2020 Election Thoughts

[Danny Dravot]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

Im fine with a fee waiver if you can show hardship. I want safety not for it to be a punishment.

OK, so someone else has to pay for it. Probably not a huge cost, so whatever. Although, who’s offering these courses anyhow? I did my concealed carry permit at a local gun shop. Are you subsidizing them for accepting these waivers?

Anyways, then the person has some weird shit in their past and decides they can’t be up front. Apartments are getting the doors kicked in all over the place so disarming isn’t an option either. Gonna have to keep a gun and do it on the down low.

When he gets caught, are you cool with jail time? I’m not going to have to read a bunch of think pieces about America’s incarceration problem, right?

[Balta1701]

9 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

No, it doesn’t. A .223 and .22 LR are entirely different. Zero similarity. A law that freaks out about .22 LR weapons with funny exterior features that have zilch to do with functionality but does nothing about plain Jane weapons chambered in .308 or .30-06 or 5.56/.223 is a dumb law, and that’s exactly what the 1994 law did and what all of its descendants have proposed. That’s the problem.

I never said they were. I didn't care about the ones you brought up, I cared about the 27 murdered kids and teachers in Newtown that were killed by that bullet. So waste your time with your pictures and quizzes of the other ones. I didn't mistake what you were typing for a .22 LR, I found your examples to be a waste of time because you didn't focus on the bullet causing these mass shootings. I focused on the .223 because there was a whole classroom of kids killed by it and your distraction is less important to me than those bodies.

At some point, one notices that a single bullet type keeps being the preferred mass shooting one, and then you ignored that bullet when you ask about the one I'm supposed to ID. Which is how it proves my point.

I lived down the street from the Pittsburgh synagogue for 2 years. Same damn bullet. So why didn't I care about your example? Because that wasn't the bullet killing my neighbors.

[Danny Dravot]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

I never said they were. I didn't care about the ones you brought up, I cared about the 27 murdered kids and teachers in Newtown that were killed by that bullet. So waste your time with your pictures and quizzes of the other ones. I didn't mistake what you were typing for a .22 LR, I focused on the .223 because there was a whole classroom of kids killed by it and your distraction is less important to me than those bodies.

At some point, one notices that a single bullet type keeps being the preferred mass shooting one, and then you ignore that bullet when you ask about the one I'm supposed to ID. Which is how it proves my point.

I lived down the street from the Pittsburgh synagogue for 2 years. Same damn bullet. So why didn't I care about your example? Because that wasn't the bullet killing my neighbors.

Honestly, I’m not sure what your point is. You really don’t like .223. Ok. You’re still missing my point which I’ve made much more clearly than you’ve made yours.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Honestly, I’m not sure what your point is. You really don’t like .223. Ok. You’re still missing my point which I’ve made much more clearly than you’ve made yours.

1. You said I would prefer banning the less dangerous rifle because I didn't know anything about guns, then played a trick where you named two types of ammunition different from the preferred round of mass shooters, and I wasn't willing to waste my time on your game.

2. I have no issue with redesigning an assault weapons ban to be smarter than the 1994 one. However, one cannot help but note how the mass shootings involving something that could be classified as an assault weapon...rose after the weak AWB expired. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/07/bill-clinton/did-mass-shooting-deaths-fall-under-1994-assault-w/

3. It is not people like me, who will say that I believe responsible gun ownership to be a myth, who are the reason why gun laws are being loosened constantly. I would have been quite happy with intelligent gun laws being passed and would only push for additional legislation when that did not work. It is gun owners who go along with the NRA and their most extreme positions that are the ones who prevent any gun legislation at all. 

[Danny Dravot]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

1. You said I would prefer banning the less dangerous rifle because I didn't know anything about guns, then played a trick where you named two types of ammunition different from the preferred round of mass shooters, and I wasn't willing to waste my time on your game.

2. I have no issue with redesigning an assault weapons ban to be smarter than the 1994 one. However, one cannot help but note how the mass shootings involving something that could be classified as an assault weapon...rose after the weak AWB expired. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/07/bill-clinton/did-mass-shooting-deaths-fall-under-1994-assault-w/

3. It is not people like me, who will say that I believe responsible gun ownership to be a myth, who are the reason why gun laws are being loosened constantly. I would have been quite happy with intelligent gun laws being passed and would only push for additional legislation when that did not work. It is gun owners who go along with the NRA and their most extreme positions that are the ones who prevent any gun legislation at all. 

