Double_R

Because, so I hear, and, owning guns myself, I am witness to the fact that a gun, without the assist of a human brain and a hand, is a mere unused tool a bit like a spoon. Ban the people if you want to ban something.

And yet, somehow, I suspect you wouldn't hand that gun to your toddler and let them play with it like they would a spoon. I wonder why.

I've just concluded that in a free society, their are bad behavors, and, unfortunately, successful legislating of human behavior is not possible.

So let inmates carry a gun too. After all it's the person, not the tool, that matters right? Can't control their behavior, bad people are gana be bad regardless...

What is stopping Minneapolis from passing gun control laws so that mentally ill or trans people won't be able to legally buy guns and kill your kids?

The right wing fixation over the fact that the shooter was trans is just the latest demonstration of the overt bigotry that binds this party together.

The overwhelming majority of these shooters are straight white males, yet none of these people ever thought to draw that connection. I would talk more about the hypocrisy but that's pointless, hypocrisy is only an insult when the goal is to be taken seriously, that's clearly not the case here.

Is saying the gods of theism aren't real a claim to be yet supported?

It depends on how it was directed. If the idea being expressed is that these gods don't in fact exist then that is a claim burdened to be proven like any other. But most of the time people saying things like this aren't really saying that. They're not expressing a concluded fact about the cosmos, they're pointing to the irrationality of the person believing the thing they're asserting.

Never heard of photoshop?

Don't you know, yet, the internet is fool's gold? Any shit you want to see and hear.

Oh right, all those Nazi flags we see at Trump rallies... They're all photo shopped.

Strange that photo shop works so well on manipulating live TV.

I currently own and have read Marx & Engels Commuinist Manifesto, Mao Zedong's Little Red Book, and Vladimir Lenin's The State and Revolution. By your logic, that makes me a Communist. Nope. See my post #10. You're a glove's fit. 

It's called, by the way, "know your enemy."

lol

The guy whose political rallies display as many Nazi flags as American flags reads Hitler because he thinks that's the enemy.

Yeah ok bro.

They may not have even consumated the marriage. Therefore, what legit comparison to Trump?

Neither of these two leaders consummate their marriages, therefore they're the same

What do you think people would vote for, someone so old they can barely walk, or someone that can at least do 20 pushups in a row and have enough active brain capacity to solve the Schrodinger Equation?

I'd say Biden could probably do more pushups than Trump

NATO came to Americas defense after 9/11.

Your point?

It's a strong enough deterrence to where I would call it protection.

The conversation was about what would protect us in the event Putin decided to call NATO' s bluff, so that's irrelevant.

as long as Russia exists, you can only deter even if the US spends $1 trillion on Ukraine.

As I already explained, spending money on Ukraine wasn't about deterrence, it was about diverting Russia's attention, depleting their resources and weakening Putin's power in the process. And by all accounts, it was working.

NATO has retained all of it's current members, so I don't believe we are weaker from that aspect.

Then you don't understand what it is or how it works. There is no governing body forcing any nation to live up to its obligations because that's not how geopolitics works. NATO is fundamentally built on the trust that each nation will live up to its obligations in the event it's necessary, and Donald Trump has weakened that trust tremendously. This is what's emboldening Putin, and in fact his expectation that the US under Trump would pull out off NATO or at the least weaken it from within remains the best explanation as to why he didn't invade Ukraine in Trump's first term.

That trust was recoverable after his first term as Trump's victory could have been easily written off as an anomaly, but 2024 showed it was not.

If a leader wants power, then why would any world leader have an incentive to be honest about election results if they lose? None. What incentive do they have to lie? Power; money; validation from their constituents.

There's just no way you're being serious.

Elections do not depend on the leader's honesty, that's absurd. Every Democratic nation has checks in place to ensure a legitimate vote beyond "the president says he won".

The pollsters probably told him that if he calls them rigged, then they would make sure he "disappears". So his keep his mouth shut on the rigged election to save his skin.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support any of this?

No, of course you don't.

The world is pretty dishonest because there is an incentive to be dishonest.

How old are you? You sound like a teenager who's never left the house and gets all their information from tik tok.

Dishonesty, especially to get ahead in life is an inherent part of human nature. We know this, so we purposefully built systems that take it into account.

