Trump could use the military in ‘dictatorial ways’ if he returns to White House
Is it acceptable for a president to skirt the checks and balances system to achieve their agenda?
Ever heard of his court packing scheme to allow the President to pack the Supreme Court for his own personal interests, or the thousands of unconstitutional executive orders he signed, bypassing Congress, or the 2,000 Americans he knowingly allowed to be slaughtered at Pearl Harbour despite (and this has been proved under the Freedom of Information Act) knowing a Japanese attack was coming to Pearl Harbour? I can go on if that's not enough for you....
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
And he also gave us the Manhattan Project, social security, revived the economy during WW2, and was the only president ever to win 4 terms and have the highest amount of states in the electoral college. I COULD go on as well. Do I approve of everything he did? No, but there’s pros and cons here, and they drastically outweigh the cons. Besides, less than 10 of his orders were actually revoked.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
Social security is a scam, forcing people to put money into a program they may or may not agree with rather than making it a voluntary choice, and then spending the money of the people you cheated until the whole scheme imposed, as we are seeing today. Social security should be privatised as an insurance company that workers can choose to invest money in or choose to have no association with, because it is immoral and defies the natural right to both liberty and property to use the coercion of the Law to compel others to purchase or invest in something, it is fraudulent and disgusting and I… Read more
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
Social security is a desperate need for those with nothing. We can’t leave them out to dry, and if that were privatized, they’d just be indebted to those corporations for generations. We needed it for the elderly, we needed it so they weren’t left to die on the streets if they were left without a retirement fund. It’s called a safety net for a reason, and that safety net saves lives.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
If they never had to pay for it in the first place, however, this issue would be nonexistent. The returns on their "investment" seniors get in this program proves it is a liability, not an asset. This is harming people, not helping them. You have also used the two fallacies – the Slippery Slope fallacy and the Appeal to Emotion, claiming seniors would die on the streets if social security was privatised, which is the reverse of the truth – seniors, and citizens in general, would get actual service that is honest and direct from a PRIVATE source. The main thing that would… Read more
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
Healthcare isn’t a freaking investment it’s not a business, nor should it have ever been, it’s a means of keeping people healthy into their elderly years. I didn’t say that ALL seniors would be in jeopardy, but far too many would be. Privatizing social security is a lazy and obvious cash grab for the very corporations you so vehemently stand against. Seniors, if they got an unlucky investment, would suffer incredibly in their old age. Corporations don’t increase the quality of their care, they just ramp up costs while stockpiling the drugs they have so then it can have momentary demand, and even then, the process is delayed. Besides, people don’t always make good investment decisions, and when that happens, they suffer. It’s a really crappy idea in general.
