[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Not one of those jokes where someone says something edgy then tries to back out of it...

You're right, you didn't say something edgy and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, you said something ignorant and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, and doubling down by claiming the reality of which you are ignorant is actually farce.

 

[Baffle]

You're right, you didn't say something edgy and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, you said something ignorant and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, and doubling down by claiming the reality of which you are ignorant is actually farce.

Look, I'm sorry you mistook a joke for seriousness and feel foolish, I really am, but it's actually not my fault. I get that you feel worse because you tried to make me look stupid and, you know, looked foolish. Again, I'm very sorry that's what you did.

And that non-apology is the last I'll say on the matter. You ruined the joke and now I have to think of another one.

 

[CaitSeith]

Donald Trump is a Democrat, of course he's talking about regulating free speech.

Spoiler: When a take is so hot that it obliterates the speaker himself...

 

[Erttheking]

Not one of those jokes where someone says something edgy then tries to back out of it...

You're right, you didn't say something edgy and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, you said something ignorant and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, and doubling down by claiming the reality of which you are ignorant is actually farce.

You don?t know how to let it go, do you?

 

[Kwak]

Not one of those jokes where someone says something edgy then tries to back out of it...

You're right, you didn't say something edgy and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, you said something ignorant and are trying to back out of it by claiming it was a joke, and doubling down by claiming the reality of which you are ignorant is actually farce.

You don?t know how to let it go, do you?

Perhaps you (eacaraxe) can explain what you thought was being implied and why it was it piqued you so, because I'm genuinely confused. Though I did find your initial response educational.

 

[Silvanus]

You won't find a host of contradictory positions. Just to be totally above board [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism] to anyone else reading along, that link is the wikipedia page on progressivism. It tells you almost exactly what I'm saying.

"Early-20th century progressivism was also tied to eugenics[5][6][7] and the temperance movement,[8][9] both of which were promoted in the name of public health, and were promoted as initiatives toward that goal. Contemporary progressives promote public policies that they believe will lead to positive social change."

Yep, early 20th century-- so, neither current usage nor the origin of the term. Look a little higher up on the article, aaaaand...

In the modern era, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions".?In the 21st century, those who identify as progressive may do so for a variety of reasons: for example, to favor public policy that reduces or ameliorates the harmful effects of economic inequality as well as systemic discrimination, to advocate for environmentally conscious policies, as well as for social safety nets and rights of workers, to oppose the negative externalities inflicted on the environment and society by monopolies or corporate influence on the democratic process.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I'm sorry, I was away from this thread for a few days, and now that I'm back we're arguing over if Donald Trump is a democrat?

Uh, no. He's not.

And let's face it, Republicans don't actually have a good history on free speech. We do not have to look far to see a great deal of Republican voters have been very hostile to elements of free speech. A surprisingly large number of Americans (perhaps 20-30%) are not okay with certain groups having equal access to public expression. Given that such disliked groups include homosexuals and atheists, I'm pretty sure plenty of that ambivalence towards free and equal speech is coming from Republicans.

I think a pretty fair assessment is that Republican voters are (often, generally) less favorable to extending protections to speech that attacks core demographics and beliefs, and that the same holds true of Democrats. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has upheld as protected large amounts of speech that people might like to restrict.

 

[tstorm823]

Donald Trump is a Democrat.

Fucking what?

You do know what party he ran for right? You say you want an honest debate and you pull that horseshit on me?

When a take is so hot that it obliterates the speaker himself...

That is literally objectively, factually, completely untrue. You're not even trying at this point.

Imma answer Agema. Agema knows what's up.

Donald Trump is a Democrat, of course he's talking about regulating free speech.

No he isn't. Donald Trump has pretty much no meaningful political ideology.

He is really just a totally self-interested narcissist, whose interest is self-aggrandisement and saying stuff to make people like him. Consequently he said Democrat-type things back in the day, because he was a New Yorker and mixed with the metropolitan liberals of New York and said the sort of things that kept him in good standing with his social circle.

I know what you're saying, and will respond to what you actually mean, but I have to say, I got quite the chuckle halfway through this paragraph at "he's a totally self-interested narcissist, consequently he said some Democrat-type things". Like man, I wish I had written that, that's gold!

At any rate, I'm not sure if you're aware, but at the time he was saying Democrat things, he very well may have been registered as a Democrat. It's not that he was a Republican trying to appeal to his social circle, the man was a Democrat, by his words, his associations, and his registration. And his personal life that could make a Kennedy blush.

