Complacency

[TheIdeasMan]

zapshe wrote:

I'm fairly certain no such network exists. The machines do not connect to the internet, their data is taken off the machine directly with paper backups as well.

I don't mean the voting machines themselves, I mean the computers that store the data from all the machines and whatever other methods there are to vote.

zapshe wrote:

Surely there is not one database. There is certainly multiple databases per state that would contain the information. And there would be at least one database per state as well.

Ok, more than one database*, whatever: the point was that the databases could have malware.

* But when I think of a database, I think of the entire distributed system of databases. Think of a nationwide supermarket chain with thousands of stores. Each store has a DB that stores the atomic data for that store. Then there there are tables and DB that store summarised data. Even if the total number of voters equaled the population, say 350 million, that is quite small for a DB these days. I don't think it would be much of a problem to design a distributed DB that covered every voting site, county, state and nationally. And it wouldn't be that complicated, not compared to the huge and complex systems that some organisations have. One definition of big data is the three V's: Volume, Velocity (transactions per second) and Variability. In my mind an Electoral DB wouldn't satisfy any of those criteria.

zapshe wrote:

I'm fairly certain no such network exists.

They must have had something pretty good because we were able to watching the counting in something close to real time down to the county level, and that was where I live, not in the USA. How could they have done that otherwise?

[zapshe]

Possible, yes. Realistically feasible, no. Evidence? None.

They must have had something pretty good because we were able to watching the counting in something close to real time down to the county level

As they report the numbers they're broadcast.


If there's evidence for any of this, I would happily accept that it was rigged. Well, I do think it was rigged, just not with false votes as I said before.

They poured in more resources than you can imagine to win this presidency. They means Elon Musk, Putin, and other figures. Liberal media had its balls chopped off while radical-right views were pushed and normalized.

[jonnin]

I know we have prison labor. I don't agree with it here either, but that is a side bar.

80% is a rough estimate, assuming that by the definition we came up with (cheering for criminal liars) everyone who voted for HRC or DT and was happy about doing so for either side was delusional. Nothing has improved since then. I don't have an exact count. I am in deep, deep red country, and I have never met a single person who believes what trump says. They don't care... that is what I see. The don't care varies from 'better than the alternative' to 'he is doing what we want regardless of his behavior' to 'he is sticking it to the liberals'. There may be some people that really, truly buy the crap, but they are in the minority, and I don't know a one. They vote for him anyway, which in some ways is worse (can't even blame stupidity or brainwashing).

Yes, felony theft should be equally disqualifying as murder for holding public office esp at the federal level. The two crimes are very different, punishment is very different, but in terms of qualifying for office, equal to me. Felony theft isn't shoplifting gum at age 10, its stealing a rather large amount. Rich people settling out of court has long been a problem ... its on the other side to refuse the buy out. You can't convict someone when the other side says "its ok, not pressing charges".

Self identifying of race is meaningless to me. This simply increases division and exclusion. Almost no company is looking at anything other than skin color and gender/orientation. If the goal is to provide opportunity to the disadvantaged, these programs would be touting their outreach to the trailer parks and back country in equal measure to minority boosting. That isn't what is being implemented. I firmly believe that if a company routinely hires sub-par white men over better people, their competition who hires the rest will outperform and take the market share. Not overnight, but over time, the model is not sustainable. The same is true when hiring sub-par people who are not white males. If your HR isn't looking for and hiring the best people it can, your business should eventually suffer for it, period. Unfortunately, it may take decades for that effect to be felt.

