The Right Side of the News

No. We mean legal citizens who find it is more and more difficult to vote because of rules Republicans pass. We are also talking about gerrymandering which has nothing to do with illegals voting. Are you saying that citizens who are Arab, Muslims, and Chinese should not be allowed to vote? That seems consistent with Republican ideology given how hard they have tried to prevent minority Americans from voting.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Oh, please. When you talk about illegals who shouldn't vote you focus on minorities, be it Arabs, Chinese, or Hispanics and equate whole races with being illegals.Republican strategies of voter suppression have always focused on minority citizens. They reduce the number of polling places in minority neighborhoods and require ID laws that are burdensome on minority populations. A substantial proportion of Republican voters use absentee balloting which is the most susceptible to voter fraud, yet they don't pass any laws making absentee voting harder. In fact, GOP operatives set up operations that illegally take absentee ballots from people and change their votes as seen in the last election.You aren't worried about illegals voting. You are worried about minorities voting. It's extremely obvious.

If Republicans wanted to pass these bills they could work out the semantics in conference and bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. We all know this won't happen. The most likely explanation for why this won't happen is that it would force Trump to acknowledge that Russia interfered in the last election to begin with, something Trump has been loath to admit.

Were you around for the Bill Clinton years? Ken Starr didn't indict Bill Clinton, but he was impeached. The point of these investigations is to FIND THE FACTS. It is then up to Congress to decide to impeach. That was exactly the point.

"There's a sucker born every minute."--PT Barnum (traditional)

Where's the China trade deal?Where's the new Iran treaty?Where's the deal between Israel and Palenstine?Where's the deal with Democrats for a border wall?I could go on and on and on.

The Republicans used the fillibuster a record number of times during the Obama administration. Republicans need to look in the mirror.

I think I am liking JonF's assessment of American politics:Republicans oppose Democrats because of what Republicans say Democrats do.
Democrats oppose Republicans because of what Republicans do.Faith's posts are a perfect example of this in action. Democrats simply want to regulate capitalism. That isn't Stalinism. Democrats want a single payer healthcare system like tons of other first world countries that aren't communist. That's called Stalinism. Democrats want companies to stop polluting. Stalinism? Apparently. Democrats want to protect workers from the dark side of capitalism while still supporting capitalism. That's not Stalinism.If Republicans proposed the same policies as Democrats do, I bet the right wing would lap it up.

Not to mention that a very similar bill was proposed by Republicans in the not so distant past. The ACA was a compromise between the Democratic and Republican ideologies where private health insurance was preserved and subsidized by tax dollars. The only real reason Republicans opposed it is because they didn't want Obama to succeed.

Private insurance is already a part of the Medicare system. Medicare covers 80% of the cost, and if my understanding is correct there are a few loopholes for some coverage. People can elect to get private supplemental insurance that covers what Medicare does not. This is very similar to systems in other countries, and it works well.

So how is it like the Communism of the Thirties?

What we are trying to say is that there is a lack of reasoning. Just calling something "Communist" does not make it wrong, or even communist.What we are asking you to do is look at what Democrats actually propose, not what right wing radio hosts think they propose. For example, what do you find wrong with Medicare For All? Do you think we shouldn't have a single payer system? If so, why?

Like what?

It wasn't a problem before the Trump administration, even when there were more crossings than there is now. The funding wasn't any different. The difference is the policy which requires incarceration.

Pick any European non-communist, democratic country and I can just about guarantee that Democrats in the US are well right of those politicians. Where's that Republican health care plan that was supposed to cover all Americans? I haven't even seen a single plan that covers all Americans even proposed by Republicans or Trump. Then why did Trump have to change Obama-era policies in order to have the number of children currently in custody? During the Obama era, children were kept with their families whenever possible, and that policy was changed under Trump which has resulted in thousands of kids being taken from their parents and thrown in detention centers.The fact you have to lie about this tells us a lot.