Short answer: No, we do not shoot them. But the argument that we don’t shoot them is not as simple as it seems.
Rand Paul: Shoot the CongressmanRight Wing: The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow us to be armed, so we can shoot at the government when we need to. (This section has been heavily modified at the request of Senator Paul)
The purpose of the second amendment, and the reason to stay heavily armed and to be prepared to use the firearms the Constitution guarantees we can keep, is to lift tyranny should it befall the land. An increasing number of people now realize that a president that does not have any interest in following the law or just tradition, and who has absurd and harmful wants he insists be realized by fiat, is a tyrant. Donald Trump is a tyrant. Perhaps you would like to wait to call him a tyrant until he does a certain number of tyrannical things, but that is kind of silly because it takes time for a tyrant to build up a strong resume. Trump applied for the job of tyrant, promising tyranny, was hired to do that, has shown that he is capable of it, and has failed to put many notches in his tyrant’s belt only because he has been successfully fought on several fronts, not because he is not really a tyrant.
Rand Paul has an excellent understanding, aside from one detail, of the use of armed force in resisting tyranny, and according to him, given that Trump is a Tyrant, people should start shooting. The following tweet has been passed around as an example of right wing thinking (or, in this case, Libertarian thinking, which is not exactly the same thing) on the 2nd Amendment:
In reality, this was a tweet by a staffer of Senator Paul’s, who was tweeting the things being said by a speaker previously introduced by Paul, at some sort of an event. I was asked by Senator Paul’s office to clarify that. So, to be extra clear, this is a Paul staffer quoting a speaker who is not Senator Paul.
But it does leave open the question of Senator Paul’s thinking about the Second Amendment. The explanation point, the context, all that, made me assume Senator Paul agreed with this statement made a year ago. I’ve asked the Senator’s office for clarification on the Senator’s position on the 2nd Amendment, and I’ll insert that here if and when that happens.
this space intentionally left blank
Here’s the thing: The 2nd Amendment is a sacred thing to the right, and to Libertarians. It is part of the Constitution. It was put in the constitution because the British suppressed the Colonials by taking away their guns. Not their hunting guns, no one ever did that. Not their sports weapons. Sports shooting was not really a thing in Colonial America. Rather, they took away the Colonial arms that were cached for the purpose of fighting the British. I’ve seen it. I’ve been to the spot where they did it. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people’s ability to be able to fight back as groups, states, whatever, against the government, should the government become a tyranny. That is the reason the Second Amendment is so important, and that is the reason people fight for it. It is not important because it protects our rights to have certain toys, certain hunting gear, or even, to protect our homes form invasion by criminals. There is no Constitutional protection for those uses of guns, nor is there Constitutional restriction. Same for cars, toasters, and fidgets. Not Constitutionally protected, yet we seem to have them. There is, in fact, another Amendment, I’ll let you research that on your own, that does protect unspecified rights that were already considered normal, and that is where hunting would likely come in.
The essential flaw in Rand Paul’s everybody on the right’s argument has to do with the fact that this is not the 18th century. Most people who want to see sensible gun control accept the idea that the 2nd is out of date and no longer applies, and should be ignored or repealed.
I’m thinking that this recent shooting may be a high water mark for the idea that the 2nd Amendment is sacred, for the simple reason that Senator Paul’s staff is asking me to remove an indication that Senator Paul accepts the 2nd Amendment as a protection of weapon ownership by the people to fight a tyrannical government. That would be very interesting if he thought that, because it would mean that Senator Paul is open to putting aside the 2nd and talking about sensible gun reform. Good for him. Or, it might mean that Senator Paul is living between a rock and a hard place, as are many other.
That could cause change.
The point is this: We do not really live in a nation where regular people arm themselves for the purpose of fighting a tyrannical government. Some guy went to fight a tyrannical government the other day, and everyone — EVERY ONE — said no, don’t do that. Everyone said that is a criminal act, or the act of a mentally disturbed person or a terrorist, or whatever. Everyone agrees, even Rand Paul, apparently, that this whole keep the populous armed so we can fight the government thing no longer applies to this society. I hope to see conservatives and Libertarians finally join the rest of us at the table to talk about gun reform .
Bernie Sanders: Don’t shoot the Congressmen but …
Sanders whipped up a lot of hate in this country, during the last campaign. So did Hillary. It wasn’t their intention but it happened.
Today there are still grump muffins wandering around the planet complaining about Hillary this and Bernie that. Bernie has been a supporter of the Second Amendment, so one might expect his position to be similar to Rand Paul’s, but it isn’t. Representative and Senator Sanders supported the Second Amendment for a different reason.
It is hard to be a Senator, but not if you are from Vermont.
Vermont is an easy state to govern or represent because everybody in Vermont is the same. Also, they all live in Yurts. Many of them also have guns; These are not weapons of interpersonal violence, but rather, for shooting woodland beasts. So, if you are pro-Yurt, and don’t oppose hunting, then you can get on to the business of supporting the Maple Sugar industry and helping out with the tourism, which doesn’t need much help because Vermont is surrounded by metropolitan areas that supply countless leaf-peekers every fall for several weeks. It has got to be the easiest state in the country to lead or represent.
And as such, Senator Sanders never faced any real serious problems with policy vs. reality issues within his state. This allowed him, along with a few other Representatives and Senators from a few other states, to do crazy and unexpected things like vote against wars, or come up with policies that ignore special interests and meet the needs of the people. This is why Sanders could have radically pro-people policies while Clinton had to stay all the time in compromise mode throughout the last election. This is why Sanders could say outlandish things like education should be free, but Clinton got dinged for admitting out loud the strategy that allowed Lincoln to win the Civil War and free the Slaves in a world where no one else could have done either: Have a strategy in your head, and another one that people will go along with in your mouth, and work tirelessly to make the two eventually the same.
So Sanders and Clinton were dramatically different, but in ways that a thoughtful analysis would allow either to be complemented on their tactics and abilities. They came from different places, were reaching for almost identical goals, but the differences ended up enraging a lot of people more than the similarities united them. Apparently, that level of hate and anger was sufficient in the case of one Sanders supporter to allow him to take Rand Paul seriously, heavily arm himself, intent on fighting tyranny. (We are only guessing as to motive here, but I’m going to stick with this story until proven otherwise.)
James T. Hodgkinson: Look for New Gingrich’s Book
among his effects
among his effectsThe first thing I notice about James. T. Hodgkinson is that his name most resembles a hypothetical made up character in an Aaron Sorkin script. I assume citizen Hodgkinson is a distant cousin of Joseph Bethersenton of Fargo, North Dakota.
