Johnson demands Biden send in National Guard during raucous Columbia visit

Violent protestors should always be arrested.

 

Accuracy Matters.

Again: Throw Bricks Get Shot.

 

Protests don't have to interfere with other folks' activities.

 

So long as protesters don't do anything illegal, they have the same right to the streets as anybody else.

 

Correct. Occupying public spaces and blocking their use by others should get the attention of police.

Old folks better watch out for when young people decide to protest inflated asset values (home prices!), crazy tuition at universities, stalled real wages, etc. The Palestinian stuff is a trial run.

 

.... and the crazy number of guns out on the streets.

 

Gun bans are an issue that (1) hurts you politically, and (2) one you're unlikely to get anywhere on. Are guns the hill you want to die on? (Rightwingers--is abortion your "hill"?)

Is alienating rural areas worth it?

P.S. Thought you might be interested...

 

Not as much as it hurts people who get shot. That's the difference between us and MAGAs (including MAGAs that won't vote for Trump). We don't believe that EVERYTHING should be measured in terms of political expediency. We believe there are things that should have priority. You know like... people....

 

So, you're prepared to say gun control is important enough to risk defeat and see them pass anti-abortion laws, tax cuts for the rich, continued huge return to capital with tens of millions of American workers falling out of the middle class, millions losing benefits like SNAP?

Well, gun control might sacrifice a lot of things if you can't maintain a winning coalition of interests.

 

Running on funding for SNAP, on support for the middle class, on opposing tax cuts for the rich or on abortion is as much a "risk" as running for sensible gun control legislation.

Is there a reason why you want to derail this thread?

 

I disagree. Taking away guns makes enemies of a lot of single-issue voters.

Odious commentary.

 

It also makes friends of a lot of single-issue voters. ALL the issues you mention do both. The candidates I want to vote for are the ones who take positions based on principle, and not on political expediency.

I don't know when this changed, but we used to call politicians who took positions based on the number of votes it would add or subtract "demagogues". You apparently think it's acceptable. Maybe even desirable. That's the kind of attitude that raises demagogues to power.

 

Or as they do in Australia, say prayers, get stabbed in the head

 

Do that math

 

Mike took the opportunity to throw shade on Joe over something he has no business getting involved in. After all, he's got a lot of work to do repairing relations with the House Crazies.

 

You're not reading. My point is that we need to vote for politicians who DON'T "do the math". Vote for politicians with PRINCIPLES.

I don't know what your point is supposed to be, but politicians who "do the math" used to be known as "demagogues". But somehow they became the "sweethearts" of the right. All this despite the fact that demagogues rarely (maybe "never) deliver on their promises. But the right cares more about promises than about real action.

 

I know, most propagandists are deathly afraid of accurate math.. As for that graph, there was an answer to GUN OWNERSHIP whe it is combined

Hint.
Two categories equal greater numbers of owners than the number of the so called gun nuts.. Math is hard when the people doing it DON'T want to believe their lying eyes

 

I don't like politicians who like math too much, though.

Oh... BTW... did you have a point? Not sure if your graph is supposed to make some sort of point. Or was it just for decoration?

 

Lmao, the question is DID YOU have a point replying to my post with the graph

 

A point related to the graph? I don't think so. Looks like neither of us had anything to say that had anything to do with the graph.

Pretty, though... I think...

 

LMFAO

Sure Golem, suuurre..

The numbers don't support your claim

 

Your position on guns may not be acceptable to other potential supporters if what you want is an outright ban. Could you find a compromise position more acceptable than "making perfect the enemy of the good," perhaps risking positions on other important issues? How about black people pushing reparations? If they don't get their way, does it mean they should sit on their hands in November?

I think abortion should be 100% legal. Should I ignore any candidate who talks about using the old Roe v. Wade standard? Isn't that what you're doing on gun control?

You're entitled to vote for the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but you should make it clear you're unwilling to compromise so those of us prepared to compromise to get important things done can move on.

 

I'll leave it there because I have no clue what the hell you're trying to say. And the fact is that it's most likely something weird thing you have in mind that I don't care about.

 

I know NOBODY who wants an outright ban (whatever that means)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it looks like some kind of binary thought process. I don't believe abortion should be 100% legal. Roe v Wade didn't make it 100% legal. And Roe v Wade had many flaws. So I'm not following.

Remember: I don't think in binary! Which is in what people usually incur when they think in terms like "100%"

No!!! Whatever it is, the answer is most definitely not!

 

Interesting, reply to a post, and then claim *bolded*.. Then again it's no surprise..