General American Politics Thread

[Templar Knight]

I figure its best we don't point who's ignoring what, else-wise we'll be here forever. I gave you the courtesy of not pointing out some of the various things you ignored of my past statements.

 

But in response, no, I didn't ignore it, nor did you even truly disprove it was happening (you mostly just said "if it is happening, its not for bad intentions or via authoritarian moves", or "the sources my algorithms find all don't make a comment on it. Well by that reasoning, I suppose GamerGate never happened or was entirely negative because that was pretty much the only two perspectives of the issue shown in that case? Give me a break.), this issue is very charged and can be very differently shown depending on which sources you look at, and you only made one single clear mention of it that I could tell, in Oberlin's case. It was not a center point of your argument. And I still addressed in that it doesn't change my opinion towards making the counters seem like good ideas.

 

There's a difference between Liberal and Progressive. You may think they're synonymous terms, but they aren't. There was a point in time where College Campuses valued Liberal values before Progressive ones, you see that changing with how various free speech issues are handled on campuses alone.

 

Really? Lots of people, not all of whom are Nazis or Fascists, seem to be able to attest to its existence and practice. I wager Dr. Peterson alone can put forward a compelling case and he's not a Nazi or Fascist supporter. More to the point, one could say the exact same thing about numerous other issues the Left claims exists, but I won't get into that, again we'll just be going in circles.

 

How are those two statements different? They are not in my mind, so I don't get why you think they're suddenly two different statements or "backtracking", because if you think that, that wasn't my fucking intention. My statement was that even if that was the case, I still wouldn't support the idea because I think the idea is bad. Whether it is by demand, or people simply acquiescing to that is willful segregation in either scenario. A specific group of people asking for their own spaces on the basis of their skin colour and then everyone who isn't of that skin colour simply "abiding" by it IS a form of willful segregation. The only difference is that they're asking for it and everyone is just going along with it as opposed to being told such is the case by a fucking administration.

 

You don't see anything wrong with that? Good for you. I guarantee you racism will not vanish in our lifetimes by those lines of thought. The new segregation will be one of voluntary action and self-flagellation rather than from the top dictation with that idea. Benevolent Racism or even Sexism will be the norm, and we can already see the roots of that with the culture of victimization.

 

Oh really? Let me quote shall we:

 

".... Because the biggest criticism I could find of the bill came from the Daily Caller (A very very right-wing news orginization) that basically hammered the free speech aspect."

 

Yes, you didn't say only ONE argument specifically, but you said that that was the singularly biggest criticism you could find, essentially saying that was the only argument you could find. I proved otherwise, and provided a few different sources of arguments and that even refer to other arguments within themselves, of which the only one you deemed to comment on was the Free Press.

 

Both work on empirical data, and no I wasn't conflating the two IDK where the hell you got that idea. And yes, that's why I said they can OFTEN overlap. Of course there's times when laws have no real basis on empiricism or is necessary for such laws.

 

Well then that becomes a question of what is "glorification" specifically, of which I find to be an interesting question for thought among History students. I'd argue that changes with time as the parts of history our societies choose to focus on changes with time, but that it is not merely just who or what is put into memorial but whether or not the nation is being actively encouraged towards remembering them in a positive light in whatever respect it may be (and people can be encouraged to remember various individuals for all kinds of different things). Are the Confederacy statues today for example glorified by any mass amounts of the population for reasons specifically related to slavery in that what they did was a good thing? I'd argue no, I'd say that glory goes to the Union and Abraham Lincoln, and mass respect paid to the Confederacy is merely for military reasons and the general idea that its a terrible thing that so many human beings died in such a war. Or even the Roman Statues of any variety? Is anyone really glorifying them? If glorification is merely allowing a statue of any kind to remain standing, I personally think that that is a little bit too broad.

 

And if its the case where a statue or memorial has fallen out of relevancy to contemporary national, or international in some cases, interest, then I argue that they should simply be removed and put either in archives or a museum of some kind (likely an archive if that were the case). There's just so many facets to how one can be shown history that I'm loathe to destroy much of it, or any of its monuments or memorials, they can also IMO be re-purposed to a nation's interests.

 

I didn't refuse to engage with your question, your question was one which begat a response which IMO assumed that the Right inherently gets more of a benefit of the doubt than the Left, I argued otherwise and that its situational.

 

"Does the Right have more "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to their actions."

 

Don't fucking berate me just because you gave a question, and a very one-sided question when this question can very easily be asked of both sides of the spectrum, and I chose to delve into an area of it which you side-stepped.

 

And even then, am I wrong to say that the Right has basically gotten ZERO benefit of the doubt on Charlottesville alone? Anyone take any of their grievances seriously? Has any news agency taken any Right-wing grievances seriously before then (Besides maybe FOX if that)? No, they became the fucking laughingstock of Comedies both Leftist and Centrist and not really wrongly so in some regards, there has been pretty much zero national discussion of their talking points (AFAIK) that hasn't been one of derision or condemnation by many different political sides, including the President.

 

Meanwhile, look who ARE doing just that: The Parkland Cult-I mean, shooting victims (I don't begrudge them for their losses, or their desire for change, but I will still say that I think their proposals are foolish and will accomplish nothing towards making the lives of their friends mean a fucking thing, and that all kinds of opportunists have jumped on them).

 

But in direct response, no you don't see 60 people get pulled in for murder because, not all 60 of those individuals had a fucking hand in a murder unless its a Julius Caesar-style killing or mass beating to death. And last I checked, the individual responsible IS in custody, and facing the full force of the law for the crime he committed. Nobody else drove that fucking car but him.

 

One could argue they could have been accomplice, but then you have to prove that a) They planned to murder people (Which last I saw was not proven at all), and b) That they helped this guy do it. (Which also, is not evident)

 

Arson and vandalism, are two different type of crimes from murder. Can you assure me that all of those individuals didn't break, burn, or otherwise vandalize something when we have video evidence of tons of people partaking in such activities as a group during these kinds of incidents where this stuff takes place? (I've seen quite a few incidents like that, rarely is it ONLY "a few windows")

 

I had a recent incident near me where a bunch of people organized over night to bust every window down a business street and trashed the owners' stuff as a "protest" against gentrification. You damn well bet I hope all of those people are caught and charged with vandalism and/or arson, they were all out there, they obviously knew what they were intending to do because all did it in the middle of the night. And let's say there is no direct evidence that they can prove that an individual themselves committed said crime, even if they were in the same group, I wager most of such people can get off without charges in those incidents. (Though I'd wager they'd still be up for unlawful assembly).

 

Are such charges in those situations as you describe them ridiculous? Yes, I would say so and are mostly indicative of an over-reactive police force. But its hardly a universal idea that ONLY the Left suffers unfairly from this in regards to their relation to the law or the law working with them.

 

If the cases you gave were equivalent crimes, I'd be inclined towards agreeing, but currently I don't see that. You cannot just arrest and charge 60 people for murder when you cannot prove they all had a hand in it. You can prove various other things, but not specifically the murder charges on all of them, just like I'm sure the vandalism charges will not stick to all of those people despite the prosecution's efforts.

 

As I said before, the police responses to these incidents in the past even before Charlottesville were crap irrespective of which side did what. They refused to engage in Berkeley and other places where they could have averted public injury or damage. Why? Because often they're told to stand down and let the two sides fight it out or deal with it themselves by the administrations. Charlottesville was no exception, the difference was that someone actually died and they were then forced to step in just to save face.

 

You think its fine for say Antifa and various groups to vandalize a portion of Berkeley's campus, mace people who were there, beat the crap out of some of them, because they so dared to have Milo Yiannopolous show up, and for the police to do fuck all until they basically started to disperse? Or for several months later to avoid a conflict as two different protests met and turned into a brawl, but the police didn't get involved because they were told not to and nobody had any guns on them?

 

Or way back in Toronto many years ago during a G20 Summit, for the cops to do literally fuck all again for one day as they let the Black Bloc run all over the place, bust every window down the business drag, toppled and set fire to various cars and did all kinds of arson but arrested NOBODY. And then completely went into riot mode the next day by detaining anyone and everyone who happened to be in the street regardless of what they were doing and regardless of if they were Black Bloc? (Not to mention all kinds of other stories, many are still suing over that, and not all of them were even Leftist activists)

 

Don't give me this crap that the Right somehow have it always or disproportionately better than the Left when it comes to the fucking police. They don't play favours to anyone unless they're told to by their bosses for their individual situations, which can often go either way depending on where one is. Which was my fucking point! Its all contextual, its all very variable based on the situation. You could have a police department that goes and just arrests everyone as a precaution, and another that literally does fuck-all because they're told not to get involved.

 

IMO, the police in general can do a lot better by simply making it so that they at least form a human barrier between the two protesting groups in such situations. Both can protest whatever the fuck they want, but you do not let them get right next to each other when both vehemently hate each other and have no qualms about injuring the other if they're looking for a fight.

 

So no, I don't think the message is that clear. Especially given the wider context. We spoke of glorification earlier, I don't see those fuckers in Charlottesville, on either side being glorified on any establishment scale. So tell me exactly how are "Nazis" being regarded as acceptable in that respect to the public eye, or its merely your interpretation because anything less than complete and total one-sided condemnation by everyone and anyone is "accepting Nazis"?

 

-----

 

On Uranium One, if there legitimately was NOTHING to look in to, why would this happen after the article you linked? Sessions is hardly Trump's puppet, he doesn't bend over for everything he commands him to, and he's actually supported laws that not even the President has commented on.

