All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Man, 30...are we...are we...AGREEING on stuff? *offers a rum-soaked high five*

“Cats and dogs! Living together!”
—-Peter Venkman, Ghostbusters

[zinderel]

“Cats and dogs! Living together!”
—-Peter Venkman, Ghostbusters

Lol. RIGHT!? Jeezumcrow, I've imbibed way more than usual. This world of ours, man...makes me wanna just become Jack Sparrow (or...whoever the less Johnny Deppish pirate du jour is) and pretend that none of this crap is happening and we're all united against the damn British again...

At least we knew who our enemy was, then...unlike now, when they run the country and no one cares because SURVIVOR is on...

Well...the world, or the rum...either way...*goes back to drunkenly watching THE MAGICIANS in order to not think anymore*

[numberthirty]

Man, 30...are we...are we...AGREEING on stuff? *offers a rum-soaked high five*

Well...

There, I'm just not seeing the whole "Nuclear is cheaper..." take.

That's before you even get into the future of improvements in each technology, and what the comparison will look like when those improvements have happened.

[zinderel]

Well...

There, I'm just not seeing the whole "Nuclear is cheaper..." take.

That's before you even get into the future of improvements in each technology, and what the comparison will look like when those improvements have happened.

Anyone who thinks nuclear energy is the solution hasn't been paying attention to the world in the last 75+ years or so. Between Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and Fukushima (which as I understand is STILL affecting the planet thanks to the ocean taking the toxic waste and radiation from that horror show global thanks to currents) - not to mention Lake Karachay (where spending an hour could be enough to kill you) and Russia's rumored Endgame plans for that toxic waste dump - we have plenty of evidence that nuclear energy is too risky to put all our ducks in that basket. And that is without mentioning that all the nuke testing pre- and post- WW2 have affected global health in measurable ways...there is evidence that radiation in the atmosphere, and in the food and soil and water, due to those tests may be responsible for the global obesity epidemic. Or at least a contributing factor. Who knew that irradiating our food, water, air and soil might have side effects!? Goddamn liberals, ruining everything for good, honest, God-fearing Americans with their science and their 'consequences for actions'...

I'm SURE that all of this is cheaper to deal with than shifting to wind/solar/hydro power.../s

[aja_christopher]

When Marc Lamont Hill is having to call Pelosi out, that is a pretty sad state of affairs.

You've got a Rolling Stone cover? Pelosi will be there. Front and center.

Something like this where some actual leadership would be the right move? Not so much.

Where was your talk of "leadership" when Sanders didn't release his tax returns?

Where was your talk of "leadership" when he failed to address sexual harassment during his campaign in 2016?

Where was his "leadership" on addressing racial issues in the last election while running against a man he now admits is a racist?

-----
"Pelosi admonishes Trump for using 9/11 video to criticize Ilhan Omar"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/polit...-11/index.html

-----
"Sanders' evolution on race may not have come soon enough"

Bernie Sanders' biggest selling point in 2016 was that he was the only person in the Democratic primary running not named Hillary Clinton.

2020 won't be that way. And to be successful, he'll have to earn every vote he can get.

This field will be massive, and in many ways, everyone is running as not Hillary Clinton (note Amy Klobuchar and Beto O'Rourke's digs at Clinton in their Wisconsin appearances). And while he certainly pushed the party left on a number of issues, including health care and college tuition, it's the Democratic Party that has pushed Sanders to the left on race and identity.

So, where does that leave Sanders, particularly with African-American voters, the key group that he struggled with against Clinton? In South Carolina, he lost by nearly 50 points (50!) -- and Clinton won 87% of the black vote.

That smackdown ended up being a preview of how Sanders would do throughout the delegate-rich South, highlighting weaknesses in the top echelons of his campaign team, which was largely white and male. Aides from 2016 say that they had a plan to reach black voters, but were largely ignored. Some also complain that they were often treated as tokens or props, particularly after Sanders was shouted down by a group of Black Lives Matter protesters at an event in Seattle...

