PackDaddy said:

---

You got room for another in your boat?

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Didn't pay much attention to the debates because I will not vote for any of them nor will I vote for Donald Trump. It's just pathetically sad that we have no better to pick from. As a true independent, I see noone on either side worth voting for.

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Please stop. I've ignored all your post but you are borderline posting crap like northwolf was on the scout (pp) network and they globally banned him

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Please stop. I've ignored all your post but you are borderline posting crap like northwolf was on the scout (pp) network and they globally banned him

---

It does get a little old when you're trying to have a rational debate/conversation with you know, actual facts.

---

Glasswolf said:

---

My question for I guess is, out of all these conspiracy topics you post, what are you trying to gain? Do you actually think anyone is going to come here and say, damn you were right!

I mean your post on the sports forums are pretty much well thought out and spot on. I just don't understand what your motivation is...

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

All the while, trump just keep bringing in more money while the Dems continue to preach views that seem as out there as trump claiming Mexico would pay for a dang wall.

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

All the while, trump just keep bringing in more money while the Dems continue to preach views that seem as out there as trump claiming Mexico would pay for a dang wall.

---

I've only seen bits and pieces of the debates, but what I did see was terrifying. It seems the Democrats are now openly saying they want to abolish ICE and let anyone who enters the country illegally stay here permanently...openly admitting they want massive gun control...arguing in favor of "reparations" for slavery...etc. Now I see why everyone is calling these debates a "Clown Show".

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

My question for I guess is, out of all these conspiracy topics you post, what are you trying to gain? Do you actually think anyone is going to come here and say, damn you were right!

I mean your post on the sports forums are pretty much well thought out and spot on. I just don't understand what your motivation is...

---

Same motivation as virtually anyone else starting topics or posting here in the Water Cooler. If I have a strong belief on a subject, and I create a topic or make a comment in a thread, that usually involves trying to persuade others to adopt my viewpoint. I think most people have that goal in mind...to try to persuade others to their viewpoint.

A "conspiracy" viewpoint is, IMO, simply disagreeing with the Establishment, government, or "mainstream" media position. Naturally, most of such anti-Establishment views will be unpopular or seem "out there" to many people -- simply because those views are so drastically opposed to the popular/Establishment view. And posting unpopular opinions, of course, causes many people in the majority to become irritated with the person expressing those unpopular opinions.

I'm not trying to cause any trouble here. I'm trying to follow the rules. I don't attack other users personally, and I try to stay on the topic of the threads.

To be clear, what are you getting at? I don't think you are saying that "conspiracy theory" views are not allowed in the Water Cooler. Are you saying that certain "conspiracy" views are "too unpopular", and shouldn't be allowed? I would strongly disagree with such a "rule". But if, in general, there are not clearly defined rules, how can I be expected to follow them? As far as I knew, the only rules in this forum were: 1) don't personally attack other posters, and 2) stay on the topic of the thread.

---

Glasswolf said:

---

No I'm not and you do stay within the rules. I'm just saying stuff you post is so far out in left field no one believes them. Do you share them anywhere else on social media?

---

Glasswolf said:

---

No need to ever watch the debates until the field is down to 10 or so

---

statefan91 said:

---

1. Sort of an open-ended question there, what specific things are the Democratic party currently doing that makes you think they don't believe in the constitution?

---

statefan91 said:

---

3. I don't think Democrats as a whole are saying they are going to give everyone in the country insurance whether they cross the border illegally or are already here. From the debates, it sounds like they are pushing for Medicare for all so that every person in the country can have healthcare, regardless of their status. It would likely be a baseline, bare bones type of access.

---

statefan91 said:

---

Assuming someone is already in the country, would you prefer that they not get medical care for a disease and either spread the disease if it's a contagious disease or die a slow, painful death without treatment for something like cancer? What if they have mental health problems, would you prefer they not have access to care and whatever unfortunate outcomes could come without it?

---

pack4life11 said:

---

I'm not attacking anyone here. I honestly just want someone to help me better understand with actual facts, not media fluff, a couple different things:

1) I don't understand how you can say you believe in the constitution and in America, but side with the current Democratic Party.

2) I don't understand how someone can be called a racist when that individual has decreased unemployment to all time lows and increased take home pay to all time highs for ALL minority groups.

3) I don't understand how a whole party can go 8 years in saying that they're going to fine people without insurance, but then 2 years later, openly give insurance and medical coverage to anyone crossing the border illegally.

