• Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @daniel_jongeward @drag0nbait

    Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @sarahmiller

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @drag0nbait Congratulations for advancing to next Round!

      @daniel_jongeward Great job, thank you for participating!

      • 2 years ago

        @daniel_jongeward It was a fun debate!

      • 2 years ago

        I just want to make a quick comment, I don't feel this resolution has anything to do with where morality comes from. We don't really need to know where it comes from to understand it exists.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward I would disagree with that. Knowing where it comes from gives us a standard as to what is moral and what is not. If we don't know where it originates, we cannot determine who has the moral high ground.

        • 2 years ago

          @brando2000 is it better or more moral to you to not fully understand where morality comes from, or make up a lie with no evidence of where it comes from so you can shape morality into your views?

        • 2 years ago

          @brando2000 Do you have to understand where every single law originated from to understand what the law is or if someone broke the law?

        • 2 years ago

          @brando2000 @daniel_jongeward That was the purpose of my argument along the lines of "who defines what is and isn't moral?" If morality came from learning (which I hopefully showed in the debate it didn't come from nature) then morality would be truly subjective bc different societies learn differently. If morality is subjective there is no way to prove the resolution objectively true!

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait you made an argument from the state of ignorance saying that you don't see empathy anywhere in nature. You must not spend much time on the cute animal side of YouTube. There are countless cases of cross-species friendships. Not to mention the mama cat who adopts the baby puppies, the dogs who adopt the baby kittens and nurse and mother them, heck recently I remember a story in India of a king cobra fostering and protecting a couple puppies. So your entire first point of empathy cannot be found in nature, can be disproven just by observing nature.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait I think the simple answer on who defines what is and isn't moral is obvious, we do as humans as a collective. We create governments we create laws we create structure, we debate, we analyze, we determine what is best for all of us, what is right, what is good for cooperation and human flourishing. Morality is a construct of society.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward I personally don't see much benefit in continuing the debate in the comments lol. But to your point you are saying the animalistic motherly tendencies are empathy. firstly We do not even know if animals can comprehend the mental troubles of other animals (that is by definition what empathy is: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.) Secondly what you are describing at best is sympathy (as in feeling sorry for another) which is in no way empathy.

          to your point about collectives make up morality proves my point. If morality is whatever the society wants then it is subjective to the society. Different societies/collectives will obviously have different views on morality. You did not show in the debate why your view of morality was somehow better than any other view.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait we don't really know if humans can comprihend the mental troubles of other humans, while we are at it, so your entire point is a mute point. Morality is more about actions and what you do then how you think, after all when tragedy strikes and all you do is offer thoughts and prayers it's basically the same as doing nothing and I consider that immoral. So morality is what you do. Actions. Actions have consequences, consequences can be measured. Therefore there is a science to morality. It is something that is evolved with us within Society. Therefore it's totally reasonable to say that yes we can measure what is a more moral principal. Lots of people do this by a gut instinct or they go by their gut. Some rely on Purely authority figures, some are more introverted and rely on what's best for them and their survival. When we compare the principles of both liberals and conservatives, by definition alone because Liberals are by definition open to experience you find a more cooperative principal then conservative. I really wanted to end on this point but I found myself running out of time. Seems like practice 3 minutes and actual 3 minutes are two different things. I probably lost the debate on time management alone, something I admit you did really well on.

        • 2 years ago

          @drag0nbait I just noticed a contradiction you made, you made a claim to know that the "sucker fish" doesn't feel anything for the shark, but also made a claim that "we don't know if animals can comprihend the feelings of other animals" if we don't know, then you can't also assume indifference.

      • 2 years ago

        Interesting debate.

        Lots of esoteric discussion - with few concrete examples. Empathy, nature, symbiotic relationship between sharks and 'cleaner fish' all took more time than real 'meat' (except PRO admits to eating meat but I think he suggested that veganism might be more 'moral'...so I might be on thin ice here.)