Sanders is a Democratic socialist who has been hesitant to talk about race and showed a disdain for identity politics on one hand while never acknowledging it on the other hand.

"I wouldn't say so much he has evolved as many more lessons learned," Turner said. "He listens, he is a student of the game. He sees a lot as class-based, it's his predominate lens but it's not his only lens."

In 2016, Sanders was hesitant to call Trump a racist during a debate with Clinton. But during a recent trip to South Carolina to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, he called him a racist.

"Has he learned lessons since 2016, yes," said Symone Sanders, the national press secretary for Sanders' 2016 bid. "He has been actively working since 2016 to reach out to various communities to be on the ground and listen to folks. He has been to South Carolina a few times, which is really important. But some of the language is going to be problematic."

Indeed, his comments about diversity and racism in a recent GQ magazine article drew the ire of black progressives. He suggested that some of his opponents "think that all that we need is people who are candidates who are black or white, who are black or Latino or woman or gay, regardless of what they stand for, that the end result is diversity."

Symone Sanders disagreed.

"Nobody is saying that, and in a race where there are Latinos and women and black women, people will use it against him," Sanders said. "I don't care how many times you go to South Carolina. You say things like you said to GQ because you think it's appealing, it's alienating to some folks. As a young black millennial, I don't like hearing it because it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding about race and gender and what people are looking for."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/polit...020/index.html

[numberthirty]

-----
"Pelosi admonishes Trump for using 9/11 video to criticize Ilhan Omar"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/polit...-11/index.html

-----

You realize that this is the exact garbage that Hill and Tlaib were calling out, right?

Here is Hill's exact Tweet calling it out...

- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...43201423085568

Having to do the same with O'Rourke...

- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...54546986115072

Pointing out that Sanders managed to actually address it...

- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...53927055417344

Pointing out the specific responsibility that Pelosi has here...

- https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/s...62855667400706

[aja_christopher]

You realize that this is the exact garbage that Hill and Tlaib were calling out, right?

What I "realize" is that you're quick to hypocritically call out everyone but your "pet" candidates -- like Sanders -- for their faults and it does nothing positive for the party as a whole when you try to sabotage the leadership of the party.

I remember you calling out Hillary for not supporting BLM and when I posted the link of the mothers speaking on behalf of her campaign, you disappeared from sight and didn't even have the common decency to admit that you were wrong.

Same goes for people like you not voting "against" Trump -- which is one of the main reasons we are where we are today.

Having a preferred candidate is one thing but trying to sabotage the Democratic party is another -- maybe when you start addressing Sanders' lack of "leadership" on key issues as adamantly as everyone else's I'll be able to take you seriously as anything other than someone who will attack the Democratic party unless he gets his way on how the party is run.

It's telling that you said you liked Carter -- I like Carter too, but despite his best intentions, his politics were not successful on the national stage, especially in comparison to both Clinton and Obama.

Sanders couldn't even get that far without running as "Democrat" and still lost by millions of votes in the primary.

Stop trying to force a losing strategy on the rest of the Democratic party.

[Kirby101]

Nuclear is not "cheaper".
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
Takes massive public subsidies
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natu...wer-subsidies/
And the problem of nuclear waste that is radioactive for eons has not been solved.

It's funny that free market conservatives back the one alternative energy that takes the most Government funding.

[Mister Mets]

Religious bigotry IS a problem. And it is a problem with very clear perpetrators - white, 'Christian' men in nearly every case - that are NOT the victims of bigotry themselves. Look at how many black churches get burned in America still, or all the horrific defacements at Jewish cemeteries, the shootings at mosques, the spread of lies about Judaism and Islam, not to mention other non-Christian faiths, at the hands of 'Christian' pastors and prea hers and talking heads, or the way Muslim politicians in America get treated by supposedly 'Christian' ones.