But I am the one saying he is a Democrat, so it's on me to justify it, and that's difficult, because it's very difficult to pin down any definition of Democrat. Both major parties are big tents with many (often conflicting) opinions within them, but at least the Republican Party has some consistency over time. You can get whiplash from the changes in the Democratic Platform over time. The way to track the Democratic Party is really by appealing to the name itself: Democracy. However public opinion swings, the Democrats will be there. Arguably that's a good thing, that's a signal of actual representation, but it's also pretty much exactly what you're saying Donald Trump did. He found the ideas that would make him popular and ran with them. That itself is a Democrat-type thing.

However, he clearly resented Obama (I cannot help but suspect some element of racism in Donald Trump, even if mostly concealed) and found his route to power easier by appealing to Republicans and populism. And thus he did, because that's what he does: he wants things and for people to idolise him, and he says what he needs to in order to get it.

I'm with you here. I don't know why the man resents Obama so much other than the color of his skin. I mean, given Trump's character, it's possible Obama slighted him personally at some point and Trump held the grudge. But less than a year into Obama's presidency, Trump decides to never be a Democrat again, feels like white flight.

And let's face it, Republicans don't actually have a good history on free speech. We do not have to look far to see a great deal of Republican voters have been very hostile to elements of free speech. A surprisingly large number of Americans (perhaps 20-30%) are not okay with certain groups having equal access to public expression. Given that such disliked groups include homosexuals and atheists, I'm pretty sure plenty of that ambivalence towards free and equal speech is coming from Republicans.

Here's where I concede most of this argument. You're right, lots of Republicans are bad at free speech. I stand firmly that defense of free speech is a conservative position in America, but there are definitely some Republicans not adhering to that position. I could have answered by saying Republicans sometimes don't hold conservative positions, that's certainly a non-controversial answer to the accusation that conservatives are only for free speech when it benefits them, but that's not nearly as fun as the "hot take".

However you want to pretend that moral abcess is a Democrat, he's representing the Republican Party, voted for by Republicans, held in better esteem by Republicans than virtually any other major Republican politician. He is, since he won the presidential candidacy, the primary voice of the Republican Party and his opinions the primary representation of it and its voters beliefs. DEAL WITH IT.

That Donald Trump's presidency has been so conservative is basically an accident. As you said, the man's a narcissist. He does things to make people like him and punches back at people who attack him. He's caught in a current of doing conservative things and getting positive feedback from conservatives, and he's already been getting demonized by the left since he picked a fight with Obama a decade ago. That is in no way set in stone. If the Democrats want him to do something, they basically just need to ask nicely. He's down for criminal justice reform, he's down for gun control, he's down for pharmaceutical regulations. If ever they treated him as "not Hitler", his ego would put him right back in their camp again.

 

[CaitSeith]

If the Democrats want him to do something, they basically just need to ask nicely.

Spoiler: And you just keep delivering nuclear hot takes...

 

[Shadowstar38]

No he isn't. Donald Trump has pretty much no meaningful political ideology.

If the current point of the thread appears to be pointing out the flaws of republicans, why would anyone bother bringing up Trump in the conversation when he's shit at being conservative by the standards of other conservatives?

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

All I'm getting from this is that you're making up your own definitions for words again. Republicans are consistent...and they voted a Democrat according to you.

 

[tstorm823]

Yep, early 20th century-- so, neither current usage nor the origin of the term. Look a little higher up on the article, aaaaand...

In the modern era, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions".?In the 21st century, those who identify as progressive may do so for a variety of reasons: for example, to favor public policy that reduces or ameliorates the harmful effects of economic inequality as well as systemic discrimination, to advocate for environmentally conscious policies, as well as for social safety nets and rights of workers, to oppose the negative externalities inflicted on the environment and society by monopolies or corporate influence on the democratic process.

I'm not sure why you're still insistent on this. You seem to think a paragraph that says "those who identify as progressive may do so for a variety of reasons" contradicts the person who tells you that a variety of policies can be progressive.

All I'm getting from this is that you're making up your own definitions for words again. Republicans are consistent...and they voted a Democrat according to you.

You know "Never Trump" happened, right?

 

[Erttheking]

You know "Never Trump" happened, right?

And a fat lot of good it did. Sixty-two million people voted for him. Two million more than voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. Republicans seem to love him.

But you seem to do what Republicans always want to do. Shirk responsibility.

 

[Saelune]

No he isn't. Donald Trump has pretty much no meaningful political ideology.

If the current point of the thread appears to be pointing out the flaws of republicans, why would anyone bother bringing up Trump in the conversation when he's shit at being conservative by the standards of other conservatives?