 

http://archive.is/buaoZ

 

Plus Styx at the time IMO gave a fairly compelling reason for why the whole situation warranted further investigation regardless of outcome, that and into Fusion GPS on account of the FISA Memo.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EbrHXkKVcA

 

Or here, just 2 months ago, apparently FBI informants' testimonies mean fuck-all and instead there's efforts to cover up this revelation on the media?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9LIvMkTHG4

 

Or here, just a month ago the Democrats exonerate Hillary themselves of any wrong-doing, since apparently they have no bias in the matter, and apparently they needed to address the matter in some way rather than leave it as self-evident.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J3IgRVgPe4

 

As for the email server stuff, come on. The FBI never even saw the servers themselves anyway, if we're even to trust their interpretations that are nothing but second-hand from a private company that looked into them on the DNC's say-so, how the hell could Comey or any other FBI member say anything with absolute confidence?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50GO7RJTcWc

 

Almost everyone else of any significance who was involved in the business was at least put up on some kind of charges, or otherwise was fired or removed from their position, just as anyone would be in had it been a private situation. In a private situation, anyone who was associated with a scandal like this would be fired, resign, let go, if not charged. The only reason none of this happened to Clinton was because of her status as a politician and the DNC was not going to do anything to compromise their golden goose if they could avoid it. Its the whole reason they pinned the whole hack on Russia to try and deflect from the fact that Wikileaks got it, and that the content itself was damning in terms of proving that the DNC fucked Bernie like many of his fans thought, among many other things that would look terrible if the public saw it (which all of their supportive media outlets did not cover the contents of it, or in at least one case outright tried to claim it was illegal to view anything put on Wikileaks by the public, but that it wasn't illegal for Media outlets to do so). Assange himself and his associates proved that the leaks did not come from any Russian source, which was literally the whole reason the Russian narrative was even pushed at all, they say that it was a close DNC Staffer, someone like Seth Rich, if not Rich himself since he conveniently got murdered after the whole business happened.

 

Who were the ones who said that it was Russia to begin with? Oh yeah, the CIA and the DNC. Because neither group have ever lied before for political purposes or abused their power for their own agenda or the agendas of those they support.

 

But boy, wouldn't it be amazing for them to be so fucking lenient to Trump, eh? Because that's basically the extent of all I've seen on him in terms of what the initial results turned up. Its like okay, they can pin a lot on Manafort that has no relation to Trump and instead points to a different scandal, and Flynn was only charged with a count of lying to the FBI, but yet the investigation went on and has continued to go on despite no major developments that actually point towards any collusion between Trump and the Russians to effect the election in any way that can be shown. People seem willing to speculate to the moon as to how much power Trump has with his money and extended family, how the hell do you know that the Clinton family didn't exert their own pressure to get the deal through? Nope, two flavours for two different situations, I suppose. They just both happen to be extremely severe in what their implications are, but one apparently can be glossed over as nothing, whereas the other gets mass and critical attention.

 

Oh, so we're holding private citizen deals of a decades long businessman as evidence of foreign interaction which should be held against someone as being compromised? My Gods then, the DNC emails aught to have proven that with regards to the Qatari and Saudis for the Democrats, but nope nothing to see there. Trump dealt with ALL KINDS of foreign nationals in his business. He did business in India, and all of his realty business (to my knowledge) was aimed at rich clientele so I assume many rich Indians were catered to as potential buyers, India is a major mass producer of various goods much like China, you don't see us investigating into Indian interference in the election do you? They'd have a lot of incentive to effect economics to boost their own situations to combat China for economic supremacy in the US markets! No, apparently only the rich Russians have substantial motive to meddle in US politics in favour of anyone in particular. Russian Oligarchs would be the ideal people to cater to for money if you want to get money out of the Russian market, they have the most expendable income out of anyone in the country, and Trump dealt in big business for such types of individuals. This is not a crime, nor do I regard it as anything suspicious for his business. You might as well be investigating into literally every single last country whose nationals his business has ever interacted with if this is supposed to be regarded as suspicious, yet we're not. The mandate is specifically in regards to Russian collusion.

 

Hey, its not like Comey hasn't set a previous record of pulling shit out of his ass that ultimately amounts to nothing. Remember a week prior to the election when he mentioned Hillary was being investigated for a day and then back tracked? Boy, wasn't that an endearing move? I wonder how Comey might have been remembered HAD Obama fired him as pretty much all of the Democrats wanted him to at the time since they pretty much for a while blamed the election loss on him.

 

Really? Who? At the time, the two people originally fingered (Manafort and Flynn) were not regarded as having had any major impact on the election (since both were fired before the campaign was even half-way done, I believe). I understand that the persons have expanded since, but we're talking the ones who originally caused suspicion.

 

And again, Uranium One. The Clintons had DIRECT dealings with Russians in regards to a uranium sale that they got a ton of money off of, according to an FBI informant, yet THAT doesn't warrant a special investigation to iron out every single last strand of evidence, just to make sure? Big donations from members of nations that don't support equal rights in their own nations but apparently just want to give their money to the Clinton Foundation? Knowledge that such figures may very well have supported ISIS because they're Sunni Muslims? Nope, no interference at all there, no reason for special investigation, instead lets push the Muh Russia narrative ever since Wikileaks got ahold of their shit.

 

Well, if we're to use Watergate as a comparison, of which this has been VERY heavily compared to by the MSM and various figures, Watergate didn't take this long (though it did take a while), from the time of the official start of the televised Senate Watergate Committee hearings to when Congress actually moved to impeach Nixon, it was a little over a year. And that one seriously ramped up as to not only what Nixon was doing in his paranoia, but in the caliber and status of the individuals coming forward with their testimony, or simply resigning only building by the months in severity as it became increasingly clear what the truth was. Prior to the official start, they had a already a pretty tangible line of evidence linking the "White House Plumbers" to individuals connected to Nixon simply by Nixon's own actions to try and stop that investigation, and even on one of the "Plumbers" giving a private letter to the Judge saying he perjured some of his testimony under pressure from government officials who weren't CIA. The Vice President of the US resigned on corruption, numerous aides or counsels pleaded guilty to crimes that directly relate to Watergate itself or illegal campaign activites or otherwise gave testimony that directly pointed to Watergate being real in its intent, The Watergate Seven are all indicted and brought forward, and the Republican lieutenant Governor of California gets hit with corruption. All before the move to impeachment. I don't see that happening here. You see a lot of people commenting on Trump's personality and his behaviour in the White House, and leaving for various reasons, but nothing much that's juicy for any Russian collusion story. Not even guys like Comey could give anything damning on the subject.

 

If anything, the whole business has been nothing but a lesser attempt at imitating Watergate to the point where its almost laughable.

 

Most people in the political establishment have no love for Trump, not even his own party, plus the atmosphere is and has been PERFECT to get mass media coverage of your story if you actually had anything damning. If they knew anything, why wouldn't they come forward and earn everlasting glory by being the one who toppled Tonald Drumpf, the tyrant who is literally Hitler reincarnated!? Fear of repercussions? That mysteriously hasn't stopped so many already from speaking out on him on numerous other stuff.

 

What do we have here? At least 4 different false alarms I can recall by the MSM on various testimonials that amount to not that much that was damning. Charges on individuals that reek of desperation to find ANYTHING to charge them for in some cases (Flynn being a prime example). Numerous statements from various Intelligence and Law agencies that all say "Oh we 'know' this happened, but we cannot say how that it happened publicly, or that if it even had any effect on the election if it even did happen.". 13 Russian trolls who'll never be extradited even if they were indicted, with a few hundred thousand dollars in social media ads that were not only aimed to support Trump (Not to mention the fact that again, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove these had any effect at all on people's decisions over anything else? Its an impossible task.)

 

Appointed as a placative gesture to the Democrats who were already saying he was acting like a Tyrant and stuffing his cabinet with people they didn't like. He'll likely do something similar when Ghinsberg keels over on the Supreme Court as a politically pragmatic maneuver.

 

You're wrong, by all indications, they did it on a tip from Mueller, whom apparently is looking into this despite it not being strictly related to the mandate of his investigation. How does Stormy Daniels relate to his investigation into Trump on matters relating to the electoral interference by a foreign state to the point where he'd have any significant information regarding the subject?

 

http://archive.is/E2sxO

 

Hope so, but we'll see how that goes. The MSM certainly doesn't seem to be reminding anyone of that.

 

And no, it does relate to Trump. Who the fuck else would be related to Stormy Daniels' shit at this point that anyone cares about that this shit is even making the news?

 

Just like they know they can get away with lying to the FISA courts to get warrants to spy on anyone they want? Oh yes, I'm sure the FBI knows exactly what it can and cannot get away with, just as it has for decades. You should know this, all things considered.

 

Good luck to them proving it was impossible for them obtain this information through any other less intrusive means than what they did.

 

I know damn well that would be the case, my point was how ridiculously favourable the situation is to a political establishment seeking to impeach a President in this manner, because of course, there is apparently absolutely no wrong that said Special Investigator could possibly do, they cannot totally waste taxpayers' time and money on investigating a crime they cannot even prove had any effect on anything, if it even happened? And the hopes for impeachment rest almost entirely on this investigation's results? Boy, what a great situation for a setup of removing anyone a political establishment wants! You can just put a totally biased Investigator in charge, and if anyone tries to remove them, charge them with obstruction of justice! Because of course any attempt to stop the Grand Inquisitor is a sign of guilt.

 

Had this same shit happened to Obama over his birth certificate crap (it wouldn't, but I'm using a ridiculous example), you'd be saying it was the sign of a totally racist state that was doing everything it could to kick him out.

