The Next President is...

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/23/2021 at 1:04 PM, Blue said:

 

 

One doesn't need to be a trained mental health expert to know something is wrong with Joe Biden's mental state.

Biden is 78 years old, the oldest person to ever sit in the Oval Office.  The next closest is Reagan, who was 77 at the end of his presidency.

This is a big ing problem for the country, and I don't know how anyone can brush it off as "he's just old," or "people are just picking on poor Joe."

Age-related mental decline is insidious.  It comes and goes.  Someone can have their mental faculties at 100% at the beginning of the day, but then as the day drags on and they wear mentally and physically, they get worse and worse.  The results manifest themselves in several ways: people end up being excessively argumentative, they get tunnel vision and fixate on things with no rhyme or reason.

Anyone who's had the pleasure of working with those in their late 60s and 70s has seen this play out before. 

It was rumored that Reagan was experiencing the beginning of mental decline during his second term; he even got some raised eyebrows during the 1984 Presidential race when he seemed to falter during the debates.  That was a problem then, but at the very least you had an established team surrounding the president, and a more-or-less stable country and world.

Now you've got Joe Biden, who's starting his presidency in today's chaotic world, and surrounding himself with an eclectic band of unproven staffers and Cabinet picks.

Agree or disagree with Joe Biden's polices and ideals all you want.  That's everyone's right as a red-blooded American.  But the fact that we're starting a Presidential term with a 78 year old is a big ing problem.

True. Trump is 74 (and obese) so not really better.  I think that says alot about how both parties operate these days.   They’re both ~20 yrs older than the mean age at inauguration.  In addition,  MCConnell is 78 and Pelosi is 80.  How did we end up here? I’m sure we can all agree that some relative youth is needed in our political leadership.  

[jazzdude]

How many school shootings by deranged, pissed off kids?  That's an easy way to prevent those deaths.

This problem isn't deranged kids with guns, it's deranged kids with intent to commit violence. Guns make it easier (so yes limiting their access is important), but if someone is intent on hurting people, they will find a way.

But it's easier to talk removing guns than to address mental health issues and treatments, class size (smaller sizes encourage teachers to build a better relationship with students), bullying in schools, and parental responsibilities regarding their child.

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/24/2021 at 10:20 AM, ClearedHot said:

And this gem from the NY Times this morning calling Biden "the most religiously observant' president in 50 years"  SERIOUSLY?  Last I checked he is a Catholic who advocates for abortion.  The mainstream media just can't help but slobber all over his knob.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/biden-catholic-christian.html

Basically, I took the article as “Biden goes to church a lot and supports some Catholic causes and doctrine.” Obviously abortion is a huge, major outlier.  In all though, it is a typical Presidential exaggeration of leading a faith based life.  For goodness sake, Trump in some inexplicable way became the darling of the evangelical right, despite cavorting with porn actresses, grabbing genitalia, and previously being indifferent at best to abortion.  Not saying any of it is right but unfortunately this is a common tactic used to build up conventional faith bonafides.  

[ClearedHot]

11 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Basically, I took the article as “Biden goes to church a lot and supports some Catholic causes and doctrine.” Obviously abortion is a huge, major outlier.  In all though, it is a typical Presidential exaggeration of leading a faith based life.  For goodness sake, Trump in some inexplicable way became the darling of the evangelical right, despite cavorting with porn actresses, grabbing genitalia, and previously being indifferent at best to abortion.  Not saying any of it is right but unfortunately this is a common tactic used to build up conventional faith bonafides.  

Major difference.  The evangelicals are a private group, they embraced Trump and overlooked his obvious religious shortcomings because they were trying to get to the ultimate goal over reversing Roe V Wade.

The NY Times is mainstream media.  I think the same argument applies to Foxnews fawning over Trump.  Sickening on both accounts.

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/24/2021 at 10:02 AM, ClearedHot said:

100% agree that many 2016 votes were against Hillary and not for Trump.  I voted for Trump this time and it absolutely pained me.  I did it because I could not vote for the DNC polices which are now being thrust upon us (draconian gun control, "free" everything, seven-fold increase in immigration and enabling the Squad agenda). 

