CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Trumpocalypse Now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trumpocalypse Now - Page 663

post #33101 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

Alex Jones has been particularly scary today.

Well, there were thousands of people there, so he couldn't just deny that it even happened, a la Sandy Hook.

post #33102 of 41349

And that's a guy who has the ear of the President.  Jesus Christ, this fucking country.

 

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin's feed has been nauseating this morning, babbling about how "you can't regulate evil" and shit.

post #33103 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post

 

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin's feed has been nauseating this morning, babbling about how "you can't regulate evil" and shit.

 

As if that somehow justifies their inaction.  All the laws and regulations in the world won't stop bad people from doing bad things!  

 

Its amazing how quickly they'll pivot from that POV when it comes to something like voter fraud, of which there have been like 30 documented cases in the last 2 decades. 

post #33104 of 41349
I’m taking this opportunity to get in the face of every hair-splitting AR fetishist on my facebook feed before unfriending them. If we can’t ban these things, the least we could do is stigmatize owning them.
post #33105 of 41349

Requiring liability insurance specific to the weapon is a strong solution, that does an end-run around most every objection out there. But of course its not going to happen.

post #33106 of 41349

I was actually 'enjoying' the latest 'Cracked Podcast' when I got the news...Talk about irony.

 

 

5 Ways Donald Trump's Lies Are Trying To Break Your Brain

 

On this week’s episode of The Cracked Podcast, Alex Schmidt brings in Cracked POTUS-trackers Cody Johnston and Sean “Seanbaby” Reiley to discover the scale of President Trump’s towering horses**t, and the psychological ramifications of facing it day to day. They’ll shine a light on the most staggering, pointless lies ever told by the Commander in Chief. They’ll use the latest psychological studies to examine how constant chief executive lies can scramble our brains. And they’ll wrap up with ways you can be more mentally resilient than ever, both now and through the “The Rock” Johnson Administration.

 

...added bonus...http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-are-all-donald-trump/


Edited by Graham - 10/2/17 at 11:51am
post #33107 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Requiring liability insurance specific to the weapon is a strong solution, that does an end-run around most every objection out there. But of course its not going to happen.


It likely would not hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny, unless there were a fairly robust array of firearms that did not require said insurance.  Pretty sure you can't make people pay money to exercise a Constitutional right...that makes it a privilege, not a right.

post #33108 of 41349

While not a perfect comparison, marriage is a certainly a right, but marriage certificates sure ain't free.

post #33109 of 41349

Isn't is crazy how the only Amendment that apparently cannot be regulated, in any way, is the one that actually includes the words 'well-regulated'?*
 

Shits wild.

 

*Spare the noise about, 'thats now what it really means'. Because that's exactly what it meant, for a solid two centuries, until the NRA got involved and made that part of the Amendment irrelevant.

post #33110 of 41349
This is all terrible.

But I hope, best case scenario, the fuckface doesn’t pivot like Bush did after 9/11, and it diverts him from trying to instigate other shit.

And Mueller keeps going on the shadows.

I saw the WH moment of silence while eating lunch. That pack is chilling to look at.

The media coverage is disgusting. Enough talking about this old fuck. Playing the videos of the gunfire starting without advisory was pretty fucking scary too.
post #33111 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post
 

While not a perfect comparison, marriage is a certainly a right, but marriage certificates sure ain't free.

Marriage is not a specifically enumerated constitutional right, though.  The gun-liability insurance MIGHT be able to squeak by if implemented at the state level (but I still kind of doubt it), as states do have the right to impose a degree of regulation on gun ownership as long as they do not make it unduly difficult or effectively impossible.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Isn't is crazy how the only Amendment that apparently cannot be regulated, in any way, is the one that actually includes the words 'well-regulated'?*
 

Shits wild.

 

*Spare the noise about, 'thats now what it really means'. Because that's exactly what it meant, for a solid two centuries, until the NRA got involved and made that part of the Amendment irrelevant.

 

Take it up with the Supreme Court.  They've agreed that it can be "regulated" but there are indeed limits to how far you can go with that, and that doesn't mean that it's OK to effectively have to pay a tax to exercise your right.  I doubt you'd be OK with poll taxes coming back into vogue, but just branded as "Voter's insurance."

post #33112 of 41349

Well, see, the thing is:

 

voter's insurance is a dumb idea. I know you just cooked it up on the spot, but its meaningless. Its just a deflection from the actual question, which is: dangerous weapons, and how to keep those weapons from falling into the hands of people who intend to use them to murder unarmed civilians. So, to me, its a question of such seriousness that meaningless deflections shouldn't really be part of the conversation.