Because they voted for him, supported him, and continue to support him despite losing their jobs, their healthcare, and their human rights.

I mean, I already got a warning for saying this, but supporting Trump means you support Trump.

 

[Saelune]

Donald Trump is a Democrat.

Fucking what?

You do know what party he ran for right? You say you want an honest debate and you pull that horseshit on me?

When a take is so hot that it obliterates the speaker himself...

That is literally objectively, factually, completely untrue. You're not even trying at this point.

Imma answer Agema. Agema knows what's up.

Donald Trump is a Democrat, of course he's talking about regulating free speech.

No he isn't. Donald Trump has pretty much no meaningful political ideology.

He is really just a totally self-interested narcissist, whose interest is self-aggrandisement and saying stuff to make people like him. Consequently he said Democrat-type things back in the day, because he was a New Yorker and mixed with the metropolitan liberals of New York and said the sort of things that kept him in good standing with his social circle.

I know what you're saying, and will respond to what you actually mean, but I have to say, I got quite the chuckle halfway through this paragraph at "he's a totally self-interested narcissist, consequently he said some Democrat-type things". Like man, I wish I had written that, that's gold!

At any rate, I'm not sure if you're aware, but at the time he was saying Democrat things, he very well may have been registered as a Democrat. It's not that he was a Republican trying to appeal to his social circle, the man was a Democrat, by his words, his associations, and his registration. And his personal life that could make a Kennedy blush.

But I am the one saying he is a Democrat, so it's on me to justify it, and that's difficult, because it's very difficult to pin down any definition of Democrat. Both major parties are big tents with many (often conflicting) opinions within them, but at least the Republican Party has some consistency over time. You can get whiplash from the changes in the Democratic Platform over time. The way to track the Democratic Party is really by appealing to the name itself: Democracy. However public opinion swings, the Democrats will be there. Arguably that's a good thing, that's a signal of actual representation, but it's also pretty much exactly what you're saying Donald Trump did. He found the ideas that would make him popular and ran with them. That itself is a Democrat-type thing.

However, he clearly resented Obama (I cannot help but suspect some element of racism in Donald Trump, even if mostly concealed) and found his route to power easier by appealing to Republicans and populism. And thus he did, because that's what he does: he wants things and for people to idolise him, and he says what he needs to in order to get it.

I'm with you here. I don't know why the man resents Obama so much other than the color of his skin. I mean, given Trump's character, it's possible Obama slighted him personally at some point and Trump held the grudge. But less than a year into Obama's presidency, Trump decides to never be a Democrat again, feels like white flight.

And let's face it, Republicans don't actually have a good history on free speech. We do not have to look far to see a great deal of Republican voters have been very hostile to elements of free speech. A surprisingly large number of Americans (perhaps 20-30%) are not okay with certain groups having equal access to public expression. Given that such disliked groups include homosexuals and atheists, I'm pretty sure plenty of that ambivalence towards free and equal speech is coming from Republicans.

Here's where I concede most of this argument. You're right, lots of Republicans are bad at free speech. I stand firmly that defense of free speech is a conservative position in America, but there are definitely some Republicans not adhering to that position. I could have answered by saying Republicans sometimes don't hold conservative positions, that's certainly a non-controversial answer to the accusation that conservatives are only for free speech when it benefits them, but that's not nearly as fun as the "hot take".

However you want to pretend that moral abcess is a Democrat, he's representing the Republican Party, voted for by Republicans, held in better esteem by Republicans than virtually any other major Republican politician. He is, since he won the presidential candidacy, the primary voice of the Republican Party and his opinions the primary representation of it and its voters beliefs. DEAL WITH IT.

That Donald Trump's presidency has been so conservative is basically an accident. As you said, the man's a narcissist. He does things to make people like him and punches back at people who attack him. He's caught in a current of doing conservative things and getting positive feedback from conservatives, and he's already been getting demonized by the left since he picked a fight with Obama a decade ago. That is in no way set in stone. If the Democrats want him to do something, they basically just need to ask nicely. He's down for criminal justice reform, he's down for gun control, he's down for pharmaceutical regulations. If ever they treated him as "not Hitler", his ego would put him right back in their camp again.

Its Republicans supporting him, not Democrats.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Perhaps you (eacaraxe) can explain what you thought was being implied and why it was it piqued you so, because I'm genuinely confused. Though I did find your initial response educational.

I thought I made my position clear, and I'm not entirely sure what else I can say to clarify it? A hot take was dropped about nuisance animal management, from a position of obvious ignorance their comment was actually a real phenomenon and source of major concern for conservationists and those in natural resource management.

