Youtube comments of Khronogi (@Khronogi).
-
520
-
350
-
240
-
203
-
151
-
108
-
95
-
90
-
84
-
82
-
81
-
75
-
70
-
70
-
66
-
62
-
61
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
@GREAT SANTINI There was always evidence of trumps wrong doings. However, there is not a shred of evidence support what Donald Trump says.
It has been what, two weeks and change since the election? Every comment section has been filled with trump supporters claiming fraud and everyone else saying, 'wheres the evidence?' However, not a single person has come forward with evidence. Instead, they link to some strange youtube video where a guy claims he knows a guy that saw evidence of fraud. That's what we call bullshit, plain and simple.
To further support that point, not one of trumps lawsuits has come forward with any evidence of fraud. Why would trumps own lawyers not be using the 'evidence' if it were there. Instead they suggest he said she said, and that again, is bullshit.
The only officials claiming fraud are the politicians doing it for show, because it's part of their con. Also here's a fun tidbit for you. When they eventually count the electors, you will see various candidates stand up and shout like, 'we object this vote's. That is theatrics, it's pure bullshit, it means nothing, in order for an objection to be legitimate it must be WRITTEN. So go ahead and watch which politicians do their show.
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
I've given thoughts to this as well, and it might actually be trumps plan here.
What better way to bolster support than by starting a war, and if you are trying to push the fact that you are anti-war, then you need someone to start a war against you. I think the president is hoping that people escalate and attack the federal troops so he can justify himself and escalate even farther, and might fortify his position as being the person who can bring this to an end, ie protect the citizens. He will say the liberals and democrats dont care about security and will say that biden wont be able to or wont be willing to stop the violent rioters. trumps current advertising spending suggests this as well, as I think $20million was spent on his 'defund the police' ads.
He's fear-mongering as an attempt to drive the insecure towards him. You can see this in his supporters in these threads. A lot of them are justifying the feds being there because 'the liberals wont do anything against the violent hordes.' We know this line to be wrong on several levels. We know that the majority of the protestors are not violent, and only a very small number of them are. Yet we still see people calling them riots. Yes, people have caused property damage, and some have broken into stores to steal stuff amongst the confusion. A smart person would coordinate /WITH/ the protestors and make arrangements for bad actors, while also supporting the protest.
My city, while it didn't deal with everything perfectly, made the judgment not to make arrests the night its' stores were broken into. Why? Because they had thousands of videos of the people doing these things, and decided to pursue arrests after the case. Instead, on the night this happened, they moved people away from the affected areas and allowed them to protest through the night. The following nights the police had already established fences in the area and even talked to protestors who were there. The president is absolutely horrible at pr, even if he pretends to be great with getting attention. Not to mention he's horrible at actually leading.
One thing I've noticed is that the president likes to create a problem so he can 'fix' it. He enraged north korea so he could 'calm them down'. He broke the Iran nuclear deal so he could say Iran is dangerous and making nukes. He created a trade war so he could 'fix' it.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@gustavsson867 Yeah, we should treat rapists and murderers with respect. We should treat the police with respect. We should treat everyone with an amount of respect. They should also treat you with respect. This does not mean bending over for them, it, however, does mean treating them like a fellow person and not like some kind of intangible being.
If we all used a little bit of empathy and a bit of thought, we could understand the reasons behind another person's actions and thus could also see how or why that person might have done something. A little bit of respect goes a long way, even for those society deems irredeemable.
Another observation: If you look at your post David, and then look at Michael Belmonte's post. You can see a hell of a lot of generalization and insults being thrown around about what people expect or assume to be a fact. This michael guy just called the entire field of socialism to be negative, which shows his viewpoint in a rather brutalistic way. It also shows that he doesn't have a grand amount of empathy or thought when he creates his ideas. And thirdly, it shows an incredible amount of the groupthink that he says infests the group he doesn't like. Not only is that hypocrisy, but that lack of empathy and thought process is also undermining society.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
justaperson & the Lost Farmstead
You two have to realize that he is not being impeached because of who he is, he is being impeached for what he has done. If Hillary was elected president and she did the same things, I would want her impeached as well. The political ideology is not the reason the president is being impeached.
