[P]Federal Court may have just handed 2020 over to Trump already with Electoral College decision.

[Saelune]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

If you vote for someone, you vote for everything they stand for.

 

[Saelune]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

What are the other reasons? Why are you ok with all his lying, broken promises and human right abuses? You dont have the 'wait and see' excuse this time. (Not that I think it was valid the first time).

 

[Worgen]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

If you vote for someone, you vote for everything they stand for.

I can't quite agree with that. I do agree that you certainly bare some responsibility for what they do, but I'm not sure how much. I will agree that if you vote for someone more then once, then you do bare a significantly increased liability for anything done by who they voted for.

 

[Worgen]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

He cares more about his guns than the lives of humans!

I think its more that he cares more for his guns then even what america should stand for. That he would be willing to support someone who would make themselves a dictator if they promised not to touch his precious guns, that he would give up all his over freedoms for his guns.

 

[Marik2]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

He cares more about his guns than the lives of humans!

I think its more that he cares more for his guns then even what america should stand for. That he would be willing to support someone who would make themselves a dictator if they promised not to touch his precious guns, that he would give up all his over freedoms for his guns.

I kinda give him a free pass since hes on the you know what spectrum.

 

[tstorm823]

Looks like some democrats want to not use nuclear but most are fine with it, same for GMOs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/nuclear-power/?noredirect=on

Two of the candidates that will make the next debate are for nuclear. But Andrew Yang is barely a Democrat, and Corey Booker is from New Jersey, so they don't really count.

To quote Van Jones at the recent climate change town hall, "It?s not popular in the party." [https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20850763/climate-change-cnn-town-hall-democrat-candidates-nuclear-energy-2020-elections]

I looked for evidence of engineers being overwhelmingly conservative and couldn't really find any number regarding it, at least from a source that I would consider credible, stormfront is not a good source.

Try harder [https://www.machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers]

Radio is still a huge market, really news papers are probably the least important source, considering how many of them are in dire financial straights. Also, there are only 4 NPR shows listed on the top 20 radio shows and only two of them come close to rush and hannity, All Things Considered with 14.7 million and Morning Edition with 13.9 million.

https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

Radio is just edging out print to not be last, but since online news is above that, and print newspapers and online news are largely tied together in a way that conservative talk radio isn't, I'd call that dead last.

The numbers I was pulling were from march, things might have changed a bit by now, in fact they have. Looks like fox is still beating each one solo handily but combined they manage to come out on top, guess people are getting a little less dumb.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-sept-5/413791/

First of all, stop [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-network-rankings-week-of-march-4/396825/] lying [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-week-of-march-11/397111/] to [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-fox-news-tbs-and-tnt-stood-out-during-the-week-of-march-18/397747/] me [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-week-of-april-1/399105/]. All 4 weeks of March, your statement that Fox is bigger than both combined is false.

"Guess people are getting a little less dumb"... cut the crap. You didn't know what you said was wrong, you doubled down on it, and now you're making up trends to explain why you might have been right but aren't now.

Yeah yeah, reality has a liberal bias, we all know the meme.

You apparently don't, because reality doesn't have a liberal bias, just the media.

Not sure what vice has to do with this but whatever.

It's a movie about Republican Vice President portrayed in a poor light.

We do have trump suddenly egging on the racist dipshits in this country so like it or not, his inclusion is warranted.

To quote the line they deliberately omit from the footage of Trump they put in that movie, ?I?m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.?

No, I'm saying you seem to think there are no conservative values in movies, when there are a pretty good number. I mean its regularly the plot of movies that the government is incompetent and only the hard jawed leading man can make things right. Or what about the vigilante who goes on a criminal killing spree? They never have the moral ambiguity of him killing the wrong person, its always shown as justice with a bullet. Republicans get named more because they are more likely to say just the dumbest, most offensive shit, like that republican todd akin who said "From what I understand from doctors, that?s really rare. If it?s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

You think that a vigilante on a killing spree is a politically conservative figure?

