• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
snowlover91 said:
And here’s a great example. If you haven’t seen the mini AOC videos I would encourage you to look them up. They are pretty funny and clean. Well, apparently it’s not okay to do this to someone on the left because she is getting death threats now.

"The Left's Harassment and death threats have gone too far for our family. We have been getting calls on our personal phone numbers," Martinez's stepfather Salvatore Schachter tweeted. "For our safety and for our child's safety, we deleted all Mini AOC accounts."
Click to expand...
But for some on the left this is justifiable because anyone regardless of age, gender, race, etc is a bigot, racist, sexist if you make fun of them. Yet as you pointed out earlier, they can display pics of the POTUS head or make incest jokes or threaten to blow up the white house or on and on, the hypocrisy is disgusting. Not sure how anyone doesn't see the double standard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
BUT..... we have the freedom to disagree and debate. God Bless the USA

Happy Independence Day!
72db08270112e3850f65b481acdc6aac.jpg


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
Just what is controversial about a citizenship question on a census??

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No reason really. Its a completely necessary question now because each state is given delegates on the electorate based on the number of citizens each state has. Since some states have illegals, you have to ask this question bc each state can be given a certain number of delegates based on having the illegals even though they "can't vote". For instance, California could be given an additional amount of delegates that could even overturn an election due to an imbalanced amount of delegates that the state didn't even have....for an instance. So the question of citizenship has now become a necessity, and legal since each state has to know how many delegates to be given, its the only way to know.
 
Avalanche said:
No reason really. Its a completely necessary question now because each state is given delegates on the electorate based on the number of citizens each state has. Since some states have illegals, you have to ask this question bc each state can be given a certain number of delegates based on having the illegals even though they "can't vote". For instance, California could be given an additional amount of delegates that could even overturn an election due to an imbalanced amount of delegates that the state didn't even have....for an instance. So the question of citizenship has now become a necessity, and legal since each state has to know how many delegates to be given, its the only way to know.
Click to expand...

THIS ^^^
I'm going to catch hell but please hear me out. I would take it a drastic step further. I would encourage CONSERVATIVES in states like California, Illinois, New York etc. (unwinnable blue states) to NOT partake in the census. Conservatives most definitely partake in red states and especially pink states.
edited here to hear. Lol
 
Last edited:
EV_WS said:
THIS ^^^
I'm going to catch hell but please here me out. I would take it a drastic step further. I would encourage CONSERVATIVES in states like California, Illinois, New York etc. (unwinnable blue states) to NOT partake in the census. Conservatives most definitely partake in red states and especially pink states.
Click to expand...

It’s a good idea but wouldn’t work. It’s still top heavy towards the blue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EV_WS said:
THIS ^^^
I'm going to catch hell but please here me out. I would take it a drastic step further. I would encourage CONSERVATIVES in states like California, Illinois, New York etc. (unwinnable blue states) to NOT partake in the census. Conservatives most definitely partake in red states and especially pink states.
Click to expand...

You're on point. Its no different than what they are doing. Not only are states with more illegals going to cancel votes out in their states, its going to cancel/offset the amount of delegates my state has. Most of the general public doesn't understand this, and to support it means you don't give a crap if my vote and my state gets cancelled out at the expense of your state getting more delegates. Its a means to an end even if its illegal. Now, lets watch TV and listen to them talk about being the party of fairness and equality.
 
NoSnowATL said:
It’s a good idea but wouldn’t work. It’s still top heavy towards the blue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, it wouldn't affect the Red/Blue, but would give them less delegates, and if the electorate were close, could decide an election. Anyone in support of illegals being counted, even if they can't vote, just to get more delegates is saying its okay to steal and rob your state. Not only is it illegal, but its also saying you're okay with it morally.
 
Avalanche said:
Yes, it wouldn't affect the Red/Blue, but would give them less delegates, and if the electorate were close, could decide an election. Anyone in support of illegals being counted, even if they can't vote, just to get more delegates is saying its okay to steal and rob your state. Not only is it illegal, but its also saying you're okay with it morally.
Click to expand...

This is why voter ID is so important and why Dems are against it. They understand the advantage they have and why they get so angry when they lose because they way it is now it’s so hard for a Republican to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On this day to celebrate the birthday of our great country, most of what I'm reading today in various places is negative and regards blue against red and red against blue. There's hardly any talk about working together like one country and compromising somewhere in the middle. The #1 enemy is the other side rather than any other country. Sad and only getting worse. I don't know what that portends but I don't know how this can be good for our country..
 
