Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just cost New York 20,000 jobs / 30 billion dollar deal because, you guessed it, she's an idiot who doesn't understand business practices, BECAUSE SHE ISN'T A REAL POLITICIAN. AND SHE'S THE BEST THE DEMS CAN MUSTER UP.
1. We do have a gun problem because PEOPLE die from guns every day. You are the one who is ignorant and pushing an agenda. I've been nothing but reasonable in my argument that we have to do something about mass shootings and gun homicides. I don't sit here and shunt the problem somewhere else. If violence is such an "issue" then what the fuck are the republicans doing about it? Think about this. What are the republicans doing to further mental health issues? De-fund stuff? Please. Let me know because i'm actually curious. 2. BUT WE WOULD MAKE IT A CRIME TO SELL A GUN TO SOMEONE WITHOUT GIVING THEM A BACKGROUND CHECK! Meaning that if I were to sell to you i'd need to vet you first else it would be an illegal sale, and the FBI could actually put me in chains. This wouldn't make it harder for the law abiding citizen to get guns, it would just be a minor inconvenience. How is it an unnecessary burden? Relate this to immigration. It is an unnecessary burden to make people jump through so many hoops to get into the country... law abiding citizens no less. 3. Examples? I agree. The background check system sucks and often times doesn't contain enough information. It should be extended to work more effeciently. Mass gun purchases should be flagged as a big nono (to prevent people like Stephen paddock the ability to buy 33 guns during a 12 month period). Also, stop mud flinging. CONSERVATIVES GET ALL HOT AND BOTHERED EVERYTIME A BLACK PERSON PROTESTS. They even try to get people fired for flag burning. Gee-golly. 4. First of all, it does exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole . Secondly, the problem with the private sales loophole is that WE CAN'T KNOW WHERE THE GUNS COME FROM. It isn't like private gun sales are put down in a ledger somewhere. 5. Dude I don't give a shit about your fundamental values on gun ownership. They haven't stopped mass shootings thus far, and they wont stop mass shootings in the future. They just cloud the argument with moral dick slapping. I don't recognize your rights to have and possess a firearm, and I sure as hell don't believe you got that right from birth. I doubt very highly that the founding fathers were so poetically romantic about guns. If they were, why even mention the Militia part? Why not just fucking say 'You may have a gun and congress shall not infringe upon it". Silly Silly. 6. The technological argument is one of the few that I care so little about that I'm actually surprised you are challenging me on it. First of all, they didn't have machine guns at that time. This is just historically wrong. The first machine guns were used in the Civil War. Secondly, you people always leave out the first part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." OWNING A GUN IS CONTEXTUALIZED BY THE FIRST FEW WORDS. The amendment is effectively about Militias and how owning guns is necessary to prop up a militia, and gives congress the right to regulate militias. Why the fuck would the founders include the words regulated in their amendment about total freedom to own guns? If they are talking about the security of the state, why would they codify a clause that allows for rebellion? This is just a stupid argument. At the end of the day, we can change the constitution at any time so this argument is just nonsensical. 7. Stop. I do give the founding fathers a lot of credit for allowing a clause that makes the constitution a malleable document. Again, I don't give a shit about your rights and wrongs argument because it is so contradictory. Guns kill people. If they wanted to guarantee the sanctity of life, why not just ban guns all together then? Can't kill people with guns if guns aren't allowed. The truth is that they wanted people to have guns to protect against outside forces. NOT A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. We no longer face such a threat. 8. Washington (a founding father) signed the constitution himself and was the one to put an end to Whiskey's rebellion. If Washington was a big supporter of private gun ownership and the armed uprising of citizens against a corrupt government, he would not have put an end to it. We call it a rebellion for a reason. We have proved several times that you are not allowed to take up arms against the United States. This has been an open and shut case since the Civil War. Even if you disagree with the Union saying that succession is illegal... they won the fucking war. That means their will was stronger than that of the south, and therefore the Union's opinion is the dominate one. 9. No. Every member of the National guard is also a member of the National Militia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard . Again, Militias were never meant to check the government, they were meant to protect the United States against outside invaders. This was proven when Arkansas governor Orval Faubus used the Arkansas national guard to prevent children from attending little rock highschool. President Eisenhower (a republican no less) stepped in and used the Federal National guard to stop him and allow the children to attend the school. If it was widely accepted that state national guards could use their power to fight against the the government, it would have happened then. It didn't. Arguably, we don't need a Militia anymore because we aren't in fear of invasion or attack on home soil. Even then, we still have the military to defend us. 10. Yeah because you and your band of friends is going to stop the United States Government. Ask the Afghans and the Iraqis how well that will go for you. 11. Somewhere. It will end SOMEWHERE. Don't you fucking slippery slope me pal. But how many people are being shot compared to how many are being shot here? We can't take away cars because they serve other purposes than drunk driving. Guns on the other hand have a single intended purpose "Kill shit". People didn't invent guns so that they can shoot beer bottles. Knives are a good example too. You can do other stuff with knives. Making guns illegal will make it so that... you guessed it... the FBI can actually do something about private gun sales. You like to pretend that criminals can get guns anyways, but guess what... they can be arrested just for having the gun if we ban them. I am not suggesting we ban them, but you are thinking so linearly that it actually fucking hurts my head. IF we remove the guns from the bad people they wont be able to commit such heinous crimes, at least not that easily. Again. If this is an issue that relates to violence and mental health, what the hell are the republicans doing to fix these issues? Nothing. They are doing nothing. 