If you're all "but the democrats are ruining..." you're just voting against the Democrats. What are you voting FOR?

I wish I had time to list all the reasons why I will vote Republican over Democrat but the basic premise is I feel one party is more in favor of government control of the population and the other is in favor of the people controlling the government. The government should as in the great words of a past president be "by the people and for the people"

Republicans are currently laying the groundwork to allow for a succesful coup should Trump attempt such again in the future should he run...

The GOP since its very inception has been for big centralized goverment, this has never changed. They keep trying to legislate morality, while those in more developed areas laugh at backwoods stereotypes that sadly are based on what is wretchedly true.

The reason Democrats seem unfocused and lacking in clear positions is because they have always been diffuse, not monolithic in stances. Piecemeal Republican attempts at rolling back and stifling rights in various localities has, however, met with calls for a broader and more cohesive response, and the quest for power and influence has proven to be something the DNC is not immune to either.

So, to clarify, you are voting Republican because you feel they won't try to control the population?

I suggest, Kate, that the Republicans want to control the population quite a great deal.

They want to ban gay people from marrying. This covers a lot of stuff like taxes, inheritance, and even healthcare.

How is that not controlling people's lives?

What about trans rights? They would ban you from being who you are and force you to conform to what their image of you should be.

You may disagree with the concept of being trans, but you don't have the right to tell them who they are.

Or women 's access to healthcare? I'm not just talking about abortions, but access to birth control. Hobby Lobby, the darling of the Right Wing crusade against Obamacare, wanted to deny paying for birth control for their female employees.

They were fine doing it for the men.

But not women.

How is that not controlling your life when they get to decide when, where, and with whom you have sex?

So, if your guide-star is to vote for the party that will insert itself and politics into the lives of the average citizen, how can you vote Republican?

I will respond later when I have more time but we do think of other things besides sex, lol

Here we are a week later, Kate. And I'd like to add that this is the same party that is banning books. They're telling you what books your kid can or can't read.

And in our state, the state of texas, they're telling local school boards what's right for their students.

How is that small government?

So, why are you continuing to vote for them?

Power in the hands of the people, parents have a right to know and have a say in what THEIR OWN CHILDREN are being taught and not have to subject their children to pornographic materials.

Gay marriage is already law - nobody is taking it away. The Supreme Court already tested it. As far as trans rights go - what rights are they lacking? It seems to me that they want more rights than everyone else. They want the right to enforce their preferred opinions on others, to force speech on others, to indoctrinate children who are not theirs... In the past - these individuals would have been housed in mental institutions for their inability to cope with reality.

If some bearded psycho wearing a dress demands that I call him a her, I will refuse to comply. Because that thing has no legal authority to dictate my reality - and my reality is (and I'm in the 75% that believes this way), if it's got a dick - it ain't a chick.

That said, I don't care if a dude wears a dress - in fact, I'm all for it. When I see that person, I know what I'm dealing with. I will have a visual cue which informs me that I am about to have an interaction with someone that is not in touch with reality. I prefer it when crazy people wear signs.

How is being recognized for who you are more rights than anyone else?

You have that now. You have the right to wear the clothing you want.

You say you dont' care- but you do. You said, "has no legal authority to dictate my reality." It's clear you do care. You're very upset about it. And you want to force someone to conform to YOUR expectations, yet you refuse to conform to anyone else's expectations.

But let me explain trans in a way that might be helpful to you. I too was once in the camp of "trans isn't a thing." But someone asked me "what makes you a man?"

I answered with the standard things like facial hair, back hair, the p**is and testicles, all that biological stuff.

They said, "great, now let's say you're in an accident. it's horrible. Your body is a mangled pile of meat. BUT, your brain is just fine. Miracle of science, they're able to put your brain into a robot body. It's an r2-d2 looking thing. works great, but there is no resemblance to a human body at all. Now, you're asked to fill out a form. It has Male or Female on it. Which one do you choose?"

I thought for a moment and said "Male. I'm still a guy."

They asked "Why? All the things you said that made you male- the back hair, testicles, all of that is gone. It's never coming back. How are you still male?"

after some thought, I realized that the internal sense of self- male- matched my external self- male. And that a trans person doesn't have that same match.Their internal self doesn't match up to the external self. If you were to put their brain into a robot body, and they had to fill out that form, they would mark something different than what their physical body had been.

You said you won't be forced to recognize someone's identity if it doesn't match your expectations. Yet you also demand that they conform to "your reality." You belittle them with terms like Pyscho.

How is that small government? How is that "getting out of the way" of people if you're forcing them to act and dress in an approved way?

And if you feel that a trans person has "more rights" than you do to be recognized for who they are, you should spend some time in thought. What is it about you that you're not allowed to be true to?

They want to punish those who refuse to buy into their reality. I don't have the right to force you to think the way I want you to think - why should they?

Just because you want to believe the sky is pink - does not make it so.

