Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Shaps]

This is an easy one. Chuck Schumer is not comparable to Bin Laden. I hope that clears things up for you.

He isn't? Or just different methodologies? Hmmm.

[Shaps]

Sure. I'll listen. What have they said thats got you ready to hold them in the same light as middle eastern terrorists?

I'm not comparing a person to a person. I'm comparing the ideology and their similar rhetoric. And how, because of "titles or designations" (ie. "middle eastern terrorist" or "Communist CCP representative" or "Iranian Mullah" or "Stalin" or "fill in the blank") changes the actions/reactions solely based on the designation used.

I'm simply stating I find it interesting how the same rhetoric can come from two different sources, but solely based on the source the outcome changes.

[Back]

I'm not comparing a person to a person. I'm comparing the ideology and their similar rhetoric. And how, because of "titles or designations" (ie. "middle eastern terrorist" or "Communist CCP representative" or "Iranian Mullah" or "Stalin" or "fill in the blank") changes the actions/reactions solely based on the designation used.

I'm simply stating I find it interesting how the same rhetoric can come from two different sources, but solely based on the source the outcome changes.

What rhetoric are you talking about specifically? Raising the minimum wage? Going net zero on carbon emissions? Whats got you ready to compare your fellow Americans with nasty evil terrorists?

[Shaps]

What rhetoric are you talking about specifically? Raising the minimum wage? Going net zero on carbon emissions? Whats got you ready to compare your fellow Americans with nasty evil terrorists?

Those are standard and reasonable political discussions. I'm talking about the comments to fundamentally change the underlying system as it is, which allows for open discourse on the ideas you suggested above.

Just the other day, Hillary Clinton called for the abolishment of the electoral college while she cast her electoral vote. Threatening to pack the Supreme Court, thus alleviating the power that the legislature is provided to represent the people, you included. The implementation of fines and jail sentences of law abiding citizens just because they may exit their home when some Governor makes an edict (not a law mind you - an edict). Threatening to do away with the filibuster and only requiring a simple majority to pass legislation. Many other examples are available over the years.

Discourse on issues is good and healthy. Changing the laws to fit your ideology in order to control people, you included, is what I dislike. There are procedures and processes in our system to ensure that rampant power is not held by a few. I'm sure you've heard of checks and balances. When those are threatened and the safeguards removed is when it is abhorrent.

Understand this, if that occurs.. this system you seemingly hate but affords you the right to think and talk that way.. will disappear. To discuss policies is healthy. To present your ideas and come to a CONSENSUS through our elected officials is healthy. To do away with the safeguards which allows that, is horrendous and leads to political power (of either side) which none of us should want.

That's why I always laugh at people that try to insult me with "conservative or you're a republican" idiotic comments. Because I'm neither. I just don't believe humans should give their power away to others. All people should have the will to govern themselves and AGREE to live within a system through CONSENSUS. Take that away, and we all suffer.

I for one am not willing to submit or subject myself to someone through fiat. I don't want someone I disagree with on a lot of things, you, to have to either. I just don't understand why you are ready to give your power away. That's the difference.

[Shaps]

What rhetoric are you talking about specifically? Raising the minimum wage? Going net zero on carbon emissions? Whats got you ready to compare your fellow Americans with nasty evil terrorists?

More directly, you just proved my point. Your use of "your fellow Americans" as a designator shows what I'm getting at.

Direct example: If a "terrorist" was in front of you and said "I'm going to kill you". What would your thought be?
If a "fellow American" was in front of you and said "I'm going to kill you". What would your thought be?

Does their "title or designation" change their intent? It's a simple example, but highlights the point I'm making. Titles to me are immaterial. A persons intent matters much more.

What matters more to you?

[Back]

Just the other day, Hillary Clinton called for the abolishment of the electoral college while she cast her electoral vote.

Lots of people want to abolish the electoral college including me. Thats another conversation in itself but its hardly some radical overthrow of government.

Threatening to pack the Supreme Court, thus alleviating the power that the legislature is provided to represent the people, you included.

Got news for you. The Supreme Court is already packed. Another big conversation. I agree that packing courts, or having partisans in courts, is a bad idea. How do we ensure that does not happen fairly?

