Double_R

I would have to call the freak above a woman in order to do that (so me calling them a man is hateful).

That’s just stupid. If that person identifies as a woman, referring to them as “she” is respecting their wish to be identified as such. That’s common sense.

This is a deflection and off topic. If you want to make a healthcare thread, then do it elsewhere.

It’s not a deflection, it’s the point. The things I brought up are examples which actually impact people’s lives in ways that are meaningful. Yet people like yourself don’t seem to care anything about it, instead you focus on all these niche issues that accomplish nothing except to delegitimize the existence of other minority groups. The pattern is very suggestive of a mindset animated and motivated by grievances, which is just a polite way of saying facially hateful. That’s what people are talking about, to answer the question you started off the thread with.

Usually when one side does something that makes themselves look bad, the other side jumps on the opportunity to burn through goodwill. The "left" behaved badly by mocking a dude, so now the "right" has a pass to behave badly without looking worse than the left.

See my previous post (#4)

They can be used for hunting, as a deterrent, for self-defense, or as insurance if the government goes to heck

Non of these refute my main point, especially as we get to military grade weapons which is where most gun control advocates like myself feel far more strongly about the lack of regulations.

but the point is that supporting a thing being allowed doesn't mean you being killed by that thing somehow proves you wrong.

The national disagreement isn’t about guns being allowed. What we’re disagreeing on is how easily and readily they should be available. What democrats support are a ban on assault weapons, extended magazines, universal background checks, and reasonable restrictions on things like open carry, waiting periods, etc. In other words, the left largely believes guns should be treated like any other dangerous product on earth.

Republicans are basically saying “yeah they’re dangerous, but we should do nothing to minimize the harm, and if people die so be it”. Well if that’s your attitude, it’s kind of hard to stay ideologically consistent by condemning that harm when it comes to your doorstep. On the left we don’t have that problem.

by calling the right out on their capitalizing on a tragedy to further their political agenda, you are doing exactly the same thing.

What are you talking about?

Calling someone out for what they’re doing does not mean I’m doing the same thing, that’s just silly.

Both sides routinely capitalize on tragedies, what I’m talking about is the egregious way the political right does it for which there is no legitimate comparison on the left.

On the left, when we criticize the absurd, dangerous, and harmful actions of the right, we focus almost exclusively on actions taken by elected leaders in positions of real power and/or people of significant influence. The most noteworthy and common target of which being the president of the United States himself.

On the right, when they attack the left they focus almost exclusively on random people on social media who have no following, or nut jobs who in many cases aren’t even on the left. To this day, many very prominent right wing figures still claim “they” (“the left”) tried to kill Donald Trump by referencing a 20 year old kid who by all accounts had no discernible political leanings and just wanted to kill someone famous.

It’s egregiously disingenuous. Everyone knows the internet is a cesspool and crazy people will always exist within any large group of people. Trying to paint a political side based only on its most extreme examples will get you whatever results you want. That isn’t what you do when you are dealing in good faith. But that’s the point, this isn’t good faith and anyone who has been paying attention can see it coming a mile away.

it appears he was killed by a bolt action hunting rifle. I don’t think any policy outside of a total ban on all guns with mass confiscation could prevent that

I don’t deny that. No gun law we could possibly pass would stop every tragedy, especially with the amount of guns already in circulation, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. This isn’t entirely out of our hands.

My point though was really about the conflict in ideology. If you’re of the mindset that loss of life at the hands of gun violence is the price we all have to pay, you can condemn the actions of this individual but you don’t get to act like the “other side” is responsible when things like this happen. It’s your ideology that allows for this environment, own that. (Not you specifically)

Killing people is not the only use for a gun. They can be used for hunting. They can also be used defensively as a deterrent. The threat of getting shot is often enough to stop a criminal without any actual use of force.

None of this changes the point I was making.

And control of the population is another reason the Left pushes gun control. Not all on the Left see it this way, but a disarmed population is much easier to control as a totalitarian government. All they need to do is convince the population it's in their best interest, then they take over. After that, they can do whatever they want with little resistance.

How on earth does this make sense to you? “The left” isn’t a person, so who exactly do you think benefits from the populace being “controlled”?

It truly bewilders me that so many on the right are incapable of understanding basic ideas to the point they have to resort to silly conspiracy theories to make sense of the world. You don’t have to look far at all to come up with a much better explanation for why the left believes in gun control, what happened yesterday is a prime example. Perhaps if we didn’t live in a country where military style weapons can be purchased easier than viagra, or where there weren’t more guns then there are people, we would see less horrific events such as what happened yesterday.

