@Heresy_generator m/liberalgunowners r/liberalgunowners we need to be prepared for round 2. Heritage Foundation and Trump’s shadow cabinet are already planning for the police state that will follow if Trump gets in and GOP states have been working for years to cut out opposition voting.
@DarkGamer That would be ironic, but irony is not the Right’s strong suit. Thank you for help with the format! I think it is crucial that liberals embrace gun rights before the next election/coup attempt. There are more of us than people realize, we just don’t tattoo it on our foreheads or make it the center of our beings. I saw that shit go down before and frankly I’m way too fucking old to tolerate an attack on our country like that again
100%, these right wing creeps are so weird. like when they're SUPER anti gay, you just know many of them are self loathing gay person. I think she's projecting her obsession with Hunter, she wants some of that Biden sausage
Republican senators say they are alarmed at how many Republicans, including those with higher levels of education and income, buy the unsubstantiated claims that the last presidential election was stolen.
A second Republican senator who spoke with The Hill said the growing strength of radical populism “makes it a lot more difficult to govern, it makes it difficult to talk to constituents.”
“There are people who surprise me — I’m surprised they have those views. It’s amazing to me the number of people, the kind of people who think the election was stolen,” the lawmaker said. “I don’t want to use this word but it’s not just a ‘red-neck’ thing. It’s people in business, the president of a bank, a doctor.”
How far up your ass does your head have to be to not see that your party is practically driven by conspiracy theories and falsehoods after the last decade??
XMark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Goldwater himself was considered a dangerous right-wing extremist nut by the standards of the 1960s. He was a rabid anti-Communist in the style of the John Birch Society, he was anti-Civil-rights, beloved by the Klan. He lost to LBJ partly cause the Democrats painted him as someone ready to start a nuclear war and the voters bought it. Basically on every issue but religion, today's right-wing nuts would probably love him.
I have been trying to wrap my head around why some Republicans seem genuinely surprised at what is happening. I have come to the conclusion that some thought it was a game. They honestly thought that when you had people calling Obama a secret Muslim, that it was "just politics", a bit of fun name-calling and that's all. They thought they were playing games, throwing fake red meat at the base to get them to have a fake angry response. Even after some of their constituents were goaded into attacking the government, they were still in denial about the reality of the situation they helped create. The monster is real, and they have spent multiple decades feeding it, and it was all fun and games when the monster was chained up, but Trump broke the chains, and now they are worried about what the monster will do to the village.
Perhaps. I mean, I was naïve enough to thing there was no possible way the Orange One could win in 2016, so I suppose I could see having a blind spot for this monster they've crated. Still, you'd almost have to be going out of your way as an actual politician to not see the results of all their "games".
No it doesn't raise any questions, it's just more evidence on the pile that they're never honest about their justifications for doing what they do, and they'll apply their laws selectively as it suits em.
I mean, 5% said Democrats and 10% said Biden were responsible.
I wonder if there were coherent arguments for that position, other than either the "they are at fault for everything!" arguments, or "they didn't push HARD enough!"
In this timeline somehow heavily conservative states grow the more they attack progressive platforms and not just with conservatives but with very liberal people too. So anything could happen, there's a gay Republican organization and they support a party that wants to kill them. Nothing makes sense.
That is just it Roe vs Wade was about privacy, that the government has no right to know what you do. By elemiminating roe vs Wade the Supreme Court has said that it is ok for the government to know what it’s citizens are doing with out probable cause.
It was telegraphed super hard when they attacked Roe and not Casey but claimed it was about abortion, and in the ruling they managed to take aim directly at the 14th amendment, which they have slowly been doing in other cases.
It's not about abortion, abortion is an easy way to tug on heart strings, it's about absolutely destroying due process and privacy. Without due process and privacy there is no protection... really from the government at all.
Privacy is a factor and part of the basis of the argument in Roe but that idea doesn't really hold up if you consider abortion to be a crime. An example in the medical setting is how some injuries have to be reported. It would be reasonable to point out how substance abuse isn't necessary reported but I doubt prolife people like that policy either.
To be clear I am pro-choice and there should be federal protections if not a full blown amendment for abortion, birth control, and other medical procedures but currently those protections are limited. That is how some states think they can do shit like demand medical records from other states. In general the idea of protections for privacy seems to be more limited than it should be.