Hell, corn -- regular ass, domesticated, cash crop corn, the kind you buy in the stores and eat off the cob -- is actually toxic to wild ruminants. It's not a native crop, and deer and elk haven't adapted an aversion to it or capability to digest it properly. Their natural browse is very fibrous and low-carbohydrate, and domestic corn is very high-carbohydrate; the animals eat the corn, and their gut flora overproduce lactic acid which destroys their gut biome and kills them. The problem is deer and elk love the shit, and it can be a real struggle keeping them out of corn fields for their own good -- not to mention that dumbass people keep feeding deer and elk the shit during winter, either to bait them for hunting or out of misplaced concern for starving animals, and it's incredibly harmful to wild populations.

As a rural American, this kind of thing is our equivalent of "keep your government hands off my Medicare" and "study it out". As in, so fundamentally out of touch one cannot even conceive of themselves as being potentially incorrect, let alone how or why. How this relates to gun control in this country -- well, look at other posters who made the "30-50 feral hogs" joke almost by reflex. Hate to tell you, but the guy is right -- feral hogs are a huge fucking problem in rural America, in terms of impact to local wildlife and ecosystem disruption, but hazard to humans.

 

[Saelune]

How this relates to gun control in this country -- well, look at other posters who made the "30-50 feral hogs" joke almost by reflex. Hate to tell you, but the guy is right -- feral hogs are a huge fucking problem in rural America, in terms of impact to local wildlife and ecosystem disruption, but hazard to humans.

We need ambulances to get the injured to Hospitals, but that doesn't mean everyone deserves to own an ambulance.

If protection from wild animals is a legit concern, there are definitely better ways than 'guns for everyone'. But no one wants to admit that solving a problem often means solving multiple problems. Plane accidents would not exist without planes, but planes existing is good, but so is regulations and oversight and safety precautions to help reduce the new problems air travel brings. I also dont think just anyone should own or fly a plane.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Once a discussion about mass shootings degrades into a debate of semantics, you know people has ran out of good arguments.

If it's political or could possibly be turned political it will quickly devolve into "X is bad because Democrats" and "X is bad because Republicans" then everybody trying to argue their point by throwing up a bunch of meaningless buzzwords and quoting some facts back and forth but in the end failing to even address the real problems. The saddest thing is that this country as a whole happens to give a crap about worthless titles that we decided to call people decades ago.

Anybody who wants to fix something, anything, just forget politics, forget whose side anybody is supposedly on. Just look for "will this fix it? Yes? Then do it." It doesn't matter if it comes from Democrats, Republicans, or some crazy guy living in some bunker somewhere named Larry, if it's a solution that works that's all that matters. Especially since none of problems our so called representatives don't give a crap about solving and/or representing us at all unless it benefits them personally to do so. The truth is, neither Democrats or Republicans have a real solution to anything, and even if they do have something that would solve a problem and manage to get it implemented each are so obsessed with pushing their own agendas and one upping each other that they'll destroy everything the other side does even if it's beneficial to the country for no other reason that the other side did it.

Democrat Vs. Republican is the dumbest and worst thing to every happen to this country, and it's been way WAY too late to stop it and actually go the sensible route for a long time.

 

[Trunkage]

How this relates to gun control in this country -- well, look at other posters who made the "30-50 feral hogs" joke almost by reflex. Hate to tell you, but the guy is right -- feral hogs are a huge fucking problem in rural America, in terms of impact to local wildlife and ecosystem disruption, but hazard to humans.

We need ambulances to get the injured to Hospitals, but that doesn't mean everyone deserves to own an ambulance.

If protection from wild animals is a legit concern, there are definitely better ways than 'guns for everyone'. But no one wants to admit that solving a problem often means solving multiple problems. Plane accidents would not exist without planes, but planes existing is good, but so is regulations and oversight and safety precautions to help reduce the new problems air travel brings. I also dont think just anyone should own or fly a plane.

In Australia, certain firearms are restricted to certain needs. A farmer generally can get more potent weapons to deal with pests.

But, you know, gun restrictions bad. Definitely no nuance. (Lets do no research to see how other countries do it snd literally make up facts.)

 

[Trunkage]

I'm sorry, I was away from this thread for a few days, and now that I'm back we're arguing over if Donald Trump is a democrat?

Uh, no. He's not. .

That's the kind of partisan political hackery I expect out of Mike Pence. There is no possible way to prove he's not a Democrat.

(Just want to be clear this is sarcasm. A person who ran for the Republicn ticket of course cannot be a Democrat. By definition. Also, there is more political viewpoints that Democrat and Republican. And different version of what it means to be Republican.)