Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Joe Rogan Responds to Bernie Sanders Endorsement Controversy" video.

Speaking of divisiveness, you gotta love how Bernie claims that Trump's the one "trying to divide us up". Meanwhile, Bernie's the one promoting class warfare against the "billionaire class" (as if they're somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us), telling minorities that white people don't know what it's like to be poor, etc.
7
Trump's doing a great job, IMO, so I'll be voting for him this time.
5
@haywoodjablome234 To be fair, I don't think Bernie told Warren that either. But I could be wrong. We're dealing with a woman who lies all the time and a man who says crazy shit all the time, so who the hell knows? Lol.
5
@iskathegr8 Trump's words were carefully edited to make it look like he was defending white supremacists when he explicitly said in that same speech that he wasn't. Don't trust the MSM, they don't respect you enough to tell the truth. But speaking of lies, Jerry Nadler lied to us all that day in that congressional hearing on hate crimes supposedly being on the rise. It's all a bunch of BS. https://youtu.be/-qY0EwHFx3g So Trump's not the one trying to divide us up. It's those who would have us fight with each other over lies they told. And I would say Bernie's "White people don't know what it's like to be poor" qualifies.
5
Trump's doing a great job, so I'll be voting for him this time. In addition to the economy and record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), we're talking increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. I also like what he's done for the pro-life movement, but I understand that's a more controversial topic.
2
I'm glad Joe set the record straight; it was never a real endorsement, Bernie's people just jumped the gun. Personally, I'll be voting for Trump this time because I think he's doing a great job.
2
Even if they're also for killing babies? Just wondering.
2
Bernie's soooo consistent! He's been railing against the millionaires and billionaires for a long time now! (edited when Bernie became a millionaire)
2
He has. It was pretty awesome (though they got into an argument about climate change, lol). I wish he'd have her on again though, a lot's happened with her since.
2
Haha, maybe! But he won't admit it because if Bernie wins he knows he'll end up in a gulag with the rest of us.
1
Cutting spending =/= reducing or cutting benefits, much less reducing/cutting benefits that people need. And the tax cuts were for everyone, both directly and indirectly. But in addition to the record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities) and increased wages for people in every class, we're talking prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. I didn't like Trump at first either, but he's doing a great job if you look at the facts.
1
Domino Ryan It is possible you fall in that minority which didn't receive a tax cut, but most people in most income groups got one. Just as people in every class saw increased wages. Median household income has gone up $4,144 since Trump took office. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
1
@jaccbolton Well at least you admit it. Personally, I wouldn't vote for anyone who's OK with killing innocent human beings. And I certainly wouldn't vote for them if they were OK with killing babies at around 9 months in the womb.
1
@jaccbolton So that's the reason a woman should be able to kill the fetus/baby? Because "accidents happen and not everyone is suitable to take care of a child"? Sounds like this would also justify a woman killing a child at pretty much any age, so far. Where's the line drawn? And no, it isn't anyone else's fault if a woman abuses, neglects, or kills her child.
1
@jaccbolton Again, that sort of argument could be used to justify killing at any age. Woman doesn't want or can't raise a child. There are supposedly too many orphans for the number of people wanting to adopt already (even though that's largely because the government has made it so insanely expensive to adopt), so why shouldn't the woman be allowed to just kill the child? That's why I asked you where you draw the line? Because to me, killing an innocent human being is wrong, even if you think it will help the world in some way. "You act concerned but when was the last time you cried over somebody's miscarriage?" False implication. I didn't cry when Kobe and his daughter died, either. Doesn't mean they weren't human beings. Doesn't mean I don't care, just because I don't cry at every death 🙄 "But you have no problem with grown people, who others will miss and mourn, being given the death sentence because he isn't "innocent"." Actually, I'm against the death penalty. But yeah, I'm definitely less sympathetic when a criminal dies than when a literally innocent human being (like a fetus or a baby) is killed. "Well he was an innocent little fetus at some point." Ok? And so was Hitler, what's your point? "So you basically just want to wait until they are old enough to hate" No, I don't believe in hating people. "and people actually grow attached to them before its ok to kill them." I don't consider whether or not someone else has grown attached to a person a factor in deciding whether or not they should be killed. What a horrifying concept. "It's not a black and white discussion and just because you think it is right or wrong doesn't make it either." So again, I ask you: Is it wrong to kill an innocent human being?
1
@jaccbolton I care a great deal, which is why I'm standing up for those lives in arguments such as this. "I don't think it is right to kill anybody. Doesn't mean that if put in a terrible situation i would or would not kill an innocent or guilty person." But "terrible situation" is awfully vague. It's not like I'm asking "If someone put a gun to your head and made you choose between killing one infant vs. killing another (and if you said neither, they'll kill both), what would you choose?" This is more like, you created a human being. Now you don't think you'd be able to provide for and raise that human being. Is that justification to kill him/her? "And your examples have no point." Sure they do. The point is that just because you don't cry at every death you hear about, it doesn't mean you don't care. And it certainly doesn't imply that you don't think they were human beings. "Nobody has been inspired by the aborted fetus because its life has not started yet " So again, that argument could be used to justify killing any newborn, most babies, most toddlers, and even a handful of kids beyond that age. I do not consider someone's life less valuable because "they haven't inspired anyone". If they are an innocent human being, I think they should be spared. Now, again I will ask you, Where is the line drawn? Surely you don't think a woman should be able to just kill her two-year old child. You probably don't think that they should be killed, say, an hour after birth. But where do you admit that it's a human being whose life should be protected?
1
Does anyone with a brain actually think those words have value? I mean, that is the problem, isn't it? Started with people saying that if you hate gay people then you're "homophobic". Then it was just if you disagree with homosexuality, you're a homophobe. By that reasoning, it's easy to see how Joe giving any criticism whatsoever of just a couple things some trans people are doing, could be called "transphobic". Too much of this mentality where you're expected to just fall in line or risk being called "phobic".
1
I hope he does too. But we shouldn't take it for granted. Bernie does have Hollywood and the overseers of social media in his pocket, after all.
1
Agreed. I also don't like Bernie's divisive rhetoric. He claims that Trump's the one being divisive, but Trump's not the one promoting class warfare against the "billionaire class" (as if they're somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us) or telling minorities that white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
1