The trouble with voting out incumbents is in the general election you can choose an incumbent who agrees with you 50% of the time or an opponent who disagrees with you 100% of the time. I rarely vote for an incumbent in primaries, but I'll hold my nose and vote for a squish most of the time. Sometimes I vote for the libertarian, just like when John Cornyn is running for election.
Now all you have to do is post dem policies. Many drugs that are illegal should be legal and regulated, just like alcohol and tobacco. What policy do you know about that encourages tent cities. How does freeing criminals for minor drug charges kill people?
Then you aren't really for term limits. For if there were term limits, you'd not have the opportunity to vote for the one you agree with 50% of the time. So if you're not for voting out incumbents, how can you be for term limits? The voter has the power to set term limits.
This is what they want. To cause chaos through violence, separation and division. What reason would they want this? To further impose their tyranny on the population. Just look at the state of affairs regarding gun laws and the significance of the constitution & the bill of rights to have the "right to bear arms, to defend against foreign and domestic enemies". If no one had any of their firearms, how easy would it be to impose an unjust martial law by half-baked Dems/left?
That's what makes our country a better country than all the rest. We are a Republic that recognizes minority rights. We are not a Democracy that recognizes majority rule. We broke with Europe because we reconize personal propery rights and the right to own land. Many countries only lease land for a set period of years, others reclaim land at the death of the person who leased the land, it does not pass onto the heirs.
As an ex Alcoholic and Drug addict who has been fighting Cancer for a few years now you really don't know the devastation of all those things. I have been clean of any mind altering drugs and alcohol for 40 years and tobacco for 21 years. Contrary to what many will say, milder drug use is the pathway to more additive drugs. I have worked many drug addicts and alcoholics and beared wittness to their accounts of how they just started out fun and liked the effect. They could control and function but somewhere down the line the drug or the booze had control over them. Many lost spouses, family, children, homes, jobs, respect from others, and founf themselves in front of the judge on various misdemeaners or serious crimes.. How many times have we read about some person killing another in a car while driving drunk or under the influence of a drug. Then we read down further and we see they had prior convictions for the same thing. When all the scorecards read zero, where do think these people gravitate too, if noone reaches out and helps them? Too the streets , the bridges, the abandoned houses or tent cities, If they have no source of income how do you think they are able to aquire the money to buy drugs and booze? If they ain't panhandling, more than likely, they are casing out some store, home, or person for a source of income. When you have cities that coddle those who need real help by giving them a grocery cart, a make shift tent, needles, a outhouse, and a sandwhich you are doing a disservice not only to them but your community. Many of these people can be helped with short and long term treatment, community supervised shelter, and even incarceration if the case warrants in institutions for the mentally ill. Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous have a pretty good track record for helping those who have a desire to quit. The cities cry out "we can't afford those services" as they watch one business after another close up their doors and move out of the city. Sorry dairyair but what we really need is more "tough love" instead of people sitting on their dairyairs doing nothing or trying to avoid the problem and hope it will go away.
Why do you not want to know lefties position on this? I imagine you're speaking in large part to righties response to seceding to maintain abortion rights, given I've seen a few (and only a few) advocating for a nationwide ban on abortion. But when secession is discussed as a means to resist violently imposed gun control, its by a wide margin the left arguing 'if you fight the govt, you will lose', insinuating that secession to preserve gun rights will result in a war with the US military. So I gotta wonder why you only care what righties think about this issue...
The USSC determined the states have the power to determine the limits of the right to an abortion, as said right is not protected by the constitution.
I think you are conflating the struggle by states in the constant fight of DC trying to take state power and make it it’s own, and then use the states as its subordinate enforcement arm. The only war I see is the war against police, and the war against those who object to politicization of justice. The two issues are joined at the hip.
That was the federal government. Would Biden attack blue states for attempting to separate from the union? Probably...because the red states would have more clout through proportional representation. I honestly think the red states would be relieved to see blue states separate.
The war started because the South wouldn't permit the resupply of the Federal posts in their territory. Nowadays we have well over several billion dollars worth of military posts in the Red States
I mean, not really though. That's getting lost in the details. Lincoln fought to keep them in the union, they fought to leave.