 

Further, insurance is not a tax, in the same way the health care mandate is a not a tax. So, yes, you are correct that the Fuckass Roberts Court would probably rule it as such, but that's a shameful band at the moment, and history will be unkind to their causes. I very much disagree with the idea that we have to bend our arguments to preemptively suit their twisted view.

post #33113 of 41349

Would this Court find the Assault Weapons Ban unconstitutional?

Probably, yeah. I'm sure the NRA would just invite Gorsuch to give a speech at a 'dinner', problem solved. We should still advocate for a return to the Assaults Weapons Ban tho. Part of the problem here is an entrenched feeling of powerlessness, where nobody is willing to try anything because we all know its gonna fail.

 

Well no shit.

post #33114 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Well, see, the thing is:

 

voter's insurance is a dumb idea. I know you just cooked it up on the spot, but its meaningless. Its just a deflection from the actual question, which is: dangerous weapons, and how to keep those weapons from falling into the hands of people who intend to use them to murder unarmed civilians. So, to me, its a question of such seriousness that meaningless deflections shouldn't really be part of the conversation.

 

Further, insurance is not a tax, in the same way the health care mandate is a not a tax. So, yes, you are correct that the Fuckass Roberts Court would probably rule it as such, but that's a shameful band at the moment, and history will be unkind to their causes. I very much disagree with the idea that we have to bend our arguments to preemptively suit their twisted view.

 

No, the actual question is how much can you abridge a constitutional right before it crosses the line from being a right into being a privilege, and if you set that precedent for one constitutional right, why is it not equally valid to find ways to do so for every constitutional right? 

 

"Because Zhukov doesn't feel like it is" is, in your own words, "meaningless."

 

 

 

post #33115 of 41349

Reductio ad absurdum, ftw.

 

Every time.

post #33116 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Reductio ad absurdum, ftw.

 

Every time.


Then answer the question.

 

Don't mistake me, either, I think there are plenty of ways to try to mitigate gun violence in the country without charging fees to exercise constitutional rights, and that those ways should be implemented.

 

Knowing they won't be isn't the same as not trying, but acknowledging the reality of the current state of American politics and culture isn't automatically "giving up" either.

post #33117 of 41349

Its only an abridgement of this sacred right if you first presume that the Second Amendment actually does what you are saying it does.

 

Which is clearly a question under some discussion. And which has significant historical precedence in being interpreted in a very different manner. And in which the Supreme Court's purview would be unknowable, as they never actually made any significant ruling on the Assault Weapons Ban. And within that purview, the assignation of liability is well within the realm of the possible. You have to pay a fee to exercise your constitutional right to a machine gun. The idea that there is some fundamental, platonic difference between that and ARs is honestly pretty strange.

 

"You can't regulate guns in the context of militia service because therefore you have to abridge other rights" just doesn't seem like its coming from a very considered place.

post #33118 of 41349

1) I think the crypto-argument often made here - that at the time of the writing of second amendment, you were by default part of a militia as a white, land-owning male - is actually solid. So lets do that. Automatic gun rights if you are in a state militia! Which, by means of the property of transferrence, would mean service in the National Guard. I'm sure they could use some volunteers. Please note that all you poor minorities renting apartments arent really part of this conversation. We are, after all, strict textualists.

 

2) More realistically, the idea of liability insurance is a real one, and its been batted around Congress for a couple years. Would it stand to Supreme Court scrutiny? Like I said, that's a den of skullduggery at the moment, but we might get some really strong dissents out of it. And sometimes, the dissents are what you need to build better laws, for a better future.

post #33119 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Its only an abridgement of this sacred right if you first presume that the Second Amendment actually does what you are saying it does.

 

Which is clearly a question under some discussion. And which has significant historical precedence in being interpreted in a very different manner. And in which the Supreme Court's purview would be unknowable, as they never actually made any significant ruling on the Assault Weapons Ban. And within that purview, the assignation of liability is well within the realm of the possible. You have to pay a fee to exercise your constitutional right to a machine gun. The idea that there is some fundamental, platonic difference between that and ARs is honestly pretty strange.