You must also realize that this is not a 'team battle', it is not Republican vs Democrat, it is not Liberal vs Conservative. That style of thinking is not only incredibly disruptive to our democracy, it is also straight out of the Russian playbook. If you cannot defeat your enemy, you make them defeat themselves. Remember the pledge of allegiance, 'United we stand, divided we fall.' That is still a thing. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and everyone else are on the same team. Please do not let anyone distract you from that fact. Anyone who does is goading you.
So we can analyze the /facts/, and yes they are facts. This isn't a case of people making up sensationalist headlines in order to generate views. These facts have been corroborated by government officials and the Whitehouse itself.
Fact: The President of the United States of America sought to use congressionally approved money and resources in order to make the President of Ukraine launch an investigation into his political rival.
The 'transcript' released by the Whitehouse shows the conversation in which the President essentially attempts to extort Ukraine into investigating his political rival.
The sheer act of him ASKING Ukraine to do such a thing is against the law. Using congressional money as leverage is just another nail in the coffin.
Fact: The President has continually obstructed the investigation into these events. (This is illegal)
Fact: The President has intimidated witnesses of the investigation. (This is illegal)
Fact: The President has admitted that he would use foreign nations in order to gain potential dirt on political rivals. (Doing so is illegal)
These are all facts, they aren't there to be argued about. These things happened, we know they happened.
The President is showing us that he believes that is he above the law.
The question becomes now:
Are these things allowable for a President to do?
Is the President above the law?
What do we do if the President does something he absolutely should not be doing?
So if you think about it this way, instead of believing that people want the president impeached because they disagree with his policies, you can now start to believe that people want him impeached because he has betrayed America. Also, keep in mind, this doesn't even approach all of the other misconduct the man has done throughout his life, nor the rest of his presidency.
So my question to both of you (and anyone else that still supports the president) would be:
Do you think the President should be above the law?
And if you do: Do you realize that makes him a dictator?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@VNdoug i think there is something wrong with being entirely money motivated.
Imo, the 7 deadly sins are fine without excess, but as those activities grow in scale you end up ruining yourself, your community, and then your nation.
Greed is one of those, being motivated by currency isn't bad, but if it's corrupting you then it will destroy you.
Its why the catholics would have a guy you go to to help you reflect on your actions and get yourself in check.
See, we currently live in a society where greed is exponentially growing, to the point where we might not be able to stop it.
An investment economy removes wealth from our communities and gives it to corporations. Unfortunately because we the people only care about number go up, so to do those corporations. And just like this supposed mask maker, those corporations will skip steps and screw people over. Because they no longer care about what they are doing, they only care about number go up. So we've essentially screwed ourselves as people sell out the country for perceived income gains but lose sight of long term potentials.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@1supabad92xj7 The democrats are NOT going to take away your rights. Where do you get that from?
Only the conservatives are saying anyone will take away your rights. This is WHILE the conservatives are limiting the available ways to vote, and limiting the people who can vote, and limiting how people can vote. They are restricting your rights to vote while at the same time scapegoating.
You may argue that "Oh no Khronogi, they are only trying to stop illegal votes." This is not the case, we have no evidence of mass illegal voting, hell we don't even have evidence of mass voter fraud. How are they trying to stop a problem that doesn't exist? What about all of the other people who they are making it nearly impossible for them to vote? As a liberal democrat, I would state that protecting a freedom is more important than the little bit of misuse that might occur (which doesn't occur btw).
Just as I, a liberal democrat, would argue that protecting our gun rights is more important than the little bit of misuse that might occur (which does occur in this case). We democrats, own firearms, we might even own more firearms than you do. I live in hunting country, we are not taking away the 2nd amendment. We do however want things to work more efficiently and work properly. If we do not maintain our firearms, they will fail to operate. If we do not maintain our firearms legislation, they will fail to operate. Very simple. Nobody is taking away guns, that is the dumbest lie from your conservative representatives, that is the dumbest lie meant for you to shovel money into their pockets.
As for those 20 million people you xenophobically hate. I've met those people, I've worked with those people. Those people are just as American as you or I, except in paper. They've already been living here for 20 years, America is all they know; repeat All they know. America is their country, they want to protect America, it is better for them to be in America. They are stimulating our economy, they /already are/ part of our economy.
