American Politics

[Tiny 12]

Have to disagree with you on masks, my friend. Attractive women do indeed love a man with aviators and an AR-15, but nothing dries their pussies faster than a guy who has submitted to wearing the face diaper (other than perhaps admitting he votes democrat).

Not necessarily Chris. If you've got a big nose that's been broken a couple of times those diapers can work to your advantage.

[MarquisdeSade1]

You've got a point. Our venerable Democrat posters certainly aren't making the distinction.

And give a televised response.

And thanks Joe.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...g-my-daughter/

[Tiny 12]

As soon as the population would hand over the handguns, a millisecond later they would be taking the rifles in the same truckload.

You've got a point. Our venerable Democrat posters certainly aren't making the distinction.

[Tiny 12]

Of course, people of a Repub bent will call the above analysis bogus but how else can one explain it? The simple facts are that the availability of firearms is the culprit. Where do the firearms come from? They come from straw buyers, from gun shows, from being stolen and they come from outside the state where gun laws are more lax (assuming the state in question has tougher gun laws that neighboring states). Evidently Repub governors, who have the power to convince their Repub-controlled legislatures to enact tougher legislation re: the issues raised above, think the situation in their states is just fine. But if a "Saturday night special" that costs $50 on the street of any large city anywhere now starts costing $1000 because they have become impossible to get, it becomes a loosing proposition to buy a $1000 handgun to stick up a bodega to get $100.

Your entitled to your opinion, but PVMonger is absolutely correct with his assessment of the problem, that "The simple facts are that the availability of firearms is the culprit".

The only other thing I would add, is the presence, of stronger gun control laws and penalties. Funny how it seems to work in most other G7 countries in the world.

You guys are gaslighting, trying to change the subject from the higher incidence of homicides in cities and counties controlled by Democrats.

Go down to the UNODC study, and sort the countries in reverse order by homicide rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

The countries/territories with the highest homicide rates are the USA Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Lesotho, and Trinidad and Tobago. If you spend a little time with Google, you'll see these countries have strict gun laws.

What do they have in common? Well, like Mississippi and Alabama, they have a history of extreme oppression and repression, of treating some of their people reprehensibly. In Mississippi and Alabama, the Democratic Party, which admittedly is much more enlightened than it was many years ago, enabled this treatment.

Taking a look at the other countries with high homicide rates, Honduras is the only one I see that doesn't have reasonably strict gun control laws.

PVMonger, if you would qualify your analysis to treat handguns separately from long guns, we might have more room for agreement. Except that now the cat's out of the bag. There are probably more handguns in America than their are Americans. The price of that Saturday night special's not going from $50 to $1000.

[ChuchoLoco]

Don't injure your back twisting like that.

The realities of the day were that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to be POTUS in 2016. I'll even say that was true in 2008. Her gender was not a disqualifier for the nomination or the job.

The realities of the day were that Barack Obama was clearly the best choice for POTUS among all the other party nominees in 2008 and 2012. His skin color was not a disqyalifier for the nomination or the job.

Maybe someday the Repub Party will break with modern historical precedent and nominate someone qualified for the job of POTUS. Although it strains plausibility that such a person would run as a Repub instead of a Dem, particularly if they happened to be female and / or have black skin, not to mention win the Repub nomination in the first place even if by some bizarre fluke such a person did run as a Repub.

If it weren't for Caucasus Hillary would have beat Obama in the primaries. They are anything but democracy in action. Another thing is I heard that Hillary people were arrogant and Obama's people were very personable and so Hillary didn't get support or enthusiasm from local Democratic organizations. Obama had virtually no experience but what he did have was an excellent education in Constitutional Law. Doubtful Republicans can find a qualified person to run, there just aren't any.

[Tiny 12]

Don't injure your back twisting like that.

The realities of the day were that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to be POTUS in 2016. I'll even say that was true in 2008. Her gender was not a disqualifier for the nomination or the job.

The realities of the day were that Barack Obama was clearly the best choice for POTUS among all the other party nominees in 2008 and 2012. His skin color was not a disqyalifier for the nomination or the job.

Maybe someday the Repub Party will break with modern historical precedent and nominate someone qualified for the job of POTUS. Although it strains plausibility that such a person would run as a Repub instead of a Dem, particularly if they happened to be female and / or have black skin, not to mention win the Repub nomination in the first place even if by some bizarre fluke such a person did run as a Repub.

