Yet, you don't see liberals constantly whining and complaining about the news coverage. Only the little conservative are so delicate that they have to lash out everytime their feelings get hurt because they feel like the media was unfair to their dear leader.

The father should be charged with these murders.
If you leave a gun accessible to others and it gets used in a crime then you should be held just as responsible for that crime as the person who carried out the act.

#4 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

How about we just pass a law where anyone can sue you for $10,000 (per person) if a gun that you ever had ownership of is used in the murder of a person? The Supreme Court seems to have no problem with it.

Biden has been in politics longer than most of you have been alive. So yes thanks Joe.

#8 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

PRETTY SURE he was never a representative of or held office in Mississippi.

But don't let any inconvenient facts get in the way of your narrative.

False dichotomy, of course.

#25 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Lol... No. Try again.

A false dichotomy is pretending that there are only two choices when there are not.

We are not making a choice here. We are comparing two different situations. You may be claiming the two situations are not comparable (false equivalence - apples to oranges), but that is not a "false dichotomy".

Most importantly these incidents occurred in two different states, it's a misdemeanor in Nevada, a felony in Texas.
Do yes, there is a disparity here, but it is NOT racism.

#15 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

It is a class D felony in Nevada. And he broke two laws... voting under someone else's name AND voting twice in the same election. So the maximum punishment is 8 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

He KNOWINGLY committed these crimes. He should rot in jail every day of 8 years, and have to pay every cent of $10,000. But, he is a white Republican and we know that the laws do not apply to them.

I am in favor of preventing climate change as well, but I am also in favor of Biden following the law? You guys seem to want him to become Trump when it is convenient for your political agenda.

He TRIED to put a hold on all leases. He was blocked by a judge. He is appealing. Yes, he COULD not abide by the decision and further weaken a bedrock tenet of our government (checks and balances), but then you lose all moral authority to complain when Trump did the same thing.

I completely support Biden in this. Definitely not my preferred outcome, but my values and ideology supercede my short term political wants.

If you want to discard your ideology and values whenever it becomes convenient become a Republican. They do it all the time, you will fit right in.

Wake up. We can't defeat the monster by becoming it. That only makes it stronger.

#9 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

Let's release everyone from jail who is there for a misdemeanor, then. Or transfer him to a jail where they keep people who commit misdemeanors. I think this guy should get treated exactly the same as everyone else. No better, no worse.

Just because you are a conservative does not mean you should get special treatment.

It is the response I would expect from a conservative. "Doing the right thing" or "because they share our values" does not even register as a potential consideration. Because conservatives don't believe in doing the right thing, and they no longer (or never did) have any values. Tucker wants to be friends with Russia just because they are the "rich" (in energy reserves) or "powerful" (militarily) kid in high school who people suck up to even though he is a total douche. Conservatives are those spineless -------- who suck up to that kid because they think that they will benefit personally from doing so.

I guess you'll be pleased with at least yourself as they walk you up the stairs to the gallows.
You're still thinking with a mindset of ensured comfort and a lack of real consequences.
Sorry, but that's not our reality anymore. A smug sense of self satisfaction is going to get people killed.

#40 | POSTED BY JPW

You act like you know what the answer is... how to "win". But you don't. You just think you might know what it is. So you might lose anyways, and have sacrificed your morals and values in the process. Or, we could choose to follow my ideology and might still win without becoming something reprehensible.

If you could say that following your path would succeed with 100% certainty then you might be able to convince me. But you have absolutely no certainty that your path will succeed. For one, because sacrificing your morals and values might win you marginally more Trumpers, but will probably end up depressing the turnout of the people that you would respect for their values and morals, and you don't know whether you will gain more of the deplorables than you lose in people who actually care.

I am all for realism, for working within the constraints of the system and voting for people who can win (though, I would MUCH PREFER a STV system so that you could vote for your morals AND make sure your vote is not wasted). And it is a point that doing the right thing could energize the people that are invested in perpetrating racism and inequality. But berating people for choosing to support the right thing, because you think pandering to people who don't deserve our respect is more likely (but that is only your opinion) to succeed crosses a line for me. If you don't have any real values guiding you (because you are BERATING people for having those values) then what is there to actually keep you off that slippery slope? They also thought pandering to the Nazis (and giving them Austria) would give them the "win". Do you happen to know how that turned out?

