It’s reading like it is in the early stages of happening. I have confidence if this goes through that all personal information will be removed and down to the vaguest level.
Statistics like these can help governments acknowledge what is a priority for their citizens when it comes to finances. It will also help when it shows how much the average Canadian pays in utilities and gas and other alleged necessities that are eating away at disposable income, that which keeps an economy chugging.
Although, I know, I am an in a minority in this type of thinking.
I'd like to point out something that may be missed here. When Trump was tweeting out the implication the bombs were hoax or false flag this morning at around 9 central time, it is INCONCEIVABLE that he hadn't already been briefed on the suspect being apprehended. Meaning he knew it was bullshit while he was saying it. The man is purposefully creating a dangerous land of make-believe for his followers, and he is doing it on purpose.
Moreover, let me just say that the issue here besides Trump is that FOX News and AM radio have destroyed the Republican Party. Even @Balrog99 can attest to this with his own family members.
I don't know about destroying the party, but those outlets certainly give my family the easy option of never having to hear the other side of the story. I still listen to Rush once in a while during my lunches at work, but he's such a Trump groupie now that it's almost sickening. He used to be a good source of information that I wouldn't otherwise have heard. One of the problems with the so-called mainstream media is the things they DON'T report.
I don't watch FOX News at all. At least CNN pretends to be neutral. Besides, the CNN folks are much better at letting me know what's going on in the rest of the world.
So I've been thinking about what to write about what I see as the difference between what is going on in this country on the left and right since I got off work, and while I haven't formulated it perfectly, I'd like to get it out so I don't have to try on my day off tomorrow.
First, I'll address the big issues you'll hear thrown at "my side". First off, let's address the idea of yelling at or shaming public figures in restaurants. Now, can this be considered very rude and untoward?? Of course it can. But as far as I know, yelling at someone is not even illegal, much less "violent". If the restaurant owners have a problem with the people causing the scene, they can certainly throw them out of their establishment. But beyond that, raising your voice and berating someone who (at least ostensibly) works for US is certainly right on the line of still being a freedom of expression, but at MOST, it is extremely bad manners. Anyone comparing it to attempted assassinations with pipe bombs are either totally disingenuous or nuts.
Second, let's discuss Antifa. I still don't know a hell of alot about this group despite being one of the most consistently liberal participants in this thread. What I do know is they engage in alot of acts of street theater that sometimes devolves into property damage and assault. I would never deny this. The key thing to note about Antifa is that, despite being technically "left-wing", I have never heard them espouse any love for any particular politician in the Democratic Party who they are acting on behalf of. Indeed, most of the people in Antifa likely hate corporate Democrats just as much as Republicans.
Which brings me to what is taking place in the fringes of the right. They are still the fringes and the minority, but there is one VERY big difference. The violence emanating from the political right in our current climate is coming from people who not only view Trump as a great politician, but revere him as a leader of a movement. Trump is THE figurehead of the people that marched on the streets of Charlottesville, and he is THE person who inspired the bomber. The man caught today is quite literally what we would have before today called a stereotype of a Trump rally-goer. Because he was a Trump rally-goer. Because what Trump is doing is creating a cult.
There are always going to be people who commit violence. There will no doubt be an example of violence from the political left in the near future. But what Trump is doing is different. Every time he has a rally, every time he endorses some new conspiracy theory on his Twitter feed, he is reaching thousands if not millions of people who are just on the edge of falling over that cliff and snapping. There are lots of Travis Bickles out there. And every time he rolls into town with one of his hate-rallies, there is a greater chance that the next Charlottesville or would-be pipe-bomb assassin is going to be pushed over the edge by Trump and his totally irresponsible use of the bully pulpit. He is a demagogue, and every time he does this he is lighting a book of matches near a gas spill. There is nothing but darkness ahead if we continue down his path.
So I've been thinking about what to write about what I see as the difference between what is going on in this country on the left and right since I got off work, and while I haven't formulated it perfectly, I'd like to get it out so I don't have to try on my day off tomorrow.
First, I'll address the big issues you'll hear thrown at "my side". First off, let's address the idea of yelling at or shaming public figures in restaurants. Now, can this be considered very rude and untoward?? Of course it can. But as far as I know, yelling at someone is not even illegal, much less "violent". If the restaurant owners have a problem with the people causing the scene, they can certainly throw them out of their establishment. But beyond that, raising your voice and berating someone who (at least ostensibly) works for US is certainly right on the line of still being a freedom of expression, but at MOST, it is extremely bad manners. Anyone comparing it to attempted assassinations with pipe bombs are either totally disingenuous or nuts.
Second, let's discuss Antifa. I still don't know a hell of alot about this group despite being one of the most consistently liberal participants in this thread. What I do know is they engage in alot of acts of street theater that sometimes devolves into property damage and assault. I would never deny this. The key thing to note about Antifa is that, despite being technically "left-wing", I have never heard them espouse any love for any particular politician in the Democratic Party who they are acting on behalf of. Indeed, most of the people in Antifa likely hate corporate Democrats just as much as Republicans.
Which brings me to what is taking place in the fringes of the right. They are still the fringes and the minority, but there is one VERY big difference. The violence emanating from the political right in our current climate is coming from people who not only view Trump as a great politician, but revere him as a leader of a movement. Trump is THE figurehead of the people that marched on the streets of Charlottesville, and he is THE person who inspired the bomber. The man caught today is quite literally what we would have before today called a stereotype of a Trump rally-goer. Because he was a Trump rally-goer. Because what Trump is doing is creating a cult.
