ChiGoose

Oh buddy. I really hope you don’t actually believe the Nazis were leftists because they used the word “socialists.” That would require quite a bit of bad history and gullibility. Next you’re going to be telling us that North Korea really is a republic because it’s named the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

You gotta appreciate the grift that convinces people that a party that is almost entirely left of center is actually socialist and that’s why voters should support fascism. Grifters gotta grift.

Sure. Most of my family are MAGA voters and many of my friends are far more left than I am. While I’m obviously not perfect, I do try to take people at their word and avoid painting with too broad a brush. I don’t mind being held accountable to my own words.

Nah, I’m pretty honest. I don’t see the point of lying on a message board for clout. Try to avoid judging large swaths of people by the actions of a handful of people. It’ll help you not be so wrong all of the time.

I just follow the facts, buddy. If you want to believe that Talib and AOC represent the Dems, then you have to agree that Boebert and Gaetz are the GOP.

Well that’s also a lie but maybe you’re just drunk and not high?

People who think that Talib or AOC lead the Dem caucus should have to explain why the GOP House leader was giving her boyfriend a handy during Beetlejuice The Musical.

They are decidedly not. AOC is admittedly popular, but it’d be a stretch to call her a leader. What leadership positions does she hold? I think you might be drinking from a firehose of misinformation if you think that the person who came into congress opposing Pelosi only to end up bending the knee is any kind of leader.

If you want to paint a party by its most extreme members, you’re going to throw fit when you look at the GOP. Maybe take a look at what is popular with party leaders or people who vote in party primaries. Because if you are just going on the worst members of a party, the Nazi flags you’re so worried about won’t be flying at Democratic Party events…

Democrats being socialists. Democrats being anti-Semites. Democrats being Nazis. The only people who could possibly believe those obvious lies are either morons or people who have so isolated themselves in a bubble to prevent anything that contradicts their worldview from penetrating it that they’ll believe obvious lies.

Small piece of advice: don’t post when stoned out of your mind.

I don't know why you need a whole thread when the answer is incredibly simple: The main goal of the GOP is to take money from the average American and give it to the wealthy elite. This is an incredibly unpopular goal, which is why they leverage faults in our system and use bromides about freedom and emotion-inducing culture war issues to get people to vote against their own interests out of fear or anger. Every single GOP bill fits into one of three buckets: Obtain or maintain power Make the rich richer at the expense of working Americans Invoke an emotional response (usually fear or anger) in the electorate so that they vote GOP enough to facilitate goals 1 & 2. If we had an electoral system that empowered the working class and recognized the will of the average American, the GOP as it is currently constituted would never win another election. That's why they want gerrymandering, support the outdated electoral college, and only support democracy so long as it gives them the results they want. They are currently dismissing democracy because they recognize that if the people could actually exercise their will, there would no longer be a GOP. Democracy only works for them if it meets their goals. If it doesn't, then they host CPAC in Hungary because authoritarianism is what they will turn to. If you were born the last time the Buffalo Bills appeared in the Super Bowl, then the GOP has won the popular vote just once in your entire lifetime. Despite this, they have had disproportionate impact on policy and law. That's what they want: a government of the minority, against the majority, all in service of the wealthy elites.

Why does prevalence of firearms correspond to higher gun deaths? Why is it that states with looser gun laws have higher rates of gun violence? Are there some bills that caused that?

Is there a cliff notes version for people who don’t have an hour to watch some video?

Lots of guessing, light on evidence. If only there was one thing that strongly correlated with gun violence…

Are we the only country with gangs? How do our gangs compare to our peer nations?

Ok, then explain this to me: If America’s gun violence epidemic is due to mental illness, but other countries don’t have the same levels of gun violence, then how can Americans *not* have more mental illness problems than other countries? It’s almost as if the root cause is not mental illness…

Conservatives routinely blame gun violence on mental illness. Other countries don’t have the gun violence problem that we do. Therefore, it’s logical to conclude that conservatives believe that Americans are uniquely mentally unwell. I’m not sure what other conclusion you could actually draw given the facts.

It’s pretty incredible to start with demeaning me for not understanding cause and effect, only to follow with completely misunderstanding cause and effect, and then claiming that I’m racist because I didn’t claim that gun violence was a racial thing. Just an all around fantastic job at completely missing the point in favor of baseless opinions devoid of any facts. If you really wanted to do a root cause analysis, you start with eliminating variables. It seems we can all agree at this point to eliminate mental illness since it’s equally common in the US as our peer nations while the US has a disproportionate rate of gun violence. Now while you did mention that most civilized nations jail dangerous people, no nation jails a larger portion of its population than the US. Not even Communist China. So I have to take it that the *lack* of jailing people isn’t the issue here. If jailing people corresponded to reducing gun violence, we would have the least gun violence of any country on the planet. We don’t, so that clearly not the issue. You then raised racial issues but failed to provide any evidence or support for your claim, so it’s impossible to evaluate. I guess you wanted to find a way to blame some racial group without actually spelling it out and instead projected your shame on me by calling me racist. Might be a good idea to work through that one on your own or with a professional. My question is: if the prevalence of firearms are not the issue, then what does it look like when you compare per capita gun ownership against per capita gun violence?

