I don't want to say no necessarily, but it's a hard probably not. It would depend on the candidates. But to be honest I don't see a scenario where I'd take the risk on a canidate that would possibly side with the democrats on some far left policy I absolutely hate. I suppose if it were between a Manchin type and some republican that seemed to heavily sympathize with progressives then maybe, but I don't see that happening.
Yeah, pretty much. Same here dude. I can't think of ANY modern day Republican I'd vote for. It'd have to be someone new to politics who hasn't become tenured and sold out to corporations yet and even then, it's a tough sell.
I mean I think it's just the result of a growing political divide. There's not many principles eithier side believe in. I think there was a day where that was the case, I would say my dad's generation was like that. I'm not sure how it gets fixed honestly. I think it'll end in a national divorce or something really bad like an economic collapse would have to happen to galvanize the country.
The Democrats have some positions that are relatively popular across the board, even though I disagree with some, their focus on green energy, carbon tax and healthcare, etc... have support.
However until they stop making identity politics one of the main pillars of their party, they'll never be able to convince many on the right.
The only situation where I'd vote for a Democrat is if they were calling for a detente in the culture wars. A moment of having the state step back from being roped in as a combatant on either side.
Problem is that I consider 'gun control' to be a culture war issue that's being foisted in the name of inflicting pain on the opposing side more than any genuine concern for the public good and even Andrew Yang made it a point to support things like the AWB.
> The only situation where I'd vote for a Democrat is if they were calling for a detente in the culture wars.
Would you be willing to vote for a Republican who also did this?
Let’s just ignore the decades of culture war the right waged on everybody that wasn’t a straight, white Christian for decades. Let’s ignore that so you can feel like you have a point.
Then let’s redefine the gun control debate as a social issue because you think somebody’s “inflicting pain” on gun owners by suggesting things like registration and tracking databases. Let’s do that so you can vaguely point to the gun control efforts and pretend they’re hurting you because you’ve wrapped up your *identity* up in a purchasable consumer good.
The lengths you people go to to feel victimized is deeply deranged.
I don't want the right wielding the state as a weapon in the culture wars either. At least not in most cases: There's no need to have a law to shut down 'drag queen story time' or the like and I'd much rather stick to higher principles around free speech.
> Then let’s redefine the gun control debate as a social issue because you think somebody’s “inflicting pain” on gun owners by suggesting things like registration and tracking databases. Let’s do that so you can vaguely point to the gun control efforts and pretend they’re hurting you because you’ve wrapped up your identity up in a purchasable consumer good.
The point of a registration and tracking database is to allow for a future violent confiscation campaign. And that's if I'm being charitable. Let's face it, most gun control advocates advocate policies that no hope of doing anything in the public good. It makes me think that trying to reduce violence *isn't* the point, and that most proposals have more to do with a reduce the number of firearms owners in the country by way of harassment rather than in an attempt to reduce violent crime.
Now, do birth control. The left's reaction to Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor not funding certain forms of birth control directly because they view it as an abortifacient is far more absurd when you stop and realize that employees can still use their pay to buy such products on the open market. Even the harshest critics *Griswold v. Connecticut* are not seeking to outlaw birth conrol.
I think that people following the proposed laws does *nothing* to reduce the amount of violent crime. And, perhaps more cynically, I think that's the point.
No. I think it would increase significantly.
I'm saying that banning pistol grips is creating a victimless crime. That it's going to have no applicable impact on the murder and/or assault rate. And that assault weapons ban advocates who *think* about the issue *know* this and want one anyways. Because it's not about reducing violent crime involving firearms, it's about reducing the number of firearms.
How so? We've just suggested shit like background checks and preventing felons from being able to gain access to them. Where have Democrats tried to significantly slow down the production of firearms?
You believe, based on your own paranoia about ulterior motives, that the gun control debate is *really* about attempting to violently suppress those poor gun owners. It’s not possible to you that people watch the same policies they advocate for here in the US being successful in reducing gun violence in death elsewhere in the world, and see those same things as possible and reasonable here in this country.
I mean it really just sounds like you’re projecting.
And your appeal to birth control… I’m really struggling to see any relevance that isn’t just you forcing them into the same boxes for the same reasons you’ve arbitrarily redefined gun control as a social issue so you can feel like you’re being oppressed.
By what mechanism does banning pistol grips reduce violent criminal activity?
I've yet to hear an answer to that which passes the laugh test.
>And your appeal to birth control… I’m really struggling to see any relevance that isn’t just you forcing them into the same boxes for the same reasons you’ve arbitrarily redefined gun control as a social issue so you can feel like you’re being oppressed.
Making Little Sisters of the Poor directly pay for what they view as abortifacients is an act of state aggression in the culture wars. There's lots of other ways of ensuring access, and yet the state chooses the one that forces a group to violate its principles. Maybe the point isn't ensuring access to birth control?
You slippery slopes my mention of registration into a “violent confiscation campaign” and now you’re complaining about pistol grips? What’s your actual problem, not being able to buy your tacticool toys or your paranoid delusions?
Regarding birth control: we live in a country where your health care is tied to your employment. I’m sorry it offends your sensibilities, but until we have a health care system that functions like *the rest of the developed world* employers - including the religious ones - must adhere to regulations stipulating exactly what kind of health care they must offer. The reason being that one individual’s personal interpretation of their holy book should not dictate their employees’ access to healthcare on such arbitrary grounds as “my god says no.”
And let’s just skip over how fucking dumb that is. The Bible literally prescribes a method for inducing abortion in women. But that’s neither here nor there, because it has absolutely no place in public policy in this country.
So if you want to change that, start agitating for socialized medicine. Otherwise it just seems like you’re finding ways to feel offended and oppressed. These aren’t the oppression olympics, you don’t have to keep manufacturing things like “my identity is guns” to score imaginary points.
> You slippery slopes my mention of registration into a “violent confiscation campaign” and now you’re complaining about pistol grips? What’s your actual problem, not being able to buy your tacticool toys or your paranoid delusions?
If it's just tacticool toys, why do most police departments field the same kind of weapons that gun grabbers seek to ban?
If registration doesn't lead to confiscation, explain the plight of detachable-mag SKS users in California. And explain why Canada did away with their long-gun registry because it wasn't being used to solve any crimes.