There are always going to be people who commit violence. There will no doubt be an example of violence from the political left in the near future. But what Trump is doing is different. Every time he has a rally, every time he endorses some new conspiracy theory on his Twitter feed, he is reaching thousands if not millions of people who are just on the edge of falling over that cliff and snapping. There are lots of Travis Bickles out there. And every time he rolls into town with one of his hate-rallies, there is a greater chance that the next Charlottesville or would-be pipe-bomb assassin is going to be pushed over the edge by Trump and his totally irresponsible use of the bully pulpit. He is a demagogue, and every time he does this he is lighting a book of matches near a gas spill. There is nothing but darkness ahead if we continue down his path.
Well in this case it's probably fortunate that this moron decided to go after prominent people that he had 0% chance of hurting, rather than randomly gunning down people at a mall or mosque or something. I think we're going to find out that this guy is Fruit Loops.
Which brings me to what is taking place in the fringes of the right. They are still the fringes and the minority, but there is one VERY big difference. The violence emanating from the political right in our current climate is coming from people who not only view Trump as a great politician, but revere him as a leader of a movement. Trump is THE figurehead of the people that marched on the streets of Charlottesville, and he is THE person who inspired the bomber. The man caught today is quite literally what we would have before today called a stereotype of a Trump rally-goer. Because he was a Trump rally-goer. Because what Trump is doing is creating a cult.
I knew it was eventually gonna come down to pointing fingers at Trump, despite the fact earlier this month some guy was mailing ricin to Trump and top officials like Mattis, the FBI director, Cruz, etc.
What's the very big difference between that and this? You pointed at antifa and the fact that the left harasses right wing figures anywhere they go, but I feel like there are more relevant examples to choose from if trying to point fingers is where you wish to take it.
Of course the media only makes a huge story and narrative about it when it happens to the democrats though. After places like WaPo have called Trump worse than hitler and comparable to hitler on several occasions, how could they really even pretend to care?
So I've been thinking about what to write about what I see as the difference between what is going on in this country on the left and right since I got off work, and while I haven't formulated it perfectly, I'd like to get it out so I don't have to try on my day off tomorrow.
First, I'll address the big issues you'll hear thrown at "my side". First off, let's address the idea of yelling at or shaming public figures in restaurants. Now, can this be considered very rude and untoward?? Of course it can. But as far as I know, yelling at someone is not even illegal, much less "violent". If the restaurant owners have a problem with the people causing the scene, they can certainly throw them out of their establishment. But beyond that, raising your voice and berating someone who (at least ostensibly) works for US is certainly right on the line of still being a freedom of expression, but at MOST, it is extremely bad manners. Anyone comparing it to attempted assassinations with pipe bombs are either totally disingenuous or nuts.
Second, let's discuss Antifa. I still don't know a hell of alot about this group despite being one of the most consistently liberal participants in this thread. What I do know is they engage in alot of acts of street theater that sometimes devolves into property damage and assault. I would never deny this. The key thing to note about Antifa is that, despite being technically "left-wing", I have never heard them espouse any love for any particular politician in the Democratic Party who they are acting on behalf of. Indeed, most of the people in Antifa likely hate corporate Democrats just as much as Republicans.
Which brings me to what is taking place in the fringes of the right. They are still the fringes and the minority, but there is one VERY big difference. The violence emanating from the political right in our current climate is coming from people who not only view Trump as a great politician, but revere him as a leader of a movement. Trump is THE figurehead of the people that marched on the streets of Charlottesville, and he is THE person who inspired the bomber. The man caught today is quite literally what we would have before today called a stereotype of a Trump rally-goer. Because he was a Trump rally-goer. Because what Trump is doing is creating a cult.
There are always going to be people who commit violence. There will no doubt be an example of violence from the political left in the near future. But what Trump is doing is different. Every time he has a rally, every time he endorses some new conspiracy theory on his Twitter feed, he is reaching thousands if not millions of people who are just on the edge of falling over that cliff and snapping. There are lots of Travis Bickles out there. And every time he rolls into town with one of his hate-rallies, there is a greater chance that the next Charlottesville or would-be pipe-bomb assassin is going to be pushed over the edge by Trump and his totally irresponsible use of the bully pulpit. He is a demagogue, and every time he does this he is lighting a book of matches near a gas spill. There is nothing but darkness ahead if we continue down his path.
Well in this case it's probably fortunate that this moron decided to go after prominent people that he had 0% chance of hurting, rather than randomly gunning down people at a mall or mosque or something. I think we're going to find out that this guy is Fruit Loops.
I'm not denying the guy is fruit loops. John Hinckley was fruit loops. Mark David Chapman was fruit loops. All assassins/would-be assassins are fruit loops. The point is is that there are many people out there who are just on the precipice of playing out the final scene of "Taxi Driver" in real-life. Most of them never do. They have fantasies in their head and talk to themselves in the mirror, but in most cases, these people don't actually act on these impulses. But they can be pushed to do things. And people who believe in a "cause" while already having these inclinations are even easier to push. Then sprinkle conspiracy theories, which are known to make people feel even more like part of a special club that knows "the real truth", and you have a tailor-made recipe for disaster. Trump plays into all of this. Multiple times a week. And he has the biggest microphone in the world. It is utterly irresponsible for him to use it the way he does. It was always going to lead to this, and this isn't going to be the last one. It isn't even the first.
Mind you, this is what is happening when the leader of this movement has his party IN power. Their guy controls everything, but the paranoia and aggrievement at the center of Trump's takeover of conservatism is so profound that even though they control EVERYTHING, they still feel like they are the ones under attack. It would be at least somewhat understandable to see this kind of mentality if you were out of power, but seeing it from people who, at the moment have total control of the government is even more disturbing. What will satisfy this (and I don't have a better word for it) bloodlust we see at all these rallies?? Because half the time I feel like it would take public executions of prominent Democrats.
