Yeah, it is. It's funny 'cause half the people on this site are so caught up in 30-year bipartisan culture-lock that they can't see it, but I can remember when conservatives in politics were decent people. My how times have changed.


You're in NC? Wow you're seeing this right up close then. I did some work for BofA in Charlotte for a few years during which time Obama was elected (the first time) and well, let's just say I learned a lot about racism in the post-Jim Crow era.

Anyway, I heard what they did to Asheville (my favorite NC town) which can be described as a blue oasis with its own district in the middle of a red desert. They redrew the line right down the center of the town to divide the blue oasis, putting each side into separate red desert districts as minorities.

Yes, the Democrats have done this a few times in the past but not as often as the Republicans are doing it now and I don't remember the Democrats ever being as blatant about it as the Republicans are, especially with Asheville.

I agree with you... they have upshifted to a new level of open corruption and blatant arrogance that makes it harder and harder for people that strive to bridge the partisan gap and find common ground. Then you have the people that continue to defend them and make excuses for them and as their party grows bolder the excuses get more ridiculous to the point where you just can't believe people can be that stupid...

And that's when you start to think...

[End of Facts]
[Start of Theory]

...maybe they aren't stupid at all. Maybe they're just really shitty people who think the GOP will Make Aryans Great Again. (I would LOVE to be wrong on this).

But if I'm right, I think the joke will be on the MAGAts in the end because the party's actual legislation doesn't match the populist rhetoric of their front-man, Trump.

Their legislation says "take all the money and screw the little people" but they can't really be open about that now can they? I think this is why Trump is such a good fit for them and it's probably why they are going out on a limb to keep him in office. Trump is the dog and pony show they need to create a constant supply of outrage and controversy that people obsess about while the party quietly drops in their "take all the money and screw the little people" laws.

I think it's because Trump has been so effective at exploiting the divisions between us to create such obsessive controversies that the party feels it can get away with being so openly corrupt.

Just a theory, but I think a probable one.

Oh, that's right... for some reason I keep forgetting that in your reality (which is the REAL reality of course) the Left/Democrats are Stalinists.

Yeah, when you find Pelosi's gulags, let me know. If you get lost along the way, I'm sure Alex Jones or the fine folks at Breitbart can point you in the right direction. LOL

Ya know, it gets to a point where it becomes superficial. The very concept of race is arbitrary. Which is why in my school days were taught there are Caucasians, Negros and Mongols and now on the EEO forms I have to list myself as Non-Hispanic White.

I think linguistic groups tend to be the most factual of catalogs because archeologists can trace the origins of culture on the basis of language but that doesn't seem to carry over to common conversations. For instance the original Jews (not the white Jews) are Semites, a linguistic group that spans Africa and Arabia and actually includes Arabs. So when someone offends a white Jew and then gets called anti-Semitic, that's actually an erroneous call, because white Jews are not Semitic. And people are way off base when they refer to sympathy for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic because unlike the Jews, ALL Arabs ARE Semitic, including those in the Levant.

Even here on this site I see liberals being called "racist" for opposing Republicans.

So, I dunno bro... Much ado about nothing.


Yeah, I'm not really all that hung up about it because I judge people on what they do not what they are, so when someone calls me a racist (which rarely ever happens) I know it's BS. So why fret over "correct use" of a BS accusation?

BTW, I hope you didn't get the impression that I'm calling you a racist. When I mentioned the term it was in response to archie bunkers joke about not letting Mexicans drive. It had nothing to do with him personally or you at all.


No, language is shifty by nature. Words change meaning over time, many of them such as anti-semitic are used erroneously more often than not and lots of words like "racism" are ambiguous. English in particular is a living language, which means the dictionary is always open to new terms and meanings.

At some point, I think it makes more sense for people to try and understand what people mean rather than getting all persnickety about the correct use of ambiguous terms.


Webster's definition seems to put you in that second "senseless babble" category bro...

race noun

1 : a breeding stock of animals

2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

3a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such
b : BREED
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

...just saying.

I think when people refer to suppression as a feature of fascism, they are referring to voter suppression as exemplified in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. This being the case, the gerrymandering the unapologetic preservation of the EC and the voter fraud fraud (not a typo) counts... I would give the GOP about 80% of the credit for all that.

Ah, I'm pretty sure turtlehead McConnell get's the award for holding up legislation. Pelosi is just prioritizing the focus on the impeachment process which only opened up a few weeks ago. McConnell has been holding up legislation for years, including the delay on confirming Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice until Trump was able to reselect.


None of that is substantiated. The only witnesses not allowed to testify are witness that didn't have anything to do with the case. The GOP keeps trying to fold a case against Biden into the impeachment process to confuse matters. Look, if the GOP can actually find evidence that Biden did anything wrong they can open up a separate case and a separate trial for that. No one is standing in their way.

