Question for Anti-Trump Democrats

[ecco]

What you don't seem to understand is that my statement was intentional as an opinion.

Opinion. Really? Let's look at the exchange and see if your original comment represented an opinion...

The biggest flaw is that the wording is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

Nope. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

We were discussing what I called the vague wording of the 2nd Amendment. You responded that the wording of the 2nd Amendment was not vague and, to support your argument, you quoted the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Oh, wait, no you didn't, you only quoted that part of the 2nd Amendment that was not vague.

Now you are trying to say it was just an opinion. Nonsense.

There are a lot of people on this forum I agree with and a lot I disagree with. The vast majority are ethical. I have no need to waste my time having discussions with people who are unethical.

 

[ecco]

Currently under federal law, 18 U.S.C 924(e) anyone with a previous felony that is in possession of a firearm faces a sentencing guideline of a mandatory minimum of 15 years. Doesn't seem much more than what is already in place and we still have murder with firearms, the only difference is that those are prior felons vs. prior law abiding citizens. You make no sense either purposely or out of ignorance.

I am exploring ways to prevent, or at least reduce, the 20,000 needless deaths annually. What "we still have" is precisely because there are so many guns. You are arguing that since punishment doesn't work we shouldn't be bothered. To me, that is ignorant.

​

Ran out of ideas?

Current rules and regulations, please read them:
ATF Home Page | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Your link just goes to the ATF Home Page. Following the Regulations link takes me to how regulations are made. You'll need to be more specific.

Better yet, state, in your own words, the point you are trying to make and then link to, and quote from, someplace that supports your argument. As it is, you haven't even stated what your argument is.

 

[ecco]

Brazil in 2012 had ~8.6 guns per 100 inhabitants and racked up 20.7 homicides by gun per 100,000

The slums and poverty in this Country do not compare to the slums and poverty in Brazil. Nevertheless, you make a good argument that fewer slums and less poverty result in fewer homicides. Was that your intent?

Now it's about poverty? ... I showed where this clearly was not the case in reality

You made it about poverty when you used Brazil as an example. There are many reasons for gun deaths. In Brazil, one of the main factors is extensive poverty. If you want to make comparisons, at least try not to be so blatantly absurd.

 

[Revoltingest]

Opinion. Really? Let's look at the exchange and see if your original comment represented an opinion...





We were discussing what I called the vague wording of the 2nd Amendment. You responded that the wording of the 2nd Amendment was not vague and, to support your argument, you quoted the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Oh, wait, no you didn't, you only quoted that part of the 2nd Amendment that was not vague.

Now you are trying to say it was just an opinion. Nonsense.

There are a lot of people on this forum I agree with and a lot I disagree with. The vast majority are ethical. I have no need to waste my time having discussions with people who are unethical.

It seems that you misunderstand Esmith's intent.
All along, he was giving his opinions, & using text from the Constitution to support them.
To not have cited portions you want isn't "unethical".
You two have different views on what portions of the 2nd Amendment mean.
That's the disagreement.

 

[ecco]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

After posting a wall of progunmilitia comments from our founding fathers, you failed to address that most of them were written before the founding of the United States Army. Did our founding fathers feel as strongly about having an armed civilian militia after the adoption of a standing Army?

 

[ecco]

It seems that you misunderstand Esmith's intent.
All along, he was giving his opinions, & using text from the Constitution to support them.
To not have cited portions you want isn't "unethical".
You two have different views on what portions of the 2nd Amendment mean.
That's the disagreement.

Perhaps you should change the name of your avatar to: AarbitratorInResidence

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps you should change the name of your avatar to: AarbitratorInResidence

I thought of that, but I'm leaning more towards.....
"Unwantedannoyingkibbitzer"

 

[dianaiad]

You are the one who knew about the apparently very political Diamond and Silk. Were people in your knitting group complaining about how they were being treated so unfairly?

It's called 'doing the research,' which isn't the same as subscribing to a blog or facebook page.

Seriously? Let's exaggerate and hypothesize that Facebook, the company, is 80/20 liberal. Let's exaggerate and hypothesize that Facebook users are 80/20 liberal. That leaves over 400 million Conservative Facebook users who pass around conservative "news"? So, I stand by my comment about news sources.






You sound like the fundie theists telling folks that they "just need to open their eyes and see the glory of god".

How many times do I need to hear Trump yell "Fake News" to know that he will yell "Fake News" anytime someone says something about him that he doesn't like? How many times do I need to turn on Fox to know they will agree with him?

Well, at least once.

BTW, I follow my own policy regarding religious beliefs with politics, as well. I do not use, as a primary source, or even as a confirming source, anybody but a believer for information regarding beliefs or practices. If I want to know what the Baptists believe, I ask a Baptist. If I want to know what the Democrats think, I go to a Democrat. I do NOT go to CNN to find out what Trump 'really' thinks, and I do NOT go to Fox News to find out what Pelosi "really thinks."

I find that one gets a better and more accurate view of what's happening when one uses that method of learning stuff. So...yeah, I'll go to CNN and MSNBC and even Huffington and Washington Post, when I want to see what the left is thinking.

