Pelosi finally actually moves to Impeach Trump

[Saelune]

The center position between 'Evil' and 'Super Evil' is still evil. Everything right of Biden is too far right. And while I will vote for Biden if I have to, I REALLY would prefer not to.

'Centrists/Moderates' are all right-wing, because they are not using the center position between Left-Wing and Right-Wing, they are using the center between Moderate Right (Biden) and Far-Right (The Republican Party).

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Do you support the Second Amendment?

Absolutely, yes.
Why do you ask?

 

[Saelune]

Do you support the Second Amendment?

Absolutely, yes.
Why do you ask?

You said

I want to be very clear about this: I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that I have the right to shoot someone for disagreeing with me.

What I have said is that I am willing to use force, a non-insignificant amount of it, too, to defend my rights as an absolute last resort. I don't think any of that will be necessary.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment conflicts with that claim.

Now, you can claim that you are not wrong for having that view, but you cannot honestly claim to not have that view to begin with.

Kind of like when someone claims violence is ALWAYS wrong, but then says violence to defend yourself is ok. But then, thats the problem with absolute statements, isnt it?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Do you support the Second Amendment?

Absolutely, yes.
Why do you ask?

You said

I want to be very clear about this: I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that I have the right to shoot someone for disagreeing with me.

What I have said is that I am willing to use force, a non-insignificant amount of it, too, to defend my rights as an absolute last resort. I don't think any of that will be necessary.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment conflicts with that claim.

Now, you can claim that you are not wrong for having that view, but you cannot honestly claim to not have that view to begin with.

Kind of like when someone claims violence is ALWAYS wrong, but then says violence to defend yourself is ok. But then, thats the problem with absolute statements, isnt it?

I don't see the contradiction that you are trying to claim here

 

[tstorm823]

For instance, imagine the question "Do you think Hitler had the right idea about Jews? Y/N". One party over a 20-year period stays at 50% support for this statement, and the other drops from 50% to 20%. Are you really going to argue that the party where there was a drop has become more extreme?

Ok, but I'm not answering the question of "what is extreme" in the first place. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that Democrats are moving toward Republicans to attempt to capture some of the Republican voting base. So I put that set of graphs showing Democrats moving away from Republicans in every category except "the government is wasteful and inefficient" next to the graph showing the Democratic Party platform taking a hard turn left from 2008 to 2016.

 

[Saelune]

Do you support the Second Amendment?

Absolutely, yes.
Why do you ask?

You said

I want to be very clear about this: I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that I have the right to shoot someone for disagreeing with me.

What I have said is that I am willing to use force, a non-insignificant amount of it, too, to defend my rights as an absolute last resort. I don't think any of that will be necessary.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment conflicts with that claim.

Now, you can claim that you are not wrong for having that view, but you cannot honestly claim to not have that view to begin with.

Kind of like when someone claims violence is ALWAYS wrong, but then says violence to defend yourself is ok. But then, thats the problem with absolute statements, isnt it?

I don't see the contradiction that you are trying to claim here

Well then, perhaps you could elaborate on when it is appropriate to shoot someone 'to defend [your] rights as an absolute last resort' as you put it. Cause that is incredibly vague.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Well then, perhaps you could elaborate on when it is appropriate to shoot someone 'to defend [your] rights as an absolute last resort' as you put it. Cause that is incredibly vague.

It's left vague on purpose, my dear friend.

 

[Saelune]

Well then, perhaps you could elaborate on when it is appropriate to shoot someone 'to defend [your] rights as an absolute last resort' as you put it. Cause that is incredibly vague.

It's left vague on purpose, my dear friend.

I know. That is why I am demanding you not be vague because I do not trust your intentions.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm interested in seeing how this will play out in the political sector.

He can do whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't do anything about guns!

Glad you and I are in agreement there.

Are your guns for protection from fascist psychopathic government? Or your fellow citizens?

It doesn't have to be either/or.

Don't know if they have to be related, but, unfortunately, they are in America. When you think it's your right to shoot people who disagree with you, you probably shouldn't have a gun

I want to be very clear about this: I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that I have the right to shoot someone for disagreeing with me.

What I have said is that I am willing to use force, a non-insignificant amount of it, too, to defend my rights as an absolute last resort. I don't think any of that will be necessary.

I specifically wasn't talking about you. You have never threatened civil war, or to shoot or kill someone just because they disagreed with you.