I think it's silly that his views on gun ownership have been used to mock him. If someone says "driving cars should be legal even if they sometimes kill people" and then someone intentionally runs them over with a car, I don't see how that somehow proves the person wrong, or is even that relevant.

The mockery is disgusting. That said, there is a reasonable point here. Your analogy fails because cars are a necessity for us to function in a developed society. Guns meanwhile have no other purpose other than to kill people, that’s literally what they’re designed to do. So when someone advocates for weapons murder to be readily accessible, going so far as saying lives lost is the cost of this right, then losses their life at the hands of one, there is an irony to that.

On the left we advocate against gun proliferation specifically because we don’t want to see this happening. There’s no cognitive dissonance there, for that position it’s all a straight line.

The killing of Charlie Kirk is a disgusting and deplorable act no one should be cheering. I genuinely lost a tear or two after hearing the news. He was just 31 with two very young children. No one deserves that.

But immediately after processing the reality of what has happened, I already know what comes next, we’ve seen it over and over again. To this day right wingers refer to attempts on Trump’s life as being committed by “the left”, and sure enough, Trump gave a shameless disgusting and unhinged speech last night where he actually listed every instance of political violence against right wing figures in recent years while purposefully omitting any instance of violence against left wing figures. No mention of the two MN lawmakers who were gunned down in their homes of a declared political assassination a few months ago. No mention of an attempted assassination Josh Shapiro earlier this year, hell he even mentioned the Steve Scalise shooting while omitting the Gabby Giffords shooting within about a year of it. And mind you, all this from the same man who joked about the Paul Pelosi attack to a laughing crowd of supporters and just days ago posted that the military would go to war with an American city.

Jesse Waters also chimed in by saying “this is war” against “the left”, and the Oathkeepers shared a similar sentiment. This is what happens when you have nothing else. The right has no policies that will help improve the lives of its constituency so all they can do is blame and demonize. Campaign in improving healthcare, they don’t care. Campaign on making housing more affordable? Big whoop. Talk about how you’re going to get rid of the brown people? Massive cheers. Talk about combating trans people? Crowd goes wild. Talk about how Trump got shot? They all flock to the voting booth.

This is what comes next. I don’t know just how much this will energize them, but this is the play.

What I see is just the crass businessman. I don't see a 'serious Dictator attempt.

Yeah, that’s the problem I’ve been pointing to this entire conversation.

There is nothing Trump can do to get you to see what he is. this is the fundamental problem with electing an unserious person to the most serious job on earth, people like you will confuse his lack of seriousness for a lack of seriousness in what he is doing to us.

To recap, Trump is

Putting the military on American streets of cities he doesn’t like (because they voted against him) and days ago posted that he will be going to war with an American city,

Sending masked plain clothes agents all over the country to round people up based on their skin color and disappear them with little to no due process

Using state power to punish law firms who represent clients unfavorable to his agenda

Using state power to punish educational institutions he doesn’t like

Using the FTC to bully news organizations into favorable coverage of him

Ordering the Justice department to go after his political enemies

Pardoning en masse people who have committed political violence on his behalf and also people who have donated to his political campaign

Overrode all of the rules put in place to ensure federal agencies were not politicized, and fired all of the people whose literal job it was to investigate and report corruption within his administration

Issuing loyalty tests before hiring anyone to work in the federal government

But right, this isn’t a serious attempt to turn America into an authoritarian state where everyone answers to him. And after he’s done purging the federal government of anyone who might dare stand up to him, I am sure this man will gracefully step to the side in 2029 and welcome his democratically elected replacement with no attempt to claim a rigged election like he already did, and try to stay in power like he already did. Cause he would never do such a thing. And if he did, I’m sure his sycophantic officials will all stand up and tell him that’s not how the constitution works.

If you want to change my mind

There’s nothing to change your mind about. You are free to define a man and apply it however you want. What makes you hateful is to disregard the struggle of millions of people as nothing more than a delusion they have chosen, and to make attacking their struggles central to your politics rather than demanding your representatives fight for things that would actually improve your life. Things like… I don’t know… affordable healthcare, affordable child care, a job market favorable to the middle class, shit like that.

We've a blueprint of America, an ideal we work towards and can always 'eventually get back towards.

Germany eventually got their democracy back.

I'd rather have bricks removed by people whose ideals line up more with my own, Than have bricks removed by people whose ideals are different than my own.