I'm still not sure what is so dangerous about Trump's rhetoric and tweets or whatever and how this makes republican violence worse then democrat violence even when nearly the exact same events occur with different methods. Calling CNN fake news or Warren Pocohantas makes someone send pipe bombs? Like lol. Maxine Waters seems to be saying far more extreme things then Trump has said since like 2016.
Which brings me to what is taking place in the fringes of the right. They are still the fringes and the minority, but there is one VERY big difference. The violence emanating from the political right in our current climate is coming from people who not only view Trump as a great politician, but revere him as a leader of a movement. Trump is THE figurehead of the people that marched on the streets of Charlottesville, and he is THE person who inspired the bomber. The man caught today is quite literally what we would have before today called a stereotype of a Trump rally-goer. Because he was a Trump rally-goer. Because what Trump is doing is creating a cult.
I knew it was eventually gonna come down to pointing fingers at Trump, despite the fact earlier this month some guy was mailing ricin to Trump and top officials like Mattis, the FBI director, Cruz, etc.
What's the very big difference between that and this? You pointed at antifa and the fact that the left harasses right wing figures anywhere they go, but I feel like there are more relevant examples to choose from if trying to point fingers is where you wish to take it.
Of course the media only makes a huge story and narrative about it when it happens to the democrats though. After places like WaPo have called Trump worse than hitler and comparable to hitler on several occasions, how could they really even pretend to care?
You know, I spend half my long posts lately attempting to argue in good faith by SPECIFICALLY addressing the issues that the right often uses as counter-arguments, and I do this mostly with you in particular in mind. I did it with extensive research into Keith Ellison when we were talking about Brett Kavanaugh, and I did it again tonight in regards to the debate about political violence. I don't have to do this. I could have just ignored it and typed the second half of the post. But I don't even know why I bother, because it doesn't seem to matter. I'm told for two years I'm supposed to care about what a problem Antifa is and to recognize how the lack of "civility" on the left is the real problem. And when I specifically front-load my post tonight with exactly those topics, I'm told those aren't the real, pertinent topics I should be focusing on. So i'm not even sure what the hell I'm supposed to do here.
I know you were attempting to cover your bases, and you did about those topics and i agree they arent as bad. But when discussing this event in particular the ricin mail case earlier this month is almost the exact same sort of case but from the other side. So I don't agree that there is no equivalence, which is what I think you were implying.
Mind you, this is what is happening when the leader of this movement has his party IN power. They're guy controls everything, but the paranoia and aggrievement at the center of Trump's takeover of conservatism is so profound that even though they control EVERYTHING, they still feel like they are the ones under attack. It would be at least somewhat understandable to see this kind of mentality if you were out of power, but seeing it from people who, at the moment have total control of the government is even more disturbing.
I don't think Trump feels like he's in power. Trump might have all the powers of the presidency and he might have the loyalty (whether out of love or fear) of the majority of Congress and the Supreme Court, but that's not what really matters to him. Being able to veto laws, being able to sign orders, being able to nominate officials--these are matters of policy, and Trump isn't a policy guy. He never has been.
Trump feels powerless because he can't get everyone to like him, and he craves adulation. That's why he organizes so many rallies but is afraid of press conferences; he surrounds himself with those he knows will praise him. That's why he complains about being "attacked" more often than anyone else and how he's being treated more "unfairly" than anyone else. Trump wants people to praise him and not criticize him, but even as President, he doesn't have the power to make that happen.
As the President, Trump has powers beyond any other human being on the planet. But he doesn't have the power to make people love him, and that's why he feels powerless: because that's the only thing that he really wants.
It's not even a politics thing. He's been like this for decades.
But I don't find the topic particularly noteworthy in truth. We should say what we need to say, even if it is a condemnation and even if it is passionate. We should not censor ourselves just because a random crazy might flip the lid.
I know you were attempting to cover your bases, and you did about those topics and i agree they arent as bad. But when discussing this event in particular the ricin mail case earlier this month is almost the exact same sort of case but from the other side. So I don't agree that there is no equivalence, which is what I think you were implying.
Which Democratic politician's stickers and slogans were plastered on the car of the man from Utah accused in the ricin attacks?? Because I just read 4 articles about it and couldn't find a single inkling of his political affiliation, and I'm actively looking for it.
As for Trump calling for violence, are you serious?? He actively told people at his rallies in his campaign to beat the shit out of protesters and offered to pay their frickin' legal bills. He stands there and preens while his crowds chant for his political rivals to be jailed. Just last week he praised Greg Gianforte for body-slamming a reporter. Do I have to get the video clips?? Would it even matter if I did??
@WarChiefZeke: Something's been bothering me for a while. What exactly is your forum portrait? I keep looking at it and all I can see is a yelling sloth.
As for Trump calling for violence, are you serious?? He actively told people at his rallies in his campaign to beat the shit out of protesters and offered to pay their frickin' legal bills. He stands there and preens while his crowds chant for his political rivals to be jailed. Just last week he praised Greg Gianforte for body-slamming a reporter. Do I have to get the video clips?? Would it even matter if I did??
He also calls the Media the "Enemy of the People". He'll say this is only "Fake News", but then he says anything remotely negative of him is "Fake news". So it's non conservative media that is literally the "Enemy of the people".
He makes outrageous claims that the Democrats want completely open borders, or to take away everyone's guns. He attempts to peddle hate and fear, and then gives everyone who would be aggrieved by this an enemy: The Media. Democrats. Immigrants.