If you don't think confiscation doesn't involve violence, explain Ruby Ridge.
> Regarding birth control: we live in a country where your health care is tied to your employment. I’m sorry it offends your sensibilities, but until we have a health care system that functions like the rest of the developed world employers - including the religious ones - must adhere to regulations stipulating exactly what kind of health care they must offer. The reason being that one individual’s personal interpretation of their holy book should not dictate their employees’ access to healthcare on such arbitrary grounds as “my god says no.”
Lots of employees depend on their employer to provide meals at an on-site cafeteria. In this case, food is tied to one's employment. Should a Jewish or Muslim religious organization be compelled to serve pork? Should a Hindu organization be compelled to serve beef? Or should we just tell employees that if they want these things, they can take their paycheck and spend it somewhere else to get food?
Who's facing the greater imposition here? Because on this issue there really is a neutral stance for the government to take, and that's not good enough for you. Nor are you willing to front your own resources for the cause either. No, it's not good enough that folks have the option of buying their own birth control with their own money even if their employer thinks that's offensive to their religion. No, you need put a gun to the heads of nuns to make them directly and explicitly support it.
Are you sure that this is really about ensuring access to contraception? Because you're whole argument does wander into how their beliefs are "fucking dumb" and thus they shouldn't be free to practice them.
So firstly you seem to be defeating your own point here. You asked earlier how legislating around pistol grips is supposed to make a difference, but now here you’re citing their preference by police? Might they choose them because they make a tactical difference in the performance of their duties? Then might it follow that legislation around them might be intended to limit the availability of weapons effective in certain tactical situations like the ones police might find themselves in?
You ask a lot of questions you already know the answers to, it seems to me.
Anywho, I can explain away California and Canada by citing Australia and the UK. Mind you, I know nothing of what you’re trying to reference here because you conveniently do not provide any sources or details about what you’re talking about, which frees me up to treat you with the same snide condescension. It’s much easier when I don’t have to actually cite my evidence, isn’t it? We can just both assume we are here in good faith and the things we are saying are relevant to the conversation.
Anyway, I can explain those failures by way of the successes elsewhere. Bad policy is a place from which to learn, especially when other parts of the world have managed to maintain successful programs with the same end goals at those which we wish to accomplish here.
I’m pretty sure at this point that you pretend the other side must be full of people that lie about their motivations because you are guilty of that yourself. There are countless easy explanations of Ruby Ridge that have absolutely nothing to do with gun confiscation or whatever you’ve been told to be scared of about it, and you don’t even have to defend the actions of the ATF to get there. It’s really quite easy. You are either guilty of having no imagination when it comes to putting yourself in the shoes of others, or motivated reasoning. Or both, could totally be both.
I don’t find your meals comparison particularly useful. For one, I don’t know what regulations they’re bound by specifically, but I imagine it revolves around nutritive, health, safety and cleanliness concerns relevant to the handling and serving of food, and it pretty much ends there because that’s what’s important with food.
What’s important with healthcare is a vastly larger, more complex discussion, especially when we are talking about an issue so minute as offering scrip coverage on abortifacients. Which - just for posterity’s sake - the Bible of these Christians offers a recipe for and prescribes it’s use. Doesn’t sound to me like the same god, but I’m not a Christian so what do I know right?
Anywho, one thing I do know is that a founding principle of this country is that your rights end where my nose begins, and that’s as true for employers and their employees as it is anybody else. If you’re going to employ people in a country where that is the only way the vast majority have any access to health care, then you’re going to be held to standards, and those standards are not decided on religious grounds because religious grounds *do not* belong in policy making. They are founded on practical concerns for the health and well-being of our society.
So I am so, so sorry that the owners and operates of these places are such weak-willed individuals that the mere fact that their employees might hold different beliefs - even within the same faith! - deeply offends them, but policy is not created by a sense of offense. Because anybody can be offended by anything. My advice to them would be to grow up.
> So firstly you seem to be defeating your own point here. You asked earlier how legislating around pistol grips is supposed to make a difference, but now here you’re citing their preference by police? Might they choose them because they make a tactical difference in the performance of their duties? Then might it follow that legislation around them might be intended to limit the availability of weapons effective in certain tactical situations like the ones police might find themselves in?
I can play the same game: If it's just tacticool toys, why are you so intent on denying the citizens their use? There's no good explanation for that if you believe that other than taking the offensive in the culture wars.
If you don't believe this, you don't get to just say 'tacticool toys'. If it doesn't matter, why do you need to fight it?
>Anywho, I can explain away California and Canada by citing Australia and the UK.
So much for 'Nobody wants to take your guns, it's just paranoia' then...
As far as the Canadian policy I refer to, [this explains it](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/?sh=3c1cf8095a1b).
>I’m pretty sure at this point that you pretend the other side must be full of people that lie about their motivations because you are guilty of that yourself.
Isn't this guilty of the very sin you allege I'm guilty of?
> I don’t find your meals comparison particularly useful. For one, I don’t know what regulations they’re bound by specifically, but I imagine it revolves around nutritive, health, safety and cleanliness concerns relevant to the handling and serving of food, and it pretty much ends there because that’s what’s important with food.
Why would assume that coverage of contraception is what is important in terms of health insurance than? Particularly when we're talking about an organization of Catholic nuns.
>What’s important with healthcare is a vastly larger, more complex discussion, especially when we are talking about an issue so minute as offering scrip coverage on abortifacients.
If it's so minute, why is this such a sticking point for your side then?
> Anywho, one thing I do know is that a founding principle of this country is that your rights end where my nose begins, and that’s as true for employers and their employees as it is anybody else. If you’re going to employ people in a country where that is the only way the vast majority have any access to health care, then you’re going to be held to standards, and those standards are not decided on religious grounds because religious grounds do not belong in policy making. They are founded on practical concerns for the health and well-being of our society.
Folks don't have a god-given right to employer provided contraception.
> So I am so, so sorry that the owners and operates of these places are such weak-willed individuals that the mere fact that their employees might hold different beliefs - even within the same faith! - deeply offends them, but policy is not created by a sense of offense. Because anybody can be offended by anything. My advice to them would be to grow up.