        Only a few times did we get real examples....like CON successfully pointed out how liberal welfare programs might be harm individuals, while conservative policies would be better. (AND - anytime someone references the highly esteemed (and libertarian) economic professor, Walter E. Williams - that will be an up check on that side!)

        PRO claims SCIENCE changed him from anti-abortion to pro-choice...and properly stated that most abortions are in the first trimester. Left unsaid is what science really informed him (vs. what he thinks he learned....that a 'fetus' - Latin for 'baby' is a totally new/unique life with its own DNA, and like an Eagle's egg which IS legally protected - will become a baby human (and egg becomes a baby eagle) - and could grow into an adult human....and even at 10 weeks - all body parts are there, it has a beating heart, it has 10 fingers and 10 toes.....so again - I wonder what he REALLY learned from science)...and from a 'lofty high moral ground' -whether he would be supporting Partial Birth (late term) abortion where a baby that could survive out of the mother's womb is deliberately killed to keep from delivering a live baby. Moral High Ground? ...maybe if you start from a really really low point....but interesting that most Liberals support ALL abortion (no limits) and most conservatives believe that PBA is little more than a 'sanitized' term for infanticide.

        It seemed (at least to me) that PRO anchors his believe in higher morality is based on 'more empathy' - which never really got proven. CON points out that modern capitalism, limited government, lower taxes - are all conservative polices that have done far more for people overall than liberal policies. I would have loved to hear if PRO could list wonderful caring policies that Conservatives would oppose - that would do more for the common people.....and CON - if he tried harder - could have found programs that more clearly delineated the difference between Liberals and Conservatives - for example - SCHOOL CHOICE. Most conservative support school choice as a way to help poor, impoverished, minorities, etc children escape failing government schools...and helping a child get a good education is crucial to growing up and not being dependent....and liberals are almost uniformly opposed to school choice....because protecting government teachers/unions is more important that helping the children.

        Unfortunately - CON ran from trying to make a 'victory' for conservatives - rather, suggested that they both need each other - essentially refuting PRO by saying - no, liberals are not on a higher ground - but liberals and conservatives are on the same 'plane.' Interesting positioning....but CON admits to not being a conservative....so I THINK I understand why he took the position.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I learned that pba, or part birth abortion, isn't a thing. I view abortions like heart transplats, it's a medical procedure that everyone rather not have to happen, but the patient is sure glad it does. But I agree that we spent way too much time discussing things other than moral principles of the right and left and which held the moral high ground. I think absolute equal of these two views is inherently impossible, but wanted to be the first to "take the moral highground" and promote cooperation. Which is the fundamentals of morality imo. I'M not certain I was sucessful. But it is rather difficult to be unbiased, since everyone identifies with a side. I expect conservatives will vote con no matter what I say, I expect liberals will be fair and maybe I didn't do a good enough job, so that may have them vote con, since it's quite possible there are alot of conservatives on here, I predict I will most likely loose this debate because of the team loyalty or tribal mentality conservatives share. I think it's quite possible this debate could have been lost before it began. But I will stick to what I believe in, even if it means a loss. That's what virtue of moral means to me. anyway thank you for your input. :)

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward A tad confusing to me I guess. See....it sounds like you are in the ether...esoteric discussions - yet when it comes to REAL principles (i.e - how should we actually LIVE...) - you wiff. If you see nothing wrong with partially delivering a healthy baby, sticking a pair of scissors in the neck/head and sucking the brains out (this gruesome procedure IS PBA...and it really does exist) - then you can pretend to be taking a 'high moral ground' ....but somehow - it doesn't register with me. AND - if PBA 'isn't a thing' - how come leftist/liberals fight tooth and nail when conservatives try to pass legislation (successfully in many states) - to prevent the bill from passing?

          Or - you can show me how the 'high moral ground' prevent minority parents from having school choice -which they REALLY REALLY want, but leftists solidly oppose? (And - their opposition harms little children - so there goes the alleged claim about how leftists have a higher moral trait because they have more empathy....except for poor minority school children doomed to be stuck in failing schools.


