This is the Democratic Party.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
7 years of probing but no convictions. Lots of If-he, hear-say and opinion.
I hope you are right about this. I get the feeling the Republican voting base wants permission to like Trump again, because they haven't seen anybody to make them feel like they felt when they voted for Trump. They want to get angry, the way they got angry before.(That anger blinds them to the stupidities of Trump, or at least it did.)
But I'm in Oklahoma and that's not necessarily a good demographic of the overall Republican voter base. Neither is half of my family.(Died in the wool Trump voters.) I also think Democrats are about to be stupid about this whole thing and indict Trump. They ask for issues to fall apart on them.
It says a lot that the feds took a pass on this case and they pretty much had unlimited resources to go after it.
I haven’t looked at the evidence but it seems to me it turns on the testimony of an alienated co-conspirator and a not sympathetic one at that.
The strategy may be to bog him down in court to hem in his campaign and if found guilty force him into appeals past the election. I don’t know.
How much TAXPAYER money have the DEMOCRATS in Congress and States wasted on their political witch hunts?
From what I understand The Muller investigation was profitable after all fines were assessed. How much did the government waste on the 2020 election because of Trump claiming he won. Recounts and investigations are costly. My guess is less than 100M, which is somewhere around the government charges Trump ran up for what the government paid to his businesses.
recounts are a legitimate claim.
using false documents, kangroo courts and bias ags are bs.
100m paid to his business? see congress for this one; uncle joe, hrc, kharris, ewarrin. bsanders, ...
Just FYI, I’m pretty sure that tweet came from a parody/troll account, not the actual Occupy Democrats’ Twitter.
It was bizarre. Not sure I’ve ever seen a politician making jokes as a lead in to discussing the mass murder of children.
"This is not Occupy Democrats. It’s a spoof account whose goal is to say stupid crap and hope that people erroneously attribute what they say to Occupy Democrats. Besides lacking the “s”, note that the first letter of their Twitter Handle is a zero, not the letter O."
Probably a Republican posting in bad taste.
Probably a Republican posting in bad taste.
Yeah. Don’t really care about the political affiliation of the poster. I will call it out regardless. It was in poor taste. However, Biden making jokes as he was leading into his comments about the murder of those children was probably worse. He’s not some anonymous troll account.
It was a press conference with a lot of small children present, and the story is that he was trying to play to the children present.
Not sure I agree it was a wise strategy. Neither to have small children present for a press conference on murdered children, or leading with a joke, but whatever. It is hard for me to care much.
And that is because I also think it is weird that when children are murdered, outrage is focused on the president’s presser and not the continuing issue of gun violence in schools.
Hopefully there’s abundant outrage on the school shooting. Guns and the will who use the same to murder children. The now common theme of disturbed people writing manifestos and then committing mass murder is something rarely seen prior to the last few decades. Assume social media is playing a part .
No clue why you would use that stage to comment on the school shooting. Ill advised for sure and just a bad look. You have to know the news outlets will run the text on the screen about the shooting while you’re joking about ice cream since you alerted them you were going to comment on the same.
Last edited:
I think having that press conference in front of children and making a joke wasn't very well thought out. For a party that is so concerned about hurting people's feelings and capping bullying at the knees, they should have been more aware of appearances than this.
I was really responding to GoldenCaneKC's post I just didn't quote it. It was somebody posting in comments, the distinguishing marks that signified it was a parody. Don't quite understand your I'll call it out regardless.
It was someone sarcastically trying to make occupy democrats look bad by imitating them and making a really poor taste remark. It was probably a republican or an independent. I seriously doubt it was a Democrat that disagreed with parts of party policy. The source of the comment is really important to notice here. In fact it is the primary thing to notice here. Otherwise you are ignoring that it was not occupy democrats that made it.
That services the views and goals of the one who made this remark. Occupy Democrats makes enough stupid comments on their own. I didn't think it was appropriate for someone to not acknowledge that the source of your post wasn't Occupy Democrats. As did other posters.
Last edited:
To paraphrase Jon Stewart… “what’s the number of guns that it will take to make us safe? 500 million? 600 million? When do we get to stop worrying about gun violence?”
When you lack a defense for the easy access to weapons to everyone… you turn to other issues… mental health.…trans phobia….social media…
Emotionally charged kids suffering through mental episodes or being influenced by counterculture existed in other generations too…
% of households with guns has gradually decreased since the late 70's by 15%+. And I don't think it was any harder to get a gun if you really wanted one in the 80's, than it is today.
