Unfortunately it’s kinda true. People, in general, are far too willing to file themselves into boxes.
Back in the day when I still cared about meeting women I was always surprised at how my fashion aesthetic would attract the same type over and over again.
I mean…does anyone believe that it was Ukraine that did this, and not just Russia killing two birds with one stone?
That’s not what a lame duck is…a lame duck is not controlling enough levers to be effective.
It’s just a theory…I know he’s evil, will still have SCOTUS, and I might be wrong.
…and of course he cares about winning the mid terms, don’t be silly.
I got sick of the automated moderation system that the petty sub mods could exploit.
Others? He doesn’t want to be a lame duck for the last 2 years.
No they didn’t. They redacted the names of Trump, his allies, and people who bribed him.
The media needs to say what’s actually going on, not just feed us bullshit Trump says.
I don’t think there’s anything in the files that will implicate Trump. I think they’re dragging out the disclosure so they can do another Russia hoax thing…they want it fresh in minds closer to the mid terms.
…I’m not saying that Trump is innocent…I’m saying they scrubbed the files of anything that would implicate him ages ago.
This is key. So-called “families values conservatives” often lament low birth rates, but can also make it impossible for their neighbours to raise children with their culture war bullshit.
But, let’s be real, they don’t want everybody to have kids…they want certain people to have more kids. It’s cultural dog whistling.
Obscenely corrupt. These people shouldn’t be helping Trump on a single bill…even if he placates them with what amounts to a jobs program. Not a single vote until ICE is gone and he starts following the law…just for starters.
I’d imagine what’s getting buried here is this is going to lead to a situation where the feds and some states stop paying for vaccines.
These people think in terms of profits over 2 year election cycles…they don’t give a flying fuck about long term public health.
Both things need to happen: the underlying problem can be addressed, which is and has been being done with varying degrees of success - and they can also pick the low hanging fruit and make less deadly weapons available to potential criminals.
Anyone who was thinking Trump wasn’t just going to shred or redact anything that implicated him was dreaming.
It’s a little weird that they’d delay…so much. I don’t understand and can’t sufficiently explain why they’re doing it. My best guess is they want to start a war before they release some of the stuff that makes him look bad by proxy. I guess maybe some of the people he’s throwing under the bus need a heads up?
Don’t joke. This legislation is on the verge is the US.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask a couple good faith questions:
Do you think it matters what type of weapon a potential mass murderer has access to?
Do you think more or less people would have died if the shooters in this attack had high capacity high ROF weapons available in the US, for example?
Bingo. But good luck pinning a gun nut down and having a conversation about the lethality of the weapon.
Agree with all.
I’d go further: the goal of legislation like this isn’t to reduce gun crime at all, or deal with the intent to murder…that’s dealt with in different legislation.
The goal here is to reduce harm…it makes a huge difference what weapon a criminal has access to when they’re trying to kill people. Gun nuts can’t get their heads around or cope with the difference between a potential mass murderer having a knife and a fully automatic weapon. They’ll change the subject.
Terribly incorrect and it absolutely will.
The (realistic) goal isn’t to bring people back (why even say that?) or reduce crime to zero…it’s to reduce potential harm.
You don’t even need to look past this attack to see that gun control saved lives: had the shooters been armed with high-capacity high-volume weapons available in the USA, for example, they could have killed scores more people. If, in the next attack, shooters have access to less lethal weapons…less people will die.
Marx, like the US second amendment, wasn’t written in the contemporary context.
Marx wasn’t talking about cheap fast-firing weapons being used against a state armed with drones and helicopters, etc.
If you want to project Marx forward, “arms” should be redefined as something meaningful like speech and political power…not the literal ability to coerce your masters with rifles. If 10,000 Americans rose up in arms against the government, 10,000 Americans would be quickly put down with superior arms.
No shit, but it doesn’t matter. SCOTUS and too many other courts are MAGA.
…talking about Ukraine, perhaps?