All in all I am for dismantling big government and reducing spending, esp. most foreign aid that isn't disaster or crisis support (eg Ukraine). I am not endeared to how trump is doing it; it needs to be a slow, thoughtful process not a wrecking ball, but its long overdue. I am for improving legal immigration and ending illegal entry. I am for some smaller moves like his first term with the trade balance, but this time around he is going about it poorly and clearly does not know what he is doing. I will remain against DEI. Basically, I agree with a moderated version of his platform and despise the man and his army of yes-men both in the cabinet & in congress. The dog&pony show to make it look like he is doing something is a mix of smoke and mirrors + outright screw ups. I prefer the smoke and mirror stuff as it does less damage, honestly, but the whole thing is a trainwreck regardless. Some of my other views would probably astonish you though... I am for government having zero say in who gets married, for example (this is different from supporting gay marriage directly, as I feel that government should not have the power to support or oppose gay marriage at all, so bills to provide a right we already should have is adding to the mess... they need to pull the plug and step out of the marriage law business). For the social stuff, I prefer personal freedom above it all.


As long as people like harris build a big piece of their agenda on gun control, all bets are off on violating the constitution in my book. Like other things, to me it is binary: you are upholding the constitution, or you are not. If you look close enough, most of the presidents have violated it.

[zapshe]

80% is a rough estimate, assuming that by the definition we came up with (cheering for criminal liars) everyone who voted for HRC or DT and was happy about doing so for either side was delusional.

HRC? You mean Hillary? She wasn't popular, not many wanted her. But criminal? Even if you want to argue she committed criminal acts, we CANNOT equivocate all criminal acts.

80% is an insane number.

I would not say all Donald Trump voters are delusional. Some were tricked. Some are just bad people.

However, anyone who is still in support of Donald Trump RIGHT NOW, is most definitely delusional and definitely in a cult.

I am in deep, deep red country

I can tell. Even those who are fairly liberal in their thought process end up saying crazy right-wing propaganda because they are so heavily surrounded by it.

I have never met a single person who believes what trump says. They don't care... that is what I see.

Yes, it's called being in a cult.

They vote for him anyway, which in some ways is worse (can't even blame stupidity or brainwashing).

I would actually specifically blame both.

People who use religion to back their own racism and other ideals brainwash children at a young age. Gay is bad. White is good. Women are servants of men. Men are powerful. Different is bad. Non-Christian is bad. We are right. They are wrong.

This brainwashing allows you to support anything ever that is anti-liberal and anti-progressive, because whatever you supported will never be as bad as the other side.

This is complete brainwashing from a young age, stupidity passed down for generations. These deep red states refuse to properly educate their citizens and instead barely survive through blue state distributed funding.

The two crimes are very different, punishment is very different, but in terms of qualifying for office, equal to me

So if a recent thief and a recent murderer ran for office, you'd throw your hands in the air and proclaim you can't decide?

its stealing a rather large amount

It can be a large amount over time depending on the state. You may be a felony thief in New York, but not in Texas had you done the same crimes due.

In this regard, you could be stealing daily just to feed yourself and your family and be found guilty of felony theft. This is as opposed to murder, which you wouldn't be found guilty only the acceptable case of self-defense.

Self identifying of race is meaningless to me. This simply increases division and exclusion. Almost no company is looking at anything other than skin color and gender/orientation.

Not sure what you're even talking about. Resumes don't typically contain pictures. Once you're in the interview room, DEI practices are typically already complete. DEI does not get you hired, it gets you opportunity.

Claiming DEI increases division and exclusion is also right-wing propaganda. I am ready to look at the data that supports this, but I do not believe it exists.

If the goal is to provide opportunity to the disadvantaged, these programs would be touting their outreach to the trailer parks and back country in equal measure to minority boosting

Trailer parks and back country? Do we know if they don't do that? Are you arguing that we should make DEI better?

You can't argue there's a flaw in DEI so throw it out. You MUST argue that the idea itself is wrong from the core. A flaw can fixed.

I firmly believe that if a company routinely hires sub-par white men over better people, their competition who hires the rest will outperform and take the market share

Sorry, but we know this to not be true. The data has destroyed this viewpoint.

Companies will gladly hire sub-par people they're more "comfortable" with rather than the most talented or qualified for the job.

The idea of hiring literally just anyone as long as their qualified is actually a new perspective that people just started believing would happen for no good reason. Where's the data that shows companies would prefer to do this?

The same is true when hiring sub-par people who are not white males. If your HR isn't looking for and hiring the best people it can, your business should eventually suffer for it, period

You've just destroyed your own argument.

