CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Nov 28, 2018 16:37:55 GMT -5
How does that work with amendments then?
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Nov 28, 2018 16:43:57 GMT -5
Here is a little graphic I found while browsing The Economist. It really shows how the political divide has widened over the years. I looks like Conservatives have made a cohesive tiny step to the right, while Democrats as a whole have gone several steps left, while loosing all cohesion. Saying that it's hard to find a centrist conservative seems to be correct, but it also seems to be correct to say that finding an extremist liberal is easy.  |
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Nov 28, 2018 16:57:48 GMT -5
Fake news
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 17:09:10 GMT -5
So the source, a single professor, says that. What’s his methodology?
|
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 28, 2018 17:14:44 GMT -5
Regardless of how you feel about the left and it's current status, any claim that the right has only made a "tiny step" further right is so patently absurd it can be dismissed outright. About the only part of that that makes sense is that the left is more divided across it's ideological spectrum than the right is, which doesn't surprise me remotely.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Nov 28, 2018 17:17:58 GMT -5
It's not that the right has only made a "tiny step" it's just relative to the left's shift.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonestarr777 on Nov 28, 2018 17:50:36 GMT -5
If a 'tiny step' is all it takes for the Right to accept authoritarian ideals and dangerous alt right views then please forgive me for being terrified of a 'leap'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 18:23:12 GMT -5
Then they shouldnt invoke a piece of paper that is meaningless to them. I don't follow. US Constitution recognizes the right to self defense, as encapsulated by the 2nd amendment. There were enormous discussions about, whether or not the founding documents even needed to explicitly state the bill of rights... as the contrarians viewed that it was already implicit in the original document. The bill of rights was really a compromise in order to get consensus. But point is this... the US Constitution recognized this right... it doesn't GRANT it. Meaning, it shouldn't even be NEEDED to explicitly stated on the document. So, hypothetically, if the threshold was met to update the Constitution to null out the 2nd amendment. You'll have a not insignificant armed population who'll resist. |
|
|
|
Post by steelmage99 on Nov 28, 2018 18:30:06 GMT -5
Excerpt from interview with President Trump , conducted Nov 27th 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAWSEY: You said yesterday when you were leaving that you were skeptical of a climate change report that the government had done. Can you just explain why you're skeptical of that report?
TRUMP: One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty. And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with.
Few Trump quotes have epitomized him like this one. He has been skeptical of U.S. intelligence, the judiciary, the legal system, climate change, and many other institutions and other sources of expertise.
TRUMP: Number two, if you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion. There is movement in the atmosphere. There’s no question. As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it — not nearly like it is. Do we want clean water? Absolutely. Do we want clean air to breathe? Absolutely. The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were fallen, they did no forest management, no forest maintenance, and you can light — you can take a match like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it’s a massive problem in California.
This claim has been put forward by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. It got four Pinocchios from The Washington Post’s Fact Checker.
DAWSEY: So you’re saying you don’t see the —
TRUMP: Josh, you go to other places where they have denser trees — it’s more dense, where the trees are more flammable — they don’t have forest fires like this, because they maintain. And it was very interesting, I was watching the firemen, and they’re raking brush — you know the tumbleweed and brush, and all this stuff that’s growing underneath. It’s on fire, and they’re raking it, working so hard, and they’re raking all this stuff. If that was raked in the beginning, there’d be nothing to catch on fire. It’s very interesting to see. A lot of the trees, they took tremendous burn at the bottom, but they didn’t catch on fire. The bottom is all burned but they didn’t catch on fire because they sucked the water, they’re wet. You need forest management, and they don’t have it.
