behavior, or a non-necessity.

Teach them to swallow, and PP can cut 27% of their bottom line 

I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.

Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?  

Not my problem.

This is no different than welfare abuse.
My wife likes to watch "My 600 lb life" and "Intervention" on TV.   Guess what they have in common.  They are all on welfare, and use the welfare to buy more drugs or food.


Some PP money info:
https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-204R

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

Should we also be supplying cigarettes to those addicted?


Rather than the govt deciding where every tax dollar goes, it would be nice if the individual tax payer could allot where it goes.
Dedicated percentages assigned to essential services: Military funding, infrastructure, govt employee functions, etc.  maybe totaling 75% of your tax obligation. Then 25% elective services: homelessness, hunger, welfare, family planning, etc.. 

I'm tired of paying for everyone else's bad choices and lack of self control

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying. They support candidates, they hand out more taxpayer dollars to them knowing full well it will be kicked back to their own campaigns. This is a defacto subsidization of the Democrat party with taxpayer money.

lol.  And that doesn't even included the bucket of free condoms in the lobby.
Yeah.  They should be doing more abortions and prescribing less birth control.

27% contraception.   

There are free ways. Our parent taught us, or school taught us.

It's total services, not funds.  I can't find a break down of how much is actually spent on each - but it seems pretty clear that the vast majority are from out of pocket or insured patients.  You're right though, the numbers are a bit deceiving.  I thought it was total money spent, but it's actually total services.  


Claiming they are taking federal funds and turning around and using it for lobbying and campaigning isn't accurate though.  Most of the money they receive from the federal government is a reimbursement for treating patients with Medicaid (over 75%) and the rest goes towards discounts for low income patients without insurance.

In 2018 they received:

563.8m from federal government
365.7m from private insurance companies and patients paying out of picket
413.6m in private donations

They only made $533,000 in campaign contributions (all democrats though) and spent $1.2m in lobbying. That's less than 0.002 % of their total revenue of which only 34% is federal.


Here are Planned Parenthoods financials for 2019:

Are those percentages services used or funds used? The difference is very significant. Additionally as was already pointed out, Planned Parenthood is using federal funds to turn right around and contribute to political campaigns and lobbying. This needs to end.

I might be off on a couple details but pretty sure the current laws (the Hyde Act mainly) don't allow for federal funding to cover abortions unless it's to save the womans life, or due to incest or rape.  And no, you can't just tell the doctor "I was raped".  You have to report it to the police and then have Medicaid send the waiver to planned parent hood at least 48 hours before the abortion.

Planned parenthood 'federal funding' is just another way of saying they accept patients with Medicaid (to be on Medicaid you can't make more than ~$17k a year) and offer a discount to Women not on Medicaid that don't have private insurance coverage.

I can't find any exact data.  But it seems like federally funded abortions are extremely rare.  Some doctors have said that in most cases women choose not to report it and just pay for the abortion or have their rapists/family members child.  TECSHARE would probably point out that some of them were probably lying to try and get a free abortion from his tax dollars, and he'd probably be right.   In most of these cases though "not letting men cum in them" wouldn't "correct their own issues".

The vast majority of abortions at Planned Parenthood are paid for out of pocket or through private health insurance, and abortions make up less than 4% of PP total services.  You could argue that they likely prevent far more abortions than they give.  (They also give out free condoms)

Planned Parenthood Services for 2017:

48.7% STD Testing
27.1% Contraception
13.4% Other Women's Health Services
6.3% Cancer Screening and Prevention
3.4% Abortion Services
1.1% Other Services



I think "all abortion should be illegal no matter what" crowd is a lot bigger than you think.

In 2019 (a few months after Kavanaugh was sworn in)13 states passed anti-abortion laws, knowing full well that they would be sued for passing an illegal law in hopes that the supreme court would hear the case and overrule roe v wade.  It's been decades since this was attempted.  With the make up of the Supreme Court, it's entirely possible it works.  They weren't just bible belt states either.  North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana all took a shot.

The most extreme law was passed in Alabama, it would make abortion due to incest or rape illegal.

 I get where youre coming from..  but where do you think think anyone is trying to restrict women's uteruses?  
   Some far right folks can certainly be ani-abortion, but the current R administration has no qualms with abortion at the moment.
   The thing that is getting spun, is they dont want tax dollars being spent on it.  Which I agree with.
 You do you, just dont expect me to pay for it.