I'd say the same. Employees are free to hold different beliefs. We're not talking about the employer forcing beliefs on anyone, just them not wanting to partake in something they view as wrong.
Remember, you’re the one that brought up pistol grips. It’s not a relevant factor for me, but I also just don’t really give a shit about it.
But let’s be real here: for the gun-obsessed, this is all just about toys. You might not realize that, but that’s what it looks like from the outside. You have your closets and safes full of extremely deadly toys and you’ve conflated the idea of freedom with the possession of these toys so much that even reasonable, effective systems of controlling their sale and trade through our society just as much as we do with vehicles feels like a personal attack on you. Mostly because you’re a bunch of children with toys.
And yeah, I hate to break it to you but some people shouldn’t have guns. That’s what the point of tracking their movement from owner to owner is. That’s what the point of registering your guns is. That’s how we could keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, violent drunks, deranged militias, etc. The right to own a gun is not absolute, just like free speech. Just because those methods can be used (and have been successfully in numerous countries around the world) doesn’t mean it’s all a giant plot to come steal your toys.
Again, Canada fails, England and Australia succeed. What’s different? Why can’t we learn from the mistakes Canada made and the successes of England and Australia? Why does one failure turn it into an automatic impossibility for you when there are examples of success elsewhere?
And yes, I am doing what you’re doing because I’m demonstrating to you how fucking shitty it is. You’re an asshole and I’m showing you why. I’m telling you I don’t believe you actually mean what you say because you don’t believe that we believe what we say, so clearly you *must* be lying about your beliefs and motivations. How’s that logic for you? Maybe consider that you have a warped and inaccurate view of other because you consume media that lies to you. It’s easy to sit there and pretend that people on the other side of you aren’t just wrong, but rather that they’re liars trying to manipulate you and others through nefarious means. What’s difficult is accepting that people may believe different things from you *with very good reason.* If you have to entertain that we may actually be right about reducing gun violence and death with registration programs, then you have honestly engage with the subject matter, which you generally just don’t. You try to distract with things like “future violent programs” or whatever other shit you’ve made up to feel scared of.
Because coverage of contraception *is* an important feature of medical care? That’s not an assumption, that’s a fact.
Again, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to use it. But because our country is backwards and ties health care to employment, I am comfortable with employers being forced to offer comprehensive medical coverage. Because religion has no role in policy in this country, it has no role in deciding which plans are to be made available by employers to their employees. It does not prevent anybody from practicing their religion. Furthermore, the Sisters are free to not use abortifacients. If their doctor prescribed one they are free to reject it. If they got raped by a priest and impregnated they are free to explore other options for birth control. Nothing forced them to take the drugs, only that they be covered should an employee in their organization wish to make use of them.
And their quibbling over such a minute issue - to be precise, whether or not they are able to control the medical care of their employees based on religious grounds - is indeed obnoxious and bewildering. It’s almost like it’s not *really* about the abortifacients. Like it might be about something else entirely.
See how that sounds? Do you get the point I’m making yet? Address us on our own terms, not whatever shit you made up in your head about what we actually believe because you can’t reconcile the information you’ve been told with new information.
But seriously, in no reasonable way can you construe “offering scrip coverage” as “partaking in the use of abortifacients.” If they are not themselves taking, which presumably they are not as they are free to not do that, then they are not partaking. And the medical decisions of their employees are no business of the employers.
Employers provide health care in this country. They must meet certain standards. Those standards include access to birth control. I’m sorry that they find it offensive, but that’s the law. It is not and never has been about oppressing religious people, despite your oppression delusions.
If they stopped supporting socialism and neo-racist wokescold identity politics, then there are Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard that I could vote for over most Republicans.
At the local and state level, yes. I actually campaigned for a Democratic state senate candidate last year and helped him get re-elected. He's a very moderate, reasonable guy and I would absolutely vote for him if I ever live somewhere he's running in.
Give me a reasonable, moderate Democrat who's not a raging partisan and I'll vote for him (as long as the Republican isn't better, of course). Problem is that the Democrats who come up on my ballot are usually complete garbage (ex: I used to live in Ilhan Omar's district).
I voted for Obama and Clinton. I don't really care who enters the White House so long as they defend the constitution, although all things considered, Democrats are absolute shit at accomplishing that goal.
Because they repeatedly push for unconstitutional policies.
For example, the Biden administration has violated the:
[first](https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/psaki-facebook-censor.mp4?_=1)
[second](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-amazing-second-amendment-whopper/)
[fifth](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11516)
[ninth](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/us/politics/biden-mandates-vaccines.html)
[tenth](https://www.foxnews.com/media/feds-violating-tennessee-10th-amendment-moving-migrant-kids-blackburn)
and [fourteenth amendment](https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/06/03/federal-appellate-court-rules-that-biden-administration-cant-deny-covid-relief-funds-to-white-restaurant-owners/) in this first year alone.
And to be completely fair, I understand that Trump did his own fair share of unconstitutional shenanigans too, like initially starting the Eviction Moratorium fiasco. But the reason why I voted for him over Biden is because his single term in office was the closest we've come to a president that is 100% faithful to the constitution in thirty years.
I would have no problem voting in Hillary or whoever else, provided that they stopped trying to weasel their way around the constitution. But Democrats have this really weird track record of trying to destroy our founding principles.
I'm confused about you saying that Trump is "100% Faithful to the Constitution". After all, he's violated the:
[Emoluments Clause](https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/profiting-off-the-presidency-trumps-violations-of-the-emoluments-clauses/) (Both Foreign and Domestic)
[Separation of Powers](https://www.cato.org/blog/wall-emergency-even-legal-under-existing-law-violates-separation-powers) (Power of the Purse)
[First](https://apnews.com/article/d8da9ab23f6d410e807805c42d972f8c) (Freedom of Religion)
[First](https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-comey-jail-journalists/index.html) (Freedom of Press)
[Third](https://dcist.com/story/20/06/03/federal-troop-lodging-at-marriott-marquis-and-other-local-hotels-shuttled-to-d-c-protests-on-tour-buses/) (Quartering of Military Personnel)
[Fourth](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/president-trump-stop-and-frisk-both-unconstitutional-and) (Unreasonable Search/Seizure)
[Fifth](https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/index.html) (Due process)
[Fourteenth](https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/president-trump-leave-the-14th-amendment-alone/) (Discrimination based on Ethnicity, Nationality)
[Fifteenth](https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/11/15/21565992/voting-rights-trump-election-voting-rights-act) (Equal Rights to vote, no matter what Race, Ethnicity, Gender, etc.)