And if you think Republicans say dumb things, might I introduce you to Bidenisms [https://www.ranker.com/list/joe-bidenisms-the-funniest-and-best-joe-biden-gaffes/notable-quotables]. There are a few new ones to add to that list, like the recent "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." [https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/joe-biden-poor-kids-bright-white-kids-newday-berman-vpx.cnn]

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Some people are predicting that. I will point out that all the good money in 2016 was placed on the person who lost, and so I have a great deal of skepticism for anyone who thinks they know how 2020 will turn out.

Frankly from where I'm sitting, the Presidency in 2020 doesn't matter. State elections do, because it's a reapportionment election. That's the definitive Democratic blind spot and weak spot this election cycle, given Democrats are unlikely to adequately support state parties (again) nor are they likely to focus on down-ticket races. It won't matter who wins the Oval Office in 2020 unless Democrats can un-fuck the House.

 

[Worgen]

Looks like some democrats want to not use nuclear but most are fine with it, same for GMOs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/nuclear-power/?noredirect=on

Two of the candidates that will make the next debate are for nuclear. But Andrew Yang is barely a Democrat, and Corey Booker is from New Jersey, so they don't really count.

To quote Van Jones at the recent climate change town hall, "It?s not popular in the party." [https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20850763/climate-change-cnn-town-hall-democrat-candidates-nuclear-energy-2020-elections]

I looked for evidence of engineers being overwhelmingly conservative and couldn't really find any number regarding it, at least from a source that I would consider credible, stormfront is not a good source.

Try harder [https://www.machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers]

Radio is still a huge market, really news papers are probably the least important source, considering how many of them are in dire financial straights. Also, there are only 4 NPR shows listed on the top 20 radio shows and only two of them come close to rush and hannity, All Things Considered with 14.7 million and Morning Edition with 13.9 million.

https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

Radio is just edging out print to not be last, but since online news is above that, and print newspapers and online news are largely tied together in a way that conservative talk radio isn't, I'd call that dead last.

The numbers I was pulling were from march, things might have changed a bit by now, in fact they have. Looks like fox is still beating each one solo handily but combined they manage to come out on top, guess people are getting a little less dumb.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-sept-5/413791/

First of all, stop [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-network-rankings-week-of-march-4/396825/] lying [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-week-of-march-11/397111/] to [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-fox-news-tbs-and-tnt-stood-out-during-the-week-of-march-18/397747/] me [https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-week-of-april-1/399105/]. All 4 weeks of March, your statement that Fox is bigger than both combined is false.

"Guess people are getting a little less dumb"... cut the crap. You didn't know what you said was wrong, you doubled down on it, and now you're making up trends to explain why you might have been right but aren't now.

Yeah yeah, reality has a liberal bias, we all know the meme.

You apparently don't, because reality doesn't have a liberal bias, just the media.

Not sure what vice has to do with this but whatever.

It's a movie about Republican Vice President portrayed in a poor light.

We do have trump suddenly egging on the racist dipshits in this country so like it or not, his inclusion is warranted.

To quote the line they deliberately omit from the footage of Trump they put in that movie, ?I?m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.?

No, I'm saying you seem to think there are no conservative values in movies, when there are a pretty good number. I mean its regularly the plot of movies that the government is incompetent and only the hard jawed leading man can make things right. Or what about the vigilante who goes on a criminal killing spree? They never have the moral ambiguity of him killing the wrong person, its always shown as justice with a bullet. Republicans get named more because they are more likely to say just the dumbest, most offensive shit, like that republican todd akin who said "From what I understand from doctors, that?s really rare. If it?s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

You think that a vigilante on a killing spree is a politically conservative figure?

And if you think Republicans say dumb things, might I introduce you to Bidenisms [https://www.ranker.com/list/joe-bidenisms-the-funniest-and-best-joe-biden-gaffes/notable-quotables]. There are a few new ones to add to that list, like the recent "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." [https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/joe-biden-poor-kids-bright-white-kids-newday-berman-vpx.cnn]

So I see you are just lumping in the unclear/no response as being against, how expected of you. The only one that matters and is against it is Sanders.

Ok, so you have a poll from a single magazine from 2012 saying engineers are mostly republican and it says that a majority of them think that neither party really represents engineers. Do you have anything more?

The fun thing is that while that shows that radio is only 25% of media, it also just proves how much domination that republicans still have over media. TV is at 57% and most local tv stations are owned by sinclair media which actively pushes conservative values in its news and pushes 'must run' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo] segments.