More important than religious bigotry, though, is bigotry protected and encouraged by religious fervor. When your religion dehumanizes others, when your religion wants to get away with breaking laws - or creating laws - in order to freely abuse other citizens based on one interpretation of religious dogma, when your religion, the dominant religion of the nation, preaches conquest, hatred, blatant lies, and the eradication of all other faiths, that religion becomes a problem to be addressed.

WHATEVER THAT RELIGION IS.

That isn't bigotry against your religion, that is society saying rightly that your religion is toxic and has no place in the civilized world the rest of us are trying to live in. Many, MANY Christian's draw inspiration from Christ's teachings about community, love, justice, hope and support. They are not the issue, nor are they who I speak against when I rail about American, Christian excess and evil. Don't use your religion to justify bigotry or law-breaking, and it's not a problem to me what God or gods you worship.

Also...

How is 'Black Lives Matter' tied to religious bigotry? And what a shock that police unions boycotted someone criticizing their regular murdering of unarmed black men and the subsequent coverup and attempts to cast innocent men as 'thugs' or criminals. That freedom to murder black men is why Black Lives Matter started, and Ben & Jerry are doing just fine without the money of corrupt murderers and bullies, and the people that make excuses for them.

Are there good, non-racist cops? Absolutely! There are many, maybe even most! But they are part of a system that demonizes victims, abuses it's power, closes ranks to protect corruption, and creates class traitors who turn on and police their own neighbors in order to protect the rich from the poor rising up.

#ACAB isn't about literally all cops being bastards to a one. It is about the corruption inherent in the system, and judging those who take part in that corrupt system for doing so.

If #ACAB isn't meant to be understood as a statement that All Cops Are Bastards, this does suggest a communication problem when statements aren't meant to be taken literally.

I suggested that Mets because (to be frank) Americas corporate system is a hell of a lot worse then here in the UK. Half the **** you guys do we'd never wven consider. So if 100,000 is what we can do, you guts will easily overshoot it.

As for what kind of oversight I'd support ? Well how about listening to a fucking doctor? That'd be a good start. Only employ trained medical professionals for these assesments if you can since a bureaucrat cant even begin to understand half the issues some people have.

Secondly make it as neutral as possible, as soon as a guy with an R next to his name becomes president you shouldn't have the system suddenly try to scrape every bit of cash it can by denying seriously ill people their money.

I think the issue at core though is the same conservative talk piece though about the terror of the "Leech like benefits cheat" rather then the more realistic issue of "Rich people and companies that dont pay their tax". Apple or Amazon alone easily dwarf any number of benefits cheats.

The British system has not killed 100,000 people.

Does any cost/benefit analysis of nuclear power include how much it costs to keep nuclear waste safe from stuff like terrorists and earthquakes for 80,000 years? It seems like borrowing money from our ancestors to consider it "cheap" in any way. And the measures taken to protect it for tens of thousands of years also don't come without a carbon footprint.

The point on nuclear energy is in response to people who see climate change as likely ending the world in the next 12-100 years.

[Mister Mets]

I'll answer question 1 from my perspective. From what I can find out it isn't just a question of selling someone a cake, but of making a specialty cake for them. This is moving towards a blurry line about where art begins and what counts as it. I think the owner in question has said he'd sell any couple a standard cake (correct me if I am wrong here), but he won't make a unique one for gay couples. I'm not sure where food can qualify as art in a legal sense, but we approaching the line where it can be construed that by requiring such can be requiring speech rather than just forbidding discrimination. I don't live there and would be unlikely to buy anything even if I did - I avoid certain places to eat because I disagree with their politics and/or business practices (I won't go to Chik-fil-a or Jimmy John's) - but I also can't say what the alternatives are for a LGBT couple that wants a cake. But that sums up the question at the heart of this - are we merely banning discrimination or have we crossed the line into compelling speech?

Aaand I probably should have quoted Mets for this....