I disagree with your assessment that the GOP sold it's soul nominating Trump...what were they supposed to do...rig the nomination like the DNC (sucked to be Bernie in 2016 with Super-Delegates).  If Trump had the votes, he had the votes.  I can however support the soul selling argument when it comes to protesting the election and other issues. 

At the end of the day, I see Biden’s election as a reset to politics as usual, warts and all.  Given the debacle of the past four years, that’s probably okay.  If a better outsider candidate can get traction; Tulsi, Jocko(!), Crenshaw (despite the fact that SEALS annoy me) then we can try again. 
 

Two aspects pushed me away from Trump this time: 1) His unpresidential behavior, which is important - In contrast, Reagan’s ability to communicate in a mature, articulate way was key to his success and facilitated the recovery of both the economy and our national pride.  Initially I gave  Trump the benefit of the doubt in just being unpolished. That wasn’t the case; he said whatever he thought would appeal to his base no matter how vile, racist, or incendiary. 
2) Many of the numbers he claimed just weren’t correct. Job growth the last 3 yrs of Obama was slightly better than the first three years of Trump (pre-pandemic) per BLS stats.   The trajectory of major market indices was essentially consistent from 2011 until the start of the pandemic. Thus, Trump did not rescue us from the ‘terrible Obama economy’. Crime has been steadily decreasing for decades. Trump did not dramatically affect it one way or the other. 

[GrndPndr]

1 hour ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Good discussion here.  BLM is a problematic organization.  The Marxist connections and the bizarre statement about the eliminating the nuclear family are confounding.  
 

HOWEVER, I’ve taken the opportunity to sit down with (actual, real) black people and get their perspective. I’d strongly recommend doing the same in order to challenge your thinking. Some don’t perceive any racism but the vast majority do.  It can be uncomfortable as it initially comes off as  “all white people are bad” but after some reflection that wasn’t the case. After years of having grievances dismissed or having to deal with always-hostile reactions from the “I’m the least racist person I know” “I have a black friend” or the “yeah there’s maybe some racism, BUT...” crowds you get pissed off - such that opening a pressure relief valve is dramatic. Also, some folks use the problematic aspects of the BLM organization to discredit any and all complaints from the black community.  That’s Fox News, Newsmax, and talk radio SOP. All of whom, by the way, are part of the mainstream media. They celebrated/defended Trump as much as MSNBC and CNN attacked/discredited him.  So, overall Trump coverage was balanced, although bimodal.  

So what happened during the eight years of Obama/Biden?  Did we just shut of the black complaint system, because there was someone in office who should be sympathetic to the cause?  The complaints seem to rise and fall with whoever has been elected.

I too have friends who are "down with the cause," and they lay the blame for all of their troubles on Trump - including the challenges you list, and race problems dating back decades.

Well, now we have Biden.  In a post-election world, it will be interesting to see where he lays the blame for race troubles.

[jazzdude]

In principal, I support Voter ID 100% with the points expressed above.   However, it is irksome that legislatures (usually Republican) trying to pass such laws can’t help themselves from also closing or curtailing DMV hours in areas with higher minority populations.  Gee, somehow there’s always a coincidental budget issue. 

If voter ID was actually viewed as important/critical, the infrastructure allowing voter ID to be put in practice should be fully funded. This includes ID issuing sites, polling sites, backend databases, and verification (both before issuance, and at the polling sites to stop fake IDs from being used).

Since it is not, it's not really important, and there's nothing a politician can say to convince me otherwise. Where we spend our money shows us what we value in our capitalistic society.

So I agree, many times politicians calling for voter ID are using it as a means of voter suppression, because if they truly believed in it, they would fund everything necessary to implement it, though they never do.

So then it gets turned into something like getting turned away from the deployed DFAC because you're in sweaty PTUs and not a clean uniform (or without a reflective belt, remember those days?), despite being 110 degrees outside (i.e. stupid nonner games)

[Prozac]

3 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

The ONLY thing the left did for the last 4 years was sow distrust in the Trump administration.  