The implementation of fines and jail sentences of law abiding citizens just because they may exit their home when some Governor makes an edict (not a law mind you - an edict).

Where has this happened? I've heard of lockdowns but nothing this extreme. If you mean because there is a pandemic and we're trying to get it under control then don't you think its a good idea to try to get it under control? This isn't some power grab by a rogue governor intent on becoming a King or Queen of an independent state. That would be foolish and they would be laughed out of existence.

Threatening to do away with the filibuster and only requiring a simple majority to pass legislation. Many other examples are available over the years.

Both sides have argued for the end of the filibuster. I agree that the minority should have some voice, but not so much that they hold up everything for everyone else. Another conversation.

Discourse on issues is good and healthy. Changing the laws to fit your ideology in order to control people, you included, is what I dislike.

Is there something specific you are talking about here or just the above examples? I mean, we elect people to make, enforce, and judge laws, so we are already responsible, collectively, for some amount of control over the people such as like it being illegal to kill someone you just don't like.

American democracy, and most others, operate this way, and its the best way we have right now. We all have to go along with the majority even if we disagree here and there. Then we vote to send people who most closely represent our ideals to government to hopefully run things how we each see fit.

If the government were to decide that its own will is above the will of the people the people will topple it. You can bet on that.

There are procedures and processes in our system to ensure that rampant power is not held by a few. I'm sure you've heard of checks and balances. When those are threatened and the safeguards removed is when it is abhorrent.

Agreed.

Understand this, if that occurs.. this system you seemingly hate but affords you the right to think and talk that way.. will disappear. To discuss policies is healthy. To present your ideas and come to a CONSENSUS through our elected officials is healthy. To do away with the safeguards which allows that, is horrendous and leads to political power (of either side) which none of us should want.

I don't hate this country. Quite the opposite. I disagree with how some things are done and vote to change them like everyone else does. I'm not taking up arms against the government just because they won't tax the rich at a rate that I think they should be taxed at for example.

I don't think that what you have mentioned in this thread is removing the safeguards of democracy. Nothing so earth shattering. Just doing away with some antiquated notions and building the system to be better than ever.

That's why I always laugh at people that try to insult me with "conservative or you're a republican" idiotic comments. Because I'm neither. I just don't believe humans should give their power away to others. All people should have the will to govern themselves and AGREE to live within a system through CONSENSUS. Take that away, and we all suffer.

Yes, agreed. Last I checked thats how we do it in America.

I for one am not willing to submit or subject myself to someone through fiat. I don't want someone I disagree with on a lot of things, you, to have to either. I just don't understand why you are ready to give your power away. That's the difference.

I'm not clear on this. Who are people giving their power to through fiat? You mean governors and lockdowns? In this case I agree with reducing human gatherings as long as there is a deadly airborne pandemic going around.

[Back]

More directly, you just proved my point. Your use of "your fellow Americans" as a designator shows what I'm getting at.

Direct example: If a "terrorist" was in front of you and said "I'm going to kill you". What would your thought be?
If a "fellow American" was in front of you and said "I'm going to kill you". What would your thought be?

Does their "title or designation" change their intent? It's a simple example, but highlights the point I'm making. Titles to me are immaterial. A persons intent matters much more.

What matters more to you?

No their titles don't change their intent. I think you are confusing their, democratically elected American government workers and middle eastern anarchists, intents though. They are vastly different.

Not to be offensive but your posts here make me feel like I'm reading whacko Parler threads.

[Shaps]

Edit: Deleted because it wouldn't matter. Whacko.

[Shaps]

No their titles don't change their intent. I think you are confusing their, democratically elected American government workers and middle eastern anarchists, intents though. They are vastly different.

Not to be offensive but your posts here make me feel like I'm reading whacko Parler threads.

And you're back to being a jackass. Guess I shouldn't have thought you might actually be open to talking. Suppose name calling is your default setting and you can't help your own mental failings.

[Back]

And you're back to being a jackass. Guess I shouldn't have thought you might actually be open to talking. Suppose name calling is your default setting and you can't help your own mental failings.

Hey, sorry you're offended if I compare what you are are posting here is the kind of stuff I see on Parler or OAN network. Why so sensitive?