That you aren't intelligent or articulate enough to understand or explain that gender is expressed through DNA, and cannot be changed - well, that's between you and those who pretended to give you an education.

Oh, let's start with the bill of rights.... There's the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment, the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, the 6th amendment, and the 10th amendment. Democrats have been shitting on the bill of rights for as long as I can remember.

;)

Those are individuals. You are voting against individuals.

The question stands.

What policies has the Republican Party put forward that you support?

Specifically, what are you voting FOR.

Oh, you're deficient - I should spell this out for you then.

The 1st amendment. Republicans aren't silencing people, specifically - they aren't demanding that social media companies censor and suspend accounts that go against the official narrative. This is a sidestepping of the 1st amendment, politicians tell social media giants to do it - and somehow that isn't the government restricting free speech because "oh, it's facebook's decision"

The 2nd amendment. Republicans have always been the party of the military and law enforcement, while Democrats have - for the past 6 years) openly disparaged enforcement of the law and those who swear to uphold it. While at the same time promising to abolish gun rights in contrast to the protections afforded in the 2nd amendment. Republicans have repeatedly promised to keep the right to keep and bear arms enshrined within the bill of rights.

The 4th amendment. Let's see....James O'Keiffe springs to mind as the most recent example. The home of a journalist is raided, and the seized materials are given to his opposition in an ongoing defmation suit. Then there are the January 6th protesters who have been held without charge for a year. That's all on Democrats.

The 5th amendment is one that the Democrats love to use for themselves, but refuse to allow anyone they're targeting. A GA grand jury is being called upon to FORCE TESTIMONY on someone who has already given a sworn statement - presumably to force a process crime in order to claim a political win against DJT. This is pathetic, and cowardly.

The 6th amendment. Let's jump back to the January 6th protesters again. Sitting in jail for a year while awaiting charges is a blatant violation of the 6th amendment. Let's hear it kids, who's responsible for that?

The 10th amendment. This is, perhaps, my favorite. Democrats hate it when states enact laws that contradict federal powers. Texas did it recently when they enacted legislation which criminalizes enforcement of federal gun control laws within the state. The news articles surrounding that legislation were delicious - oh, the meltdowns....

2nd Amendment.

"Republicans support the military!" That's laughable. How does a small government party reconcile continually expanding the budget for the military? Where's the value?

Shouldn't a group who leans heavily on the "own a gun" also lean heavily into the militia part of that amendment? Shouldn't a small government party say that the military should be small to non-existent and rely on the militias to protect the country?

And the cops.

Yeah. They need to be held accountable for their actions. The officers of the law cannot be above the law. Why do they need so much money? Again, "small government" question here: why does a small government party need a large militarized police force?

And gun rights. YOu want to go hunting? Literally, no one cares about that. But why do you need military grade weapons? You think that's going to protect you from the largest military the world has ever known? That same military that has a fleet of drones that can blow your house up while you're in it from miles away? that's gonna help you?

And you prove that you are unprepared for this particular argument by your last paragraph.

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does the word "hunting" appear. It was written at a time when the citizens of the then colonies were essentially declaring war by declaring independence. The "shot heard around the world" was fired during an attempted weapons confiscation by the British regular army serving in Boston.

History provides a frame of reference.

You seem to think that the military is all powerful, but they are not. I may not have the same kind of capabilities, but there are at least 10,000,000 people like me - and the government does not have enough to handle us all. Then you must also consider desertion - US military soldiers will go AWOL en masse if asked to fire upon citizens...

James Okeefe is a convicted criminal. He is a felon.

He has produced lie after lie after lie. He doesn't report news. He doesn't deal in facts. He's not a journalist.

He's a liar that spreads misinformation and lies.

And being held in jail for a year without charges? Seems like a slam-dunk case for a lawyer from the mall. Can you provide any details on who these people are? Where are they being held?

Here's a list of the 768 people that have been arrested and charged: https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

This should be fun - please produce his felony conviction. Here's a hint - he doesn't have one.

there's a lot here. So, let's start with point 1:

1) the first Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice some specific things: Congress shall make no law... NOT "Private companies will let you say whatever you want." Also, it doesn't say "you get to whatever you want whenever you want."

Some forms of speech are not protected. things like hatred, bigotry, lies, and misinformation. Those are not protected. You don't get to say things that fall into that category and not face consequences. Or as my father used to say "say some shit, expect some shit."

Because conservatives say a lot of hateful, bigoted things and repeat a lot of lies and misinformation, it can feel like you're being targeted and silenced when those lies and hatred are removed.

But facts are not your feelings.

FACTS are that conservatives are not being silenced.

Here is an actual study using actual facts with actual science:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/60187b5f45762e708708c8e9/1612217185240/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf

I know you're not going to read that, because your feelings are more important than facts. But facts are facts. Conservatives are not being silenced.

Trying to end-run around the 1st amendment by having politicians demand that private companies censor individuals is still a 1st amendment violation in my opinion. Hiring a hit man does not absolve you of the murder he commits.