So if they have the same rates of mental illness but not the same rates of gun violence, then we can all agree that mental illness isn’t the cause of our gun violence epidemic. Glad that we agree that it’s not a mental illness issue.

I do find it interesting that most conservative reactions to gun violence basically boils down to: Americans are inferior people with severe mental issues not seen in peer nations. Blame America much?

In a democracy, if you believe strongly in something but don’t have the support to put it into effect, you rally people on it and hope you can get enough like-minded people elected in the next election so that you can enact your vision. If you don’t believe in democracy, or you’re a moron who has somehow Peter Principled yourself into government, you do what Tubberville is doing because democracy and/or risking national security means absolutely nothing to you.

Because it’s not a patriarchal oppressive norm?

I think you are answering in good faith and I appreciate the thought and nuance you put into your post. I am going to try to respond in the same manner, but I want to make it clear I’m not criticizing you and I apologize in advance for the length. My problem with the “uniparty” theory is that it does a thing that is both very common and fairly dangerous in modern politics: it takes a complex and nuanced issue and smashes it into a simple claim of dubious truth that can be easily dismissed by people who don’t want to engage with the underlying issues. It plays to a version of nihilism that is currently very popular and also just absolute garbage. To be clear: you didn’t do this. You actually addressed the issue and presented your view which I think is legit even if I do not share it. My criticism of the position is that it assumes all armed conflicts are equal: Korea is Vietnam is Panama is Afghanistan Part I (where we arm Al Qaeda) is Gulf War is Bosnia is Haiti is Kosovo is Afghanistan Part II (where we fight Al Qaeda) is Iraq is Syria is Yemen is Libya is Ukraine is Israel. Given that list, it shouldn’t be surprising that I fully agree in your criticism of the military-industrial complex. We are too quick to war and none of the people to sending our sons and daughters to die will face any consequences other than getting richer on the blood of the innocent. While I originally supported the Iraq war, it eventually became clear that it was launched on lies, and so any justification for the effort melted away in my eyes. To the point that I do not think it would be unwarranted to call George W Bush a war criminal. But that doesn’t mean there are no just wars or military actions. I believe that each and every kinetic action should be viewed on its own merits, risks, and downstream consequences. Even if we are far too quick to take military action, it doesn’t mean that no military action is ever justified. I think that us spending a small fraction of our defense budget to support a young democracy in Ukraine utterly decimating Russia’s ability to make war without putting US troops on the line is such an easy decision that Ronald Reagan would be fully on board with the effort (if we want clean, unlimited power, we could just hook a power plant up to his grave and power the entire grid from his spinning at the current GOP). I think supporting Israel’s right to self-defense against a brutal terrorist organization is also justified. And like with Ukraine, it has the benefit of not sending in US troops to fight. My main concern with the current Israeli operations is that if they are not careful about civilians, they will help Hamas recruit the next generation of terrorists. Being concerned about, and critical of, the military industrial complex is the right thing to do. But blindly dismissing any action as *just* a part of America’s long history of foreign violence is lazy and uncritical. I think that’s what a lot of the uniparty stuff boils down to and why it’s mostly BS.

In his first act, Speaker Mike Johnson uses Israel aid to pick a fight with Joe Biden "In his first major move, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is using the bipartisan goal of providing aid to Israel to pick a fight with President Joe Biden over his signature achievement. A new bill released Monday by House Republicans includes $14.3 billion in emergency funding for Israel, paid for by rescinding the same amount of IRS funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, a major climate, health care and tax law signed by Biden last year." *** Considering that the increased funding to the IRS will actually more than pay for itself (estimated at 2.5x revenues vs. cost), this plan would actually end up increasing the deficit by more than the $14.3 billion. It would literally be cheaper to just spend the money without cutting the IRS funds and adding the $14.3 billion to the existing deficit. Which just underscores that they really, really, really don't wan the IRS to look at rich people. Keep it starved so it can only audit regular Americans while letting the elites and wealthy off the hook. Kinda gross that he wants to start a political battle to increase the deficit, help the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest, and hold that over Israel's head.