Our economic hardship isn't coming from hardworking people, it is coming from a government that fails to operate as a government. It comes from a government more worried about scapegoating communism and socialism onto you than actually educating you as to what is going on. Socialism will not ruin your life. You have already reaped the benefits of socialism in your life. Did you like parks right? Socialism. Did you like public roads? Socialism. Did you like being apart of a police union? Socialism. Did you like public education? Socialism. Socialism is not your enemy, you've been lied to. I will state that too much socialism might not be the best thing, but no one is arguing for that level of socialism. No one is arguing for state-run everything, you're being lied to.
The conservatives who run this country, not only don't care about you, or your children, or your grandchildren, they don't care about anything except themselves and their power. This is ridiculously evident in their past policies. They don't care about climate change, they don't even care to acknowledge it. They don't even want to address it, because it would interfere with their power. Thousands of cities will be flooding in the next 100 years, that's millions of immigrants that have to go somewhere. They don't want to address that, they want to cling to their power.
The democrats, however, are clear in their intentions. They actually do want to help out. They continue to try to introduce legislation that benefits the people they represent. The conservatives, you people who you ally yourself with, continue to obstruct everything. They continue to obstruct absolutely everything. They do not want the government to function.
Let me ask you something: Is it more American to state that America isn't the best country, yet I want it to be, and actively try to make it be that best country. Or is it more American to know America isn't the best country, to state it is anyways, and to ignore the problems that we have?
Because the Democrats are the first ones, and the conservatives are the second ones. I would state that it is more honorable to know you have faults and try to fix them than it is to know you have faults and lie about them.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@letao12 "but there's still no objective standard that says everybody needs to go to every length to pad, shield, protect, and warn you about every danger, especially if it should be common sense"
Lets just take handrails away from stairs, guard rails away from cliffs; we'll remove warnings from heavy equipment, and the safeties from firearms. After all, why would we need to go to every length to pad, shield, protect, and warn anyone about every danger, especially if it should be common sense?
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Dakota Keeler the problem with this is that congress did give them the power, its vague on purpose.
I dont know if I can put this in words on a cell phone but I'll try.
The reason we have these various governmental organizations is because congress cant do everything by themselves. They are both not experts in every field nor are they physically capable of handling every decision on every subject in any amount of time.
So they say, "hey we aren't experts, but you know who is? People who have dedicated their entire lives to this subject, let's have them in charge." And they create a governmental agency to take care of it. They say they have power to do stuff, and it isnt explicitly mentioned because the whole point of creating the agency was because congress cant know what to explicitly mention, nor can predict the future.
That built in vagueness is on purpose, because without it, Congress would have to become experts in the subject they are creating, and build the framework and structure themselves. That is not possible.
Also, SCOTUS has terrible logic for their decision. "If congress doesnt explicitly mention it then they cant do it" well I can argue the exact opposite and say "congress didnt explicitly mention they couldnt, so they can". Neither of those is a good arguement.
The fact is those governmental agencies have oversight that judges whether their actions are in line. If they were out of line theyd be told they were out of line.
SCOTUS just wants to do the federalist societies end goal of breaking the government, which this type of ruling does.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not really. I dont know if you've seen some of the ads that the trump campaign is running about the democrats, but theres one where they say that democratic leadership is supporting looting and rioting.
This isnt the case, as the leadership has been against violence, looting, and rioting since the beginning. The conservative leadership are misconstruing support for protests and support for crime. And doing so on purpose to generate an emotional response.
In reality, the liberal leadership are also against these 'radical leftists', as not only are they committing crime, but they are muddling the message that BLM is trying to send. In my city, on the first night of protests, the leadership was immediately saying not to cause damage, or use violent actions.
You might see some members of leadership say they /understand/ why people are angry, and might support the anger, but they dont support the violence. That's why you see a lot of praise and remembrance for john lewis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To be fair, communism isn't about creating wealth, while capitalism is. If a 5 year plan is inefficient that isn't the fault of communism, that is the fault of the people doing the 5 year plan. As Axeaman points out, a lot of the failures in those communist countries came from corruption and failures of people, not a failure of the style of system itself. What failures people attribute to the system, such as when you say "it reacts poorly to demand" is because the people in control reacted poorly to demand. But, it is feasible that a well ran system could do it well. It could also take advice from the people to generate the needed innovation.