The "shifty start up hearing" is simply a deposition, which is standard practice. A deposition is basically the taking of an oral statement of a witness under oath, before trial. It has two purposes: To find out what the witness knows, and to preserve that witness' testimony. The GOP knows this but they are trying everything they can to give the public the impression that this is a kangaroo court. Not working.

I'm not sure how you can call the conversation "made up" when Trump himself provided the transcript. The problem is Trump apparently didn't think it was wrong to attempt a bribe. Maybe he should have figured that out before running for office.

Sanctuary cities, states and churches aren't putting anyone above the law. They are trying to protect immigrants from ICE raids and no, there is no law against that either. Nor is there a law that says ICE can launch raids to round up immigrants, they do so on Trump's orders, but Trump's orders is not law.

So, REALLY bad examples of "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism"... in fact I don't even know how you relate these things...

A better example is Trump telling the NFL (which he has no authority over) to fire athletes that take a knee during the National Anthem, which happens to be a form peaceful protest, as in "opposition and criticism". Is there a law that says people can't take a knee during the anthem? No. Is there a law that says Trump can't interfere with opposition and criticism? Yes, there is. It's called the 1st Amendment. Indeed, Trump's antics over this issue was the first of his many constitutional violations. No president in my lifetime has ever stepped so far over this line.


Unsubstantiated.


Unsubstantiated.


The Democrats are trying to help kickstart the green industry through subsidies because the people are demanding we cut emissions. This is nothing new... Farmers have been subsidized by the government for decades, so has the coal industry. I'm not sure how you can equate investing in an industry (which is what subsidizing is) to the "fascist regimenting" of an industry.

Something else that isn't new is changes in the energy mix. When Winston Churchill proposed the Royal Navy switch from coal to oil he had in mind the obvious fact that naval ships could stay at sea longer without having to refuel. Was it a good decision? Of course it was. Did the coal industry at the time whine and bitch about it? Yes, they did. Did they think Churchill was trying to destroy their livelihoods? I'm sure some of them acted like it. Was he? No.

Our energy mix has changed from wood to coal to oil, so changing it again to renewables doesn't present anything out of the ordinary. Things change Cody. It doesn't mean a government that helps new industries is being fascist.


death march rates?


Unsubstantiated.


Unsubstantiated.


I suppose it would seem that way to anyone who believes your elastic BS.


After all your baseless accusations you're going to call Democrats crisis creators? LOL

Sorry bro... I just can't stop laughing. Do you have ANY clue how obvious your BS is? See this is the problem when people rant. They have no support for ANYTHING they say which leave a lot of blank space that they simple fill with more accusations. In the end you fill up a post with numerous accusations and no substance. Why don't you just pick one and support it with an actual argument? Unless of course, the whole point is to rant. Which is fine, as long as you don't mind me laughing.


Ah, there we go - the grand finale of wide sweeping, baseless BS. LOL

"Does this mean we should also make it illegal for Mexicans to drive a motor vehicle?" - archie bunker

BTW, "Mexican" isn't a race either.

So, while I agree that negative references to nationality or religion isn't technically "racist" I don't really see how the treatment is any different. I suppose I could have called it "bigoted" which covers it all, but "racist" just happens to be a more common word for covering that kind of demographic isolation, including many books about how "racist" the Nazis were against the Jews, yet another religious reference.

Now, I know you and archie were just joking around so I don't want to belabor this but I'd still like to make a point about the use of the term "racist" since we're here.

I think in many cases the technical error is more on the side of the person using terms like "Mexican" or "Muslims" because we know they really mean Latino people or Arab people. But like the term "bigoted" these more accurate terms are often not the first to come to mind.

Language is shifty bro.

Yeah, I know.


I don't think they're as fearful as they are fed-up with the lame-ass excuses people come up with the keep assault weapons on the market.


Again, what difference does that make? Did you not understand my point about how stupid it would be to stop cancer research just because cancer is not the #1 cause of death in the U.S.?

Besides, drugs, swimming pools and parents all have other uses and that presents a trade off. In contrast assault weapons have ZERO utility other than killing people. That's a big giant elephant in the room that you are refusing to acknowledge.


That sounds like paranoid delusion to me.


What exactly are you correcting? Did I say the police were preventative?

Uh, no.

But you know what else is reactive and can't protect in the initial stage of attack? An armed teacher. Think about it. These assailants don't call in ahead of time and whether a teacher is packing or not doesn't make any difference - he isn't going to know about the attack until the first shot is fired and if the assailant has a military-grade weapon, an entire clip can be emptied before the teacher is ready to fire his first shot.