 The govt funds Planned Parenthood, not the NRA.

The left screamed that defunding PP would be bad for women somehow.  They can correct their own issues by not letting men cum in them.
And PP isn't hurting for money, they just announced a $45mil campaign to attack Republicans.

Go for Trump. That's easy to see. Doesn't at all mean you are a "trump fan."

I don't know, maybe he's acquired some fans by now. If so they are deserved. For me I guess I saw his approach to be interesting conceptually, and to have merit in many situations.


I've heard both asserted as improper. People that want to control you, want to control your language. It doesn't matter what it was, control means to tell you to change it.

I’m by no means a trump fan, but I agree with you.  I don’t know what happened before the last election but both parties shifted and almost became fringe parties.   It became more clear than ever that the 2 party system is ultimately broken.  I didn’t know who to vote for because all viable candidates were way too far left or right for me to even bother voting. 

I don’t want open borders, and I don’t want higher taxes.  But I also think women should have a say in what they do with their uterus and think war should be avoided at all costs.   What do I do now?

Time to kick the UN out of the United States... and imprison the Dem leaders as traitors.


United Nations now targeting free speech on a global scale, under the banner of fighting “hate speech”

Indeed.

Pro-trump language, for example?

Besides, "black" is easier to remember than "Van Dyke brown."     

I haven't heard suggest we stop calling black people 'black people'.

You know the term 'people of color' does not refer specifically to black people right?  It just means 'people that are not white'.

Focusing on racism only increases it. Once average democrats figure this out, they will be in greater chaos than ever.

The only thing that makes sense is that democrat leaders are really republican infiltrators.

They annoy me because they are pushing their own images and attempting social recognition without believing in the principles.
Stopping the reference to "black" people just slows the acceptance that it doesn't matter. what colour their skin may be. I'd far rather that they placed emphasis on their behaviour and contribution to society. Of course it is all carefully orchestrated by the anglophone empire builders, who need social unrest and discontent to push their ambitions.

Look at the instance of what Trump said about the City of Baltimore being a place infested with crime and all sorts of vices. The statistics indeed proves that he was right and then the Democrats claims that what he said was racist. Even EL Paso shooting was attributed to racism.

Racism is shit. All large companies are pushing for multiculturalism. This makes them competitive.

Do they annoy you because you think they're racist?

Or because they call other people racist?

Either way it's a bit hypocritical since you just did both of these things in two sentences.

These ant-racism knitting activists really annoy me. I've seen them shift along a seat when a black guy sits next to them, and to refuse to shake hands with non-white people. The whole affectation of avoiding calling people black, and calling them "people of colour" instead is stupid. The phrase "people of colour" is far more of a white supremacist description, than a simple expresiion of skin colour. Actually we seem to be shifting away from discrimination based on skin colour, and moving towards a language based differentiation. The revamped British Empire is based more on the supremacy of Anglophones, and the British/American/Isreali triumvirate is starting to become more obvious.

I can't work out if Trump is their agent, or is trying to regain the US independence from Washington. His obsession with increasing the spending by the Department of Offence seems to reflect the interest of the Anglophone empire rather than trying to "Make America great again". Attempts to dethrone him may well be a sleight-of-hand ttick to make him appesar to be on the side of the people. The bankers did a similar trick to obtain consent for the creation of their central banking organisations.

And it's really funny how most of the media are fully committed in showing Trump an ignorant ruthless leader.
Racism is a bad thing and should stop. But people now are using the word Racism in completely different scenarios.
Racism is a tool people are using to abuse the ones not that are not falling in the same opinion group or just to target a specific group of people.
And when media fuels it, everyone ought to believe that.

Without a doubt going to have to agree with the first portion of this, once you put a label on someone you're unable to even think of their ideas clearly without thinking 'RACIST RACIST RACIST' So, that's not going to work out in the least.

Big Pharma though, I can't agree with. Yes, I can agree that they do sell some pretty horrible products -- but the key word in that sentence is SOME pretty horrible products. But they do sell some amazing products, products that wouldn't ever had been found without their research. Will they profit off of this research? Yes. But that's what you get when you discover something that the public deems valuable enough to purchase.

Could not agree more!

Do not agree.
The tiny bit of chlorine used to wash a dead chicken reduces the chances of E coli and Salmonella.  Result is chicken lasts longer => chicken costs less => more people can afford food.  It's the same for all the shit they spray on fruits and vegetables.