          Consider how a public school system that spends more money per student than most school districts anywhere else in the US - regularly fails the majority of students and parents would LOVE school choice to opt out of the Washington DC school system.....


        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard classic strawman agreement, you assume my possition to knock it down. You just assume since I am prochoice that I support all and ever abortion even if they seem to be by less than creditable sources. Townhall is basicly conservative propaganda, so I'd suggest getting better evidence. Your evidence must first hold up to scrutiny.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard as for school choice, that's an issue I think liberals argee on, more education options are widely seen as nessisary on the liberal side, I haven't met or heard of one liberal even against that. So my conclusion is your data is more content to be divisive than accurate which I find very immoral, just another example of how low conservatives stoop. Do conservatives not care what is true, just as long as it supports them? That's why we have a saying "truth, tends to have a liberal bias"

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward abortion - you stated you USED to be anti-abortion until 'science informed you'. I didn't ASSUME your position....I listened to what you said. SCIENCE (if you understood it) - would tell you the fetus - is a living person. It is moral relativism that determines that a woman's right to abortion (even if limited to the first 3 months) is more important than protecting an unborn child.

          And as to the article I posted...by Allen West - I could do what leftists do - and say you must be racist because you reject a well-written article by a black man...but I won't (but I will point out that plenty of leftists do JUST THAT....so there is another area where liberals can't claim the higher moral ground)....BUT - you lose moral high ground when you summarily dismiss an article with plenty of facts without even trying to point out possible flaws If the article is biased and wrong - state the problems.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward School choice - read the article....Obama CANCELED school choice in DC on taking office. If liberals are for school choice - why is it not implemented...because most conservatives are for it - and it would have happened but for the sewer mentality of liberals who protect teacher unions over helping (lack of empathy) children. You can't prove that leftists/liberals tend to support school choice. (AND - looking at the way you worded your statement...sure ...liberals agree on more education options - but only if it is state run - more money, etc. ...but never an intent to allow parents a REAL choice...vouchers and school choice - and try for free market solutions. Your assertions are also 'stooping low' - claiming I am divisive (for pointing out the truth??) Wow....project much??

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard science would tell us that a fetus is a living person? Incorrect. Science actually has very clear definitions of life and a fetus does not qualify. It would be like holding a seed a tree. It is a simple missed classification used by your propaganda Outlets. I know in your mind you think you are right, that you're Justified. But you have proven to be incorrect on multiple accounts. Even if I accepted your absurd proposition, that wouldn't make abortion anymore moral. Even if I went so far as to say the fetus is a tiny Thumbelina living in the apartments in the uterus, who can communicate, Express desires to live, ect. And without that woman's uterus she most surely would die, it's still not moral to force a woman who doesn't consent to having a little person inside of her, to continue to have a little person inside of her. We give more rights to the Dead, we cannot even Harvest organs from our dead without their consent.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward the whole abortion thing is worthy of a separate debate...so I won't beat on the drum too much. BUT - science tells us that the fetus is a unique and living thing. NO - it is not an adult....no one suggested that. Your 'thumbelina' thing is a silly diversion not worthy of rational debate. Consider that no adult has come into existence without being a fetus. Every fetus has unique DNA that comes from the 2 parents. If it is not a living organism...what is it? A rock? When does this 'unliving thing' suddenly become living? BUT - the point of mentioning late term Partial Birth Abortion is merely to point out that most leftists will ardently defend the right to kill a healthy fetus that could be safely delivered - a living baby....in the same manner that most leftists will argue AGAINST school choice. Both are political choices - taking a side that, IMHO, shows that leftists can never claim the 'high moral ground' when they are so much against pre-born babies and little children stuck in crappy leftist designed government school systems that fail them.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard something conservatives don't understand about liberals, we don't all fall in line to an authority figure. When an authority figure does something even if they claim to be liberal or Progressive we might not necessarily agree with it. Liberals don't often agree with each other, we are a bunch of individuals, each with our own personal code and we consider it more moral to stick by our own personal code then conform to one we don't agree with. Part of the reason Hillary Clinton did so bad in the election, is many liberals thought she was way to conservative, and disingenuous. Second I don't think you're pointing out the truth at all, sure you believe it's true. But the evidence and articles you've given haven't hold up to scrutiny are completely bias, so I write it off as bullshit. I have no reason to believe you or any articles you present to me. What you've rambled off to me seems to be just conservative right-wing propaganda, with little to no basis in reality, so further credibility of anything of what you are saying has really shrunk. And since I no longer view you as credible, it's really hard for me to take anything you're saying seriously.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard the thing that is completely gone over your head, is that I'm saying regardless of when you think Life Begins, whether it's at conception, when cognitive brain functions arrive, or in some Bronze Age cultures they believe Life Begins at 2 years old. This doesn't change the fact, that the woman has rights over what is living and isn't living inside her body. But yeah tons of debates even on here about that issue with better debaters than me.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward And it is such a mark of high ground morality to stick scissors in the back of a baby partially delivered, suck brains out - and deliver a dead baby. Yup - you can have that high ground.