I agree with everything else you said.  

Perhaps. But Trump did as much or more than any Democrat or pundit to sow distrust in his own executive branch and its institutions. I think we will look back at four years of Trump as entirely self defeating for the Republican Party. Both parties should now concentrate on effective governance and restoration of people’s faith in the democratic process. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 minute ago, GrndPndr said:

So what happened during the eight years of Obama/Biden?  Did we just shut of the black complaint system, because there was someone in office who should be sympathetic to the cause?  The complaints seem to rise and fall with whoever has been elected.

I too have friends who are "down with the cause," and they lay the blame for all of their troubles on Trump - including the challenges you list, and race problems dating back decades.

Well, now we have Biden.  In a post-election world, it will be interesting to see where he lays the blame for race troubles.

Most of the people I spoke with definitely saw Trump as a major incendiary figure.  However, their major point was that this stuff has been a problem since they were born. 
 

I do agree that Republicans may get more of the blame than they’ve earned (although not completely beyond the realm of reason).  And democrats can sometime get a pass. And that some POC take advantage so as to avoid some responsibility. However, those are universals that all sides do; human nature. The point here is that there are real problems that should be acted on rather than ignored, denied, orrationalized away. 

[jazzdude]

So what happened during the eight years of Obama/Biden?  Did we just shut of the black complaint system, because there was someone in office who should be sympathetic to the cause?  The complaints seem to rise and fall with whoever has been elected.
I too have friends who are "down with the cause," and they lay the blame for all of their troubles on Trump - including the challenges you list, and race problems dating back decades.
Well, now we have Biden.  In a post-election world, it will be interesting to see where he lays the blame for race troubles.

I don't think the race issues weren't new in the Trump era- that's stuff that's been festering for decades like you noted. I think what changed under Trump was that white supremacists and those sympathetic to them were emboldened by Trump's rhetoric, combined with ever increasing usage of social media by all sides (and traditional media following suit), and that forced the issue to the forefront.

I don't think the complaints really rise and fall with the party in power, just how much focus is placed on it by media and the PR from both parties.

So it's unfair to say these recent racial issues are solely Trump's fault like some on the left would argue, but it's also disingenuous to say that Trump didn't fan the flames of a smoldering problem in our country like some on the right would argue.

[Swamp Yankee]

56 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

If voter ID was actually viewed as important/critical, the infrastructure allowing voter ID to be put in practice should be fully funded. This includes ID issuing sites, polling sites, backend databases, and verification (both before issuance, and at the polling sites to stop fake IDs from being used).

Since it is not, it's not really important, and there's nothing a politician can say to convince me otherwise. Where we spend our money shows us what we value in our capitalistic society.

So I agree, many times politicians calling for voter ID are using it as a means of voter suppression, because if they truly believed in it, they would fund everything necessary to implement it, though they never do.

So then it gets turned into something like getting turned away from the deployed DFAC because you're in sweaty PTUs and not a clean uniform (or without a reflective belt, remember those days?), despite being 110 degrees outside (i.e. stupid nonner games)

 

Good points.  
 

Ah yes, reflective belts.  I still have a couple in old helmet bags.  There’s a hilarious Reddit thread “Why is the USAF so obsessed with reflective belts?”   One of my favorites:  “I find it useful in identifying douche bags from a safe distance. If the sun is up, and you see someone running around or in an office wearing one, there is a very high probability that the individual is a jerk. Bonus points if they are holding a Big Blue coffee cup and spend free time yapping at people at the ecp about proper wear of line badges.” 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[slackline]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Shocked he agrees with the first three...

I understand and support the proper storage of weapons (many states already have these laws), I think the real concern is over ammunition.

Why?  Because I don't agree with some of the points on the right, and I'm not willing to blindly jump on board with everything spouted by people on an internet forum?  I'm a moderate, leaning conservative.  

And like I said, very clear definitions need to exist. Engage in good faith in the debate, and we get a say in those definitions.  Act like they're trying to steal our guns, refuse to engage, and we're stuck with whatever they decide.  That's a bad strategy...