The second thing I notice, based on the pictures and reporting, is how closely he resembles people I meet every week and see all the time. Frustrated, often a former Sanders supporter but not always, a person who truly believes that Donald Trump is a Tyrant, and who has also realized the other really important thing: As long as the Republicans are in the majority in Congress, Donald Trump gets to do whatever he wants, even if the courts slow him down now and then. We have separation of powers in this country, but we also have amalgamation of powers.
Years ago, when he was Speaker of the House, Republican Newt Gingrich said that Republicans should do whatever is required to take power, and only after taking power, govern. At that time the Republican agenda was already pretty right wing, but it has gotten even more right wing since then. And, now, they have taken power. And in the many years between implementing this strategy and realizing success, the Republicans totally forgot how to govern. So this is what we get.
Part of that “do whatever is required” bit is changing the way voting and electing and campaigning in this country happen, so even where Democrats have a 60% majority, they will lose. Now that the Republicans are fully in power, expect that number to change to 65% or even 70%.
Indeed, expect Republicans to never leave power now that they have it. Believe me, for every minute of time, dollar of money, and erg of energy being spent now to attempt to switch one or both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 2018, there are ten being spent to make sure that won’t happen.
This is it, this is the end, of the Republic, of America, of freedom and democracy.
Unless…
The Lorax: Things can get pretty bad and people can get pretty mad before Grammy Norma kicks somebody’s ass
… unless that doesn’t happen.
I’m pretty sure James T. Hodgkinson (mis)estimated, if he was semi-lucid, that there was no turning back, that the only way Trump could get thrown out of office is if Democrats took over in Congress, and he further calculated that this was not going to happen in his lifetime. (Which, by the way, turned out to be the case but for different reasons.)
But that’s not how Grammy Norma sees it.
I was at an event the other day at which there were about 20 Grammy Normas, a roughly equal number of Pappy Normas, and about the same number of people who were not 70 or older, who came together to hear some speeches and sing some songs and vow their energy to the removal of the really awful Republican that represented them in Congress. My friend John Wexler, who is a Marine vet and a long time Democratic Party activist, was there, and he said to me, “This is like an election year, look at all this activity.” And I thought about it for a second and I says, “Yeah, this is like ‘08: Obama and Franken. And it an off-off year!”
This happened to be an Indivisible Minnesota CD03 picnic, but it could have been any of a number of gatherings by Indivisible groups, Stand Up groups, or other groups, of people who are not going to shoot anyone at this time, and are going to do everything they need to do to take back our Democracy from Tyrant Trump and his Republican henchmen. Again: Without shooting them.
The reason why Rand Paul’s technique won’t work is simple: It won’t work. There is no 21st century version of an armed citizenry able to throw off the yoke of tyranny. We have to do this differently these days, and we will.
Well, to be honest, we don’t know if we will. We don’t know if this odd event, of an incompetent clown being accidentally elected (with the help of the Russians) president at the very same moment in history when the Republican party rules and is also made up of mean spirited bought and paid for jerks, is something we can recover from. And that is what makes it all so scary. James T. Hodgkinson calculated that all is lost, and it is time to start shooting. But he’s a rare bird. He’s one in 10,000.
Which, if you do the math, means that there are lot of him out there.
And this is where I disagree with Nancy Pelosi
Today, Nancy Pelosi, on the House Floor, stated that we should turn down the rhetoric, implying that the intense rhetoric in today’s American politics is too heavy, and that is what lead James T. Hodgkinson to try to kill a softball team’s worth of Republicans.
But that is not what happened. James T. Hodgkinson did not react to the rhetoric. At most, he miscalculated the chance of us handling this with some hard work over a couple of years. At least, he should have kept his powder dry, because maybe in six or seven year’s we’ll be looking at the Constitution disolved and a full on police state. He made the mistake of failing to understand the process, which puts him in a lot of company given the way things went last election. It was not the rhetoric.
Here’s the thing. The rhetoric is as I stated above. Trump is a tyrant, and if he is not stopped he will formalize what he has already done in his own head: thrown away our democracy. The Republicans are his lap dogs and will help him in any way they can to do this, as long as they get to keep power. This is really really bad. That sounds like over the top rhetoric, the kind of rhetoric that would drive an unstable person who happens to be heavily armed to go to the ballpark, as it were. But it is simply the sorry truth and we should not walk away from it, for if we do, it will be to our peril.
At this time it is a bad idea to miscalculate what Grammy Norma and the others can do. That just sets us back. It makes strong Democrats in the house quiet down. That is not a good thing.
Don’t shoot the Republicans. But do everything else you can do to toss their sorry asses in the trash bin of history.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
” certain moral position: that populations on earth should be disarmed, or unarmed, ”
LIE!!!!
298…I appreciate that you would allow more freedom to rural peoples (are you not generous?). I’m not aware of the population density metric that increases penalties or changes the legality of an act, but it certainly is a novel legal standard to forward.
While rejecting a “moral” position for a legal ought, you do express care and preferences for certain risks to be taken away from society. Different from a beverage or dessert preference, why should the preferences you posit carry the force of law or be a threat to a person’s freedom? Why would it be”just” to use the power of the State to these ends?
Restating the question you seem to be distracted from: How do your preferences relate to the study of physical properties in the Universe? How do we arrive at non-physical declarations against certain behaviors or acts via science? From what physical properties does the concept of justice arise?
Risk-benefit for whom? And why is that person’s/group’s benefit of greater value than the desires of another?
301 Is lying wrong? Why or how is lying wrong? It seems that you’re assuming a standard of morality that truth should be valued above non-truth. Why is that? How does that follow from our observations of solids, liquids and gasses on Earth?
You’re not saying that people should be disarmed/unarmed/weaponless? Just firearm-less? Are knives acceptable (the UK is banning them)? Slingshots? baseball bats? What about people who have martial arts training, how do you take that away?
Ron 302,
Well, now you are starting to ramble again. But let’s see if we can get you back on track. One thing at a time:
1. I said “I have no moral position”. Do you not understand those simple words? Why are you asking me about “justice”??
2. As to “physical properties”, science and reason are not restricted to physics and chemistry. I am talking about evidence-based and logic-based analysis when I talk about how I would prefer society to be structured.
Pick one.
“Why or how is lying wrong?”
Goodness. Weren’t you the one going on about morals earlier? Yet here you are asking why is it wrong to lie. I guess you realised that you couldn’t refute the charge so decided to deny the problem.
I will take your BS questioning as invalid rhetorical bollocks and therefore admission you know you lied.
“You’re not saying that people should be disarmed/unarmed/weaponless? Just firearm-less? ”
Nope. Someone with a reading age above their shoe size would have been able to work out what has been said, but not apparently you.