 

Riddle me this: What does the evidence they have shown tell you? This is a public investigation that has basically had unlimited access, they have to at least present SOMETHING to show that they have credible evidence to continue. Mueller himself came out and said just recently that Trump wasn't even being criminally investigated at the time! So what the fuck is the point of any of this?! We have the 13 Russians who have no connection at all to Trump or his campaign (who'll never be charged or extradited, either), a small amount of money in terms of campaign money used on ads we cannot prove had any effect at all, and a bunch of crimes that are almost all completely unrelated to Trump and the election coupled with confessions that aren't that damning. Looks to me like we have what he sought, and its a fucking dud! Small wonder they're dragging it out and have diverted attention onto Daniels.

 

Or Riddle me this: Why was it that Russia even became a suspect at all (Besides the Classic Anti-Russia history of the US for political purposes)? Oh yes, one campaign led by a certain political opponent and party that was deflecting from their own fucking technical incompetence and who wanted to make the stuff Wikileaks obtained on their emails seem lesser than it was because they knew it clearly showed that among other things, they had totally fucked Bernie Sanders and rigged Hillary in.

 

I'm not saying FOX didn't in their own time, I didn't fucking support it then and I have no love for FOX, and it doesn't make this case any better. But you acting as if there was any equivalent there to what has happened to Trump is being VERY disingenuous. I have never seen a media, cultural, and political campaign against a specific individual to the extent that has been conducted against him in modern times.

 

Yes, and the news is painting everything he does bad because guess what? He pissed off most of the news because they were all arrayed against him from the beginning and continuously lied and took out of context and proportion almost everything he said, and he refuses to play ball with them on account of that, most of them. Why should they give him an inch of credit for anything? Even FOX didn't think he would fucking win the PRIMARIES, and only begrudgingly supported the fact that he did and then jumped on the bandwagon to capitalize on the fact that CNN had become what they were.

 

I wager this will be the truth from now until he is out in regards to most of the MSM's coverage since it has basically been reality so far. Anything that goes well in the US under Trump's terms will NEVER be ascribed to him, even if he himself had a hand in it. Whereas everything that can possibly go wrong will ALWAYS be blamed on him even if he's not even totally to blame, or if its even true.

 

Really? You want to talk diplomacy functionality, at least Trump is actually set to talk to North Korea in an actual face-to-face meeting atm (SOMETHING WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE BILL CLINTON BTW), and didn't have a total fucking embarrassment of a Chinese visit like Obama did on his last time there.

 

IDK, to me, that's a bit more important, especially since everyone thought that such a thing was pretty much impossible in the former's case (myself included, honestly).

 

"much worse in every measurable way." FFS. I may be inclined to over-dramatic language myself, but this is ridiculous. No President is an ace, but he's not the worst of all time yet.

 

Yes, because every single last white, straight man has ALWAYS lived in greatness in America? I hope I don't need to explain THAT fallacy to you. Just like no Black has ever risen to any prominence, no woman has ever risen to any prominence, nobody who isn't strictly that description has ever lived what one could call a "great" life in the US at any point in time?

 

I loved studying the American 60s, if there is one time period in modern history I'd have loved to have gone back to, it would be to the 1960s and participate in the works of MLK Jr. and others, and I know full well what people simply in that decade went through among others, but I am not going not entertain the fiction people are somehow exactly in the same position recently as they were then or that all have lived the same experiences. People live better and worse lives often regardless of their circumstances, and while some various issues need to be addressed that can help make more turn out better than worse, they have existed long before Trump arrived, and are not necessarily issues the Feds can solve in all cases.

 

But you're also looking at that statement in a very specific way that is not necessarily reality.

 

How do you know that is what he meant? Is that truly what he meant? Or what you think he meant because that's what your mind (as did many others) immediately jumped to?

 

When Trump contextualizes the slogan himself, its not in regards to race or sexuality at all, he mostly contextualized it around the fact that America's power and standing had been decaying over the decades due to poor decisions by its leaders. Wars that held no benefit to the US and have only resulted in long drawn out wars that result only in tons of soldiers' deaths, deals that were not in America's favour and hurt American businesses, tons of internal problems that had been ineffectively dealt with by numerous administrations etc.

 

Why would he even mention that Blacks were experiencing higher employment at his address if he's apparently running a return to White Supremacy? Why did he even manage to get such a big portion of the immigrant and even minority votes if his messages were so obviously racial supremacist in nature? Why did he not simply heed to White Supremacists' advice and just totally stack his cabinet with racists and try to revoke the amendment on racial discrimination and just completely revert to openly racist language all the time (Of which the two incidents people claim he did, have not been proven beyond conjecture)? Why didn't he run on such a platform if that was his goal? Why did he even say that he would support LGBT communities at all (Obviously to cater to their vote, but why do it and risk alienating his Republican base?)? Why did he gain significant support among women voters? Why didn't he re-ignite Gay marriage as an issue when that had been a Republican selling point for years!? That topic vanished as soon as he came in and said it was a non-issue! Your problem on that front shouldn't be with him!

 

No, I think you, like many others, misinterpreted what he meant, and were reinforced that meaning by the mass media that all pushed that same message because they all opposed him and have literally made him out to be worse than Hitler by not giving him a single inch on anything, and widely publicizing every single last thing they could dredge up on him and his past. You tell someone a lie long enough, eventually they will accept it as truth, and they've been doing it for a few years on this subject and others.

 

Oh, and another reason this line of thinking doesn't work? His opponent WAS the status quo. You know, the Democrats, the party which were actually the party of slavery in the past, the ones who got all the big corporate money you seem to hate so much, the ones privately who don't care about immigrants besides turning them into a voting bloc that will vote for them in perpetuity, the ones who for years have basically been in charge of dealing with numerous social issues across the urban US and yet mysteriously they only seem to be have gotten worse between them and the standard Republicans running shit. (Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and has been a Democratic stronghold for a long time yet they became the murder capital of the US) AND whom many of its candidates, including Hillary and Obama both in their earlier careers supported traditional marriage customs and only switched when they saw an opportunity to capitalize on the Gay vote and look Progressive when they saw the Republicans would not (Not even the first time either party has done this when they saw an opportunity for votes, why do you think the geographic holds of the Democrats and Republicans switched around the 60s?).

 

That is all this whole political game is today though, regardless of where you are. Who can make the other one look worse? The reality is that all choices often suck, and most of them have no fucking clue on what to do in order to solve anything in any meaningful way without risking political suicide.

 

Considering how quick people were to try and not blame Hillary for Bill's sins, I'd say its fair not to judge Donald for his father's. But we've already gone over this subject before.

 

On his money. He obviously needed to display some economic chops to maintain his wealth and business even if it were handed to him. If he was a total fuck-up, you'd think he wouldn't even have reached this point where he was even maintaining his family's status. There are countless stories both historic and modern of people who're incapable of running something being handed something via inheritance and completely pissing it away or ruining it because they have no clue how to run it. Even for matters that aren't even money-related, how many accounts abound of old nobility who get handed stuff just because they were born into it, yet completely fuck up because they have no capabilities towards sustaining it? By that regard, one can say he obviously must have had some measure of success on his own.

 

I would say his appeal is his off-the-cuff speaking coming from the fact that he's not a career politician, not so much anti-PC language as you put it since by my judgement he hasn't actually come out at all that Anti-PC in terms of initiatives so far. And if it hasn't become clear by now, there is obviously a division as to what is regarded as "PC" depending on where you are, and what your experiences are. And before you say: "Yea, its Straight White Men versus everyone else!" No, your groups are not homogeneous anymore than they are, and even many in those groups disagree with the victimhood mentality, only to be called race-traitors and sex-traitors by the fanatics because apparently to be born or put into one of these groups is to be beholden to a specific political spectrum. My experiences as a GG supporter (for better or worse) have tempered a fair bit of my opinions on these subject since I saw it firsthand.

 

I knew from the start it was ironic that he was basically a member of the financier sector running for office, me and a friend of mine got a lot of laughs out of that when we considered the whole thing to be a complete joke, but one cannot deny that he was the anti-establishment candidate in pretty much every respect compared to Clinton. Self and grass-roots funded, completely opposed by almost all of the establishment media apparatus and most establishment cultural icons, opposed by a huge part of the political establishment (Obama was the first sitting President I can recall who weighed in so much on an election at that time, I don't recall Bush shilling so much for McCain), and had basically every single branch of the establishment oppose him or berate him for pretty much anything and everything every single step of the way regardless of validity.

 

Yeah . . . even though he's a member of the Financier class of politics, I am gonna say he was the anti-establishment candidate simply by how he posed himself as the agent of change. He tapped into the exact same desire for change that Obama did in his own time, one that didn't give them much effective change as they had hoped, so they sought more.

 

A symbol which was manufactured for you to believe in before you had any reason to believe it, and to mentally prime you to ascribe every single last thing he does as a part of that. Anyone who says otherwise could be disregarded as nobody and literally a Nazi or Fascist in disguise.

 

I had no love of Trump becoming President and even now I still stick to the fact that had I been able to vote, I would have abstained out of protest for better candidates, but I could not in good conscience get on the bandwagon with much of the hysterics about him when I saw that most of it was bullshit spun to favour of Clinton or otherwise to widen the partisan divide.

 

Funny, I see the Democrat base in conniption fits and delusions, to the point where the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is not an exaggeration of many of their conditions. The Trump fans, by my judgement, are mostly quietly pleased with current events and don't regret their choice, barring several things and various moments (such as his flip-floping on Guns, Syria, etc). And most of the stuff he has delivered or made progress towards on so far, barring stalls from Congress or the Ninth Circuit.