Sorry for your current health issues. But why are you blaming Dem policies for the choices you made? If those milder drugs you claim were gateway drugs, I would have used them. I did not. I do alcohol, beer, tobacco, snuff, and have done marijuana many many years ago. I did not go stronger than MJ. I know many friends and family who have done the same milder drugs you did without going to harsher drugs. But, your claim it's dem policies, and I asked for links to prove it. As for cities that coddle them, what is your solution? The druggies exist. Even though those drugs are illegal. We don't have a program to deal with them, but they must be dealt with somehow. They exist. What republican policy is it you want to see put in place. We've incarcerated drug use since and before the war on drugs. But yet, addicts still exist.
No sane person wants to see Civil War in America. It would destroy the most noble experiment in self government in human history. Yet, we seem to be on an inevitable path to that war. I've lived through very close to 1/3 of our country's entire history and have never been so pessimistic about our future.
The Feds didn't declare war immediately but waited for several months. The famous firing on Ft. Sumter was when the Union sought to resupply it. Many people were taking the attitude expressed by Horace Greeley "Wayward sisters, depart in peace"
I'm sitting here racking my brain trying to figure out how a thread like this is not advocating violence? The op is sitting here trying to bait other people into admitting that they want to have violence when he's the one that threw the bait in the water. Right @HereWeGoAgain ?
He probably wants to just shoot drug addicts, along with shoplifters and chronic Stop Sign runners. At best deport them, along with the Hispanics. I can't say what he wants to do with the blacks but will say it involves fertilizer.
It sounds like you were the one that had the violent fantasies in your own mind. No one here has said the things that you are saying but you sir. Once again I'm going to take this opportunity to remind the casual reader what you yourself are on the record as having said... You said that anyone that doesn't take the vaccine... Needs to be carted off to prison and incarcerated for one year, and fined $1,000 and then their children need to be taken away from them permanently. So you really need to be careful about casting those stones that you like to throw
I don't see in my post saying anything about them being Dem policies. I'm sure if you look hard enough you will know whos policies they are. More later.
OK, sorry, then any policies supporting all those you listed. What would you do different then towards those policies?
One needs to look at the overall picture. I do not believe anyone grows up and say's I want to be a drug addict or an alcoholic. It usually starts out in the school rooms and is a peer thing. Be it for popularity, out of fear, or curiosity. For some, they just like the effect. Some, it's being a part of, a feeling of belonging. Luckly, for most, it's a try it and leave it alone experience. Many come from families that the use of alcohol and drugs is a everyday or common experience. So, it's pretty hard to tell a kid " just don't do it". Society has to get back to holding all accountable when the problem shows up at a early age. These kids didn't make the drugs or walk into a store and buy the booze. Other kids in the school know who uses and who supplies them. Many of the teachers also know but out of fear do nothing. So how can we start to change the tide? It's really going to take some draconian measures in some cases. Each childs situation needs to be accessed as it comes up. It not only must be the schools problem but also the parent or parents/gaurdian, the police, social services. When a child is picked up for drugs or alcohol he is detained until a responsible adult can be reached. The main object, in the case of drugs, is to find out who is doing the supplying. Suspension from school with the possibility of failure or even arrest should be on the table. This puts a lot of pressure on the student and the parents to find out who is harming their child. If it is determined that the child needs to be taken out of the home and placed in foster care or a treatment center then let it be. The parents will be responsible for all costs. A hot line should be set up in every school where other kids or even parents can call and give names of those suspected of pushing drugs for further investigation. Any person being they an adult or child who is caught supplying pills, drugs or alcohol to a minor should be prosecuted to maximum sentence allowed. In the case of an overdose death the supplier should be prosecuted as negligent homicide. All these rules should go out to every student and gaurdian so they know the consequences from the get go. Some will ignore the warnings but after a few examples of punishment you will see a drastic change. The schools can have guest speakers come into the schools and have them share their experience with the abuse of drugs and alcohol and the destruction it had caused in their lives and family.
I agree with most of what you posted. However, in the highlighted section I did, I do disagree. For those who may supply may be in the similar situation as the one who bought. You would want to ruin a life of a 18 or even 17 yr old who made the same bad decision as the purchaser? Tough penalty, sure, but the max? Not so sure.