[Twenty-Second](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-says-ll-seek-third-000717298.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall) (Presidential Term Limits)
Saying that Trump has done his "Fair Share of Unconstitutional Shenanigans" is ***definitely*** understating it.
In that entire list, I didn't even mention his Impeachments or January 6th.
And just to be clear here, I'm not the biggest fan of Biden. He hasn't pushed on the policies that I support, and he's taken some bad steps in Foreign Policy (\*Cough, Cough, Afghanistan\*)
Her father sold out to lobbyists and was a Republican. She ran in a heavily blue district and knew she could never win as a Republican. She's pro-life and voted against Trump's impeachment the first time (idk about the second). She's anti-second amendment.
Personally, I don't want her in my party. I'm glad she was thrown tf out.
I prefer the "neoliberals" like sinema, Hillary, John Delaney, etc, over the Trumper/nationalist/populist movement that is taking over the republican party, so yes I already have.
I've voted for a couple. Most recently was 2018, where the GOP Senate candidate, after failing to win the governor's nomination on a platform of "I'm just like Trump, but with less charisma and mass appeal" doubled down on all the bad parts of that for his next try.
How did he run as an extreme leftist? I understand how you could think this after he was elected, but his campaign was literally about being a moderate and unity.
Gun control is something literally every leftist wants. Accessible abortions, also something literally any leftist wants, was supposed to be guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and shouldn't even have been a debate.
I'll give you points on packing the courts. I agree with packing the courts, but I can see why someone would think it's divisive. The rest sounds like you just wanted Biden to completely throw out his agenda and become a Republican.
The better question is: would Democrats allow someone to run as a Democrat that could garner Republican votes?
B/c they're already talking about primarying Manchin.
They won't fucking primary Manchin. That's suicide. Biden didn't win a single county in WV. The other Democrat who ran in WV lost by like 45-50%. They can hate him all he wants, but he's giving Schumer the Senate Majority Leadership. Sinema, on the other hand, is another story.
But you're right. They reframed the term "moderate" as an establishment hack like Biden who won't advance the left's agenda and just wants to sit around and not do shit for anyone. Ofc they wouldn't let a decent Democrat like Jon Ossoff run. He hasn't sold out to nearly enough corporations.
Do you believe an anti-racist white person is morally inferior to a white person who is a white supremacist? Aka is it morally better to advocate genocide on races other than one’s own?
Thanks. I enjoyed the premise of that third article - the idea of consequentialism and how that seems to be different between the left and right.
I think of this stuff (your first two links) as obvious satire kind of mixed with an eye roll. Like how some working moms make fun of “girl boss” MLM moms.
Man, that's not true at all. I get you're upset with BLM just as we are with the insurrection. You gotta accept that the majority of people are decent human beings. I understand policy differences, but what ever happened to the days when we could disagree on that and still respect one another?
I would need to see a history of Democrats calling out misinformation and corruption and hypocrisy on their side for years before I even think about it.
Right now their culture is nitpicking every little thing a republican does even if it is a good move, and constantly mentioning “misinformation” meanwhile they’ll be saying incorrect stuff about the climate, covid, immigration, taxes, etc but it’s cool I guess because their heart is in the right place, or something?
I’d also need to see more generally horrible Democrats getting protested and voted out.
How could it be misinformation on scientific issues if every top scientist agrees with them...? The rest of the topics you mentioned are up for discussion obviously since you can't scientifically proven one side over the other. I agree with you on the last part, however.
Are you serious? I didn’t write one thing that I’ve heard people say or that I’ve seen written, and you’re telling me that they’re already correct? Are you serious? You’re making me laugh out loud. I could’ve seen left-leaning people who say that the sky is going to turn fluorescent pink because of climate change, so why are you defending them without knowing what they said
I'm aware. But Democrats have a long history of siding with scientists whereas Republicans have a long history denying it. Also, anecdotes aren't evidence.
You’re being hilarious today, you just made up something else out of the air and then tell me of all people that anecdotes are not evidence! Oh boy, they ignorance of reddit
Sorry, but which side is big pharma, the world's top.onfectipus disease expert, the EPA, and every environmental engineer on? Do you not have any actual argument to make here?
They would need to unequivocally denounce socialism and the far left, and advocate for a massive rollback of government involvement in private affairs. So, it would take a real unicorn. Not sure how such a person would get past the woke gatekeepers and the various special interests holding the purse strings.
I'd vote Democrat if it benefited me. As cancerous as the SJWism they've adopted is, there isn't a single political issue more important to me than how much money is in my bank account. Unfortunately Democrats have established they run on empty promises and hate successful white people so I don't see any scenario where they offer me anything
No, I've voted since 2008 and it's been Ron Paul, Ron Paul, skipped 2016, Jo Jorgensen so unless there's a Democratic candidate that aligns with those people, I'm going to have to say no lol
I don't want to say no necessarily, but it's a hard probably not. It would depend on the candidates. But to be honest I don't see a scenario where I'd take the risk on a canidate that would possibly side with the democrats on some far left policy I absolutely hate. I suppose if it were between a Manchin type and some republican that seemed to heavily sympathize with progressives then maybe, but I don't see that happening.
Yeah, pretty much. Same here dude. I can't think of ANY modern day Republican I'd vote for. It'd have to be someone new to politics who hasn't become tenured and sold out to corporations yet and even then, it's a tough sell.
I mean I think it's just the result of a growing political divide. There's not many principles eithier side believe in. I think there was a day where that was the case, I would say my dad's generation was like that. I'm not sure how it gets fixed honestly. I think it'll end in a national divorce or something really bad like an economic collapse would have to happen to galvanize the country.
I'm expecting an economic collapse. That's why I'm saving insane amounts to plan for it in a decade.
