Funnelling money back to the rich. Trump's policy.

[thereisnospoon]

Makes you wonder if they're preparing for something

Yeah..Turning this country around be rescuing it from the black hole of liberalism

 

[initforme]

Bet my life nothing changes.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Makes you wonder if they're preparing for something

Yeah..Turning this country around be rescuing it from the black hole of liberalism

Around from what? Fiscally Obama is handing Trump mass riches compared to what Dubya left him. So you must mean socially. If you want to destroy people's rights and you think you can attack minority groups, then you are dead wrong. And I'll spend the next few years convincing those group to arm themselves in preparation for whatever you're hoping will happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But I didn't say they were the same, did I?

Here is what you did say:

In the top 40 only one of those cities is outside of the Americas, it's Cape Town and that's in a Christian country too. In fact the top 50 cities are ALL CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.

Well, that's 4 to Christianity, two to Judaism, one to Islam (though to be fair they were invading their own country) and Ethiopia's largest religion is Christianity.

Basically Christian countries are the biggest threat, they're the biggest crime bases, they're the biggest problems and yet you blame Islamic countries.... why is that?

If you didn't say Christians are the same, then what did you say?

Well saying that Christian countries are more violent than Muslim countries clearly is not saying they're the same. Saying that Christian countries are more likely to use force is not saying they're the same, is it? I mean, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Posting a chart doesn't help me.

Also, how much impact did the 2008 recession, the reduction of taxes for the rich by Bush, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent costs of this have anything to do with this?

I mean, this isn't something that happens over night. Policy consequences last for years.

Ah yes, it's back to "It's Bush's fault" again. So tell me, when did DumBama claim the recession ended? Please look at the chart for help. How many years afterwards did this Bush ramification last? Please look at the chart.

Another question: when did Republicans take leadership of Congress again? Please look at the chart. And when did fuel prices drop (the real economic relief)? Please refer to the chart.

What point are you making here? Are you trying to suggest that a recession can stop over night, and as soon as Obama gained the presidency it was his recession?

Why is it every time you mention that Bush did something wrong, people start going "blaming Bush again, get over" bullshit, like this is fucking high school or something.

Because it's been your Obama excuse for his entire two terms, that's why. If not that, it was the Republican Congresses fault.

It's like I've always said: the best part about being a liberal is never having to admit you were wrong.

In six years from now if Trump is a failure at the presidency, would you accept us saying that his actions, results and spending was DumBama's fault? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet that you'd revolt at such statements within one year of the Trump presidency. Need proof? Show me one hardcore leftist on USMB that ever blamed DumBama for anything. Just once!

It's like you don't want to admit that Bush made serious fuck ups.

I get people on here stating that Obama increased the debt by double. Yet the debt rose massively because of Bush and Obama has got the debt rising at a much lower rate than Bush did.

Yet somehow I'm supposed to blame Obama for having the debt going down as a % of GDP and Bush had it going sky high. Why is that? Why is your argument simply one where when someone says the truth you come out and just say "why do you always blame Bush?"

It should be pretty fucking obvious why I blame Bush, because it was his fucking fault.

Who ever said Bush was not to blame for anything? And BTW, the President doesn't spend money--at least in most cases. It's the Congress that spends money or reduces the deficit which is the pattern since the Republicans took over Congress.

Yes, Liberals have no choice but to say DumBama doubled the debt, and in the same breath, said it was because of Bush.

Firstly, I'm not criticizing you for saying Bush wasn't to blame. I'm criticizing you for using bullshit deflecting tactics rather than facing up to the reality.

Second, the president doesn't spend, but he has an impact on various things. Bush going to war in Iraq clearly had a massive impact on the US. Yes, Congress could have stopped it, I'm not going to say Congress has no blame, the whole system is a part of it, but without Bush it wouldn't have happened.

And there you go again with the name calling.

I'm getting tired of talking to you. I thought you were smarter than this, but I'm quickly changing my view of you.

 

[Jackson]

Ray let's just admit the rich win and the hard working person cannot get ahead in america. I'm calling this country out.

Under Trump, the hard working will finally get a cut of the pie. No more layoffs and mass firings.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

If he bans Muslim immigration, secures the southern border, and creates jobs I don't care about the rich. I think others will forget about them too.

Left wingers have this "thing" about the wealthy. It is caused by the class envy/warfare narrative.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

n charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

You don'y know much about vouchers. Vouchers insure the poor have the choice of good schools, something the rich can pay for themselves. Vouchers even the playing field for parents who want better for their disadvantaged children.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

You don't even know what will be in the new Affordable Care Program. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, but we all know Obamacare has been an abject failure.
Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

How can a pick be someone without a background in finance???