Why are you even pretending this is representative of the choices before you?

Besides X, isn't as worrisome to some people as a Liberal X.

The difference is that “Liberal X” is made up horseshit. There is no threat of liberals collapsing American democracy, that’s straight up right wing propaganda to an absurd degree.

Big deal, I doubt there's enough such individual to matter. Most normal people would see it as a gag.

And yet again, you miss the entire point.

The fact that these shirts are selling at his rallies is a clear demonstration of his values. No president who cares about preserving American democracy would allow stuff like this to go on without at the very least condemning it, especially when it is a very prominent attack against the administration.

You are the reason American democracy is in danger, its people like you who look at everything as if it occurred in isolation, with no broader context attached while relying on some notion of democratic norms to be our savior while the current administration torches them.

And I am aware of January 6th, though I think people blow it out of proportion.

Because you probably compartmentalize it like you do everything else this man does.

Let me guess… all he did was give a speech? He said fight a bunch of times, but democrats say it all the time? How was he supposed to know all those crazy people would ransack the capitol?

I don't think all Republicans like Trump, or will support him in all things.

He literally incited a mob to attack them and they still wouldn’t convict him. Senate republicans are not going to save us.

I vaguely recall judges and courts 'constantly opposing various actions of Trump.

Ok. And when Trump decides to ignore them, what happens next? You tell me.

When the issue 'really matters, the protest will matter and be acted on.

By then it will be too late, that’s the whole point.

Here is a video I would like you to watch, it’s only like 6 minutes. It’s a bit outdated but I actually think that’s a good thing here. Take note of the examples they use and what they’re pointing to as cause for concern, and take good note of just how boring and benign those examples have become. That right there, is exactly what the video is talking about. If these people had a crystal ball and could mention the things Trump has actually done today as possible examples they would have been told they’re being unrealistic and dramatic.

https://youtu.be/pF-Tdsvk0tI?si=-kB9axnlJn0iIS5A

I don't think the 'Executive 'Order is going to stick for Voter ID, but Trump urging Congress and so on to pass it, might be Constitutional.

Again, that’s not the point. You continue to focus on what Trump wants you to focus on while he continues to erode our democracy. This is exactly why it works.

No, it’s not going to stick, but it will provide Trump the pretense he needs to be able to claim that our elections are under assault and no one else is doing anything about it, so he’s the only one who can save us all. And he’ll use that pretense to send the DOJ and military into American cities, which he’s already gotten us used to so no one will flip out when it happens.

I know you’ve said many time you don’t pay that close attention, which is why everything I’m saying sounds over sensationalized, but you would benefit to take a gloss through world history to recognize that this is exactly how it always happens, with people like you asleep at the wheel.

I just think people opposing Trump often oppose him in the wrong way.

His entire two presidencies have felt a mishandling of the situation by Democrats

This isn’t about political strategy, it’s a question of how do you stop a tyrant who knows what buttons to push to get people to let go of their democracy brick by brick. The only real answer is education, but you can’t educate people who don’t want to be educated. That’s the conundrum democrats face.

Politically, I’m not crazy about the way democrats have dealt with him either, but in their defense there really is no way to respond to Trump. He lies about everything, all the time. If you fact check him, you’re legitimizing the absurd things he’s claiming as worthy of debate. If you don’t, you’re conceding them. If you call him out for what he really is, you get branded as overly dramatic (Trump derangement syndrome), if you don’t, you fail to call him out for the danger he truly is.

This is the problem with electing a fundamentally unserious person into the most serious job on the planet. The problem is not the democrats, it’s Trump and every person who voted for him.

Opposition to tyrants and dictatorships is very American culture.

And Trump is changing that culture. Again, this is what makes him so uniquely dangerous. They’re literally selling Trump 2028 T shirts at his rallies.

Unless we get defeated in war, nuked, or have a huge demographic change I don't see any Dictator coming.

Because that’s not how it works. Dictators don’t just appear. They don’t just march into the Oval Office and declare themselves unilaterally in charge of the government. They take power brick by brick until people one day wake up and realize that building that used to be there is gone. Please read some history.

I think people attribute only the worst of intentions to Trump,

Accuse him of being a moron, yet often assume him to have intelligent plans or understanding.

Myself I can't tell.

Because you’re acting as if these are all or nothing propositions. Trump is a moron, that is not reasonably debatable. But that doesn’t mean he has no qualities about him that equip him to carry out such a terrible feat, and you’re also disregarding the fact that it’s not him carrying out any complex plan, that is left to the people around him.