Again, I'm not attacking, I'm simply asking for help from someone to help me to understand these things. In a civilized way of course.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

3. Healthcare is a mess. Democrats don't have the answer IMO. However, Republicans have yet to offer a counter proposal. The fact that they had control of all 3 chambers and couldn't agree on policy was an awful look

---

statefan91 said:

---

RWW26 - I have GP on ignore so no idea what his circus is saying.

You've mentioned a number of times that you don't align with either party. Can I ask what your views are? What is most important to you?

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

RWW26 - I have GP on ignore so no idea what his circus is saying.

You've mentioned a number of times that you don't align with either party. Can I ask what your views are? What is most important to you?

---

• Sure. I don't believe any person, president, governor, congressman or congresswoman ect. has any right to tell a woman of she can or can't have an abortion.
• I don't believe any person has the right to tell any man or woman who he or she can or can't love and can or can't marry.
• I don't believe any person has the right to demand others pay higher taxes simply because they have more money and I don't believe any person has the right the freely take from the wealthy to give to the poor.
• At the same time, I don't believe any person has the right to pass policies that benefit the wealthy specifically at the expense of the less wealthy and vis versa.
• I also don't believe any person has the right to to tell any person how they should go about living their lives when it comes to.things such as solar panels, or solar powered vehicles, or charging more because you aren't using energy efficient lightbulbs.
• I do believe that government serves a purpose in that it does help to define laws, regulations, etc.
• I just don't believe, in the system we have now, that it is done in a way that benefits the WHOLE. I believe it is done in a way that benefits the SOME.
• The left and the right both scream and yell about this and that, but in the end, they both want the same thing. Complete control that benefits the SOME and not the WHOLE.
• My wish, hope, and dream is that somehow and someway, we revert back to actually having a thing called states rights and an election not based on the electoral college(yes, that's a discussion for a different day).
• For now, I can't align myself with either party because both parties have gone so far left and right that I just can't find any common ground with them.

---

statefan91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

RWW26 - I have GP on ignore so no idea what his circus is saying.

You've mentioned a number of times that you don't align with either party. Can I ask what your views are? What is most important to you?

---

• Sure. I don't believe any person, president, governor, congressman or congresswoman ect. has any right to tell a woman of she can or can't have an abortion.
• I don't believe any person has the right to tell any man or woman who he or she can or can't love and can or can't marry.
• I don't believe any person has the right to demand others pay higher taxes simply because they have more money and I don't believe any person has the right the freely take from the wealthy to give to the poor.
• At the same time, I don't believe any person has the right to pass policies that benefit the wealthy specifically at the expense of the less wealthy and vis versa.
• I also don't believe any person has the right to to tell any person how they should go about living their lives when it comes to.things such as solar panels, or solar powered vehicles, or charging more because you aren't using energy efficient lightbulbs.
• I do believe that government serves a purpose in that it does help to define laws, regulations, etc.
• I just don't believe, in the system we have now, that it is done in a way that benefits the WHOLE. I believe it is done in a way that benefits the SOME.
• The left and the right both scream and yell about this and that, but in the end, they both want the same thing. Complete control that benefits the SOME and not the WHOLE.
• My wish, hope, and dream is that somehow and someway, we revert back to actually having a thing called states rights and an election not based on the electoral college(yes, that's a discussion for a different day).
• For now, I can't align myself with either party because both parties have gone so far left and right that I just can't find any common ground with them.

---

Broke it down a little bit for ease of reading, appreciate your response. I agree with a lot of your points. The ones I disagree with to some degree are related to wealth. Even those like Elizabeth Warren who I think most would agree are on the far end of the "tax the rich" spectrum, is only proposing a small tax on those with fortunes $50MM+, and it would only apply to the money after $50MM.

I don't think a plan like that is too outlandish, and the projections of what it would generate are astounding. There is a lot of wealth in this country that sits in banks for generations doing little productive for the society.

---

pack4life11 said:

---

This is going to kind of be all over the place, but I'm enjoying reading this thread and having these discussions with all of you...

My major issue with the Democratic Party and the constitution is freedom of speech and guns. The 2nd amendment is literally the only one that clearly and explicitly states "...shall not be infringed." I disagree 100% with anyone who thinks gun control will decrease crime. Criminals love gun control. I do not agreein any way, with taking away guns from law abiding citizens.