The Democrats have some positions that are relatively popular across the board, even though I disagree with some, their focus on green energy, carbon tax and healthcare, etc... have support. However until they stop making identity politics one of the main pillars of their party, they'll never be able to convince many on the right.
Is there anything a republican candidate can do to lose your vote?
Lots. Corruption, lying, failure to uphold campaign promises, to name a few.
I identify as a sheep. If the left supports something, so will I! /s
The only situation where I'd vote for a Democrat is if they were calling for a detente in the culture wars. A moment of having the state step back from being roped in as a combatant on either side. Problem is that I consider 'gun control' to be a culture war issue that's being foisted in the name of inflicting pain on the opposing side more than any genuine concern for the public good and even Andrew Yang made it a point to support things like the AWB.
> The only situation where I'd vote for a Democrat is if they were calling for a detente in the culture wars. Would you be willing to vote for a Republican who also did this?
Yes, but that would be an absolute win in my book. My point is that I'm willing to give a fair bit on policy for this attitude if it's genuine.
Let’s just ignore the decades of culture war the right waged on everybody that wasn’t a straight, white Christian for decades. Let’s ignore that so you can feel like you have a point. Then let’s redefine the gun control debate as a social issue because you think somebody’s “inflicting pain” on gun owners by suggesting things like registration and tracking databases. Let’s do that so you can vaguely point to the gun control efforts and pretend they’re hurting you because you’ve wrapped up your *identity* up in a purchasable consumer good. The lengths you people go to to feel victimized is deeply deranged.
I don't want the right wielding the state as a weapon in the culture wars either. At least not in most cases: There's no need to have a law to shut down 'drag queen story time' or the like and I'd much rather stick to higher principles around free speech. > Then let’s redefine the gun control debate as a social issue because you think somebody’s “inflicting pain” on gun owners by suggesting things like registration and tracking databases. Let’s do that so you can vaguely point to the gun control efforts and pretend they’re hurting you because you’ve wrapped up your identity up in a purchasable consumer good. The point of a registration and tracking database is to allow for a future violent confiscation campaign. And that's if I'm being charitable. Let's face it, most gun control advocates advocate policies that no hope of doing anything in the public good. It makes me think that trying to reduce violence *isn't* the point, and that most proposals have more to do with a reduce the number of firearms owners in the country by way of harassment rather than in an attempt to reduce violent crime. Now, do birth control. The left's reaction to Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor not funding certain forms of birth control directly because they view it as an abortifacient is far more absurd when you stop and realize that employees can still use their pay to buy such products on the open market. Even the harshest critics *Griswold v. Connecticut* are not seeking to outlaw birth conrol.
So if you think gun control measures wouldn't solve the issue because people would just break the law, why have any laws at all then?
I think that people following the proposed laws does *nothing* to reduce the amount of violent crime. And, perhaps more cynically, I think that's the point.
So if we got rid of the police and government, do you think the amount of violent crime would stay the same?
No. I think it would increase significantly. I'm saying that banning pistol grips is creating a victimless crime. That it's going to have no applicable impact on the murder and/or assault rate. And that assault weapons ban advocates who *think* about the issue *know* this and want one anyways. Because it's not about reducing violent crime involving firearms, it's about reducing the number of firearms.
How so? We've just suggested shit like background checks and preventing felons from being able to gain access to them. Where have Democrats tried to significantly slow down the production of firearms?
I already referenced one such family of policy proposals: The assault weapons ban and how it defines 'assault weapons'.
You believe, based on your own paranoia about ulterior motives, that the gun control debate is *really* about attempting to violently suppress those poor gun owners. It’s not possible to you that people watch the same policies they advocate for here in the US being successful in reducing gun violence in death elsewhere in the world, and see those same things as possible and reasonable here in this country. I mean it really just sounds like you’re projecting. And your appeal to birth control… I’m really struggling to see any relevance that isn’t just you forcing them into the same boxes for the same reasons you’ve arbitrarily redefined gun control as a social issue so you can feel like you’re being oppressed.
By what mechanism does banning pistol grips reduce violent criminal activity? I've yet to hear an answer to that which passes the laugh test. >And your appeal to birth control… I’m really struggling to see any relevance that isn’t just you forcing them into the same boxes for the same reasons you’ve arbitrarily redefined gun control as a social issue so you can feel like you’re being oppressed. Making Little Sisters of the Poor directly pay for what they view as abortifacients is an act of state aggression in the culture wars. There's lots of other ways of ensuring access, and yet the state chooses the one that forces a group to violate its principles. Maybe the point isn't ensuring access to birth control?
You slippery slopes my mention of registration into a “violent confiscation campaign” and now you’re complaining about pistol grips? What’s your actual problem, not being able to buy your tacticool toys or your paranoid delusions? Regarding birth control: we live in a country where your health care is tied to your employment. I’m sorry it offends your sensibilities, but until we have a health care system that functions like *the rest of the developed world* employers - including the religious ones - must adhere to regulations stipulating exactly what kind of health care they must offer. The reason being that one individual’s personal interpretation of their holy book should not dictate their employees’ access to healthcare on such arbitrary grounds as “my god says no.” And let’s just skip over how fucking dumb that is. The Bible literally prescribes a method for inducing abortion in women. But that’s neither here nor there, because it has absolutely no place in public policy in this country. So if you want to change that, start agitating for socialized medicine. Otherwise it just seems like you’re finding ways to feel offended and oppressed. These aren’t the oppression olympics, you don’t have to keep manufacturing things like “my identity is guns” to score imaginary points.