There is a reason that education directly correlates to anti-Trump sentiment, which is especially noteworthy given that the Republican Party is objectively better for the more educated in terms of economic policy. In short, Trump appeals to stupid people, so it doesn’t take much genius to rile them up behind him.

Various courts, politicians, protests.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets impeached again eventually, and removed from office this time.

There is no sign anywhere that today’s Republican Party will support trumps removal and every sign that they will lay over for him.

The courts is not a serious answer. They do not command an armed force. All they have are the US marshals, which are part of the DOJ, which literally means they report to Trump.

Protests? Again, not a serious answer. Democrats have been protesting since 2017.

Politicians? which ones? Certainly not republicans.

The only things that give me comfort are the fact that Trump is so old he probably will die or become severely diminished by 2028, and the fact that he’s such a moron he’s overstepping, including destroying our economy with his incredibly stupid and self destructive tariffs. In order for the worst to come to pass he would need to remain at least nominally popular, now that he doesn’t have adults surrounding him anymore he can’t help but show the country how terrible he is. It’s just a question of whether they’ll listen.

So because of that, I think climate change is a hoax invented by the democrats to help them win elections as a left wing party (and democrats aren't center right; they are left wing) in America (right wing country).

You do realize that climate change is studied globally right? And that every reputable scientific organization literally everywhere on earth affirms that climate change is real… right?

Climate change wasn’t invented by democrats, that’s absurd. It was discovered and affirmed a thousand times over by scientists. The only reason the Democratic Party benefits from people believing it’s real is because republicans decided to turn full blown conspiracy theorist in order to deny it, leaving sane rational scientific minded voters no where else to turn.

Voter ID on it's face sounds a good policy to me.

That's exactly the problem, and it's becoming really clear to me why you think there’s nothing to see here, you don’t put anything in context.

This has nothing to do with whether voter ID is good or bad, it’s entirely about the fact that the president of the United States, purposefully, has no place in deciding how federal elections are run. The constitution left that power to the states and anyone who cares anything about how our democracy works would not only accept that but champion it.

That, coupled with the fact that this is the same guy who has already tried to steal the prior election shows very clearly what this is about, and it’s not voter ID. It’s the same thing as him directing Texas to redistrict mid decade, yet another thing that was unthinkable a year ago. He is brick by brick eroding our democracy and setting up to rig 2026, and you’ll just sit there with each brick parroting his excuses for why that brick must come down with no awareness of the fact that the building is disappearing.

Dictators sometimes seize power,

. . . But America seems mechanically designed 'against a single dictator taking power.

Like I said before, the constitution doesn’t enforce itself, nor does it account for every possibility. It’s just a piece of paper, it’s us that has to ensure it is enforced and that requires us to care when things like Trump’s brick by brick encroachment into dictatorial power occurs. Other democracies, despite being designed against dictatorship fell exactly because of people like you excusing one encroachment after the other.

What has protected the United States so strongly against dictatorship was not our laws, but rather our norms. The ideals of our constitution have been baked into American culture. What makes Trump so fundamentally dangerous is that he is changing American culture by challenging every single norm and concocting ridiculous conspiracy theories to support it. Democracy only holds so long as the people demand it, his attacks are designed to ensure people don’t, and he’s got almost half the country behind almost anything he does.

We survived them, we'll survive Trump.

But you’ve given no reason why you believe this. You’ve only implied “cause history”, which ignores all of the examples of democracies that have fallen.

Americans are just human beings, we’re no better or different that Italy or Germany in the 1930’s, or today’s Hungarians. As soon as you think it can’t happen, that’s exactly when it can.

It's a question of lesser evils.

Yes I know that, when you’re running on a platform of retribution that’s the only argument you have, which is exactly why Trump is do damaging. He can’t sell his ideas cause he doesn’t have any, so he just has to vilify democrats, further dividing the country. It’s all he’s got, it’s the only reason republicans win anything.

There are a lot of Left ideas I dislike.

Probably, mostly the ones you hear about in right wing media

Maybe he's just trying to show that he's following through on his campaign promises.

Maybe it's some budget loophole due to DC budget failure.

It’s just excuse after excuse.

Again, he’s not sending troops into the areas where crime is happening, he’s sending them to the areas where the cameras are.

Again, he’s not sending them into the cities where crime is the worse and where they would be welcomed, he’s sending them into the areas he sees as politically adversarial.

