Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What The Hell Is Wrong With Donald Trump Supporters?
#41
Quote:What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries? You have any evidence for that?


Didn't the Muscovites defeat the (Jewish) Khazars in 945 - setting off the Ashkenazic diaspora?
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#42
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(08-15-2016, 04:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: Well they finally are not holding back any punches at repubs who are voting for Trump. Never mind the latter part of the video. It isjust insult throwing. I am posting for the earlier part and I am interested in thoughts regarding it. Is he a treasonous potential president? Are people so blind that he could literally shoot someone in broad daylight and people would still vote for him because you know....2nd amendment and all that. It is not like people have not supported someone shooting an innocent before so he is not wrong. But it sure as hell tells me there is something wrong with ole big bro America. Anyway here is the link and give me your thoughts.

You might ask yourself why Trump's opponents end up resorting to throwing insults.  If they had rational arguments against him, wouldn't they be using them?

The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.

The announcer would like to be able to say that the comment is calling for an assassination.  But he can't say it outright, because Clinton's 2008 comment about staying in the race in case Obama went the way of Robert Kennedy was much closer to an actual call for an assassination.  So, he resorts to innuendo and insults.

The second comment was about how it might be a good thing if the Russians hacked into Clinton's email servers and made the emails public.  Whether this is "borderline treason" perhaps depends on how you see the email scandal and whether you see, for example, Edward Snowden as a traitor or a patriot for revealing how the U.S. government was illegally spying on U.S. citizens domestically.  As it turns out, the emails that Clinton attempted to destroy only demonstrate tawdry "pay to play" style corruption, but at the time it was suspected by some on the right that Clinton might be trying to hide illegal breaches of national security and illegal state department initiatives in support of the Islamic State; if you believed that, and you thought Snowden was a patriot for revealing illegal government activities, you might feel that revealing Clinton's missing emails, by whatever means, was a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Instead of engaging rationally on the issue, though, the announcer prefers to misrepresent the statement as actual advocacy of hacking - a big distinction legally and ethically, if not politically - which gives him an excuse to resort to insults again.

Finally, there's the comment about people still voting for Trump if he shot someone; as you note, that statement is likely not wrong.  What it does reveal is just how strongly his core supporters feel, how badly they feel the government and the system have gone off the tracks, to give him their unconditional support like that as long as he keeps fighting for them.

In this case, perhaps the Trump supporters in question do deserve to be denigrated - but if so, certainly the same must apply to the protesters who are resorting to actual violence against those attending Trump rallies, rather than just cheering for hypothetical violence?

The whole campaign is undoubtedly ugly on both sides.  I think it's just a small taste of what's ahead as the crisis unfolds, though.


What a crock of horseshXt rationalizing.

But let's just focus on one buried piece -

Back up your 'pay to play corruption.'
Reply
#43
Ad hominem attack's on Hillary's "dishonesty" will get the Republicans nowhere - at least among anyone under 70.

They're not running for Eagle Scout.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#44
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: You might ask yourself why Trump's opponents end up resorting to throwing insults.  If they had rational arguments against him, wouldn't they be using them?

The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway. So it's all bluster and sloganeering/dog whistling by Trump. Total nonsense, but that's what Trump supporters like and respond to, en masse.

Quote:The announcer would like to be able to say that the comment is calling for an assassination.  But he can't say it outright, because Clinton's 2008 comment about staying in the race in case Obama went the way of Robert Kennedy was much closer to an actual call for an assassination.  So, he resorts to innuendo and insults.

Trump's allusion to "2nd amendment people can do something about Clinton," struck people much more clearly as a call for assassination, than Clinton's comment about staying in the race in 2008.