I think the key phrase here is last resort. I know some of it is just talk, but threatening civil war over disagreements is not a responsibile way to be a gun holder.

But, then I laugh at NRA claims that, "Obama is coming for MY GUNS." Pretending that every country with gun laws means that the citizens dont have guns is ridiculous. My brother has guns in Australia. Becuase most guns are able to be owned legally.

But then taking over a country with force because you don't like what the government did isn't a thing in Australia. It sure is in America

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Well then, perhaps you could elaborate on when it is appropriate to shoot someone 'to defend [your] rights as an absolute last resort' as you put it. Cause that is incredibly vague.

It's left vague on purpose, my dear friend.

I know. That is why I am demanding you not be vague because I do not trust your intentions.

Sorry, can't help you out there.

 

[Saelune]

Well then, perhaps you could elaborate on when it is appropriate to shoot someone 'to defend [your] rights as an absolute last resort' as you put it. Cause that is incredibly vague.

It's left vague on purpose, my dear friend.

I know. That is why I am demanding you not be vague because I do not trust your intentions.

Sorry, can't help you out there.

You can, but are choosing not to.

If you believe there is a point where you are justified in shooting someone, then you must be able to elaborate, otherwise maybe you should change your position.

 

[Saelune]

I'm interested in seeing how this will play out in the political sector.

He can do whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't do anything about guns!

Glad you and I are in agreement there.

Are your guns for protection from fascist psychopathic government? Or your fellow citizens?

It doesn't have to be either/or.

Don't know if they have to be related, but, unfortunately, they are in America. When you think it's your right to shoot people who disagree with you, you probably shouldn't have a gun

I want to be very clear about this: I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that I have the right to shoot someone for disagreeing with me.

What I have said is that I am willing to use force, a non-insignificant amount of it, too, to defend my rights as an absolute last resort. I don't think any of that will be necessary.

I specifically wasn't talking about you. You have never threatened civil war, or to shoot or kill someone just because they disagreed with you.

I think the key phrase here is last resort. I know some of it is just talk, but threatening civil war over disagreements is not a responsibile way to be a gun holder.

But, then I laugh at NRA claims that, "Obama is coming for MY GUNS." Pretending that every country with gun laws means that the citizens dont have guns is ridiculous. My brother has guns in Australia. Becuase most guns are able to be owned legally.

But then taking over a country with force because you don't like what the government did isn't a thing in Australia. It sure is in America

Define 'last resort'. As Cm156 said though, he and others like him are being intentionally vague. I do not think that vagueness is justified.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

If you believe there is a point where you are justified in shooting someone, then you must be able to elaborate, otherwise maybe you should change your position.

Let's see: In defense of my life, the life of another person, or any of my rights should a person be attempting to deprive me of them through the use of force.

I think the first two are fairly uncontroversial. I don't think most people would say it's wrong to shoot someone if they're trying to murder you or someone else.

"If someone comes to kill you, rise up, and kill him first"
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72:1

As for the third, that's very context dependent. If someone attempts to deprive me of my rights, regardless of who that person is or what their reason is, I am willing to use a level of force to prevent that. And if they're willing to use lethal force to deprive me of my rights, I am willing to use lethal force to protect my rights.

I specifically wasn't talking about you. You have never threatened civil war, or to shoot or kill someone just because they disagreed with you.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Saelune]

If you believe there is a point where you are justified in shooting someone, then you must be able to elaborate, otherwise maybe you should change your position.

Let's see: In defense of my life, the life of another person, or any of my rights should a person be attempting to deprive me of them through the use of force.

I think the first two are fairly uncontroversial. I don't think most people would say it's wrong to shoot someone if they're trying to murder you or someone else.

"If someone comes to kill you, rise up, and kill him first"
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72:1

As for the third, that's very context dependent. If someone attempts to deprive me of my rights, regardless of who that person is or what their reason is, I am willing to use a level of force to prevent that. And if they're willing to use lethal force to deprive me of my rights, I am willing to use lethal force to protect my rights.

I specifically wasn't talking about you. You have never threatened civil war, or to shoot or kill someone just because they disagreed with you.

Glad we got that cleared up.

So you think it would be ok for a person to shoot an ICE agent?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So you think it would be ok for a person to shoot an ICE agent?

Deporting a person who is in the country illegally is not a violation of their rights.

 

[Saelune]

So you think it would be ok for a person to shoot an ICE agent?

Deporting a person who is in the country illegally is not a violation of their rights.