Should we be surprised when threats are visited upon these three groups?
Yeah how do people not see what he does as it is? Is this stuff ok? I don't get how something in front of everyone's face is somehow invisible to a large number of people.
As for Trump calling for violence, are you serious?? He actively told people at his rallies in his campaign to beat the shit out of protesters and offered to pay their frickin' legal bills. He stands there and preens while his crowds chant for his political rivals to be jailed. Just last week he praised Greg Gianforte for body-slamming a reporter. Do I have to get the video clips?? Would it even matter if I did??
He also calls the Media the "Enemy of the People". He'll say this is only "Fake News", but then he says anything remotely negative of him is "Fake news". So it's non conservative media that is literally the "Enemy of the people".
He makes outrageous claims that the Democrats want completely open borders, or to take away everyone's guns. He attempts to peddle hate and fear, and then gives everyone who would be aggrieved by this an enemy: The Media. Democrats. Immigrants.
Should we be surprised when threats are visited upon these three groups?
Calling the Media the "Enemy of the People" and anyone who points out anything he doesn't want pointed out "Fake News" that's some dictator shit right there. Isn't it? How can that not be obvious to people making good faith arguments?
Yeah how do people not see what he does as it is? Is this stuff ok? I don't get how something in front of everyone's face is somehow invisible to a large number of people.
As for Trump calling for violence, are you serious?? He actively told people at his rallies in his campaign to beat the shit out of protesters and offered to pay their frickin' legal bills. He stands there and preens while his crowds chant for his political rivals to be jailed. Just last week he praised Greg Gianforte for body-slamming a reporter. Do I have to get the video clips?? Would it even matter if I did??
He also calls the Media the "Enemy of the People". He'll say this is only "Fake News", but then he says anything remotely negative of him is "Fake news". So it's non conservative media that is literally the "Enemy of the people".
He makes outrageous claims that the Democrats want completely open borders, or to take away everyone's guns. He attempts to peddle hate and fear, and then gives everyone who would be aggrieved by this an enemy: The Media. Democrats. Immigrants.
Should we be surprised when threats are visited upon these three groups?
Calling the Media the "Enemy of the People" and anyone who points out anything he doesn't want pointed out "Fake News" that's some dictator shit right there. Isn't it? How can that not be obvious to people making good faith arguments?
Part of the 'problem' is that many conservatives, me included, think that ultimately liberals DO want open borders, to take away our guns and to legislate from judges benches. They just can't admit it.
Yeah how do people not see what he does as it is? Is this stuff ok? I don't get how something in front of everyone's face is somehow invisible to a large number of people.
As for Trump calling for violence, are you serious?? He actively told people at his rallies in his campaign to beat the shit out of protesters and offered to pay their frickin' legal bills. He stands there and preens while his crowds chant for his political rivals to be jailed. Just last week he praised Greg Gianforte for body-slamming a reporter. Do I have to get the video clips?? Would it even matter if I did??
He also calls the Media the "Enemy of the People". He'll say this is only "Fake News", but then he says anything remotely negative of him is "Fake news". So it's non conservative media that is literally the "Enemy of the people".
He makes outrageous claims that the Democrats want completely open borders, or to take away everyone's guns. He attempts to peddle hate and fear, and then gives everyone who would be aggrieved by this an enemy: The Media. Democrats. Immigrants.
Should we be surprised when threats are visited upon these three groups?
Calling the Media the "Enemy of the People" and anyone who points out anything he doesn't want pointed out "Fake News" that's some dictator shit right there. Isn't it? How can that not be obvious to people making good faith arguments?
Part of the 'problem' is that many conservatives, me included, think that ultimately liberals DO want open borders, to take away our guns and to legislate from judges benches. They just can't admit it.
That's their fear mongering. That is the strawman that has been set up for you to hate.
As a leftie, i'd like for guns to go away ala Great Britain or Australia. To me, it'd be nice to not have mass shootings every month and places like Chicago would be less danger if everyone wasn't packing heat. Do I expect that soon? No there's waaaayy too many guns here. At the very least today there needs to be 'common sense gun laws'. Mental health checks, national registry things of that sort. Your team won't even let that stuff fly. That is making America more dangerous than it needs to be. What's wrong with common sense laws?
Brett Kavanaugh is a total partisan. He didn't even hide it. They sell you 'ohh liberal activist judges' and then throw actual activist Conservative judges'on the bench.
Open borders? Again no one has said that. Not anyone. Nobody wants that. Do we think immigrants are bad? In general no. We don't agree with the child camps - which are still a thing. We don't agree with scapegoating minorities and fear mongering about asylum seekers.
The world is a big place. Venezuela, Mexico, Honduras, and Russia exist. The people there are not all good and not all bad. The people, culture, and ideas that exist outside our borders normally are going to sometimes get through. We can't hide behind walls.
Best if when they get through they've been treated humanely before coming to America and after they are here. Treat others as you would want to be treated. Someday it could be us with a fucked up dictatorship and associated bread lines, rampant poverty, crime, and corrupt police and government.
@WarChiefZeke: Something's been bothering me for a while. What exactly is your forum portrait? I keep looking at it and all I can see is a yelling sloth.
It's War Chief Zeke! From Attack on Titan. A series that was really good for awhile until they turned the setting from post apocalyptic to a bad WW2 clone.
When conservatives talk about "legislating from the bench" they are basically talking about abortion and gay marriage, because there really aren't alot of other examples of it. I guess I can understand the former, but all the later one comes down to is "hey, no one asked me if those people can have equal rights or not", which isn't an argument I'm open to having.