Quote:The second comment was about how it might be a good thing if the Russians hacked into Clinton's email servers and made the emails public.  Whether this is "borderline treason" perhaps depends on how you see the email scandal and whether you see, for example, Edward Snowden as a traitor or a patriot for revealing how the U.S. government was illegally spying on U.S. citizens domestically.  As it turns out, the emails that Clinton attempted to destroy only demonstrate tawdry "pay to play" style corruption, but at the time it was suspected by some on the right that Clinton might be trying to hide illegal breaches of national security and illegal state department initiatives in support of the Islamic State; if you believed that, and you thought Snowden was a patriot for revealing illegal government activities, you might feel that revealing Clinton's missing emails, by whatever means, was a good thing rather than a bad thing.
A foreign government hacking into and influencing our election is treason if anyone here facilitates it. Otherwise it is just an attack on our election by foreigners. Apparently it's not official; that is, if you believe what Putin says. Snowden is a hero. The emails do not reveal any pay to play scheme on the part of Hillary Clinton; only a desire for such on the part of others trying to influence her.

Quote:Instead of engaging rationally on the issue, though, the announcer prefers to misrepresent the statement as actual advocacy of hacking - a big distinction legally and ethically, if not politically - which gives him an excuse to resort to insults again.

Except it was true; Trump was advocating that Russia do hacking, and that is treason.

Quote:Finally, there's the comment about people still voting for Trump if he shot someone; as you note, that statement is likely not wrong.  What it does reveal is just how strongly his core supporters feel, how badly they feel the government and the system have gone off the tracks, to give him their unconditional support like that as long as he keeps fighting for them.

In this case, perhaps the Trump supporters in question do deserve to be denigrated - but if so, certainly the same must apply to the protesters who are resorting to actual violence against those attending Trump rallies, rather than just cheering for hypothetical violence?

All true, and equally so to Trump himself and his supporters for egging on and resorting to violence at his rallies. And Trump needs to be seen as the traitor he is for expelling news agencies trying to cover his rallies. Talk about violating amendments! That violates not the bogus 2nd, but the essential 1st!

Of course, if people feel the system is broken, voting for Trump is a vote to keep the system just the way it is. But ignorant Trump supporters can't see the truth.

Quote:The whole campaign is undoubtedly ugly on both sides.  I think it's just a small taste of what's ahead as the crisis unfolds, though.

I agree, and I think Hillary is not doing herself much good by concentrating just on denigrating Trump, although it has to be done. She has to answer the Trump attacks on her too, honestly, and also show her own positive traits and her smart stands on issues.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#45
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.
Reply
#46
(09-03-2016, 02:25 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Some years ago my colleague Kitae Hong (a liberal like me) asks me, what is wrong with these Americans (speaking of conservatives). I said, well it has to do with Texas, that's what they like.  Kitae says, yes, but that's one state!  I said, well it comes from our civil war, it's long story and I'm not sure I could explain it to you--I don't really understand it myself and I was born here.....But hey! You MUST have folks like this back in Korea (I'm thinking of Kim Jong-Il--although Kitae is from South Korea of course).  He said "Korea is FULL of crazies" that's why I left. But this is AMERICA!  So I said, well, we have our crazies too.

Cmon now, Trump is Trump, but for God's sake at least he is not Kim-Jong-un!  When Trump gets me down, I just youtube the Civilizaton IV video and see the depiction of Abraham Lincoln.  We created that Greatness! We are not losers. And then I read some of the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt. Nope-we have NOT lost it then.  Then play Pride (In the Name of Love) and see we created MLK.  We have our own fucking Nelson Mandela too!!! And we did
this too.  You might point to Europe, but I say, given me a fucking break--we had SLAVERY. compare us to Brazil.  Besides, Europe, look at how OUR immigrants turn out! Booyah! Sure there is much more to do.  But hey, Trump is no fucking Kim Jong Un (or Robert Mugabe) and he is gonna go down! I still hold faith in what Winston Churchill said about us (apocryphal): You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

Thank you, Mike! We as a society need a shot of optimism right now! Also, nice to see a fellow fan of Baba Yetu! Best video game main menu music ever! Big Grin
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#47
(09-06-2016, 08:55 AM)Anthony Wrote:
Quote:What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries?  You have any evidence for that?