 

I also love how you're already condemning him as a total failure when he's not even done. I'd wait to see if he gets a second term first. I gave Obama that luxury, and generally don't hate him as a President even if I think he made some bad decisions. Believe me, if the US is ruined by the time he's done, I won't sugar-coat it. But I don't see how anything is categorically worse than anything that wasn't already there and being steadily fed the flames of over the past 10 years by forces even simply beyond political office. The culture war has been brewing for a far longer time than Trump, it just reached a boiling point because they turned the election into another facet of it of the greatest severity.

 

Yea? I'm sick of politics' shit in general, I sick of the partianship and the refusal of ANYONE to compromise on ANYTHING, I'm sick of the media lying to our faces every single fucking day and treating the populace like idiots on so many issues for their own agendas, and I'm tired of being told that we're so great here in The West (by all sides, either for our progressive values or our more patriotic ones) we're the greatest places on Earth when nowhere else on Earth gives a flying fuck about the shit we make arguments about and don't care to make the society we have that's apparently so fantastic, and that we're slowly eroding away at the liberal values that made our nations great for the sake of specific peoples' feelings whilest ignoring the feelings of others! But I gotta talk about it because its literally all our fucking news talks about when its not banal.

 

And things were already going to shit under Bush and Obama. I wouldn't call Trump the Anti-Christ, your political establishment has been on the road to ruin in various respects for a long time, just like many of ours.

[dashofweak]

Alright, broad strokes here because these posts are getting a bit long so apologies if some things get lost or not responded to

 

So, first with Hillary. There were investigations, they've ended, I trust the professional law enforcement more than I trust YouTubers or heavily biased news sites. Plus, no punishment can be as bad as being the candidate who lost to Donald Trump. She's finished, politically. She couldn't win against one of the most repulsive people to come out of american politics in recent memory. Therefore, she's done. Whatever. I like Elizabeth Warren much more anyways.

 

Moving on, I am very aware that there's a difference between liberals and progressives. Honestly, a big part of why i think left-leaning politics isn't as strong as it should be is because we're constantly bickering with ourselves where as the right tends to fall in line and follow the leader....even if the leader is totally unfit to be a leader. He's impulsive, he constantly makes major decisions without consulting anyone. He passed a MASSIVELY unpopular tax bill AND passed a MASSIVELY unpopular health "reform" act. Both of those instances shows right there that he does not give a shit about normal people. Plus, before he was even elected, he bragged, not "was discovered" or "got caught" BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women. THIS is what a leader should be like? Really? Any decent GOP voter should have held up their hands and went "ok, not this one". But they didn't, yet people are still behaving that Trump is the greatest president ever while his administration has multiple empty seats because people keep quitting, he's severely hurt the US's foreign interests, and even with majority control of the house and senate, he's having trouble doing anything. Oh, and Obama had the opposite problem: a majority house and senate that was opposed to him.

 

Because here's the thing, and it ties into the right getting more leeway. I want you to imagine, just for a moment, a world where Obama was so morally bankrupt, that he payed a porn star to have unprotected sex with him. Just...imagine. That would have been Obama's legacy, no one would have been able to stop talking about it. Right-wing websites and commentators Yet here's Trump, still supported by the people who would have been calling for immediate impeachment of our previous president. Still supporting. Still chanting MAGA.

 

Oh, and don't you dare tell me Trump's an LGBT ally, not when he tried to ban Transgendered people from serving AND picked friggen PENSE to be his VP. Pense is an enemy of LGBT people, and even allowing him into his administration shows he doesn't give a half-fried shit about LGBT people. Doesn't matter what he's said, his word is worthless

 

More on showing the right more leeway, you've kinda revealed a pretty deep bias against left-wing demonstrators. Because, you said:

Can you assure me that all of those individuals didn't break, burn, or otherwise vandalize something when we have video evidence of tons of people partaking in such activities as a group during these kinds of incidents where this stuff takes place?

 

Because in case you don't know, and because it's the same in Canada as well as the USA, our judicial system runs under "Innocent until proven guilty". I don't have to guarantee anything, someone has to PROVE that these people indeed committed a violent act. If there was video evidence or photos with positive IDs on the 60 people that are being put on trial, then it would be appropriate to make arrests. But that misses the bigger picture.

 

See, the point of the j20 arrests WASN'T to bring guilty people into justice. It was to silence and discourage further protests. This article (which i implore you to read): https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/j20-one-year-later-what-happened-to-defendants-w515646 pretty much details how people's lives are being turned into a living hell for exercising their right to free speech. Protesting is a necessary and vital part of American (and Canadian) democracy. Arresting 60 people, for being near a window when it was broken during a protest, then when you prosecute, you straight up admit you don't care whether or not they did anything wrong, just that they were near something bad when it happened, is an attempt to silence free speech.

 

As someone who lives in the US, that shit's pretty scary. Will "I" be arrested next for no crime other than daring to speak up against people who have not only helped the rich rob and disenfranchise normal people, but then also had the cast-iron balls to suggest that things aren't getting better because Americans are too lazy? Will my family have their house raided and their privacy violated because one of us tried to exercise our RIGHT to protest? I always see right-winger whining that their speech is being trampled on anytime someones says "use the pronouns I identify with" or that a TV host is fired for saying racist stuff. Yet here's the government, persecuting people for the crime of having differing ideas on how the country should be and all the free speech warriors are dead silent. That shows me that these guys don't care about free speech. They care about THEIR free speech. I bet you anything there are people who cheered that DCPD arrested 200 "commies" but also go on and go about how free speech is under attack "By leftists".

 

I'll give credit where credit is due, you are right that Charlottesville wasn't beneficial to the right. However, the fact that literal Nazis showed up at a rally called "Unite The Right" should of in itself been damaging to the GOP or the right. Fox News should have been running story after story saying, "These people don't represent us" even without the murder. Trump should have gotten on stage and said, "Look, i don't like that these people love me? Ok? They're NOT good people." (or however he'd say it) It took an innocent woman being MURDERED, to make the Rally put a sour taste in people's mouths. Even then, news coverage was trying to equate one side that brought clubs, shields, guns, and killed someone to people who showed up in counter-protest. I guaran-damn-tee you that if Heather Heyer wasn't murdered (which, fun fact, the nazis tried to peddles some BS that she died of natural causes and called her a whore on their websites, so add disrespecting not some historical figure or long dead person, but a recent murder victim to the list of terrible shit they've done) the news and alt-right wouldn't have stopped attacking the people who showed up to counter-protest. Plus, the police asked for the help OF white nationalists to help identify the COUNTER PROTESTERS.

 

That right there seems to spell out, "we have more tolerance of Nazis as long as they don't question our economic policies" to me.

 

Plus, again, it seems to not occur to anyone on the right (including your precious Peterson) that hanging out or agreeing with Fascists, kinda makes people think you're a Fascist sympathizer. Oh, and he did, BTW he had a nice civil conversations with some white nationalists, took some photos, pretty clear he knew exactly what these people were, and hung out with them anyways. If he doesn't want people to think he isn't a white nationalist, maybe, just maybe, don't associate with them. Like i said before, there's a reason Progressives don't hang out or associate with Tankies, because we know those on the right are just itching to call us Commies (for proof see Selous's replies) so we don't hang out with them. Oh, and because their ideas are awful and bad, just like Nazis and White Supremacists.

 

PS if you want to talk about search algorithms, I'd wonder why "yours" keeps directing you to far-right reactionary websites, youtubers, and news stories.

[Templar Knight]

Apologies on the length, I tend to get carried away. I'll try and keep things brisk, no promises as I often have a lot to say.

 

And I'm saying there was hardly anything of an investigation at all. They may as well have just investigated her for two days. But whatever, it doesn't matter.

 

I'd personally call that embarrassment more than punishment, because it was a hilariously embarrassing situation for me to watch live as pretty much every single news outlet imploded as their BS narratives and flawed data were revealed for all to see. And I wasn't even rooting for any particular candidate. But yes, agreed, she's done and I don't particularly care what comes of her. I only wish that she would retreat into retirement with some dignity rather than still remain the very publicly visible Democratic figure who's going around blaming literally everyone but herself for her failure, that would probably help the Democrats out a lot.

 

Warren certainly is a fair bit more palatable. Though my wager is on her not running for Presidency, personally. Though honestly guessing that is still a dice toss considering the Dems have not stated what they want besides getting Trump out.

 

IDK about that. I've seen enough different political leaders rise up both in my own country and the US to be able to attest to the fact that the spectrums will generally coalesce around a candidate who leans in their direction even if they have different interests and beliefs, radicals and the odd third-parties notwithstanding. Because politicians rarely win or certainly maintain power solely by catering to a single subset of voters, you have to make yourself appealing to as many as possible regardless of which side of the board you're on if you're playing to win.

 

I've seen all manner of Leftists coalesce around different politicians and rise them up to power if they find a leader they generally like, even if they have different views on subjects. One could argue that Obama was one such candidate, Trudeau up in Canada is another.

 

It all changes with time, usually when the one side is bickering among themselves, the other is far more solidified, but we've seen this happen throughout time. Currently, the paradigm shift is being driven by a more unified Right push, doesn't mean that all of them are the same, but that they're willing to set their differences aside in order to achieve what they wanted. Give enough time, eventually they'll bicker again, the Left will see an opportunity, set aside their differences, and push in their turn. Because that's how these things usually work, from what I have seen.

 

I actually like it since those periods of bickering can also be times of reflection for the side that is on the losing end as to what they can change to come back better.