This is clearly not about crime, at best it’s just about owning the libs to appease his base, but it’s beyond unreasonable to accept as unlikely that this is primarily about increasing his own power in a dress rehearsal for what he plans to do in 2026 and even 2028.

Not a single thing we know about this man tells us he will restrain himself in that regard for the good of the country. Nothing. So of you’re not counting on his good patriotic putting the country over himself mindset, I’d really love to know who you are so confident in to stop him.

Something I dislike about Trump, is my difficulty in assessing him.

Is he stupid? Intelligent? Cunning?

What does he 'want?

Does he 'have good self control?

Ability to keep secrets?

'Can he 'actually plan anything in detail and depth?

Yeah, that’s his superpower, and is the point of the Sam Harris point I quoted before. The steam generated by each flaw has made it so the entire room of full and none of them can be seen. When he does anything he gets a pass because there’s always a plausible excuse. The problem is that none of these excuses line up with the other.

It really can be all of the above. Or at the least, that is the only rational response one can take. Trump has shown us who he is, believe him.

I still don't see Trump as 'functionally an Authoritarian, he may have such desire and 'style, but he does not have the actions of such.

There is still Technicalities and loopholes, reasonable doubt, precedents of sorts.

He is likely 'still out of office when his term is up, not a dictator.

I think you are missing the whole point.

First of all, his actions as president are not style, they're actions, as in real things that he really did. Here's a few more examples:

1. Signed multiple executive orders directing the justice department to investigate his political opponent's
2. Upon taking office, fired most of the inspector generals in the DOJ (those are the people whose literal job it is to investigate and report fraud from within the administration)
3. Signed schedule F reclassifying government workers who had previous job protections so he could fire anyone he wants essentially politicizing positions that were specifically deemed non-political
4. Signed an executive order telling states how to run their own elections (mandating voter ID)

These aren't "well maybe" kind of actions, these are all definitionally authoritarian, along with the other examples I provided earlier.

There is no reasonable doubt about his motivations. The pattern of behavior is clear and blatantly predictable, and there is no alternative narrative that explains them all, certainly not one at the least which the administration has provided.

You really seem comforted by the idea that his term will end and that will be it. Maybe that will turn out to be the case, but to think the system will hold simply because that's what we're used to is naive and wrongheaded.

Complacency is the reason every democracy falls. But what's so remarkable in this case is how obvious it is that he will try. This is the same guy who tried to steal 2020, and it took a mob takeover of the US Capitol with 140 injured Capitol police officers for this man to finally give up. And even then, the only thing that moved him was the backlash he faced. That will not be there this time around.

In 2020 Trump ordered his DOJ to seize voting machines, the only thing that stopped him was that his top DOJ officials threatened to quit en masse. You really think that would work this time around, especially after being re-elected post J6? No way in hell, and that is if the he faced the same obstacle. This time around he won't.

The constitution does not enforce itself, that requires people willing to put it above themselves. Trump is purposefully, systematically getting rid of all those people. He is literally having new recruits take a loyalty test before bringing them into the government. I really don't know who you think is going to stand up and stop him, he controls all the big guns, and half the country is solidly behind him.

I do share your belief that democracy will ultimately hold, but your comfort is deeply misplaced. And what's most remarkable to me is that we seem to agree that it will likely hold in spite of him, not because of him. That is remarkable, and I have no idea how you justify even having the temptation to vote for him knowing that.

Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles?

And heck if I know 'why exactly. Lots of 'possible reasons, none really hitting my Coup Warning.

Because you aren't considering the full context. There is no justification for this. He claims it's to fight crime, and yet, not only is he sending the troops into the tourist parts of the city where almost no crime is happening, he's also threatening to use them in other blue states despite the fact many of the red states are worse. If he wanted to address crime he would do it in a way that's sustainable and nonconfrontational. This isn't.

This isn't about crime, it's about power. He is normalizing the idea of troops being sent into American cities, something that was unthinkable even one year ago. This is called shifting the Overton window, and he's been doing it ever since he rode down the golden escalator. Imagine where we'll be 3 years from now.

These people have an idea of what is a right way to live life, see trans as harmful, as lies and delusion.

Why should they 'not try to prevent their children from normalizing or being indoctrinated by it?