And it's also absurd to think that (especially in recent years) conservative Justices aren't legislating from the bench themselves. They declared corporate personhood, essentially destroying any campaign finance laws like McCain/Feingold that had placed restrictions on money in politics. They essentially gutted the Voting Rights Act in recent years, basically saying "we don't need this anymore", which has lead DIRECTLY to the kind of shenanigans we are seeing in Georgia right now. The right-wing Justices on the court are more than happy to legislate from the bench in the exact same way, it's just that the right coined a catchy buzzword to make it seem like it's only happening on one side, which isn't the case.
And let's not even get started on Bush v. Gore, where they basically installed a President based on a straight party-line vote. Conservatives have VERY little to complain about in regards to the Supreme Court in the last 25-30 years, and since they managed to flat-out steal another seat for themselves, they'll have even less to complain about for the next 30.
Part of the 'problem' is that many conservatives, me included, think that ultimately liberals DO want open borders, to take away our guns and to legislate from judges benches. They just can't admit it.
I think views on open borders and gun control lie along a spectrum. I think very few liberals would advocate totally unrestricted borders and very few would advocate total elimination of guns. However, I agree it's fair to suggest that liberals in general do take up positions closer to those extremes than conservatives so your statement is understandable.
I can't though see any logic in the idea that liberals generally want to legislate via judges. In fact I would have thought liberals were generally more in favor of allowing rule by the majority and conservatives more in favor of protecting individual rights. Are you though referring to the argument that a future Democratic administration would pack the Supreme Court? I agree that does currently look a definite possibility, though I don't think that's the result of any intellectual desire by liberals to rely on court judgments. Instead it just reflects the fact that the Republicans have done away with long-standing covenants on how the Supreme Court should operate in order to produce a court out of step with the majority of people in the US. Adding, say, 2 additional justices would be done with the intention of just reverting to the situation before the appointment of Gorsuch.
Part of the 'problem' is that many conservatives, me included, think that ultimately liberals DO want open borders, to take away our guns and to legislate from judges benches. They just can't admit it.
Think about that statement. We *cannot* actually do those things (Repealing an amendment is almost impossible, unless both parties are on board. Open borders are a myth - what does that legislation look like? How could any political group stay in a large enough majority trying to do those kinds of things?).
So we cant do it, and we wont even admit to really wanting it... so why are you (and other conservatives) convinced we will?
There are plenty of progressive liberals that would like a huge restriction on ownership of guns, but nowhere near enough to make it a full on mainstream desire.
Found a random poll of it - approximately 20% of the USA wants the 2nd Amendment repealed. That's sufficiently small that it's *not* going to happen. Less than half of Democrats want it to happen. I wouldnt support a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment (I am in favor of gun control, but not THAT much gun control).
Regarding open borders, that is the standard of the democrat party whether or not the democrat voters actually agree with it. That was the phrase Clinton herself used to describe what she wanted, and there isn't any restriction that democrat politicians support. The borders would, effectively, be open to all if they had their way.
Legislating via judges, the idea that this is restricted to one political party or even done noticably more by one party is simply ridiculous and at odds with the facts.
Gun rights, I don't think any politician wants to take guns away because its political suicide. Where I stand, I want to have a gun to defend myself and don't care about the rest.
Let's take the two main issues where both sides seemed to have "won" over the years. The left on a woman's right to choose, and the right on basically unfettered gun access to anyone with a pulse. We can't even get a milquetoast set of background checks in regards to gun control, much less mass confiscation. Meanwhile, the right to have an abortion is basically up to the sole discretion of a Brett Kavanaugh at this point. One has no chance of happening, one is at least a 50/50 proposition.
This is why I seriously can't fathom the constant anger and aggrievement on the political right. Despite winning only ONE popular vote since 1992, they've still managed to hold the Oval Office for nearly half that time, resulting in (at present) 4 Supreme Court picks, one of which was flat-out transferred from a person who won BOTH the popular and electoral vote to his predecessor who didn't. I mean, what the hell is there to complain about??
Oh....speaking of guns. A gunman just walked into a synagogue in Pittsburgh and has killed at least 8 people, shouting "All Jews must die". This is two days after a man walked into a Krogers and shot two African-Americans dead while telling the white people they didn't have anything to worry about because he wouldn't kill them. Nothing to see here folks. Totally normal. What did Trump say when asked about his rhetoric yesterday?? The guy literally said he was going to "tone it up". Keep watching folks. This is all falling apart, as predicted from the start by those of us who saw what was coming.
Part of the 'problem' is that many conservatives, me included, think that ultimately liberals DO want open borders, to take away our guns and to legislate from judges benches. They just can't admit it.
Think about that statement. We *cannot* actually do those things (Repealing an amendment is almost impossible, unless both parties are on board. Open borders are a myth - what does that legislation look like? How could any political group stay in a large enough majority trying to do those kinds of things?).
So we cant do it, and we wont even admit to really wanting it... so why are you (and other conservatives) convinced we will?
There are plenty of progressive liberals that would like a huge restriction on ownership of guns, but nowhere near enough to make it a full on mainstream desire.
Found a random poll of it - approximately 20% of the USA wants the 2nd Amendment repealed. That's sufficiently small that it's *not* going to happen. Less than half of Democrats want it to happen. I wouldnt support a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment (I am in favor of gun control, but not THAT much gun control).
The problem is that the fear of "liberals coming for your guns' is being used as an excuse to tank even the mildest common sense gun laws. The NRA fights all regulation even mental health and common sense. Due to lobbying, the ATF’s record-keeping system lacks certain basic functionalities standard to every other database. Despite its vast size, and importance to crime fighters, it is less sophisticated than an online card catalog maintained by a small town public library. Attempts to move them from this system are blocked.
And that's a general thing with these conservative stereotypes that I am seeing more clearly with Trump in office especially? A Mexican = MS13. A Democrat = open borders, crime, activist judges, etc. You get the idea.
They call people or groups X. Then they attack the X instead of what their opponent in front of them. This is a strawman attack. Another thing you can do is twist X's motivations or otherwise misrepresent it.
Debating any female Democrat = they are Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton. Attack that strawman. It's everywhere with Conservative politicians.
Personally, I'd favor stronger gun control laws than most liberals:
1. Criminal and mental health background checks before any firearm or ammunition could be purchased 2. A ban on handguns for anyone who is not a police officer 3. A requirement that you need a hunting license in order to purchase a rifle or shotgun 4. A gun buyback program to reduce the number of firearms available for criminals to purchase or steal
If the Supreme Court strikes down these laws, then that's that. But I think they're worth trying out if it means we can save American lives.
I'd be willing to compromise on some of these issues if we had appropriate alternatives. An alternative to number 2 would involve a requirement to pass a field test before you can purchase a handgun to make sure you have good aim under pressure, since most people (even trained cops!) have terrible aim with handguns, and adrenaline makes the problem far worse. Also, simulations have found that a lot of people who carry guns will actually freeze up in a dangerous situation, and having a gun doesn't provide any self-defense value if you won't use it or can't aim properly.
Another alternative to these rules would be limitations on lethal ammunition. Rubber bullets are perfectly capable of dropping a dangerous criminal to the ground without flat-out killing them. The United States, after all, does not perform summary executions. Lethal ammunition would be reserved for hunting purposes.
I'm okay with killing wild animals (in fact, I support it, and would support reducing limits on hunting), but weapons designed to kill humans are worth limiting.
As for open borders, nope. We're still at a 20-year low in immigration, both legal and illegal, and I see no reason to increase or decrease the number of immigrants crossing the border. I don't support any big changes to immigration policy.
Now that I think about it, I've never actually heard a liberal advocate for looser immigration laws. All I've heard, in fact, are liberals opposing (1) the wall and (2) deportations. I've never heard them call for anything else.
If what I'm seeing so far about this synagogue shooter so far in regards to people looking at his social media are true then we may be in the midst of a full-on right-wing domestic terrorism crisis. Because based on what people have uncovered so far it seems he was posting on social media about a Jewish immigration resettlement group and may have specifically alluding to the caravan. I'll wait for more facts, but holy hell is this getting bad. We are approaching a mini-Kristallnacht here.
NBC News is now confirming the posts are the from the shooter. Specifically targeting Jews because he believed a Jewish refugee resettlement group called HIAS was aiding and abetting the "invasion" of our country. God, I wonder where he got the idea that we were being invaded...........
Now that I think about it, I've never actually heard a liberal advocate for looser immigration laws. All I've heard, in fact, are liberals opposing (1) the wall and (2) deportations. I've never heard them call for anything else.
They're in favor of amnesty which is basically rewarding illegal immigrants with citizenship. To me that is pretty much open borders. Sorry...
If what I'm seeing so far about this synagogue shooter so far in regards to people looking at his social media are true then we may be in the midst of a full-on right-wing domestic terrorism crisis. Because based on what people have uncovered so far it seems he was posting on social media about a Jewish immigration resettlement group and may have specifically alluding to the caravan. I'll wait for more facts, but holy hell is this getting bad. We are approaching a mini-Kristallnacht here.
NBC News is now confirming the posts are the from the shooter. Specifically targeting Jews because he believed a Jewish refugee resettlement group was aiding and abetting the "invasion" of our country. God, I wonder where he got the idea that we were being invaded...........
Two people? That's not mini, that's not even micro, that's more like femto-Kristallnacht...
If what I'm seeing so far about this synagogue shooter so far in regards to people looking at his social media are true then we may be in the midst of a full-on right-wing domestic terrorism crisis. Because based on what people have uncovered so far it seems he was posting on social media about a Jewish immigration resettlement group and may have specifically alluding to the caravan. I'll wait for more facts, but holy hell is this getting bad. We are approaching a mini-Kristallnacht here.
NBC News is now confirming the posts are the from the shooter. Specifically targeting Jews because he believed a Jewish refugee resettlement group was aiding and abetting the "invasion" of our country. God, I wonder where he got the idea that we were being invaded...........
Two people? That's not mini, that's not even micro, that's more like femto-Kristallnacht...
I'm sorry, but in the last 5 days, two African-Americans were randomly shot dead in a grocery store based on their race, the entire apparatus of the Democratic Party was targeted for assassination, and someone seems to have shot up a synagogue because of his views on Jews and immigration. This is not isolated.
Trump just said the solution is to "bring the death penalty into vogue". When has the death penalty NOT been in vogue??? Trump favors it so much that he still supports it for people (the Central Park Five) who have been fully EXONERATED.
How is it not isolated? Barring some connection between the offenders all I can see is the upcoming election being a factor. There is no geographical correlation, no single group they were all members of, no single race (the Florida guy was Native American or Filipino I thought I heard), and not even a single religious motivation. Most religious right folks love the Jews.
Comments
Statistics like these can help governments acknowledge what is a priority for their citizens when it comes to finances. It will also help when it shows how much the average Canadian pays in utilities and gas and other alleged necessities that are eating away at disposable income, that which keeps an economy chugging.
Although, I know, I am an in a minority in this type of thinking.
I don't watch FOX News at all. At least CNN pretends to be neutral. Besides, the CNN folks are much better at letting me know what's going on in the rest of the world.
First, I'll address the big issues you'll hear thrown at "my side". First off, let's address the idea of yelling at or shaming public figures in restaurants. Now, can this be considered very rude and untoward?? Of course it can. But as far as I know, yelling at someone is not even illegal, much less "violent". If the restaurant owners have a problem with the people causing the scene, they can certainly throw them out of their establishment. But beyond that, raising your voice and berating someone who (at least ostensibly) works for US is certainly right on the line of still being a freedom of expression, but at MOST, it is extremely bad manners. Anyone comparing it to attempted assassinations with pipe bombs are either totally disingenuous or nuts.
Second, let's discuss Antifa. I still don't know a hell of alot about this group despite being one of the most consistently liberal participants in this thread. What I do know is they engage in alot of acts of street theater that sometimes devolves into property damage and assault. I would never deny this. The key thing to note about Antifa is that, despite being technically "left-wing", I have never heard them espouse any love for any particular politician in the Democratic Party who they are acting on behalf of. Indeed, most of the people in Antifa likely hate corporate Democrats just as much as Republicans.
Which brings me to what is taking place in the fringes of the right. They are still the fringes and the minority, but there is one VERY big difference. The violence emanating from the political right in our current climate is coming from people who not only view Trump as a great politician, but revere him as a leader of a movement. Trump is THE figurehead of the people that marched on the streets of Charlottesville, and he is THE person who inspired the bomber. The man caught today is quite literally what we would have before today called a stereotype of a Trump rally-goer. Because he was a Trump rally-goer. Because what Trump is doing is creating a cult.
There are always going to be people who commit violence. There will no doubt be an example of violence from the political left in the near future. But what Trump is doing is different. Every time he has a rally, every time he endorses some new conspiracy theory on his Twitter feed, he is reaching thousands if not millions of people who are just on the edge of falling over that cliff and snapping. There are lots of Travis Bickles out there. And every time he rolls into town with one of his hate-rallies, there is a greater chance that the next Charlottesville or would-be pipe-bomb assassin is going to be pushed over the edge by Trump and his totally irresponsible use of the bully pulpit. He is a demagogue, and every time he does this he is lighting a book of matches near a gas spill. There is nothing but darkness ahead if we continue down his path.
What's the very big difference between that and this? You pointed at antifa and the fact that the left harasses right wing figures anywhere they go, but I feel like there are more relevant examples to choose from if trying to point fingers is where you wish to take it.
Of course the media only makes a huge story and narrative about it when it happens to the democrats though. After places like WaPo have called Trump worse than hitler and comparable to hitler on several occasions, how could they really even pretend to care?
Mind you, this is what is happening when the leader of this movement has his party IN power. Their guy controls everything, but the paranoia and aggrievement at the center of Trump's takeover of conservatism is so profound that even though they control EVERYTHING, they still feel like they are the ones under attack. It would be at least somewhat understandable to see this kind of mentality if you were out of power, but seeing it from people who, at the moment have total control of the government is even more disturbing. What will satisfy this (and I don't have a better word for it) bloodlust we see at all these rallies?? Because half the time I feel like it would take public executions of prominent Democrats.
Trump feels powerless because he can't get everyone to like him, and he craves adulation. That's why he organizes so many rallies but is afraid of press conferences; he surrounds himself with those he knows will praise him. That's why he complains about being "attacked" more often than anyone else and how he's being treated more "unfairly" than anyone else. Trump wants people to praise him and not criticize him, but even as President, he doesn't have the power to make that happen.
As the President, Trump has powers beyond any other human being on the planet. But he doesn't have the power to make people love him, and that's why he feels powerless: because that's the only thing that he really wants.
It's not even a politics thing. He's been like this for decades.
As for Trump calling for violence, are you serious?? He actively told people at his rallies in his campaign to beat the shit out of protesters and offered to pay their frickin' legal bills. He stands there and preens while his crowds chant for his political rivals to be jailed. Just last week he praised Greg Gianforte for body-slamming a reporter. Do I have to get the video clips?? Would it even matter if I did??
He makes outrageous claims that the Democrats want completely open borders, or to take away everyone's guns. He attempts to peddle hate and fear, and then gives everyone who would be aggrieved by this an enemy: The Media. Democrats. Immigrants.
Should we be surprised when threats are visited upon these three groups?
As a leftie, i'd like for guns to go away ala Great Britain or Australia. To me, it'd be nice to not have mass shootings every month and places like Chicago would be less danger if everyone wasn't packing heat. Do I expect that soon? No there's waaaayy too many guns here. At the very least today there needs to be 'common sense gun laws'. Mental health checks, national registry things of that sort. Your team won't even let that stuff fly. That is making America more dangerous than it needs to be. What's wrong with common sense laws?
Brett Kavanaugh is a total partisan. He didn't even hide it. They sell you 'ohh liberal activist judges' and then throw actual activist Conservative judges'on the bench.
Open borders? Again no one has said that. Not anyone. Nobody wants that. Do we think immigrants are bad? In general no. We don't agree with the child camps - which are still a thing. We don't agree with scapegoating minorities and fear mongering about asylum seekers.
The world is a big place. Venezuela, Mexico, Honduras, and Russia exist. The people there are not all good and not all bad. The people, culture, and ideas that exist outside our borders normally are going to sometimes get through. We can't hide behind walls.
Best if when they get through they've been treated humanely before coming to America and after they are here. Treat others as you would want to be treated. Someday it could be us with a fucked up dictatorship and associated bread lines, rampant poverty, crime, and corrupt police and government.