 

I wonder where you're getting these "massively unpopular" tax bill ideas from when his approval has steadily risen to the 40s now (Even the more Anti-Trump favouring polls have shown increases ever since Charlottesville, ironically enough. Though I credit it mostly to more and more people realizing that he's the madman super-villain the media painted him to be.) and the most I could see people criticizing the tax bill for was that "it gives too many cuts to the rich" ignoring the fact that it cuts a lot for the poor as well, or that it raises the deficit, like people magically care about that now. The health care bill he dropped because not even the Republicans could agree on it, and if he's correct, then all he needs to do is wait and support will come for his changes eventually, if not then we'll know he was wrong.

 

IDK, he seems to be trying to cater a fair bit to the Rustbelt, I'd call them ordinary people. That's more than anything the Democrats said they'd be doing.

 

"Bragged about sexually assaulting women." Dude, I've watched the tape. I saw it played over a dozen times and carefully listened because I was wondering what was so fucking damning, there is a reason no lawsuit ever came of it even with Clinton's initial backing of the "victims". That is not bragging about sexual assault. It is piggishly saying that he can sleep with any woman he wants (something which I would consider to be typical of many rich snobs and womanizers), but its not admittance of sexual assault. The most you can say is that it is a piggish comment. He specifically says: "They let you do it." He's not implying non-consent or that he drugged them, or that he ordered them to do so. He's implying that he's in such a position wherein there are women who will let him do this stuff merely to get stuff off of him, which he gives. Now, you could argue that he's in a position of power or authority and therefore pure consent cannot be given, but if that's the case, where the hell is the Cosby or Weinstein-esque scandal? The whole fucking case may as well have evaporated as soon as the election was finished. Pressure? Bullshit, they had no fear of such things when they initially came forward. Why suddenly stop? You'd think a President-Elect Trump would have kicked the case into overdrive simply to get mass publicity. You'd think there would be no end to the amount of support they could have garnered off of appeals to Democrat voters alone. But yet, nothing came of it, not even a lawsuit for money. Hell, they actually got photos of the one guy on the Democrats that was more damning than anything Trump said in that tape.

 

Plus, to his credit and despite that stuff, no scandal of that variety has yet come out of the White House. That already puts him above many Presidents on that front who actually did have sexual scandals in the White House.

 

Is that so? I would say that Trump has merely shifted things in terms of foreign policy focus with his style. His style seems to be more amicable with Asian leaders than European ones in terms of diplomacy. He's made far more progress in China and North Korea than Obama or Bush or Clinton ever did. So what if he's pissed off Merkel and the EU a couple times? They get pissed at anything that doesn't support their dreams of total European unification. They're not his concern, they're still allies and they're not going to break it over tax laws they have no fucking power over no matter how much they wish they could dictate foreign tax laws. And Canada? Last I checked, we're still friends. And the UN? I don't see much coming out of them besides hot air (which sadly is as per usual most of the time). I'd say it all depends on where you're looking.

 

I've already gone over why Trump is having problems getting stuff done. His gap in the Senate is not wide enough when you factor in that more than a few Republicans do not obey every word he says (which is both good and bad). Some, like Rand Paul, do it on principle for certain issues which I can applaud (If you need any more evidence that the Republicans are not 100% united, look there). Most, like McCain, do it because they just fucking hate him and they would rather use their power to be punitive and stall Congress to show their distaste even if its on stuff they would otherwise support or have claimed to support previously. Its the reality of the situation when you have a President who is not a career politician, who basically undercut A TON of career politicians in the last election by making fools out of all of them (The RNC TRIED to rig their primaries like the Dems, but Trump had too much popular support for it to work), and who doesn't truly align entirely with the party he chose. The fact that that gap narrowed even more slightly doesn't help.

 

I can tell you, if a blue wave does happen, it'll only hurt the Dems come 2020. Because then they'll give him the excuse that Obama had on top of the fact that his own party has petulant children instead of leaders in some of its seats.

 

I also wouldn't congratulate the current Congress too much, its their fucking fault we have basically a new Cold War situation with Russia right now, despite Trump's initial wishes.

 

There actually was a case where a guy claimed Obama paid him to get a blowjob or something, but I have no idea on the details of that and don't care to go into it. Besides he had his own scandals with bombing civilians with his various airstrikes that can be confirmed, but most don't recall. Either, off-topic.

 

I could say the same for Obama. Its funny how the mirror switches yet many things stay the same. People ignored all kinds of things Obama fucked up on (myself included) at the times they happened, but that's the reality of political partisanship.

 

I never claimed he was, I said what he initially tried to claim back when the election happened. Obviously, like many election promises across time, words are wind in the face of actions, but the fact remains he did what no Republicans had even attempted to do before. Even you have to admit that there was no way in hell ANY career Republican candidate would have dared try to make such a claim in an election race for fear of alienating their base, I certainly saw none of them even try to use it as an argument. Yet Trump was able to say it and still win on a Republican ballot. And, he has dropped the Gay Marriage issue from federal Republican political debate. He doesn't care to contest it, because he ultimately doesn't see it as a problem.

 

I regard Pence as Trump's assassination insurance (Seriously, who would want to assassinate Trump just to get HIM in charge?), and a throwaway bone to the Evangelicals when his platform didn't really offer anything to them. That's my opinion. Vice Presidents have even less effective power than Governors, its why Teddy Roosevelt was made one, his opponents just didn't plan on McKinley getting shot.

 

Funny, you seem to forget that for all Right-winger activists by your own admissions when you essentially call them all murderers waiting for the call to start their own Death Squads against all "deviants". Those in glass houses aught to not throw stones.

 

And no, its not biased. If the group that committed mass vandalism were right-wingers, I'd want to see them all arrested too. I never made a distinction based on their political alignment.

 

Also I wouldn't bring up Canadian courts, its actually far more easier to nail someone on a crime (most likely misdemeanour, actually) related to such an incident up here even if it is not directly vandalism. "Causing Mischief" or "Inciting Mischief" I believe would likely be one of several charges many of them would up on here even if they could not be proven to have broken anything personally and were arrested, which can be proven simply by the fact that they were there, in an unauthorized "protest" that led to an entire street of storefronts being smashed. (Which often is very easy to prove since its not often the case that many of these people make any secrets of where they are at the time of the events if they are participating, or due to the prevalence of so many cameras both public and private being available to consult.

 

Not that many of them have any fear of such charges either, but that's another story.

 

Yea, and they really succeeded in that when they looked like complete fucking fools to the public by letting rioters run wild for a whole day, then go whole-hog the next day to such an unreasonable degree that even today they're still in lawsuits over how badly mishandled the situation (I think) . . . yea real success in that goal. No, I'm gonna say that incident was a total fuck-up, their intent may have been that, but they executed it so poorly that it backfired in their faces immediately.

 

People get charged or sued with bullshit all the time, especially in the US but also in Canada and elsewhere. The way we know if things are working as intended or if they require fixing is on the results of said charges, and the context of the case.

 

I've read many accounts of Canadian companies immediately facing frivolous lawsuits the moment they try to re-locate or move into American markets as nothing but a competition tactic, what do you do? You sue back. If the justice system was not working as intended, these frivolous lawsuits would work, yet most cases they don't so long as the company holds their ground, because the rivals cannot prove their cases.

 

I even saw a case up here in Canada where a cement company ACTUALLY tried to argue that burning tires would IMPROVE the air quality of a town because they wanted an excuse to get rid of their tires by burning them. Naturally, they failed to prove their case in court because our court systems operate (hopefully) on a logical basis. But the case was taken to court all the same because they wanted to be ridiculous about it.

 

The existence of ridiculous court cases does not shock me. This has always been the case ever since Courts and Magistrates existed to mitigate laws, what matters is the results and if they're in line with the principles of the Nation's established laws, and are fair and open courts that give the defendants the right to innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a defense.

 

Neither of those principles were violated in the case you brought up from what I can tell. They didn't get dragged into a Kangeroo court where they have no opportunity to fight back. They have their days in court, they have the opportunity to contest the Prosecution's claims, and even if they're dealing with a Judge who is biased (of which I know many in lower courts exist for a variety of issues that have fucked over many of different political alignments), you can appeal the case. And while I will admit I haven't looked into it, I'm going to wager that most haven't actually been charged with any such crimes, have they?

 

My problem is when you have all of those things, but you have a system that is going against its principles and is unjustly charging citizens for crimes they cannot prove were committed or otherwise create situations that are not in line with the statements of their laws or constitution. That's a problem for anyone regardless of who you are.

 

The fact that you cannot convince someone with a reasonable argument in a situation where they appear to have automatically made up their minds before they've even voted or rendered a verdict is a problem IMO.

 

Like in the Senate committee meeting video I linked, Peterson responds to basically every single question regardless of what it is in a manner that goes as far as he can in the situation to reasonably explain his positions, or to tacitly refute whatever accusation or criticism is thrown at him to the point where I don't see how an objective committee could actually not have been swung to his point of view on the subject that the law is a bad idea, but it was obvious that many on the committee were heavily biased towards a particular side from the get-go and nothing he, or any of the other various critics said would change their minds. And they didn't, they still passed the law by a size-able margin if I recall. Didn't matter that he made compelling arguments, they went ahead anyway. I understand that isn't a court scenario, but its a similar type of situation.

 

Or how the fact that Count Dankula's court case was drawn out as long as it was, and STILL, the Judge found him guilty of grossly offensive content I find to be ridiculous. Putting aside the reality that many in the UK in both professional and private capacities have made content in line with what Dankula has done in the past and present, that is still public accessible thereby making one wonder how the hell this law is supposedly enforced. The Prosecution's arguments and performance were moronic, and Dankula was thoroughly under the impression that they had decided the verdict long before they actually gave it, it was entirely a show trial.