Edited January 25, 2021 by slackline

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Major difference.  The evangelicals are a private group, they embraced Trump and overlooked his obvious religious shortcomings because they were trying to get to the ultimate goal over reversing Roe V Wade.

The NY Times is mainstream media.  I think the same argument applies to Foxnews fawning over Trump.  Sickening on both accounts.

Perhaps. But the evangelicals have a gigantic influence in conservative politics.  They carry at least as much weight as conventional media outlets

[slackline]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

This problem isn't deranged kids with guns, it's deranged kids with intent to commit violence. Guns make it easier (so yes limiting their access is important), but if someone is intent on hurting people, they will find a way.

But it's easier to talk removing guns than to address mental health issues and treatments, class size (smaller sizes encourage teachers to build a better relationship with students), bullying in schools, and parental responsibilities regarding their child.

I didn't say remove guns.  

Also, I hate how this lame argument about guns only making it easier to hurt people...  Yeah, a lot easier!  Why don't you go pull up statistics on mass shootings vs mass stabbings or cars used as a weapon.  The latter happen infrequently because you can't do the same amount of damage without getting up close and personal. Difference between pickling a JDAM and pulling the trigger in CQB is similar. One is much harder to do, and that's in a justified situation.  The ability to be somewhat removed by using a gun vs having to do it up close and personal is just one aspect limiting people trying to stab everyone at school.  Lock guns up in your home, and that pissed off kid, wanting to commit violence has to really think a lot more about how he is gonna go about it.

We have a right to guns and ammo in whatever qty we feel we want.  I'm not ever going to back up anything that tries to change it.  This seems like a no-brainer to put a dent in (while it won't eliminate them) mass shootings, especially at schools.

One of the dumbest things gun rights advocates can say is, "guns don't hurt people, people do!" Problem with the right is acting like they're trying to take away our guns the second the conversation even comes up. Engage in the conversation in good faith, and we should be able to find a compromise because you're kidding yourself if you think nothing needs to be done...

[AirGuardianC141747]

Very Great points jazzdude:

Regarding the subset of voters I mentioned you are correct, maybe we trust a proven system whatever that might be which I guess I only alluded too.

America as a whole has voted for a very long time centuries now without such mail in ballots as a predominant measure, it has just been a rushed measure with this current state of affairs.

Standing in long lines losing pay with skin in the game, bad bosses and not getting paid for your time being American that’s nothing new if you have been voting for quite awhile now as your civic duty. I can only account for over 3 decades of voting and how it has changed significantly for the worse with the technology available for the best. With your voter accountability ideas it should be attainable. Side note - $15 an hour pay might help so many have that going for them which is nice. Not arguing whether $15 is a good/bad thing, we as the consumer will pay no matter what as it will be handed down to us. 
 

Closing the economy for voting, even if true for a few weeks it’s hardly a real deal breaker compared to 2020 as the litmus test. The American economy is still being crushed into this year with constant closings aside from the protesting/riots/1st Amendment tamp down, etc. Businesses have already burned and continue to struggle with folks hurting out there as we live among the non-government paycheck entrepreneurs, small businesses, etc. As a nation we have yet to feel and reel from the impacts going forward to include the debt accrued into $30 Trillion plus now.

Your Voter ID definitely has great merit and I hope to get there beyond signatures, voter registration, ID etc. (never said just signature match, I would have included heartbeat if it mattered 🙂 Your 2 factor authentication would be the best course of action. My statement was a pure assessment that we basically have absolutely nothing so how will trust be earned again. Your way sounds good.

Time to research at home definitely is more of a comfort driven statement, I like it. Being informed is paramount. I already do the same it’s just homework, but I have drilled down my notes in hand when I actually show up to vote as we do not have the premiere system that you mentioned yet. When we do, I’m there dude/just like you = good stuff.

Regarding Trump and current events. At least at the bare minimum we get to see all the snakes that normally reside in the tall grass. A lot of them are out in the open and blatantly revealed themselves and their agendas within BOTH parties, Presidents current/past, Senators, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs, etc. Definitely an easier and safer life to blindly walk the path down the middle of the tall grass. Easier for them to strike from their comfort zone, but now the grass has been lit on fire.