In science we rely on the peer review process, where it is the literal job of other experts to test your findings and find something wrong with it. In police departments we created internal affairs, who's job it is to find wrongdoing of other officers. In journalism, the person who breaks the corruption story gets all the credit (think Watergate). In elections, the person on the ticket has no place within the process by which the ballots are counted.

You act like our entire system is built on just trusting whoever is in charge, which is remarkably ignorant.

Signs of dementia.

Not sure why you would conclude that. The obvious answer would be that he is no longer will to boost Elon Musk's platform, plus he's been posting like crazy on truth central.

That's not to say his postings aren't a sign of dementia, they have progressively gotten crazier with time. But it brings up a good question; if Trump has dementia... How would we even know? The guy is so deranged, unhinged, and disconnected from reality that nothing he could possibly say would worry anyone, that's just Trump being Trump.

This is what we elected. Out of 300+ million people. It's pathetic.

Wow, took too long of a look in the mirror this morning, huh?

Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just channeling your inner GP?

NATO is America's protection against Russia

It's not protection against a Russian nuclear strike, it's only a deterrence, and one I just explained might not be enough in the event of the fallout from Russian aggression against a NATO Aly, which was the whole point.

And as a side note, it's kind of hard to rely on the strength of NATO as a defense of what Trump is doing given how badly Trump has weakened NATO. I am sure you see something wrong then with Trump's handling there, right?

Because politics is for show. Why hasn't the world united into one nation by now? It's because...

This has nothing to do with the question. You asserted that Putin tells his election officials to report false numbers that make him the winner. I asked why do you think they do that, as in what is their motivation for going along with this. Do you have a serious answer?

All right wing opinions are stupid to you, so I'm proud to have said a stupid thing by your logic; it's called being someone who isn't in the democrat religion.

No, I called it stupid because it genuinely is.

You said "every leader does this", as in fakes their election numbers to secure victory. Prove that claim or admit it's a stupid claim.

And when they believe in power, it explains why the feudal lords will perpetuate the conditions for a crisis.

Ok, so you're a conspiracy theorist. Got it.

I have no doubt your president will let all those illegal criminals back into your country if it means more power.

I have no doubt about that either, because he has demonstrated himself to be a particularly horrendous human being who only cares about himself.

The phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste" isn't saying "let's create chaos so we can capitalize" - that would be conspiracy. The phrase is saying that when a crisis occurs, use that moment to actualize what you believe in. Honestly, that's common sense. After Sandy hook democrats saw an opening to push for gun reform, so they did. For right wingers, they still talk about Laken Riley like she's the only woman in America.

It sounds bad to say out loud, so it works wonders to rile up uneducated people. People who are educated understand that this is expressing nothing more than politics 101.

Yes, democrats are obsessed with talking about a childish imbecilic ignoramus president who is brick by brick dismantling our democracy and singlehandedly steering us into economic collapse, all to suit his own ego.

Is that supposed to be surprising?

I suppose that's one of many reasons why your country is in such crisis. Individuals solve problems, not overcompensated figureheads.

Individuals solve individual problems. That's what the free market is for. But the free market is not going to solve society's issues, in fact it's often the free market that creates them. If not for government what reason would a factory have to refrain from polluting the towns drinking water to save on waste management? If not for government who would ensure we all have access to roads, clean water, a safety net to curb homelessness, etc.? Obviously no one because these issues aren't profitable to solve. That's the point.

There's one party whose famous line of reasoning is to "never let a good crisis go to waste."

This was a line said by one person over 15 years ago, and expresses an approach both parties clearly take. It's clear this is not an attempt at a good faith argument.

I see on your news that your president is trying to solve a lot of problems using armed troops. This is the example I am talking about when individuals don't care about taking individual action against crime and waiting around for someone else to solve individual problems.

Who is sitting around waiting for others to "solve crime"? Do you really think this is a simple issue to fix?

When those soldiers are gone, who is going to take care of your family? Who is going to really keep you safe?

The same people doing so before. Sending troops into an American city isn't a solution to crime, it's a dog and pony show. If that were the solution we would have troops on every street corner in America, which would obviously be ridiculous.

