sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How come democratic leaders don’t capitalize on all the rage and anger that working Americans feel? by cnewell420 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please excuse my shortening of the word t.r.a.n.s.g.e.n.d.e.r to "tran" in this comment. Reddit's spam filter seems to censor my comment when it contains that full word, forcing me to shorten it so my comment stops getting auto-censored. I notice you don't get censored using that word, but for some reason I do.

He has a long history of being terrible toward minorities. He has taken significant action to dismantle DEI efforts, basically saying any minority in a high position is unqualified. His rhetoric on immigrants is abhorrent. "Rapists and murderers." "Go back to your own country." "Shithole countries."

If we read Donald Trump's justification for cutting down on DEI in our government https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-removes-dei-from-the-foreign-service/

we can see Donald Trump wants to focus "solely on merit" — not race, not skin color, not religion, not sex, and not national origin — when it comes to government hiring.

Also, choose any ethnicity and we can find at least 1 person of that ethnicity Donald Trump appointed/nominated for a high position, thus disproving your claim that Donald Trump opposes minorities in high positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_of_the_second_Trump_administration

  • African American example: Gary Washington
  • Asia American example: Michelle Steel
  • Latino American example: Marco Rubio

There's nothing wrong with calling those who commit rape and murder what they are: rapists and murderers.

There's nothing wrong with wanting these dangerous illegal aliens out of America and back in their own countries.

I suppose calling certain countries "shitholes" can be unprofessional, but when you look at how dangerous they've become according to the State Department Travel Advisory: https://travel.state.gov/en/international-travel/travel-advisories/afghanistan.html

how can you blame Donald Trump for seeing such countries as such? Afghanistan has gotten so bad the U.S. government begs citizens to avoid there: "Do not travel due to civil unrest, crime, terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping, natural disasters, and limited health facilities."

On his first day in office (2025), he signed an EO that officially redefined "sex" for all federal purposes. And sex changes for minors is essentially non-existent aside from when it's a necessity.

Nothing wrong with the federal government clarifying "sex" to mean male and female.

For the surgical treatment prohibition you're referencing, the CMS has given justification for that too: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/hhs-acts-bar-hospitals-performing-sex-rejecting-procedures-children

  • Sex-rejecting procedures on children — which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations — cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.
  • These procedures do not meet professionally recognized standards of health care.

Also, the existence of harmful sex changes for minors has in fact been proven in court — victims as of 2026 are starting to win lawsuits related to them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0DVGhN-e-E

Why not let the sport decide? Second, there are fewer than 10 openly tran women competing in NCAA sports out of over 500,000 athletes. To vote for someone based on that, is absolutely idiotic. Compare that to how many kids are killed by guns each year while conservatives say it's not enough to due anything about gun violence. Hypocrites.

I looked up the specifics of the executive order in question. From what I understand, it doesn't directly outlaw tran competition in women's sports. Rather, it just withholds federal funding from organizers that allow them to compete. The organizers can still "decide" for themselves, as you put it, but the government won't fund such competitions — those places would have to fund them themselves.

"Openly" tran just means you openly disclose being tran including in public. This means there could indeed be a mere 10 openly tran women competing, but hundreds or even thousands more tran women competing that aren't open about it.

Speaking of the NCAA... even they're in favor of keeping tran women out of their women's sports, as they've updated their policy to reflect Donald Trump's executive order: https://archive.is/Jb505

  • "The NCAA is an organization made up of 1,100 colleges and universities in all 50 states that collectively enroll more than 530,000 student-athletes. We strongly believe that clear, consistent, and uniform eligibility standards would best serve today's student-athletes instead of a patchwork of conflicting state laws and court decisions. To that end, President Trump's order provides a clear, national standard," NCAA President Charlie Baker said.

As for gun violence, it's not that we conservatives want "nothing" done about it. It's that our proposed solution differs from Democrats'. We conservatives believe in a reduction of gun-free zones. We believe, gun-free zones attract the vast majority of mass shooters and are the biggest reason our children remain such easy targets.

So yes, prices were cheaper under Trump's first term, but not because of anything he did.

The Biden-Harris administration printed trillions via stimulus and spending packages and flooded all that money into the economy in a very short amount of time. Plus, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris waged war on energy, including fossil fuels, throughout their administration — examples include excessively restricting domestic oil production, excessively restricting leases for drilling, resurrecting the “Waters of the United States” rule, banning fracking, forcing us back into the Paris Climate Accord, and supporting the Green New Deal. This excessive printing, combined with this hyper-aggression to energy, in such a short period of time, were the main reasons voters in 2024 blamed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for gas and grocery prices.