          And - the dismissiveness of your writing...'over your (my head)', dismissive of articles yet unwilling and unable to point out any factual errors...calling what I say 'right wing propaganda'....and no basis in reality? Try arguing against the points made rather than running from them with pretend superiority. If you can prove there is a problem - do it; if you can't argue against the article - pretend superiority and dismiss it (um....that is what you did...)....or do further research and maybe learn something.

          AND - ultimately - I tend to be a 'libertarian' - more so than conservative ....I lean to favor very small government - more freedom for people - less oppression by government. AND - my experience is leftist/liberals think that they have the high moral ground and that permits them to tell everyone how to live, what products they can and can't buy, what they can and can't say, etc. The transition from nanny to tyrant is very short and quick! As a libertarian - I would frustrate leftist/liberals AND conservatives....for example - I am opposed to 'recreational drug use' - but on a personal level. Let people do so (thus embracing a position that many leftists support) - but I would be opposed to government programs to 'help/heal/bail out' drug users who can't get a job, have medical bills, etc. .....because people should face the consequences of their own stupid actions. Plenty of people could use marijuana safely - and should be permitted to do so.....but those that do and lose control, lose a job, etc. - it is on them and not me (or the state, funded by taxpayer dollars) to fix them/bail them out.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard so many logical fallacies so little time. You're also forgetting the possibility of conservative abortion doctors, and conservatives getting abortions. You're so transfixed on this one thing, this one statistically irrelevant thing. Even if it did happen, it sure as hell ain't a common thing. Why do you even care about such a statistical outlier? Even so your behavior is mimic the behaviour of other conservatives who are ignorant on how such procedures are even carried out. I've had Direct experience and met people who had such experiences. In fact I find it Ludacris that some state laws require the mother to observe the fetus before having an abortion. The doctors find this Ludacris to, it actually doesn't work in the conservatives favor. The doctors basically show the patient a small dot, and the patient feels even less attached to it. I have talked to a number of women who have experienced abortion. They're not the monsters you're making them out to be. Also conservatives don't even seem to care that abortion is actually on the decline. They just want to hold on to they're one thing that makes them feel that Liberals are somehow monsterous. Even though Liberals are trying to work through you and your delusions. Basically you're libertarianism View States that you and yours are separate from us. You expressed that any government is oppressive, and seem not to view Grace, and mercy as valuable morals. I think many people on your spectrum do not understand that it is more important to understand why criminals do what they do, and prevent those reasons and stresses, then actually help the people who fall down that path. Liberals hold The High Ground because they see criminals as people who need help, and are not motivated by vengeance that doesn't help anybody. It doesn't make any sense to say drugs ruined your life, so now you have to face the consequences and now I'm going to ruin your life. That's not Justice either. Your spectrum your side has a total lack of empathy towards the people in that situation, worse yet you get off and thinking you're better than them. You don't fully understand your own privileges. You don't fully understand their circumstances. But you pretend to and you judge them. I think that's vastly why conservatives and people on your spectrum are considered immoral. You pretend to care so much about abortion, but people on your spectrum couldn't care less about infant mortality, or child hunger. You'd rather take food from a child's mouth, so you can save $60 or less on your tax return. I find that monsterly immoral. And most of the world would agree.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward 1) paragraphs are your friend. A long missive without paragraphs and organization is hard to read.