 

"You can't regulate guns in the context of militia service because therefore you have to abridge other rights" just doesn't seem like its coming from a very considered place.

OK, we may have a misunderstanding, are you talking about liability insurance in regards to assault weapons specifically or all firearms?  Because if it's the former, then I actually think that's a fine idea and MIGHT have a chance of surviving a review.  Probably not with this Supreme Court, but not impossible with relatively minor shifts.

 

As long as "assault weapons" gets a clear legal definition beyond "this list of guns that kinda look scary."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

1) I think the crypto-argument often made here - that at the time of the writing of second amendment, you were by default part of a militia as a white, land-owning male - is actually solid. So lets do that. Automatic gun rights if you are in a state militia! Which, by means of the property of transferrence, would mean service in the National Guard. I'm sure they could use some volunteers. Please note that all you poor minorities renting apartments arent really part of this conversation. We are, after all, strict textualists.

 

2) More realistically, the idea of liability insurance is a real one, and its been batted around Congress for a couple years. Would it stand to Supreme Court scrutiny? Like I said, that's a den of skullduggery at the moment, but we might get some really strong dissents out of it. And sometimes, the dissents are what you need to build better laws, for a better future.


1)  That's not the current interpretation, while it may at some ill-defined point in the future change, if you're not arguing in the reality that we're currently living in, then it's not much use beyond putting the ideas out there.  Certainly it's not going to be any sort of near or mid-term solution.

 

2)  The Supreme Court isn't the only obstacle though:  Who's going to be making the payouts on this insurance?  I don't see many companies that would be eager to gamble on a business model that might well bankrupt them the first time a mass-shooting by one of their customers occurs.

post #33120 of 41349

Sure. I'm fine with that. Assault weapons* are used in the great majority of these mass shootings.

 

That would still leave the great majority of total gun deaths - suicides, gang violence, etc - but that, I feel, is probably an issue better left to the states than in continuing an endless culture war over it.

 

*yes, I know, but lets not

post #33121 of 41349
You guys realize there's an entire dedicated thread for this exact same argument we have every fucking time somebody shoots people in this country, right?
post #33122 of 41349

Contrary to the buffoons in charge of our government, I'd say now is the PERFECT time to politicize things.

 

What it's not time for is meaningless platitudes while passing laws that make the next shooter's task even easier.

post #33123 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

Contrary to the buffoons in charge of our government, I'd say now is the PERFECT time to politicize things.

What it's not time for is meaningless platitudes while passing laws that make the next shooter's task even easier.

If I could pay someone to follow politicians around and loudly shout "FUCK YOU" every time they say the word "Prayers..." I would.
post #33124 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


If I could pay someone to follow politicians around and loudly shout "FUCK YOU" every time they say the word "Prayers..." I would.

 

How much?

 

They always say you should find a job you love...

post #33125 of 41349

Someone is leaking Manafort's emails:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/emails-suggest-manafort-sought-approval-from-putin-ally-deripaska/541677/

 

Seems to indicate he IS in debt to a russian oligarch, and was using his position on the trump campaign to pay that debt back.  Obliquely indicating Trump was a willing and knowing participant.

post #33126 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post

Next year? You underestimate us.

 

 

The Vegas massacre isn't even the most RECENT mass shooting in the US....3 dead, 2 wounded in a Lawrence, KS driveby. 

post #33127 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Requiring liability insurance specific to the weapon is a strong solution, that does an end-run around most every objection out there. But of course its not going to happen.


Just caught up with the thread but I find this specific point interesting and ask if you would mind expanding upon it? How would the liability insurance work? Would it be a case of making the insurance payment really high on certain types of weapons in order to dissuade people from wanting them?

post #33128 of 41349

Vegas proved something about Congress, and Trump, that can extend to anything they've fucked up: they're all reaction, no action. (Try to) Get rid of Obamacare. Preserve Antonin Scalia's toxic legacy with another conservative shithead. It's far beyond just words quieter than actions. It's Newton's law gone haywire.

 

Jimmy Kimmel saying that McConnell and Ryan's balls are in the NRA's money clip said it better than I ever will. They can go suck other phallic symbols.

 

And I never, EVER want to hear "thoughts and prayers" again after today, from Fuckabee Sanders or others... mostly the prayers part.

 

We're secular. In America, we hope. We can't give that up.