The issue is writing a manifesto and killing a bunch of people is more used as an outlet today, by those who are ill and angry at the world. Gun prevalence is not the reason for it. Getting rid of a massive amount of guns would help, but not solve the problem. And you are not going to get the US to turn in that many guns. People would just start manufacturing the guns themselves if you prohibited them. That would work out about like prohibition did. Just would send the market underground. I'd rather have illegal boos than illegal guns, safer.
The issue is writing a manifesto and killing a bunch of people is more used as an outlet today, by those who are ill and angry at the world. Gun prevalence is not the reason for it. Getting rid of a massive amount of guns would help, but not solve the problem. And you are not going to get the US to turn in that many guns. People would just start manufacturing the guns themselves if you prohibited them. That would work out about like prohibition did. Just would send the market underground. I'd rather have illegal boos than illegal guns, safer.
That statistic doesn’t tell the entire story of the changing gun ownership trends in the US.
The rate at which you see these events per capita is much higher than in other, less gun abundant countries. It’s not because the other countries don’t have crazy people or they don’t have social media.
I dont support the can of worms argument.
You are laying it down on gun ownership and/or access, and I don't think it's any harder or easier to get one today than it was in the 80's. You can't say it's because we have no more crazies than in the past,(generations) but not compare gun access in the past. They are not easier to get a hold of today. I believe they are harder to get a hold of. We had just as many mentally ill, and just as easy access to guns, if not easier. It's the culture today that has changed.
Bologna.
The culture has changed throughout the world.... and while we've seen slight increases in the prevalence of these sorts of events elsewhere.... we've seen massive increases where the most guns exist. (Again.... I'm not talking about ease of access.... I'm talking about the physical presence of firearms throughout the society)
If you play a "one of these things is not like the other" between the USA and Europe, the UK, Australia, Japan, etc.... it's not the social media or the amount of crazy people that's the difference.
The major difference in many cases has to do with the proportion (or the physical distribution) of people in poverty, or the amount of firearms in physical proximity.
And by the way... your statistic on fewer households owning firearms than in the past is debatable. It's a RAND corporation statistical analysis. Which tries to combine multiple polling data sets into a single regression as well as tries to correct for certain lacks of data by using firearm ownership analogs which can be misleading statistically. (Things like number of firearm suicides, number of hunting licenses issued, number of Guns & Ammo Magazine subscriptions)
What it also means is that your very dependent on a variety of polling methodologies employed throughout the years and the numbers you get today might not be analogous in substance to the numbers you received 20 years ago. That being said, in many cases the polled numbers of gun ownership by state haven't declined.... but the statistical analysis has changed. I would argue that the earlier estimates (those of the 70's) have a much lower confidence factor than we do today and were likely overestimates (or today's values are underestimates). Any other outcome wouldn't intuitively make sense considering the rate of increase of firearm manufacturing and firearm imports that we've seen since the mid 2000's.
Last edited:
I love that he is trying to dis the polling that says the # of houses has gone down drastically, but ignores that he doesn't have to prove that it has gone down, but instead has to prove it has gone up in an equally significant way. Which he wouldn't be able to do. Ease of access/physical prevalence of guns, you say tomato, I say tomato. Not continuing this argument.
Perhaps we don’t fully understand the root causes of the problem because we are unable to publicly discuss the full scope of what contributes to these outcomes.
And perhaps our system of respecting the rights of people who are in the minority prevents the politically desired solution of many. Roughly one of five Americans live in a rural area. More than half of them have been victims of crime, a third of that number felonies. Help is hours away for most of them. Just call the police is not a public policy solution.
And don’t get me started on the empirical evidence compiled from victims of violent felonies. Virtually everyone in favor of a ban on all firearms completely reverses themselves after being the victim of violent crime.
Fear is the driving factor here on all sides. That can only be overcome with education of the compelling arguments of all sides. But the climate prevents such discussions.
Those in favor of large scale bans are unable to explain how a confiscation scheme would pass a constitutional challenge under the takings clause. If they could, they would have tried. Even if the 2A didn’t protect your guns, no Blue congressman is really interested in sending checks to red voters who will then vote against them for life. 40% of firearms on planet earth are in the private possession of US citizens. You wanna pay for that? Have we got it? And what the increase in cops to take them. And about those people that will be waiting for cops to come and take them. Way too many people in this country think they are Josey Wales for that to work without many problematic incidents. You’ve got to model for how that’s going to happen without widespread bloodshed or a breakdown in the legitimacy of our government for suddenly eroding social compact norms going back four centuries.
