"I Vote For The Man" An Outdated Concept....

[BugI02]

A constitutional granted right that will take a 2/3 super majority to encroach on, then will have to pass a president to sign it,
Then have to make it past several Supreme Court court challenges.

It's called 'Checks & Balances'.

While you single issue vote, you give away the rest of the farm.
Not a very balanced way to do things...

Remind me again, what amendment to the Constitution resulted in the Assault Weapons Ban? A president from which party signed it into law? How did challengers to aspects of it fare before SCOTUS? Where might we be now if the law hadn't had a sunset provision?

And then tell me it couldn't happen again or worse with another Clinton in the White House and Merrrick Garland (or worse) and some other SCOTUS pick (from the ninth circuit) on SCOTUS instead of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

 

[Birds Away]

Remind me again, what amendment to the Constitution resulted in the Assault Weapons Ban? A president from which party signed it into law? How did challengers to aspects of it fare before SCOTUS? Where might we be now if the law hadn't had a sunset provision?

And then tell me it couldn't happen again or worse with another Clinton in the White House and Merrrick Garland (or worse) and some other SCOTUS pick (from the ninth circuit) on SCOTUS instead of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Even Roberts is unreliable lately. It could easily happen again and much worse.

 

[BugI02]

I think it's much easier to hate someone, though I don't really think I hate people. Maybe dislike, or distrust. Millions of years of developmental evolution around selective survival makes me think it's more instinctive not to trust someone unless you know them. We're kinda pre-wired for tribalism. It's hard to override the programming. And I don't think I want to override the trust/earned trust instinct. I don't really care for the wording "believe in someone". I know what you're saying, and maybe it's really saying this. With everyone I either trust or don't trust, or somewhere in between. I hold in contempt or high esteem, or somewhere in between. But as far as belief in, that just sounds too much like a Disney kids' movie.

Some programming that I think might be useful to override is the disgust instinct. Though I think it's useful to have a healthy instinct for distrusting people until you have enough information to decide rationally, I don't see much use in disgust, unless they're actually causing harm.

That is insightful, and not only because it is useful in defense of Trump. I find a larger issue, and one that is often at the bottom of discrimination, is everybody seems to want to have someone or a group of someones they can look down upon. Disgusting, deplorable, retarded - I think there is often a strong component of building oneself up by tearing others down. It's a common human failing often exacerbated by the tribe

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And as far as the letters on an ID card, I'd back a 3x5 card that has the letters "trotptkabasnbi." Heck, I'd even go to office depot and pay for those who can't afford to buy a 3x5 card.

What do those letters mean? Looks like a foreign language, but could be an acronym.

A constitutional granted right that will take a 2/3 super majority to encroach on, then will have to pass a president to sign it,
Then have to make it past several Supreme Court court challenges.

It's called 'Checks & Balances'.

While you single issue vote, you give away the rest of the farm.
Not a very balanced way to do things...

Why would it take a 2/3 rds super majority? That is if the President is willing to sign it. If the President is willing to sign a simple majority would be sufficient, with a super majority they can override a veto. Heck all it seems to take now is the President to "reinterpret" the law.

Or do you not believe these are encroachments, federal gun free school zone act, prohibited persons, nics checks, no full auto made after 1986, 1994 "assault" weapons ban, 1934 NFA, I can go on if you wish.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'll get you started, here's an answer to #1

TOP DEFINITION
NeverTrumper
A person who will always disagree and be upset with whatever Donald Trump says or does. If Trump farted into a box, they'd complain he didn't fart into their box.

This means Bug has declared I am not one of those!

 

[BugI02]

Sadly, I don't really feel all that much better about the Republicans. There are just a few "no freaking way" issues where they happen to be on my side of things.

What we need is some breathing space on existential issues. I'm sure it's no surprise I want to see Trump re-elected, given the known contenders in 2020 I think it's essential to forestall a truly undesirable outcome. But if he can succeed in sending the progressive movement into the wilderness for a generation, I would love to see something like a reversal of the current situation, with the dominant political parties moving to be center-left and center-right and advocating incremental change (in either direction) rather than radical change

 

[Birds Away]

The Democrats and their accomplices in the media seem to think they have the goods on Trump and are fitting him for a noose. At what point do we have to look for plan B?