          2. I did NOT focus my counter to your high morality chiefly on abortion - and point out it is controversial....but it takes special effort to fail to recognize the potential humanity in an unborn child....hardly conducive to someone who claims the high moral ground.

          3. I did center my main counter to your alleged moral high ground on how leftists treat minority/poor children - and I supplied 2 articles. Pull them up and show me their flaws. Where is the data wrong? Debate me on the substance of the 2 articles, if you want...because there is hard data there that is hard to refute....and it shows the lack of empathy/care/concern by those who oppose school choice.

          3. I won't waste time on the rest of the bloviating, because the points you try to make are as solid as warm jello....and don't try to presume you can state what I believe it....and last time I looked, I am not sure that 'most of the world would agree' that daniel j is a good spokesman for ethical/moral values (or anything else!)

          4. A final challenge - 'morally superior people' do things with their own money and time.....morally inferior or corrupt people vote for big government to transfer wealth and create inefficient bloated bureaucracies that don't work. Look at the difference between countries that support free market - and socialist Venezuela. What do YOU do to help poor people? Do you donate time/money? Do you help them....or do you only speak out for big (and inefficient) government? Do you put your money instead of your mouth to help? For example - that $60 Tax saving you spoke of...in the hands of plenty of conservatives who care and have real compassion - might be better spent by them helping charitable organizations and doing good works, while the government might waste it on something like Solyndra or sending money to Iran.

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard 1. I apologize I didn't realize I sent you a wall of text until it was already sent.

          2. If we truly cared purely about potential humans being born, is it moral to condemn women for not having any children? Why don't we have human Farms that do nothing but grow humans? Why do you see so much potential in a fertilized egg, but see no potential in children whom are already born? Have you offered to adopt and care for these "children" whom instead are aborted? No, then you're a hypocrite.

          3. How do I know that won't be a giant waste of my time and resources, and that your mind will mean remain unchanged because of your evolved tribalism? Statistics show that when conservatives are faced with the evidence they instead Double Down and believe their delusions stronger. I don't think it would be effective at a time when your mentally not able to receive data.

          4. Most of the Civilized world does agree similarly to my morals and ethics. And considers most of what you said delusional American ramblings. Though we might agree I'm not the best spokesperson in the world. Though I made no such claim that I was.

          5. I'll ignore that you had to number 3 points as I make similar mistakes but I'll call this last one five. In our society money is power, money is not morality. Money is the root of all evil. When you look at the happiest countries in the world, they all have one thing in common. That thing they all have in common is there also some of the most liberal countries in the world. Statistically speaking the only conservatives who consistently give to charity are the poor. And most of the time when they give they give to their church or organization who gives less than 20% to actual charity. Liberals when donating or giving to charity give more per person and make dually sure their charity is creditable and will actually go to and do the most impact. I for one find it appalling that conservatives depend on their poorest to be the most generous. And it's only because of conservative blind loyalty and perhaps a bit of guilt Factor that their charitable at all. I'm not saying conservatives don't care or have real compassion, but statistics show if they get that tax break they spend it on themselves. But if you get to complain about the smallest portion the government spends on helping its citizens, I get to complain on the huge over-bloated proportion the government spends on useless military projects. Cuz you're complaining about the one and 2%, and I'm complaining about 85%. We might be able to avert a lot of our problems if we simply had a government that actually represented us, not just those with money who can by lobbyists to buy our politicians.

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward Unless you are smart enough and 'man enough' to take the challenge about discussing/debating the 2 articles that support the very conservative (and empathetic) position of school choice - and liberals must hate children because they oppose school choice - then this 'thread' needs to end. I understand your reluctance to debate the 2 articles - you can mask it with BS about me not being willing to change my position - because that comes across as 'my fault' rather than 'I read the articles and it would be hard to refute the data and therefore hard to challenge the positions put forth.'

          Later - after that discussion - we can discuss and/or debate how leftists view 'giving to charity' really something that is done through government programs...while more charitable contributions are given by conservatives rather than leftists. I googled that 'concept' and found plenty of articles supporting my position.....

          AND - you might be math challenged or mis-informed - because you use the number 85% for military budget...and only someone who is math challenged (or not informed on federal budgeting) thinks that the military budget is 85% of federal spending. (HINT - it is less than 20%....)

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard I laugh at your attempts to spread toxic masculinity. Im liberal remember so I am not woman enough for you. lol XD I am smart enough to pick my battles, and I see no reason to debate nonsense on a proven propaganda network. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/ I don't need to waste my time cross referencing a source when you clearly haven't. So I refuse to debate nonsense. I have said enough on that. It's nonsense, nonfiction, not reality.

          Honestly, I exaggerated on purpose. the number was not so much just militray spending but the amount I could draw complaints from, as in your complaining about 2% of government spending and I take issue with a much larger percent. but speaking of math you know who was in office when we finally got out of the recession and had the massive welfare percent drop in 2010? That's right Obama. If the bush economy still continued I'd probably still be unemployed.

          Anyway, seek some non-bais sources and learn the other sides argument and maybe you will learn something.

          You may be an old dog, but you can still learn new tricks.


        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward Gosh...i wonder if you even read your own sources. I looked at the mediabiasfactcheck....and guess what they said:

          Factual Reporting: HIGH

          Got that....high accuracy on FACTS. Now - you might not like the opinions that are derived from those facts because they are conservative...but facts are a pesky thing - they are REAL. AND - it is hard to justify a leftist position (like one that is anti-child for school choice) - but facts are facts are facts.

          It will stand here .....you were afraid to look at two articles from a web site that, while 'conservative' - is rated HIGH on factual reporting...and didn't want to debate the facts (Because they are probably true) ...and didn't want to try to 're-shape the debate' based on 'facts in evidence.'

          Umm...again - on Obama - you must be using some of those recreational drugs... recession ended in mid-2009 - but Obama spent like a drunken sailor (actually - that is unfair to drunken sailors - they only spend their own money)....and doubled our national debt in 8 years - after chastising Bush for spending over $4 Trillion in 8 years. AND - your graph conveys poorly the information you claim it shows....try this instead: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp31t.png

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard well your graph isn't much better (in fact its worse) its zoomed in on a small period of time that doesn't even include bush or any other presidency, I find it laughable that you consider this graph in any way superior, it actually doesn't tell me much in comparison to inflation and the rest of history.

          Just like your source you like to omit everything you don't like. so the report on townhall reads:

          ""These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources."

          as for your problem with factual reporting it has to deal with their sources since they are mainly an Opinion outlet the stories they select still have strongly worded bais that will appeal to you. I would call this sight the very definition of an echochamber. and I rather debate people's actual opinions, not other people's opinions that were fed to them. But if you're still confused look of the Methodology tab, high is just one point above mixed, and thats not saying much. But since your so obnoxious, I will take a look at the sources your articles used. It's not that I was afraid of being wrong or anything like that, I am just tired of trying to get you to understand simple morality, when its clear you don't want to, you want to cling onto your own. I can source the methodology and how it rates sources, not facts. and I couldn't find a source on your townhall article so looks like I have to get to work and cross reference this.

          First lie I found right off the bat, was "Barack Obama was the one who terminated the DC school voucher program."

          however It was first approved in 2003 and allowed to expire in 2009.[1] The program was reauthorized under the SOAR Act in 2011.

          Obama didn't terminate it, he probably wasn't made aware of this bush administration program. John Boehner and Joe Lieberman waited until 2011, at a time where they needed to score political points to reintroduce it, and Obama happily signed it.

          In this one case I think we agree that Obama was too conservative in not providing enough funding to last long term. Wait! weren't you complaining that Obama spent too much? which is it?