 

It is bad that he was even brought up on such a case, but it wouldn't have been as bad had he been found innocent. Because it would mean that the laws would still be being applied consistently and in line with their previous actions or inaction on various incidents related to the subject in the past wherein reasonable arguments could be made to prove one's innocence of the crime involved. No, they had made their decision a while back and were utilizing the situation for their own purposes.

 

Those types of cases are the big signs of problems with a justice system IMO, not merely that ridiculous cases show up within a justice system. Because so long as you trust the justice system to make rational verdicts within its laws, you have no fear of any number of outrageous cases that get brought up. One would hope not too many reach courts to begin with since they just waste time and taxpayer money, but such is reality and people of all types love to be frivolous, and I can say that having worked in Customer Service alone.

 

Like when Jian Ghomeshi was found innocent on the first round of charges, I read through the entire closing statements of the Judge explaining why he gave that verdict. To me, they made perfect sense, the Judge went to great extent to explain why reasonable doubt had not been erased, why the plaintiffs could not be trusted in their interpretations based on what the defense had presented, and ultimately that none of them could prove that Ghomeshi had sexually assaulted them in any consistent testimony. Now, he ultimately signed an agreed statement of facts for the second round, but he was still not found guilty on the first. I didn't see any reasonable argument to be made that the Judge had made an unfair verdict based on what had been presented to him, especially since he went to such great extent to outline his reasoning he knew people would be outraged.

 

In short, unjust verdicts are my issue, not unfair charges. Not that I don't think that unfair charges are wrong, but that they're almost a necessary part of our justice system to simply prove that it is working as intended. You're never going to stop them from happening, but what matters is how they play out.

 

And if the laws are inherently wrong, then we vote to change the laws and therefore how the courts respond to such issues.

 

Nobody commented on the situation until it played out which was not unusual. I didn't see many talk about the Berkeley situation months prior, aside from lambasting Milo and how he's apparently a provocateur who shouldn't be listened to.

 

Trump did get up and disavowed the Right wing extremists. He disavowed both sides because based on the video footage that we have, one can fairly safely make the argument that both fucking had a hand in making the situation get out of hand. Because that is the reality of protest situations. They're mobs, they're usually not under total control, some people WILL get out of hand on both sides if they're two sides that hate each other and you put them right up against each other.

 

Counter-Protestors or Protestors of any variety, don't NEED to get in the fucking faces of people who they claim have no qualms about hurting or injuring them to show their distaste, and then crying foul if something happens. You don't fucking beat on the car of an opponent, and then get shocked when he fucking punches the gas and runs a dozen people over. Where is the sudden fascination that you NEED to be literally a foot away from the side you so vehemently hate, just to make a point? You're afraid the public won't fucking see you? IN THIS FUCKING PRESIDENCY!?

 

Just like they don't need to trash a fucking campus or cause pandemonium when a "Right-wing" speaker shows up.

 

Let me use an example here, okay. Purely hypothetical, but I'm gonna illustrate my problem here and why I think the whole situation like it is dumb.

 

Let's say, you have a Klan or some kind of White Supremacist rally where they literally are chanting to lynch all Blacks. Let's say they do this right in front of an All-Black residence or some such place, or predominantly so. Lets also say for the sake of argument that they didn't bring any weapons besides makeshift ones like signs or rope etc. They don't just go to city hall for such a protest or even stand across the street and do their protest, they literally go right up against the building and right in the faces of all the people there coming and going. What reaction do you expect would come from at least SOME of the people within the building? They're going to see the situation as a threat, they're going to have physical altercations with the protestors because they hate each other and want the one out of their space. Fighting breaks out, both eventually disperse, but both get their stories. The one will claim that this proves how inherently violent the one side is, while the other will claim they were acting in self defense because they were afraid of these people coming up into their space.

 

Does that sound unreasonable of a hypothetical scenario? Because that's a situation wherein the Protestors were deliberating intending to cause a violent scenario for their own purposes or simply because they wanted to pick a fight under the guise of freedom speech and the right to protest.

 

That's just in a case of a protest group and non-protest group involved. What about in a situation of two protesting groups? Wherein one is already there, the other comes up right to them? Obviously they'd be looking for about as much trouble as the protest group in the other example. Otherwise, why come up right to them? They want the conflict, they want to throw punches and antagonize and show their disdain up close and personal to those they hate. The right to protest doesn't protect your right to injure an opponent or to lead yourself into a situation where the odds of that happening to you or them increases. One would hope that the police are smart enough to keep at least some separation between the two, but as we've seen, they have not.

 

In short, you put two mobs right up against each other, its only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed on either side. Why? Because they will antagonize each other. One side can come armed for bear and one can criticize them as looking for a fight. But if the opponents literally come to their faces and try and antagonize them into a fight, are they not also to blame? Oh yeah you look really self-righteous by proving the violence inherent in your opponent! Both sides have done this, but from what I've seen, its usually the Left that gets into the Right's faces lately and create the situation for their to occur, with people on both of their sides losing their cool. Hence, both can bear the blame for a situation that gets out of hand.

 

Don't try and claim that Leftists have never antagonized anyone to violence in a protest-situation like that, I already know that the reverse is false, I have seen countless videos of the incidents, it is reality. Your "Counter-Protestors" are not babes in the woods. Many of them go looking for or anticipate a fight just as much as their opponents, and they certainly don't help the situations by creating the most ideal scenario for which both sides can antagonize each other's members into bringing out the violence.

 

Just as I'm sure they asked for a lot of the people who were run over to identify the murderer of Heyer? Give me a fucking break, you're picking and choosing what are standard police procedures at this point. You got a problem with police asking people of each side to identify others in that fucking situation? Or are you just pissed that they didn't charge every single last one of them with murder? Tell me what you really think.

 

Fanatics having no sympathy over a dead opponent is nothing surprising. I've seen countless Leftists do the same for their own or other people on other issues involving other groups do the same shit.

 

Maybe because in our minds its not inherently a bad thing to simply let a person talk and listen to whatever case they pose before responding in a measured response, which many of the groups you support seem to have a problem with since they put so much power in words and the fact that some shouldn't ever be spoken out of fear that the masses are too ignorant to make a decent decision (which is still what you guys admit by the desire to silence people you hate, you're assuming that people are too stupid to make a decision in such an open scenario, or that your own speakers cannot present a compelling argument). If you hate Peterson so much, explain how his arguments or statement are somehow wrong even in just the video I linked. Many have tried, pretty much all have failed without resorting to ad hominem attacks. But its funny, considering how many Communists of different varities are lionized by modern Leftist activist groups, and some Communist ideas are within modern Leftist causes, yet you strangely don't consider Cultural Marxism to be an actual thing or the accusations that you're all simply communists under a new name has no merit. But no, talking with Right-wingers of different varieties suddenly make them all Fascist sympathizers while the latter somehow doesn't make you all Communist sympathizers. See the problem here?

 

But here we go again, you misconstrue the tolerance to have a free and open discussion with people you disagree with for sympathizing and agreeing with their views, and resorting to ad hominems because you cannot address his arguments. You attack his character by the people he has engaged with, yet you're shocked when others do it to you guys (And not every "bad" publicity figure Leftist figures have associated with is a Tankie. Did you see the Bully Hunters fiasco recently?)?

 

I actually didn't bring up search algorithms, at least not that I can specifically recall. But if you would believe it, I actually have to dig for a fair number of these when it comes to google searches since I don't trust the traditional Leftist sources to give any kind of legitimate criticism on some of these things that first get linked to me, or they link me without much desire for them in my Youtube searches. Its funny because I only really actively watch Styx, Razor and Dankula atm, none of whom are strictly "Far-Right" but then I guess Youtube has already automatically classified them all as "Far-Right" and that I must have "Far-Right" tastes, fuck em. Algorithms are corporate tools, so sue me if they think they somehow have me down.

 

But I've mentioned it before off-handedly, I get tons of Left-leaning information thrown at me daily from other sources, I don't need to hear it retold again at me through Youtube by a similar voice, I prefer a bit of variety.

[dashofweak]

Alright, a couple of things to unpack here before i make my overall point, i'm going to keep it brief and touch on only a few things, not because you're right, but because I want to get into some other stuff rather than getting bogged down in specifics (again)

 

I wonder where you're getting these "massively unpopular" tax bill ideas from when his approval has steadily risen to the 40s now

 

Ok, first, he rose from 32% to 40%, that's not great.

 

Second, the bills themselves aren't influenced Trump's popularity. You may have not seen it, but down here, people were constantly calling their senators, hosting town hall meetings, and basically yelling/begging their GOP representatives to NOT vote for the "American Health Care Act" and their tax bill. I am not exaggerating when I say the vast majority of America did not like either of these bills. It was obvious that people DIDN'T WANT IT. GOP passed them anyways. Wonder why? It's because these bills massively benefited the rich. Pretty much everyone else gets the short end of the stick AND we're now seeing a huge rise in the deficit that I guarantee you next congress is gonna say "we need to cut MORE programs to fix" rather than taxing the people who already have a disgusting amount of wealth more. So basically the GOP ignored the wants and needs of the people they are supposed to represent in order to further enrich the people who already are exceptionally rich.