Free Speech / Gun Control at the forefront. It’s not coming it’s already here with the 1st Amendment being crossed rampantly and trigger control a close 2nd. Crush 1, then number 2 and so on. Parler, YouTube restrictions , Go Daddy now, granted plenty of other websites have been attacked/shutdown/restricted by the DOJ for the good of society, but these Free Speech sites seem to be at the forefront currently (not by DOJ, but Big Tech). Anyone can be on the list now. Search parties are rolling and not to save a life mind you, but to control it.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by AirGuardianC141747

[AirGuardianC141747]

Gun Control is very tricky. Definitely could institute some sort of common sense measures whatever they may be. No expert by any means although many initiatives are a gateway drug to further action. But in the end if you believe there is absolutely no threat of gun confiscation, history has proven you wrong. To paraphrase Lloyd Christmas, I am telling you there’s a chance. However miNute, it’s the same reason you have a CCL.
 

Buyback is gun confiscation, or you could just mandatory register your items making it easier to go door to door, granted plenty of states/counties becoming sanctuary areas as each second passes. Nothing was accomplished rapidly prior to the Trump administration. It’s the whole boiling frog routine. Now things are moving quickly and once you start chipping away like a boxer’s first eye cut, the bleeding won’t stop and it always gets worse from there.

Venezuela at least offered some great appliances before tyranny set in.

2020 has proven you should have the right to protect yourself all by itself. Imagine how much greater the threat might have been if there was absolutely no fear entering certain areas.

Virginias flag alone tells you why the 2nd amendment exists. Goddess of virtue with a sword/Lance and stepping on the chest King of England mind you, his crown having fallen to the wayside.  "Sic semper tyrannis“ written below...

[jazzdude]

I didn't say remove guns.  
Also, I hate how this lame argument about guns only making it easier to hurt people...  Yeah, a lot easier!  Why don't you go pull up statistics on mass shootings vs mass stabbings or cars used as a weapon.  The latter happen infrequently because you can't do the same amount of damage without getting up close and personal. Difference between pickling a JDAM and pulling the trigger in CQB is similar. One is much harder to do, and that's in a justified situation.  The ability to be somewhat removed by using a gun vs having to do it up close and personal is just one aspect limiting people trying to stab everyone at school.  Lock guns up in your home, and that pissed off kid, wanting to commit violence has to really think a lot more about how he is gonna go about it.
We have a right to guns and ammo in whatever qty we feel we want.  I'm not ever going to back up anything that tries to change it.  This seems like a no-brainer to put a dent in (while it won't eliminate them) mass shootings, especially at schools.
One of the dumbest things gun rights advocates can say is, "guns don't hurt people, people do!" Problem with the right is acting like they're trying to take away our guns the second the conversation even comes up. Engage in the conversation in good faith, and we should be able to find a compromise because you're kidding yourself if you think nothing needs to be done...

I generally agree with you, and you have valid points regarding guns making violence easier. My intent was that getting rid of guns doesn't eliminate the underlying problem of violence in schools, which many anti-gun advocates claim.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/a-plan-for-preventing-mass-shootings-and-ending-all-gun-violence-in-american-schools/#intro
https://www.nea.org/student-success/smart-just-policies/gun-violence-prevention
That's what I'm trying to refute.

It's a two prong problem:
- Reduce access or means to commit violence (securing guns, limits for purchase, etc)
- Reduce/eliminate intent to commit violence (counseling, therapy, mental healthcare access)
The problem doesn't get solved without solving part parts of the problem.

Even if guns are locked up, a kid intent on planning and executing a school shooting is going to find a way, unless the parent has a "good" safe and doesn't have a weak combination (like birthdays, favorite numbers, etc).

The other issue is that any solutions applied to reduce school shootings will likely be applied to society at large (ref outrage about AR15s and assault weapons). It's already generally illegal to bring a gun to a school. So requiring guns to be locked up in a private residence has about as much effect on school shootings as banning guns from school property, unless the government is going to do spot inspections to verify gun owner compliance (which no gun owner wants, and sets a terrible precedent regarding privacy).