The AWB doesn’t focus on things that actually affect lethality, like caliber. It’s therefore a dumb law written by people who clearly know nothing about guns. That’s it. That’s the point. There is no trick there.

You are also extreme on this position. You think responsible gun ownership is a myth and think nobody should have guns. I said I’d compromise and I don’t personally agree with the NRA, but I’m not ever going to live under your stated status quo.

[Danny Dravot]

Also, my views are stated. I’m not going to move the goalposts. You can read what I want right here in this thread. Give me that and I’ll be satisfied. Since you, @Balta1701, have stated what your ideal goals are, and they are much farther than I’d be willing to go, I don’t have a ton of confidence that I’d make a deal with you and not immediately get stabbed in the back by a demand for more. This is about as paranoid as I get, but you’ve told me what you’re working for. Why would you truly accept compromise that is far short of your announced goal?

[Two-Gun Pete]

18 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

One receipt. Yeah, they weren’t elected officials or seemingly people of influence, but several electors did go rogue (although more from Clinton than from Trump).

Either way, the point I’m trying to focus on is that we should really tamp down the sedition talk. A lot of people say and do stupid things. Both sides of the aisle scream treason and sedition a lot. It’s dumb.

I think Cindy Sheehan was wrong on the Iraq War. She wasn’t seditious, however. I think Beto is wrong when he blabs about taking people’s guns. Still not seditious. I think Rashida Tlaib is a raging anti-Semite who should be voted out of Congress. But she’s not a traitor and her only home is this country. I think Dan Crenshaw is wrong to sign his name on an idiotic lawsuit filed by a crook of an AG, but I’m not going to accuse a one-eyed war hero of betraying his country for an act of speech.

If someone sells secrets to the Russians (or Wikileaks), that’s clearly treason. If someone wants to kidnap a governor, that could be treason. If someone wants to shoot adversarial congressmen, that’s possible treason (among other crimes). If you commit treason, it’s one of the worst crimes you can commit and the punishment should match (IMHO, death). So I’m not going to play fast and loose with these words myself and the answer to bad speech is more speech.

Ok, I see that others have gotten back to you before I did. Thank you for your thoughtful response. 

 

On balance, this is an example where "both sides do it" isn't really "both sides." Once again, Clinton conceded, so even if there were media types or bloggers hinted at faithless electors, it mattered not one whit. I appreciate you finding that receipt, and I'm sure there are others.

 

Fast forward to today: We have a candidate who refuses to concede,

AND a party that encourages this behavior,

AND a state AG filing stupid lawsuits,

AND a media environment (Fox/OANN/Newsmax, etc...) encouraging this behavior.

In sum, we have, at a minimum, guileless sheep like jerksticks and Greg being led around by their balls. AND, we have one side of the aisle encouraging the judiciary to overthrow the will of millions of voters. Or a military coup.

So, NO, this ain't equal on both sides. This ain't "both sides do it." And to suggest that it is (No OFFENSE INTENDED) is kinda intellectually dishonest. 

 

With respect to the bolded, I agree. Can you agree that the TX GOP head suggesting at secession ALSO fits with your bolded part? If not, I think you should consider it to be so.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Two-Gun Pete

[NWINFan]

I agree with Two-Gun Pete. There are not two sides to the Trump election lunatic behavior. He lost big time, and all he is doing is destroying confidence in the electoral process.

Regarding talk about Texas seceding. Please do it. I won't miss you; the country won't miss you. 

[Danny Dravot]

48 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Ok, I see that others have gotten back to you before I did. Thank you for your thoughtful response. 

 

On balance, this is an example where "both sides do it" isn't really "both sides." Once again, Clinton conceded, so even if there were media types or bloggers hinted at faithless electors, it mattered not one whit. I appreciate you finding that receipt, and I'm sure there are others.

 

Fast forward to today: We have a candidate who refuses to concede,

AND a party that encourages this behavior,

AND a state AG filing stupid lawsuits,

AND a media environment (Fox/OANN/Newsmax, etc...) encouraging this behavior.