 

[BugI02]

The first rule about PlanB is you can't talk about PlanB

 

[jamil]

That is insightful, and not only because it is useful in defense of Trump. I find a larger issue, and one that is often at the bottom of discrimination, is everybody seems to want to have someone or a group of someones they can look down upon. Disgusting, deplorable, retarded - I think there is often a strong component of building oneself up by tearing others down. It's a common human failing often exacerbated by the tribe

Well, let's not beat around the bush here. Let's say it with more than innuendo. Let's be direct because we both know what you're implying.

Yes. I tear into Trump when I think he's wrong. I take Trumpers to task when I think they're overlooking some pretty dangerous/authoritarian things Trump does. I give Trump props when I think he's right. If you think that I criticize Trump to tear YOU down, and just to build me up, perhaps there's some other instinct that you should override and allow higher functions to evaluate that. There are facts in direct contradiction to what you said.

I keep trying to see if you guys are capable of admitting when he's wrong, and all I see is legitimate points that a lot of people make being dismissed as all that retarded nevertrumper ****. When you guys pull out the nevertrumper bit, it makes me suspect you're trying to dismiss your cognitive dissonance with a cheap word. Yeah, you're running the algorithm.

The dismissal of facts contrary to your rebuttals are quite obvious to the people who aren't smitten by the cult of personality. I don't know. Maybe those words bite. I'm not on the other side of them so maybe they do. Maybe I could lighten up on that. But maybe think about it. Maybe consider that a person capable of criticizing Trump isn't the enemy. You guys like talking about enemies a lot, so okay, let's just stay with that for a minute. I'll grant you that the people who are incapable of ever seeing anything positive about Trump are ideologues, which make them dangerous. You can legitimately point to a reason they're your enemy, but probably not for the same reason I would call them that. Just as they are incapable of ever seeing anything positive about Trump--and there are positive things--wouldn't the opposite also be true? Maybe being incapable of seeing anything negative about Trump is just as much being an enemy to yourself. It robs you of a fuller picture.

It's okay to say what's wrong with Trump as much as it is okay to say what's right with Trump. He is a horrible human being for screwing a porn star while married, let alone while his wife was pregnant with his son. Trump is absolutely right about the fundamental theme he ran on, that it's right for a nation to look out for its needs first, and to secure its borders. There. Two things about Trump that are objectively true. One negative. One positive. No one melted.

 

[Ingomike]

I agree, they've honed their craft and they're really good at it.

I wonder if it's not as big a leap for us to hate someone than it is to believe in someone.

The proof is that although the public says they do not like negative campaign ads, they run them because they are very effective.

MM

 

[Ingomike]

The Democrats and their accomplices in the media seem to think they have the goods on Trump and are fitting him for a noose. At what point do we have to look for plan B?

They leak when T-man farts, if they had the goods they would not be screwing around with Cohen whom the public does not believe. Although Maddow had great ratings discussing Cohen. All this crap is giving the media great ratings and Dems attention.

MM

 

[Birds Away]

They leak when T-man farts, if they had the goods they would not be screwing around with Cohen whom the public does not believe. Although Maddow had great ratings discussing Cohen. All this crap is giving the media great ratings and Dems attention.

MM

They're winning the information war. That's what concerns me. Too many of our fellow Americans are willing to believe whatever big media tells them.

 

[bwframe]

They're winning the information war. That's what concerns me. Too many of our fellow Americans are willing to believe whatever big media tells them.

There is no way to measure that.

The same as there is no way to measure the poisoning of the good voters that the nevertrumpers do. The fact that we have folks saying the dems and republicans are the same is an example of that poison though.

 

[JettaKnight]

There is no way to measure that.

The same as there is no way to measure the poisoning of the good voters that the nevertrumpers do. The fact that we have folks saying the dems and republicans are the same is an example though.

Yeah... I don't think the anti-statist crowd here on INGO are being "poisoned" by the MSM or NeverTrumpers. Those folks are of their on mind and are aren't convinced by anything mainstream.

The one thing Dems and Reps have in common is that they're both politicians doing what politicians do best (or worst).

 

[jamil]

There is no way to measure that.

The same as there is no way to measure the poisoning of the good voters that the nevertrumpers do. The fact that we have folks saying the dems and republicans are the same is an example though.

If unmeasurable then why do you believe it?

Anyway, R’s and D’s are different, especially now. But, in terms of gun control the only thing keeping them from selling out gun owners is the NRA rating that they know they need to have to win in primaries and red districts.