Lefties trust politicians far too much. They distrust anyone who is in business.
That despite the fact that most college degrees are earned in....wait for it......Business.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ray let's just admit the rich win and the hard working person cannot get ahead in america. I'm calling this country out.

Under Trump, the hard working will finally get a cut of the pie. No more layoffs and mass firings.

You think? How's that?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

n charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

You don'y know much about vouchers. Vouchers insure the poor have the choice of good schools, something the rich can pay for themselves. Vouchers even the playing field for parents who want better for their disadvantaged children.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

You don't even know what will be in the new Affordable Care Program. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, but we all know Obamacare has been an abject failure.
Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

How can a pick be someone without a background in finance???

Actually I know a lot about vouchers.

Vouchers don't ensure the poor have good schools. It's simply not the case.

Your logic is inherently flawed. Like the "everyone can make it in America", yes, everyone can make it, a lottery win can make you make it. However not everyone can make it together, only a few of them can make it, while the rest won't. There's only a small space for people to make it and a large space for people not to make it.

I've come across this argument many times. People act as if suddenly all schools will become good because suddenly they're being given vouchers. That if people can choose to go to another school with a voucher then they'll suddenly have better schools that if kids just have the choice to go to a school. Why does the voucher change anything?

In the UK parents have the choice of which school to send their kids. They don't have vouchers, but they have the SAME CHOICE that parents with vouchers have. The ONLY difference is that in the UK rich parents who send their kids to private schools don't get given money they don't need to make the choice to send them to expensive schools.

Vouchers have been in place nationwide in Chile. What's the result?

Rethinking Schools Online

"the experience internationally suggests that voucher plans promise a lot but may actually be worse for children from low-income families, for whom the gains are supposed to be the greatest."

"The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package."

"What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts."

"The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families."

"Chile offers a voucher to all students. "Fees" often are charged at the private schools on top of the voucher, and private schools are allowed to screen students."

"By 1990, of families in the lower 40% of the income distribution, 72% attended municipal public schools."

"The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted by voucher proponents appears to have never occurred. Scores in Spanish and mathematics from two nationally standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders registered a national decline of 14% and 6%, respectively."

So, the voucher scheme was a failure, except for the rich who got given money to go to school. The poor stayed in lower standard education for the most part because private schools STILL CHARGED money to exclude the poor, they still put in place screening, able to pick and choose whoever they liked and reject those who they didn't like. The poor lost out, standards DROPPED.

No, I don't know what will be in it exactly, but I can take a good guess. Besides, I'm talking about the guy who Trump wants in the post and what he has done.

Obamacare has been a failure? Well, I'd say the US health system is a failure. Too costly, not enough results for the people.

How can someone be picked without a background in finance? Well, what a great argument for always keeping things the same. However there are those who are pro-status quo and those who are against this. This guy seems to have gotten the job because he's friends with Trump, nothing more.

Comparisons to other nations are invalid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ray let's just admit the rich win and the hard working person cannot get ahead in america. I'm calling this country out.

Under Trump, the hard working will finally get a cut of the pie. No more layoffs and mass firings.

You think? How's that?

Stop it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

This is exactly what has happened under Obama so stop pretending like you care

I disagree. Obama wouldn't have been my choice to run the country, he's a politician through and through, however if it were a choice between him, Dubya or Trump, no contest really. Obama was actually interested in the people, the other two weren't.

While you were sleeping, Obama made his two terms about himself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ah yes, it's back to "It's Bush's fault" again. So tell me, when did DumBama claim the recession ended? Please look at the chart for help. How many years afterwards did this Bush ramification last? Please look at the chart.

Another question: when did Republicans take leadership of Congress again? Please look at the chart. And when did fuel prices drop (the real economic relief)? Please refer to the chart.

What point are you making here? Are you trying to suggest that a recession can stop over night, and as soon as Obama gained the presidency it was his recession?

Why is it every time you mention that Bush did something wrong, people start going "blaming Bush again, get over" bullshit, like this is fucking high school or something.

Because it's been your Obama excuse for his entire two terms, that's why. If not that, it was the Republican Congresses fault.

It's like I've always said: the best part about being a liberal is never having to admit you were wrong.

In six years from now if Trump is a failure at the presidency, would you accept us saying that his actions, results and spending was DumBama's fault? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet that you'd revolt at such statements within one year of the Trump presidency. Need proof? Show me one hardcore leftist on USMB that ever blamed DumBama for anything. Just once!

It's like you don't want to admit that Bush made serious fuck ups.

I get people on here stating that Obama increased the debt by double. Yet the debt rose massively because of Bush and Obama has got the debt rising at a much lower rate than Bush did.

Yet somehow I'm supposed to blame Obama for having the debt going down as a % of GDP and Bush had it going sky high. Why is that? Why is your argument simply one where when someone says the truth you come out and just say "why do you always blame Bush?"