You're right about the questions.

There were also plenty of cakemakers in the area willing to make cakes for gay weddings, so there were alternatives available. One question is the extent to which that matters.

And now a word from the president apparently.



This can't be real... can it? Please confirm to me this isn't real, because it feels real.

It's real.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...ection-1395515

No, I get you. However, I want to point out that if they operate a business specializing in wedding cakes, and then deny that service to someone for an inherent trait, that is discrimination and is illegal. Much worse if they are the only bakery in the area, as has happened in many small town situations. This Baker situation is, as I see it, not much different than denying service because of skin color, or racial heritage, or religious affiliation. If discriminating against gay people is ok when those other things are not, then we are saying that gay people are second class citizens, and that is profoundly un-American. And un-Christian, to boot.

In many cases, the decision to deny service comes after initial discussions and payments are made. If they openly stated their bigotry, by say...putting up a sign that said 'We don't bake cakes for queers. God told us not to' that would solve a lot of problems. Everyone who bought a cake from them would know they are discriminatory douchebags hiding behind religion to excuse their bigotry, no one of conscience would patronize them, and they could bake only godly, Jesus-centric cakes for straights, like the Bible intended.

MANY of those bakers have been exposed as bigots by newspapers and journalists - and bloggers - calling and ordering cakes for divorce parties, witch gatherings, and other 'sinful' things and most of those bakers were fine with making those cakes. It was ONLY the gay wedding cakes they objected to, and thus, it isn't about artistic license, or inspiration. It is about bigotry against gay people, and using Jesus as an excuse to hide behind.

That said, I would never want to force an artist to create art under duress. But I stand behind forcing businessmen to follow the laws, if they intend to stay in business. So...

The Colorado situation is a bit more complex in that the baker didn't exclusively make wedding cakes, although these accounted for a good chunk (not 50 percent, but close) of his business. He would be a willing to make cakes for gay people that weren't about wedding; He wouldn't make a cake for Steve & Dave's wedding, but he would make a cake for Steve passing the bar exam.

We all agree that businessmen should be forced to follow just laws; the questions come to the merits of the specific law, as well as when a businessman is no longer an artist.

Religious bigotry is a problem especially in a society of multiple religions. I am living in a society of different faiths and am already used to the sloppiness of religious tolerance.

But a professional businessman must learn to never mix business with religion or politics. When Ben & Jerry ice cream company publicly supported the Black Lives Matter movement, the police unions boycotted Ben & Jerry's products.

Is the decision to never mix business with religion or politics a suggestion or a law? Ben & Jerry facing a boycott is based on customer response, rather than any legal repercussions.

[Tuck]

It was ONLY the gay wedding cakes they objected to, and thus, it isn't about artistic license, or inspiration. It is about bigotry against gay people, and using Jesus as an excuse to hide behind.

He won't bake cakes for Halloween either. While the issue was in court (or I guess it still might be), he stopped making wedding cakes altogether, at significant detriment to his livelihood.

Another shop offered to bake the cake as soon as the story made the news. But no one was ever actually looking to get a cake there, as the guy was being used to create a test case in the first place. This is different than the issue of minorities not being served in the south in the 60s, because it's not the south in the 60s. A black customer who was turned away from lodging or a restaurant in the south in the 60s likely would find themselves with no options. A gay couple who can't buy a wedding cake from Baker A is going to have little trouble buying the cake from multiple competitors in the same market in the 21st century.

The Civil Rights Act was always about liberal values coming to loggerheads with themselves. Which way to bend is contextual, not evergreen.

If you recall, the court punted on the case by throwing it out on the grounds that the local body (don't recall what it was called) actually insulted the man's religious beliefs in its decision.

[ed2962]

It was interesting to see Kelly Ann on Meet the Press today. She supposedly was there to talk about the president's immigration policies, but kept trying to pivot to Omar. I appreciate that Chuck Todd was like, "I know what you're trying to do here, let's get back to the subject."