12. NO IT ISN'T. WE HAVE A HIGHER MURDER RATE THAN THE UK AND FRANCE BY A FUCKING LONG SHOT HAHA. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate The fact of the matter is that we have a problem that demands solutions, solutions you don't have. 13. I don't care about your god given rights dude. Secondly, It does work though! https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2 14. Show me the proof that more guns equal less crime. Because we have a lot of fucking guns in the society right now (more than we do people) and crime has not gone down. Are you seriously going to blame gun bans for the rise in gun crime? Do you understand how silly that is? I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A GUN TO DEFEND YOURSELF, but the argument is doubly pointed. If you have a gun you raise the risk in that situation. 15. I don't care. You keep saying that we have gotten away from what is right and wrong when that is such a subjective thing. My right and wrong is not your right and wrong, and that doesn't mean anything to this debate. It kind of feels like you are just arguing with your feelings about this stuff, and I don't want to continue this debate if you aren't going to be objective and actually sit down and acknowledge the problem. All you do is shunt the blame to something else and squirm to avoid a very real issue that leads to people actually dying. Oh dear lord. I don't know why I do this when you will just spew the same talking points again and again instead of actually addressing the problem.
LOL. No she isn't the best the "DEMS" can muster up. She is a liar and has delusions of grandeur. However, the top 1% should pay more in taxes. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden can out do her in a single fucking sentence. l o l
4. If you own guns, you should know, 5000 rounds is really not much at all. You can blow through it in a day at the range no problem. 5. I really don't think that would help much, if you deny them access to a gun for suicide, as previously stated, there's other means to that end. Better programs for mental health would be a better option. 6. It does not make sense, I'm 20 and I have an M4 checked out to me at the armory. If you can let a man join at 17 years old and carry an ACTUAL assault rifle, why wouldn't they be allowed to buy a semiautomatic rifle with the same ergonomics as the actual assault rifle issued? 7. Why it's allowed, I don't know. My suggestion would be bringing firearm safety back into schools. Curiosity leads to disaster, as well as ignorance. There was once a time when schools taught firearm safety, and rightfully so seeing how ingrained firearms are into our culture. 8. Why include a "reasonable cause" needed, when by your standards you could just put target practice on the form and it would be accepted? You don't need a reasonable cause you exercise your rights. 9. There's literally no reasonable way you could track privately owned firearms, because as mentioned in my post you can literally make them yourself. You can buy a chunk of steel and use a couple of plates to drill out the receiver, and presto, you have not only an AR15, but an AR15 without any sort of serial numbers or any record you've ever bought it. 10. If it's being exploited, would an appeals process even do any good? The same agency that put you on that list could likely keep you on that list by denying your appeal. 11. People have spoken time and time again, gun control is not wanted
We can agree to disagree on everything you listed above. One thing I totally agree with is gun safety being taught in school (hell I got my hunter's safety through my school) so yeah. What really triggers me is this "people have spoken time and time again" Spoiler: Do you know the muffin man? (Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx) Business Insider You would be right if you said that the majority of Americans WANT stricter gun control laws. The problem is that we can't even vote on it (or at least our representatives can't) because of your stupid amendment that probably doesn't even mean what you think it means. Repealing it would allow for true democracy. We could actually compete with logic instead of hiding behind a document that was passed over 200 years ago. Just my thoughts I guess.
Yeah New York lost a big thing there. Could have created so many jobs which would have brought in more money for the states by taxes which could help schools and other departments but she didn't realize that.
Too many essays in this thread i can't read them all. So here my fictional TL;DR Republicans are ruining the country Democrats are ruining this country Europeans just reading the comments looking at why Americans are their source of entertainment (Redacted)
Yall put a millionaire with almost no political experience in the oval office lmao "buh he kan run bisness good lul chekm8"
"She's an idiot" "not a real politician" lol are we just going to ignore that she ran an affective grassroots campaign being a relatively unknown person against an incumbent and becoming the youngest person elected to Congress she's the realer than most of these politicians also love when people say she has no clue what she is talking about in economics when she majored in economics and international relations but let's take advice from true intellectuals like Hongo
A degree doesn't mean you know what you are talking about, and when she talks about economics, it is very clear she has no clue what she is talking about. Hence, the lack of explanation for how shes going to pay for her retarded ideas. And someone who is elected to the House of Representatives should at least be able to get the branches of government right.