If DEI practices will destroy a company, then where's the proof? Why aren't these companies falling apart? Let these DEI companies continue their practice and have them destroy themselves, then no more DEI!

That's not going to happen because DEI was NEVER about hiring less qualified people. It has always been about hiring the MOST qualified people.

If a few companies do it wrong, that's not because the concept of DEI is wrong, it means people did it wrong.

We don't throw away math when someone does it wrong, we fix how they do math.

All in all I am for dismantling big government and reducing spending

I completely disagree with this viewpoint, but this is a valid position to have.

I am not endeared to how trump is doing it; it needs to be a slow, thoughtful process not a wrecking ball, but its long overdue

I completely disagree with this viewpoint and it's NOT a valid position to have.

Yes, Trump is talking a wrecking ball approach. Our economy will be destroyed, our global power is being questioned, and our lives will undoubtedly become harder and worse from now on under Trump policies.

"But you know what? It's long overdue." You are literally speaking as if this wrecking ball approach is bad, but better than the alternative.

I am for improving legal immigration and ending illegal entry

The issue with conservatives is they have no idea how to argue policy.

You and I can completely agree here. I too want to improve legal immigration and end illegal entry.

Here's a solution: all entry into the U.S. is hereby legal. Now we will never have an illegal immigrant ever again.

Clearly, this solution solves the issue of illegal immigrants, but no one would want it.

Liberals try to actually figure out practical and humanitarian solutions to these issues, Republicans just tend to scream illegal immigrants and want them all gone.

And this is a red-herring, because Republicans never cared about illegal, it's all immigrants. They hate Hispanics who don't speak English, they hate Indians who they feel is stealing their job, etc..

It has never been about illegal immigration for Republicans. Republicans want to make most immigration illegal and then seal up the country.



YOUR Republican friends and coworkers. You have SAID they don't buy what Trump is selling, but they don't care. Have they once said, "wow, I can't believe Trump is just deporting people without due process!"

No. They won't. They never will. The constitution can burn as long as they get these filthy immigrants out. Republicans are similar to Creationists.

They realized a long time ago that being a white-supremacist and racist made for terrible PR. So they disguised it as policy and legality.

Creationists realized saying "Goddit" convinced no one, so they hide behind sciency sounding terms and claim scientists are wrong by pretending to do their own science.


We live in an age where those who are traditionally bad realized they can get away with their agenda by hiding their true nature and arguing nonsense using the words of the other side. Wolf in sheep's wool.

[zapshe]

I am for some smaller moves like his first term with the trade balance

Which cost us billions to bail out farmers, but okay.

Some of my other views would probably astonish you though... I am for government having zero say in who gets married

It does not astonish me at all, most Republicans, no matter how die hard, have liberal views for something.

Liberals do not say they support gay marriage because they all just love gay people, they say it for the same reason as you - it's insane the government can decide who you marry.

As long as people like harris build a big piece of their agenda on gun control

And again, random propaganda. Republicans always think that democrats are coming to take your guns. Democrats have been in power for decades without any REAL gun restriction.

The only person who has restricted firearms since I was born... Donald Trump. LOL.

Obama did next to nothing on restrictions. He actually expanded gun rights.

Kamala Harris is a gun owner by the way. She knows how to shoot and keeps a gun. Democrats are not anti-gun. The point is simply to be more selective with who can own. Background checks and other things.

If you need to go through this crazy process to drive a car, then why the hell can a criminal buy a gun?

The number one killer of children is not car accidents or hunger, its guns. Why isn't gun safety and use required knowledge to buy a firearm? Is learning how to use a gun safely the huge violation of the 2nd amendment Republicans are afraid of?


By the way. Dictators cannot allow their citizens to be armed for long. If Trump continues on this path, your guns are next.

all bets are off on violating the constitution in my book

Restrict guns = violating the constitution. Deporting people without due process, claiming supreme court rulings can be ignored or overruled by the president, etc.. All those very constitutional.