There are more humans on earth right now than ever before and the average life span is longer than ever before.

The big pharma drugs thing is kind of true, but 80% seems way too high.  We have some amazing, life saving drugs that are getting better every day.  It is a shame that big pharma is fucking things up, but that doesn't mean that 80% of the drugs they sell are not making peoples lives better overall - it just sucks they are price gouging sick people.

Isn't it time that people stopped trying to attach stupid labels to politicians - names like racist, xenophobe, paedophile, climate denier, communist, Russian agent and the like. They should focus on actions like spending insane amounts on offence/defence to try to force regime change in asset rich countries with democratically elected governments. In the meantime, Washington is trying to turn America into a public toilet, and trying to force the poisonous food created in the US on the rest of the world. Americans deserve better than chlorinated diseased chickens, and chemically laden fruit and vegetables. How much healthier Americans would be if 80% of the drugs and poisons pushed by Big Pharma were not purchased or used.

The Democrats are like a drowning man - looking for something to grapple on, just anything

Racism is a real thing though. It's unfair to say that to people that actually experienced Racism in their life, as that's a disservice to them.

Racism is real, true racism is real. Racism isn't "I don't agree with your opinion" or " I hate your political opinions"

Lets be real. OKAY?

If you think that racism is something, you have succumbed to all the lies of politicians who are trying to make more war, just so their stocks in the military companies will go up.

Subtle, the sarcasm here is great. Racism has evolved from a true term of value, one that would really mean something when it would be said to another person to something that people simply gloss over because they know it now means "Someone that I don't agree with"

Horrible what people are doing to this country and around the world.

The point is that you go faster in car races than in horse races. But if the horse race is a long one, the horses can find food anywhere, but there aren't gas stations far away from the roads.

A racist used to be defined as someone who "shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."

There were plenty of Republicans who realized Trump fell into this category way before the election, or even his announcement to run.

But now he's president and can seriously damage any of their careers, so the same men who called him out are now defending him from others who call him out by changing the definition to..."shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another and isn't named Trump"

Democrats have nothing else to corner him with except use his statements against him, but what they’re failing is to gauge public sentiments which are accepting Trump words and not hating it. Everytime they highlight his statements they’re giving him more publicity, which will compel voters to vote for him. @Spendulus can you explain little more on this, what’s the specific change you’re referring to.

There's also been a subtle change in the definition of "racism" in the last two years.

Talk about moving the goal posts, get a load of this... from Trump.


President Trump Is Preparing An Executive Order--

trump actually isnt racist he would also be able to live in a country with goblins or hoboglins, he is simply a businessmen and things financial businessstyle democrats are just populists who want to take minority vote and try to scanadlise trumps white appearence democrats are lowest drawer (is a german phrase no idea weather lowest drawer exists also in englisch)

I mean I don't think I can agree with all of this. I think it's fair to say that while there is Racism in the world it is okay. It's not okay for people to hate other people due to the color of their skin, nor anything else relating to this.

Racism is a problem. So we shouldn't discount it in the world. The problem is when we call everything racist, that's a disservice to actual racists in this world. We're going to hurt people who are actually exposed to real racism by labeling EVERYTHING racist.

Racism is silly. Why? Because, prove that the racist hurt someone.

The whole idea of turning racism into an important issue, is to take the focus off the strength that men and women have, and turn it onto paperwork strength.

Who cares what people say? The only time their words hurt you is when they talk so loud that the decibels rupture your eardrums. If a commander in battle orders the death of the enemy, it wasn't his words that killed. Rather, it was the doing of the soldiers who followed his orders. He got what he wanted... a bunch of slaves that followed his will.

Racism is absolutely nothing. Rather, it is the harming of people that is something. And the harm only comes by someone harming someone else. The sounds of the words being spoken does nothing.

I've been seeing this in recent days. Democrats have now been shifting the narrative on Trump. Instead of continuing to push the false narrative that Trump is a Russian asset and a Russian spy (and whatever else they attempt to spew) -- which has been debunked by the Mueller report.

They're now going back to what lost them the presidential race, they're back to calling Trump a racist and a xenophobe and whatever other buzzword here. They've failed to note that their last plan didn't work, and that they're alienating a vital part of the electorate with those statements.

I'd love to hear what others thing about the subject area.