The only thing about climate change that scientists are fairly certain of is that it is human-caused and happening. Otherwise, the notion that it is a major problem is a much weaker argument with no real hard evidence to support it. Many of the claims about the supposed dangers of climate change have reached the point of hysteria and basically have become a form of theology to their proponents that masquerades as science.
Healthcare is not, never has been, and never can be a right. Now this is not to say that we cannot have a form of universal healthcare system, but healthcare is ultimately a service that must be provided by the labor of someone, and anything that is dependent on someone else's simply cannot be a right. Rights are abstract things like free speech, privacy, religion, etc...not physical goods and services such as food, housing, healthcare, etc...one can have services and charities for these things, but they are at best privileges, not rights.
Single-payer is the last thing this country needs. It is among the worst forms of universal healthcare systems there are, given its bureaucratic centralization. Yes, it prevents bankruptcies, but it also creates long waiting times for things like treatment and surgeries due to rationing. Germany, France, Switzerland, and The Netherlands all have good-quality universal healthcare systems that are not single-payer, but rather multi-payer, public-private hybrid systems. The United States needs something along those lines.
As for de-coupling health insurance from employers, the way to do that is not via single-payer but rather via undoing what is a leftover price control from World War II that has been left in place. This would amount to a form of tax increase on healthcare, but it could be countered with a cut in say income taxes and would allow much more freedom with regards to health insurance.
Banning Muslims from coming into the country is a sensible position. Or at least banning them from the hot zone countries, because of the dangers such people pose to the free world. Requiring such people to register when coming into the country is not any violation of their human rights. It is interesting how the Left always want gun owners to register, but Muslims from countries known for extremism having to is somehow a human rights violation when such people are not even U.S. citizens.
Poverty can be either self-inflicted or due to sheer bad luck. There are lots of people who are poor due to stupid and bad decisions. And some who are poor due to bad luck in life. And yes such people need services, both people who are poor due to bad luck and people who made bad decisions and now want to fix their mistakes. But the problem with the Left is that they tend to engage in the creation of government programs that only incentivize the very bad behaviors that keep people poor. Doing more of that is only going to make the situation worse. The major cities of this nation have been social engineering laboratories run by Democrats for decades now, and the result is that they have problems of extreme poverty. Rochester is yet another of myriad examples.
And Trump's use of the phrase "inner-cities" is not any code language, it is just a descriptive term; yes, the term "inner-cities" evokes images of black gangs but that is because the vast majority of the violent crime in this country is committed by young black males. That is just a fact And yes, violent crime is at a historical low, which again makes me question why the Left constantly demand gun control. That said, yes, poor people need various services to help them.
Citizens United did not do damage, it ended what was a blatantly anti-free speech law. The original purpose of so-called "campaign finance reform" was to restrict the ability of the National Rifle Association to run ads critical of politicians during campaigns. That was the stated goal, because Democrats then saw it as a way to get gun control-oriented politicians elected without the NRA being able to run ads critical of them.
What everyone forgets is that corporations are not just big companies, but a legal structure that is also used by a great deal of non-profits, such as the NRA. The NRA is a grassroots organization (it is not a front for gun manufacturers as many like to claim), and is a way for ordinary citizens to fight to protect their 2nd Amendment rights.
Thus, the idea that corporate political speech could be limited by laws was really a way to limit the free speech of regular citizens. The only way regular citizens can engage in speech on the same level as big companies is through forming organizations, often structured as corporations, that can raise money to spend on ads and fighting for the cause. The NRA does this regarding gun rights.
When Citizens United happened, many said that the Supreme Court may well have handed the presidency permanently over to the Republican party. We saw how well that went in 2012.
I am unsure regarding this current decision, and I don't believe there shouldn't be any laws regarding control of money in politics (for example unlimited donations to individual politicians), but not all legislation meant to control money in politics has been good, and if anything has been shown to do the opposite (such as the limitations placed via McCain-Feingold which Citizens United struck down which limited organizations like the NRA in terms of their ability to engage in political speech during campaigns).
For those that don't like the NRA, keep in mind it's the principle that is important, i.e. the ability of people, via grassroots organizations, to fight for causes and rights that they consider important. Other such issues can be LGBTQ rights, environmental issues, abortion rights, privacy rights, etc...
Website powered by Foundation.