” why should the preferences you posit carry the force of law or be a threat to a person’s freedom”
The point you’ve been assiduously avoiding is why should yours? Especially since there is actual real life (and death) evidence for the current status of gun ownership in the USA and the fetish for guns you have being a threat to someone’s life, liberty and happiness. Yet no evidence that removing the 2nd amendment would be any threat to someone’s freedom.
Remember, you were asked, multiple times, why would some liberal coast city dweller want to invade kansas and steal your guns? No argument for there being ANY threat to someone’s freedom.
“And why is that person’s/group’s benefit of greater value than the desires of another?”
Why is it of less value than the desires of another?
305
Goodness, indeed. What is good? Who/what defines good/evil? You seem to believe in an objective moral truth, but refuse to define it and explain its origins.
BTW, did you see this recent article about a guy with 3000 weapons? http://tinyurl.com/y6u2ftzr
Why should society smack this guy down (he’s got machine guns and tanks!)?
306 I’m not espousing my own simple preferences. I’m forwarding a philosophy of liberty and freedom derived not from my own original thinking, but from the potter who created the clay. I’m giving you a definition of justice that originates outside humanity for the benefit of humanity. That’s where my “ought” comes from…yours is no greater than a preference for an automobile, an ice cream flavor, or a musical genre. It is indifferent to moral matters, there’s simply no reason to benefit anyone, since life has no purpose.
304 Do you want to stop avoiding the question here and bring your definition of justice and how it comes from a place like this: ” ‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.'”…then tie that to “science”? How do guns matter other than some great physics project?
“What is good? Who/what defines good/evil?”
Yeah, more avoidance.
Lame.
Given that you have so brazenly displayed that you do not want reality and do not care to have anything to do with it, I’ll just rip the shit out of the rest of your post for the rancid yak shite it is.
” I’m not espousing my own simple preferences.”
Yes you are buttmuncher.
” bring your definition of justice ”
Nope, because you’re a fucking goatfucking idiot who has no desire to learn because you don’t like what reality brings you.
“That’s where my “ought” comes from”
Your ARSEHOLE? Sure it’s the only bit doing the thinking and talking.
But lets just reflect that whatever some random book you’re introduced to defines all your “morality”, and the book has acts that would have you in jail or swinging from a rope in any country in the world if you followed it. The only thing stopping your insane raging on sane society is the fact that secular society with a morality that can be defended forces you to refrain from your one-man-terror-show.
And THAT is why you want guns. So that you can engage in your antihuman atrocities.
Ron says:
“bring your definition of justice”
I have no definition of “justice” outside of a societal structure. Social structures and laws must precede those kinds of terms, like “rights”, which only exist within a legal system.
The universe is indeed indifferent, as your quote says. What’s not to like about that?
(Unless you are on the extreme end of the Authoritarian Personality Spectrum, and are too terrified to make any decisions for yourself.)
Wow:
I am not arguing for or against the 2nd amendment.
Because the second amendment already exists, in order to change or get rid of it, you have the burden of getting rid of it (not me). You would have to convince Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you. Even if you won your argument here, it wouldn’t matter, the 2nd amendment would still exist.
That is why I leave the field to you on this issue – it is not my fight, but yours. I wish you good luck.
However, zebra and I are debating how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted (but not whether it should exist).
I think we both agree that reasonable regulation can exist and I gave examples of such regulation. But no outright ban will survive the 2nd amendment (in my opinion).
Obviously each state has different laws – some have open carry, some permitted carry and so forth.
In Minnesota, we have permits to carry. But even without a permit, we can transport a rifle in a car (as long as the rifle is cased and not loaded). In Minnesota we are also allowed to take a gun to and from work (a holdover from the days of lots of cash business) – and no permit is necessary for this.
There are no laws against having a gun in your own home (in Minnesota).
So it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with “reasonable regulation” laws of the different states – as each state tries something a bit different.
I have a permit to carry in Minnesota – but cannot carry into a business which says bans guns. On the other hand I can carry to all Federal parks and I am not sure about the status of state parks.
A permit to carry (as far as I know) does not limit what type of gun or the number of guns I could carry. So in theory, I could carry a handgun and a rifle, in public and be perfectly legal (again as far as I know).
I am sure we will have a lot to discuss in future years, as states pass different laws and they get challenged and ruled on in court.
“I am not arguing for or against the 2nd amendment.”
We know.
Because you have no argument for it and do not want it to be removed, hence will refuse for ideological reasons to argue for it to be removed, despite the death and destruction it causes.
So, like I’ve said many times before: you cede the floor to the reasons why it should be removed, there being no counter.
There could be nothing valid in the remainder of your post, so you should have stopped there. If you’re not arguing about whether the 2nd should stay or go, then there is nothing more to discuss on the 2nd amendment and it’s removal.
And if your only assertion is to remain with “but it’s the law, so suck it”, then when it is proposed to remove it, remain silent child and let adults with reasons for or against it discuss.
““bring your definition of justice”
I have no definition of “justice” outside of a societal structure.”
It is, moreover, 100% irrelevant.
If ironny doesn’t know what good or justice or anything is defined as, then so what? The discussion is not about that.
1) Why would some lefty city state invade some backwater hick state to steal their guns?
2) Why did the framers use the terms militia and free state when talking about the right to bear arms rather than individual right to own and carry around town weapons?
Neither of which rest on monsterron being told what humans do to be civilised. He’s clearly still at the tribal goatfucker^Wherder stage of social development. He’ll become civilised somewhere around 3000 years from now.
309
No definition of justice outside of a societal structure?
So, if one people group legally seizes power over a society and decides to eliminate/enslave another people group…you have no concern about this? That’s their justice….leave it alone?
You men like the Israelites and the Caananites?
Or the USA immigrants vs the American Indians?
Or the UK immigrants vs the Aboriginies?
Or indeed the USA/UK and Iraq more recently. Seem to remember lots of cheers and whooping when Saddam was killed.
But it’s yet more distraction from the fact that you’re at the goat fucking stage of civilisation, 3000 years from what we consider civilised.
And since you don’t know what justice or good is, and you have never complained about the idea of hostile invasions and ethnic cleansing, you don’t care about it at all. Clearly making your post purely projection.
Ron,
“Justice” within a legal system occurs when the legal system operates as intended– the laws are executed without error, or bias, or corruption, and so on. “Justice is done, and seen to be done.”
What does that have to do with my “concern” about how people in the society may be suffering? The two things are completely independent.
Human suffering causes me discomfort, whether it is the result of a legal system operating as intended, or of the act of an individual.
315 If I may, I will denounce ethnic cleansing. Here’s a list of genocides in recent history http://tinyurl.com/85ysz9r
I denounce these as being objectively unjust, regardless of the legality of the governments actions. Why? Because human life reflects the image of the Creator and is valuable because of this fact.