I think the main argument against communism is that it's not been experimented and put through the engineering cycle as much as say capitalism has. You've got to work the kinks of an economic system out over time. Then you also have the massive amount of propaganda against it, where even mentioning taking taxes and investing them into the people again is somehow a taboo and called communism.
And to add a third paragraph into here: I feel like if a person is in charge of a manufacturing plant for a product, and they are siphoning off product for their own benefit, then the system that they are practicing is not communism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1st2nd2 UK, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Norway. Spain. Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein,Monaco, Oman, jpraldsn, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ffeff8353 We will recover. We just need some younger leaders to step up and lead. The absolute majority of republicans and democrats are all great people and have similar goals. The traditional values of each are great for balancing each other. Liberal ideas push the envelope, conservative ideas keep us grounded. Those are both great for achieving progress without shooting off the deep end.
However, our current leadership is pushing us further and further away, when they need to be pushing us back together. The current president is not a leader, he wants praise and respect without earning it, and he never wants to take responsibilities for failures.
Our future true leaders will accept their own failures, and move on, and be stronger for it. They will admit to making mistakes, and continue on their day. They will talk with the American people, as one of them, and listen to them. They might not always agree with the people, but it is their duty to listen.
If the democrats lose this years election, I'm abandoning them and starting my own party. Because I think we need to realize that it isn't about us vs them, its about all of us working together.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@diamondrg3556 Thats why police reform isn't about defunding the police. It will end up with them having less money, but thats because they want to transfer things the police are dealing with now to other people. We don't need armed officers showing up to babysit people.
Through own jobs, theres a massive fallacy in conservative beliefs that assume moderate to left people aren't hard workers, or want free welfare handouts. Thats not the case, we want welfare WITH oversight and regulation, fuck freeloaders.
Background checks are a clusterfuck in certain states. Some states have rules that state if the background check doesn't come within 3 days the store is authorized to sell the weapon. Turns out about 1/4 of those sales are to people who fail the background check. I'd be for getting rid of that rule while also putting more resources in to make background checks faster so it doesn't become a hassle. As far as gun reform goes, I personally would rather the democrats focus on gun safety and reducing violence through fixing other parts of our country before they attempt to add more restrictions.
And uh, correlation isn't causation. People shoot up places of mass congregation because there's shitloads of people there, not because its a 'gunfree' zone. I think what will actually happen in your situation is a whole lot more people are going to get shot because of misinformation, If the actual gunman pulls a gun and I puill my gun on the gunman and start returning fire, Im not only liable for trying to murder someone, Im also liable for damages, and if I accidentally hit someone, ontop of the fact that a third person could end up shooting me causing Im firing a gun. I think it'll be a chain reaction of people trying to play lawman.
Lockdown worked when people did it, look at every country that actually decided to do it. Instead in this country we didnt have any federal help, and on top of that the guy in charge of the country was flat lying to people and misinforming them. Your question btw is like asking 'why would we put prisoners in cells if cells don't stop them from escaping?' when someone leaves the cell unlocked. Its not that cells don't work, its that it wasn't used correctly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The US people aren't warmongering, the companies that pay certain politicians are. Even the military isn't warmongering, they just do as they are told by the politicians. I'm a proud blue liberal, so don't be calling me a t** troll. We'd all like to strive for utopia where war isn't a thing and everyone can smell the flowers, but we aren't there yet. The US military actively and passively protects people around the world. Sure, our government has a long history of doing the dumbest shit for money and resources and powers. Our government has destroyed a lot of democracies in the name of spreading democracy, that isn't something to ignore, but it isn't something we strive to do.
Take Russia at the border of Ukraine right now. If the US wasn't there, Ukraine would be invaded, that is a truth. Take Korea, if the US wasn't in South Korea, North Korea would be invading. You can't tell me those aren't two wars right now that are being prevented by the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@retiredrebel It isn't a "Jenosyde". Look up the definition of the word and educate yourself. It requires a physical and mental part. Currently that mental part is missing. However, there is enough cause for concern to require an investigation which is ongoing. Until that investigation and concludes there is one, you do not have a "Jenosyde." Any such decision besides this is opinion.