Also, what is considered sufficient for securing firearms? Is my locked front door sufficient (can I have a loaded firearm in my nightstand for personal defense if I don't have kids)? What about a locked desk drawer? Can I have a firearm (functional or not) in a display case? Or does it need to be in a dedicated gun safe at all times when I'm not actively handling or transporting the firearm? Does that gun safe need to be anchored to my residence (otherwise, a smaller, lighter, non anchored safe could just be stolen, and the safe or lock can be beat at a later time). What kind of lock is suitable (many store padlocks are relatively easy to beat)? How often does the combination need to be changed to prevent a troubled kid from learning the combination? If your kid has a friend who's deemed a high risk to commit a school shooting, does that give the government the right to temporarily impound your guns you keep in a safe to reduce that other troubled kid's access to guns to prevent a school shooting (as advocates by everytown and NEA)?

That bill is overly vague and broad.

[slackline]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

 

I generally agree with you, and you have valid points regarding guns making violence easier. My intent was that getting rid of guns doesn't eliminate the underlying problem of violence in schools, which many anti-gun advocates claim.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/a-plan-for-preventing-mass-shootings-and-ending-all-gun-violence-in-american-schools/#intro
https://www.nea.org/student-success/smart-just-policies/gun-violence-prevention
That's what I'm trying to refute.

It's a two prong problem:
- Reduce access or means to commit violence (securing guns, limits for purchase, etc)
- Reduce/eliminate intent to commit violence (counseling, therapy, mental healthcare access)
The problem doesn't get solved without solving part parts of the problem.

Even if guns are locked up, a kid intent on planning and executing a school shooting is going to find a way, unless the parent has a "good" safe and doesn't have a weak combination (like birthdays, favorite numbers, etc).

The other issue is that any solutions applied to reduce school shootings will likely be applied to society at large (ref outrage about AR15s and assault weapons). It's already generally illegal to bring a gun to a school. So requiring guns to be locked up in a private residence has about as much effect on school shootings as banning guns from school property, unless the government is going to do spot inspections to verify gun owner compliance (which no gun owner wants, and sets a terrible precedent regarding privacy).

Also, what is considered sufficient for securing firearms? Is my locked front door sufficient (can I have a loaded firearm in my nightstand for personal defense if I don't have kids)? What about a locked desk drawer? Can I have a firearm (functional or not) in a display case? Or does it need to be in a dedicated gun safe at all times when I'm not actively handling or transporting the firearm? Does that gun safe need to be anchored to my residence (otherwise, a smaller, lighter, non anchored safe could just be stolen, and the safe or lock can be beat at a later time). What kind of lock is suitable (many store padlocks are relatively easy to beat)? How often does the combination need to be changed to prevent a troubled kid from learning the combination? If your kid has a friend who's deemed a high risk to commit a school shooting, does that give the government the right to temporarily impound your guns you keep in a safe to reduce that other troubled kid's access to guns to prevent a school shooting (as advocates by everytown and NEA)?

That bill is overly vague and broad.

 

Great questions, and they go to my point about the conversation.  Refuse to have it, and we get what the ignorant masses force on us.  Take part in the conversation and maintain some say in what those measures/definitions are.  

[pbar]

2 hours ago, slackline said:

<Snip>  Engage in the conversation in good faith, and we should be able to find a compromise because you're kidding yourself if you think nothing needs to be done...

Therein lies the problem, the vast majority of politicians advocating gun control are not operating in good faith.  They are just moving the ball down the field towards their goal of eliminating the 2A.  

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/22/2021 at 12:49 PM, Lord Ratner said:

You'd have to listen to Shapiro's podcast to know that. He regularly and repeatedly calls out the right. He's the most honest and consistent voice on the right by far, and if you only listened to one conservative, it should be him.

 

Tucker Carlson is second on the list, but a distant second. Not because he represents the intellectual justification for conservatism, but because he is the best voice for the populist/conservative hybrid that is growing within the right. Unfortunately most of his work is on cable news, which is a garbage format. But he does appear on podcasts where his views are far more digestible. Check out him and Shapiro talking about self driving trucks. It's an eye opening exchange to a self-driving-car-evangelist like myself.