You do realize we have the 1st amendment, but it cannot be absolute. We need some kind of restrictions on what can be said due to the sheer chaos one may cause if they have no consequence for their words.

This does not mean the constitution is violated, merely refined.

2nd amendment is fine - have guns. When a criminal loses their gun rights, this is NOT a violation. Making gun access LOGICAL and SAFE is not violating your 2nd amendment.


However, deporting ANYONE without DUE PROCESS is a CLEAR and DIRECT violation of the constitution. Due process was so important, it's is outlined TWICE in the constitution.


But no, I'm sorry. You're definitely right. Thinking a gun owner should be vetted is clearly a constitutional violation. God knows every American citizen should be given a free gun as a present by the government on their birthday.

Give everyone a gun, otherwise the radical left wins.

[jonnin]

Um, taxing a right is a violation. And Harris RAN on her anti-gun platform. Clinton banned the AR15, Trump tried to ban bump stocks, Obama ran fast & furious... none of them can be trusted. I am OK with vetting, for free. Charging money for it is taxing the right, as is charging money for 'permits'. The bill of rights does not have anything about cars, so car registration etc is a different topic. BTW the republican hero reagan was heavily anti gun as well. I don't really like most republicans either.

I agree with you on deporting people without due process. In what world did you think I defended THAT? I don't agree with any of his heavy handed crap this term.

We have been bailing out the farmers and others for my whole life, which is starting to feel a bit long.

[zapshe]

taxing a right is a violation

This is simply not true. There are permits for protests, for example.

You may disagree with this, but clearly courts have not taken your side that having to pay sometimes is a violation for your right.

Rules and regulation of your rights are standard, you cannot claim to have no bounds to your right simply because it was laid in the constitution (otherwise children and felons could own guns).


We need also look at the intention of the amendment, which we know was about a militia. Every citizen was essentially a US military member in this sense. Clearly, it was the people who fought the war to be free, this makes sense.

The idea was there would be no central "army" or military (other than a navy). If an army was required, it would be thrown together by collecting citizens.


Clearly... This is not how anything works right now. The 2nd amendment absolutely does not serve even half the intended purpose the founding fathers wrote it for.

In terms of self-defense, sure you can have a gun. If the gun kills you and/or your family instead, then clearly this right was completely retarded in actually serving that purpose.

If the gun ends up killing INNOCENT people by the owner who bought it for that purpose, even worse.

Mitigating these issues is why gun control is so important. We don't have militias anymore (nor require them).


If the idea of having a gun is so that the government can't become tyrannical, I think that stupid idea can now be dismissed once and for all. We are at tyranny now.

As the onion put it:

"NRA accidently forgets to rise up against tyrannical government"


At this point, the pro-gun right-wing IS the tyrannical government. I don't think they need anymore guns, but that's just me.

none of them can be trusted

You cannot pick a candidate based off their gun position alone. Single issue voters get tricked easily.

Even so, I don't see how ANY president could condone less gun regulation. Even if you're a crazy right-wing, once you're president and public opinion matters to you with advisors and statistics being fed to you, you'll probably not even touch the issue.

We have been bailing out the farmers and others for my whole life, which is starting to feel a bit long.

I mean, if you hate red states and republicans, then what you said here is perfectly logical.

I don't know much about Farmers and their history of bail outs, but I know the farmers who need bail outs the most are not in California, that's for sure. Its the red states who are always subsidized to hell and back.

Then they take that money and refuse to use it to better themselves. They'd rather brainwash their children with anti-science than actually educate them. A cycle that needs to end.

[jonnin]

I am against paying for protest permits as well. I consider these things akin to poll taxes -- the fees are burdensome on the poor. In the case of an inexpensive used firearm, the fees can be over 30% of its value. So yes, I do disagree with it. Yes, I am aware that the legal system disagrees with me. I don't ask for felons, children etc to have zero restrictions. I just ask for the fees to be removed. There are extra taxes on ammo, as well, in some areas.

If I have to join one of the millitias, then I will do so. I prefer not to, as most of those sort are... a bit radical to my tastes. Making this a requirement seems backwards to the goals of both sides.