[Mister Mets]

Cool that you were ONLY referring to the last three years for your point about assassinations and attempts, whereas I was referring to a history full of this sort of thing and a prevalence for 'social justice warriors' to get shot for daring to try to change the world for the better. As you damn well know.

1: This is about the bakers breaking the law. Period. When they did it, and whether those who denied wedding cakes to gay people in the 80's should have faced repurcussions or not (because gay people getting married and trying to buy wedding cakes openly in the 80's was such a big deal...) is not the point. The point is, the law is what it is, and these ignorant bigots are trying to get away with breaking said law TODAY, and hiding behind 'religious freedom' as a justification for ignorant bigotry and law breaking.

2: Mike Pence has along history of anti-gay and anti-trans legislature and statements. His wife works at a school where gay people cannot get jobs nor can they send their child go said school (not that anyone SHOULD, but still...). Their religion, in addition to teaching that Christianity must conquer all, tells (or told) them that gay people are sinners whose blood should be upon them. Their faith teaches (or taught) that AIDS was punishment for the sin of being gay. That trans people are rapists and child molesters who must be kept out of public bathrooms. That trans people are sick. That gay people can be cured via torture. Donald Trump has enacted an anti-trans military policy to appease his religious zealot core voter who rant and rave on radio and at the pulpit and on whatever news program that's stupid enough to give them a platform that gay people are the cause of all civilization collapses, that queer people destroy families, that gay people deserve to be stoned to death for their sin. So maybe they don't wear a t-shirt with a slogan, and thus, you don't take them seriously, but they ARE saying these things in churches around the country. And they ARE getting their operatives into offices of power where they can enact 'godly' solutions to the 'ungodly' problem of 'faggotry'. And your party turns a blind eye to it all because hey...the bigots vote Republican.

3: What trade offs are you imagining? Do you think that 'treat women equally' means men will be treated less equally? Do you imagine that 'treat black people like their lives matter' means that somehow white lives will matter less? Does 'gay people are not evil, repulsive sinners worthy of death and hell' mean to you that straight people will be rounded up and put into concentration camps? Or is it about cost? Is it worrisome to you that the cost of equality might cut into the constant need for war? Or the corporate handouts your party loves so much? Are you worried that enforcing social justice measures might infringe on cops' rights to shoot brown people and claim later that they thought acomb was a gun? Or that said measures might force bigots to shut the **** up and stop spouting filth and lies about people based on their ignorance and fear?

4: And the risks involved cost significant amounts of money in the long run to fix/prevent/regulate/pay off/cover up. If ALL you care about is short term, immediate financial costs, then yeah, maybe nuclear is the best. But if you care about everything ELSE that comes with such risky energy, then maybe taking an initial hit to the wallet for a long term payoff that doesn't potentially create a toxic wasteland might be better for everyone...?

5: Your question is monstrous. There's no wiggle room, Mets. "If climate change is so existential, why can't we force women to become broodmares?' is an EVIL hot take, man. ''If women REALLY wanted to curtail climate change, they wouldn't fight so hard to not have to give birth to their rapist's babies' is not a serious policy. 'If liberals are serious about climate change, they should support Republicans in their offer tos to cut 10% of coal emissions over 30 years in exchange for making the Handmaid's Tale a reality'? Seriously? Shame on you. Forcing women to be pregnant, to bear children they do not want, to raise those unwanted children in homes filled with resentment and fear, causes those women untold emotional damage as their prospects dwindle to 'housewife', 'baby factory', or 'welfare queen', not to mention the emotional toll on all those unwanted children. But hey, climate change isn't REALLY the problem those shiny liberals make it out to be, so let's go nuts and throw out an abjectly monstrous caricature of a policy discussion to prove how seriously we take both topics, right?