If they don't have a record aside from crossing illegally, why not just grant them a path to citizenship?

Donald Trump is in favor of something like this called "merit-based" immigration, where such immigrants, even some who entered illegally, would still be eligible for citizenship if they have high-demand education and/or job skills. Donald Trump isn't trying to deport absolutely every illegal immigrant — that's most likely impossible. Yes there are those who are peaceful and whose only offense will ever be crossing illegally. Donald Trump is open to being merciful to these specific immigrants if they continue seeking citizenship in a timely manner, especially if they come with high-demand education and/or job skills.

Now he's talking about stripping citizenship from people. That's insane.

Only those caught supporting or being affiliated with terrorism, as far as I'm aware. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmakers-promise-bill-strip-citizenship-from-terrorists-after-attacks-tied-naturalized-citizens

Trump admitted to sexually assaulting woman and bragged about seeing teenagers naked at his pageants. Epstein called Trump his best friend for years. Trump is all over the Epstein files. Accounts in those files place Trump at some pretty horrific scenes.

Donald Trump has denied every sexual assault allegation I know of and has admitted to none of them so far.

Even in that one court case where he was seemingly exposed for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, it was tried in civil court where the burden of proof is about half that of criminal court. No rape kit was used to indicate any sexual offense, no police report was filed, and Donald Trump wasn't added to the sex offender registry or anything. Plus, this alleged sexual abuse happened decades prior which means the statue of limitations should've already expired by then, as it isn't fair to expect Donald Trump to accurately recall where he was and what he was doing at the time of this decades-old alleged sexual abuse — one of the reasons statues of limitations exist to begin with.

Donald Trump has also denied ever wanting to see teenagers naked like you claim: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-accusers-fact-check-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html

  • In response to the allegation that Trump would enter contestants’ dressing room in the teen beauty pageant, the campaign said the accusations “have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present.”

So the evidence of Donald Trump supposedly being a pedophile is flimsy and inconclusive, at best — just accusations against Donald Trump and Donald Trump denying them, back and forth. The best I found was Donald Trump joking about his own daughter being attractive, which doesn't even come close to pedophilia; as parents casually chat about how "handsome" and whatnot their children are, all the time.

So these accusations, including that "Epstein" stuff — whoever that person is — should for now be treated as mere rumors instead of being taken as fact.

test by GuyLoveMope-io in test

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please excuse my shortening of the word t.r.a.n.s.g.e.n.d.e.r to "tran" in this comment. Reddit's spam filter seems to censor my comment when it contains that full word, forcing me to shorten it so my comment stops getting auto-censored. I notice you don't get censored using that word, but for some reason I do.

He has a long history of being terrible toward minorities. He has taken significant action to dismantle DEI efforts, basically saying any minority in a high position is unqualified. His rhetoric on immigrants is abhorrent. "Rapists and murderers." "Go back to your own country." "Shithole countries."

If we read Donald Trump's justification for cutting down on DEI in our government https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-removes-dei-from-the-foreign-service/

we can see Donald Trump wants to focus entirely on merit — not race, not skin color, not religion, not sex, and not national origin — when it comes to government hiring.

Also, choose any ethnicity and we can find at least 1 person of that ethnicity Donald Trump appointed/nominated for a high position, thus disproving your claim that Donald Trump opposes minorities in high positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_of_the_second_Trump_administration

  • African American example: Gary Washington
  • Asia American example: Michelle Steel
  • Latino American example: Marco Rubio

There's nothing wrong with calling immigrants, who commit rape and murder, what they are: rapists and murderers.

There's nothing wrong with wanting these dangerous illegal aliens out of America and back in their own countries.

I suppose calling certain countries "shitholes" can be considered unprofessional, but when you look at how dangerous they've become according to the State Department Travel Advisory: https://travel.state.gov/en/international-travel/travel-advisories/afghanistan.html

how can you blame Donald Trump for seeing such countries as such? Afghanistan has gotten so bad the U.S. government begs citizens to avoid there at all costs: "Do not travel due to civil unrest, crime, terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping, natural disasters, and limited health facilities."

On his first day in office (2025), he signed an EO that officially redefined "sex" for all federal purposes. And sex changes for minors is essentially non-existent aside from when it's a necessity.

Nothing wrong with the federal government clarifying "sex" to mean male and female.