 

Between this and Tom Petty's death, 10/2/17 can officially fuck off into the wind.

post #33129 of 41349
Tomorrow there will be a vote in the house to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/09/28/congress_will_vote_on_a_20_week_abortion_ban_a_small_step_toward_a_scary.html

It's expected to stall in the Senate.
post #33130 of 41349

I can't be the only one who's sick and tired of the cliche "Thoughts and Prayers", right? It's the double speak for "I'm not going to do anything but just repeat this same old phrase after every tragedy". The truth is, after Sandy Hook those NRA-loving crowd discovered that they are desensitized to young children murdered in cold blood if it means a possible gun control law. Now there's nothing that could sway their belief. That Las Vegas gunman could have killed 500 people and we'd be having the same old response to it today; nothing will ever changed as long GOP controls the Legislative and Executive branches.

post #33131 of 41349
It's about as useless a bromide as they come.

Runner up: "There are no words."
Edited by Bradito - 10/2/17 at 11:18pm
post #33132 of 41349
"Thoughts and prayers" might stand a chance of meaning something if there was a chance in Hell that Trump believed in any God who isn't him.
post #33133 of 41349
"Hey, God, you know the victims of the horrible tragedy that you, in your infinite wisdom, did nothing to prevent? Uh, can you, I dunno, throw some peace their way if it's not too much trouble? Thanks! I'm sure this is all happening for a reason."

@_@
post #33134 of 41349

Prayers are fine.  Whether or not you believe in any god, in times of great stress most people look to the universe for a little bit of help, even if it's just like "please please please get me out of this shit"-- so it's natural to want to extend that to others.  But the thing of it is, it's usually there for occasions where we have no direct control over the situation.  The reason the phrase "thoughts and prayers" is so insulting in this particular case is because we absolutely can reduce the number of people who die due to gun violence.  It's an insult to their memory to pretend this is all in some god's hands.  But right wing Christians get a double bonus of being able to deflect talk of sensible gun control AND pretend like their faith is being persecuted, so it's a win win for them.

post #33135 of 41349
"Thoughts and prayers" = "I could actually do something, but nah..."
post #33136 of 41349

Hey, praying people? Pray all you want. But admit that telling everyone that you pray is just bragging.

post #33137 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

"Thoughts and prayers" = "I could actually do something, but nah..."

 

"I prayed at the office."

post #33138 of 41349

"Man is not saved by faith alone."

-Either the West Wing or Catholic school, maybe both

post #33139 of 41349

Trump described the shooting of 500+ Americans as.... A miracle!

 

post #33140 of 41349
Of course it's a miracle. It's got people to stop focussing on how badly he fucked up Puerto Rico or that Kushner had confidential information going through ANOTHER private e-mail server.

I bet the fuck fist pumped when he heard about Vegas.
post #33141 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

"Man is not saved by faith alone."
-Either the West Wing or Catholic school, maybe both

James 2:24!
post #33142 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post

Of course it's a miracle. It's got people to stop focussing on how badly he fucked up Puerto Rico or that Kushner had confidential information going through ANOTHER private e-mail server.

I bet the fuck fist pumped when he heard about Vegas.


Oh but I'm sure he was hoping and praying that it was a brown person.

post #33143 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post
 


Oh but I'm sure he was hoping and praying that it was a brown person.

 

Absolutely.  Having the shooter be an affluent white guy with no apparent extremist affiliations really screws up his narrative.

post #33144 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post

Hey, praying people? Pray all you want. But admit that telling everyone that you pray is just bragging.
In fact...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 6:5-7 
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."
Hmm.
post #33145 of 41349

LIke they actually read the bible.

 

You know better, commordore.

post #33146 of 41349
Oh yeah. If people actually read the Bible, the entire megachurch/TV-preacher/pop-theology industry basically wouldn't exist.
post #33147 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


In fact...
Hmm.

 

Depends on the intent behind why you're saying you're praying for them or sending them positive vibes or that you're thinking of them. It could be that they're just letting you know they are on your side to make you feel good. 

 

If you're saying it to be liked or to show off then obviously bad intent. 

post #33148 of 41349
With this bunch, I know which option I'm betting on there.
post #33149 of 41349

The Babbling Pagans is a Irish folk-metal fusion group I need in my life. 

post #33150 of 41349
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post
 

The Babbling Pagans is a Irish folk-metal fusion group I need in my life. 

 

Progressive Druidic Metal.  It's a new sub-genre, very niche.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Trumpocalypse Now