It should be pretty fucking obvious why I blame Bush, because it was his fucking fault.

Who ever said Bush was not to blame for anything? And BTW, the President doesn't spend money--at least in most cases. It's the Congress that spends money or reduces the deficit which is the pattern since the Republicans took over Congress.

Yes, Liberals have no choice but to say DumBama doubled the debt, and in the same breath, said it was because of Bush.

Firstly, I'm not criticizing you for saying Bush wasn't to blame. I'm criticizing you for using bullshit deflecting tactics rather than facing up to the reality.

Second, the president doesn't spend, but he has an impact on various things. Bush going to war in Iraq clearly had a massive impact on the US. Yes, Congress could have stopped it, I'm not going to say Congress has no blame, the whole system is a part of it, but without Bush it wouldn't have happened.

And there you go again with the name calling.

I'm getting tired of talking to you. I thought you were smarter than this, but I'm quickly changing my view of you.

What name did I call you? I reread my reply and can't find one name in there.

Bush had a Republican Congress that agreed with him on most of his plans. That's different than if he had a Democrat Congress. Either way, from a spending point of view, it's Congress that spends the money. The President can ask for things, even propose a budget. But he isn't the one that okays spending until it gets past the Congress, Senate, and then to his desk.

 

[easyt65]

Trump isn't even in office, he has implemented any policies yet, aand butthurt snowflakes are telling the rest of us what Trump's policies are...

Gawd, we have to put up with 4 years of these false narratives, lies, and butthurt hypocritical BS...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But I didn't say they were the same, did I?

Here is what you did say:

In the top 40 only one of those cities is outside of the Americas, it's Cape Town and that's in a Christian country too. In fact the top 50 cities are ALL CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.

Well, that's 4 to Christianity, two to Judaism, one to Islam (though to be fair they were invading their own country) and Ethiopia's largest religion is Christianity.

Basically Christian countries are the biggest threat, they're the biggest crime bases, they're the biggest problems and yet you blame Islamic countries.... why is that?

If you didn't say Christians are the same, then what did you say?

Well saying that Christian countries are more violent than Muslim countries clearly is not saying they're the same. Saying that Christian countries are more likely to use force is not saying they're the same, is it? I mean, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion at all.

Even if a country that has Christians in it does go to war, it's not because of their religion. That's the point.

Muslims come here to kill our people because of their religion and not because of their Muslim country. If the leaders of their country were behind their terrorist plots, then yes, it was the country that helped. If not, terrorism is strictly because of religion.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Vouchers are a wonderful idea! Now, all those kids in Harlem can go to school with Barron Trump in Manhattan!!!!!!!

 

[initforme]

Vandal that is funny. Just imagine a violent offender next to those kids. Will never happen. But yes all can GPO to greart schools. Lmao at your post.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What point are you making here? Are you trying to suggest that a recession can stop over night, and as soon as Obama gained the presidency it was his recession?

Why is it every time you mention that Bush did something wrong, people start going "blaming Bush again, get over" bullshit, like this is fucking high school or something.

Because it's been your Obama excuse for his entire two terms, that's why. If not that, it was the Republican Congresses fault.

It's like I've always said: the best part about being a liberal is never having to admit you were wrong.

In six years from now if Trump is a failure at the presidency, would you accept us saying that his actions, results and spending was DumBama's fault? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet that you'd revolt at such statements within one year of the Trump presidency. Need proof? Show me one hardcore leftist on USMB that ever blamed DumBama for anything. Just once!

It's like you don't want to admit that Bush made serious fuck ups.

I get people on here stating that Obama increased the debt by double. Yet the debt rose massively because of Bush and Obama has got the debt rising at a much lower rate than Bush did.

Yet somehow I'm supposed to blame Obama for having the debt going down as a % of GDP and Bush had it going sky high. Why is that? Why is your argument simply one where when someone says the truth you come out and just say "why do you always blame Bush?"

It should be pretty fucking obvious why I blame Bush, because it was his fucking fault.

Who ever said Bush was not to blame for anything? And BTW, the President doesn't spend money--at least in most cases. It's the Congress that spends money or reduces the deficit which is the pattern since the Republicans took over Congress.

Yes, Liberals have no choice but to say DumBama doubled the debt, and in the same breath, said it was because of Bush.

Firstly, I'm not criticizing you for saying Bush wasn't to blame. I'm criticizing you for using bullshit deflecting tactics rather than facing up to the reality.

Second, the president doesn't spend, but he has an impact on various things. Bush going to war in Iraq clearly had a massive impact on the US. Yes, Congress could have stopped it, I'm not going to say Congress has no blame, the whole system is a part of it, but without Bush it wouldn't have happened.

And there you go again with the name calling.

I'm getting tired of talking to you. I thought you were smarter than this, but I'm quickly changing my view of you.