In sum, we have, at a minimum, guileless sheep like jerksticks and Greg being led around by their balls. AND, we have one side of the aisle encouraging the judiciary to overthrow the will of millions of voters. Or a military coup.

So, NO, this ain't equal on both sides. This ain't "both sides do it." And to suggest that it is (No OFFENSE INTENDED) is kinda intellectually dishonest. 

 

With respect to the bolded, I agree. Can you agree that the TX GOP head suggesting at secession ALSO fits with your bolded part? If not, I think you should consider it to be so.

Honestly, I’m not trying to “both sides” this one. I’m just making the point that removing representatives without the say if their voters is not the right answer and that a lot of things could be qualified as “attacking our democracy” so we shouldn’t be too keen to open that can of worms.

On the topic of “T-exit”, once again, I don’t agree with it but it’s only speech. Introducing a bill for the state to secede is an idiotic waste of time and his constituents should vote him out, but there’s a long way between that silliness and anything I’d consider an act of treason.

At some point, I should probably ask myself why I constantly find myself in these trenches defending things I completely loathe.

[Danny Dravot]

10 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

Regarding talk about Texas seceding. Please do it. I won't miss you; the country won't miss you. 

T-exit is always a fringe idea that floats around down here, usually in a joking way and not in the actual chambers of government. Don’t worry though- we’re not going anywhere.

[Dick Allen]

Isnt the biggest proof the Dems didn't rig the election McConnell and Graham are staying on? 

These people are crazy. The pillow guy yesterday said Fox News was in on it and the proof was their early call for Biden in AZ. He does know network calls are not binding I think.

[pcq]

42 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Isnt the biggest proof the Dems didn't rig the election McConnell and Graham are staying on? 

These people are crazy. The pillow guy yesterday said Fox News was in on it and the proof was their early call for Biden in AZ. He does know network calls are not binding I think.

By miracle there was Zero fraud in the red states. One of the Wisconsin Supremes asked yesterday why Team Trump was only filing to toss out the two counties' votes with the largest minority populations.

[hogan873]

Not that it isn't already over, but the electors officially cast their votes today.  It will be interesting to see if there are any faithless electors.  I'm guessing not, but you never know.  I believe there was one in 2016, but they were immediately replaced by the governor (Colorado, I think).

[StrangeSox]

 

 

 

 

they won't have the SoS stamp so they won't matter, but they're not giving up sedition

[southsider2k5]

Can we call it treason now?

[Texsox]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Can we call it treason now?

We can call it whatever we want but is it a pardonable crime? 

[StrangeSox]

more

 

[pcq]

I don't know what people were worrying about.

[NWINFan]

On 12/13/2020 at 10:54 AM, Dick Allen said:

Isnt the biggest proof the Dems didn't rig the election McConnell and Graham are staying on? 

These people are crazy. The pillow guy yesterday said Fox News was in on it and the proof was their early call for Biden in AZ. He does know network calls are not binding I think.

While Fox doesn't have the greatest reputation, it is very careful about calling states. That part of the network doesn't let anyone pressure it when it calls the election. Karl Rove went nuts when Fox called Ohio for  Obama and refused to change that call for Rove's convenience. The Fox said the numbers were what they were.

If the Republicans think the system is corrupt, I suggest they come up with reform proposals to ensure honest elections. But that will never happen. Instead they want to manipulate things through force and physical intimidation.  

All of this for cry baby Donald Trump. No matter how many times he would ever run for president, he would never win the popular vote. The majority does not like him and came out in droves to throw his orange-ade ass out of office. And we're supposed to be persuaded by the pillow guy? He ought to stick his face in one of his pillows and never show it again.

This has gotten way too old for way too long. This is not making America great again.

[Texsox]

Of course this is the same party that slandered military medals to discredit John Kerry. 

[southsider2k5]

 

[Texsox]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

OMG I can't believe how deep the fraud goes! Massive widespread and now it's not going to be fixed?? 

[southsider2k5]

Post mortem on the election.

https://www.facebook.com/8304333127/posts/10160622137738128/

[The Beast]

And now the pressure is on Mike Pence to announce the totals on January 6. I’ll take great joy if he has to announce who the president is then and will laugh at the BS shenanigans the Trumplican Congress will do.

[southsider2k5]