316Human suffering causes you discomfort because you know and understand, to some degree, how justice is to be upheld. What entity causes more human suffering than governments? More kids die every year from pool accidents, car accidents, yet no outcry and no hand wringing over suffering…
Yeah, it’s a bit late, now, ironny. Not to mention also irrelevant. Because you don’t know what good or justice or morals are, else you would not be asking what they mean.
So you clearly have no objective method to make your claims. All you have is the BS of your fairy tales telling you that for some reason a being without need to eat or excrete or breathe or born from another mammal is nevertheless what you are magically poofed into existence to look like.
Given that this creator has in your mythology ethnically cleansed, IIRC, over a dozen races of also mankind, that mythology also doesn’t give you any reason to dislike ethnic cleansing and your claims that it is objectively bad is your own opinion indirect contravention of your sky fairy’s opinion.
And who are YOU to judge god and find it wanting?
“What entity causes more human suffering than governments?”
Religions.
Disease.
Poverty.
Humans.
Natural disasters.
318 God isn’t judged by me. I say that God is the standard of justice and may slay whom He desires. (Not me judging God but agreeing with Him.) I listed other genocides that I find objectively unjust as government is to be a blessing to its people, not a curse (again, based on my agreement with , not judgement of, a tenant that wasn’t original to me).
Again, you fail to forward a theory of justice that holds any reasoning but you insist that the standard I am advocating is inappropriate. All based on some preference for a non-belief system that holds no moral positions.
(Cue the vitriol)
“More kids die every year from pool accidents”
“car accidents”
And suicide by gun:
So, no. Far fewer pool deaths than gun death, and very close but probably more gun deaths than cars too.
If you inlcude the suicide-by-cop figures, then it’s no contest: guns “win” out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9832661
“318 God isn’t judged by me”
Liar. You think ethnic cleansing wrong, but god exhorts it and lauds it and even gets super pissed off when it’s not carried out far enough.
If you aren’t judging it, then you are all for ethnic cleansing.
“I say that God is the standard of justice ”
Therefore there is no objective definition of justice according to you.
“(Cue the vitriol)”
No, the vitriol was from you in that post, moron.
Hey, I guess you’re fine with ISIS, since they’re doing what god tells them to, and according to you, whatever god says is right, is right.
321 Look up cop killings: http://www.killedbypolice.net/ (doesn’t distinguish between justified killing and unjustified killing)
So…math is integral to science, yes?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/
And on a global scale…car accidents are huge: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98055567
Suicide isn’t an accident. We’re comparing apples (car / pool accidents) to oranges (intentional acts)
Again, no hand wringing on cars or pools…no political movement to ban pools…not incremental ban on cars (even though these things have no constitutionally explicit mandate)
Don’t give me this “public safety” excuse when you’re not at all concerned or troubled or distressed or outraged by pools or cars.
“And on a global scale”
Guns aren’t available to the public. So all your stat is doing there is proving that your 2nd amendment is killing a shitload of people.
Maths isn’t your thing, is it. Not that anything is, mind.
“doesn’t distinguish between justified killing and unjustified killing”
Which would be killings done that the government justify (what did you say about governments earlier?) and killings that the government say is not justified.
But, no, your claim was asinine. Pool deaths a tiny fraction of gun deaths and even car deaths notably smaller than gun deaths when you claimed far more people were killed by either than guns.
And as your bait-and-switch to the global count shows, the USA is mostly that way and that would be the gun culture and 2nd amendment aiding and abetting those deaths.
“Don’t give me this “public safety” excuse when you’re not at all concerned or troubled or distressed or outraged by pools or cars.”
Don’t try that stupid tactic, retatrd, it doesn’t work.
Greg,
Your allowance of some people to use the term “retard” but to admonish others is offensive. Your allowance of it at all is doubly so.
Start your own blog, then.
I could come up with a half-dozen GOOD reasons for it, and another few about how your scenario is a shibboleth of the same morons trying to SJW for the rightwing and not actually the case.
For example of the latter, batshit lies. REALLY lies. Frequently and often and volubly. So half of your story comes from some fuckwitted moron.
And whining about it really doesn’t do jack or shit. Whining just says you’re butthurt and whining. Which nobody is in the business of caring about.
If you were actually honest in wanting to know what was going on you’d have ASKED for clarification. But you don’t want that, you want vengeance, pain, suffering, silence, aquiescence, YOUR WAY.
Hence “Go start your own blog”. You get to do all that there.
Wow,
You’re a disturbed individual. There is no reason to use that term. Period. I’d love to explain that to you face to face. There is no excuse. You’re an asshole. That Greg allows you to use that word is equal to using the word ‘Nig*ar.” Unacceptable. And that you respond in less than 10 mins shows your obsession. You have an issue. I suggest addressing it.
I don’t need my own blog to point out your offensiveness. Douche.
Wow – “For example of the latter, batshit lies. REALLY lies”
Yet, you don’t provide examples….interesting.
Meanwhile, the hypocrite who says “profit” is a result of corruption, continues to collect his distribution from the “corrupt profits” of Westmill Solar..
You see what I just did there, I called Wow a hypocrite while providing an example….one he can’t counter, so chooses to ignore.
And on that note, the same can be said for Greg, since I “ASKED for clarification” of what appears to be bias and hypocrisy….only to be ignored.
“You’re a disturbed individual.”
You are a meaningless individual. Therefore your proscription on me is as meaningless as it is unsupported.
“since I “ASKED for clarification””
Pat McGroin did not.
“I don’t need my own blog to point out your offensiveness.”
I never said you did. But if you want your feelings to be of any point, for you to get your own way, to get the vengeance you demand, you do need your own blog.
And I do not care if you find me offensive. You do not find people who lie and bullshit and deliberately troll when they’re rightwingnutjobs. Therefore your offence is not due to my wording but to the political stance you do not wish to hear.
#334
Which is why I said I ““ASKED for clarification””…..you know, I being me.
Is this too tough for the hypocrite?
Nobody has to care what you want. And only when you were a minor did your parents or officially appointed guardian needed to care either. So there’s nothing anyone else needs to do if all you want to do is whinge.
You COULD just not post or read this blog. Then you would not be so butthurt by things on this blog. You could instead continue to whine and whinge. As can patmcgroin.
But nobody needs to bother with it. Either reading or responding or even caring. Hell, they could be summarily deleted just because it’s a waste of electrons. And still nobody would care, nor have to.
I HAVE responded because you might, theoretically, at least to a non-absolutely-zero-chance, have read and learned from the responses given.
But if you haven’t and do not wish to, then I too don’t have to bother reading your bilge or care what you say or try to either address your butthurt or advise.