 

Funny, you seem to forget that for all Right-winger activists by your own admissions when you essentially call them all murderers waiting for the call to start their own Death Squads against all "deviants"

 

I did not say that there would be "death squads" forming. You made that up. That concept alone is ridiculous, here's what's far more likely to happen: violence caused by normal people against demonized minorities that's ignored by law enforcement and isn't condemned. Then, because LGBT people, immigrants or "the other" as i said before, have no specific protections, the law can be selectively enforced. Hate crimes have a blind eye turned towards them, and the scariest part is murder and beatings would be perpetrated not by nazi skinheads, but ordinary people.

 

Also I wouldn't bring up Canadian courts, its actually far more easier to nail someone on a crime (most likely misdemeanour, actually) related to such an incident up here even if it is not directly vandalism.

 

You seem to not either understand or are misrepresenting my argument again. The point i was trying to make was in court, you have to prove someone COMMITTED a crime, you don't have to prove they are innocent of a crime. If it was there other way around, you could accuse literally anyone of say...tax fraud, and if they weren't on top of their taxes and couldn't prove that every single dollar they earned was taxed...well too bad buddy, you're going to jail.

 

The point is that with the J20 trials, the prosecution isn't even TRYING to prove they did a crime, but rather make the argument that just being NEAR a crime is reason enough to arrest and jail you. That is dangerous, because it basically gives law enforcement any excuse to arrest anyone they don't like. Or hell, have a plainclothes police officer infiltrate a protest or group, break window, then that give riot cops reason to just arrest everyone there.

 

The J20 trails shows that the government is willing to silence those they find inconvenient, which goes directly against my right, as an american, to free speech. And this isn't "a company fired me because they don't like what i was saying" psuedo-free speech violation. This is, "The government doesn't like what i'm saying and is using their official power to stop me from expressing my opinions" violation of free speech. If you can't see that...well I don't think we'd ever be able to see each other's world views.

 

Does that sound unreasonable of a hypothetical scenario? Because that's a situation wherein the Protestors were deliberating intending to cause a violent scenario for their own purposes or simply because they wanted to pick a fight under the guise of freedom speech and the right to protest.

 

No....your hypothetical scenario doesn't at all fit what the protesters were trying to do. Like...at all. A university isn't where white supremacists and neo-nazis LIVE. The counter-protesters aren't saying "Nuremberg trail these assholes" or something. You example shows people with in intent of violence intruding onto residencies and trying to provoke a fight. Counter-protesters show up at specific events in an attempt to either deplatform the speaker OR show symbolically "your ideas aren't acceptable". And you're equating race (which can't be change, isn't chosen, and is immediately visible) to political ideology (which can be changed, is willfully chosen, and isn't immediately visible). It's a false equivalence. I'm honestly tempted to call this a bad-faith argument because it seems like you're making excuses for why someone should hate counter-protesters rather than trying to explain why counter-protesting in of itself is problematic.

PLUS, I've have heard stories and seen footage of some counter-protesters PROTECTING neo-nazis from abuse because they don't want to start incidents. You seem to see counter-protesters as people who only want to start fights for no reason or out of spite for the other side. When the reality is much more like...people showing up to drown out the voices of white nationalists and to show that people do not like their ideas.

 

Anyways, onto the idea I actually wanted to talk about. See, here's what I don't get, it seems to me that most people by now realize that it's very rich people who run the show. The mega-rich. Your Mercers and Koch's. What i don't understand is then why some of the same people who realize that there are powerful people controlling everything THEN go onto say it's "multiculturalism" or "cultural marxism" or "the jews" (dogwhistled as globalists of course). What struck me was whenever is ranting about how "the jews" want to control and weaken us and how there's a global conspiracy to weaken and degrade us. How right they would be if they replaced "jews" with "mega-rich". Because, there is just an overwhelming amount of evidence that those who are mega-rich, are not willing to give up ANY amount of wealth. They always want MORE and are absolutely willing to do anything to distract people from blaming them. I'm 95% sure this is why Robert Mercer funds Brietbart for example. Because Brietbart builds barely believable bullshit berating and bullying blacks. and of course "jews" "muslims" and anything else they think they can get away with that ISN'T rich people.

Why does the alt-right seem to think there's this massive intricate global conspiracy that there's no evidence of, when the real answer is right in front of them: Wealthy and powerful people using their wealth and power to get more wealth and power at the expense of literally anyone else.

There's this massive desire to change the way things are, because clearly people's lives aren't getting better OR are getting worse. But it seems like a large portion of people just picked up the wrong answer.

[Kraken]

Despite insistence from certain individuals that the mainstream media is alt-left/left or what have you, I have to wonder if it's an issue when they report on people BEING FUCKING NAZIS? So, as most people consider 4/20 as National Weed Day in the U.S., it is of course also the birthday of Adolf Hitler and the anniversary of the Columbine shooting which, surprise surprise, was done on that day because the two shooters were, surprise surprise, also Neo-Nazis, or at the very least revered parts of Nazism and wanted to celebrate Adolf's birthday. This also adds on that I haven't seen any mass shootings committed by an "alt-left"/Antifa member... Anyways, have some things concerning the Neo-Nazis gathering in Newnan, Georgia.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgia-neo-nazi-rally-police-militarized-arrests_us_5adbf0f6e4b075b631e65f49?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313

http://time.com/5249811/neo-nazis-burn-swastika-georgia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/neo-nazi-rally-georgia.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/neo-nazi-counterprotesters-met-by-aggressive-military-police-force-in-newnan-georgia.html

 

Or perhaps now we want to talk about the Waffle House shooting? Another AR-15 style weapon being used by a mentally ill person against an establishment occupied with primarily people of color. But nooo, 'We can't call it terrorism or a hate crime because of my funding by the NRA' despite it obviously being a hate crime or incident of terrorism.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-met-waffle-house-shooting-huppke-20180423-story.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-waffle-house-shooting-20180423-story.html

http://time.com/5249531/nashville-waffle-house-mass-shooting-latest/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/waffle-house-shooting-w519440

 

Sure, he had a handgun as well, but tell me: Do you think that he would have done as much damage with a handgun compared to an assault rifle? Certainly handguns are still dangerous, but do you think he would have been able to do as much damage?

[Kraken]

Sooo anyway, there has been *yet another* school shooting today, this time it's in Santa Fe, Texas. Not to come off as a sarcastic asshole or anything, but it's an open-carry state where people walk around with semiautomatic rifles on their back because their gun laws only specifically mention handguns, and not a rifle, and yet here we are with what most conservative gun-owners would state as "preventable" had it happened anywhere else. I also see that the NRA's twitter, which is usually on top of the latest news concerning guns, is quiet about the latest shooting. And needless to say, the latest shooter, whom I will not name due to the lack of need to state for post-custody fame, was following Ivanka, Donald, and Melania Trump on Instagram, as well as the White House, but that last one is a little less indicative. But, he did follow eight other accounts that just so happened to be fan pages for firearms.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/shooting-suspect-dimitrios-pagourtzis-posted-born-kill-t-shirt-n875571

 

 

But let's look at the numbers again, yeah? We're fine with more children dying than soldiers involved in war since 9/11, i.e. something they signed up for, knowing the risks?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-violence-children-killed-sandy-hook-military-soldiers-war-terror-911-848602

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/18/2018-has-been-deadlier-for-schoolchildren-than-service-members/?utm_term=.40c0b9e81eae

 

 

Oh and, by the way, do we want to talk about how horrible Texas gun legislation is?

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/05/mike-hashimoto/texas-law-effectively-permits-long-rifles-be-toted/

 

I kinda am getting sick of having to mention every single goddamn mass shooting we've had this year, but noooo we can't ever get rid of guns.

 

 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/05/18/mass-shooting-texas-high-school/

 

Oh and, here's a direct quote from that article right there from Snopes:

 

"Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick suggested that cutting down on the number of entrances and exits at schools could be a solution.

 

"We may have to look at the design of our schools moving forward, and retrofitting schools that are already built. What I mean by that is there are too many entrances and too many exits to our over 8,000 campuses in Texas," he said:

 

"There aren’t enough people to put a guard at every entrance and exit. You would be talking twenty-five, thirty, 40,000 people. But if we can protect a large office building or a courthouse, any major facility we need to look at limiting the entrance and the exits into our schools so that we can have law enforcement looking at the people who come in one or two entrances.'""

 

I can't see this backfiring, can you? 'Let's just make it so there's only one entrance for a building (fire escapes be damned I suppose?) so that we can stop a school shooter before he starts! Don't worry about your second amendment rights, you'll still be able to own a semiautomatic rifle and be able to carry it in public!'

 

Honestly I'm trying to keep this as little 'I-told-you-so' as possible, but this is just kinda getting ridiculously pointless.

[BTGBullseye]

How about putting actual firearms education into schools, and not make it a federal crime just to have a gun on the property? Might want to check on how many school shootings there were back when they had programs to teach kids marksmanship... Also, that rant belongs here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1520

[Kraken]

How about putting actual firearms education into schools, and not make it a federal crime just to have a gun on the property? Might want to check on how many school shootings there were back when they had programs to teach kids marksmanship... Also, that rant belongs here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1520

 

Not really, this applies to General American Politics too. I doubt that firearms education would help anything, unless it's for safety or something similar. But even then, I don't think you understand what I mean when I talk of open-carry in Texas. People carry rifles around in public down there because the law only applies to handguns, a loophole or an oversight if you will. But anyways, nice little video came out by AlternateHistoryHub, so let's all watch that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390

[BTGBullseye]

I don't get why you're talking about open carry restrictions at all though... It's not like a concealed weapon is any less dangerous.

[Kraken]

I don't get why you're talking about open carry restrictions at all though... It's not like a concealed weapon is any less dangerous.

