Reparations for slavery

This is a comment I left on a white person's post mentioning reparations for slavery:

"Even if you did own a slave, you'd only owe reparations to that individual. No other person of that individual's ethnicity would be owed anything from you."

If you don't like to debate, you need to read this

When the issue is national security, that's an issue that affects any one of us potentially and potentially people we know. Even if it's not us or people we know, such as with 9/11, it's regarding the lives of people who don't deserve the breach in national security that affects them. As such, warning others about the dangers of electing someone such as Hillary (who left four Americans to die in Benghazi) may lead to a debate, but consider what the alternatives are.

If you don't like debating others no matter the topic, you'll want to read this

If someone disagrees with you on what is and what is not a threat to someone (anyone), wouldn't you want to debate them to hopefully change their mind so they see the threat and can take proper action?

There is a diverse set of peoples in this country with diverse problems. So it's not just what hits home for you that you'd want to warn people about and inevitably start a debate over, it's that you care for people who have nothing to do with you that you'd want to warn about danger.

And when you warn people about danger they face, they may disagree with you and when they do, a debate starts. Sometimes debating goes hand in hand with caring.

Debating with people about threats to their freedom and safety

If you care for your freedom, you'll want a gov't that follows the Constitution.  If others vote for policies that infringe on the Constitution, they are advocating for policies that infringe on your freedom.  The natural thing to do when someone advocates for what infringes on your freedom is to debate them so there is a chance they'll advocate for safer policies for you.  If you care about you, you’ll debate others on the chance they might come around to advocating policies that are safer for you.

In other words, if there is a threat to your safety, and you can prevent it by getting others to see how their policies are dangerous, wouldn’t you try to fend off the threat by debating them?  I’m talking about the kind of threats that haven’t happened yet, but will happen somewhere down the line.

Politics is about freedom and safety, etc.  If you care about the diverse communities that face diverse issues all over this country, then if you see some kind of a threat that they may face, wouldn’t you want to warn them?  If you’re into warning them, then you’re someone who doesn’t mind debating them because it is for their own good.

I had to debate people all the time when I was trying to get out of an abusive relationship.  I hated doing it, but I had to, otherwise how was I going to get out of the hell I had been living in for so long?  No, this isn’t political, but the issue of getting people to see the light where they only see the dark is something common to causes that are both political and non political.

Trump's 2nd Amendment statement (regarding Hillary) in it's proper context

Said the Founders in the Declaration of Independence: "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" But if Trump says it regarding how to respond to a despotic Clinton administration, according to the liberals who never read the Declaration, somehow he's a bad man?