Now, the ISR are certainly not doing what I would like them to have done and have basically dug themselves a pit with the Gazans.
HMS is a terrorist organization and a bane to PLSTN people. They call themselves "freedom fighters" then hoard the wealth of the region for themselves while starting a war on their border rather than trying to get along.
The reason the Houthis are attacking has almost nothing to do with GZA, it has everything to do with gaining attention and influence in the region, especially armament from Iran. The supporters around the world for the Houthi actions have been brainwashed into supporting terrorist activities under the guise of freeing themselves from American Influence. However a quick look at what happens in the absence of American Influence would show societal collapses, and harsh regimes, exactly the opposite of the freedom these people insist on saying they fight for. They do not fight for freedom, they fight to control the people who they brainwash. This is evidenced enough in Iran, the backer of these groups. Iran wishes to have more influence in the world, and it is doing so by supplying and arming various terrorist groups around the region. Iran currently has a regime in which it punishes outside views, a regime in which it does not provide freedom to it's citizens but instead it provides oppression.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
After reading the geneva convention, theres nothing. It is incredibly vague, all it says is that there has to be like some military objective.
"-Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
-Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;"
"-Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;"
There is no definition as to what a military objective is.
Then theres also this little guy: "A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes,
at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court."
Israel signed it in like 2000, didn't ratify it, then withdrew it in 2002. So it can argued that its not even in jurisdiction.
Also, theres this bit which I think is funny in context to russian soldiers:
- [A person shall not be criminals responsible under this statute if] The person is in a state of intoxication that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the
unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the
requirements of law, unless the person has become voluntarily intoxicated under such circumstances
that the person knew, or disregarded the risk, that, as a result of the intoxication, he or she was likely
to engage in conduct constituting a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Compared to last year!
Thats not record levels!
Thats no where near record levels!
"The 1920s were the deadliest decade in law enforcement history, when a total of 2,437 officers died, or an average of almost 243 each year. The deadliest year in law enforcement history was 1930, when 304 officers were killed. That figure dropped dramatically in the 1990s, to an average of 162 per year."
"A total of 1,439 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 61 hours or 144 per year. There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015"
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/
Ignoring 2001 (because of 9/11), the last time deaths went above 200 was in the early 80s.
We are currently at 71, and more than halfway through the year. Even doubling our current count is lower than the average of 20 years ago.
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
We are not anywhere near record levels. Go ahead and break down each of those quotes for me, and you'll see how that man keeps lying over and over again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derin111 Russia is invading its neighbor in attempt to land grab. This entire thing fired off in 2014 when the people of Ukraine decided to get rid of the Russian puppet who lied to them and did the exact opposite of what he said he would. The people got fed up with living under russian influence and ousted him. They then democratically elected leaders who were less aligned with Russia.
Putin couldn't have this, and as he was losing influence over ukraine he decided to invade Crimea. His government then bombarded the Ukrainian people with a disinformation campaign followed by creating and arming a rebel faction and then sending russian troops to assist in an insurrection russia fabricated.
In 2021, when russia would have its last chance to take action, and deciding that the west was at its weakest, putin invaded ukraine.
_________
Now, with that context put of the way, let us analyze russia under putin.
-Putin has been in control for 20 plus years.
- Any political party that is in opposition is banned in practice. It's leaders are jailed or killed.
- Any media organization that is in opposition is banned, its members are jailed or killed.
- The regime has secret police which rounds up those who dissent.
- The regime scapegoats lgbtq as an enemy.
- The country does not have free speech. Any speech which is in opposition the the regime can get one a prison sentence, or worse.
- As stated before, the country is invading and has invaded several of its neighbors before, in attempts to take their land by force.
My analysis is that Russia is more like that of a nazi state than ukraine is. The negatives of the Ukrainian state are all holdover of the russian system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheJester39 Modern Automatic weapons are illegal. Nearly no one owns one. I'm not sure if a single one of the recent shootings had automatic weapons involved. They all had a semi-automatic weapon, which means you need to pull the trigger each time to fire.