For this particular issue the obvious thing outside of what should be legal would be that the states have no reason or jurisdiction to know anything. If there was a crime going on in that other state the demanding state has no grounds to charge anyone with anything. No crime was committed in their state even if a crime did happen. Said crime would be the business of the state in which the crime took place.
Shit this gets tricky because I wouldn't want states to not talk to each other about domestic violence if a person is trying to buy a firearm in a new state...
The background check is a federal thing with federal laws regulating it. The states are supposed to report things to the feds for things to show up on the NICS. There have been failures related to the NICS due to states or military not reporting things to the feds but they don't really report stuff to other states for the background check. And if states are asked about things it's the feds doing the asking. The FBI manages the background checks and NICS.
There is also a big difference between states sharing info about convictions and a random out of state police department, ag, or governor asking a hospital to violate HIPPA for something that isn't a crime in that state.
So does Clapton still agree with what he said? “My feeling about this hasn’t changed, really,” he insists. “Years later, when I played at the Mandela concert, one of the promoters said: ‘You know that this is your chance to apologise formally for what you said.’ And I thought: ‘You must be fucking joking.’ I was so insulted.”
~ Clapton, 2004 interview regarding a 1988 concert for Nelson Mandela
Oh.my.god. He was insulted? This literally made me say "oh my god" out loud. I didn't even know about all this growing up in the 80's and then listening to him later on in the 90's.
The original article this quote was taken from for Snopes continues:
This sound of heels being firmly dug in is typical Clapton. Though he is clearly not a racist, he is amazingly stubborn. The remark caused huge offence, but he still cannot bring himself to apologise.
What we all know is these types of bigots are on the outs. Shame the fuck out of them, they don’t do anything positive for your communities. They are wildly thrashing (with seemingly powerful national voices). They will never completely go away but they are reacting to a change in the norms that’s been coming for decades.
For a guy who is on the US House Armed Services Committee, he sure as hell understands surprisingly little about World War II and the Cold War. Russia has expansion interest since after World War II. In fact, that's how a lot of Soviet Russia was formed. The allies bombed the fuck out the nations, the nations were destitute, broken down countries are really easy to just sweep in and take over. The thing as we all know about that last part is that, it's easy to topple leadership in a country, it's mighty difficult to maintain your grasp on the nation cough Iraq cough.
NATO aims to combine a military strength to act as a deterrent towards expansion into member states, which is why a lot of Europe is in NATO. The only thing guiding NATO is the fourteen articles of the North Atlantic Treaty, outside of that, nations are free to govern themselves. This is in opposition to how Russia was going about adding Ukraine, Moldova, and so on to their collective group.
NATO in very loose terms is a different way of doing a USSR, if that helps Matt Gatez to understand "WHY" we can't just:
extend NATO to Russia and make it an anti-China alliance?
Russia isn't interested in upholding the means by which nations govern. It's like asking the San Francisco 49ers why they won't invite the Boston Red Soxs to come play a game. They aren't doing things that have enough similarities to not have a ton of friction on the collaborative and still call it "football" or "baseball" as we know it. We can totally invent something completely different, but per the definition of things being what they claim to be: Something completely different is in fact completely different than NATO currently be, and thus, we would just invent something different (oh say like a G and some number after it) that has less friction to facilitate interchange in that regard.
But even then when we try something different and invite Russia, they still just have to go edgelord and fuck their membership up. So we literally tried to take Chad to get ice cream at McDonald's as a way to see if they're ready to go to an actual sit down place, AND Chad just couldn't help but to take a shit in the ball pit. So since Chad still is shitting in ball pits, we cannot take Chad to the sit down place with the nice dessert. That's just how it be currently.
So hopefully that's dumbed down enough for even him to understand why we "just don't go and do that thing". If Russia cannot help itself to fuck it's membership up with the G8, they sure as shit aren't going to act proper in a setting like NATO. How is this a thing that eludes this guy?
Even if he understands, it doesn't suit his narrative. He is a far-right politician who says what his owners (domestic and otherwise) want to hear on the cameras. It's a coin toss whether he actually believes some of the things that he says, but largely inconsequential at the end of the day because he isn't going to argue in good faith even if someone miraculously trips over a genuine belief that he holds close to him.
These are unserious people and it is shameful that we (collectively) have elected them to positions of power. If you've ever wanted to run for office but doubt your own abilities, just take a gander at these nimrods.
Politics
Hot