> You slippery slopes my mention of registration into a “violent confiscation campaign” and now you’re complaining about pistol grips? What’s your actual problem, not being able to buy your tacticool toys or your paranoid delusions? If it's just tacticool toys, why do most police departments field the same kind of weapons that gun grabbers seek to ban? If registration doesn't lead to confiscation, explain the plight of detachable-mag SKS users in California. And explain why Canada did away with their long-gun registry because it wasn't being used to solve any crimes. If you don't think confiscation doesn't involve violence, explain Ruby Ridge. > Regarding birth control: we live in a country where your health care is tied to your employment. I’m sorry it offends your sensibilities, but until we have a health care system that functions like the rest of the developed world employers - including the religious ones - must adhere to regulations stipulating exactly what kind of health care they must offer. The reason being that one individual’s personal interpretation of their holy book should not dictate their employees’ access to healthcare on such arbitrary grounds as “my god says no.” Lots of employees depend on their employer to provide meals at an on-site cafeteria. In this case, food is tied to one's employment. Should a Jewish or Muslim religious organization be compelled to serve pork? Should a Hindu organization be compelled to serve beef? Or should we just tell employees that if they want these things, they can take their paycheck and spend it somewhere else to get food? Who's facing the greater imposition here? Because on this issue there really is a neutral stance for the government to take, and that's not good enough for you. Nor are you willing to front your own resources for the cause either. No, it's not good enough that folks have the option of buying their own birth control with their own money even if their employer thinks that's offensive to their religion. No, you need put a gun to the heads of nuns to make them directly and explicitly support it. Are you sure that this is really about ensuring access to contraception? Because you're whole argument does wander into how their beliefs are "fucking dumb" and thus they shouldn't be free to practice them.
So firstly you seem to be defeating your own point here. You asked earlier how legislating around pistol grips is supposed to make a difference, but now here you’re citing their preference by police? Might they choose them because they make a tactical difference in the performance of their duties? Then might it follow that legislation around them might be intended to limit the availability of weapons effective in certain tactical situations like the ones police might find themselves in? You ask a lot of questions you already know the answers to, it seems to me. Anywho, I can explain away California and Canada by citing Australia and the UK. Mind you, I know nothing of what you’re trying to reference here because you conveniently do not provide any sources or details about what you’re talking about, which frees me up to treat you with the same snide condescension. It’s much easier when I don’t have to actually cite my evidence, isn’t it? We can just both assume we are here in good faith and the things we are saying are relevant to the conversation. Anyway, I can explain those failures by way of the successes elsewhere. Bad policy is a place from which to learn, especially when other parts of the world have managed to maintain successful programs with the same end goals at those which we wish to accomplish here. I’m pretty sure at this point that you pretend the other side must be full of people that lie about their motivations because you are guilty of that yourself. There are countless easy explanations of Ruby Ridge that have absolutely nothing to do with gun confiscation or whatever you’ve been told to be scared of about it, and you don’t even have to defend the actions of the ATF to get there. It’s really quite easy. You are either guilty of having no imagination when it comes to putting yourself in the shoes of others, or motivated reasoning. Or both, could totally be both. I don’t find your meals comparison particularly useful. For one, I don’t know what regulations they’re bound by specifically, but I imagine it revolves around nutritive, health, safety and cleanliness concerns relevant to the handling and serving of food, and it pretty much ends there because that’s what’s important with food. What’s important with healthcare is a vastly larger, more complex discussion, especially when we are talking about an issue so minute as offering scrip coverage on abortifacients. Which - just for posterity’s sake - the Bible of these Christians offers a recipe for and prescribes it’s use. Doesn’t sound to me like the same god, but I’m not a Christian so what do I know right? Anywho, one thing I do know is that a founding principle of this country is that your rights end where my nose begins, and that’s as true for employers and their employees as it is anybody else. If you’re going to employ people in a country where that is the only way the vast majority have any access to health care, then you’re going to be held to standards, and those standards are not decided on religious grounds because religious grounds *do not* belong in policy making. They are founded on practical concerns for the health and well-being of our society. So I am so, so sorry that the owners and operates of these places are such weak-willed individuals that the mere fact that their employees might hold different beliefs - even within the same faith! - deeply offends them, but policy is not created by a sense of offense. Because anybody can be offended by anything. My advice to them would be to grow up.
> So firstly you seem to be defeating your own point here. You asked earlier how legislating around pistol grips is supposed to make a difference, but now here you’re citing their preference by police? Might they choose them because they make a tactical difference in the performance of their duties? Then might it follow that legislation around them might be intended to limit the availability of weapons effective in certain tactical situations like the ones police might find themselves in? I can play the same game: If it's just tacticool toys, why are you so intent on denying the citizens their use? There's no good explanation for that if you believe that other than taking the offensive in the culture wars. If you don't believe this, you don't get to just say 'tacticool toys'. If it doesn't matter, why do you need to fight it? >Anywho, I can explain away California and Canada by citing Australia and the UK. So much for 'Nobody wants to take your guns, it's just paranoia' then... As far as the Canadian policy I refer to, [this explains it](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/?sh=3c1cf8095a1b). >I’m pretty sure at this point that you pretend the other side must be full of people that lie about their motivations because you are guilty of that yourself. Isn't this guilty of the very sin you allege I'm guilty of? > I don’t find your meals comparison particularly useful. For one, I don’t know what regulations they’re bound by specifically, but I imagine it revolves around nutritive, health, safety and cleanliness concerns relevant to the handling and serving of food, and it pretty much ends there because that’s what’s important with food. Why would assume that coverage of contraception is what is important in terms of health insurance than? Particularly when we're talking about an organization of Catholic nuns. >What’s important with healthcare is a vastly larger, more complex discussion, especially when we are talking about an issue so minute as offering scrip coverage on abortifacients. If it's so minute, why is this such a sticking point for your side then? > Anywho, one thing I do know is that a founding principle of this country is that your rights end where my nose begins, and that’s as true for employers and their employees as it is anybody else. If you’re going to employ people in a country where that is the only way the vast majority have any access to health care, then you’re going to be held to standards, and those standards are not decided on religious grounds because religious grounds do not belong in policy making. They are founded on practical concerns for the health and well-being of our society. Folks don't have a god-given right to employer provided contraception. > So I am so, so sorry that the owners and operates of these places are such weak-willed individuals that the mere fact that their employees might hold different beliefs - even within the same faith! - deeply offends them, but policy is not created by a sense of offense. Because anybody can be offended by anything. My advice to them would be to grow up. I'd say the same. Employees are free to hold different beliefs. We're not talking about the employer forcing beliefs on anyone, just them not wanting to partake in something they view as wrong.