Of course it follows that one wouldn't want their children following in what they believe to be wrong, my point is that the defense of the children is what follows, it is not the motivator which is often what they portray. That’s the dishonesty I’m calling out. Don’t claim this is about protecting children when it’s really about your discomfort with gay or trans people. If that’s your stance, own it. Don’t wrap it in virtue or pretend it's about safety. Be honest about what you believe instead of hiding behind moral posturing. (Not you specifically)

"A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

I wasn't asking for a definition. The why is the more important part. The reason these cities don't work with federal immigration is primarily for safety reasons. If undocumented immigrants believe they will be detained if discovered, they will not cooperate with police investigations or testify in court. They are also far more likely to flee if they get into a car accident.

I see it more as the car going the speed limit, within sight of the cops, but driven by a person who would 'like to go 100mph.

The facts just don't support that view. I would say that was accurate in 2017 when a first term Trump walked into office having no idea what he was doing and surrounded himself with people who did. Back then these people, knowing the implications of Trump's impulses were able to push back and nudge him in a different direction. He hadn't yet built the cult devotion he needed to get away with the worst.

That has changed. Trump 2.0 is entirely different. He understands now that institutions are only as good as the people running them, and had engaged in a systematic purging of anyone who will stand in his way. This is why he values loyalty over competence. It's why he picked a Fox news host to run the Defense Department, a vaccine quack to run the CDC, a couple of podcasters to run the FBI.

And the results speak for themselves. He's already sent military troops into 2 US cities, is rounding up people all across this country and deporting them with no due process, punishing law firms for representing clients unfavorable to him, ordering his government to violate the constitution, etc. All of this was unthinkable even one year ago.

That's not to say it will ultimately work, that remains to be seen. But this isn't a guy who wants to be an authoritarian, he is. It's here right now. The only question is how far it will go and how deep the impacts of this will be.

An issue though is there is 'some truth to the propaganda

There is always some truth to it, that's what makes propaganda work. Immigration is a problem and some illegals do commit crimes, the rest is just made up. But that's the game; scare people to death with the parts you made up, then when challenged accuse the dissenters of arguing against the parts that are true. It's one of the very few things Trump and MAGA are actually very good at, although in fairness the democrats are really bad at talking about this.

But even without the lies and distortions, I don't think the Right 'likes illegal immigration, trans or democrats spreading their culture, or values in schools.

The school thing is a BS cop out, just like the trans women in women's sports. This isn't about the children, it's about bigotry against trans people. The children are just the cover the political right always uses to mask their bigotry - it's the one place where they can argue without it all falling apart.

The 'apparent amount of support for trans surgery on kids,

'Probably only support for situations that need it.

But that's not the way they come off.

Because you're probably listening to right wing propaganda, andI day today largely because the democrats are not even talking about this stuff. This is the game at work, right wing outlets obsess over this stuff 24/7, and all democrats are doing is responding to the overt bigotry.

I don't hear about Conservative cities being used as sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants.

Do you know what a sanctuary city is, or why they exist?

If the entire population was on social media in the 2000s, I think there'd be the same amount of stupidity maybe.

Social media definitely had a lot to do with it, but it also really helps when the commander in chief is spreading the same nonsense and forcing other political leaders into doing the same. Most people do not exercise much critical thinking, if their friend circles believe it and their political leaders believe it... Well it must be reasonable at the least.

Divisive politics 'isn't something I want,

Then why would you even be tempted to vote for the most divisive president we've ever seen?

Show me the data that affirms "dysphoric sufferers" are notably more dangerous than other categories of people, like straight white males for example, and I'd be open to that.

As far as my logic goes, my position isn't about addressing the issue by targeting specific groups of people, that sounds like a you thing. My position is about addressing the availability of these weapons and the circumstances in which they can be carried (I think open carry to anyone for example is absurd).

Certainly he isn't my ideal of presidential behavior,

Though I sometimes wonder what other presidents in history have publicly said and announced

You really seem to be downplaying the severity of this. There is no parallel, no comparison to Trump. There has never been a prominent elected politician, certainly not within our lifetimes, as fundamentally flawed and broken as this man. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this man is the worst kind of person in literally every way that matters when it comes to someone leading a country. He's a narcissistic, childish, petulant, vile, ignorant, conspiracy theorizing pathological liar... And every single one of those in the extreme. You couldn't design a politician in a lab worse than him.

Other politicians are certainly flawed, but this is a whole different category of terrible. I think Sam Harris put it best when he said "if Trump were half as bad he'd seem worse, because at least then he'd be recognizably bad". Instead, he's so bad that he's like a cartoon character that people just think it's not real, so they give him the benefit of the doubt. It's insane.

I 'think I've said in the past I think he 'would be a facist if he could get away with it, but I don't think he can, so in a sense that matters to me, he's not.

