As Trump fumes, Republicans wince at ‘public nervous breakdown’

originally posted by: chr0naut

Should we try and force nonconformists to conform? Is that what your definition of freedom is?

Is that why there is such a homeless problem in major cities. That very dignified. Then you have to wonder how much behavior is driven by mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
But the reality is that it is tied up right now because of Trumps bloviating out-of-control MOUTH that doesn't stop running and spewing. I agree, he's his own worst enemy. Nearly everyone who is voting for him wants him to shut up and just work the policies instead of his rhetoric. He's win by a landslide if he'd do that ...

The question is can he do that, even though we all know what he should be doing?

Can he close his mouth? Can he focus on policy and the current presidential race?

Or is he too far gone and his brain won't let him at this point?

90 days to go, we'll see.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I know Kamala got VP because of her identity, but I can also say it’s a horrible topic to lean into if you want to win over people.

I don't disagree, but think of where we are today, when we have to tip-toe around the truth lest we hurt feelz when picking the leader of the free world. I don't think the experiment is going too far beyond 250.

I don't think you should tip-toe around anything. You, and when I say you I mean the whole of MAGA including Trump and Vance, should say exactly what you think, and be as vocal and visible about it as possible.

I would also double and triple check the grammar and the spelling, so that it is entirely quotable. Without the little (sic) things added in.

Only you can hold yourself back, no one else wants you to.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: chr0naut
The people involved in BLM and the riots - they were/are Americans who object to being oppressed by a tyrannical minority of other Americans.

They were criminals who had NO RIGHT to loot and burn down buildings and intimidate people.

I agree.

They were not peacefully protesting a 'tyrannical minority' at all.

I agree.

For one thing, a 'tyrannical minority' doesn't exist and isn't oppressing them, and for another they have no right to loot and burn buildings down and intimidate. That's not protected free speech. It's just hoodlumism and criminal behavior.

That is total BS, and I disagree.

I assure you, the fairly constant murders of African-Americans by law enforcement, is 'a thing'.

It has frequently triggered riots in response - all through American history.

Mass racial violence in the United States

List of race riots and massacres in the United States

On that basis, America is clearly not a modern civilized country.

a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks wikipedia.....

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: chr0naut

Should we try and force nonconformists to conform? Is that what your definition of freedom is?

Is that why there is such a homeless problem in major cities. That very dignified. Then you have to wonder how much behavior is driven by mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction.

America's homeless issue goes beyond the usual knee-jerk excuse that they must all be homeless because they have mental problems. It is an excuse that does not fit the facts in the majority of cases.

The truth is that sane intelligent people, through no fault of their own, can become trapped in situations of poverty, and this is the primary reason for homelessness.

I suggest that you watch the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" for one such story.

Homelessness data and trends- US Interagency Council on Homelessness

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks wikipedia.....

... and Britannica, too. I could probably post a lot more links, but you get the gist. America has a history of violence and racism that is frequent and extreme, and the rest of the world knows it, even if you have a blind spot.

Take for instance that your avatar shows someone standing in front of an American flag, holding assault rifles. Have you considered how this sort of stuff might appear to people from other countries?



You do you...

a reply to: chr0naut

Ask me if I care that you are offended by an elected representative demonstrating her second amendment rights.

Go on.....ask me....

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

Ask me if I care that you are offended by an elected representative demonstrating her second amendment rights.

Go on.....ask me....

So, according to the 2nd, you are taking up arms to defend against tyrannical government, of which you are a representative?...

Oh, I get it, it must be for defence against all the other 'patriots' (out to save their country from tyranny, by destroying their government, who has, in their minds, overreached), and who are therefore going to be gunning for you, according to the dictates of the 2nd?

Very meta-meta!

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, if someone who wishes me harm wants to simply call themselves a patriot, perhaps.

See the thing is, words don't really mean much when used incorrectly.

Like when you said patriots were robbing stores and burning buildings.....

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, if someone who wishes me harm wants to simply call themselves a patriot, perhaps.

Why would anyone wish you harm? They have just to dislike what you stand for to take up arms against you, or whomever.

See the thing is, words don't really mean much when used incorrectly.

Like when you said patriots were robbing stores and burning buildings.....

Ah, but you see, I never said that. Not even in the slightest.

But, sure, how do you think that those who think they are patriots, are supposed to rise up against this supposed tyranny?

- A petition, perhaps?

- A firmly worded letter to the editor?

- Perhaps they could waggle their finger and 'boo' at a government representative in a public meeting.

- Oh, wait, here's what you do - right in the 2nd Amendment. You shoot them. After all, it's your right as an American!



That makes sense for stable, rational, government. It's a gunfight! Pew, pew, pew. Just like in the movies, only everyone gets hit just as much as the bad guys.


Fight, fight, fight (against what was not stated, but I would guess it means against other Americans).

a reply to: chr0naut

You do know we have a first amendment right too?

I know given your authoritarian disposition may find that a difficult concept, but it does exist.