There are very few forms of speech that are illegal. Most of what you listed may be distasteful to some - but they are not illegal. It's really only obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography that are illegal. Everything else is fair game.

I know the level of ignorance I'm dealing with when someone cites "hate speech". Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will understand how slippery that slope is. Hate speech is so vague that it can be defined in any way one chooses to suit the application and outcome one seeks to achieve. You seem to hate what I'm saying, ergo - you are guilty of hate speech as declared by me. Now you can be silenced.

Forced to testify? Really?

what specific case. Should be easy to find, right? Since I don't know the specific case you're talking about, I did some searches and I'm not finding anything.

what specific case are you talking about?

read up chump

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/georgia-secretary-of-state-statement-special-grand-jury-election/85-cc9c899e-5627-42fe-8d5e-b97e88601da1

6th Amendment.

Who? Specifically who?

Again, here's the list of 768 people who participated in the January 6th Insurrection. Notice that they've all been charged: https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

Of course you'd think that, because they only publish lists of individuals with charges. So, here's the conundrum - they've arrested 500, and charged 300....do the math.

10th Amendment.

It's not the exercise of the 10th Amendment, it's the subject for which it is exercised.

Your concern here was to "own the libs" over permitless carry of guns.

How is that making things better by making it easier for people to buy guns that can end up in the hands of criminals?

You know, all those guns are just lying around while the good honest folk are at work. What's to stop that criminal waiting until everyone is gone, breaking into the house and taking the guns? Then selling them to other criminals to use in yet more crimes?

How is that making things better?

Think about it like this. Criminals will still get guns regardless since they’re… you know… criminals. But if almost everyone has a gun, like hell criminals are gonna walk into a convenience store or steal a car.

sounds like you're suggesting we defund the cops.

Who needs cops if everyone has a gun, huh?

Just because I think people should be allowed to own guns doesn’t mean I think we should defund the police. The problem is that police can’t be somewhere in seconds

If the potential rape victim is armed - guess who isn't getting raped. If the store owner is armed - guess who isn't getting robbed. If the average family is armed - guess who's home isn't being invaded.

Armed targets are no longer targets. Few are willing to risk death for small rewards. As the saying goes, when seconds count - police are minutes away.

There are cops - ARMED cops, on duty, who have been shot and killed. These are professionals.
There are soldiers...
There are security guards...
There are home owners...
There are women...
and yes, there are even Mafia thugs facing other Mafia thugs that got shot while shooting each other...

Alaska is highly armed, and not simply for beer can target practice or to make up for certain 'shortcomings,' and yet it has the highest per capita violent crime rate in America. Go figure.

When concealed carry was introduced in Texas - the carjacking phenomenon that was raging across the nation disappeared overnight in the state. All it took was for a couple of would-be carjackers being delivered to God.

And who says guns are lying around? You'd need heavy equipment, and a jackhammer to get my gun safe out of my house.

Oh yeah - and "owing the libs" isn't a goal - it's a bonus. I love to watch you flop and twitch.

Please keep in mind this is not the politics stream. Comments should focus on ideas not target other people. Thanks.

Yes ma'am

hold up.

You think a nation-wide crime spree was stalled out because of a conceal carry law in 1 state?

That sounds reasonable to you? Like a thing that can happen?

Why would car thieves in Minnesota care about a gun law in Texas?

And I live in Texas. There was never a car jacking spree here.

You must be young. There were two carjackers killed in Dallas, and then there were no more carjackings in the state. It was shortly after concealed carry was legalized (by then Governor George Bush) in 1995. I lived in North Dallas at the time, and although I wasn't worried about being carjacked - because my car was a piece of shit, I got my CHL (later renamed LTC).

I'm guessing that you're younger than that.

Did I miss something or is this where you say like you did about last year's snow blackouts that this is just MSM lies?

Is Texas still vying against Florida for highest murder rate & deathrow champ, or did that crown move elsewhere in recent years?

nuance - you don't get it. There was a huge carjacking crime wave in the early 90's. There were several carjackings every day - now it's very rare.

Yeah, nuance, that's it, your blatant fanfictioning is nuance, just like how you said all of Texas was unaffected by the Snow Blackout of 2020 except a northeastern DEMONiKKKrat section which the MSM lied and said was plugged into an out-state Fed grid and therefore lit and how you hunted with your AK-47 - for your wife's Rhode Reds in a coop despite not actually being frozen in in the dark, and thus ZERO carjacks since C/C became legal really meant higher than average USA-wise, yaah?

Also, I said nothing about carjackings disappearing anywhere but Texas.

Fair enough. I just vote against Republicans. I don't actually vote for anything.

It’s too extreme right now to really decide, but republican policies are still much better. Still, too much of anything can destroy you.

But the question is very targeted: what specific policies have they put forward?

there's the old saw about lower taxes and less spending. Things they don't really do when they get in office.

So what policies- specific policies?