If Trump wanted to solve crime he would work with the mayors and governors to understand and address is root cause, not put on a pathetic show of force to make himself look tough. Or hell, the the least he would put them where the crime is actually happening, not on the downtown tourist area. This is so obviously a power play to show his dominance.

If you think the solution to your problems is a different figurehead with troops, then you are a perfect candidate for throwing your life away for their cause.

The solution is to elect political leaders who actually care about solving problems, not ego maniacal narcissists whose sole qualifier is a child like fixation of owning the libs.

Again, while democrats are not perfect, at least they care about solving problems. The republican party has nothing to offer other than ensuring government is broken just so they could point to that as their reason for opposing it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, and as long as the people remain dumb enough to fall for it we get the government we deserve.

Not sure I'm understanding. Are you co-signing into the idea that every leader murders journalists or engages in comparable behavior?

Shrug off is going into the woods thinking there is no chance that you will see a bear. But his threat here would be akin to walking in the woods with bear mace to protect yourself. Bear mace and NATO are both insurance.

No idea what this has to do with anything we discussed

He doesn't have too; he can hire someone to go into the election board room and give him 90% of the vote even if he only gets 45%.

And why do you think they listen to him?

Every leader does this

I can't take you seriously when you say such a stupid thing.

No one said anything like that. Please do me a favor, if you're going to quote and respond to my posts, read them first.

The point of government is to be the means by which society comes together to solve it's problems. Ensuring freedom, choices, and liberty is part of that.

I think he's bluffing.

What you think is irrelevant. Responsible governance means assessing and weighing risks appropriately. This isn't a risk one can just shrug off.

No, but I'm saying every head of state runs their government like a gangster.

This is just stupid. You are ignoring the very real and very serious differences between people like Putin and other democratically elected world leaders. Putin literally murders anyone who opposes him all so he can illegally hold onto power. There's no equivalence there.

It's just such just lazy conspiratorial nonsense and is one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book. Convince people that the other guy is just as bad, and then you get away with everything.

it's fair to say trump's base of approval is a pretty big dumpster fire. 

One of the biggest problems we have in American politics is the total asymmetry between the standards that are applied to both political parties. Republicans have for decades now championed the "government is the problem" mantra. The issue is that when you campaign on being anti-government, that doesn't leave you much room once you become the government to accomplish anything and declare victory. No, as a republican your only option politically is to break things, that's antithetical to the entire point of government.

So when this is the divide between the two parties, it turns out to be terrible for the country but great for republicans politically. As the burn-it-down party there is no expectation on them to fix anything, that expectation falls entirely onto the democrats. So democrats end up being held to account for everything they did or didn't do, while republicans get to win elections by default.

How many times this past election did we hear that people were voting for Trump, not because they had any reason to believe he could fix our problems but because democrats didn't do enough to fix them. That's the way this works, democrats have to earn your vote. Republicans just get to sit back and enjoy it if the democrats failed to impress.

It's implausible that Putin [would] attack any NATO country

Fixed ( I'm assuming that's what you meant).

No, it's not implausible at all. In fact Putin has all but declared that one of the NATO countries (Poland if I'm not mistaken) is his next target. This also follows given his desire to restore the Soviet union because that would be the natural next step. So the only question is, does he really have the restraint? Nothing about him would assure us of this so I don't know why you seem so confident.

How is that bad for America?

Empowering a nation who wants to see us burn... The question answers itself.

So then maybe what would be a decent idea is anyone in Russia that hates Putin the US can ship to the US (if these individuals agree to be sent to the US). Less people -> less power for Putin.

This is just a fundamentally unserious response.

A gangster is what the leader of Country A will call the leader of country B if the leader of country A wants the people of country A to hate the leader of country B.

Are you seriously disputing that Putin runs his government like a gangster?

And I'm sure that Putin has done many horrible things. But our leaders don't exactly have shit that tastes like marshmallows either.

This is an absurd false equivalence, no response warranted.

You really don't seem to understand anything about world affairs.

Russia is essentially a gangster state that threatens world order. Putin has made his desire to try and restore the Soviet union clear, and they hold enough nuclear weapons to wipe us off the face of the earth (even though retaliatory strikes would assure mutual destruction). So keeping him preoccupied with this one country is good for us, it keeps him too busy to spread his aggressions to other countries, especially NATO allies which would drag us into a literal world war.