Didn't the Muscovites defeat the (Jewish) Khazars in 945 - setting off the Ashkenazic diaspora?

Ashkenazi Jews have very little Khazar ancestry, shame on you for repeating that Antisemitic BS. Angry
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#48
(09-06-2016, 09:15 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(08-15-2016, 04:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: Well they finally are not holding back any punches at repubs who are voting for Trump. Never mind the latter part of the video. It isjust insult throwing. I am posting for the earlier part and I am interested in thoughts regarding it. Is he a treasonous potential president? Are people so blind that he could literally shoot someone in broad daylight and people would still vote for him because you know....2nd amendment and all that. It is not like people have not supported someone shooting an innocent before so he is not wrong. But it sure as hell tells me there is something wrong with ole big bro America. Anyway here is the link and give me your thoughts.

You might ask yourself why Trump's opponents end up resorting to throwing insults.  If they had rational arguments against him, wouldn't they be using them?

The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.

The announcer would like to be able to say that the comment is calling for an assassination.  But he can't say it outright, because Clinton's 2008 comment about staying in the race in case Obama went the way of Robert Kennedy was much closer to an actual call for an assassination.  So, he resorts to innuendo and insults.

The second comment was about how it might be a good thing if the Russians hacked into Clinton's email servers and made the emails public.  Whether this is "borderline treason" perhaps depends on how you see the email scandal and whether you see, for example, Edward Snowden as a traitor or a patriot for revealing how the U.S. government was illegally spying on U.S. citizens domestically.  As it turns out, the emails that Clinton attempted to destroy only demonstrate tawdry "pay to play" style corruption, but at the time it was suspected by some on the right that Clinton might be trying to hide illegal breaches of national security and illegal state department initiatives in support of the Islamic State; if you believed that, and you thought Snowden was a patriot for revealing illegal government activities, you might feel that revealing Clinton's missing emails, by whatever means, was a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Instead of engaging rationally on the issue, though, the announcer prefers to misrepresent the statement as actual advocacy of hacking - a big distinction legally and ethically, if not politically - which gives him an excuse to resort to insults again.

Finally, there's the comment about people still voting for Trump if he shot someone; as you note, that statement is likely not wrong.  What it does reveal is just how strongly his core supporters feel, how badly they feel the government and the system have gone off the tracks, to give him their unconditional support like that as long as he keeps fighting for them.

In this case, perhaps the Trump supporters in question do deserve to be denigrated - but if so, certainly the same must apply to the protesters who are resorting to actual violence against those attending Trump rallies, rather than just cheering for hypothetical violence?

The whole campaign is undoubtedly ugly on both sides.  I think it's just a small taste of what's ahead as the crisis unfolds, though.


What a crock of horseshXt rationalizing.

But let's just focus on one buried piece -

Back up your 'pay to play corruption.'

The Republicans shitting on Hillary for being "criminal" are little different from the corrupt right-wing criminal politicians in Brazil who ousted an elected center-left president for trumped up BS.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#49
They have no problem with the angry rhetoric of the nominee and those around him. They have no idea of what this country stands for -- and part of that is a rejection of political violence and revenge-seeking. It's as if people have reverted to a mentality characteristic of a despotic era. I do not want our politicians threatening to put those that they have defeated in prison.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#50
(09-06-2016, 03:02 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:55 AM)Anthony Wrote:
Quote:What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries?  You have any evidence for that?


Didn't the Muscovites defeat the (Jewish) Khazars in 945 - setting off the Ashkenazic diaspora?

Ashkenazi Jews have very little Khazar ancestry, shame on you for repeating that Antisemitic BS. Angry

No Genetic studies have found [edited] no link between Jews and Khazars, I’m not sure if Tony intended to do so but I’d ask the people try to avoid posting false theories that are popular with anti-Semites.
Reply
#51
(09-06-2016, 04:30 PM)Dan Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 03:02 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:55 AM)Anthony Wrote:
Quote:What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries?  You have any evidence for that?