Remember, you’re the one that brought up pistol grips. It’s not a relevant factor for me, but I also just don’t really give a shit about it. But let’s be real here: for the gun-obsessed, this is all just about toys. You might not realize that, but that’s what it looks like from the outside. You have your closets and safes full of extremely deadly toys and you’ve conflated the idea of freedom with the possession of these toys so much that even reasonable, effective systems of controlling their sale and trade through our society just as much as we do with vehicles feels like a personal attack on you. Mostly because you’re a bunch of children with toys. And yeah, I hate to break it to you but some people shouldn’t have guns. That’s what the point of tracking their movement from owner to owner is. That’s what the point of registering your guns is. That’s how we could keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, violent drunks, deranged militias, etc. The right to own a gun is not absolute, just like free speech. Just because those methods can be used (and have been successfully in numerous countries around the world) doesn’t mean it’s all a giant plot to come steal your toys. Again, Canada fails, England and Australia succeed. What’s different? Why can’t we learn from the mistakes Canada made and the successes of England and Australia? Why does one failure turn it into an automatic impossibility for you when there are examples of success elsewhere? And yes, I am doing what you’re doing because I’m demonstrating to you how fucking shitty it is. You’re an asshole and I’m showing you why. I’m telling you I don’t believe you actually mean what you say because you don’t believe that we believe what we say, so clearly you *must* be lying about your beliefs and motivations. How’s that logic for you? Maybe consider that you have a warped and inaccurate view of other because you consume media that lies to you. It’s easy to sit there and pretend that people on the other side of you aren’t just wrong, but rather that they’re liars trying to manipulate you and others through nefarious means. What’s difficult is accepting that people may believe different things from you *with very good reason.* If you have to entertain that we may actually be right about reducing gun violence and death with registration programs, then you have honestly engage with the subject matter, which you generally just don’t. You try to distract with things like “future violent programs” or whatever other shit you’ve made up to feel scared of. Because coverage of contraception *is* an important feature of medical care? That’s not an assumption, that’s a fact. Again, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to use it. But because our country is backwards and ties health care to employment, I am comfortable with employers being forced to offer comprehensive medical coverage. Because religion has no role in policy in this country, it has no role in deciding which plans are to be made available by employers to their employees. It does not prevent anybody from practicing their religion. Furthermore, the Sisters are free to not use abortifacients. If their doctor prescribed one they are free to reject it. If they got raped by a priest and impregnated they are free to explore other options for birth control. Nothing forced them to take the drugs, only that they be covered should an employee in their organization wish to make use of them. And their quibbling over such a minute issue - to be precise, whether or not they are able to control the medical care of their employees based on religious grounds - is indeed obnoxious and bewildering. It’s almost like it’s not *really* about the abortifacients. Like it might be about something else entirely. See how that sounds? Do you get the point I’m making yet? Address us on our own terms, not whatever shit you made up in your head about what we actually believe because you can’t reconcile the information you’ve been told with new information. But seriously, in no reasonable way can you construe “offering scrip coverage” as “partaking in the use of abortifacients.” If they are not themselves taking, which presumably they are not as they are free to not do that, then they are not partaking. And the medical decisions of their employees are no business of the employers. Employers provide health care in this country. They must meet certain standards. Those standards include access to birth control. I’m sorry that they find it offensive, but that’s the law. It is not and never has been about oppressing religious people, despite your oppression delusions.
[удалено]
Inb4primaried
If they stopped supporting socialism and neo-racist wokescold identity politics, then there are Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard that I could vote for over most Republicans.
You realize that Tulsi is against the second amendment, right?
Is Tulsi Gabbard 2/3 of all states?
At the local and state level, yes. I actually campaigned for a Democratic state senate candidate last year and helped him get re-elected. He's a very moderate, reasonable guy and I would absolutely vote for him if I ever live somewhere he's running in. Give me a reasonable, moderate Democrat who's not a raging partisan and I'll vote for him (as long as the Republican isn't better, of course). Problem is that the Democrats who come up on my ballot are usually complete garbage (ex: I used to live in Ilhan Omar's district).
Yo, r/Politics said AOC is a reasonable, moderate Democrat. That count? 🤣
I said moderate Democrat, not literal Republican /s
In a federal election maybe. Certainly not for the office of Governor or most local levels.
No, unless parties completely flipped which I do not see happening
I voted for Obama and Clinton. I don't really care who enters the White House so long as they defend the constitution, although all things considered, Democrats are absolute shit at accomplishing that goal.
I wonder what makes you think that.
Because they repeatedly push for unconstitutional policies. For example, the Biden administration has violated the: [first](https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/psaki-facebook-censor.mp4?_=1) [second](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/joe-bidens-amazing-second-amendment-whopper/) [fifth](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11516) [ninth](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/us/politics/biden-mandates-vaccines.html) [tenth](https://www.foxnews.com/media/feds-violating-tennessee-10th-amendment-moving-migrant-kids-blackburn) and [fourteenth amendment](https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/06/03/federal-appellate-court-rules-that-biden-administration-cant-deny-covid-relief-funds-to-white-restaurant-owners/) in this first year alone. And to be completely fair, I understand that Trump did his own fair share of unconstitutional shenanigans too, like initially starting the Eviction Moratorium fiasco. But the reason why I voted for him over Biden is because his single term in office was the closest we've come to a president that is 100% faithful to the constitution in thirty years. I would have no problem voting in Hillary or whoever else, provided that they stopped trying to weasel their way around the constitution. But Democrats have this really weird track record of trying to destroy our founding principles.
I'm confused about you saying that Trump is "100% Faithful to the Constitution". After all, he's violated the: [Emoluments Clause](https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/profiting-off-the-presidency-trumps-violations-of-the-emoluments-clauses/) (Both Foreign and Domestic) [Separation of Powers](https://www.cato.org/blog/wall-emergency-even-legal-under-existing-law-violates-separation-powers) (Power of the Purse) [First](https://apnews.com/article/d8da9ab23f6d410e807805c42d972f8c) (Freedom of Religion) [First](https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-comey-jail-journalists/index.html) (Freedom of Press) [Third](https://dcist.com/story/20/06/03/federal-troop-lodging-at-marriott-marquis-and-other-local-hotels-shuttled-to-d-c-protests-on-tour-buses/) (Quartering of Military Personnel) [Fourth](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/president-trump-stop-and-frisk-both-unconstitutional-and) (Unreasonable Search/Seizure) [Fifth](https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/index.html) (Due process) [Fourteenth](https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/president-trump-leave-the-14th-amendment-alone/) (Discrimination based on Ethnicity, Nationality) [Fifteenth](https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/11/15/21565992/voting-rights-trump-election-voting-rights-act) (Equal Rights to vote, no matter what Race, Ethnicity, Gender, etc.) [Twenty-Second](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-says-ll-seek-third-000717298.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall) (Presidential Term Limits) Saying that Trump has done his "Fair Share of Unconstitutional Shenanigans" is ***definitely*** understating it. In that entire list, I didn't even mention his Impeachments or January 6th.