I don't pick a candidate off a single issue. Most of the time, I pick the libertarian. For a variety of issues and reasons. They won't get much traction unless they shake off the 'dope for everyone' label, though.

I don't hate any groups or states and only a very small # of individuals at a personal level. I don't like the policies nor behaviors of elected democrats nor republicans. Less and less as time has gone by, for both groups. They both have nothing good to offer anymore, just radical idiocy and punitive measures against the voters of the other one.

I think I will stop here, because I like you too much to risk offending farther. But let me just say that I am a simple creature. I want all people treated as people. I want out tax money spent at home, like on education, instead of given to other countries to fund their arts programs. I want to go out in my back yard and shoot beer cans in peace. I want the least government in my life that I can get away with, from taxes to regulations. I want some candidates to vote for that are not criminals, liars, and radical nitwits. I know I won't get any of that, I am realistic.

[zapshe]

If I have to join one of the millitias, then I will do so

That's not the point. The point is the purpose was for militias, now we don't need them. This means the explicit purpose of the 2nd amendment does not exist.

Most of the time, I pick the libertarian

In a two-party system like ours, this is essentially equivalent to not voting.

They both have nothing good to offer anymore, just radical idiocy and punitive measures against the voters of the other one

This reminds me of Joe Rogan saying on his podcast that he has no idea what would have happened to him had Kamala won.

He truly thinks the left is insane and want to remove freedom of speech.. or something.

I simply don't know what the right is afraid of. Biden said he would be a president for "everyone", and was true to his word. He helped out red states greatly, with and without policies.


It must also be clearly obvious that democratic presidents have never been as bad for the economy or individual citizens and their rights as much as republican presidents have.

Even if I agreed democrats and republicans were "both bad", it would not nearly be the same level of bad.

I think I will stop here, because I like you too much to risk offending farther

I am not offended, though I know I can be rough in debates. You can reply if you wish.

I want out tax money spent at home, like on education, instead of given to other countries to fund their arts programs.

This is a position that seems logical from a very "average" perspective. However, if you want to just be able to go to your backyard and shoot beer cans.. I assume your country needs to be safe and economically strong enough for you to afford the house, gun, and the rights to do so.

Our global policies and spending are insanely intricate and delicate. We have lost soft power in a few months that took decades to create. There's no doubt the amount of soft power we enjoyed, which cost the tax payer next to nothing, provided us with insane value to our country, that we all ultimately benefited from.

I want the least government in my life that I can get away with, from taxes to regulations

You really don't know how much I agree with this sentiment. However, we have to be very surgical when defining what this means. Do we want the government to inspect our milk? To make sure our roads are good?

Of course we do, but we also want government to be out of our personal lives. But we also want the government to come and help in our personal lives, provide us with good schools that are nearby, reliable transportation, healthcare, etc..

We need government in our personal lives, or else society just doesn't work, then the government will crumble next. Where we draw the line would be a huge debate.

[keskiverto]

democratic presidents have never been ...

Is the "never" really all presidents, or just from recent history?

[jonnin]

Biden was not too bad, but he was also a caretaker (didn't do much, just filled the chair). His big stuff were attempts to build up foreign relations and his handling of covid, and covid was 75% handled when he took the reins, it was weeks away from the vaccinations due to already working on it, but he pushed it over the finish line well. He didn't actually do anything else of note that I can either praise or condemn, so reviewing the presidents of my lifetime, he gets a pretty high mark, easily in the top 3. I would have to think about it for a while to actually rank them all.

He wanted to ban guns, by the way, just didn't have the votes. "On Saturday, June 25th, 2022, President Biden signed the bipartisan gun safety package ... does not ban weapons or raise the age to purchase firearms, provisions that Democrats and President Biden had called for." The actual bill as passed was fine, but you do see why there is concern about bans? The concern is real.