Kicking Obama in 2012 out of the running (yeah, four years prior experience is probably the best preparation to be POTUS), the best qualified candidates in general elections in 2008/20012/2016 were Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Both had experience running states and businesses. Both were uniters, Republicans who served as governors in blue states. I'd put Hillary at #3. Obama in 2008 would be neck and neck with Trump in 2016 as the worst qualified, both behind McCain, even though he's a neocon.

If Hillary had won in 2016 we might be better off. The negatives would be that she would not have lessened the regulatory burden on businesses, we would have been less likely to lower the corporate tax rate, and perhaps vaccines wouldn't have gone into peoples arms as quickly. I'm being a little iffy here because Hillary Clinton, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell working together might have done good thinks, like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Bill, unlike many Democratic politicians, recognized the wisdom of cutting the capital gains tax rate, and perhaps Hillary would have viewed our corporate tax rate, then the highest in the developed world, similarly. And yes Hillary would have used the presidential bully pulpit more effectively than Trump during COVID. Would we have been better prepared for the pandemic, as you undoubtedly believe? Perhaps marginally, but not enough to make a difference.

The biggest positive is that I don't think we'd be looking at a public debt of 100% of GDP if Hillary had won. A Republican House and Democratic president historically have been the best combination for controlling spending. Trump, Biden, and a Democratic Congress, despite the moderating influence of Senate Republicans before 2021, spent like drunken sailors.

Trump was bad for the Republican Party. Back in 2016 he was threatening to run as an independent if he wasn't chosen as the Party's nominee, despite a pledge he signed in 2015 to do exactly the opposite. Republicans suffered in elections in 2018, 2020 and 2022 because of Trump's influence. I believe the Republican Party would be much stronger today if Hillary had won in 2016, after we suffered through the recession caused by the Hillary Clinton Pandemic. A strong Republican Party is better for the USA.

[Xpartan]

https://nypost.com/2023/02/03/video-...y-car-stabbed/

Cmon you psychotic antiwhite anti american leftists, lets hear your true colors, ala loud keyboard cheering.

Too bad this cyclist didn't have a gun!!

He was probably anti gun, what a shame he would still be alive.

A gun wouldn't have helped that cyclist and you know that if you saw the clip.

He was hit by a car from behind.

The way and the force with which he was hit means he was already seriously if not fatally wounded.

Not even mentioning that the suspect had a BB gun when he approached the cyclist before stabbing him.

But hey, keep at it why don't you. Don't let the truth to stay in a way of your mission.

[Chris P]

As soon as the population would hand over the handguns, a millisecond later they would be taking the rifles in the same truckload.

Yup. It's always a slippery slope with the globohomo agenda.

Remember when they said they just wanted a "limited amnesty" for so-called "Dreamers" who were basically Americans anyway? Cue to today: the entire dregs of the turd world pouring across the border by the million to live on welfare and the black market.

Remember when the homosexuals said they just wanted to be left alone to conduct private relationships? Cue to today: elementary school children being given graphic novels about sucking cock while being diddled by trannies in public libraries and sex clubs alike.

Not only must you not give these anti-white, anti-American SOBs an inch, you must actively push back against their nefarious agenda. The 1965 Immigration Act was clearly passed under false pretenses, so a review of the citizenship of its beneficiaries would be a good place to start.

[Chris P]

https://nypost.com/2023/02/03/video-...y-car-stabbed/

Cmon you psychotic antiwhite anti american leftists, lets hear your true colors, ala loud keyboard cheering.

Too bad this cyclist didn't have a gun!!

He was probably anti gun, what a shame he would still be alive.

If this was the other way round, it would be blazed all over the fake news media for weeks. There would be somber, serious newscasts, tearful speeches on The View, a hollywood miniseries, and Kamala Harris would attend the funeral and support the inevitable riots and looting.

But now? *crickets*.

This is how the fake news media prefer to operate: by lies of omission. They just refuse to report anything that doesn't support the woke leftist globohomo agenda, and create the impression that it never happened.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Crass and indelicate as always!!! Dude, not exactly the kind of betting you want to be associated with, or maybe you do? (...kkkk).

But by all means, you do you. However I will refute your claims.

Well, since most Repubs are just such exemplary, pious, devout and righteous "Christians", and we all know the evidence bares it out, that these kind of vile assaults (as you've stated) mostly happens in the realms and hallowed halls of Church, one can only surmise the following.