Last edited:
GaWx said:
On this day to celebrate the birthday of our great country, most of what I'm reading today in various places is negative and regards blue against red and red against blue. There's hardly any talk about working together like one country and compromising somewhere in the middle. The #1 enemy is the other side rather than any other country. Sad and only getting worse. I don't know what that portends but I don't know how this can be good for our country..
Click to expand...
It isn't ... can't be said any simpler, unless perhaps with one word ... ain't
 
Last edited:
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Click to expand...
 
metwannabe said:
Were you a chanter?
Click to expand...
No quite frankly I couldn’t join in on the send her back chant lol. I abstained as did many people . Was a good time , took a couple black friends with me as well , some black protestors called out at them “ my black kings don’t be misled “ my poor buds felt so awkward as everyone stared at em.
 
I'm VERY much against LGBT hatred (it is horrible just like any group based hatred), but at the same time I agree here with Mario Lopez:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebr...ansgender-children/ar-AAF7EaY?ocid=spartanntp

I think he's right.

He said, "if you're 3 years old and you're saying you're feeling a certain way or you think you're a boy or a girl or whatever the case may be, I just think it's dangerous as a parent to make this determination then, well, okay, then you're going to a boy or a girl, whatever the case may be ... It's sort of alarming and my gosh, I just think about the repercussions later on."

"He then conflated gender identity with sexual orientation, saying, 'When you're a kid... you don't know anything about sexuality yet. You're just a kid.'"

"'I think parents need to allow their kids to be kids but at the same time, you gotta be the adult in the situation,' Lopez responded. 'Pause with that and—I think the formative years is when you start having those discussions and really start making these 'declarations.''"

---------------------------------------

Bottom line for me: What the heck does a 3 year old, even a 6 year old or, heck, even a 10 year old know about gender identity/sexuality? When I was that young, I didn't even know anything about those things. I just wanted to play with my friends, have fun like a kid should, look forward to birthday presents and family trips, enjoy Sat AM cartoons, look forward to going out to eat, etc. You know, kid kind of things. Come on people, use common sense!
 
GaWx said:
I'm VERY much against LGBT hatred (it is horrible just like any group based hatred), but at the same time I agree here with Mario Lopez:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebr...ansgender-children/ar-AAF7EaY?ocid=spartanntp

I think he's right.

He said, "if you're 3 years old and you're saying you're feeling a certain way or you think you're a boy or a girl or whatever the case may be, I just think it's dangerous as a parent to make this determination then, well, okay, then you're going to a boy or a girl, whatever the case may be ... It's sort of alarming and my gosh, I just think about the repercussions later on."

"He then conflated gender identity with sexual orientation, saying, 'When you're a kid... you don't know anything about sexuality yet. You're just a kid.'"

"'I think parents need to allow their kids to be kids but at the same time, you gotta be the adult in the situation,' Lopez responded. 'Pause with that and—I think the formative years is when you start having those discussions and really start making these 'declarations.''"

---------------------------------------

Bottom line for me: What the heck does a 3 year old, even a 6 year old or, heck, even a 10 year old know about gender identity/sexuality? When I was that young, I didn't even know anything about those things. I just wanted to play with my friends, have fun like a kid should, look forward to birthday presents and family trips, enjoy Sat AM cartoons, look forward to going out to eat, etc. You know, kid kind of things. Come on people, use common sense!
Click to expand...
I remember saying the same thing basically on Ampol and got dragged for it lol.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 
SimeonNC said:
I remember saying the same thing basically on Ampol and got dragged for it lol.
Click to expand...

Why am I not the least bit surprised? I would have been shocked if they didn't do that as the hive there is composed of interchangeable far lefties who almost never tolerate opinions that differ even just a slight bit from their own without being disrespectful to those folks. It isn't an intense discussion/debate forum. It is more like a yelling and screaming forum and I don't see it ever changing. I mean it hasn't in many years. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Being tough on illegal immigration does not make the POTUS or anyone else responsible for the horror in El Paso. That 21 yr old POS, his heart full of hatred and his own bigotry is solely responsible.

We need to pray for the hearts of people, ensure more good people have guns than bad (I carry everywhere) and execute these monsters immediately.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
The problem with the less guns argument is eventually the vast majority that will have less guns, are those that were never ever going to carry out these atrocities in the first place. Maybe if they don't have access to a gun they will figure out how to make explosives and kill 100's instead. Over 35k people a year die in DWI accidents, there is never talk of "less alcohol" or "less vehicles", it's not the car, it's not the gun, it's the heart/mind/soul of the one behind the tool of destruction.