What are the hard right 'afraid' of (worried about?)? The same thing everyone else is, when you simplify it: loss of their way of life, rights, and income/prosperity. Which details are the sticking points. And its not government at that level, its the voters... so many can't just leave other people alone, but insist you have to think and do everything their way, and it carries over into everything.

[zapshe]

Is the "never" really all presidents, or just from recent history?

"never" should encompass relevant history, which would start at, I don't know, Jimmy Carter maybe.

he was also a caretaker (didn't do much, just filled the chair)

Just not true, he passed big legislation through congress that no one thought he'd be able to. More important things than Trump in his first term that's for sure.

his handling of covid, and covid was 75% handled when he took the reins

The effect on the economy was far from handled.

He didn't actually do anything else of note that I can either praise or condemn

Off the top of my head:

Helping Ukraine with military aid
The Chips Act

but you do see why there is concern about bans?

Sorry, I don't. Guns cannot be banned, only regulated. They need the regulation, or else anyone can just go out and buy it.

Every time a mass shooting takes people's lives, Trump just says, "well, that stuff happens". He says it like there was just nothing anyone could do about it.

loss of their way of life, rights, and income/prosperity

Republicans historically have taken our rights. Just look at the patriot act.

Republicans historically have taken away our income/prosperity. Just look at Reaganomics and the economy under Republican leaders.


Now, as for the loss of one's way of life.. I don't see that as a bad thing if ones way of life is being pushed progressively.

Clearly, everyone's way of life is constantly changing as society and technology advances. Stagnant ways are never good.

so many can't just leave other people alone, but insist you have to think and do everything their way, and it carries over into everything

Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not.

Abortion for example. Whether you think it's murder or not, women should have the freedom to access it.

Equality, on the other hand, needs to be insisted on and done correctly. If you don't, you breed discriminatory practices. We humans are really good at hating each other for anything that makes us different.

[zapshe]

And now we have word that Trump has deported U.S. Citizens already.

Isn't that amazing.

[jonnin]

I thought that was weeks old news. It was bound to happen: his need to get everything done before the midterms is pushing an already reckless by nature man into something off the charts. I can think of ONE person who needs to be deported, but ... sigh. They would just send him back after like 5 min.

Abortion... I am 100% indifferent. That means by default, I am pro-choice, because I just don't care. However, if you get a true believer, your argument just said (what they will hear) is that murder should be legal and if we don't like it, just don't kill people. They honestly believe that no one should have access as its flat out murder of a child. This is one of the hotly contested points in the whole circus. Its all tangled up in religion, too, and that never ends well.

I agree republicans take rights. So do democrats. Do you really not see that? Its what government does: governments subjugate their people, in every way they can until resistance of some form is encountered; its almost a natural law.

You say guns can't be banned, but clinton's "assault weapon" ban (they were not assault weapons, in any sense any military since before WWII would recognize, the term is used for media demonization) said otherwise and but for a miscalculation, would still be in effect. You say we just shrug it off and say stuff happens with mass shootings, but when someone drives into a crowd, no one talks of car bans. Its only ever the guns. Pressure cooker bomb? That's ok. Truck full of ANFO? No problem. Drones? Sure, whatever. A *semi automatic rifle?! GOD HELP US ALL*. There have even been major mass stabbings! People will find a way to harm a crowd if that is their goal. The violence will not stop even if everything more sophisticated than a musket or crossbow is collected. Its easy to kill and destroy. Its difficult to build and create.

[zapshe]

your argument just said (what they will hear) is that murder should be legal and if we don't like it, just don't kill people

Yes, I'm aware. The issue is they can never prove its murder by any meaningful standard. I recently had this debate, and they could not produce a definition for "human murder" that includes a zygote and adult human, but not every other cell in your body..

So they either have to argue that it should be a law that zygote's are considered "human", or they continue to argue nonsense.


The issue here is that these people are always so blind to the real agenda behind these positions. This administration has said the quiet part out loud.

They don't care about abortion, they care about a labor force. You need a replacement for the immigrants they want to completely remove. This is cut and dry white supremacy.

This is why Elon Musk said, "short-term pain for long-term prosperity". And he continues to spout Nazi talking points, like Italians wouldn't be Italians for long if they allow immigrants to come in.