I have listened to a few of Shapiro's podcasts (working from home provides some flexibility).  Sorry, he sticks to right wing talking points 99% of the time.  The only "criticism" I've heard was from this summer, indicating that Trump occasionally gets in his own way with his communications style, but then it was right back to slamming the left. 

Clearly, Shapiro, like Weisteins and even Rogan to an extent, rarely, if ever, criticize the right. In fact, the main talking point is that it was really the democrats who sparked the Jan 6th riots because they were just too tough and mean to Trump.  That is completely ridiculous.  The fact is that a very large number of Trump supporters were duped and incited by his rhetoric, resulting in an attempt to interrupt the political process. Full stop.  

The right demands that the left see both sides, which the left in fact does way better than the right.  It is not even close. 

[17D_guy]

29 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I have listened to a few of Shapiro's podcasts (working from home provides some flexibility).  Sorry, he sticks to right wing talking points 99% of the time.  The only "criticism" I've heard was from this summer, indicating that Trump occasionally gets in his own way with his communications style, but then it was right back to slamming the left.

Shapiro was very hard on Trump's lies about the election from the start.  There's pretty good video where he's arguing with his crew about how they're wrong for supporting the former pres saying he won that night. He's done that all along, and pointed out how awful the lawsuits are.

Yes, 99% of the time he's going to have those talking points because those are his talking points.  But he's on the same line every time, and doesn't shift much when some darling conservative comes in and "does bad, to do good."  He annoys me often, but I respect him on that front.

Tucker Carlson on the other hand is none of those things. Has he released his copy of the Biden laptop yet that he got?  He fans the flames on rhetoric, with the same bad faith arguments and selective reading of the facts same as Hannity.  He's willing to align himself to whatever gets him views and popular, unlike Shapiro.  Him playing himself as "a man of the people" with his sliver spoon upbringing and Ivy League education is just the topper.

The fact that a court of law, and Fox News argued, that you can't take anything he says as a "statement of fact" means the show isn't worth anyone's time.

[ClearedHot]

17 hours ago, slackline said:

Why?  Because I don't agree with some of the points on the right, and I'm not willing to blindly jump on board with everything spouted by people on an internet forum?  I'm a moderate, leaning conservative.  

And like I said, very clear definitions need to exist. Engage in good faith in the debate, and we get a say in those definitions.  Act like they're trying to steal our guns, refuse to engage, and we're stuck with whatever they decide.  That's a bad strategy...

I think you missed the point.  If you read your reply it could be taken as you AGREE with the legislation and that is what I found shocking.   "1-3 I'll agree with 100%."  Putting a "you" after agree might have changed that sentence, but as written it sounds like you agree with all three bills.

For the record I think most Americans are in the middle and it is the ideologues on the extremes that are driving the narrative.  I too am a moderate, I am social liberal and fiscally conservative.

[slackline]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I think you missed the point.  If you read your reply it could be taken as you AGREE with the legislation and that is what I found shocking.   "1-3 I'll agree with 100%."  Putting a "you" after agree might have changed that sentence, but as written it sounds like you agree with all three bills.

For the record I think most Americans are in the middle and it is the ideologues on the extremes that are driving the narrative.  I too am a moderate, I am social liberal and fiscally conservative.

Nope, was agreeing with you on 1-3.  Context of me then explaining my thoughts on 4&5 makes it fairly obvious I wasn't agreeing with all three bills. I could have been more clear though. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by slackline

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, MyCS said:

So the MyPillow guy is banned from Twitter too now. Twitter is turning into Oprah...you get banned, you get banned, everyone gets banned. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/26/twitter-bans-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-election-fraud-claims/4257458001/

 

 

The tech oligarchs are going to strangle opposing messages while basking in the protections of 230.

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The tech oligarchs are going to strangle opposing messages while basking in the protections of 230.

What are some possible solutions?   At the end of the day I’d rather have companies make their own business decisions rather than the government.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Swamp Yankee