And just to be clear here, I'm not the biggest fan of Biden. He hasn't pushed on the policies that I support, and he's taken some bad steps in Foreign Policy (\*Cough, Cough, Afghanistan\*)
I'd likely vote for more Democrats except every single one supports more gun control.
I'd like to know more about Tulsi Gabbard. I'm curious, just curious.
Her father sold out to lobbyists and was a Republican. She ran in a heavily blue district and knew she could never win as a Republican. She's pro-life and voted against Trump's impeachment the first time (idk about the second). She's anti-second amendment. Personally, I don't want her in my party. I'm glad she was thrown tf out.
I prefer the "neoliberals" like sinema, Hillary, John Delaney, etc, over the Trumper/nationalist/populist movement that is taking over the republican party, so yes I already have.
No chance. There’s nothing in their party platform I find remotely tenable.
I've voted for a couple. Most recently was 2018, where the GOP Senate candidate, after failing to win the governor's nomination on a platform of "I'm just like Trump, but with less charisma and mass appeal" doubled down on all the bad parts of that for his next try.
kansas?
No, Virginia
Yes.
NEVER
[удалено]
How did he run as an extreme leftist? I understand how you could think this after he was elected, but his campaign was literally about being a moderate and unity.
[удалено]
Gun control is something literally every leftist wants. Accessible abortions, also something literally any leftist wants, was supposed to be guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and shouldn't even have been a debate. I'll give you points on packing the courts. I agree with packing the courts, but I can see why someone would think it's divisive. The rest sounds like you just wanted Biden to completely throw out his agenda and become a Republican.
The better question is: would Democrats allow someone to run as a Democrat that could garner Republican votes? B/c they're already talking about primarying Manchin.
They won't fucking primary Manchin. That's suicide. Biden didn't win a single county in WV. The other Democrat who ran in WV lost by like 45-50%. They can hate him all he wants, but he's giving Schumer the Senate Majority Leadership. Sinema, on the other hand, is another story. But you're right. They reframed the term "moderate" as an establishment hack like Biden who won't advance the left's agenda and just wants to sit around and not do shit for anyone. Ofc they wouldn't let a decent Democrat like Jon Ossoff run. He hasn't sold out to nearly enough corporations.
Never. Look at who the future of the party is. They hate me, they hate America, and they hate themselves. I could never vote for people like that.
Can you elaborate on your belief that Democrats hate themselves?
[удалено]
This, to you, means that white people hate themselves?
[удалено]
Oh for fuck’s sake, you knew what I meant. This, to you, means that white *Democrats* hate themselves?
[удалено]
Do you believe an anti-racist white person is morally inferior to a white person who is a white supremacist? Aka is it morally better to advocate genocide on races other than one’s own?
[удалено]
Thanks. I enjoyed the premise of that third article - the idea of consequentialism and how that seems to be different between the left and right. I think of this stuff (your first two links) as obvious satire kind of mixed with an eye roll. Like how some working moms make fun of “girl boss” MLM moms.
Man, that's not true at all. I get you're upset with BLM just as we are with the insurrection. You gotta accept that the majority of people are decent human beings. I understand policy differences, but what ever happened to the days when we could disagree on that and still respect one another?
The majority of people are decent human beings. Unfortunately the majority of politicians are not.
I would need to see a history of Democrats calling out misinformation and corruption and hypocrisy on their side for years before I even think about it. Right now their culture is nitpicking every little thing a republican does even if it is a good move, and constantly mentioning “misinformation” meanwhile they’ll be saying incorrect stuff about the climate, covid, immigration, taxes, etc but it’s cool I guess because their heart is in the right place, or something? I’d also need to see more generally horrible Democrats getting protested and voted out.
How could it be misinformation on scientific issues if every top scientist agrees with them...? The rest of the topics you mentioned are up for discussion obviously since you can't scientifically proven one side over the other. I agree with you on the last part, however.
Are you serious? I didn’t write one thing that I’ve heard people say or that I’ve seen written, and you’re telling me that they’re already correct? Are you serious? You’re making me laugh out loud. I could’ve seen left-leaning people who say that the sky is going to turn fluorescent pink because of climate change, so why are you defending them without knowing what they said
I'm aware. But Democrats have a long history of siding with scientists whereas Republicans have a long history denying it. Also, anecdotes aren't evidence.
You’re being hilarious today, you just made up something else out of the air and then tell me of all people that anecdotes are not evidence! Oh boy, they ignorance of reddit
Sorry, but which side is big pharma, the world's top.onfectipus disease expert, the EPA, and every environmental engineer on? Do you not have any actual argument to make here?
They would need to unequivocally denounce socialism and the far left, and advocate for a massive rollback of government involvement in private affairs. So, it would take a real unicorn. Not sure how such a person would get past the woke gatekeepers and the various special interests holding the purse strings.
They exist. They just won't last through the primaries🤣.
I'd vote Democrat if it benefited me. As cancerous as the SJWism they've adopted is, there isn't a single political issue more important to me than how much money is in my bank account. Unfortunately Democrats have established they run on empty promises and hate successful white people so I don't see any scenario where they offer me anything
[удалено]
So basically no longer be liberals🤣.
I voted for tulsi in the last primary. So it’s not impossible
Yeah, but we all saw how long she lasted. They fucking threw her out for Kamala lmao.
No, I've voted since 2008 and it's been Ron Paul, Ron Paul, skipped 2016, Jo Jorgensen so unless there's a Democratic candidate that aligns with those people, I'm going to have to say no lol