The Trumpian binary positions

[BasicHumanUnit]

 

[JGalt]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

Need is no issue. The 2A protects desire as well. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Am I the only one who gets the distinct feeling some of these radical Leftists people are here for the sole purpose of creating division and being annoying?

It's rare they they ever really bring intellectual conversation to the forum. Instead it's mostly just ridiculous totally UnConstitutional nonsense.

Just sayin

They probably go back to the Democratic Underground forum with stories of how they riled up the right for the fun of it.

 

[impuretrash]

Am I the only one who gets the distinct feeling some of these radical Leftists people are here for the sole purpose of creating division and being annoying?

It's rare they they ever really bring intellectual conversation to the forum. Instead it's mostly just ridiculous totally UnConstitutional nonsense.

Just sayin

They probably go back to the Democratic Underground forum with stories of how they riled up the right for the fun of it.

Clearly he's not interested in having an actual discussion. He, like most lefties just wants everyone to sit down, shut up and submit to the global authoritarian gameplan.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Clearly he's not interested in having an actual discussion. He, like most lefties just wants everyone to sit down, shut up and submit to the global authoritarian gameplan.

I think there's a regular bunch of them.
'Rightwinger" and others similar.
Just professional instigators and dividers.
Think about it. How often do they add anything of value to the discussion?

 

[jwoodie]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

True, but maybe these frauds enjoy watching RW'ers run in circles.
It's why I often won't engage with them and only offer bones.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

Well, science has established man-induced causes for climate change. Those causes do not mesh with the politics pushed by the polluters and those who agree with those polluters. The problem is those polluters are more concerned with profit and profit is the motivation for those all too willing to fall in line behind them.

That attitude is reflected in the manner climate change deniers defend their position.

As for fun ciolence, every responsible person knows that there is no panacea, no 'magic bullet' (pun intended) to eliminate all gun violence. But there are steps to REDUCE the incidents of gun violence. Our nation is no crazier than other developed nations. Video games are marketed and played world wide. What's the X factor? The prevalence of high powered guns in our culture. Something has to be done or we are doomed to hear of mass shootings until they become too routine to report.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

Need is no issue. The 2A protects desire as well. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

 

[JGalt]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

Need is no issue. The 2A protects desire as well. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

 

[jwoodie]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

Well, science has established man-induced causes for climate change. Those causes do not mesh with the politics pushed by the polluters and those who agree with those polluters. The problem is those polluters are more concerned with profit and profit is the motivation for those all too willing to fall in line behind them.

That attitude is reflected in the manner climate change deniers defend their position.

As for fun ciolence, every responsible person knows that there is no panacea, no 'magic bullet' (pun intended) to eliminate all gun violence. But there are steps to REDUCE the incidents of gun violence. Our nation is no crazier than other developed nations. Video games are marketed and played world wide. What's the X factor? The prevalence of high powered guns in our culture. Something has to be done or we are doomed to hear of mass shootings until they become too routine to report.

I asked you to define "climate change" and "gun violence" and this is what you come up with? If you can't specify the problem, why should anyone care about your inductive "solutions?"

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

 

[Nosmo King]

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

Need is no issue. The 2A protects desire as well. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

 

[Correll]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

That is a pretty simplistic rendering of your opposition.


Almost like you can't handle complexity or nuance. Or respect opposing point of view.


I'm sure the irony is out of your reach also.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

Well, science has established man-induced causes for climate change. Those causes do not mesh with the politics pushed by the polluters and those who agree with those polluters. The problem is those polluters are more concerned with profit and profit is the motivation for those all too willing to fall in line behind them.

That attitude is reflected in the manner climate change deniers defend their position.

As for fun ciolence, every responsible person knows that there is no panacea, no 'magic bullet' (pun intended) to eliminate all gun violence. But there are steps to REDUCE the incidents of gun violence. Our nation is no crazier than other developed nations. Video games are marketed and played world wide. What's the X factor? The prevalence of high powered guns in our culture. Something has to be done or we are doomed to hear of mass shootings until they become too routine to report.

I asked you to define "climate change" and "gun violence" and this is what you come up with? If you can't specify the problem, why should anyone care about your inductive "solutions?"

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Climate change is the abnormal changing of temperatures causing sea ice to melt, stronger tropical storms, droughts, flooding and sea level rise.

Gun violence is the incidents of mass shootings.

 

[Correll]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

Well, science has established man-induced causes for climate change. Those causes do not mesh with the politics pushed by the polluters and those who agree with those polluters. The problem is those polluters are more concerned with profit and profit is the motivation for those all too willing to fall in line behind them.

That attitude is reflected in the manner climate change deniers defend their position.

As for fun ciolence, every responsible person knows that there is no panacea, no 'magic bullet' (pun intended) to eliminate all gun violence. But there are steps to REDUCE the incidents of gun violence. Our nation is no crazier than other developed nations. Video games are marketed and played world wide. What's the X factor? The prevalence of high powered guns in our culture. Something has to be done or we are doomed to hear of mass shootings until they become too routine to report.

I asked you to define "climate change" and "gun violence" and this is what you come up with? If you can't specify the problem, why should anyone care about your inductive "solutions?"