The solution to this murder crisis we are in isn't to restrict guns to an extreme level, because that won't fix the crisis. In the 90s when Australia did its massive gun buyback program, the number of shootings did go down, but the amount of everything else went up. Stranglings, acid attacks, vehicular homicide, stabbings, bluntings... etc. The realization is that taking the guns away did not solve the underlying problem.
Instead, the actual solution isn't one that is simple. The solution is cultural and will take time and action. However, do to the cycle of our elections and government, no one is willing to commit to a real solution because its effects will not be felt while that member is in the government. These recent domestic terrorism attacks are because those people feel like they must take action for whatever reason. That is a cultural response and has been trained into them from whatever source. It can be trained out.
We can institute a type rating system for those wishing to purchase or own firearms. These would be training and education for the general type of weapon they wish to pursue a license for. For example, if a person wants to own or purchase a handgun, they would receive training on various types of handguns. Proper handling, procedure, and knowledge that a person should have in order to own one.
This does several different things. It means that every person who owns a firearm has been trained as to how to use one, and how not to use one. It also means that they have been surrounded by an environment that teaches safety over everything. This is important because it can reduce the likely hood of those that seek to harm with those weapons. If a person goes in wanting to do harm, they will be surrounded and in an environment that teaches them not to. For those people that feel like an outsider, an inclusive environment might be the thing they need to prevent them from taking action. It also means that background checks will be easier because there is a license that this person has obtained.
Some people might say that this system means a gun owner would have to pay more money for their firearm, especially if they have been a gun owner for their entire life. That is why for a period of time, these licenses would have no charge as long as the person is signing up for them. This period of time would allow those than already have a firearm to legally obtain a license without needing to spend more money on something they already own. This would also help those teaching the course streamline the process, as they will be teaching these things people who generally already know them, as well as have the ability to become comfortable teaching.
Some people are very stubborn and will not commit to this system for various reasons including privacy, conspiracy theories, or some type of freedom from government type argument. Those people will be fined for breaking the law, told to take the class, the money will be put towards the classes themselves.
Then as a society, we must find a way to shift our entire culture from one that natures its children, to one that nurtures its children. This will obviously take time and will be the hardest thing to do. But over a generation, it will become more possible. Acceptance and increasing the general wellbeing of the nation is a great way to reduce violence.
This plan allows all people to win.
Edit: I should also explain that when you look at the people in the gun community, you can see an obvious split in various people's maturity.
You will see those that have actual experience, and have been involved in civilian shootings. Most of the time these people are dead serious and do not joke around about killing people. They have a gun for protection, they actually were in a situation they needed it, and they don't like to talk about it. Take these people seriously, they have been in a situation and actually have experience.
You will see a large number of people who have no experience and talk about what they would do if 'yada yada'. Those are people I refer to as dipshits, and they tend to bring the community down as a whole. A person who is bragging about wanting to kill someone is immature and most likely talking out of their ass. Anyone who takes pleasure in killing another human being is mentally ill. Don't take these people seriously.
Then you'll find a larger number of people who have experience with firearms, and treat them with respect. This is the general population. You can generally take these people seriously.
So a general rule of thumb: If the person is braggart, takes about killing people, or is an asshole, they are a dipshit. If the person is knowledgeable and mature about the subject, they are the people who represent gun owners.
You've probably met or talked to both of these people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moss8702 Quote: "...The American appeasers ignore the warning to be found in the fate of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. They tell you that the Axis powers are going to win anyway; that all of this bloodshed in the world could be saved, that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace and get the best out of it that we can. They call it a "negotiated peace." Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins? For such a dictated peace would be no peace at all. It would be only another armistice..."
"...The people of Europe who are defending themselves do not ask us to do their fighting. They ask us for the implements of war, the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters which will enable them to fight for their liberty and for our security. Emphatically, we must get these weapons to them, get them to them in sufficient volume and quickly enough so that we and our children will be saved the agony and suffering of war which others have had to endure..." -FDR
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrGreen-fi5sg Rampant criminality and corruption, lying about generally anything, allowing iran to build nukes, dismantling our democracy, fomenting insurrection, abandoning syria, being a sycophant to dictators, adding normality to immorality, weakening nato, weakening alliances with non nato countries, normalizing xenophobia, deregulating industries, allowing corporate heads to dismantle the government agencies responsible for keeping their respective industry in check, massive tax cuts for the rich...
