US and NA Politics (General)

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2018 20:27:28 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

So, how does that mesh with the fact 25% still voted for him.

And stop with the whataboutism.

This is a rather important point.  It was well known he was a Nazi by the time the election took place, and the Republican party made a point to broadcast it loud and clear NOT to vote for him.

[carlo87]

Whataboutism and "Willful blindness to mirrored problems" are both an issue. Saying the other side is bad doesn't make your side better, but willful ignorance of your own flaws doesn't make you better either.

As I stated earlier, there are retards out there that vote strait ticket. Also people that are just ignorant of who this guy really was. And yes, the actually racists.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

I never said the dems were perfect, but I also don't think they've ever put up a literal nazi and still had a large number of people vote for them.

[carlo87]

The Republican didn't put up a Nazi either. He just took the name. Although, it wasn't too long ago Democrats had no problem voting for a Klansman

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

So you're saying the self proclaimed nazi... wasn't a nazi.

Ooookaaay then.

[carlo87]

Nov 28, 2018 20:50:30 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

So you're saying the self proclaimed nazi... wasn't a nazi.

Ooookaaay then.

No, I'm saying the Republicans didn't "put up" a Nazi. I have no doubt that if this guy thought he could go further by running as a Democrat he would have. I wouldn't have blamed the Democratic party for him if that had happened.

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2018 20:55:43 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

No, I'm saying the Republicans didn't "put up" a Nazi. I have no doubt that if this guy thought he could go further by running as a Democrat he would have. I wouldn't have blamed the Democratic party for him if that had happened.

Actually they did, he ran on their ticket.  He's been running on it for years.  This was just the first time they picked him.

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2018 18:53:08 GMT -5 dusa said:

Nov 28, 2018 18:23:12 GMT -5 whembly said:

I don't follow.

Then you're an idiot.

...and exhibit FRILLION why we're so polarized.

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. 

Please do.

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.

Yes... yes we can. This is literally a red line for many firearm owning Americans.  It's just a matter whether the majority/government can molify/pacify the dissenters. 

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. 

There will always be minorities who believes the Constitution should mean something else, or that it does/does not do.

But...they're such a minority that their small numbers can't organize any sort of resistance.

However, and I want you to read the fucking words I'm typing here, if the 2nd were every to be nullified, you will have a NOT INSIGNIFICANT number of armed population who will resist.  Because you're not going to be able to get enough people to go door-to-door in order to confiscate the newly illegal firearms.  

Furthermore, it's a very disingenuous what-ifs as the possibility...nay plausibility is damn near zero.  So you come up with some ridiculous what-ifs so that you can frame your point in a very disingenuous manner.

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. 

I'm repeating myself here.

I don't have any problems with legit asylum cases.

Here it is again.

I don't have any problems with legit asylum cases.

Again:

I don't have any problems with legit asylum cases.

Do you get that?

However, just because an economic migrant wants to come to the US doesn't mean we should always accept such a person.

Not every migrant are the same.

As such, we should have policies that encourages folks who fit real needs in the US and contribute meaningfully.

Frankly, I think we should have something akin to New Zealand's scoring system like other western nations..

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. 

This here is an example that *you* don't argue in good faith resorting to hyperbolic nonsense.

You just can't abide by someone who differs from your views.

Stop being such a puritanical progressive.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Ah, I see what you mean, I misinterpreted that. Still remains that he got 25% of the vote after running openly as a nazi. Not all of them just voted blindly, in fact, it'd be pretty damn hard to miss the fact he was a nazi when it was making national news.

Also, which Klansman are you referring to?

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2018 20:12:46 GMT -5 dusa said:

Unrelated potential good news:

www.npr.org/2018/11/28/671268444/supreme-court-appears-ready-to-make-it-harder-for-states-to-confiscate-property?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2057&fbclid=IwAR1WGmcbK6dT9cJ-aIOnXxdNpbfsv8SEnwV62-v5Seg8Q5nv4eyOe-D18Ak

That's freaking awesome.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Whem, it's kinda funny you call others out on "not arguing in good faith" when I stopped counting at roughly 50 examples easily proven as "not arguing in good faith".

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2018 21:04:53 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Ah, I see what you mean, I misinterpreted that. Still remains that he got 25% of the vote after running openly as a nazi. Not all of them just voted blindly, in fact, it'd be pretty damn hard to miss the fact he was a nazi when it was making national news.

Also, which Klansman are you referring to?

The standby from 50 years ago, Senator Byrd.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Nov 28, 2018 21:09:09 GMT -5 dusa said:

Nov 28, 2018 21:04:53 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Ah, I see what you mean, I misinterpreted that. Still remains that he got 25% of the vote after running openly as a nazi. Not all of them just voted blindly, in fact, it'd be pretty damn hard to miss the fact he was a nazi when it was making national news.

Also, which Klansman are you referring to?

The standby from 50 years ago, Senator Byrd.

Ah. That's pretty long ago actually. That's a couple of generations easily.

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2018 21:07:34 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Whem, it's kinda funny you call others out on "not arguing in good faith" when I stopped counting at roughly 50 examples easily proven as "not arguing in good faith".

[Deleted]

If you admit that you won't follow the constitution, you can't demand that people follow the constitution.

Stop being a cancer.