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Climate change is the abnormal changing of temperatures causing sea ice to melt, stronger tropical storms, droughts, flooding and sea level rise.

Gun violence is the incidents of mass shootings.

THe massive disproportionate murder rate in our cities, that drives the us murder rate to be so much higher than other first world nations?

That isn't part of gun violence?


Weird.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

Need is no issue. The 2A protects desire as well. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

Wrong, both were invented from the ground up for military conflicts to be used by young 18 year old hopped up on adreneline, scared out of his wits while being shot at from all sides with little training. Both the Thrompson and the AR have the same criteria for use, speed and reloading.

Both don't have one ounce of luxury built in.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

Well, science has established man-induced causes for climate change. Those causes do not mesh with the politics pushed by the polluters and those who agree with those polluters. The problem is those polluters are more concerned with profit and profit is the motivation for those all too willing to fall in line behind them.

That attitude is reflected in the manner climate change deniers defend their position.

As for fun ciolence, every responsible person knows that there is no panacea, no 'magic bullet' (pun intended) to eliminate all gun violence. But there are steps to REDUCE the incidents of gun violence. Our nation is no crazier than other developed nations. Video games are marketed and played world wide. What's the X factor? The prevalence of high powered guns in our culture. Something has to be done or we are doomed to hear of mass shootings until they become too routine to report.

I asked you to define "climate change" and "gun violence" and this is what you come up with? If you can't specify the problem, why should anyone care about your inductive "solutions?"

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Climate change is the abnormal changing of temperatures causing sea ice to melt, stronger tropical storms, droughts, flooding and sea level rise.

Gun violence is the incidents of mass shootings.

THe massive disproportionate murder rate in our cities, that drives the us murder rate to be so much higher than other first world nations?

That isn't part of gun violence?


Weird.

Are there large cities elsewhere in the world?

Is it city's fault?

 

[CowboyTed]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

On Climate... If you close your eyes and keep them closed then proclaim 'No One Knows...'... People have a high degree of certainty... Here is an example... We don't know that Gravity exists, we have a high degree of certainty about it but find it hard to explain how it all works... But I don't see you jumping off a cliff..

Gun Control... Let's just compare USA to Western Europe on gun crime? Can you explain why gun crime in Western Europe is far lower than the US while overall crime is pretty similar.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

They hear climate change and respond one of two ways; deny the science or claim activists are communists. There are plenty of solutions to the issue, but those solutions are never plumbed by Trumpians. Study and introspection are not arrows in the quiver of Trump supporters. Too much intellectual effort is needed for Trumpians to bear.

On gun control, Trumpians respond in one of two ways; say nothing, not one single idea, will reduce gun violence so we should eschew any and all solutions or, say any measures will irreparably infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Too much heavy intellectual lifting for them to divine workable solutions. Throw your hands in the air and claim nothing could or should be done.

If it can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tacky trucker cap, or be reduced to a three word chant at a Trump wrestlemania/demolition derby style rally, Trumpians want nothing to do with it.

Now, dear readers, count how many 'funny' ratings this post receives from the die hard Trumpian mouth breathers.

/----/ "deny the science or claim activists are communists."
What science? We have just as many who say the earth is cooing or CC is a hoax. Not all activists are commies, but all commies are activists.

 

[Correll]

Here's a suggestion: How about defining problems before peddling their solutions?

For example, you have not defined "climate change" nor have you established any man-made causation, let alone any man-made antidote. Therefore serious consideration of your "solutions" is unwarranted, particularly since all of your previous doomsday predictions have proven to be fraudulent.

Similarly, you have not defined "gun violence." Does this phrase include military and police actions, suicides, hunting, self defense or other protective/preventive measures? If not, what specific problems are you referring to and how would your "solutions" prevent them?

Circular arguments are not very convincing.

Well, science has established man-induced causes for climate change. Those causes do not mesh with the politics pushed by the polluters and those who agree with those polluters. The problem is those polluters are more concerned with profit and profit is the motivation for those all too willing to fall in line behind them.

That attitude is reflected in the manner climate change deniers defend their position.

As for fun ciolence, every responsible person knows that there is no panacea, no 'magic bullet' (pun intended) to eliminate all gun violence. But there are steps to REDUCE the incidents of gun violence. Our nation is no crazier than other developed nations. Video games are marketed and played world wide. What's the X factor? The prevalence of high powered guns in our culture. Something has to be done or we are doomed to hear of mass shootings until they become too routine to report.

I asked you to define "climate change" and "gun violence" and this is what you come up with? If you can't specify the problem, why should anyone care about your inductive "solutions?"

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Climate change is the abnormal changing of temperatures causing sea ice to melt, stronger tropical storms, droughts, flooding and sea level rise.

Gun violence is the incidents of mass shootings.

THe massive disproportionate murder rate in our cities, that drives the us murder rate to be so much higher than other first world nations?

That isn't part of gun violence?


Weird.

Are there large cities elsewhere in the world?

Is it city's fault?

Yes. No. So, why not include that gun violence in your definition of "gun violence"?