I could go on
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pyrok007 trump is insanely corrupt and utterly incompetent. Point after point he is installing cabinet members who are loyal to him, not ones who know what they are doing.
He is essentially installing into leadership people whose corporate entities are being held back from abusing you by the governmental institution they are now in charge of.
He has constantly cheated and conned and broke laws his entire life, shown by the fact that he has 34 felonies.
He also told you the public that he won't ever do any research about any topic, and this has been showcased by his entire staff saying he is incompetent and that he did not listen to his briefs when he was president.
He also cons you by giving you a tax cut that expires the moment he leaves office, but the tax cut for himself remains permanent, and the tax cut for you is instantly wiped out by the inflation that his actions caused, meanwhile corporations are making record breaking profits.
He scapegoats your problems with those corporations onto his opposition, as well as immigrants and trans people.
He has told you the government is bad for you, despite his own party doing absolutely nothing to try to help you (they passed 32 bills in the house, most of which renamed buildings).
His policies are insane, and will hurt you.
I can go on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HumanSlaveryHasNeverLeft How is that clear at all? There is no logic to what you just said. He had his opposing candidate with a very media brainwashed base rile up that base which had already attacked the government. If you have a group that has already attacked the government, and then threatens to do it again, you take it seriously.
If you want a logical statement, how about Dumpsterfire can't possibly have won the election because despite being in court over 50 times his team of lawyers never presented any evidence and in fact his lead lawyer at the time said under oath that there wasn't any evidence. The only people who say that dumpsterfire won support dumpsterfire, with the lead voice being dumpsterfire himself. All of these people say that they have evidence, and never release it. They'll ask you for money for your support against their opposition, but they won't give you any evidence. Two years since the election, all while saying they've got this evidence, and then they never present any evidence. One of his lawyers said that her source of a person who hears voices in their head, and that those voices told them dumpsterfire won. And since we've already established that his own lawyer said there wasn't any evidence, there is no evidence.
We can take a look back at dumpsterfire's entire life and see lies upon lies, and deception upon deception. Hell, he's been known to be a grifter well before he tried his hand at politics. People don't say he's a liar because they don't like him, they say he's a liar because he lies. People don't say he's a criminal because they don't like him, they say he is a criminal because he commits crimes. We known he's committed crimes while president because obstruction of justice is a crime and we know he's committed obstruction of justice while president as evidenced and presented in the Muller report.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themiddleclasstaxslave651
Secondly, a little socialism is not a bad thing. Our military, roads, schools, firefighters, police, parks, and primary education system are all examples of socialism. Would you like a country without any one of those things? Would you like a country where you had to pay a premium to have one of those things?
Imagine your house burning down and the firefighters just sitting outside till you pay them. We've had that system in the United states, tons of property burned down because people didn't or couldn't pay. That system didn't work.
Imagine a country where one needed to be rich to afford education, day making all of our schools private. Suddenly the ability to ascend in the class structure of the united states becomes nearly impossible. Only the wealthy can continue to afford schooling for their children to make them wealthy. We had that system in the united states, it didn't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the issue is that people want a quick solution rather than a proper solution. We can have our cake and eat it, its just going to take a while to prepare.
The underlying problem of gun violence isnt the gun, it's the violence. When Australia did its weapons buyback, gun violence decreased dramatically, but every other form of violence increased. Overall, their violence levels dropped by 2% the following year from that decision, whereas gun violence dropped by like 90. The violence is the problem.
But violence isnt a tangible thing, it's not something you can see immediate results from, it's not something you can get instant gratification from. Its not really something you can exploit and run on. So people dont see it as the actual problem and politicians cant use it to stay in power.
Violence however cam be decreased by reforming our society, and we could jeep the guns too. We can have different, more inclusive education. Tbh, we can just be overall more inclusive. Provide for our citizens, educate them of firearms, create a culture of gun safety and not 'ima shoot whoever comes into my house'.
Stuff like that
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1