I don't think we should go down the path of "this person doesn't know xxx how stupid are they." I could point out a million things in the same fashion in regards to Trump and where will that get us? Nowhere so that's a pointless comment to make. Instead you should say "We're all human and sometimes things are forgotten or not known" even if it's about the basics of the government. Once again we can say the same things about Trump. People learn on the fly no matter how simple the idea is. If we wish to ignore this then here's an essay on everything Trump has forgotten, misquoted, misstated, or done completely wrong ever and why he should be immediately removed from office. Spoiler Being human is hard While there's some degree of truth that people with degrees in their fields aren't necessarily the end all be all experts that doesn't mean she has completely 100% absolutely no clue in the entire existence of humanity of what she's talking about. To give her no credibility after how much she has done to get to where she is now with her background is irresponsible thinking that has been constantly perpetuated by the white house publicly which is going to cause a lot of terrible situations. If the answer you turn to is mudslinging it won't end up pretty for anyone involved. That kind of political talk is unhealthy and unproductive.
International relations and economics are some of the most important majors a politician can have, perhaps only shadowed by law degrees. Handling economics and foreign affairs is among the, if not THE, hardest things a politician will have to do. This is why I grant some slack to people who may not know the first thing about them. Unfortunately, they are complex fields of study. They have tons of moving parts that change so quickly that even experts can be lost in the changing tides. Having a degree helps tremendously in being able to take action. I want to be very clear that ignorance is not always bad, nobody can know everything, but you'd expect the president of the united states to be surrounded by people who know their shit. He should have advisers that constantly try to feed him information that can help him make good decisions. Ignorance cannot be excused when you, as the president, have access to the greatest wealth of knowledge known to mankind. What has he done with that wealth of knowledge? He has forcibly protected dying industries while neglecting to invest in future markets (unless you count space force as a future market), plunged us into an unneeded trade war with China, lowered taxes (which added a shit ton to the debt), and has supported bullshit public works projects that will turn over no long term economical gain. I am not going to say Donald Trump doesn't understand economics, what I am going to say is that he flat out doesn't give a fuck about economics at all. Every move he has made has been to further his support with his base. Protecting dying industries because that is the quickest way to absorb the mid west vote (this is probably going to hurt him in places where his reckless policy has plunged factories under), trade war with China because conflict sells approval ratings points, lowered taxes to not only satisfy the corporate masters but also to make low income families happy, promised to build the wall because he knows it is a popular idea. He doesn't pursue these things because they are economically feasible, he pursues them because they will get him a boost in approval. The same principle applies to foreign affairs. Being tough on North Korea one minute and soft on them the next lets him play both sides. Both hawks and doves love his incredible shows of force followed by his pathetic pleas at peace. This seems to be his policy everywhere. He gives no fucks about our allies because it doesn't sell well with his base. Nobody cares if the president gets along with the prime minister of France, but the second you bring up Russia? Oh shit. Pulling out of the Iran deal and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem isn't sound foreign policy, they are power moves that allow him to solidify support from pro-Israel camps. If he was so interested in peace he would never have done something so unbelievably reckless. He has practically ensured that everyone in the middle east knows one thing: the US wants peace for itself and Israel only. Even going as far as to pull troops from Syria and possibly Afghanistan shows the contradiction in his foreign policy. This is a genius domestic policy because he gets to satisfy the demands of those conservatives who love conflict, but also those who want to see peace in the middle east. Whatever suits him best at the moment is probably the option he goes with. This means one thing for the world: Trump is unpredictable. Now, I know his base loves that shit, but it is worrying to anyone who is an ally or potential enemy of the US. Are we dealing with peace loving Trump, or are we dealing with blow shit up Trump? You can't be wishy washy, you need consistency. That is why we entrust the executive to handle foreign policy. You NEED to have one person representing the state else you muddy shit up. Unfortunately, Trump's policy changes with his general feelings and the constant swaying of his base. To put it shortly, Trump isn't ignorant about economics or foreign policy, he just doesn't give a shit about either. He does whatever it is his people will jump and cheer over and that is very dangerous. I just feel bad for the Democrat who has to clean up the fallout that will come after Trump leaves office. No doubt that person will ultimately shelter all the fucking blame.
I'm just gonna spew out some political opinions: 1. Trump isn't linked to Russia. 2. Communism won't work and authoritarian governments in general are bad (I mean dictatorships where free speech is restricted). 3. Hating on Israel isn't being anti semitic. 4. Weed should be legalized and regulated. 5. The US shouldn't open its borders, but rather make the application process more accessible and faster. 6. Democrats are too far left and probably wont win the 2020 election because of that. Social liberals today are thought of as right wingers and traitors by some democrats (google it). 7. Fearing Muslims is ignorant, ESPECIALLY if you support Trump, who supports Saudi Arabia, which is a Wahhabi country that (was meant) follows the Quran as it was written. The vast majority of Muslims aren't looking to enforce the strict sharia law which is oh so often brought up by Republicans and rather a much less strict version of it. 8. Healthcare shouldn't be more available to people who have more money (though you can't ignore the downsides that are presented in this way of thinking) 9. Imo, a second referendum should be done in the UK. Leaving the EU isn't very wise without a deal, and I would assume everyone wants to maintain good relations. 10. When Putin will die/get voted out of office, Russia will either collapse or strongly reform its government. I also suggest to everyone to post their political compass results (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) (if you want, ofcourse). Heres mine:
