Yzermandius19

That's only when you make idiotic criticisms, not when you make good ones. Of course you think all your criticisms of Trump are good, even when parroting obvious Anti--Trump media propaganda, but that doesn't mean they are. This is why you don't notice the difference when someone critiques your critiques, and you just think people criticize you if you ever criticize him at all. You refuse to believe that any of your criticisms about Trump isn't fair and unbiased, and you lash out at anyone who points out that isn't true.

Nope. It's those who claim non-partisanship the loudest who are the most partisan posters, they are so partisan, they don't even know they are partisan. Those who admit their biases openly, instead of feigning impartiality, are actually the least biased posters, it's the undercover hack b*tches who are the most biased posters. To wit, you are actually far more biased than clubgop, you just like to pretend otherwise.

Trump is right wing, but less so than many GOP presidents. He's a New York Liberal who hijacked the Republican Party. Left and Right can be over used and often arbitrary, but not so much when I use it, lumping me in with most people who overuse those terms is not a fair characterization, you are projecting other's faults on me, just because we occasionally use the same term. You need to get over the hatred of descriptive labels, without them, nothing could be discussed, and yet Filthy Neutral Milequetoast Fence Sitters want to pretend like no labels should ever be used to describe them because they are so impartial none of them applies or some nonsense.

Filthy Neutral Milquetoast Fence Sitter is still biased, in favor of neutrality. Your claim on not being biased is dismissed as ridiculous on the face of it, you might be able to fool yourself with that nonsense, but you don't fool me.

I assume that leftists who are deranged are deranged, and I assume that rightists who are deranged are deranged. Your derangement is not directionless, you buy into the idiotic left wing talking points far more than you buy into the idiotic right wing talking points, feigning like you are unbiased is laughable.

Judging politicians against a mythical perfect politician will always lead to disappointment. You have to grade on a curve, not compare them to saints.

Pretending to not know the difference between the left and the right, as if they are indistinguishable from each other doesn't fool anyone but the ignorant.

If you don't see how the left is more deranged than the right at the moment, you aren't paying attention.

Except I don't use it that way. I give the reasons for it being TDS and a terrible criticism, I don't just ignore it, I tear it to shreds and then sprinkle on a little TDS sauce. So your theory is just you projecting your own laziness on me.

It's a simple observation. The left are the one's flipping out and empowering the person they claim to hate, when the right flips out they are much less counter-productive than the TDS left. The media being non-stop TDS leftists is plain as day, and they are far more rabid than any Trump supporter I've ever met.

No one is doing that. You just pretend that is happening so when anyone defends Trump you can write them off as just a Trump fan boy so nothing they say will cause you to examine the holes in your critiques. Then you double down on your worst critiques, endlessly parroting obvious Anti-Trump propaganda as if it's some kind of mic drop.

Not at all. The lefties are far more deranged about Trump than righties who are deranged by lefties, by several orders of magnitude.

Everyone who isn't a crazy extremist anyway.

More leftists have Trump Derangement Syndrome than leftists that don't.

And when they aren't, they should be banned. If you want abortion to be legal in all circumstances, then you are just as big of an extremist as those who want it banned in all circumstances, and the latter is the strawman you want to argue against to make your argument sound reasonable.

Their nuclear arsenal still exists and threatens America just as the American nuclear arsenal still exists and threatens Russia. The Soviet Union being no more isn't relevant, the source of the friction isn't gone and isn't going away just because the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union is gone.

Is killing people preferable to taking care of them? I'm gonna go with no on that one, there might be some exceptions sure, and I'm willing to grant them, but they are rare, not common. Potential having a bad life is not preferable to abortion. Try asking some kids having hard lives in foster care or elsewhere whether they'd prefer to be dead right now, and see how many takers you get.

Abortion is the worst form of birth control by a massive margin, and abortion should not be used as birth control. Proper birth control prevents pregnancy, it doesn't end unwanted pregnancies. People using birth control doesn't not mean any potential form of birth control is a good idea to use, especially abortion. If an abortion is being done because people are trying to avoid the consequences of not using birth control, or using ineffective birth control, them being in a difficult situation they'd rather not be in does not justify using abortion as birth control. If the family doesn't want to take care of the child, for medical, financial or other emotional reasons, that's what adoption is for. Abortion should be the last resort, and only used in situations where the life of the mother is unnecessarily jeopardized due to their pregnancy, with the mother's consent.

The goodwill was a mirage, and one world kumbaya was never going to happen, the old fears never went away, and they were never going to even if the US was more friendly. You wanted to believe that anything was possible, but that doesn't mean that was the reality. As long as they both have nukes aimed at each other, on a hair trigger, there will be no friendship, no matter how wishful your thinking is.

Why would the Russian's join an organization that was designed to contain them? Makes no sense, you just want them to.

You're wrong. The US could have had the best foreign policy possible, and Putin still would have been a thing. Your theory that everything that goes wrong in the world is somehow America's fault is wishful thinking, Russia isn't only an enemy because of American actions.

The point is that America and Russia do not trust each other, and if they did then the consequences of misplacing that trust prevent it from changing. There was no opportunity to change the arrangement just because the Soviet Union fell, you just wish there was.

I don't want give to state the power to dictate to someone what to do with their bodies, but I do want the state to dictate what people can do to the bodies of others without their permission, especially when it comes to taking that person's life. Both sides of the debate make some great arguments, but you are failing to make any good arguments for the pro-choice side of things. When either side starts putting the life of the mother or the child ahead of the other, as if one is more important than the other and one is simply the property of the other, that is where both sides jump the shark. Legalizing abortion in all circumstances with no exceptions is making the child the slave of the mother, and making abortion illegal in all circumstances with no exceptions is making the mother the slave of the child, the line has to be drawn somewhere, but drawing the line at either extreme is immoral and impractical.

Life containing suffering is a poor reason to justify abortion, and a person's life containing potential suffering is an even shittier reason to justify abortion. If the parents can't care of the child, there are much better options than abortion to deal with that scenario.

Pakistan isn't aiming it's nukes at America though, it's aiming them at India. America and Russia being friends would be like if India and Pakistan were friends, things could not have been different, that is wishful thinking. The only reason for either America or Russia to have the nuclear arsenals they have is to attempt to beat the other in a nuclear war, should it come to that, and neither is fooling the other into thinking it's just about other targets.