Didn't the Muscovites defeat the (Jewish) Khazars in 945 - setting off the Ashkenazic diaspora?

Ashkenazi Jews have very little Khazar ancestry, shame on you for repeating that Antisemitic BS. Angry

No Genetic studies have found a link between Jews and Khazars, I’m not sure if Tony intended to do so but I’d ask the people try to avoid posting false theories that are popular with anti-Semites.
My understanding is that the "link" was quite small, which is what I meant by "little" ancestry. Tony is repeating the antisemitic lie that Ashkenazim are "just Khazars" and have no Near-Eastern ancestry, which is completely false.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#52
(09-06-2016, 04:36 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 04:30 PM)Dan Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 03:02 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:55 AM)Anthony Wrote:
Quote:What, do you think there was substantial anti-Semitism in the West in the 7th through 10th centuries?  You have any evidence for that?


Didn't the Muscovites defeat the (Jewish) Khazars in 945 - setting off the Ashkenazic diaspora?

Ashkenazi Jews have very little Khazar ancestry, shame on you for repeating that Antisemitic BS. Angry

No Genetic studies have found a link between Jews and Khazars, I’m not sure if Tony intended to do so but I’d ask the people try to avoid posting false theories that are popular with anti-Semites.
My understanding is that the "link" was quite small, which is what I meant by "little" ancestry. Tony is repeating the antisemitic lie that Ashkenazim are "just Khazars" and have no Near-Eastern ancestry, which is completely false.

That was an editing error on my part, I wrote the opposite of what I intended to, Ashkenazi Jews have mostly Middle Eastern and European DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_...ic_origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hyp...i_ancestry
Reply
#53
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

Guns don't protect anyone or anything; that whole line is a sham, unless we live in barbarism or the wild west. No thanks. Overturn Heller! But ok, the place to debate this ad nauseum, as has been done on this form, is the gun debate thread.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#54
(09-06-2016, 10:11 AM)Anthony Wrote: Ad hominem attack's on Hillary's "dishonesty" will get the Republicans nowhere - at least among anyone under 70.

They're not running for Eagle Scout.

I'm not so sure about that.  Most analysts believe all the horseshXt innuendo surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the supposed pay-to-play has hurt her polling significantly in the last two to three weeks.

The entire meme of her lying is based primarily on the Benghazi, email server, and now the Foundation.  It is estimated that the Clinton Smear Machine is a billion dollar plus industry that depends on the stupidly and ignorance of a large share of the voting public.

These off-the-cuff remarks about her supposed dishonesty need to be called out, and the ones slinging this shXt need to be clearly identified as the ignorant/stupid shXtslingers that they are.
Reply
#55
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.
Reply
#56
(09-06-2016, 08:08 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 10:11 AM)Anthony Wrote: Ad hominem attack's on Hillary's "dishonesty" will get the Republicans nowhere - at least among anyone under 70.

They're not running for Eagle Scout.

I'm not so sure about that.  Most analysts believe all the horseshXt innuendo surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the supposed pay-to-play has hurt her polling significantly in the last two to three weeks.

The entire meme of her lying is based primarily on the Benghazi, email server, and now the Foundation.  It is estimated that the Clinton Smear Machine is a billion dollar plus industry that depends on the stupidly and ignorance of a large share of the voting public.

These off-the-cuff remarks about her supposed dishonesty need to be called out, and the ones slinging this shXt need to be clearly identified as the ignorant/stupid shXtslingers that they are.

Again, I don't know that stupidity is the right word.  Humans are just ever so ready to believe what they want to believe.  If a statement echoes someone's beliefs, it is accepted as Truth without recourse to fact.  Gullible is likely a better word than stupid.  Gullibility, blind adherence to a given partisan perspective, is not a trait unique to the Republican base.