So fuck off. Or keep whining. But I don’t care and that’s as far as I can be arsed to go on this bullshit whinge-fest you have.
Hey Wow, I have an idea, maybe you should get your own blog so we can point out your hypocrisies and offenses there!
Think of all the traffic you would get with people calling you a hypocrite and retarded and such…
Oh, and don’t worry Greg, I’ve got this one:
[WARNING: Watch My Language]
Whooh states…
“You are a meaningless individual. Therefore your proscription on me is as meaningless as it is unsupported.”
Unsupported? Anyone reading knows that what I write is fully supported. And sadly for you, nobody is more “meaningless” than yourself given that you’re entire world appears to be commenting here. I had baseball practice with my son since last comment. You?
Whoops writes…
“I don’t need my own blog to point out your offensiveness.
“I never said you did. But if you want your feelings to be of any point, for you to get your own way, to get the vengeance you demand, you do need your own blog.”
Yes you did. Clearly. I need no “vengeance” but what I would like is some consistency from the blog host. Why does he allow you to offend, but disallows others? Not a question for you to answer, nor was it the first time.
Whelps…
“You do not find people who lie and bullshit and deliberately troll when they’re rightwingnutjobs. Therefore your offence is not due to my wording but to the political stance you do not wish to hear”
I don’t? Care to provide an example? No? Didn’t think so. You are as transparent as glass. Fucking idiot. And apparently supported by our host. Which makes him, well…
Wowee…
” Then you would not be so butthurt by things on this blog. You could instead continue to whine and whinge. As can patmcgroin.”
Again with the “patmcroin?” And “butthurt?” how about writing like an adult? Idiot.
Greg, nice blog…
If you came here for reasoned argument with people who admit their mistakes instead of endlessly repeating them ad nauseam, then you will need to learn to filter out anything posted by the guy who has a capital W tattooed on each of his arse cheeks.
I have to admit I come here less often than I’d like (this is a good post) because of the lack of varied voices and nonstop insultfest in the comments.**
I particularly appreciate people able to like Bernie – and his positions on the issues – and be annoyed with his oppositional tactics at the same time. In his life – and again the main article points this out – he has had the opportunity to ignore the normal process of government which requires making deals with the “enemy”.
I am sick and tired of the circular firing squad on my side. As Greg points out, the only way anything is going to happen is if we overcome the vote cheating – and that’s a big if, keeping minority rule is a science (Koch, Buchanan,* et al.)
* http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/power-to-the-people
** Did a search on “Wow” which said “over 100 …” While on the issues I often agree with him/her, the phrase “get a life” does come to mind. The ability to distribute insults and publish nonstop comments is not going to change a single mind.
Damn! That link is interesting but irrelevant (Bill McKibben on solar power in Africa). This is the one I meant, on the organized takeover by Kochtopus and all:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2017/06/james_mcgill_buchanan_s_terrifying_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html
PatrickW,
I don’t think Greg goes through every word submitted– certainly not by Wow– to look for offensive terms. He may read comments from less prolific individuals more thoroughly. I also don’t know if he has control over any automatic screening that may be available. So your level of indignation is a bit much.
That said: Wow, cut it out!
You have a more than sufficient vocabulary of insults, and that particular term does go beyond acceptable norms. It isn’t the N-word, by any means, but it carries too much baggage for you to be using it.
Oh dear, craigiepoo, still butthurt at the drubbing you got elsewhere? Because despite the fact I agreed with you on some things you only care about the times people disagreed with you.
You are, and always were, a virulently toxic retard with no compassion or intelligence and only accidentally got things very VERY occasionally right.
And you wear C&A pants so that you can tell when you’re wearing them the right way round.
See, I can make blank assertion claims too, moron.
Have you noticed how Wow seems to be obsessed with the word “butthurt”?
The Wow doth butthurt too much, me thinks.
“That said: Wow, cut it out! ”
No.
“You have a more than sufficient vocabulary of insults”
Yes. But some morons are not worth the effort of the mot juste being sought . Moreover, unlike batshit betty and retardo flamingo (pattie cakes there), I comprehend that retard is a description of someone’s actions, not a diagnosis.
“It isn’t the N-word, by any means”
You see, this is the sort of BS that goes round. All you are doing there is making me and everyone else say in our heads “nigger”.
When Pickles says “that uppity nigger” in Blazing saddles, it was a lampoon of the sort of retard (see that word again? because the use of that phrase IN THAT MEANING is retarded, this is a fact and dancing round it does not change any fucking thing).
And, again, it all comes down to people who “know” that “the N word” is bad, but have fuck all clue WHY, just obeying.
Your stupidity and authoritarianism here (yes, you are guilty of it too, zebra) just open up the gates for other retards (see that word again, again it’s conditional on the actions done, not a permanent state of physical affliction) to whine about “Why is it OK when Chris Rock says ‘nigger’???? That’s RACIST!!!!”.
Saying “Nigger” to someone to call them nigger is something a racist would do. Since we have no method to determine your internal mental state we need other clues. We can concede that one black man calling other black men niggers is not racism, or at least not likely to be racist in intent. We have in the USA ample proof that when a white person says it that they are doing it for racist reasons.
So understanding that is sufficient explanation to say why YOU saying “n-word” is better (though stupid) and Chris Rock saying “nigger” is fine. Because the balance of probabilities is that you would be a racist calling someone a nigger, while Chris would not. Of course EITHER of you calling someone Jewish a kike could just as equally be antisemitism. Jewish calling either of you Goyim is not, because the use of that word has never been associated in western society in that way.
If someone is talking about SOMEONE ELSE calling some black man a nigger, they’re not likely to be doing it for racist means, unless the usage appears to be supportive of that other person’s claim and therefore saying-by-proxy.
So knowing why “nigger” is to be censored to “the n word” is necessary, and adherence to censoring it permanently as by dictact “bad” is just as ignorant and moronic as any other censorship or wordplay stupidity.
Lastly someone can be racist and not use “nigger”. Hell, they can use “the n-word” too and still be 100% racist in what they’re actually saying. Because saying “the n-word” instead of “nigger” is no less actually using a racial epithet than saying “Darn” or “Heck” is not blasphemy. Just fiddling with the letters used does not change what the words MEAN or the meaning you put to them.
For all the assholishness of Scott Adams when he ventures out of cartooning and tries to opine outside his experience, he’s right when he points out that stupidity is not a full time occupation and that we slip in and out of that state many times a day, because the world is so complex and we have so little time to reflect that stupidity is just one of those things we engage in to get through the day.
Likewise I understand that “retard” is a state that people can slip in and out. Batshit and patmcgroin intend and insist on residing full time in that state because they’re fucking trollish morons who have absolutely no chance of getting what they want through valid argumentation, therefore they spout retarded bullshit in order to derail or troll the shit out of a thread to silence any and all avenues of contrary thought and argument that their blinkered and idiotic ideology cannot handle.
Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO. Hell, Greg could just be offended that the POTUS, even this orange moron in clownshoes and a shredded wheat topper, was called a retard. He’s already posted one thread where he said he didn’t like the shitgibbon being called names, even if it was so that he’d be personally attached to the abhorrent actions that he undertook in power.
But batshit just hates, like (practically) all visible and noisy repiblicans today, hate Obama, not merely because he’s a Democrat (they went apeshit over Bill, but they never ran on a platform of “make the president powerless” and refuse to pass anything), but because he was an “uppity nigger in the whitehous”. And when batshit called Obama a retard, he MEANT “retard nigger who should never have gotten above his station and pretend to be the boss of us white folks”. And he did not need to say nigger to do it.
I wonder if Greg realizes that Wow is taking his blog to the same place he took Deltoid?
Just a matter of time folks…
“While on the issues I often agree with him/her, the phrase “get a life” does come to mind.”
I have one, thanks. And not one where searching and counting a websearch on your name would be a useful and relatively entertaining passtime.
So “Try getting one for yourself” comes to mind.
“I am sick and tired of the circular firing squad on my side. ”
And you’re failing for the same reason partisan shitheads like dick, “mike”, batshit and pat do.
Those people “on [your] side” are on it for some things and not for others. So when they’re not on your side, they shoot you because they’re not on your side. That they were another time does not make them beholden to be on your side every time or not blow up your arguments or position if they do not agree to it.
And by pretending to such partisan BS you merely join in on the blinkered idiocy you see on those who are not on your side and “never” were but “think” you are a better person than that.
On a few occasions, either dick or “mike” have posted a “I’m afraid I’m gonna have to agree with Wow on this one”. My annoyance at that is not that there’s someone I do not want to be associated with because of their multitude of abhorrent (to me) attitudes and actions agreeing with me, but because “Huh. I guess you’re right here” should be so normal and rational a thing that it should not be necessary to point it out. If someone posted “I guess I have to agree with Wow that food is good”, everyone would be wondering WTF is going on. And the entire point of discussion is to find out what people think and their REASONS for their thoughts so that those reasons can be synthesised into agreement.
After all, reality is what we can all agree is real when we look at it, and actual insanity is when that cannot be attained by the insane. We all agree that the table we sit at is a table. And if someone insists that they are Napoleon, we all agree that this is nuts, because we all agree Napoleon is long dead.
So “I agree with them” ought to be the state so normal that it is unremarkable.
It can only be remarkable if you think that someone of a different mindset is incapable of being right and therefore you are amazed if they turn out to be “right” (as in you agree with them on its rightness). And the problem there isn’t the one being painted as incapable of being right, but in the blinkered bigoted preconceptions of the one making that assertion and displaying that idea in their statement of amazement.
“and publish nonstop comments is not going to change a single mind.”
Tell me how not posting reasons will change minds.
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
Where? When?
Since this thread has turned into a WOW intervention, I thought I would add my voice to the chorus.
WOW – stop the name calling.
It is hindering constructive dialog.
Wow,
While your comment raises valid issues, what you fail to acknowledge is that establishing societal norms doesn’t occur (very often) through logic and reason. A large proportion of the population (perhaps the majority) resides on the less mature end of the Authoritarian spectrum.
Words work, like it or not– that’s why we are deluged with rhetorical/propaganda terms like “rights”, “justice”, “Creator”, “good/bad”, and so on– what Authoritarian parents, schools, churches, political parties, use to create pliable sheep-like followers to be manipulated and exploited.
I read, somewhere, this interesting suggestion:
On the Left (in the US in particular), people are less motivated because they sense that they are part of mainstream thinking among the educated and emotionally developed.
On the Right, they are emotional and angry and defensive because they know they are “wrong”– meaning that they are indeed in a minority group based on real issues.
In my thinking, while PC language and micro-aggression and all that stuff can become pretty silly, the point about the N-word and the R-word and the K-word is that they are bumper-sticker representations of serious themes. So, if I say “N-word” instead of “nigger” I am hopefully reminding people of those themes.
Note: I am as far from Authoritarian Personality as you can get– if I have a diagnosis it may be a bit too much the opposite. You have to distinguish between “acting authoritatively”, which I do, and the technical term.
“WOW – stop the name calling.”
No.
“It is hindering constructive dialog.”
Where? And is this the only one? How is “Oh, that’s your opinion” and “Oh, well, it’s my opinion” or “We’ll just have to wait and see” constructive dialogue?
When zebra asked his two questions
Why would some liberal city area invade Kentucky to seize the guns
Why is it worded like #2 rather than #1
where did an constructive dialogue come along?
Where is pat and batshit’s whining constructive?
No, your complaints are really just another form of “Shut the fuck up” because you don’t like opposition to your stories.
How is your whining constructive? How do you elide all “constructive dialogue” in the last five posts I have given? And if you aren’t eliding it, how come there is no constructive dialogue about them rather than pointless whining and demands of silence from you?
“Note: I am as far from Authoritarian Personality as you can get”
Yet you still fall foul of its clutches.
Either you know this or you know that there was no argument or evidence for being free from AP-produced failures of reason in your post.
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
Where? When?
“A large proportion of the population (perhaps the majority) resides on the less mature end of the Authoritarian spectrum.”
See, this is another AP-produced failure. This is the more common leftist/liberal/elitist version of the same BS the right does. Paternality. Only Sane Man In The Room.
In essence you’re saying that YOU are smart and enlightened enough to break free from the shackles of “common usage” and memes, but that you think it too much to look for others to be as smart, intelligent and resourceful as you to try to break free of those ideological blinkers and it is “condescending” to either want them to or think they can even try. After all, they’ll fail, and that will make them feel bad, and you, being a “nice person” do not want them feeling bad, therefore you’re proving your niceness by letting them ride and not wanting anyone else to try to ask for some effort from them.
The right does “I know best, I will tell you what to think”.
The left does “I know better than you, you need shepherding”.
The left looks down. The right punches and kicks down.
The point of view, however, is still down on others.
Zebra – “On the Left (in the US in particular), people are less motivated because they sense that they are part of mainstream thinking among the educated and emotionally developed.”
Less motivated to protest? Less motivated to riot? Less motivated like “Black Lives Matter” and “Occupy Wall Street”?
Zebra – “On the Right, they are emotional and angry and defensive because they know they are “wrong”– meaning that they are indeed in a minority group based on real issues”
A minority in the house and Senate? A minority in legislative positions throughout the U.S.? All put there by the minority?
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
Waiting…
352 When a person opposes ” terms like “rights”, “justice”, “Creator”, “good/bad””, and refuses to engage in meaningful conversation regarding these concepts, it is difficult to comprehend on what level of conversation there can be effective communication.
Propaganda? I understand the concept of winning the language to win the argument, but crying foul over language that has been common place for decades is divorced from reality, much like the non-standards and non-worldview that cannot be supported.
Betula,
“A minority…yadda yadda”
Yes, exactly, according to very consistent polling. And, at the Presidential level, the latest election.
The the thing I’m referring to, which I unfortunately can’t remember the source, referred to voting.
If “liberals” voted in the same proportion as those on the right, then there would be exactly the opposite dominance in government representation. That might vary some with more local offices, but overall there is plenty of data to support this.
If you throw in the Electoral College and undemocratic arrangement of the Senate and the House, and gerrymandering, it’s irrefutable.
Zebra – “Yes, exactly, according to very consistent polling”
Meanwhile…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Didn’t go thru?
This one:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Gallup-Poll-Conservatives-Outnumber/2017/01/03/id/766559/
Wow,
But you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding what I mean by AP. I am not going to try to go into it in detail here, but certain points are salient:
1. Mostly AP refers to “followers”. There are “manipulators”, who aren’t AP but know how to motivate them. There are “true believers”, who can lead others and are themselves convinced of the “justness” of the cause, for whatever reason.
2. It manifests in the USA primarily as a phenomenon of the Right rather than the Left, with some exceptions, because the Right message has been tailored to appeal to AP followers.
Think about it– the Left says “don’t exclude people based on immutable characteristics like “race”, sexual orientation, gender, and so on. Definitely not appealing to AP, because a simple-to-follow group identity pattern is one of the basic requirements.
3. Lots of current research documents the futility of trying to reason with AP hard-core followers. Come on, can we get any of these people to actually engage in a rational debate?
So, back to your claim that I don’t want to challenge people to think– if you said that to my former students, many of whom suffered from “the subtle bias of low expectations”, and colleagues, they would fall down laughing. And I am here putting a lot of effort into exactly that goal, in the hope that some readers find the rational arguments useful.
So why don’t you put aside your oppositionality for once, and let the conversation proceed.
So Zebra, where is that “polling” you were talking about?
Is this it.?
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Gallup-Poll-Conservatives-Outnumber/2017/01/03/id/766559/
http://tinyurl.com/y7fjwuea
Here’s an analysis of gun deaths (some of which would be justified/proper/ good, but aren’t differentiated) and vehicle deaths (most of which would be accidental, we can agree?).
It’s a liberal reporter saying that the two are unrelated, however, when making the “public safety” argument, I think the clear lack of outrage/discomfort/angst about one and great energy expended towards the other continues to be hypocritical (which is bad, but some have no basis for declaring proper/improper good/bad)
“1. Mostly AP refers to “followers”.”
AP refers to acceptance without reasoning from an authority. And the only counter is, like with any perception blindness, to admit you are not immune from this. THAT is why the scientific method is there and why it works. It’s not “followers”, hence the “independent” or libertarians will be high on the AP susceptibility index despite thinking or even actually being of very independent nature.
” because the Right message has been tailored to appeal to AP followers”
More, I think, due to the Southern Strategy, which tailored to “independent minded” “christians” who score highly on AP susceptibility has resulted in tailoring the message to those christians’ authoritarian following “reasonng”. It is doubly helpful because such messaging is full of simple assertive language that clearly gets a point across.
Remember “you retard”? Simple assertive language, even though I am fully cognizant of how it is a situationally dependent claim based on the evidence of opinion of the claims being made by the one being so labelled. How much easier is it to just say “you retard” rather than the nuanced issue? And how little it actually changes anything to the people “listening”. If only because most of them aren’t, they’re just waiting for evidence to confirm what they already think will be there.
So I think that statement of yours is incorrect by virtue of being a byproduct of the demographic they targeted.
“Definitely not appealing to AP, because a simple-to-follow group identity pattern is one of the basic requirements.”
But “Thou shall not use the N-Word which I will not say because Thou and I art together in this” is ALSO appealing to AP, because it’s a simple-to-follow-group identity pattern that demarcates based on simple visible characteristics like race or sexuality.
Why do you think I keep asking why some person or other proclaims “him” or “her” when berating? Aside note, “man” is the originally gender neutral term. Wo- being the female and Wer- being male modifiers to man. Hence Werewolf was (male) man-wolf. Kinda obvious what it’s supposed to be then, when “were” means bugger all. What happened is the male operator became so commonly used (patrilinial and patriarchal society being what it is) that it was a time saving device to drop Wer and therefore use man for the male gender AS WELL AS GENDER NEUTRAL.
If you have why “the n-word” is wrong (or why “chairMAN” is wrong, or even “rape is wrong”) then you know why it’s wrong when it’s not “technically” wrong by strict reading of the rules. And when it is not wrong when it;s technically so by the strict reading of the rules. And how to change the definition to keep with the social morality that we develop as part of living in a civilisation with each generation building their morality from the basis of what came before.
“3. Lots of current research documents the futility of trying to reason with AP hard-core followers.”
If you’re only willing to fight when you might win, you’re not really willing to fight. If it is not possible to reason with AP hard-core, then you should be 100% OK with just evicting them, since it is pointless to have them: no discussion works when one party in there refuses to treat it as such.
Fighting when you know you’ll lose does not remove the rightness of the fight. It doesn’t change the reason to fight or the hope of standing up against something if you were never going to win in the first place. “keeping the powder dry” is the democrat’s excuse for not doing what their voters want and letting what their donors desire take place. That isn’t to say rationally deciding to fight elsewhere is always wrong, but it always indicates how much you’re willing to compromise on what you feel is right when you decide to avoid the test of it if you will pay “too high a price” for it.
In short, is it better to win an argument or stand up for your reasoning?
“Here’s an analysis of gun deaths”
Since you “knew” more than 3,000 people dying from pool related accidents were vastly more than ~30,000 people dying from gun shooting, either your analysis proves you wrong or it’s bollocks.
“So, back to your claim that I don’t want to challenge people to think”
OK, but since that is an imaginary case, I can also imagine that you admitted this was the case and there were a slew of “former students” who have popped up here to confirm this.
Betula,
The “polling” I am talking about has to do with positions on issues. That’s why I used ” ‘liberals’ ” as opposed to “self-identified liberals”. Also why I used “those on the right” and not “self-identified conservatives.”
For example, a majority in the US approves of marriage equality– I think it’s something like 54%. And “those on the right” consistently call this a “liberal” position. Likewise with many other issues like healthcare (and even regulation of firearms.)
And there are polls– again, for example, even about firearms, that differentiate between “feel strongly about…” and “somewhat concerned…”, or language like that.
More “lIberals” are “somewhat concerned” about doing something about gun violence, compared to those who are “very concerned”. On the right, the majority “feels strongly about” gun rights, and the minority “cares somewhat…”. Hence the disparity in motivation and turnout.
I realize this is too detailed and nuanced for you, and you really just want to cherry-pick out-of-context non-sequitur statistics, but I like to challenge people to think, contrary to what Wow says.
“contrary to what Wow says.”
I would have to have said something contrary to your assertion first.
Zebra – “The “polling” I am talking about has to do with positions on issues. That’s why I used ” ‘liberals’ ”
No, the polling you were talking about had to do with “voting”
Zebra – “Yes, exactly, according to very consistent polling. And, at the Presidential level, the latest election.”
“The the thing I’m referring to, which I unfortunately can’t remember the source, referred to voting.”
“If “liberals” voted in the same proportion as those on the right, then there would be exactly the opposite dominance in government representation.”
And the “liberals have been getting destroyed at the voting booth.
Of course, you never mentioned or included “moderates”….not sure why.
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
When are you going to back this up Wow?
368 I maintain that pools/accidental drownings account for as many or more deaths than accidental shootings
http://tinyurl.com/l7fqjww
“The simple fact is that when it comes to accidents that kill children, the heart of the problem lies in cars, water, and fires — and that when it comes to firearms, the heart of the problem lies in what people do intentionally. Statistically speaking, the issue of kids who die in gun accidents has received far more attention than it should.”
“368 I maintain that pools/accidental drownings account for as many or more deaths than accidental shootings”
And you’re wrong. Even maths indicates you’re off by a factor of ten. Not opinion, facts.
Betula,
And now you are beginning to gibber and make no sense, which is what always happens because you can’t produce a rational argument.
I said that a smaller percentage of “liberals”, meaning those who, for example, favor marriage equality, don’t vote, compared to the proportion of those on the right who do vote.
The polls tell us what percentage of the population favors, for example, the liberal position on marriage equality, health care, and so on, and how that correlates with voting.
This is elementary stuff really. I can’t believe you don’t understand this.
And this explains why “liberals” (those who favor liberal positions on marriage equality and healthcare and so on tend to “get destroyed at the voting booth”. You can’t win if you don’t vote.
And you can’t win, even if you are the majority, if there are also structural reasons like the Electoral College, unequal representation, and so on, that work against you.
Would you like to address these facts, or keep gibbering on in the usual nonsensical way?
Zebra – You keep talking about polls and facts, yet you haven’t produced any…whereas I have.
Would you like to produce something, or “keep gibbering on in the usual nonsensical way?”
Betula,
I have no interest in randomly exchanging individual polls.
If you would like to be specific about what you want to know, I might put in the effort to go back and find what I am referring to.
So, do you doubt that a majority favors marriage equality, which is clearly identified as a liberal position by those on the Right?
This is referenced in the Gallup poll which you yourself referenced:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx?g_source=gay%20marriage&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
So, ask a specific question and I may be able to find the reference.
Betula,
That poll I referenced also illustrates my main point.
Again, if you have a specific question or disagreement, I will try to find the info.
zebra – “That poll I referenced also illustrates my main point.”
No it doesn’t. Here is your “main point”:
“On the Left (in the US in particular), people are less motivated because they sense that they are part of mainstream thinking among the educated and emotionally developed.”
“On the Right, they are emotional and angry and defensive because they know they are “wrong”– meaning that they are indeed in a minority group based on real issues”
So the left is less motivated because they are the majority and more educated, and the right is more motivated because they are the minority and know they are wrong.
Yet the polls show that overall, the right is the majority, unless you cherry pick certain issues, which is what you did.
You see, when you keep losing, you have to justify it by telling everyone how educated and intelligent you are, you just lack the motivation to get off your ass.
[WARNING: Watch My Language]
Betula,
What polls show that the Right is in the majority?
Did Hillary Clinton get the vote of the Right? That was a majority.
Is the Right in favor of marriage equality? Big majority.
What does “overall” mean? What issues make up “overall”?
Be specific.
1.What polls show that the Right is in the majority?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-us-conservatives-outnumber-liberals-11-points
2. Did Hillary Clinton get the vote of the Right? That was a majority.
The system doesn’t work like that. Trump won the majority of electorates. And again, besides the Presidency, they hold the House and Senate. In addition, the Democrats lost 1,042 state and federal posts under Obama’s tenure…..the voters have a voice. This is reality.
3. Is the Right in favor of marriage equality? Big majority
Single issue
4.What does “overall” mean? What issues make up “overall”?
How about including the economy, terrorism and border security to start…
I think each side is angry about “their” issues.
The left is pretty upset about citizens united (corporations are people) and lack of progress on gun control.
The right is pretty upset about abortion, gay marriage (mostly the use of the word for same sex relationships, not so much about equal rights for civil union), and society pretending that a man is a woman and visa versa.
So there is anger on the left and the right.
Since almost 50% of the population doesn’t pay any federal income taxes, I think a significant number of the people who pay 100% of the federal personal income taxes are pretty upset about having to support themselves and others as well – for welfare, housing, college loans, health care, medicare, medicaid, social security and so forth.
Perhaps it is possible that the people who pay Federal income taxes are more motivated to vote than the people who do not pay Federal income taxes?
That might also explain part of the disparity in voting between the left and the right as well.
Another possibility is that the left tends to concentrate in urban areas, while the right is more spread out. It doesn’t matter how many more people vote blue in California, all their electoral votes are going blue anyways – so all those extra votes are “wasted”. It would be better if some of these voters lived in Michigan, or Ohio or some of the other states the democrats lost by a bit.
Because of where people live, Republicans control the majority of state legislators, governorship’s, the congress and the presidency. I think that is the only “poll” that counts.
Betula,
Majority of the population. Remember, Republicans get elected because their voters know that they are a minority, and turn out in greater numbers proportionately. So, more Republican politicians is evidence for my argument.
I mention marriage equality as an example of what would be a specific issue, not as the only issue.
Show us some data on specific economic issues; saying “the economy” doesn’t tell us anything. Does the majority favor government spending on infrastructure, for example. Stuff like that.
I said “be specific”, and you are being vague.
“The left is pretty upset about citizens united (corporations are people)”
No, most republican voters think that the money the corps put in corrupt politics and want it out. Wolf-pac includes many republican politicians at the state level on “their side”.
The left and right are against it.
Only the politicians and corporations are for it. Because they see an “equitable” exchange of value in the bribes.
Thanks for sharing this information..
I was not aware of this now I at least got some idea..