These heinous acts, typically carried out in a act of betrayal of trust, from your so called arbiters of holiness, typically in the form clergymen, pastors, bishops, cardinals or even arch-cardinals at the top.

So it isn't hard to imagine that, not only are such unholy practices, carried out on the proverbial "choirboys/girls" and "alter-boys/girls", but no doubt, also on the general Sunday-school Bible class congregation as well. And who attends these Sunday-school Bible classes you ask? Why the righteous QAnon/Repubs of course.

I'm sure you can figure out the rest on your own, w/r to the unnatural completion of the circle-of-abuse and sexual misconduct, from the pious and "righteous-right", given the worldwide reach of the institution and front for "righteous" sexual-deviants, known as the church and its "righteous" minions.

Therefore definitely more like, 1K x 100K the rate, on the RIGHT more than on the left, given the influence of the church.

BTW, perhaps I'm just kidding...or I'm I? After all, you provide no evidence to backup your baseless right-wing claims.

PS: Is it any wonder Rep. Lauren Boebert Calls Separation of Church and State 'Junk' (Talk about doing the church's biding, or should I say pre-grooming? ...kkkk!)

https://people.com/politics/rep-laur...-church-state/

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2023...tting-over-it/

[MarquisdeSade1]

Can you define what "anti american" is? Is it simply any POV that differs from urs?

You arent an American so it wasnt directed at you per se, but in your case it probably is, "You hate us because you aint us".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m4kFbPCd6Q

In the case of the others that hate America and are from there its more they hate it because they are losers and instead of looking in the mirror.

They blame everything and everyone else, includ America and want to destroy it.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...al-revolution/

[PVMonger]

Like I said, policing is done at the local level. All the state police do in my state is hand out parking tickets.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are all gun friendly states that have low firearm homicide rates.

As to places like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, I attribute the problem to over 100 years of Democratic Party misrule prior to 1965. I'm not going to get into that though as the last time you and I did, our posts were deleted, with good reason. In any event, the blue counties in those states, like the USA in general, have the highest homicide rates.

As Chris and I have pointed out to you and Spidy repeatedly, the problem is the handguns. Chris would probably disagree, but in my view, if the powers that be want to ban handguns, they can have at it. Just don't take my long guns.

Remember that from the 1860's until about 1965, the Democratic Party was "conservative" and the Republican Party was "liberal". About 1965, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, virtually all southern Democrats changed parties. https://www.history.com/news/how-the...mocratic-south and https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...blican-redoubt and many other sources too numerous to mention.

Therefore, what you really needed to state was "I attribute the problem to over 100 years of conservative misrule prior to 1965. " Otherwise you are making the exact same mistake as most Republicans (and some Democrats) make.

[PVMonger]

Really? Then why can't you define them?

Haha! This guy actually believes the crap he reads in those woke leftist blogs like Salon.

You are your body. How is it possible that your entire DNA is male, from your feet to your cock to your eyeballs, but somehow a small part of your brain is "female"? Why can these supposedly "female brains" in male bodies not be distinguished from male brains in any way?

Trannies are mentally ill and / or autogynephiles (men who get turned on thinking of themselves as a woman) with a dash of attention-seeking thrown in.

No doubt the ubiquity of porn available to children is a factor, as is the targeting of kids for grooming by homosexual and trannies, which has always been a thing but has gone into overdrive recently with drag queen kid-touching shows and faggot books pushed on elementary kids by blue-haired leftist SSRI-guzzling single teachers. If they can get them early they can fuck them up for life.

Except the kids they groom. And the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for their many STDs, rectal fissures, etc.

We don't "define" men and women because when we do, we get douches asking idiotic questions like "Then why can't you define them?" Or douches making idiotic statements like "Trannies are mentally ill".

That's why.

[JustTK]

anti american leftists, lets hear your true colors, ala loud keyboard cheering.

Can you define what "anti american" is? Is it simply any POV that differs from urs?

[Chris P]

MTG, describes the George Santos, situation as "...he just felt like there was just too much drama, while we want to focus on removing Ilhan Omar."

The real drama is whether Ilhan Omar actually consummated her marriage to her brother when she got hitched to him in an immigration scam. Rumor has it she was game but he didn't want to cheat on his goat back home in Somalia.