This is dangerously wrongheaded. Fascism can be used to describe a government, or an ideology. Ideologically, Trump is a fascist, full stop. This idea that he tries to be but won't succeed is just flat out dangerous. If I had your child in the back seat of my car while I'm doing 100mph, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be comforted by the fact that statistically, the overwhelming majority of the time the person doing 100 doesn't crash. You would recognize the danger I put your child in and hold me accountable for that regardless of what happens next.

Trump voters deserve every ounce of that sentiment.

But I can see where some Trump supporters are coming from.

Even if Trump is an idiot, even if he is harmful to the whole, he's less damage, than a candidate from the opposing party. (Ideally)

This is exactly what makes Trump so terrible. He is such a horrific choice the only way he can win is by convincing his supporters the other side is worse, and since they cannot do that with facts they have to make up their own and build an entire media echo system around the spread of his propaganda.

If Trump weren't out there convincing his supporters that undocumented immigrants are criminals and terrorists, that gay and trans people are groomers comming for your children, that liberal cities are crime infested hell holes, that the Democratic party is a satanic pedophile cult... He would have nothing to offer his base.

It's all bullshit, but that's the state of American politics now. I remember visiting online forums in the late 2000's in bewilderment of the fact that people were really dumb enough to believe 9/11 was an inside job, but was at least comforted by the belief that this stupidity was limited to the dark corners of the internet. Now, it's half the country thanks to the orange clown. Amerrca.

But again, there intent was not to harm of kill.

The intention of a product is irrelevant to this conversation. What matters is capability. We don't take a knife away from a toddler because of what it was intended for, but because we know what could result of wet didn't.

The purpose of me pointing out earlier that guns are literally designed to kill people wasn't about intention but to put an emphasis on it's capability.

yet tree great majorotry of people who use them know to handle and use them with caution, and yet you're going to take their 2A right away for a the mismanagement of a few?

That's how everything else in life works.

The overwhelming majority of coke usage results in nothing more than a tripped out experience and probably some great sex, yet we outlaw it because of the mismanagement of a few. I can sit here listing example after example all day, and I suspect you take no issues with any of it. But when it's a gun we're talking about...

Shall we delete the 4A, or 5A so that they are banned for all to use? Hell, take the 1A, too. RThat's where you're going, my friend.

Slippery slope nonsense. I find it telling when 2A advocates resort to this, it shows that they really have no arguments. It all just comes down to a conspiratorial fear of losing all your rights at the hands of those evil libs.

As I and many others have expressed, there are perfectly legitimate considerations that warrant restrictions to the second amendment, those considerations do not apply to these other amendments. If they did, that would be a seperate conversation, and nothing about entertaining one leads to the other.

Any gun laws other than a flat out nationwide ban on guns will result in more children dying.

People are going to die no matter what we do, the question is what can we do to minimize unnecessary deaths. A total gun ban is not necessary, but what I don't understand is why people are so against ideas that are just common sense like closing the gun show loop hole, banning the sale of extended magazines, etc.

You may think I'm an asshole over it, but every pro gun rights person agrees; I'm just brutally honest because that's who I am. So you can at least respect the honesty even if you hate me for it.

Hatred is silly, I'm not invested in you enough to feel that emotion. I can however recognize that you are by any reasonable criteria, an asshole. It's the most basic test of how we judge someone's virtues, or lack thereof - you care about your own selfish desires more than the well being of others. And you do so on a massive scale, outweighing many, many lives lost by your desire to maintain your hobby. That's literally how we define what makes a horrible person.

I do appreciate your honesty there but it isn't necessary, it's quite obvious that this is the core of the pro gun movement. It's why I despise it.

1st, I suppose I wouldn't take him seriously, just assume he's joking.

2nd, I don't think he'd be able to manage it even if he 'was serious.

None of which are the point. This is deeply embarrassing, but it will hardly even be covered because this is just who he is. In terms of "news", it's just Tuesday. If any other president had ever written something like this everyone would be screaming 25th amendment, but it's Trump so for him he gets another term. Kamala Harris didn't impress people enough with her 5 point economic plan, so this becomes justifiable. The absurdity here is beyond words.

But the other point you inadvertantly raised is what I've come to see as the core issue. He gets away with this because he's not seen as a serious person, which is itself dumbfounding. POTUS is arguably the most serious job on the planet, electing someone who we find to be unserious is a contradiction, which makes the person who votes for him definitionally an idiot, thus making the statement "Trump voters are idiots" literally, an objective fact.

