nedleeds wrote:
They all suck you just might happen to care more about certain rights depending on your position. If you are a single issue voter on something like free healthcare, or abortion (either side), you'll just vote that way.
That's true for single issue voters and the two party system takes advantage of single issue voters to be sure, but a lot of people who aren't single issue voters (I'm not a single issue voter) see the two parties as very different.
nedleeds wrote:
Just look at the thread title, the dems wouldn't get behind the single issue Rand Paul bill to ban no-knock warrants that absolutely and unjustifiably killed this woman.
I did a little reading up on this, and this is just bunk. Yes, Rand Paul did draft a bill, called the Justice for Breanna Taylor act" and yes, it died in congress, but it's a fair question that occasionally, a no knock warrant might be the thing to do - against an armed to the teeth terrorist group for example . . . knock knock . . . what could possibly go wrong there?
The Democrats are the ones supporting a police reform bill that the Republicans are almost certainly going to oppose, again, pointing to the differences between the parties.
read more here if you don't believe me:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s3955nedleeds wrote:
I can name 100 bills on both sides that were objectively bipartisan and good for citizens neither side has any interest in anything but political power, and longevity.
OK, first, it's complicated. One misplaced word can be a problem for a bill. They took Obamacare to the supreme court and tried to kill it over a grammatical error, so there are reasons why individual bills might get voted down, so just naming a single bill, out of context, is meaningless.
And it's not just specifics like, once in a while, we might want to execute a no-knock warrant, or, a gramatical error. Sometimes, a bill might not pass on it's own, but it can pass combined with another bill, so not voting no or not bringing the initial bill to vote might be the best move for getting the legislation passed. Remember when Mitch McConnel required a vote on the green new deal, while it wasn't even a finished, bill but still in draft form, so he could draw attention to it?
Talk about issues, not votes on bills, and you might have a point, but just quoting votes on bills is meaningless for multiple reasons.
That said, if it's a finished, party supported, piece of legislation, then you can look at specific votes, but just pulling up individual bills and how they were voted on or not voted in is pretty meaningless.
nedleeds wrote:
Term limits would at least mean there might be an impetus to pass legislation. But who cares about that if you just live forever and run on getting your base to hate the other side more.
a LOT of democratic voters are fine with term limits. I'm less upset about this point than many, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if term limits was implemented.
nedleeds wrote:
Dems are absolutely down to revoke the right to defend yourself, while at the same time claiming the police are hopelessly corrupt and racist. Claiming that we can make a statistical dent in gun violence by taking them from legal owners without ending the drug war which is overwhelmingly responsible for gun violence (and utterly overwhelming when suicide is removed, which is a mental health issue). Total hypocrisy and a losing plan.
That's a bit much and you are sounding very much like a life long republican, maybe pretending to be a libertarian, when you write things like this.
Very few to practically no democrats in Washington call the police corrupt or racist. Asking for gun legislation saves lives, it doesn't prevent self defense. The only gun law that (maybe) reduces crime - maybe, is carry laws, which a lot of individuals - myself included, are uncomfortable with. Guns in the home really don't deter crime.
You're covering so many complex subjects in your paragraph above, it's hard to address, but it certainly isn't damming testimony against democrats as you claim it to be. Bill Clinton did pass drug crime laws, which he's expressed strong regret over. The best weapon against drug violence is legalization . . . even the hard stuff. Tough call. These are not simple issues.
nedleeds wrote:
Republicans bleed from their ears about vaccine mandates and the government telling otherwise healthy people to get an un-needed vaccine to continue to participate in parts of the economy, my body my choice, but will say a blastocyst is a life and a woman can't get an abortion. Oh ... and complain about having to pay for the care and feeding of that child to a mother who can't afford to.
It's interesting that you would call them "unneeded vaccines". Do you really think democrats are pushing un-needed vaccines?
nedleeds wrote:
Dems yelling stay out of my body while they died on the hill of vaccinating healthy 23 year olds who had already gotten covid.
You can get covid twice. Requiring that government workers get vaccinated for covid was probably the right call. Even healthy 23 year olds. You don't get a vaccine because you're unhealthy. You get a vaccine to stop the spread of a virus that you mgiht catch or might be a carrier for.
nedleeds wrote:
Trump and a large number of Republicans actively undermining the results of an election instead of pursueing due process like Al Gore.
Stacey Abrams claiming she won Georgia instead of calmly pursueing due process like Al Gore.
Trump's team DID pursue due process. They just got laughed out of court. Gore had a case. That's why the supreme court heard it.
Stacy Abrams didn't break any laws or insight any armed riots and unlike Trump, she probably wins a fair election.
nedleeds wrote:
Trump encouraging anarchy and intimidation to pressure officials to change an election.
Democratics encouraging anarchy and violence in the streets to pressure people to vote Trump out.
What does this even mean? Please give an example.
nedleeds wrote:I don't trust the government to do much of anything efficiently or right and they have a history of abusing every acronym office (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF) to violate our rights at the whim of whoever is in power. The party that promises and follows through on reducing the size and authority of the federal government will get my vote -- that party doesn't exist though.
The irony is, the Republican party promises, but DOESN'T FOLLOW THROUGH on reducing the authority of the federal government. Trump and his team, if anything, increased government authority. This began on day one when Jeff Sessions charged dozens of anti trump protestors with felonies.
It's fairly obvious that you sit in the camp of republican/conservative. You may as well come clean because it's all over your posts.
You're also not actually making good arguments. There's no comparing Trump's STILL - nearly 2 years later, calling the election stolen and putting people who worked in the election in danger in the process while riling up his base - you can't compare that to Stacy Abrams or Al Gore. Not if you're honest.
What you posted is basically a Gish-Gallop. It works for confusion, but it can be taken apart line by line very easily. I don't think you made a single real argument in that entire post.
RIP mags
And instead of just 7-11PM it's 24 HOURS ALL DAY.