I got the info from snopes and I am inclined to believe them.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-and-msnbc-ratings/
"As of late March 2019, Adweek?s TV Newser was still ranking Fox News as outdrawing CNN and MSNBC combined:"

I wonder what a conservative biased world would look like, probably a theocracy where the sun revolved around the world.

Maybe he should have been less of a dink then.

Wasn't that after he said there were good people on both sides? It doesn't take much to say racist dipshits are bad.

Yeah, generally it is.

If you want to do the saying dumb things thing, then I would just link almost every tweet trump has ever made. Since he says new levels of stupid shit every day. The latest that comes to mind was him trying to defend saying Alabama was going to be hit by a hurricane and drawing on a weather map with a sharpe. Also, I don't think we are even talking about the same thing since are we talking about Biden voting on things he misspeaks about? Because if he isn't then its not the same thing since that quite I showed was from someone voting against abortion rights.

 

[Saelune]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

If you vote for someone, you vote for everything they stand for.

I can't quite agree with that. I do agree that you certainly bare some responsibility for what they do, but I'm not sure how much. I will agree that if you vote for someone more then once, then you do bare a significantly increased liability for anything done by who they voted for.

Why? If a persons says 'Vote for me and I will do X', and you vote for them, clearly you are in favor of X. You certainly are ok with them doing X at least.

Plus now after everything Trump has (and has not) done, well, as I said to CM156, the 'wait and see' excuse is long dead.

 

[Worgen]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

If you vote for someone, you vote for everything they stand for.

I can't quite agree with that. I do agree that you certainly bare some responsibility for what they do, but I'm not sure how much. I will agree that if you vote for someone more then once, then you do bare a significantly increased liability for anything done by who they voted for.

Why? If a persons says 'Vote for me and I will do X', and you vote for them, clearly you are in favor of X. You certainly are ok with them doing X at least.

Plus now after everything Trump has (and has not) done, well, as I said to CM156, the 'wait and see' excuse is long dead.

You're not taking into account voting against someone. Would you not vote for the lesser of two evils just to say you are keeping your moral high ground but still lose because the greater of two evils won?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

What do you think about his action against Bump Stocks and what he might follow through on in regards to stricter controls promised in the aftermath of El Paso?

I don't think he'll follow through on any of that. I will adjust my opinion accordingly. I think we also have a more secure SCOTUS for any gun cases, which is why I hope the Supreme Court doesn't moot that New York case. Cities and states can't keep applying Rational Basis to a constitutional right and then revoking a ban when the Supremes look like they're going to lay down the law.

Guns are an american right, but cant you admit that there are much more important rights and issues that have to be resolved? For what little good he might have done in his presidency, he has way too much negative qualities that clearly shows he needs to be kicked out of office.

Tell you what: If the democratic party completely surrenders on the gun issue (on the state level, too, and they stop trying to pass nonsensical feel-good laws that do nothing) then I will have to re-assess my voting pattern. That's been my stance for about a decade now.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

The second amendment is not about "bang bang shoot toys" and I find that phrase to be rather dismissive. Look, I think the democratic party has already tipped their hand on this issue. I remember Heller and I remember McDonald where these cities (D.C. and Chicago) fought tooth and nail to keep their handgun bans in place, and how a non-insignificant number of democrats backed them. And I remember that those decisions were 5-4. I remember that New Jersey tried to mandate "smart guns" once the tech became viable, resulting in nobody developing the tech, meaning the state has revoked the law. And I remember that New York tried to ban anyone with a licensed gun from taking it out of the city for any reason [https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/city-tells-justices-new-york-gun-case-is-moot/], and only revoked that ban when it looked like SCOTUS might just shove their legal reasoning so far up NYC's ass that they'll choke on it. SCOTUS may still do so, which I hope they do, and I hope NYC learns their lesson. I hope whatever politicians championed that law become the poster boys for the failure of gun control. I don't trust a party that has shown varying degrees of hostility to my rights under the second amendment. There are many things in politics I'm open to being tactical about. But this? No. This is the hill I'm prepared to die on. How literally that phrase becomes will depend on how things play out.

What are the other reasons? Why are you ok with all his lying, broken promises and human right abuses? You dont have the 'wait and see' excuse this time. (Not that I think it was valid the first time).

Other reasons? He's appointed judges I agree with on an ideological level.

I think its more that he cares more for his guns then even what america should stand for. That he would be willing to support someone who would make themselves a dictator if they promised not to touch his precious guns, that he would give up all his over freedoms for his guns.

Kinda hard to be a dictator of a nation where civilian gun ownership is widespread. Warlord, maybe. Dictator? No.

 

[tstorm823]

So I see you are just lumping in the unclear/no response as being against, how expected of you. The only one that matters and is against it is Sanders.

I had a second source confirming what I said given direct questioning at a recent event. For example: "Neither Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) nor Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) explicitly mentions nuclear energy in their climate plans. But when pressed during the town hall, both pledged not to build new reactors. Warren said she supports weaning the US off its existing nuclear energy plants by 2035."

So, you're wrong again.

Ok, so you have a poll from a single magazine from 2012 saying engineers are mostly republican and it says that a majority of them think that neither party really represents engineers. Do you have anything more?

Do you have anything in the first place? How about a study of professors by field where engineering is the most conservative. [https://www.questia.com/read/85793001/the-divided-academy-professors-and-politics]

The fun thing is that while that shows that radio is only 25% of media, it also just proves how much domination that republicans still have over media. TV is at 57% and most local tv stations are owned by sinclair media which actively pushes conservative values in its news and pushes 'must run' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo] segments.

Oh, I get it, you get your news from John Oliver. Got it.

I got the info from snopes and I am inclined to believe them.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-and-msnbc-ratings/
"As of late March 2019, Adweek?s TV Newser was still ranking Fox News as outdrawing CNN and MSNBC combined:"

I linked you the data from the source they used to justify their lie. That screenshot is from a comparison of the primetime shows on just the day March 25th, the specific day this happened [https://www.apnews.com/ea617240fe264947a967f8d13ed9a9a5], and only shows the 25-54 demographic.

You should not be inclined to believe Snopes.

I wonder what a conservative biased world would look like, probably a theocracy where the sun revolved around the world.

It would look like reality.

Wasn't that after he said there were good people on both sides? It doesn't take much to say racist dipshits are bad.

No, it was just a few moments before in literally the same press conference [https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/].

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

It would look like reality.

If you consider A Handmaid's Tale or Jennifer Government reality. Man, that shit would definitely make me use drugs living in that.

 

[tstorm823]

If you consider A Handmaid's Tale or Jennifer Government reality. Man, that shit would definitely make me use drugs living in that.

If you think any single conservative and/or Republican thinks those are desirable futures, you are wildly misinformed about people like me or you are delusional.

 

[Worgen]

So I see you are just lumping in the unclear/no response as being against, how expected of you. The only one that matters and is against it is Sanders.

I had a second source confirming what I said given direct questioning at a recent event. For example: "Neither Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) nor Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) explicitly mentions nuclear energy in their climate plans. But when pressed during the town hall, both pledged not to build new reactors. Warren said she supports weaning the US off its existing nuclear energy plants by 2035."

So, you're wrong again.

Ok, so you have a poll from a single magazine from 2012 saying engineers are mostly republican and it says that a majority of them think that neither party really represents engineers. Do you have anything more?

Do you have anything in the first place? How about a study of professors by field where engineering is the most conservative. [https://www.questia.com/read/85793001/the-divided-academy-professors-and-politics]

The fun thing is that while that shows that radio is only 25% of media, it also just proves how much domination that republicans still have over media. TV is at 57% and most local tv stations are owned by sinclair media which actively pushes conservative values in its news and pushes 'must run' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo] segments.

Oh, I get it, you get your news from John Oliver. Got it.

I got the info from snopes and I am inclined to believe them.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-and-msnbc-ratings/
"As of late March 2019, Adweek?s TV Newser was still ranking Fox News as outdrawing CNN and MSNBC combined:"

I linked you the data from the source they used to justify their lie. That screenshot is from a comparison of the primetime shows on just the day March 25th, the specific day this happened [https://www.apnews.com/ea617240fe264947a967f8d13ed9a9a5], and only shows the 25-54 demographic.

You should not be inclined to believe Snopes.

I wonder what a conservative biased world would look like, probably a theocracy where the sun revolved around the world.

It would look like reality.

Wasn't that after he said there were good people on both sides? It doesn't take much to say racist dipshits are bad.

No, it was just a few moments before in literally the same press conference [https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/].

It does look like Warren called for ending nuclear power, but it looks like Biden, who is still most likely to get the nomination has called for investing in new nuclear technologies. Why would you not just link this? [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elizabeth-warren-says-e2-80-98no-e2-80-99-to-nuclear-power-campaign-update/ar-AAGNk0n] Because your link earlier said nothing about it.

That's subscription gated. I don't feel like this should be that hard to find if its that true. When I looked all I got was some anecdotal statements and questions asking about it.

Sounds like you admit they own the majority of local stations and promote conservative values.

Oh neat, does sound like people are a little less stupid then I thought, but I also view you as an insanely unreliable source so I'm going to assume I'm missing something over snopes being wrong and move on since I ultimately don't care because fox is still winning rather easily, just maybe not by as wide a margin as I thought.

It would look like saudi arabia, or something similar.

 

[Worgen]

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

The second amendment is not about "bang bang shoot toys" and I find that phrase to be rather dismissive. Look, I think the democratic party has already tipped their hand on this issue. I remember Heller and I remember McDonald where these cities (D.C. and Chicago) fought tooth and nail to keep their handgun bans in place, and how a non-insignificant number of democrats backed them. And I remember that those decisions were 5-4. I remember that New Jersey tried to mandate "smart guns" once the tech became viable, resulting in nobody developing the tech, meaning the state has revoked the law. And I remember that New York tried to ban anyone with a licensed gun from taking it out of the city for any reason [https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/city-tells-justices-new-york-gun-case-is-moot/], and only revoked that ban when it looked like SCOTUS might just shove their legal reasoning so far up NYC's ass that they'll choke on it. SCOTUS may still do so, which I hope they do, and I hope NYC learns their lesson. I hope whatever politicians championed that law become the poster boys for the failure of gun control. I don't trust a party that has shown varying degrees of hostility to my rights under the second amendment. There are many things in politics I'm open to being tactical about. But this? No. This is the hill I'm prepared to die on. How literally that phrase becomes will depend on how things play out.

I think its more that he cares more for his guns then even what america should stand for. That he would be willing to support someone who would make themselves a dictator if they promised not to touch his precious guns, that he would give up all his over freedoms for his guns.

Kinda hard to be a dictator of a nation where civilian gun ownership is widespread. Warlord, maybe. Dictator? No.

Oh, its extremely dismissive, but also extremely true. We love to view guns as a sacred rite but also we treat them like toys to dress up and parade around. We want our shooty shooty bang bang time but we don't really care about responsibility.

Its actually really easy to be a dictator of an armed nation, you just need to appeal to the majority that they are good and righteous and scapegoat a minority group and gradually other them till you can take their weapons, or not even bother taking their weapons because if they do band together then you can easily label them a dangerous minority and use them as an excuse to consolidate your power even further while stripping away at their rights. Any type of fighting back they do would just prove they are dangerous and deserve what is being done to them. Its very simple to divide and conquer, just takes time and a population that is open to the messaging and wants someone to blame for something. Guns might make it easier actually since it makes the majority feel a bit safer that their means of safety aren't being infringed so they won't even notice till its too late.

 

[Saelune]

I really think the real reason why you're going to vote for Donald again is cuz he's not going to do anything about guns.

That's one of the reasons I'm voting for him, yes.

The perks of being a single-issue voter.

This is really approaching something akin to evil for me, well as close as I will accept evil existing. Like, the level of you might be a bad person for this. You are putting up with all the lying, and corruption, and tariffs and anti-american crap hes pulling just so you can have your bang bang shoot toys. Ugh, dude, I don't really know what to say, unlike some others you seem pretty reasonable but... damn, disappointing.

If you vote for someone, you vote for everything they stand for.

I can't quite agree with that. I do agree that you certainly bare some responsibility for what they do, but I'm not sure how much. I will agree that if you vote for someone more then once, then you do bare a significantly increased liability for anything done by who they voted for.

Why? If a persons says 'Vote for me and I will do X', and you vote for them, clearly you are in favor of X. You certainly are ok with them doing X at least.

Plus now after everything Trump has (and has not) done, well, as I said to CM156, the 'wait and see' excuse is long dead.

You're not taking into account voting against someone. Would you not vote for the lesser of two evils just to say you are keeping your moral high ground but still lose because the greater of two evils won?

As someone who firmly believes in the 'lesser evils' philosophy in voting, that still means you're in support of whatever those lesser evils are. When I voted for Hillary, and I do not regret that, I voted in support of everything she stood for, most of which was opposed to Trump though, ofcourse.

 

[Saelune]

What are the other reasons? Why are you ok with all his lying, broken promises and human right abuses? You dont have the 'wait and see' excuse this time. (Not that I think it was valid the first time).

Other reasons? He's appointed judges I agree with on an ideological level.

I think its more that he cares more for his guns then even what america should stand for. That he would be willing to support someone who would make themselves a dictator if they promised not to touch his precious guns, that he would give up all his over freedoms for his guns.

Kinda hard to be a dictator of a nation where civilian gun ownership is widespread. Warlord, maybe. Dictator? No.

And what would those ideological levels be?

For the record, those judges are Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

And as for your response to Worgen, you advocate for violence against the government? Because I keep hearing that 'all violence is bad' and 'going against the government is bad'.

 

[tstorm823]

It does look like Warren called for ending nuclear power, but it looks like Biden, who is still most likely to get the nomination has called for investing in new nuclear technologies. Why would you not just link this? [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elizabeth-warren-says-e2-80-98no-e2-80-99-to-nuclear-power-campaign-update/ar-AAGNk0n] Because your link earlier said nothing about it.

Again, I had two links.

That's subscription gated. I don't feel like this should be that hard to find if its that true. When I looked all I got was some anecdotal statements and questions asking about it.

And a research paper... and an industry poll...

I also view you as an insanely unreliable source so I'm going to assume I'm missing something over snopes being wrong and move on.

I linked you Snopes' original source directly. Snopes links you to their source directly. You don't have to take my word for it. You have the raw information. If you can't get beyond "I must be missing something, I'm just gonna trust Snopes" than you are giving up on your own critical thinking regardless of how you feel about me.

That being said, I've been one hell of a reliable source in this conversation.

It would look like saudi arabia, or something similar.

Ah, yes. Everyone knows American conservatives hate the first amendment and love Sharia law.

 

[Worgen]

It does look like Warren called for ending nuclear power, but it looks like Biden, who is still most likely to get the nomination has called for investing in new nuclear technologies. Why would you not just link this? [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elizabeth-warren-says-e2-80-98no-e2-80-99-to-nuclear-power-campaign-update/ar-AAGNk0n] Because your link earlier said nothing about it.

Again, I had two links.

That's subscription gated. I don't feel like this should be that hard to find if its that true. When I looked all I got was some anecdotal statements and questions asking about it.

And a research paper... and an industry poll...

I also view you as an insanely unreliable source so I'm going to assume I'm missing something over snopes being wrong and move on.

I linked you Snopes' original source directly. Snopes links you to their source directly. You don't have to take my word for it. You have the raw information. If you can't get beyond "I must be missing something, I'm just gonna trust Snopes" than you are giving up on your own critical thinking regardless of how you feel about me.

That being said, I've been one hell of a reliable source in this conversation.

It would look like saudi arabia, or something similar.

Ah, yes. Everyone knows American conservatives hate the first amendment and love Sharia law.

It's still a single magazine article with only 1200 respondents and its from 2012 and give no more info about methodology. As for the paper, its still subscription blocked, but it looks like the book its talking about was published in 1975.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, this is nit picking and fox is still easily winning. Snopes might have cherry picked but they were at least right on that day. I didn't realize that msnbc had taken off like it did, I thought it was still number 3 after cnn, so go team people getting less dumb.

Because conservatives want to live under a theocracy, not sharia law, but biblical law. Its why your type tent to be against gay marriage, gay people, interracial marriage, abortion, etc etc.