Here is a post from last night on social media from the president of the United States:

"As previously mentioned, we are giving serious thought to taking away Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship. She is not a Great American and is, in my opinion, incapable of being so!"

Setting aside the fact that this is the blatant weaponization of government Trump supporters decried all of last year, this is what our president and his administration is focused on.

To those who voted for him, how are you not embarrassed? No, seriously, how?

Meanwhile, you are preaching from a glass podium that individuals only care about themselves; therefore, we should have one individual to create and regulate all communities.

Those is not close to what I've said. Read what I wrote and try again.

I agree, your government is a mess, especially with Americans indoctrinated with your logic pretzel

The reason our government is such a mess is because it's been taken over by people like you. When your political ethos begins with "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem", turns out government is not going to work. Gee, who could have seen that coming?

And you accept that?

It's a fact regardless of what I accept.

You want still more government, rather than people controlling themselves.

I'm all for people controlling themselves, no one contests that. But the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose. If it were inherent within human nature to respect this principal we wouldn't need a government, but human nature is the exact opposite, so a governing authority within any large group of people is a necessity.

Speed limits do not enforce themselves.

People like yourself love to frame this as a dispute over control, which is childishly silly. What people like me want is a means for us to be able to come together to solve our problems. Crime getting out of control? Hire more law enforcement, which might mean we all have to pay a little more, but that's better than descending into the wild west.

No individual is going to solve such problems, they can only be resolved together, or handed over to a tyrant. Take your pick.

That's basically whys we have a Constituti0on in the first place: to advise the govc't to keep hands to themselves.

The constitution protects rights, it does not confine government's scope to what you claim. It delegates that power to Congress and included and amendment process for a reason. Again, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Pretty clear what that means, and hint: it's not "government is not allowed to do anything"

Mindless babbletalk. Most people get tired of waiting.

You want to lecture me about mindlessness meanwhile this is what you have to offer. Irony is dead.

It's difficult for government to function when half the population's political ethos is to ensure government doesn't do anything.

We get the government we deserve.

People are not islands, they all work to make their own neighborhoods and local groups, no matter where they come from.

Voluntary community involvement is not a substitute for a central governing body tasked with ensuring a functioning society. You can tell yourself all you want that people will just come together and make sure life is great, every example of human nature we have tells us otherwise.

And we decided that, and it has not changed, some 240 years ago.

It's changed dramatically, what world are you living in?

When the country was founded the federal government was funded entirely by tariffs, and that was before globalization. The scope of the federal government has clearly expanded, exponentially.

Solvong problems is mostly the people's business anyway

Yes, and government is the means by which we do so. There is no other mechanism. Individual interests will always be oriented towards what is best for the individual, which will very often conflict with the greater interests of society. Government is the only force powerful enough and aligned with the greater interests of society to step in. That's why we have one.

When a product is is being misused and that misuse is causing harm, we ban or regulate the usage of that product. That is common sense and it's the logic we apply to every product on earth... except guns. Suddenly, when we're talking about guns, the same logic no longer applies. Now we have to go with an entirely different logic that we wouldn't apply anywhere else in life.

This is not about legislating human behavior, it's about a simple recognition that when you have a dangerous individual, handing them a tool literally designed to kill people will make them more dangerous, which will result in more harm. It's simple math and statistics. There is a reason stadiums sell you a beer in a bottle but take the cap. If someone wants to throw something they still can, but you'll have far less incidents than if you left the cap on.

Bottom line; restricting gun access makes guns harder to get, which means it'll be less likely that the next aspiring harm doer will be equipped to inflict maximum damage, which will translate into less deaths. You can care about that result or not, you can argue the freedom to own a gun outweighs the lives lost, but don't sit here and pretend it doesn't matter whether someone is walking around with a gun or a spoon. It does, and if someone wished you harm you would certainly care which one they were holding.

So your white wing wants to legally arm trans or dysphoric people because they hate them?

Yeah, that's exactly the meaningless irrelevant babble I was expecting.

Siome tools are strictly for adults and belong in a safe.

Why? It's not the tool, it's the person, right? Why lock up a spoon?

Government's job is basically two-fold;

1. Protect us from invasion from without. 

2. Protect us from invasion from within.

Government's job is whatever we decide it is. That's the whole point of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

If you don't think the government should concern itself with solving problems and improving the lives of it's citizenry, you are entitled to that belief. The overwhelming majority of the rest of the people disagree.