 

I'm pointing out the open-carry as a loophole in the law. Handguns are regulated (i.e. you need a permit to open-carry), yet you are able to open-carry a rifle no problem.

[BTGBullseye]

How is it a loophole? Maybe they did it intentionally...

[dashofweak]

It seems to me, those who advocate guns will blame literally anything but the gun for the violence, over the past couple of months, I've heard, school layout, non-transparent backpacks, bullying, and unarmed teachers for school shootings, i haven't heard from the red side about how accessible guns are MAY have contributed to these shootings

 

because it seems to me, once they aknowledge that guns MIGHT have something to do with all these shootings, they'll loose ground. This seems t be the overall Repub, strategy: never play defense, but with shootings it's really noticeable.

 

never are the tools blamed, literally everything else that can be blamed from victims to architecture is blamed, while the GOP doesn't pay attention ( or doesn't care) that easy access to guns MIGHT play a role in the increased amount of shootings.

[BTGBullseye]

So, do you also blame hammers for squished thumbs? Razor blades for people cutting themselves? Cars for hit & runs? Planes for airstrikes? The Earth for pollution problems?

[Blightmare]

False equivalents. The world does not operate off 1's and 0's. Just because the accessibility of one tool may not have anything to do with the negatives of misuse does not mean every tool follows that pattern. For example, if anyone could just buy and hop into a tank I assure you there'd be definite problems we certainly don't have right now because, what do you know, not everyone can just jump into a tank.

 

And it seems I have to play the role of the parrot again because every time I say this I get conveniently ignored: It's gun CONTROL. Not ban. The point of it is to make sure those who own a gun are responsible enough to do so, and educated in the proper handling, maintaining, and storing of said firearm. If people are gonna be handling something so inherently lethal, there should be some kind of mental screening or similar process to make sure they're of sound enough mind to responsibly own one. Cars aren't even a weapon and you have to go through a hell of a lot more to prove you're responsible enough to operate one and no one complains about that. But the second you put even the slightest of inconveniences between people and obtaining a gun, well you may as well have spit in gods face.

 

Honestly if you actually ARE responsible enough to own a gun you really shouldn't be worried about having to prove it. And this is all coming from someone who has a fascination (and healthy respect and fear of) guns and has even considered getting one for herself someday.

[BTGBullseye]

The problem is that those inevitably become a form of registry, which has never NOT been abused in some way. The only way to enforce that kind of training is to make it a mandatory class in school for every grade. (they used to have it, but it got removed for no apparent reason)

[pliskin]

Sooo anyway, there has been *yet another* school shooting today, this time it's in Santa Fe, Texas. Not to come off as a sarcastic asshole or anything, but it's an open-carry state where people walk around with semiautomatic rifles on their back because their gun laws only specifically mention handguns, and not a rifle, and yet here we are with what most conservative gun-owners would state as "preventable" had it happened anywhere else. I also see that the NRA's twitter, which is usually on top of the latest news concerning guns, is quiet about the latest shooting. And needless to say, the latest shooter, whom I will not name due to the lack of need to state for post-custody fame, was following Ivanka, Donald, and Melania Trump on Instagram, as well as the White House, but that last one is a little less indicative. But, he did follow eight other accounts that just so happened to be fan pages for firearms.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/shooting-suspect-dimitrios-pagourtzis-posted-born-kill-t-shirt-n875571

 

 

But let's look at the numbers again, yeah? We're fine with more children dying than soldiers involved in war since 9/11, i.e. something they signed up for, knowing the risks?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-violence-children-killed-sandy-hook-military-soldiers-war-terror-911-848602

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/18/2018-has-been-deadlier-for-schoolchildren-than-service-members/?utm_term=.40c0b9e81eae

 

 

Oh and, by the way, do we want to talk about how horrible Texas gun legislation is?

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/05/mike-hashimoto/texas-law-effectively-permits-long-rifles-be-toted/

 

I kinda am getting sick of having to mention every single goddamn mass shooting we've had this year, but noooo we can't ever get rid of guns.

 

 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/05/18/mass-shooting-texas-high-school/

 

Oh and, here's a direct quote from that article right there from Snopes:

 

"Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick suggested that cutting down on the number of entrances and exits at schools could be a solution.

 

"We may have to look at the design of our schools moving forward, and retrofitting schools that are already built. What I mean by that is there are too many entrances and too many exits to our over 8,000 campuses in Texas," he said:

 

"There aren’t enough people to put a guard at every entrance and exit. You would be talking twenty-five, thirty, 40,000 people. But if we can protect a large office building or a courthouse, any major facility we need to look at limiting the entrance and the exits into our schools so that we can have law enforcement looking at the people who come in one or two entrances.'""

 

I can't see this backfiring, can you? 'Let's just make it so there's only one entrance for a building (fire escapes be damned I suppose?) so that we can stop a school shooter before he starts! Don't worry about your second amendment rights, you'll still be able to own a semiautomatic rifle and be able to carry it in public!'

 

Honestly I'm trying to keep this as little 'I-told-you-so' as possible, but this is just kinda getting ridiculously pointless.

 

And i destroy all of your arguments with this video below :

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtI8K6TvSQk

[Kraken]

And i destroy all of your arguments with this video below :

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtI8K6TvSQk

 

Hey, I think you missed me saying this:

 

But anyways, nice little video came out by AlternateHistoryHub, so let's all watch that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390

 

Anyways, let me just carefully deconstruct this: You're trusting a source who is wearing a T-shirt literally displaying a musket and an M4, and it states "Rights don't change just because technology advances." While this may be nit-picky, it's honestly as good a starting point as I'll get because, no matter how far you get into the video, that's the first thing you see. Taking that statement literally means that there would never be any legislature applying to social media and video games, but we know that as a fact that those rights have changed, i.e. the "PATRIOT Act".

 

But then, not even two minutes later comes an issue I have with what he's saying, which is inherently ironic. "The most staunch anti-gunners out there like Tom Cruz and all the others making millions of dollars showing the misuse of firearms, glorifying violence, yet they have the audacity to tell us that we're not to be trusted with firearms." Sorry, wasn't he rated as an A+ by the NRA? Isn't he the one saying "thoughts and prayers" about the gun violence victims? Isn't he promising he'll do something about guns, then he immediately does nothing about it? How in the hell does he view Ted Cruz as an anti-gunner?

 

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/how-the-nra-grades-the-34-members-of-texass-congressional-delegation/

 

"The focus has been lately on the AR-15. 'Let's get rid of the AR-15 because it's just an evil implement of war', Well it's not an implement of war because it's not an M16, it's an AR-15 and it was developed as a civilian rifle before it was even considered as a military rifle." Let me just quote this: "Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 in 1964." So... it's an M16? Additionally even though the patents have expired and there are many AR-15-similar weapons, these all follow the basic design of the Colt AR-15 which is derived from the M16. So while he's saying that it's not exactly an M16 he is still referring to a lineage of it.

 

Sorry, I'm only 4 minutes in and I've already got this many issues? I'm not arguing with his point about the mainstream media detailing everything about shooters, because yeah, that's a pretty goddamn big issue. But I'm getting confused by his knowledge (or lack thereof) of his rifles and politicians, despite being "Military Arms Channel"?

 

While I could find that NRA statement issued about the BAFTE review, I haven't seen anything else relating the NRA to the review that he is suggesting. I highly doubt that I should trust a person who is showing all of these things that may actually be independent of each other and suggesting that there is a bigger picture going on without providing the resources to validate it for yourself. He even states "I'm not going to do your homework for you." which makes me doubt that much of what he is saying is even true if he is making it difficult to find the sources he references.

 

While yes, some parts of anti-gunners would bus people to protests for gun controls, large parts of these events are because it's public opinion. I'm not gonna say it's a conspiracy by Bloomberg like he says it is. I'm getting a headache from this video after 15 minutes cause I've never been this confused about a man's gun control stance.

[pliskin]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/23/mass-shooting-in-toronto-9-shot-shooter-dead.html

 

gun control work.

 

and ironically less than a week after the jihadist knife attack, nothing to see here, ban guns, ban knives, baabaaabaaabaaa...

 

 

i also love how his family is blaming mental health problems, yeah that's it.

[rairii]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/23/mass-shooting-in-toronto-9-shot-shooter-dead.html

 

gun control work.

 

and ironically less than a week after the jihadist knife attack, nothing to see here, ban guns, ban knives, baabaaabaaabaaa...

 

 

i also love how his family is blaming mental health problems, yeah that's it.

 

You do realize that Canada has had 7 mass shootings in the past decade, right? The U.S. has had 1500+ in half that time.

[Colt_An2]

Well, guns are a problem in the USA, but I think that the mass shootings are not due only to that, but to a huge crap sandwich in the USA : lots of dismantled families (most school shooters come from single parent families), easy and encouraged access to psychoactive medicine, huge workloads without paid leaves, rampant alcohol and drug consumption, extreme violence shown everywhere (showing shootings, gang warfare etc on TVs is normal, but God forbid you show a nipple), school bullying, the extreme individualism, leading to emotional violence and isolation, of the society... do I keep going? Guns are part of the problem, and a significant one on top of that, but guns alone wouldn't create such issues ; I mean, when were the last school shootings in Switzerland, Austria or France?

 

Anyways, I never believed in the whole "Trump's a Russian puppet" story, but it's still interesting to read things like https://tranio.com/articles/will-the-united-states-become-the-worlds-largest-offshore-financial-centre_5404/, according to which it's easy for Russians to invest in real estate in the US due to new bank data laws.