- Guns right have already been infringed if you read the text of the constitution and take it at face value. The fact that fully automatic guns are illegal proves that. I don't think there's anything wrong with gun control in the following sense, which I think is what the majority of the nation would see as logical: Require background checks that work across every municipality at every point of sale with a waiting period. Institute red flag laws that must be approved by magistrates before removal of guns from those deemed to pose a threat to others via a legal process. National gun registry. Background check on ammo purchases. Very strong penalties for death and injury that occur due to carelessness of storage and use. None of those things, save red flag laws, "infringe" on someone's ability to own a gun, but they sure as hell help make sure people are more responsible. I'm tired of reading articles every day about toddlers and children that find unsecured guns and shoot themselves, siblings, etc on accident.

In regards to freedom of speech- in my experiences, Democrats love freedom of speech...until you say something they don't agree with. At that point, whatever you're saying is now racist, demeaning, sexist, bigoted, etc. A lot of Democrats preach tolerance, but are very intolerant of those that disagree with them and immediately attempt to censor or name call.

- I think you have to consider a couple things. First with freedom of speech. That does not mean freedom from consequences of your speech. I haven't seen any government programs being designed to take away free speech. There may be a lot of brushback to people who voice homophobic / racist / xenophobic comments, but I don't see anyone forming government solutions to the issue.

Now, do I believe in everything Donald Trump says or do I support everything that comes out of his mouth? Absolutely friggin not. I do not think he acts very presidential a great deal of the time, especially on Twitter. However, I for one was very tired with Obama going around apologizing to other countries for America being America and attempting to either buy back friendship, or pay money to have countries behave.

- You can believe in American exceptionalism and still understand that the country has done things that need to be apologized for. If you're in a relationship and you never apologize then I have to think something is wrong. Having support of our allies is how the country stays safe, that's my preference at least.

I agree with RWW on most of what he said and that's where I think a lot of my beliefs and political views lie, minus the abortion bit. With rape, or if life is not sustainable outside the womb due to a medical condition of the child, or if the baby is a threat to the mothers health, then I'm very open to the abortion route. But simply erasing a life because of a choice you made, that doesn't fly with me. On the flip side of that deal, I believe that men who father children should be held accountable as well (takes two to tango) and that the raising of a child whether wanted or not sits at the feet of both individuals who acted and created that child. I believe men who rape women should be publicly castrated as well but I guess that's a different subject entirely.

- I definitely struggle with the abortion topic. I have two healthy, planned children and we are comfortable enough to afford their necessities and to give them a good life. I also have never been in the position of being a woman with an unplanned pregnancy. Many don't know they're pregnant until 6-8 weeks and the laws being enacted prevent them from being able to get an abortion after that point. We should be helping the causes of unwanted pregnancy first - government should offer 100% free birth control and contraceptive access. I think the societal and financial benefits of reducing unwanted children would more than cover the cost to the government. Also, if you are going to restrict access to abortion you need to, as a society, be prepared to bear the cost of supporting the children with healthcare, nutrition, housing, etc. for those that can't afford to have the child but are forced to bring them to term.

I believe if 2 men or 2 women want to get married then they should be able to. But they shouldn't be catered to any more than a man or a woman who are married. I also believe that people who own a good (cake store, salon, car dealership, etc) should be allowed to serve whoever they want to serve and laws should not interfere with that.

- I don't think any gay couple is asking to be catered to "more" than a straight couple. I think they're just being asked to be treated equally. Government has no place in marriage in my opinion, but if they are going to be involved with it they need to offer it to two consenting adults no matter the sex.

Regarding those going into business and being allowed to serve whoever they want to serve...How does that jive with discriminatory practices? Are you saying you think a business should be able to only serve whites, blacks, asians, etc if they want to? Or are you just focused on sexual orientation? Because if a gay person is living in a small town and wants a wedding cake, and the only baker in town denies them service, are you saying that's ok? What if it's a doctor deciding they don't want to operate on a gay person? I'm not really sure where you can draw the line without it being discriminatory.

I don't believe you can tax a nation into prosperity.

- I don't think that's what anyone is proposing. You can tax the country to provide benefits for the country that the less fortunate could never afford to live a better life (help with healthcare, food, jobs training, housing).

I don't believe in government funded anything because government funded just means tax payer funded.

- Does this apply to the military, fire, police? How would those things operate if they were private? Firemen only go to the houses that are prepaid on their firefighting plan?

I know a lot of my response here is all over the place, but I am thoroughly enjoying the civilized discussion here and trying to gain more understanding of everyone's point of view.

---