That may be the case out in Boss Hogg country, but where I come from, the police (LAPD) deal with situations that would make a lot of vets pee their pants. So it goes both ways. But ultimately, it's the purpose of the police, not the military to deal with civilian disturbances. And when it comes to protecting our children I'd rather have an active duty police officer than a some vet that may or may not even remember his 5 weeks of training back in 1972.

No, that would be racist, right?

Yes, everyone knows that a car can be a used as a weapon. But this gets back to my point about things that provide benefits that outweigh the risks. Unlike an assault weapon a car can get you to work, school, the hospital... So it's not just about whether something can be used as a weapon (which just about anything can) it's a matter of whether it has ANY other purpose. If not then why keep it around?

Also, in case you forgot - cars are very much controlled. You can't own one without registration and you can't operate one without a license. Odd how no one has a problem with that.

Well, I guess we should ban white people like this bonehead...



from driving cars too...



Or are we conveniently forgetting that white people can be terrorists too?

You should really look closer before folding your arms big boy.

It says that under Obama it took 7 years to increase the debt by $8.59 trillion and under Trump it's only going to take 3 years to increase it by $4.78 trillion. Now for the math... ready country boy?

$8.59 / 7 = $1.23
$4.78 / 3 = $1.59

So, your graphic is actually saying that Trump is increasing the debt more per year than Obama did.

Ooooops!

I was going to get into the whole thing about how most of Obama's spending was obligatory (payments on debt incurred by Bush) where most of Trump's spending is on new programs and purchases, but that might be too much reality for the Trump fans.

LOL

And how does that matter to the argument? Just another distraction?


I've read the thread and I didn't see anyone crying for China... Another distraction 4430?


No, I don't think "U C" at all... Maybe your apparent crush on Trump might be getting in the way of seeing this, but the reason why we weren't slapping tariffs on on China before is because of the consequences that Baracuda is talking about.

You see, before Trump we had smart people in office and they knew that China had some natural advantages so they did what they could to mitigate that, while trying to encourage free-trade. Trump has no clue what those advantages are because he's basically an idiot and he doesn't give a rats ass about the country or free-trade anyway. What he cares about is staying in office, which means he has to convince people he is taking action. It doesn't matter if the actions cause negative repercussions or not especially if the 30% that he is impressing is as ignorant as he is.

I'll shut my mouth the minute I see ANY sign that the tariffs are resulting in better trade deals. So far they aren't. Trump keeps delaying the trade talks and now he's talking about delaying it until AFTER the 2020 elections. In other words he can't bring Jinping to the table because Jinping is too busy laughing his ass off.

So as much as you like men with balls, 4430 it takes brains to lead a nation not balls, ego and clown makeup.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to brace for it. The current growth rate is well below the level Trump was promising and his off-the-leash spending has increased our national debt to $23 trillion.

Yeah, but not with any kind of counter-argument. Just a few utterly pointless reactions. That's about it.

LOL - As if socialism has anything to do with what we've been talking about.

I honestly don't think that on average a teacher or ex-military dad with a gun will be all that effective in protecting the children, especially against a suicidal assailant with an assault weapon.

So, I'll answer with four points...

1. teach the kids what to do in the event of an attack to increase their own chances of survival.
2. have schools and local police establish quick response plans.
3. ban high-capacity weapons to decrease the chance of high-capacity murders.
4. accept the reality that life is dangerous and unpredictable and that safety is NEVER guaranteed.

That last point means all we can really do is mitigate risk, not prevent it. That being said, I think my suggestions offer some help in reducing the potential for casualties. I think arming teachers and parents is asking for trouble because then we're relying on factors that are far more unpredictable. For instance in one of those recent shooting incidents there WAS an armed guard on campus and he froze. Also, I don't have a high degree of confidence that a minimally trained civilian, such as a teacher, an NRA member or even an ex-military dad won't get jumpy and shoot someone by accident. In fact, I think that's more probable than the attack they are supposed to be ready for.

'cause, ya know... another source of more gun deaths per year than assailants with assault weapons are accident shootings and I know for a fact that the NRA has its fair share of excitable Barney Fifes.

And this is why I bring the police into this is because it's already their job to protect and serve. Teachers teach, policemen protect (in most cases). Many police officers ARE ex-military but when it really comes down to it the police are better trained to deal with civilians than the military is. Also, the police are active, meaning they continue to be tested and certified for their effectiveness. Ex-military could mean some guy did one tour in Vietnam and has since turned into a fat and senile old man.

I know a lot of ex-military dads would love to be a hero but this is about mitigating risk to the children in very real terms not satisfying the fantasies of gun-owners that want to be heroes. If an ex-military dad wants to stand around campus with his gun ready for that .001% chance of an attack, I would suggest he join the police, get the training he needs and become part of a coordinated and well-regulated effort.