          On April 22, 2016, board members of the D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation voted to dissolve the organization because of debt caused by large staff costs, including misuse of the organization's credit cards.

          So republican conservative leaders let a program expire, introduced it 2 years later, scored their political points, then there was a lot of misuse of the funds. Smells like corruption to me. If you could provide evidence if Obama's ties to this credit card misuse you might have some claims of corruption, but if those funds misuse point to the other party we may have a case of republican corruption.

          next the article said "Eric Holder brought a federal lawsuit against the school voucher program in the State of Louisiana." based on the information of the DC one I wondered if it was because of misuse of funds and corruption. It was later dropped in 2013. with the quote from the justice department “Our goal has always been to obtain information on the voucher program on a timely basis and to facilitate implementation of the program consistent with the state’s desegregation obligations. The court has put in place a process to meet that goal.”

          *Deep Breath* Okay thats the first 3 paragraphs, the first two had little to no substance just stating opinions and stating stereotypes.

          okay moving on next quote from your article "The unemployment statistics in the black community are unfathomable, another sad legacy from the previous presidential administration." Okay during this period of time we can see the rise of the alt-right and the tea party and a lot of the Conservative Backlash. I don't think its fair to blame this on the president at all. unemployment among black people is very unfortunate, but so is the racial bias that will deny a person of color an interview or a job based on how ethnic his or her name sounds, or how they talk in an interview. One, its not unfathomable, we can fathom this, and two its not the president's fault. It's a culture rift between those in power (and money and position) and those without, heck in Yakima, WA there is such a large population of latinos that as a white person its hard to get a job. at least it was in 2008-2014. Haven't returned there since.

          next falsehood "that $15 minimum wage thing, yet that has not really proven to be a successful fiscal policy." OMG so wrong. Seattle economy is booming since we introduced that. Jobs are everywhere. Have to end it here cause I ran out of characters

        • 2 years ago

          @mvineyard Do your really want me to go on? I will say I find it funny to criticize Obama's golfing considering trump spend WAY more time golfing. I found this article divisive with no sources and half truths, it's poorly written by a conservative for conservatives, he then goes and list some numbers of people shot and killed, but aren't conservatives anti gun control? and these numbers are current under the current president, doesn't that look bad for him? The conservative mind is like wonderland to be right now and all I am looking for is that gosh darn white rabbit!

        • 2 years ago

          @daniel_jongeward Quick one on guns/gun control.....THere are plenty of gun laws. It is illegal for a felon to even ATTEMPT to buy a gun. When they try - it is a felony. (That is what the law says) . It happened many thousands of time during the Obama administration - yet ZERO attempts to prosecute. SO ...why have a law that you don't want to enforce? Why not ask Congress to repeal the law.

          Quick one on the HOPE scholarship program...yes - that one was a team effort to screw over children...both Congress (Democrat Controlled) and Obama....see this:

          Forbes....a 'right-center' source (per your MediaBiasFactCheck)....and it explains more - and is contemporaneous with the 2009 'let the program die and to hell with parents and children because we care more about unions.'
          Remember - these hope scholarships would SAVE money ...since it costs more to send a child to a DC public school than the value of the scholarship.

          RE: New Orleans. After Katrina - lots of schools damaged or destroyed...and the government allowed charter/private schools. Turns out- it is lower cost and parents are happier.... this is truly 'free market' at work....and most parents love it. Of course - Obama and Democrats do everything they can to undermine it and return school to government control (and teachers in the teacher unions...where teacher unions give BIG donations to the Democrat politicians...all very sweet and incestuous...)

          AND...I hope Trump golfs MORE. Fact is...conservatives complained about Obama golfing (I didn't...more time on the golf course - less time screwing up the country), and leftists complain about Trump...but nothing gets done and libertarians are unhappy about the costs. Maybe if both sides are upset enough....both sides would agree on a DOLLAR limit that can be expended by the POTUS and FLOTUS on vacation costs (and beyond that....comes out of their own pocket.)