They have a vision of a "traditional" version of America, where everyone is white, but that means they need to thrive even more in numbers.

I agree republicans take rights. So do democrats. Do you really not see that?

We could argue the small details, but this is like saying, "Well, OJ Simpson killed people, but so did Hitler!"

These are simply no where near the same level. It would be a hilarious comparison.

when someone drives into a crowd, no one talks of car bans

This is rare. It's like trying to catch a serial killer who kills 1 person a year and ignoring the guy killing 10 people a day.

We could one day have car safety features be mandatory that prevent such things, but this is not such a big or widespread issue that it's at the forefront of our minds.


Guns.. On the other hand... Easy to sneak into large crowds. A car? Not so much. A gun? Impossible to dodge a bullet once it leaves the chamber. A car? You could dodge.

A gun? Even if you dodge one shot, don't worry, there's more to come. A car? You're probably fine if you dodge one attack.


I mean, the comparison of these two things as killing machines is laughable.

There have even been major mass stabbings!

Again, we need only look at the numbers to see how many die from one versus the other. Gun deaths are by far the most prominent, most deadly, and the easiest to commit MASS murder with.

How many people can you stab before you get stopped? How many people can you shoot before you get stopped?

Its easy to kill and destroy. Its difficult to build and create.

I agree, so we should make it more difficult to kill and destroy.. right?

We should NOT be taking Trump's stance of, "these things happen".

[jonnin]

the ones worth talking about have 4-6 dead and ~double that injured for stabbings. For cars, just this week, 11 dead in canada. Its rare, sure. Guess that means we just shrug it off, and don't do anything, these things happen.

All the stats I see say, once you remove suicide, handguns dominate the homicide charts by margins that make everything else just a blip. And yet the constant targets of the federal gov't are rifles. Cars actually come in ahead of rifles most years. Its easier to sneak a handgun than a rifle, though some come apart to tiny if you have a hidden place to reassemble. Dodge a car ... depends on the situation. Clearly, 11 people didn't yesterday. No one has tried the shoot back approach... it remains true that almost 100% of mass shootings were at places where the victims could not be armed (eg, schools, malls, bars..). That isn't ideal, but its better than 30 dead and no one trying.

So, you don't see the constant abuses by the democrats? I see the ones by republicans. Freedom of religion is constantly under attack, just as the republicans constantly attack gay issues, the two overlap but both sides are stepping all over people. More recently there have been proposed laws to prosecute people for denying climate change. They may as well try to make basic stupidity illegal while they are at it. Both sides are awful, and relentless.

[zapshe]

Its rare, sure. Guess that means we just shrug it off, and don't do anything, these things happen.

I mean, I can't imagine this is an intellectually honest position to have.

We don't shrug it off, but what's the solution? It makes no sense to stop people from not having cars, they are a means of transportation with heavy regulation already - this is why it's already rare.

Anymore safety will have to be from a technological side.


This is highly different from a firearm, which is something that has little use beyond fun and shooting people.

And yet the constant targets of the federal gov't are rifles

You can disagree with specific gun regulations being proposed. However, if you deny the very idea of gun regulation, then obviously you are not part of the conversation to actually figure out good gun regulations, right?

The ones making these regulations aren't avid 2nd amendment people. Those knowledgeable should be part of the conversation, but they refuse to have any kind of real regulations.

Clearly, 11 people didn't yesterday

Again, it's like you want my arguments to be completely proven right. You're talking about 11 people yesterday, from a rare event. There are over 100 people dying from guns... EVERYDAY... IN THE U.S. ALONE.

And that's just DEATH, not injuries. It makes no sense to worry about ANYTHING other the MAIN causes of death.

If we solved car violence, would that even make a difference??

No one has tried the shoot back approach... it remains true that almost 100% of mass shootings were at places where the victims could not be armed

So you're solution to mass shootings is to allow guns to enter these areas more freely? So instead of having to sneak the gun you intend to shoot everyone with (which we DO catch some of these people before any damage is done), you get to just walk in with your gun and shoot people?