Trump previously lodged an odd theory, citing Finland, about how raking brush in forests could prevent forest fires. Finland dismissed the idea, but here Trump expands upon his odd ideas about how such things could be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone pick up their senile grandpa. He seems to have gotten out again.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Nov 28, 2018 18:46:29 GMT -5
You'll have a not insignificant armed population who'll resist. Really? Really? I very much doubt it. I suspect all the "Civil War 2.0!" talk is largely hot air, and in some cases, depressingly fantasist. America didn't descend into civil war when they banned alcohol, and that shit can be actually addictive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 18:53:08 GMT -5
Then they shouldnt invoke a piece of paper that is meaningless to them. I don't follow. Then you're an idiot. We could all go back and pull up any number of arguments you made that include "because the 2nd", "the 2nd says", "the constitution says", etc etc etc when it comes go gun rights. If people are going to ignore the 37th because they don't like it, they don't get to invoke the 2nd because they do. And that includes you. It doesn't matter if you think God gave you the right to own a gun It doesn't matter if you think you're giant dick, or tiny dick (hell if I know), gives you that right. It doesn't matter if you think that some natural law of man and nature gives you that right. Because you've argued over and over again that this piece of paper is the law of the land and that the 2nd gives you this right. You've sucked the dicks of "originalists" who interpret this piece of paper the way you want it to be interpreted. You've done nothing but worship at the altar of the Constitution and invoked it's divine writings over and over again. And at the same time, you've argued that these protections shouldn't apply to entire subgroups of people that you don't want to be here. And the moment this sacrosanct paper does something you disagree with, including going against some imagined natural right to guns, you will wipe your ass with it and throw it in the garbage. Because you don't give a shit about it, you only care that it somehow reaffirms shit you like. If you don't think you could use it to reaffirm your station in life, I imagine you would be a stones throw away from being a Sovereign Citizen. The cancerous behaviors of people like you are strangling the very idea of having a Constitution, like a tumor pressing at the aorta of our basic ideals and freedoms. Maybe we will be able to get the chemo needed to help this country survive, but your crap is just growing every day. |
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 28, 2018 18:53:44 GMT -5
You'll have a not insignificant armed population who'll resist. Really? Really? I very much doubt it. I suspect all the "Civil War 2.0!" talk is largely hot air, and in some cases, depressingly fantasist. America didn't descend into civil war when they banned alcohol, and that shit can be actually addictive. To be fair everyone kind of kept drinking anyway.
Except no one is going to take away all the guns.
And I don't think there's nearly as many people committed to having guns at all costs as some like to pretend.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Nov 28, 2018 19:00:54 GMT -5
Really? Really? I very much doubt it. I suspect all the "Civil War 2.0!" talk is largely hot air, and in some cases, depressingly fantasist. America didn't descend into civil war when they banned alcohol, and that shit can be actually addictive. To be fair everyone kind of kept drinking anyway. Except no one is going to take away all the guns. And I don't think there's nearly as many people committed to having guns at all costs as some like to pretend.
Yeah, I bet you're right. Many people would hide their guns and claim they lost them, and there would soon be a flourishing underground arms industry. But the actual numbers of "From mah cold dead hands!!!" types would be low. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 28, 2018 19:07:42 GMT -5
It's not that the right has only made a "tiny step" it's just relative to the left's shift. No, by any measure the right has taken a pretty giant step. 5-10 years ago a nazi openly running for office would have NEVER had a chance, but this time he got something like 25% of the vote. Right wing terrorism has increased by a huge amount, something like 37 of the 65 terrorist incidents were committed by people with right wing ideologies, which is a little more than 53%, combined with the fact that the U.S. had an overall increase in fatalities from terrorist attacks while the world in general had a decrease. That's doesn't mesh with "the right has only taken a little step." My point is saying the right has only moved a little is stupid and blatantly wrong. As lonestarr777 said: If a 'tiny step' is all it takes for the Right to accept authoritarian ideals and dangerous alt right views then please forgive me for being terrified of a 'leap'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 19:08:58 GMT -5
I don't think it's ever going to happen, and I'm not even arguing against the basic premise of "oops, I lost it" and stuff like that. It's such an unlike hypothetical that it would be so easy to lie about it because it's never going to actually be tested.
But I do like to point out the hypocrisy of the people who worship the constitution, who then admit that they would ignore it as soon as they no longer agree with some aspect of it.
|
|