I don't take Hannity's word for that.

On the other hand, I'm not about to figure that CNN opinion folks get anybody on the right...er, right.

That you will not look at, or read, any right wing thing, but get all your information from strictly left wing sources, tells me that, well.....yeah. You mention evangelicals with some disdain. (shrug) Well, they do have a point; how can you judge anything unless you learn about it from those who follow it?

You may eventually decide that their position is nonsense, but if and when you do, you will have done so for accurate reasons.

How many times do I need to hear someone on Fox complain about the horrors of ACA before I realize that that's all I'm going to hear from Fox. By the way, I didn't coin "Faux News" but it is appropriate.

At least once or twice. Preferably more than once, but hey; once would be good.

OK. What's your point? Are you admitting that you are a very biased rightwing conservative?

Yep. I am. I don't think that 'very' applies, since I do think that the liberals have a point on some issues, but that I'm a biased conservative (which is 'right wing')? Sure. However, I got that way honestly, and my bias has grown because I'm willing to look at what the left has to say for itself, and not view everything through the lens of right wing opinion pundits. You, obviously, are biased left. Are you biased left because you understand what the right has to say (because you've actually heard what they have to say from THEM,) or are you biased left because your left wing sources tell you what the conservatives REALLY think?

As I said above, I already know what the other side is going to say. Want an example? I haven't watched Fox for at least a week. I'd venture to say they supported Trump's decision to completely close the border with Mexico. I'd venture to say that NOW they are supporting Trump's decision to wait a year before imposing 25% tariffs on cars and then closing the border.


Then why bother? You just made it clear that listening to "the librul media" upsets you. You aren't listening to the other side with an open mind, you watch the librul media to feed your anger.

It wouldn't upset me if I didn't actually watch it, y'know. Nothing upsets me if I don't participate in the process.

 

[averageJOE]

1. I don't think an "Independent" should be allowed to run on the Democratic Ticket.
2. Rest assured, beating Trump is priority one.

Sanders cannot get enough votes nationwide to beat Trump. He couldn't even get enough votes from Democrats to win the nomination.

1: Which is why they made him sign the DNC Loyalty Pledge. Sen. Bernie Sanders Signs Democratic Loyalty Pledge Required For 2020 Run
2. No. Right now priority #1 for the Democrats is to make sure Sanders and Gabbard do NOT get the nomination.

If you don't know what happened in the 2016 Democratic primaries I suggest you research it. Hillary didn't win, she was anointed by the DNC from day one. And the DNC is doing the same thing all over again for 2020. Bernie Sanders is the sole reason the DNC changed their rules for presidential runs. A new rule adopted by the DNC may block Bernie Sanders from running as a Democrat in 2020

 

[averageJOE]

This isn't known.

He was beating Hillary in some states.
But the DNC had it rigged against him, eg, super-delegates for Hillary having greater power.
Had the primary contest been fair, he might've beaten her.
He might have even become President.
(He'd have gotten my vote instead of Trump.)

^^^^^^This! The Democrats RIGGED the 2016 primaries!!!!! That is what started Russia-gate to begin with!!!!! And if you start paying attention NOW, you will see the DNC is doing it again!

Which goes to the point of my OP. What is it does anyone think will change by replacing Trump with an establishment Democrat??? For example, millions of people were either uninsured or under insured under Clinton and Obama. Today, under Trump, they are still uninsured or under-insured. You really think an establishment Democrat is going to change that?

 

[esmith]

After posting a wall of progunmilitia comments from our founding fathers, you failed to address that most of them were written before the founding of the United States Army. Did our founding fathers feel as strongly about having an armed civilian militia after the adoption of a standing Army?

Kibitzing here
Since you seem to think you know what the Founding Fathers thought or meant, why are you asking anyone?

 

[metis]

Today, under Trump, they are still uninsurebyd or under-insured. You really think an establishment Democrat is going to change that?

Better chance than with the Republicans who had every opportunity to do as such but punted. And it's better than under Bush as millions now are covered with some real insurance.

 

[averageJOE]

Better chance than with the Republicans who had every opportunity to do as such but punted. And it's better than under Bush as millions now are covered with some real insurance.

Tell that to the MILLIONS of people who still can't afford medical insurance. The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) is a product of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that designed it from Mitt Romney's health care plan (who Obama was running against). There is a reason it is nicknamed "Romney Care". We were going to get the ACA weather we liked it or not, regardless of Obama or Romney in the White House. And NO establishment Democrat will change that. Trump yells that he will "repeal and replace" it, but he never will. The ACA is designed to make private insurance companies rich. There is NO CHANCE an establishment Democrat like Biden, O'Rourke, or Harris will ever rock that boat.

 

[fantome profane]

It seems that you misunderstand Esmith's intent.
All along, he was giving his opinions, & using text from the Constitution to support them.
To not have cited portions you want isn't "unethical".
You two have different views on what portions of the 2nd Amendment mean.
That's the disagreement.

Back in the day, when I debated the fierce creationist monsters, there was something called “quote mining”.

I guess that doesn’t apply in the politics forums.