Until then, hands off my granddaddy’s semi auto deer rifle and my 18 year old step daughter’s rape survivor pink Glock.
And perhaps our system of respecting the rights of people who are in the minority prevents the politically desired solution of many. Roughly one of five Americans live in a rural area. More than half of them have been victims of crime, a third of that number felonies. Help is hours away for most of them. Just call the police is not a public policy solution.
And don’t get me started on the empirical evidence compiled from victims of violent felonies. Virtually everyone in favor of a ban on all firearms completely reverses themselves after being the victim of violent crime.
Fear is the driving factor here on all sides. That can only be overcome with education of the compelling arguments of all sides. But the climate prevents such discussions.
Those in favor of large scale bans are unable to explain how a confiscation scheme would pass a constitutional challenge under the takings clause. If they could, they would have tried. Even if the 2A didn’t protect your guns, no Blue congressman is really interested in sending checks to red voters who will then vote against them for life. 40% of firearms on planet earth are in the private possession of US citizens. You wanna pay for that? Have we got it? And what the increase in cops to take them. And about those people that will be waiting for cops to come and take them. Way too many people in this country think they are Josey Wales for that to work without many problematic incidents. You’ve got to model for how that’s going to happen without widespread bloodshed or a breakdown in the legitimacy of our government for suddenly eroding social compact norms going back four centuries.
Until then, hands off my granddaddy’s semi auto deer rifle and my 18 year old step daughter’s rape survivor pink Glock.
Even an amateur can tell its a fake account by the leading zero in @0ccupyDemocrat. The Russians are getting sloppy with their troll accounts.
The Democrats always call for a ban on automatic weapons. But they never get into the logistics of truly changing this country to a country that accepts what the legislation is working towards. Accepts the level of elimination of guns in society, that would make these events less frequent to almost nonexistent.
They just think things will magically happen once that first piece of legislation gets enacted. That would evoke a civil war in America that would make Jan 6 look like a stroll in the park. I really don't care if the Democratss found a way to eliminate gunss from our society. The getting there is the problem they(Democrats) don't deal with very well.(They need to show much more of the way, and then recite the Mandalorian mantra.)
My position in guns has been well documented on this board. The thought of walking into a school and murdering children to further a political motive or simply because you want to be famous (or both) wasn’t part of the our society fifty years ago. No idea what the solution is or if at this point there even is one. There are obviously things we could do to make getting these types of weapons more difficult. Which would likely result in handguns, rifles and shotguns being used. Might cut down on the fatalities. Don’t see it significantly affecting the number of events. Maybe that’s all we can do? However, ignoring the “why” does seem a bit short sighted.
Again… why is it not an issue (to a similar extent) in other English speaking countries?
It’s a great question. The abundance of guns certainly makes the act easier. However, we’re not getting rid of hand guns, rifles and shot guns in this country. So even a ban on AR style weapons would likely only decrease the number of dead and not necessarily the number. Not saying such a decrease wouldn’t be a welcome result.
Are our politics more divisive here than other states? Is there more media coverage of divisive issues? Is there more anger amongst our citizens fueled by social media? (There’s a Trans Day of Vengeance this weekend in DC….which is still occurring). I just don’t know.
I do believe people are copy cats. Disturbed people see these mass shootings and the publicity they get. They want their cause to be publicized and they want to die famous. Why you see so many writing manifestos and posting endlessly on social media. Should we rethink the way we cover these events….probably so.
Something that has little to do with politics or copycats…
The US is home to ~4% of the world population…. We represented 44% of gun related suicides.
More guns means more people will use guns in times of stress, mental illness, etc…
There is just no way around it. We don’t have higher rates in stress or mental illness…just higher gun ownership.
Every citizen of this country should care if judges and juries are not impartial. Our criminal Justice system goes to great lengths to insure just that. Jurors are eliminated from juries based on a perception of bias. Should judges be held to a different standard ?
I care more about the Supreme Court being completely bogus.
(Also, that’s why criminal trials are done with juries)
You are aware the effect a bias judge can have on a criminal jury trial…. Correct ?
