There is no excuse for supporting this president

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anonkun said:
It feels like most of the republicans who still won’t support Trump were more like cocktail conservatives
Click to expand...
I have also seen the term “Cruise Conservatives”; the ones who have the resources to take those cruises in which some famous Repubs speak at the ten (or whatever) course dinner. 🙂

There are also the “root-hog-or-die” conservatives like myself for whom a “cruise” is a ski boat on Table Rock Lake or a tube on the Elk River, and a “cocktail party” is a beer with a hillbilly on his front porch. I just want to see abortion curtailed, marriage respected, an economy with plenty of jobs and decent wages, and a government that largely stays out of my life as long as I’m obeying the law and paying my taxes.

People like me and the “cocktail Republicans” vote the same sometimes, but we are not the same folks. I’m not even a Republican. I was an officeholder in the Dem party and am still, in my heart, the kind of person Democrats used to be. It’s true. Trump would never have fit in with, say, the Rockefeller Republicans. He would have fit in much better with the Dem populists like LBJ or Hubert Humphrey or Harry Truman. Much better.
 
So you are not talking about a modest extension of current gun laws after all, are you?
 
I’m going to post a screen shot of a tweet from today:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If he meant his speech, why do this?
 
So much talk of gun control. So little talk of mental health. If someone is crazy enough, they don’t need guns to kill. Anyone check out the recent mass killing in Japan of all places? This killer set a building on fire and made sure the occupants couldn’t get out of the exits. Result: 33 dead. They have fairly strong gun control in Japan; didn’t do a thing for those victims.

There was an incident in China, also a very strong gun control society for obvious reasons, where someone went crazy and stabbed over 40 people in a rampage.

Mental health … we did ourselves a disservice when we closed all the mental hospitals and kicked everyone onto the streets. Because we no longer have the ability to commit the crazies we find and give them the help they need.

The Dayton shooter was apparently bipolar and described himself as OCD. So he was seen by at least one psychiatrist who prescribed him something for the bipolor disorder. But beyond that, everyone’s hands were tied as they could not commit him involuntarily to anything without a crime.

Addressing mental health would give us the opportunity to find and help the dangerously mentally ill among us regardless of the weapons available to them.
 
Annie said:
So you are not talking about a modest extension of current gun laws after all, are you?
Click to expand...
I am.
Zzyzx_Road said:
So much talk of gun control. So little talk of mental health.
Click to expand...
The mental health issue has been raised. Why did Trump strike the Obama constraints?

The gun issue is simple. Recent event show that people can inflict mass casualties even when subdued in less than a minute. We can limit the carnage by addressing the capacity of weapons for such rapid, extensive assaults.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I am.
Click to expand...
According to you. But to others, not so much.

I think your proposal might be worth considering but not modest.

And it is this characterizing of certain views and certain proposals as somehow nice, “common-sense,” “minor,” and so on, with the actual view or proposal turning out to be completely different once one finally finds out what it is, that always makes me feel like I am caught in a bait-and-switch trap.
 
dvdjs said:
The gun issue is simple. Recent event show that people can inflict mass casualties even when subdued in less than a minute. We can limit the carnage by addressing the capacity of weapons for such rapid, extensive assaults.
Click to expand...
Pray, tell, how do you propose to take away weapons with “capacity” from millions of law abiding citizens?

You do realize that in New Zealand, a call for turning in all weapons above a certain threshold in the wake of the Christchurch shooting has gotten very little response. There’s an estimate about 1.1m guns that were supposed to be turned in, but less than 1000 actually have been. What is NZ government going to do now? Go door to door with forced searches? That would make them indistinguishable from a fascistic tyranny. Is that what you want for us?
 
Annie said:
I think your proposal might be worth considering but not modest.
Click to expand...
Even with the second amendment we have restrictions on certain weaponry with the capacity for rapid mass killing. We just need to tweak to make that a bit more inclusive; it is not new ground, just a shift in the position of the fence.
Zzyzx_Road said:
Pray, tell, how do you propose to take away weapons with “capacity” from millions of law abiding citizens?
Click to expand...
I don’t propose to take them away. We make their sale and their use illegal with very stiff penalties, and allow time to take care of the rest.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Even with the second amendment we have restrictions on certain weaponry with the capacity for rapid mass killing. We just need to tweak to make that a bit more inclusive; it is not new ground, just a shift in the position of the fence.
Click to expand...
Be precise. What exactly is your plan?
 
Annie said:
Be precise.
Click to expand...
More detail than I have already given would take more expertise than I have on all of the makes and capacity of weaponry. But that is a detail that can be worked out by Congressional staff.
 
Last edited:
So you don’t actually have a proposal, so you have no idea if it is modest or not.
 
Annie said:
So you don’t actually have a proposal, so you have no idea if it is modest or not.
Click to expand...
I gave a proposal in broad terms. As to the the “modesty” of it, have given a criteria and a rationale for that. You want more precision. Were I working on government, I would take the time required to do that. But I think that you have enough precision to do whatever it is that you want to do.
 
A modest proposal would seem to indicate some small changes that would affect very few and not to cause lawsuits questioning Constitutionality, to begin with.
 
Annie said:
Here is Politifact’s transcript of Trump’s statements. He did not say what you say he said.
Click to expand...
But he did say what he said he did. At least in the sense ideologues like PragerU say. Because this “very fine people on both sides” is a red herring invented by right-wing media. Moreover, at the time he made the comments, the people he WAS referring to WERE neo-nazis. And here is the analysis of what was said, by whom, and the timeline of events. CW: recordings of neo-nazis, white supremacists, and material that will make you critically think.

 
Last edited:
Honestly,this is beyond the pale.That this lie about what Trump said still flies with impunity. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see,this defines TDS to a tee!:woman_facepalming:t2:
 
Last edited:
Where’s the flaw in the argument? Or is the evidence Shaun sourced wrong?

I’d be very curious to hear your take.
 
Last edited:
Again. (Tiki) Torch bearing men shouting, “Jews will not replace us!!”

Fine people see that and decide to stay?
 
F_Marturana said:
Again. (Tiki) Torch bearing men shouting, “Jews will not replace us!!”

Fine people see that and decide to stay?
Click to expand...
If you get a moment, watch the PragerU rundown I posted. Trump gave an interview stating the people who were there ‘the night before’ were the people he was talking about. The night before was the torch march, where the neonazi groups were running amok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top