Also just as importantly, Putin is a brutal dictator whose wish, like any brutal dictator, is to see democracies across the globe fail. Why? Because when his people look across the pond and see a society where people have actual rights it turns out they want them too. People like Putin can't have that because any threat against his power is a literal threat against his survival, which is also what makes him so dangerous. If he's going down there would be no cost in bringing the rest of the world down with him.

So no, this is nothing like Gaza, and it's a remarkable display of ignorance to put the two into the same category when it comes to our safety and the stability of our democracy.

Oh, yes I have. The argument, from the beginning, has been the incorrect interpretation of the word "fight" in the context of the speech transcript. I've said the words ha8 definitions in the OED, the premier English language dictionary on Earth. Only on of those definitions even implies a physical, "lip service to peace" by suggestion of physical violence. I've said this at least three times, but you totally ignore the context, which is everything in understanding what we say rot one another. Get it, yet?

Is there a reason you continue to repeat the same arguments I have already refuted without acknowledging my post which did so?

Sending them arms means paying military contractors with American tax dollars for a foreign war (which is not America first). Whether the sacrifice is money or life, us helping Ukraine with our tax dollars even if American companies benefit is not America first.

Except it is, for the reasons I just explained, with real words that I wrote and posted above. Would you like me to repeat them, or would you like to just respond to them?

Neither is Hitler. I think we can agree that Hitler is worse than Trump.

Hitler was never part of this conversation, so nice deflection (not really).

But it throws gay people off of buildings. If you claim you care less about it because it's foreign...

It isn't a question of whether I care about the plight of others, it's a question of whether it commands my attention. Terrible things happen all over the world everyday, one can feel badly about that fact without putting their energy on everything all at once.

but then acknowledge that you are having an America first mentality (which is republican).

America first is a slogan. That is what is republican. The mentality of America first is shared by everyone, it's just that the modern day republican party and it's voters are too stupid to understand how the world works.

Take Ukraine as a perfect example. Trumpers think we're just sending money to Ukraine because we're good hearted people trying to help them out. No, we're sending them arms (mostly made in the US which means that money is actually being pumped into American businesses) so that they can fight Russia themselves thereby depleating Russia's military resources and erode Putin's support, all without sacrificing a single American life. All of this, whatever your opinion about it, is being done in furtherance of the US's security interests. That's what an America first mentality actually looks like.

The same is true of US AID, we weren't sending these places or money just to be nice, we were doing it because it enhances the US's soft power around the globe, which in turn helps us tremendously to advance our agenda and keep us in control of world events.

But when you are too ignorant to understand any of this, it just looks like we're a charity for the world. Trump's America first slogan is nothing more than the capitalization of American stupidity and ignorance. There is a reason the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote against him, and it sure as hell ain't because republicans are the party of the working class.

I know a lot about both religions. I can assure you, Islam is more xenophobic than Trumpism.

I don't care. Islam-ism isn't running our federal government. It isn't putting American troops into our cities, isn't nabbing up nanies in front of schools to deport them, isn't tanking our economy and raising prices for all of us, isn't using the justice department to go after an enemies list, isn't texting war plans to journalists, etc. When it is, then I'll care.

Would you be as generous with Trumpism as Islam? No. You should be equally condescending of both religions.

I don't know enough about Islam to be condescending towards it, and I don't care to learn. Trumpism is a different story. So no.

It's a murder because your activist media called a drug overdose a murder

The medical examiners who performed the autopsy called it a homicide, along with the bulk of the medical community, along with common sense given the knee on the man's neck that we all saw with our own eyes.

Blaming the media is such an intellectually lazy cop out. It's also telling projection.

A radical Muslim's hatred comes from a book

It really doesn't. All religious texts have to be interpreted, and we tend to see in them whatever we see in ourselves. How many times do Christians swear god would never do X, regardless of the fact that X is in the bible? Or take certain instructions within the bible as the end all be all rule because it's in the bible, while disregarding other instructions within that same book? Answer: all the time. No one gets their morality from a book.