---

As for immigration, you know how I feel. Borders are imaginary lines that a bunch of (mostly white, almost entirely rich) men arbitrarily decided on to make their financial investments better and ensure that their enemies financial situation worsened. Borders exist to promote xenophobia, not security. Borders exist to keep people out, not keep people safe. America was founded on the concept of immigration, of multiple cultures coming together and working together to make a better world. Lofty, I know, and impossible seeming. But the Republican interpretation of borders is a return to xenophobia over security. So I say **** borders, let anyone who wants in get in. If it costs money, divert some from our obscene 'defense' budget. Or stop spending tax money rewarding CEO's for defrauding the public and their employees. Tax the churches that repeatedly try to influence elections.

If an immigrant breaks the law once they are here, deport 'em. Jail 'em. Treat them like criminals for committing criminal act. Seeking a better life in a nation that PROMISED THAT FOR DECADES is not a criminal act, despite how racist Republicans like Steve King, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and the rest try to frame it.

I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn't a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It's worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn't mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.

1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.

2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.

3. I'm not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.

4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left's main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.

5. If you're concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother's life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.

I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren't openly discussing theirs.

[Mister Mets]

You've aligned yourself with a liar, Mets, and it shows in your posts.

-----
"The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE." -- Donald Trump

"Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement.

Trump has for years wrongly accused Democrats of wanting open borders, but he has stepped up the frequency of that attack line as Democrats in recent weeks criticized his “no tolerance” policy that resulted in family separations at the border, and as some Democrats began calling for the abolishment of ICE.

Here’s what Trump said during a July 1 interview on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo:

"Trump, July 1: The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE. … Between Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, and getting rid of ICE, and having open borders — and the biggest thing, you have open borders. All it’s going to do is lead to massive, massive crime. That’s going to be their platform, open borders, which equals crime. I think they’ll never win another election, so I’m actually quite happy about it."

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump frequently, and inaccurately, accused Hillary Clinton of supporting open borders. As we wrote then, Clinton supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, which in addition to providing a path to earned citizenship for those then in the country illegally, would have included significant investments in border security. The bill would have doubled the number of border patrol agents along the Mexican border, added 350 miles of new fencing, and added a host of security and technologies to prevent illegal immigration.

In fact, every Democrat in the Senate voted for the bill. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, cited that bill in a tweet responding to Trump’s repeated claims about Democratic support for open borders.

-----

Despite Trump’s claim that Democratic “‘leadership’ wants to denounce and abandon the great men and women of ICE” — as he put it in a July 2 tweet — the number of Democrats in Congress calling for the abolishment of ICE is relatively small. Only one member of the Senate or House Democratic leadership — Warren — is among them.

Schumer, for example, says he does not agree with the calls to abolish ICE.

“ICE does some functions that are very much needed,” Schumer said. “Reform ICE — yes. That’s what I think we should do.”

Sean McElwee, a political data expert whom the San Francisco Chronicle credits with creating the #AbolishICE hashtag in February 2017, provided us with his running list of government officials who support abolishing ICE. Although growing, the list includes five incumbent members of the House: Pramila Jayapal, Jim McGovern, Earl Blumenauer, Nydia Velazquez and Pocan.

And from the Senate, just Warren and Gillibrand. According to the Hill, Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for ICE to be examined, but not fully abolished.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

I didn't say every Democrat openly calls for abolishing ICE, just that it's the party of the people calling for it. And the elected officials calling for it face no repercussions for doing so, which suggests that for the leadership it is an acceptable position. If the leadership were against calls to abolish ICE, they would respond to anyone who openly holds that position with a fervor reserved for elected officials who turned out to wear blackface in 1980s yearbooks, as long as the next in line isn't accused of multiple counts of sexual assault.

[PaulBullion]

I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn't a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It's worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn't mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.

1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.

2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.

3. I'm not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.

4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left's main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.

5. If you're concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother's life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.

I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren't openly discussing theirs.

The MAGA bomber made all his assassination attempts in the Trump era.