Democrats - do you think this well help you win elections and keep fascist from ending the country?
Or will it just make you feel woke while pushing more swing voters to the right?
Is his worth losing democracy over?

#18 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Yes. Very much so. Conservatives sacrifice their values, their morals, and their ethics in order to win elections. I can't even tell you what the "conservative" ideology is anymore because conservatives have shredded it so often when it is convenient (their reaction to "fast and furious" made it clear they think that "guns kill people", governors banning local mask mandates is the opposite of "small government", and let's not even start on their complete lack of any sort of "fiscal responsibility" when they can spend the money on what they want).

But I choose to do the right thing. It is not just for selfish gain, because I want "my guys" to win elections. It is because I think that doing the right thing has value in and of itself, that treating all people with dignity and respect is a worthy goal. You can try to play the fads and populism if you want, ride the tiger just like the Republican party, try to become the next Trump. But I will not support your effort. Regardless of short term consequences, I believe that doing the right thing, being a moral person will win out in the end. I may be naive in that, but I also think that one party needs to differentiate itself by being a moral leader. If that makes you go vote for Trump, that is your choice, and in my mind worth the cost of being true to myself and being able to face myself in the mirror.

Dems are just ticked they couldn't do it and there is no question that if they could they would have.

#5 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Yes there is. You just choose to remain ignorant so you can continue with your "well the people that I support are complete --------, so I will try to convince myself that the people I don't support are -------- too so I don't have to acknowledge that me supporting -------- makes me a ------- as well" schtick.

Yeah... I don't see what the big deal is. This is between him and his wife. Doesn't concern me.

Just like the wicked witch who guaranteed to close mines and other businesses effectively putting people out of work,
#9 | POSTED BY GTJR AT 2021-10-02 09:26 AM

Unlike the orange combover conservative president that promised the mines wouldn't close if he was elected, yet they still closed anyways.

The outcome was no different. The liberal tried to do the right thing and tell the truth. But the ignorant people just preferred to be lied to so they could continue to pretend that the inevitable wasn't coming.

#3 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2021-10-01 11:40 AM

Surprise surprise... another "well, both of them do it" post from Humtake.

So, I guess you have given up on "constructive ideas" already? That took less than, what... 24 hours?

but we have powerful people who violated the law pushing it starting to receive indictments.

#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2021-10-01 10:49 AM

Link?

Are you talking about the Durham flop? We were told over and over again that there was a huge deep state conspiracy that it uncovered and the indictments were going to rain down, and then it turned out to be a humongous nothingburger which accomplished its primary goal of riling up gullible and ignorant conservatives with baseless accusations. So forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of these general claims of "powerful people" who are going to "start receiving indictments".

#11 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Lol... the only "logic" that you used was the logical fallacy of "two wrongs make a right" (you are justifying conservatives being hypocrites because you believe that liberals are hypocrites).

And I don't support people burning cities. Neither does Biden, or the majority of liberals. So will just go ahead and knock that strawman down. Anyone who actually engaged in a crime (such as arson) should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But, some people acting badly does not justify infringing on the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of the protesters. So I will support the protesters having the right to assemble peacefully AT THE SAME TIME that I support any ACTUAL rioters (not just people who happened to be in the vicinity) being prosecuted.

And I didn't specifically advocate for the filibuster being overturned (though, just like there is no point in having nuclear weapons if you are not willing to use them, there is no point in having the "nuclear option" if you are not willing to follow through with it if the other side does not negotiate in good faith). But, Fish said that Democrats had control over the government and should be able to push through their agenda. I was just pointing out the falsehood of that reasoning with the filibuster still in place.

There is a LOGICAL refutation of your post pointing out the actual LOGICAL FALLACIES that you used. I look forward to you actually making some real points in the future that are not based on false logic so that we may in fact have an intelligent debate.

And I have plenty of constructive ideas. Single Transferrable Vote is one of them. But also the Freedom to Vote act sounds like a pretty good idea. I asked in the first post in that thread for ANY conservatives to give any justifiable reason why they would not support it, or would be fine with their representatives not supporting it. But so far... crickets. If you ACTUALLY want to have a debate based on ideas, maybe you should mosey over there and try to find something other than "both of them do it" to post.