 

[Revoltingest]

Back in the day, when I debated the fierce creationist monsters, there was something called “quote mining”.

I'm sure that you mean something by that.

 

[ecco]

BTW, I follow my own policy regarding religious beliefs with politics, as well.
I do NOT go to CNN to find out what Trump 'really' thinks, and I do NOT go to Fox News to find out what Pelosi "really thinks."

I don't go to any news show to find out what people think. I go to hear what they have to say.

I find that one gets a better and more accurate view of what's happening when one uses that method of learning stuff. So...yeah, I'll go to CNN and MSNBC and even Huffington and Washington Post, when I want to see what the left is thinking.

If you believe that you can determine what people are thinking by listening to talk shows...well, OK.

That you will not look at, or read, any right wing thing, but get all your information from strictly left wing sources, tells me that, well.....yeah.

As I said, I don't have to hear the same c**p over and over to know if I listen to Hannity I'm going to hear the same old c**p. I've never listened to Limbaugh's radio show but I know enough about him to know I wouldn't interested in listening to his c**p. When the mainstream media is playing Trump, I'll listen and get more disgusted or I'll listen and laugh or I'll just fast forward till he's done.

You mention evangelicals with some disdain. (shrug) Well, they do have a point; how can you judge anything unless you learn about it from those who follow it?

You may eventually decide that their position is nonsense, but if and when you do, you will have done so for accurate reasons.

I may eventually decide that their position is nonsense"? Do you think I'm twelve? That eventuality came a long time ago. Each and every encounter has only confirmed my original analysis.

... You, obviously, are biased left. Are you biased left because you understand what the right has to say (because you've actually heard what they have to say from THEM,) or are you biased left because your left wing sources tell you what the conservatives REALLY think?

Liberal Bias Confirmation:
Right Wing Conservatives want abortion banned.
Right Wing Conservatives want school prayer instituted.
Right Wing Conservatives made it impossible to pledge my allegiance to this country.
Right Wing Conservative leaders were people like Let's lie and start a war on drugs Nixon, Let's lie about nukes and invade Iraq Bush (ignoring Bin Laden), and Let's lie about everything Trump.
Right Wing Conservative sheeples believe and cheer Trump lies.
Right Wing Conservatives don't believe in AGW.
Right Wing Conservatives hate unions.
Is that enough reason?

 

[ecco]

If you don't know what happened in the 2016 Democratic primaries I suggest you research it. Hillary didn't win, she was anointed by the DNC from day one.

Are you saying she didn't fairly win enough delegates? If she was "annointed", well, that's just confusing, how does that work?

 

[fantome profane]

I'm sure that you mean something by that.

I guess it’s an inside joke.

 

[dianaiad]

I don't go to any news show to find out what people think. I go to hear what they have to say.



If you believe that you can determine what people are thinking by listening to talk shows...well, OK.




As I said, I don't have to hear the same c**p over and over to know if I listen to Hannity I'm going to hear the same old c**p. I've never listened to Limbaugh's radio show but I know enough about him to know I wouldn't interested in listening to his c**p. When the mainstream media is playing Trump, I'll listen and get more disgusted or I'll listen and laugh or I'll just fast forward till he's done.




I may eventually decide that their position is nonsense"? Do you think I'm twelve? That eventuality came a long time ago. Each and every encounter has only confirmed my original analysis.




Liberal Bias Confirmation:
Right Wing Conservatives want abortion banned.
Right Wing Conservatives want school prayer instituted.
Right Wing Conservatives made it impossible to pledge my allegiance to this country.
Right Wing Conservative leaders were people like Let's lie and start a war on drugs Nixon, Let's lie about nukes and invade Iraq Bush (ignoring Bin Laden), and Let's lie about everything Trump.
Right Wing Conservative sheeples believe and cheer Trump lies.
Right Wing Conservatives don't believe in AGW.
Right Wing Conservatives hate unions.
Is that enough reason?

Well, thank you very much for proving my point.

 

[metis]

Tell that to the MILLIONS of people who still can't afford medical insurance.

For the 11 years prior to the passing of the ACA, medical costs here literally doubled due to the average rate of medical inflation being slightly higher than 9%. At first, the ACA lowered that rate down to 5%, but then all hell broke loose in 2016 and the rates jumped into the double digits. Thus, even without the ACA, we'd still have this problem of inflation.

The ACA is designed to make private insurance companies rich.

Absolutely false. It was designed to increase the numbers of people covered and to eliminate policies that were cheap but didn't offer adequate protections. Many millions have benefited from it.

But even when passed there was the knowledge that it could not bring costs down, so the hope was that this could be worked on. However, McConnell said it "best" when he said that the Republican's #1 priority was to make Obama a 1st term president only, thus the Pubs became the "Party of No" whereas nothing substantial could be done.

There is NO CHANCE an establishment Democrat like Biden, O'Rourke, or Harris will ever rock that boat.

Since the Pubs still control the Senate, I agree that nothing substantial is likely to get done. Trump and the Pubs repeatedly promised to replace it, and all too many Americans were gullible enough to believe this guy who has long been known as being a "con-artist".