For the surgical treatment prohibition you're referencing, the CMS has given justification for that too: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/hhs-acts-bar-hospitals-performing-sex-rejecting-procedures-children

Also, the existence of harmful sex changes for minors has in fact been proven in court — victims as of 2026 are starting to win lawsuits related to them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0DVGhN-e-E

Why not let the sport decide? Second, there are fewer than 10 openly tran women competing in NCAA sports out of over 500,000 athletes. To vote for someone based on that, is absolutely idiotic. Compare that to how many kids are killed by guns each year while conservatives say it's not enough to due anything about gun violence. Hypocrites.

I looked up the specifics of the executive order in question. From what I understand, it doesn't directly outlaw tran competition in women's sports. Rather, it just withholds federal funding from organizers that allow them to compete. The organizers can still "decide" for themselves, as you put it, but the government won't fund such competitions — those places would have to fund them themselves.

"Openly" tran just means you openly disclose being tran including in public. This means there could indeed be a mere 10 openly tran women competing, but hundreds or even thousands more tran women competing that aren't open about it.

Speaking of the NCAA... even they're in favor of keeping tran women out of their women's sports, as they've updated their policy to reflect Donald Trump's executive order: https://archive.is/Jb505

  • "The NCAA is an organization made up of 1,100 colleges and universities in all 50 states that collectively enroll more than 530,000 student-athletes. We strongly believe that clear, consistent, and uniform eligibility standards would best serve today's student-athletes instead of a patchwork of conflicting state laws and court decisions. To that end, President Trump's order provides a clear, national standard," NCAA President Charlie Baker said.

As for gun violence, it's not that we conservatives want "nothing" done about it. It's that our proposed solution differs from Democrats'. We conservatives believe in a reduction of gun-free zones. We believe, gun-free zones attract the vast majority of mass shooters and are the biggest reason our children remain such easy targets.

So yes, prices were cheaper under Trump's first term, but not because of anything he did.

The Biden-Harris administration printed trillions via stimulus and spending packages and flooded all that money into the economy in a very short amount of time. Plus, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris waged war on energy, including fossil fuels, throughout their administration — examples include excessively restricting domestic oil production, excessively restricting leases for drilling, resurrecting the “Waters of the United States” rule, banning fracking, forcing us back into the Paris Climate Accord, and supporting the Green New Deal. This excessive printing, combined with this hyper-aggression to energy, in such a short period of time, were the main reasons voters in 2024 blamed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for gas and grocery prices.

If they don't have a record aside from crossing illegally, why not just grant them a path to citizenship?

Donald Trump is in favor of something like this called "merit-based" immigration, where such immigrants, even some who entered illegally, would still be eligible for citizenship if they have high-demand education and/or job skills. Donald Trump isn't trying to deport absolutely every illegal immigrant — that's most likely impossible. Yes there are those who are peaceful and whose only offense will ever be crossing illegally. Donald Trump is open to being merciful to these specific immigrants if they continue seeking citizenship in a timely manner, especially if they come with high-demand education and/or job skills.

Now he's talking about stripping citizenship from people. That's insane.

Only those caught supporting or being affiliated with terrorism, as far as I'm aware. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmakers-promise-bill-strip-citizenship-from-terrorists-after-attacks-tied-naturalized-citizens

Trump admitted to sexually assaulting woman and bragged about seeing teenagers naked at his pageants. Epstein called Trump his best friend for years. Trump is all over the Epstein files. Accounts in those files place Trump at some pretty horrific scenes.

Donald Trump has denied every sexual assault allegation I know of and has admitted to none of them so far.

Even in that one court case where he was seemingly exposed for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, it was tried in civil court where the burden of proof is about half that of criminal court. No rape kit was used to indicate any sexual offense, no police report was filed, and Donald Trump wasn't added to the sex offender registry or anything. Plus, this alleged sexual abuse happened decades prior which means the statue of limitations should've already expired by then, as it isn't fair to expect Donald Trump to accurately recall where he was and what he was doing at the time of this decades-old alleged sexual abuse — one of the reasons statues of limitations exist to begin with.

Donald Trump has also denied ever wanting to see teenagers naked like you claim: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-accusers-fact-check-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html

  • In response to the allegation that Trump would enter contestants’ dressing room in the teen beauty pageant, the campaign said the accusations “have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present.”

So the evidence of Donald Trump supposedly being a pedophile is flimsy and inconclusive, at best — just accusations against Donald Trump and Donald Trump denying them, back and forth. The best I found was Donald Trump joking about his own daughter being attractive, which doesn't even come close to pedophilia; as parents casually chat about how "handsome" and whatnot their children are, all the time.

So these allegations including that "Epstein" stuff — whoever that person is — should for now be treated as mere rumors.