What name did I call you? I reread my reply and can't find one name in there.

Bush had a Republican Congress that agreed with him on most of his plans. That's different than if he had a Democrat Congress. Either way, from a spending point of view, it's Congress that spends the money. The President can ask for things, even propose a budget. But he isn't the one that okays spending until it gets past the Congress, Senate, and then to his desk.

I wasn't talking about calling me names, I was talking about calling Obama names. It's pointless. You don't have to agree with politicians, you can hate what they do, but use words to explain this, rather than simply using child like insult names for them.

I understand how funding works. That doesn't mean that Bush wasn't the C-in-C and made the decisions to invade.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But I didn't say they were the same, did I?

Here is what you did say:

In the top 40 only one of those cities is outside of the Americas, it's Cape Town and that's in a Christian country too. In fact the top 50 cities are ALL CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.

Well, that's 4 to Christianity, two to Judaism, one to Islam (though to be fair they were invading their own country) and Ethiopia's largest religion is Christianity.

Basically Christian countries are the biggest threat, they're the biggest crime bases, they're the biggest problems and yet you blame Islamic countries.... why is that?

If you didn't say Christians are the same, then what did you say?

Well saying that Christian countries are more violent than Muslim countries clearly is not saying they're the same. Saying that Christian countries are more likely to use force is not saying they're the same, is it? I mean, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion at all.

Even if a country that has Christians in it does go to war, it's not because of their religion. That's the point.

Muslims come here to kill our people because of their religion and not because of their Muslim country. If the leaders of their country were behind their terrorist plots, then yes, it was the country that helped. If not, terrorism is strictly because of religion.

Why is that a point? What difference does it make the actual motivation behind it all? That there is motivation, that they've shown themselves to be violent, surely that's the point. Does the US want to stop violence? Seemingly not. This isn't about violence, it isn't about killing. It's about making an enemy they can get people behind, get people angry about, get people united together and they don't how it happens, as long as it exists. And they've been working on Islam being that enemy for a long time now.

Okay, some Muslims go to the US and kill, but most don't. In right wing terms this is when you say "not everyone should be to blame for the minority", because the right will say this every time someone shoots and kills someone. But somehow consistency.doesn't seem to exist in most of politics, does it?

So, if someone kills because of alcohol, you're going to ban alcohol? No. If someone kills because they have guns and can use them, you're going to ban guns? No. And yet you'd ban Muslims even though most Muslims have never done anything.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But I didn't say they were the same, did I?

Here is what you did say:

In the top 40 only one of those cities is outside of the Americas, it's Cape Town and that's in a Christian country too. In fact the top 50 cities are ALL CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.

Well, that's 4 to Christianity, two to Judaism, one to Islam (though to be fair they were invading their own country) and Ethiopia's largest religion is Christianity.

Basically Christian countries are the biggest threat, they're the biggest crime bases, they're the biggest problems and yet you blame Islamic countries.... why is that?

If you didn't say Christians are the same, then what did you say?

Well saying that Christian countries are more violent than Muslim countries clearly is not saying they're the same. Saying that Christian countries are more likely to use force is not saying they're the same, is it? I mean, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion at all.

Even if a country that has Christians in it does go to war, it's not because of their religion. That's the point.

Muslims come here to kill our people because of their religion and not because of their Muslim country. If the leaders of their country were behind their terrorist plots, then yes, it was the country that helped. If not, terrorism is strictly because of religion.

Why is that a point? What difference does it make the actual motivation behind it all? That there is motivation, that they've shown themselves to be violent, surely that's the point. Does the US want to stop violence? Seemingly not. This isn't about violence, it isn't about killing. It's about making an enemy they can get people behind, get people angry about, get people united together and they don't how it happens, as long as it exists. And they've been working on Islam being that enemy for a long time now.

Okay, some Muslims go to the US and kill, but most don't. In right wing terms this is when you say "not everyone should be to blame for the minority", because the right will say this every time someone shoots and kills someone. But somehow consistency.doesn't seem to exist in most of politics, does it?

So, if someone kills because of alcohol, you're going to ban alcohol? No. If someone kills because they have guns and can use them, you're going to ban guns? No. And yet you'd ban Muslims even though most Muslims have never done anything.....

Yes.......well we do have sobriety check points to help stop drunks from killing people. We hold establishments responsible that serve alcohol to patrons that had too much to drink. We do have hundreds of gun laws to try to prevent criminals from getting and using guns. If we allowed felons to own and use firearms, probably only a small percentage of them would actually use guns to kill or rob other people, but that's no reason to stop all felons from having firearms, is it?

The US is not considered a Christian nation; at least that's what you on the left keep telling us. We have a lot of Christians in the US, but that in itself does not make us a Christian nation.

Muslims kill people for their religion. Christians kill people for their country and freedom.