The contempt you have for my and my fellow citizens rights brings a smile to my face.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

You do know we have a first amendment right too?

No, they took that away with the Espionage Act of 1917 and all that FISA stuff, which they are applying in-country and to American citizens, as evidenced by Snowden.

(I'm still not sure how a statutory laws get to override the Constitution? I guess 'law' in the US is whatever the ruling party of the moment wants it to be, but it clearly shows that in-effect, the US Constitution is worthless as an ultimate decider over other statute and case-law).

Like for the case of Julian Assange. Was he treated with the same law that supposedly protects US citizens? Nope, but of course, he wasn't a US citizen, so duh, and what he did was entirely outside of the USA.

But here's the thing, what legal 'right' under any of the US Constitution, statute, or International law, does the US have over a foreign citizen on foreign soil?

I mean, you guys go in for the 'strong borders' stuff, but surely that means that you honour borders and don't try and totally ignore them all the time? If you can't respect 'em, why should anyone else?

I know given your authoritarian disposition may find that a difficult concept, but it does exist.

Sorry, but I'm not authoritarian. I consider myself quite libertine and would be quite happy to allow people different than myself to live how they please as long as they don't hurt someone else.

And there's the thing - hurting someone else. It seems that is the emblem of power in the US, how much you can hurt someone else.

The 2nd Amendment does not make you free in any way. But it does enable the powerful to hurt someone else.

The contempt you have for my and my fellow citizens rights brings a smile to my face.

... and your contempt of your fellow humans rights (or absence thereof), everywhere, makes me go "Meh, Americans". It's not a smiling matter.

Forcing disparate people to conform to some ultra-orthodox ideal/s is authoritarianism, and Americans and specifically you, have that in spades.

The Southern border/immigrant crack-downs and summary imprisonments are Nazi or Stalinist-level fascism.

The use of military and economic power over peaceful nations is tyranny.

The massive incarceration rate when compared with the average crime rate, indicates a police state.

Say it 'aint true?

a reply to: Mahogani

I think democrats and leftists should start celebrating now.

Not only did we have 4 years of open borders, inflation, recessions, wars, but now you can get 4 more years of the same!

I think it's awesome that the ruin of our great nation can be complete.

We can go full socialist or Marxist now because it won't make a difference!

Men will dominate women's sports, borders will remain open, free speech will be denied and guns will be taken away.

Your dream-state is nearly here.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's just because you hunt with boomerangs and trained kangaroos and other things with funny names! Joking.


[I added caption]

Remember, you'll put your eye out with that!

I didn't even get that impression from that avatar. The 37% that own guns REALLY REALLY own guns. Very NRA. And if you'll notice they aren't holding bibles, Jeez!

They're in front of "secular holiday iconography". No, there is absolutely nothing about that that is similar to the terrorist or that could be disturbing to other countries. Anyway that was a nonbeliever/heathen purge year.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Mahogani

I think democrats and leftists should start celebrating now.

Not only did we have 4 years of open borders, inflation, recessions, wars, but now you can get 4 more years of the same!

I think it's awesome that the ruin of our great nation can be complete.

We can go full socialist or Marxist now because it won't make a difference!

Men will dominate women's sports

Didn't happen under any previous Marxist governments. Such things are attributes specifically of the USA.

, borders will remain open

They'd have to open first. They are not currently open.

free speech will be denied

When you were little, they called misinformation and 'alternate facts', "lies", and even prosecuted fraud and perjury.

Lies are not protected free speech in any country.

and guns will be taken away.

Your dream-state is nearly here.

America was always flooded with guns and has never experienced the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that the Declaration of Independence promised. Instead America has been dominated by lawlessness, greedy capital acquisitiveness, and the rule of brute force.

a reply to: chr0naut

Keep telling me you're not an authoritarian (no one believes you)

The Southern border/immigrant crack-downs and summary imprisonments are Nazi or Stalinist-level fascism.

a reply to: chr0naut

We've long since established that you are anti-American.

So. . . ummmm. . . . Yawn

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: chr0naut

That's just because you hunt with boomerangs and trained kangaroos and other things with funny names!

[I added caption]

Remember, you'll put your eye out with that.

I didn't even see that connection. The 37% that own guns REALLY REALLY own guns. And if you'll notice they aren't holding bibles, Jeez!

They're in front of the religious iconography. No, there is absolutely nothing about that that is similar to the terrorist or that could be disturbing to other countries. Anyway that was a heathen purge year.

Trained kangaroos?



Does it ever occur to you guys that the law that proliferates firearms to the general public, also does so to the bad guys?

In fact, it would appear that a lot of bad guys get lots of guns, specifically so they can commit crimes with them. No matter how much you arm the general public, there will also be a fair percentage of guns in the hands of bad guys willing to use them for crimes.

The only way to reduce the numbers of gun crimes is to reduce the numbers of guns in total.

And also, how many people who live and work in inner cities, are likely to be hunters or farmers? Perhaps there could be some type of rationalization about likely gun use before purchase?