This isn't to say that the Republicans aren't pushing the art of the Big Lie, attempting to establish truth through ad-nausium repetition.  Being the fact free party gives them certain tactical advantages which they are playing to the hilt.
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
#57
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.
Reply
#58
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

People ought to be more concerned about the millions killed by gun violence, and their right not to be killed, than their right to have a gun if they are not qualified to have one. No one qualified to have a proper and useful kind of gun need vote with their feet about national gun control. Just, accept reasonable gun laws, and accept that they increase your safety.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#59
(09-07-2016, 08:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:08 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 10:11 AM)Anthony Wrote: Ad hominem attack's on Hillary's "dishonesty" will get the Republicans nowhere - at least among anyone under 70.

They're not running for Eagle Scout.

I'm not so sure about that.  Most analysts believe all the horseshXt innuendo surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the supposed pay-to-play has hurt her polling significantly in the last two to three weeks.

The entire meme of her lying is based primarily on the Benghazi, email server, and now the Foundation.  It is estimated that the Clinton Smear Machine is a billion dollar plus industry that depends on the stupidly and ignorance of a large share of the voting public.

These off-the-cuff remarks about her supposed dishonesty need to be called out, and the ones slinging this shXt need to be clearly identified as the ignorant/stupid shXtslingers that they are.

Again, I don't know that stupidity is the right word.  Humans are just ever so ready to believe what they want to believe.  If a statement echoes someone's beliefs, it is accepted as Truth without recourse to fact.  Gullible is likely a better word than stupid.  Gullibility, blind adherence to a given partisan perspective, is not a trait unique to the Republican base.
But you claim that I am one of those gullible, blind people. That disqualifies your statement.

Maybe these Republican lie-believers are not inherently "stupid;" almost all Americans have the potential to use their (God and/or Evolution-given) brains and hearts intelligently. But they are not, and thus are acting stupidly and gullibly. They could and should know better. They only need to take "a closer look," as Seth says.

Quote:This isn't to say that the Republicans aren't pushing the art of the Big Lie, attempting to establish truth through ad-nausium repetition.  Being the fact free party gives them certain tactical advantages which they are playing to the hilt.

Yes, and since they are as you say, right now it is proper to say that today they are the predominant peddlers and purveyors of "Gullibility, blind adherence to a given partisan perspective"
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#60
(09-07-2016, 11:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But you claim that I am one of those gullible, blind people. That disqualifies your statement.

Maybe these Republican lie-believers are not inherently "stupid;" almost all Americans have the potential to use their (God and/or Evolution-given) brains and hearts intelligently. But they are not, and thus are acting stupidly and gullibly. They could and should know better. They only need to take "a closer look," as Seth says.

This just illustrates the point.  Any statement that contradicts your blind gullible position is disqualified?  One does not listen to anything that one doesn't want to believe?

You are just illustrating that partisan thinking is not limited to one particular perspective.
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability pbrower2a 590 141,473 07-29-2020, 05:04 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  BBC Video... Donald Trump and the MAFIA pbrower2a 2 335 05-29-2020, 03:47 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump Kay 51 2,768 01-27-2020, 03:31 AM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  America Is Bombing the Hell out of Syrian Civilians nebraska 0 577 01-06-2018, 09:24 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Why One Baby Buster Voted For Donald Trump Anthony '58 43 17,046 01-24-2017, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  What if Donald Trump is the new John C. Fremont? Anthony '58 1 1,303 10-19-2016, 09:56 PM
Last Post: Einzige
  Prominent Republicans call for Donald Trump to drop out of the nomination pbrower2a 11 5,206 10-12-2016, 07:06 AM
Last Post: Odin
  Poll of the U.S. military has Gary Johnson tied with Donald Trump Dan '82 3 1,930 09-23-2016, 07:37 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Americans Aren't Buying Donald Trump's Immigration Rhetoric, Polls Show naf140230 7 3,946 09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  The Donald only cares about the Donald historically. taramarie 3 1,465 08-07-2016, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)