#21 My pride hasn't been hurt at all. I simply like to call out BS when I see it. If it really was Republicans driving vax hesitancy I'd acknowledge it. Lord knows Republicans can be stupid about things. However, it isn't the case.

#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

#37 Did you even read the CNN article I posted? Or are you too busy clinging to a stupid narrative?

#40 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Did YOU read your article? Or are you busy clinging to a stupid narrative???

"This is very much unlike the vaccine resistant group, of whom 55% are Republican or Republican leaning independents. Just 21% of that group are Democrats or Democratic leaning independents."

So, the "hesitant" (which I believe are the 15% of people taking the "wait and see" approach) are a cross section of all people. But they are also willing to be open minded and convinced. But the "resistant" are a majority Republicans. Who are the 19% (BIGGER than the "hesitant" group) of people that are "definitely not" getting the virus, or only if required.

You just cherry picked "hesitant" and only talked about that, when your own source points out that the people who are more EXTREMELY against the vaccine skew very strongly Republican. So vaccine opposition in VERY CLEARLY driven by Republicans.

So, based upon your statement in #24, are you now going to acknowledge that it is Republicans who are driving it, or is this just another example of a conservative lying?

It's not that the Republicans have become less reasonable it's that the Democrats have become more unhinged. Afterall it's their own party because of the progressive wing not willing to bend that can't get anything done even though they control the three branches.

#4 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2021-09-30 11:28 AM

It surprises me HOW MANY conservatives don't know something as basic as "what the three branches of government are". Well actually it doesn't surprise me anymore. Since they also wave around the constitution but have no problem violating and contradicting it when it is in their best interest. And generally just don't know what is in it (or pretend phrases, like "a well regulated militia", just aren't in there).

Fish... what do you think the three branches of government are? "Executive", "Senate", and "House"?

Because liberals, who actually know how our government works, realize that it is "Executive", "Legislature", and "Judicial". And it is widely know that liberals DO NOT control the judicial branch. In fact, conservatives have packed it full of activist conservative judges (which is why, if you ever actually read any real news, you would know that the Supreme Court is going to be considering overturning Roe v. Wade in contravention of all established precedents).

But, if you actually do want Democrats to own what they are or are not "able to get done", does that mean that you are in favor of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. Because otherwise conservatives have veto power over any legislation.

I want to hear any conservatives give me an analysis of why (with links or citations) they would not support this, or why they are willing to allow their representatives to not support this.

And I guess "because conservatives will lose if we make voting easier and more fair" is a valid reason, but it kinda makes you a crappy person and crappy citizen (because you are obviously putting party and your ideology over doing the right thing for the country).

#15 - responsible gun owners don't to that.

#16 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Yeah... and "No true Scotsman would beat his wife".

Logical fallacies for the weak minded.

Saying capitalism is "bad" to me is like saying freedom is bad. It isn't - but you have to have rules.

#7 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

Conservatives also don't think that there should be rules that restrict their "freedom", only the freedom of other people. So I don't think your comparison is going to do any good in convincing him of your point.

Conservatives treat capitalism like a religion. Capitalism is perfect, like a gift from God. They have complete faith in it, regardless of what facts or science may say. If you try to regulate capitalism then you are committing a blasphemy, your faith is not strong enough and you deserve to be drawn and quartered in their ideological crusade. They cannot understand that liberals see capitalism as just another tool, with strengths and weaknesses just like everything else. So that we need regulation to take advantage of the strengths while alleviating the weaknesses. It is too nuanced for their religiously trained minds. Trying to convince them that there needs to be a balance. They only understand classifying something as either "good" or "bad" so trying to get them to think critically and holistically about it is an exercise in frustration.

Right now, science is predicting that the jet stream is going to inch north over the years and cause deserts in many places that aren't deserts today. So using the same logic, everyone who lives in the projected "drought zone" that will be impacted by those jet streams should also have their rates rise. It could move in 10 years or it could move in 100 years...doesn't matter. All that matters is insurers have a reason to raise rates so they are going to.
It's funny that for a party who claims capitalism is so bad, you are so easily persuaded to become part of the riches that come with using half truths and bad logic.

#2 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Just a sec... who buys "drought insurance"??? Or are you claiming that the new deserts will need (more expensive) flood insurance???

Conservative "logic" is really hard for me to follow.