Show newer

@Romaq Everyone is acting a fool.. I have yet to decide who i am voting for... no one makes me want to vote for them yet.

@SETIEric Neither, I thought I was quite clear what my issue was with all of Bidens picks... and in my explanation i never once said anythig about the bar association so i have no idea what your on about.

I listed some specific examples in the thread already, the issue is biden tends to pick people whose history is almost as bad as his own as a pro-segregationist.

How to pick a political stance.

Extermist Republican: 49% of people will hate you

Extremist Democrat: 49% of people will hate you

Moderate: 99% of people will hate you.

What sort of glue is best for fixing broken equipment and antennas? ... why Elmer's Glue of course!

@JonKramer Yea I have no doubt we are both arguing in good faith and with the common good on our mind.. that means a lot.

@JonKramer im not sure how "playing the odds" when you actually know a persons history is makign it more fair... None of this logic makes any sense to me.

That said it sounds like we are at a standstill, and that is ok too.

@JonKramer Why play the odds when you already know the mechanics? Why should I have to play the odds and guess at who is likely to have a good/shitty track record when i can literally just look at the track record?

@SETIEric Ok, but we are talking about the left and Joe right now... while that information would be great, particularly if you have some sources, and id love to hear more... im not sure what hte relevance is here.

I often see criticisms of one party being countered with discussing the other party.. why, the other party doing evil things has no bearing ont he evil things your party is doing. I am not more ok with the shit the right does, but lets not use it to distract from the topic being discussed.

@Romaq You have tons of options, and its always a tradeoff between your safety re: accidents vs your safety in an attack... Gun ownership is often about finding an appropriate balance.

For example level 3 holster with a gun with a safety and/or not chambering it will certainly put you in a pretty safe spot... But chambering a bullet adds a good 2 seconds to your readiness too... Most cops are always chambered for that reason.

@Romaq one thing pointed out is if your gun doesnt have the right sort of safety level 3 may put you at higher risk.

For my 1911 though i feel the level 3 pairs nicely.

@freemo

Thank you. As a general rule, I dislike guns. The brandishing seems more to do with penis extension by people who are not bothering with training and clearly have a lack of respect for a lethal device. I particularly strongly dislike where it is a badge of intimidation.

There are people in a position where they do need them, they do get training, and they respect the lethality of the weapon. On behalf of you and others where a gun isn't a toy or magic dildo, I respect and do want you to have access. I'm not afraid of guns, but I have a healthy fear of freaking morons.

@Romaq i wouldnt be comfortable carrying a gun if i didnt train often enough that i woukd be confortable knowing where the bullet will wind up.when i pull the trigger.

While mandatory training has some nuance that might need discussing as a general principle i agree, if you carry a gun it is irresponsible if you arent going to a range regularly.

I also agree that a gun used as a toy or for cool points is a very stupid way to treat a device that requires a great deal of respect.

For example i spent a lot of tine picking what sort of gun i was going to carry and much of that decision came down to safety concerns of the various models as well as the holster it might pair with.

@JonKramer if the logic is thst being punched in the face makes you more sympathetic to people being punched in the face, then why not just look at if they are sympathetic directly... if someone clearly isnt synpathetic to people being punched in the face, thrn why give them extra credit for being ounched in the face... the logic makes no sense.

Tbis broken logic shoukd be challenged at every level. For example if the history of racism caused more black people to be poor, instead of helping black people help poor people. Its far more effective and addresses the problem directly and fairly by default.

@JonKramer yea given her past thats not an acceptable reason... Having been abused, when you are also an abuser, doesnt (and shouldnt) qualify you. There should be only one thing that qualifies you for a position where human rights are important to our future.... a good track record on human rights.

@JonKramer No it goes WAY beyond "tough on crime"

Kamala for example has a very long history of opposing bills that would hold cops accountable and even actively told her staff not to persue **any** cases where police shot and killed unarmed people, causing many murdering cops to get off.

That, as one among a long list of examples, is the exact opposite of being "touch on crime".. thats about giving cops a free pass to murder... even then its a small blip in a long list of horrendous decisions by her. We see those same patterns in anyone Biden seems to pick, its disgusting.

@JonKramer The people he has selected int he past have had horrific history in terms of social justice.. while they arent hitler the point is the same, if they already have been abusive to minorities with their past actions it is no exuse to choose them simply because of their race.

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.