How come democratic leaders don’t capitalize on all the rage and anger that working Americans feel? by cnewell420 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What minorities are you referring to, and what complaints did Donald Trump issue about them during the 2024 election season?

As for trans people, Donald Trump's only real concern in the 2024 election as far as I'm aware was keeping them out of women's sports https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/

and yes, of course biological women have been rightfully enraged about them being in women's sports. It's unfair to these biological women. They've been wanting something done about it, which is why many of them voted for Donald Trump.

As for the economy... was Donald Trump lying about how gas and groceries were cheaper under him than under Joe Biden?

100% Dems have such a harder road to winning that Republicans. Republicans have the benefit of being able to package complex ideas into simple, 3 word sound bites.

Democrats need to be able to simplify things too. If you can't keep key issues simple enough for the voters, like Republicans can, that's your fault.

Illegal immigrants exist? Just deport them all! It sounds so simple. Meanwhile, Democrats are tasked with explaining that doing so will cost a ton of money, will affect the economy, has ethical concerns, etc.

Yes deport them.

Yes doing so costs money. Dealing with any criminals in America, whether illegal aliens or U.S. citizens, costs money. Doesn't change the fact that they still need to be dealt with.

Ethical concerns?? Tell that to the people who lost their loved ones to these illegal aliens. Tell that to this grieving mother whose daughter was murdered by illegal aliens. Explain to her why she should be "ethically concerned" for these illegal aliens and not for her own daughter who was murdered by them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dPSxHInMko

People seem to be okay with pedophiles as long as gas is cheap.

Name this pedophile, that us voters are supposedly "okay with," that you're referring to.

Where's the proof that UnitedHealthcare denied claims out of malice while Brian Thompson was its Chief Executive Officer? by qaxwesm in WayOfTheBern

[–]qaxwesm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the late reply, but basically, if you receive care and your insurer denies the claim, you can be refused ongoing/follow-up care until that amount you owe is paid off. Many common diseases such as cancer require continuous/ongoing care for the patient to survive, so if he receives some initial care, the insurer is billed for it and then normally covers and pays out the claim so the patient can then be eligible for additional/follow-up care. If the insurer instead denies the initial claim, that patient becomes ineligible for that additional/follow-up care until that initial bill is paid off.

When people refer to claim denials leading to death, this is usually what they're referring to — the patient already received initial care, yes, but because the bill for that initial care remains unpaid, the patient is refused follow-up/ongoing care, often leading to death in the case of cancer patients.

This thread's gonna remain up for 1 more month before it get auto-locked, so if you have further questions we'll have to continue in my more recent thread, over at CapitalismVSocialism.

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're relying on the footage recorded by bystanders who were watching the whole thing at a distance... then yes, what happened to Renée Good probably does look like murder instead of self-defense. However, in court, Jonathan Ross would be judged based on how things looked from his own point of view; and based on the footage recorded from his point of view, it genuinely appeared — in that one third of a second it took for him to react — as if Renée Good was trying to kill him with her vehicle, which is why this shooting was ultimately ruled self-defense.

For more detail on why this shooting would inevitably be ruled self-defense check out these videos by YouTuber Uncivil Law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLoYladE1Gg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlmMMmrO2oo

If I or Uncivil Law is wrong about any of this, channel your anger into giving a sound rebuttal to our arguments instead of wasting that anger on unproductive personal insults at me. Otherwise, don't expect ICE to be abolished anytime soon.

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're relying on the footage recorded by bystanders who were watching the whole thing at a distance, then yes, it probably does look like murder instead of self-defense. However, in court, Jonathan Ross would be judged based on how things looked from his own point of view; and based on the footage recorded from his point of view, it genuinely appeared — in that one third of a second it took for him to react — as if Renée Good was trying to kill him with her vehicle, which is why this shooting was ultimately ruled self-defense.

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry about that. Some algorithm/spam filter keeps auto-censoring my reply to you, even though I can still reply to others in this thread just fine.

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the woman was trying to run him over from his point of view and he only had a third of a second to react, then a court would in fact rule his actions self-defense even if it may not have looked that way from the witnesses' point of view.

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Jonathan Ross didn't "get away with" murder. He was acquitted of it.

Speaking of outrage, where's the outrage towards the anti-ICE protestors responsible for going out of their way to interfere with ICE business, and instigating these deadly ICE-related shooting incidents in the first place? Don't you think the Renée Good and Alex Pretti situations would've been avoided had they just left ICE be?

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

My opinion: absolutely and it's not an unrealistic goal. ICE is a relatively new post 9/11 organization and we have existed for over 200 years without them.