Also people love to forget the heroes, the good guys with guns that stopped the bad guy....in the Tx church shooting it was a guy with an AR that prevented further massacre. Also the usher at the church in Tn, there's others but their names don't get thrown around daily so we forget.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
The problem with the less guns argument is eventually the vast majority that will have less guns, are those that were never ever going to carry out these atrocities in the first place. Maybe if they don't have access to a gun they will figure out how to make explosives and kill 100's instead. Over 35k people a year die in DWI accidents, there is never talk of "less alcohol" or "less vehicles", it's not the car, it's not the gun, it's the heart/mind/soul of the one behind the tool of destruction.

Also people love to forget the heroes, the good guys with guns that stopped the bad guy....in the Tx church shooting it was a guy with an AR that prevented further massacre. Also the usher at the church in Tn, there's others but their names don't get thrown around daily so we forget.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Agree 100% .... Even if you banned all the guns in America (excluding law enforcement), the deranged folks will still find a way to kill people. Don't blame the tool for the crime. That's the mistake that folks keep making.
 
Cad Wedge NC said:
Agree 100% .... Even if you banned all the guns in America (excluding law enforcement), the deranged folks will still find a way to kill people. Don't blame the tool for the crime. That's the mistake that folks keep making.
Click to expand...

Definitely not ALL the guns. But perhaps a consideration should be made that some of the guns that are now legal be made illegal such as those that are able to shoot numerous bullets within a short period of time. Maybe that would reduce the number of mass shootings. Just a thought.

Another idea I read is to reduce the amount of ammunition that can be sold at one time to anyone. Could that help??

As usual, the best answer is probably somewhere between the extremes.
 
GaWx said:
Definitely not ALL the guns. But perhaps a consideration should be made that some of the guns that are now legal be made illegal such as those that are able to shoot numerous bullets within a short period of time. Maybe that would reduce the number of mass shootings. Just a thought.

Another idea I read is to reduce the amount of ammunition that can be sold at one time to anyone. Could that help??

As usual, the best answer is probably somewhere between the extremes.
Click to expand...

Still wouldn’t help. The black market is the reason. If you want something you can find it and a law or ban or reduction can’t help. I don’t see anything helping to reduce the amount of mass shootings unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GaWx said:
Definitely not ALL the guns. But perhaps a consideration should be made that some of the guns that are now legal be made illegal such as those that are able to shoot numerous bullets within a short period of time. Maybe that would reduce the number of mass shootings. Just a thought.

Another idea I read is to reduce the amount of ammunition that can be sold at one time to anyone. Could that help??

As usual, the best answer is probably somewhere between the extremes.
Click to expand...
Numerous bullets within a short period of time - your referencing all semi-automatic weapons. I feel like there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding of firearms out there. Anyway, aside from my 2nd amendment right to bear arms, it's not practical and it will not work. Why must I and all law abiding gun owners sacrifice the right to defend self, our family or any third person because of others actions? Banning weapons, ammo of any kind only gets it out of the hands of the good guys and allowing even less resistance for the bad guys to carry out their evil deeds.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
Numerous bullets within a short period of time - your referencing all semi-automatic weapons. I feel like there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding of firearms out there. Anyway, aside from my 2nd amendment right to bear arms, it's not practical and it will not work. Why must I and all law abiding gun owners sacrifice the right to defend self, our family or any third person because of others actions? Banning weapons, ammo of any kind only gets it out of the hands of the good guys and allowing even less resistance for the bad guys to carry out their evil deeds.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Assault weapons bans are coming. But like I said in the other thread, I doubt it will have a significant impact. The gun debate is a moot point, outside of that.
 
Rain Cold said:
Assault weapons bans are coming. But like I said in the other thread, I doubt it will have a significant impact. The gun debate is a moot point, outside of that.
Click to expand...
It is?? I'd like to know how and then I'd like to know who would define "assault weapons"? Someone please tell me again how those who break the laws will choose to abide by a weapon ban law??

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
It is?? I'd like to know how and then I'd like to know who would define "assault weapons"? Someone please tell me again how those who break the laws will choose to abide by a weapon ban law??

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I hear you and agree, but I think the "comprise" is going to be ban future sales of rifles like ARs. I don't think it will do a lot of good because there are still going to be illegal ways of obtaining them.
 
Rain Cold said:
I hear you and agree, but I think the "comprise" is going to be ban future sales of rifles like ARs. I don't think it will do a lot of good because there are still going to be illegal ways of obtaining them.
Click to expand...
You probably will be right, but without an amendment to the constitution (as Phil has been pointing out) it will be due to liberal judges legislating from the bench.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
metwannabe said:
You probably will be right, but without an amendment to the constitution (as Phil has been pointing out) it will be due to liberal judges legislating from the bench.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Will they need an ammendment to ban ARs and equivalents? I'm out of my lane with the legal aspects around such a policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top