So its ok to torture them as long as they are here illegally? We arent talking deportation. If we were, why are they kept in these concentration camps indefinitely?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So its ok to torture them as long as they are here illegally?

That's pretty far out of left field. No.

We arent talking deportation. If we were, why are they kept in these concentration camps indefinitely?

Deportations take time. I truly wish they could be sped up and that these camps were vacant because all the people there were back in their home countries.

 

[Nedoras]

For instance, imagine the question "Do you think Hitler had the right idea about Jews? Y/N". One party over a 20-year period stays at 50% support for this statement, and the other drops from 50% to 20%. Are you really going to argue that the party where there was a drop has become more extreme?

Ok, but I'm not answering the question of "what is extreme" in the first place. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that Democrats are moving toward Republicans to attempt to capture some of the Republican voting base. So I put that set of graphs showing Democrats moving away from Republicans in every category except "the government is wasteful and inefficient" next to the graph showing the Democratic Party platform taking a hard turn left from 2008 to 2016.

And yet despite the graphs, the Democratic leadership has openly talked about and pushed for getting moderate Republican voters at the expense of Democratic voters. I'm not even just talking about the Chuck Schumer quote, this is something they actively do. It's a strategy that they've deployed and have done so for quite some time now. It's why the party is infighting at the moment. Because the leadership wants different things than everyone else. Hell, they're even actively trying to prevent any left leaning candidates from getting elected within the party. During the Obama years they were even shutting down any even remotely progressive movements coming from within the party.

The voters and even some of the politicians have been moving more left over the years, that much is true. I suppose it's more accurate to say that it's more the leadership than the party as a whole that's trying to move right and get Republican votes. They're fighting against their own party, and trying to convince their voters that moving left is bad. The media has been helping with that as well. They ultimately just want a continuation of what they've been doing as they see it being the only way forward.

 

[tstorm823]

And yet despite the graphs, the Democratic leadership has openly talked about and pushed for getting moderate Republican voters at the expense of Democratic voters. I'm not even just talking about the Chuck Schumer quote, this is something they actively do. It's a strategy that they've deployed and have done so for quite some time now. It's why the party is infighting at the moment. Because the leadership wants different things than everyone else. Hell, they're even actively trying to prevent any left leaning candidates from getting elected within the party. During the Obama years they were even shutting down any even remotely progressive movements coming from within the party.

The voters and even some of the politicians have been moving more left over the years, that much is true. I suppose it's more accurate to say that it's more the leadership than the party as a whole that's trying to move right and get Republican votes. They're fighting against their own party, and trying to convince their voters that moving left is bad. The media has been helping with that as well. They ultimately just want a continuation of what they've been doing as they see it being the only way forward.

I think this is much closer to true, but I still don't think you can accurately say that any Democrats are moving right. I think you're right if you say they make appeals to moderates at the expense of the furthest left, but that's not necessarily moving right. Some of the furthest left political voices aren't so much progressive as they are transgressive, just actively seeking to tear down social norms, and those people definitely scare away moderates. But Schumer can make that trade while still embracing an ever-more holistic approach to the government's role in society and the economy.

 

[Agema]

Ok, but I'm not answering the question of "what is extreme" in the first place. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that Democrats are moving toward Republicans to attempt to capture some of the Republican voting base. So I put that set of graphs showing Democrats moving away from Republicans in every category except "the government is wasteful and inefficient" next to the graph showing the Democratic Party platform taking a hard turn left from 2008 to 2016.

See
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
https://www.people-press.org/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

Party affiliation has declined somewhat for both the Republicans and Democrats, arguably slightly more so for the Republicans. As a result, it is likely that both are becoming slightly less representative of the overall picture of the USA, with the "independents" containing the moderates to be fought over, and also key people to consider where some form of "centre" is.

Although it looks from your graphs like the Republicans are remaining roughly static, the moderates (or some of them) may be pulling away from the Republican party. In fact this is the implication of voting trends remaining roughly static whilst a party diverges: if the left is moving further left and retaining vote share, then it suggests the centre is also moving left.

The quotation supplied says that the Democrats can sacrifice blue collar workers for moderate Republicans - and they really can. Bearing in mind of course blue collar workers are not necessarily "left" in ways and moderate Republicans are not necessarily "right" in ways. This therefore doesn't mean the Democratic Party is moving towards the Republicans, it's about what sorts of values it's using to appeal to various demographics.