The poisoning thing is nonsense. You tacitly accuse me of that for just saying Teams are retarded. Yet I agree with you that there isn’t a viable Democrat to vote for. And if you do find one reasonable, to BA’s point, you’re still stuck voting for the R turd because the D turd is working for a party that has been overtaken by socialists. Giving them a majority would be disastrous for individual liberty.

Now I think that’s an individual decision. You think that’s a group decision. I lean right in my politics, especially fiscal politics, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept right wing collectivism just because it’s right of center. I’ll make my decisions as an individual, as it should be.

 

[Fargo]

There is no way to measure that.

The same as there is no way to measure the poisoning of the good voters that the nevertrumpers do. The fact that we have folks saying the dems and republicans are the same is an example of that poison though.

Of course they aren’t the same, but acting like the Republicans actually are pro-gun is ridiculous.

Go back and read your Democratic plank you posted and then contemplate which party is currently imposing “reasonable regulations”.

The amount of people desperate to believe that “everything is awesome” since “our” guy won is fascinating to me.

 

[jamil]

Of course they aren’t the same, but acting like the Republicans actually are pro-gun is ridiculous.

Go back and read your Democratic plank you posted and then contemplate which party is currently imposing “reasonable regulations”.

The amount of people desperate to believe that “everything is awesome” is fascinating to me.

Oh. You must have seen the Lego movie. I hated that song.

 

[mmpsteve]

Well, let's not beat around the bush here. Let's say it with more than innuendo. Let's be direct because we both know what you're implying.

Yes. I tear into Trump when I think he's wrong. I take Trumpers to task when I think they're overlooking some pretty dangerous/authoritarian things Trump does. I give Trump props when I think he's right. If you think that I criticize Trump to tear YOU down, and just to build me up, perhaps there's some other instinct that you should override and allow higher functions to evaluate that. There are facts in direct contradiction to what you said.

I keep trying to see if you guys are capable of admitting when he's wrong, and all I see is legitimate points that a lot of people make being dismissed as all that retarded nevertrumper ****. When you guys pull out the nevertrumper bit, it makes me suspect you're trying to dismiss your cognitive dissonance with a cheap word. Yeah, you're running the algorithm.

The dismissal of facts contrary to your rebuttals are quite obvious to the people who aren't smitten by the cult of personality. I don't know. Maybe those words bite. I'm not on the other side of them so maybe they do. Maybe I could lighten up on that. But maybe think about it. Maybe consider that a person capable of criticizing Trump isn't the enemy. You guys like talking about enemies a lot, so okay, let's just stay with that for a minute. I'll grant you that the people who are incapable of ever seeing anything positive about Trump are ideologues, which make them dangerous. You can legitimately point to a reason they're your enemy, but probably not for the same reason I would call them that. Just as they are incapable of ever seeing anything positive about Trump--and there are positive things--wouldn't the opposite also be true? Maybe being incapable of seeing anything negative about Trump is just as much being an enemy to yourself. It robs you of a fuller picture.

It's okay to say what's wrong with Trump as much as it is okay to say what's right with Trump. He is a horrible human being for screwing a porn star while married, let alone while his wife was pregnant with his son. Trump is absolutely right about the fundamental theme he ran on, that it's right for a nation to look out for its needs first, and to secure its borders. There. Two things about Trump that are objectively true. One negative. One positive. No one melted.

Jamil, I've seen you speak to this subject several times, and I'll concede you're much more experienced and knowlegeable about the various personalities here on INGO than I am. But I've never seen anyone here who endorsed "all things Trump". Anyone with half a brain plus a moral fiber or two would never applaud all Trump's actions, either personal or political. Most people give credit where it's due, both positive and negative. The problem we're faced with today is that the left has gotten so crazy that basic conservatives are getting very edgy; dare I say almost panicked, and it appears Trump is the only one halfway in our corner, so we tend to defend him a little more than we might otherwise. In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned, if I recall it correctly, the concept that disgust is not a productive emotion. You may be right, but I was truly disgusted with the whole Clintonian chapters of history, including Mueller and the FBI ignoring Clinton's actions, and continue to be disgusted by the whole socialist progressive agenda. It's just not something I can turn off. Hopefully, I can turn the emotion into something more productive.

.

 

[Fargo]

Oh. You must have seen the Lego movie. I hated that song.

Dude, everything is cool when you’re part of the team.

 

[jamil]

You suck.