Then what? Regular civilians engage in a shootout in the middle of a crowded area?

I'm sorry, is that not the most INSANE solution possible?

If anything, we need to be even MORE thorough to make sure NO guns can get passed. Then we solved the solution, insanely, by having NO GUNS!

Freedom of religion is constantly under attack

This is more propaganda. There's no assault on religion.

So, you don't see the constant abuses by the democrats?

Give me examples. Specific examples.

More recently there have been proposed laws to prosecute people for denying climate change

I Googled and did not find a single thing to corroborate this.

And there are definitely some laws that could do this that we SHOULD get behind.

For example, legacy media, like Fox News, can be sued for spouting lies pretending its news. However, you can have a podcaster like Joe Rogan go out and spread all the misinformation he wants, no problem.

There's no accountability for crazy nonsense being spread. Now, I fully understand this is a slippery slope, and I would rather have more freedom of speech than less.

But we are being bombarded propaganda which is heavily pushed by algorithms, and that cannot continue. The solution? I'm not sure, not my place to come up with.

[Duthomhas]

Religious freedom absolutely is under assault — has been for years. Both right and left have been at it with equal energy, though they go about it in different ways (and think about it contrarily).

[zapshe]

Religious freedom absolutely is under assault — has been for years

Again, I'd really need specific examples.

I don't see how anyone's religion is affecting their life as U.S. citizen. As an immigrant, that's a different story, as Trump has always been against Muslims for whatever reasons.

However, I personally don't see what's stopping anyone from expressing their religion. Workplaces can't discriminate based off religion. Religious places don't even pay taxes.


I could definitely be wrong, which is why I need specifics that I can research.

[jonnin]

Forgive my slowness. Its been a month... wife and mom are both hospitalized (they will be OK, pneumonia & hip stuff), on top of minor but annoying other stuff (my washing machine exploded, for 1). I usually get back faster...

The big case everyone knows is where a religious bakery was prosecuted for refusal to serve a gay marriage. Most of the big ones revolve around trying to figure out where gay rights and religious freedom collide. Both sides have committed terrible overreach on the other. In the bakery case, the scotus overruled and favored the bakery. There have been more of these: Creative LLC v. Elenis, Arlene's Flowers v. State... And various others. And the reverse, the churches are constantly pushing buttons too, trying to prevent gay marriage and so on, typically they use lawmakers and voting block tactics to get questionable stuff proposed/passed esp at smaller local levels. I vote for a cage match, but so far, its just been a lot of boring talk talk talk. Anyway, far as the liberal overreach goes, the majority of it is tied into the 'you have to do this or else' laws & lawsuits against businesses. Another one .. you can google up case names .. are the attacks on religious hospitals (largely catholic) on both abortion and elective trans surgery or hormone etc care, trying to force them to do these things. In the case of life saving abortion, I think that is acceptable, and otherwise, we need another cage match.

If you want to read until your eyes bleed, you can take up the banned book stuff, where the religious parents vs everyone else are always having a knock down drag out. In some places, it really is content not age appropriate, but in many cases, its not. You get to see both sides playing the idiot here, en mass. Its amusing, in an "these are the adults?" kind of way. The first grade level sex books... those do need to go .. all like 1, maybe 2, of them that really exist (its not much). I try to stay out of the whole topic, but I err on the side of not ban... unless its like elementary school and anne rice's beauty books level offense. I read a lot, have since elementary school, and the idea of banning stuff does not sit well by and large. This is where the republicans shine at oppressing people. I mention it because the religious groups are notorious for overreach and trying to force everyone to their values so you realize I am not defending them generally. They even band together, denominations and mixed religions that strongly dislike each other, on some fronts.

The scotus says workplaces CAN discriminate due to religion, at least as it comes to being forced to produce products that violate the business owners' beliefs. Not so much for hire/fire etc.

I agree that its hard for muslims here. The actions of a few have led to incredible bigotry. A big chunk of america has had no tolerance since 911.