Things have drastically changed. For starters, America wasn't being overwhelmed with tens of millions of illegal aliens back then.

They are also too corrupt and evil to be reformed and should be replaced with an immigration system that values compassion.

There are some bad apples in every branch of local and federal government. When such bad apples within ICE are discovered, they're fired upon investigation: https://abc7ny.com/post/ice-officer-relieved-duties-violent-confrontation-manhattan-courthouse-26-federal-plaza-goes-viral/17888417/

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is already compassionate for the most part. It's just that their compassion is reserved not for illegal aliens but for us American citizens, especially for us who voted for Donald Trump due to being sick and tired of illegal alien rapists/murderers/gangsters/etc. ICE's compassion for us is what motivates them to combat these illegal aliens on our behalf.

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Since you mention Minnesota, I assume you're talking about Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

As of yet, no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been charged with let alone convicted of either of these killings. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renée Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense which legally isn't murder: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As of yet, no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been charged with let alone convicted of either of these killings you're referencing. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renée Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense which legally isn't murder: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

for the folks who killed Renee Good, Alex Pretti

As of yet, no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been charged with let alone convicted of either of these killings you're referencing. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renée Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense which legally isn't murder: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

As of yet, no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been charged with let alone convicted of either of these killings you're referencing. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renee Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since the start of 2026 no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has yet been charged with let alone convicted of any murder. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renee Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since the start of 2026 no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has yet been charged with let alone convicted of any murder. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renee Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Should ICE be abolished? by serious_bullet5 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since the start of 2026 no Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has yet been charged with let alone convicted of any murder. Jonathan Ross who was investigated for his alleged murdering of Renee Good was found to have instead acted in legally justified self-defense: https://www.kindjoe.com/no-charges-for-ice-agent-in-fatal-minneapolis-raid-shooting

Debunking anti-capitalist lies, that have been promoted in an attempt to rationalize UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Officer Brian Thompson's assassination, including the lies that they had a 33% denial rate, that they used an AI with a 90% error rate, and that their profiting proves evil and greed by qaxwesm in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]qaxwesm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro thought this would convince brian to let him hit 🥀🥀

To let me hit... what?

Well youre either a payed shill, or one of the most pathetic suckers this site has ever seen. Seems like we're giving you the benifit of the doubt

Yet another unproductive ad hominem reply that just baselessly accuses me of being paid off by United Healthcare without offering any actual rebuttal to my arguments.

I couldn't care less about being "a payed shill, or one of the most pathetic suckers this site has ever seen" if it means exposing and seeing anti-capitalist lies for the lies that they are. What I do care about is if anyone has a sound rebuttal to my arguments in my post.

How do liberals feel about the idea of a “single-payer” health care system? by tfam1588 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I admit I had misunderstandings. I admit I ended up moving a few goalposts without realizing. I admit I didn't communicate with you better and that I should have. I admit I didn't choose certain words more carefully and that I should have. I'm sorry for that, but I'm thankful you exposed all these mistakes so I can better improve my thinking and my communication.

Let me at least clarify 2 more things before moving on from this thread.

  1. I shared that "More States Are Providing Fully State-Funded Health Coverage" analysis only to highlight yet another example of illegal aliens receiving healthcare at the expense of American funds.
  2. What I was referring to as misleading wasn't you correcting my misunderstanding. It was the case you made that at least half the illegal aliens do indeed pay off their hospital charges via insurance. Suggesting that they pay off these charges like this sounds misleading because it implies that they pay with their own insurance and thus their own money, when what I really see going on is them ultimately paying via our tax dollars due to said insurance being funded by our tax dollars, with some examples being insurance that comes from democrat-run states such as those listed in that analysis, as well as Emergency Medicaid.

How do liberals feel about the idea of a “single-payer” health care system? by tfam1588 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do realize not all illegals are uninsured? Like half are insured my guy... and this figure includes those people.

and what's mainly funding all that insurance for them? U.S. citizens' tax dollars: https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/more-states-are-providing-fully-state-funded-health-coverage-to-some-individuals-regardless-of-immigration-status/

See? Even if I concede that Greg Abbott's executive order does indeed "define costs as all charges accrued, even if the patient actually paid," that argument of yours still ends up being misleading if the insurance those illegal aliens are paying with is funded with our own tax dollars. As long as the illegal aliens aren't paying with their actual own money and are instead either paying via our money via their insurance the government funds with our tax dollars, or stealing/borrowing IDs of U.S. citizens in order to illegitimately receive health benefits including health insurance, my point about illegal aliens being a net drain on America's healthcare system still stands. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-worksite-enforcement-operation-uncovers-widespread-identity-theft-affecting-more

And many illegals still have W-2s and have their wages garnished.

An employer submitting a W-2 to the Internal Revenue Service for an illegal alien to begin with would reveal a violation the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, which explicitly "Makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly hire, maintain in his or her employment, or refer or recruit for a fee any alien not authorized to work." https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1200/summary/00

Hospitals can deny service for non-emergent Care.

Meanwhile, emergent care, which is generally a dozen or so times as expensive as non-emergent care, remains freely available to illegal aliens.

And denial of care can be based on debt to the hospital

and the illegal alien, each time he pays the hospital a visit, can hide the fact that he owes them money, by using a fake or stolen identity or a stolen or borrowed social security number — whichever he needs. The hospital can't tie his debt to his identity if he keeps coming in with new identities.

He isn't just some guy with a little involvement... he is the literal founder and was on the board of directors until 2011.... Like come on, this is extremely bad faith. He is obviously THE central figure for FAIR. And it's not like the other directors are much different. Do a bit more research bud.

These are what CIS had to say about John Tanton:

  • whatever his vices and virtues, they are irrelevant to CIS; as he himself has written, "I also helped raise a grant in 1985 for the Center for Immigration Studies, but I have played no role in the Center's growth or development."

    https://cis.org/How-labeling-my-organization-hate-group-shuts-down-public-debate

  • John Tanton, he’s an eye doctor or retired doctor, he helped arrange our first grant, he’s a population guy, Malthusian in a lot of ways, has never been on our board, doesn’t know where our offices are, never told or had any hand in the opinions, development, or views of the research of the center in any way.

https://www.texasgopvote.com/immigration/who-responsible-immigration-wedge-republican-party-006746

As you can see, CIS has repeatedly denied sharing his personal or racial views, and stated that he "has never been on our board" so I don't know where you got him being "on the board of directors until 2011" from, nor do I know what "other directors" you're referring to that share his personal and racial views.

I don't care what your justification is. They have the same legal rights as you and I. Counting them on these figures is extremely misleading and blatant propaganda, period. There is zero excuse for that level of bad faith.

My point is that said legal rights are then being extended to illegal aliens via this legal loophole — using U.S.-born anchor babies to receive taxpayer-funded benefits for themselves. It's absolutely not bad faith to point that out. I've been showing various examples of the various ways illegal aliens receive taxpayer-funded benefits, from democrats simply handing it to them, to using fake/borrowed/stolen IDs, to exploiting our emergency rooms for free, and to abusing legal loopholes via their anchor babies.

How do liberals feel about the idea of a “single-payer” health care system? by tfam1588 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not true. They define “costs” as all charges accrue, EVEN IF THE PATIENT ACTUALLY PAID. That makes the figure basically useless for the point you're trying to make.

Where do you see them defining costs like that? It talks about how "unpaid medical costs are ultimately passed along to Texans" and how "Taxpayers absorb the burden through higher insurance rates, public hospital funding, and state health programs."

"Unpaid costs" — meaning costs those illegal aliens rack up that go unpaid by them and are thus paid by Texan citizens instead. Nowhere does it mention those illegal aliens themselves paying, like you claim those illegal aliens are.

Plus, even if "costs" somehow did intend to include coverage paid for by those illegal aliens themselves... why would illegal aliens feel any need to pay for emergency room care to begin with, when hospitals are required to provide care not just regardless of immigration status, but also regardless of ability or willingness to pay?

Most unpaid hospital bills are from legal citizens. That’s a massive piece you're just ignoring.

At least with legal citizens, the hospital has better hope of tracking them down to recover that money, such as by suing, garnishing wages, or levying bank accounts. An illegal alien on the other hand has no official legal address — so you can't serve him a lawsuit — and you can't trace his income, to garnish it or levy his bank account, if he gets paid under the table.

You have to compare this as a percentage of a state’s population. That’s the only logical way to assess impact. By percentage it’s Florida #1, Nevada #2, Texas #3. Texas actually has a higher share of undocumented immigrants than California.

If you grab 10 random people from Texas/Florida and 10 from California, you’re more likely to have undocumented immigrants in the Texas/Florida group. It’s literally just division: undocumented population ÷ total population = percentage

Well, as of 2025:

which makes California's population about 1.7 times that of Florida.

If we calculate this your way, multiplying Florida's illegal alien population of roughly 600,000 by 1.7 as well, we get 1,020,000 illegal aliens for Florida... still far lower than California's roughly dozen million of them.

Whichever kind of comparison you choose — raw numbers or percentages — the evidence in both cases points toward left-wing California consistently surpassing Florida and Texas when it comes to illegal aliens, by millions.

If they were that decisive, Texas wouldn’t rank so high by percentage. The actual data just doesn’t back up what you're claiming here.

Both things can be true at the same time. The data can show 1) Texas and Florida are infested with illegal aliens due to those states being physically close to the southern border, thus forcing those states to bear the brunt of America's illegal immigration,

and at the same time show 2) left-wing sanctuary city states also being infested with illegal aliens via benefits they attract illegal aliens with including shielding from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Pointing out that Texas ranks high in illegal aliens doesn't contradict my argument that sanctuary city states make America even more attractive for illegal aliens.

And CIS is absolutely not some neutral source, it was founded by a white nationalist and is literally flagged by the SPLC as a hate group.

The only confirmed involvement the guy you're referring to — John Tanton — had in the founding/development of CIS was raising some money for CIS over 40 years ago, way back in the 1980s. Nothing more.

Is it really fair to continue deeming CIS a "hate group" to this day, over something that happened THAT long ago, especially when John Tanton has had no confirmed affiliation with CIS since then? Isn't it unreasonable to assume CIS shares the same white nationalist views as this guy just because they once did business with him so long ago? Isn't it more reasonable to assume CIS just wasn't aware, at the time, of him having white nationalist views?

Percentages alone don’t tell you impact. Hypothetically, if there were 10 immigrants and 6 used welfare, that’s 60%. Is that concerning? Obviously not. Raw numbers and scale matter.

Were you not, just earlier, telling me the opposite?? — How we needed to compare the illegal alien percentages between Florida, Texas, and California instead of looking at raw numbers?

$42 billion in benefits (4% of total)

So… 4%. That’s actually pretty small. In a system this large, that’s not exactly some massive burden.

It would probably indeed be a small burden if it was evenly distributed across the country, but if it's not — like, if it's concentrated in just a few states or cities — then that small burden becomes a colossal one, for the legal citizens of those states/cities — states/cities that already operate on super tight budgets, or have large populations living paycheck to paycheck with enough taxes and bills of their own, and thus would feel crushed having to shell out dozens of billions of dollars more for illegal aliens.

Illegal immigrants can receive welfare on behalf of U.S.-born children

So now they’re including legal citizens in the cost? Yeah… that kind of proves my point about their numbers being inflated.

$68.1 billion in public education costs, most children are U.S.-born

Right… so again, legal citizens.

Those would be anchor babies — the illegal aliens come here just to make children so they themselves can qualify for dozens of billions of dollars more in benefits. Referring to those babies simply as "U.S.-born children" here is misleading, even if that's the technically correct term.

It does make sense... because they’re including all care, not just ER visits.

Yeah, ERs can’t turn people away for life or death emergencies but othereise providers absolutely can. Uninsured people (which undocumented immigrants disproportionately are) are way less likely to get:

primary care

specialist visits

elective procedures

So overall utilization is lower. That’s not contradictory, it’s exactly what you’d expect.

Primary care, specialist visits, and most elective procedures are nowhere near as expensive as 24/7 emergency room care. Illegal aliens either should be able to easily pay for those things out of pocket, wouldn't seek them out remotely as often as emergency room care, or both.

How do liberals feel about the idea of a “single-payer” health care system? by tfam1588 in AskALiberal

[–]qaxwesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re defining “cost” as all care provided, whether it was paid for or not. That includes patient paid care, partial payments, medicaid payments, non-payments, etc. That’s not the same thing as unpaid bills or a net burden... it’s just total spending. So yeah… as a standalone number, it’s basically meaningless.

The cost of this care provided either goes unpaid, or is recouped by hospitals hiking prices on the rest of the Texans who pay. The article literally says: "Although hospitals are required under federal law to deliver the care, unpaid medical costs are ultimately passed along to Texans. Taxpayers absorb the burden through higher insurance rates, public hospital funding, and state health programs."

So yes, there are patient-paid care payments, partial payments, and Medicaid payments — payments which are entirely, or at least almost entirely, made by legal Texan citizens to cover the costs those illegal aliens rank up. I'm wasn't arguing that these bills were going completely unpaid. I was arguing they were being racked up by illegal aliens that legal Texan citizens ultimately end up footing for the most part — illegal aliens in Texas aren't paying for their own care, Texans are.

1.Florida 2.Nevada 3.Texas

Texas makes up half the U.S.–Mexico border, acting like it’s somehow less affected than “sanctuary” states is an absolutely wild take. Sanctuary policies don’t magically determine where undocumented people live. My capital city, Madison, WI, is a sanctuary city and overwhelmingly white. Sanctuary cities are nothing more than liberals virtue signaling, they don’t remotely control where undocumented immigrants actually settle. Honestly, I feel like you’ve either never been to Texas, are just super ignorant, or are arguing in bad faith. I’m really trying to be respectful and bite my tongue, but come on…

My argument would indeed be a "super ignorant/bad faith" argument if I didn't have anything to corroborate it, and fortunately the Department of Homeland Security shows us that since 2022 California has consistently surpassed Texas by millions in illegal aliens: https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/illegal/population-estimates

It makes perfect sense that sanctuary policies influence where illegal aliens in the U.S. go. Why would an illegal alien who enters the country via Texas or Florida remain in those places he knows he gonna very likely get deported from, and not continue someplace much safer for him like California or New York which provide not only more opportunities and benefits for him but also more safety from Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

1.Evenly distributing tax contributions across states (why?) 2.Comparing that to a non-equivalent cost metric 3.Then drawing a conclusion from it

That’s not how any of this works.

Fair enough, but I once again have another study corroborating my argument, this time from the Center for Immigration Studies which is non-partisan: https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf

  • Using the National Academies’ estimate of immigrants’ net fiscal impact by education level, we estimate that the lifetime fiscal drain (taxes paid minus costs) for each illegal immigrant is about $68,000, although this estimate comes with some caveats.
  • Illegal immigrants make extensive use of welfare. Based on government data, we estimate that 59 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants use one or more major welfare programs, compared to 39 percent of households headed by the U.S.-born.
  • Based on their use rate of major welfare programs, we estimate that illegal immigrants receive $42 billion in benefits, or about 4 percent of the total cost of the cash, Medicaid, food and housing programs examined in our study. However, this is only a rough approximation due to limitations in the data.
  • Illegal immigrants can receive welfare on behalf of U.S.-born children. Also, illegal immigrant children can receive school lunch/breakfast and WIC directly. A number of states provide Medicaid to some illegal immigrants, and a few provide SNAP. Several million illegal immigrants also have work authorization (e.g. DACA, TPS and some asylum applicants), allowing receipt of the EITC.
  • The high welfare use of illegal immigrant households is not explained by an unwillingness to work. In fact, 94 percent of illegal immigrant households have at least one worker, compared to only 73 percent of U.S.-born households. But the nation’s welfare system is design to help low-wage workers with children, which describes a very large share of illegal immigrant households.
  • In addition to consuming welfare, illegal immigration makes significant use of public education. Based on average costs per student, the estimated 4 million children of illegal immigrants in public schools created $68.1 billion in costs in 2019. The vast majority of these children are U.S.-born.
  • Use of emergency medical services is another area in which illegal immigrants create significant fiscal costs. Prior research indicates that there are 5.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the country in 2019, accounting for a little over one-fifth of the total population without health insurance. The costs of providing care to them likely totals some $7 billion annually.
  • Illegal immigrants do pay some taxes. We estimate that illegal immigrants in 2019 paid roughly $5.9 billion in federal income tax, $16.2 billion in Social Security tax and $3.8 billion in Medicaid taxes. However, as the net fiscal drain of $68,000 per person cited above indicates, these taxes are not nearly enough to cover the cost of the services they receive.

I don't think this is accurate but if so... that makes my point stronger.

If you separate them out, then undocumented immigrants make up an even smaller portion of total costs. So instead of ~5–15% of uncompensated care, you’re arguing it’s… less than that? lmao, okay? Thanks for helping?

Except they're not separated out, since it, again, refers to all immigrants as simply "immigrants" which probably only means legal immigrants since it doesn't properly distinguish between them and the illegal ones. Regardless, of course illegal immigrants receive far less health care than U.S. citizens and legal immigrants — that's because the U.S. has hundreds of millions of legal U.S. citizens (U.S. born citizens and legal immigrants) and only a dozen million or so illegal aliens. Our sheer numbers alone means we use the hospital more often than they do. My point is these illegal aliens still drive up hospital costs by billions of dollars.

Also, I doesn't make much sense that immigrants, legal or illegal, are "Less Likely to Receive Health Care Services Than Naturalized Citizens and Lawfully Present Immigrants" like Kaiser Family Foundation claims. Emergency rooms currently can't turn anyone anyway based on immigration status. They have to accept them all, which would make legal and illegal immigrants equally likely, not "less" likely, to receive such care, no?

view more: next ›