And it's also absurd to think that (especially in recent years) conservative Justices aren't legislating from the bench themselves. They declared corporate personhood, essentially destroying any campaign finance laws like McCain/Feingold that had placed restrictions on money in politics. They essentially gutted the Voting Rights Act in recent years, basically saying "we don't need this anymore", which has lead DIRECTLY to the kind of shenanigans we are seeing in Georgia right now. The right-wing Justices on the court are more than happy to legislate from the bench in the exact same way, it's just that the right coined a catchy buzzword to make it seem like it's only happening on one side, which isn't the case.
And let's not even get started on Bush v. Gore, where they basically installed a President based on a straight party-line vote. Conservatives have VERY little to complain about in regards to the Supreme Court in the last 25-30 years, and since they managed to flat-out steal another seat for themselves, they'll have even less to complain about for the next 30.
I can't though see any logic in the idea that liberals generally want to legislate via judges. In fact I would have thought liberals were generally more in favor of allowing rule by the majority and conservatives more in favor of protecting individual rights. Are you though referring to the argument that a future Democratic administration would pack the Supreme Court? I agree that does currently look a definite possibility, though I don't think that's the result of any intellectual desire by liberals to rely on court judgments. Instead it just reflects the fact that the Republicans have done away with long-standing covenants on how the Supreme Court should operate in order to produce a court out of step with the majority of people in the US. Adding, say, 2 additional justices would be done with the intention of just reverting to the situation before the appointment of Gorsuch.
So we cant do it, and we wont even admit to really wanting it... so why are you (and other conservatives) convinced we will?
There are plenty of progressive liberals that would like a huge restriction on ownership of guns, but nowhere near enough to make it a full on mainstream desire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b011491f0622
Found a random poll of it - approximately 20% of the USA wants the 2nd Amendment repealed. That's sufficiently small that it's *not* going to happen. Less than half of Democrats want it to happen. I wouldnt support a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment (I am in favor of gun control, but not THAT much gun control).
Legislating via judges, the idea that this is restricted to one political party or even done noticably more by one party is simply ridiculous and at odds with the facts.
Gun rights, I don't think any politician wants to take guns away because its political suicide. Where I stand, I want to have a gun to defend myself and don't care about the rest.
This is why I seriously can't fathom the constant anger and aggrievement on the political right. Despite winning only ONE popular vote since 1992, they've still managed to hold the Oval Office for nearly half that time, resulting in (at present) 4 Supreme Court picks, one of which was flat-out transferred from a person who won BOTH the popular and electoral vote to his predecessor who didn't. I mean, what the hell is there to complain about??
Oh....speaking of guns. A gunman just walked into a synagogue in Pittsburgh and has killed at least 8 people, shouting "All Jews must die". This is two days after a man walked into a Krogers and shot two African-Americans dead while telling the white people they didn't have anything to worry about because he wouldn't kill them. Nothing to see here folks. Totally normal. What did Trump say when asked about his rhetoric yesterday?? The guy literally said he was going to "tone it up". Keep watching folks. This is all falling apart, as predicted from the start by those of us who saw what was coming.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/
And that's a general thing with these conservative stereotypes that I am seeing more clearly with Trump in office especially? A Mexican = MS13. A Democrat = open borders, crime, activist judges, etc. You get the idea.
They call people or groups X. Then they attack the X instead of what their opponent in front of them. This is a strawman attack. Another thing you can do is twist X's motivations or otherwise misrepresent it.
Debating any female Democrat = they are Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton. Attack that strawman. It's everywhere with Conservative politicians.
1. Criminal and mental health background checks before any firearm or ammunition could be purchased
2. A ban on handguns for anyone who is not a police officer
3. A requirement that you need a hunting license in order to purchase a rifle or shotgun
4. A gun buyback program to reduce the number of firearms available for criminals to purchase or steal
If the Supreme Court strikes down these laws, then that's that. But I think they're worth trying out if it means we can save American lives.
I'd be willing to compromise on some of these issues if we had appropriate alternatives. An alternative to number 2 would involve a requirement to pass a field test before you can purchase a handgun to make sure you have good aim under pressure, since most people (even trained cops!) have terrible aim with handguns, and adrenaline makes the problem far worse. Also, simulations have found that a lot of people who carry guns will actually freeze up in a dangerous situation, and having a gun doesn't provide any self-defense value if you won't use it or can't aim properly.
Another alternative to these rules would be limitations on lethal ammunition. Rubber bullets are perfectly capable of dropping a dangerous criminal to the ground without flat-out killing them. The United States, after all, does not perform summary executions. Lethal ammunition would be reserved for hunting purposes.
I'm okay with killing wild animals (in fact, I support it, and would support reducing limits on hunting), but weapons designed to kill humans are worth limiting.
As for open borders, nope. We're still at a 20-year low in immigration, both legal and illegal, and I see no reason to increase or decrease the number of immigrants crossing the border. I don't support any big changes to immigration policy.
Now that I think about it, I've never actually heard a liberal advocate for looser immigration laws. All I've heard, in fact, are liberals opposing (1) the wall and (2) deportations. I've never heard them call for anything else.
NBC News is now confirming the posts are the from the shooter. Specifically targeting Jews because he believed a Jewish refugee resettlement group called HIAS was aiding and abetting the "invasion" of our country. God, I wonder where he got the idea that we were being invaded...........
I'm sorry, but in the last 5 days, two African-Americans were randomly shot dead in a grocery store based on their race, the entire apparatus of the Democratic Party was targeted for assassination, and someone seems to have shot up a synagogue because of his views on Jews and immigration. This is not isolated.
Trump just said the solution is to "bring the death penalty into vogue". When has the death penalty NOT been in vogue??? Trump favors it so much that he still supports it for people (the Central Park Five) who have been fully EXONERATED.