Do you agree or disagree with Candice Owen's statement?

[freyasman]

100% spot-on.

Division and polarisation is a lucrative industry and a vote winner (if you play your cards right).

I think the term is divide and conquer - and then the Democrats/left can ride in and benefit from it.

It's kinda like an approved contractor who botches the job on purpose knowing he's got the contract to do the repairs and fix it. The perfect storm.

Problem is, it's the right who benefit from it the most.

A black dude gets elected, number of gun sales go up massively..... I mean....

“I mean...” what? What are you implying?

I'm implying the right use fear as a tool to get them support.

Don't be an idiot. Nobody's trying to scare anyone for fuck's sake. The reason gun sales go up is because gun owners and wannabe gun owners are afraid Democrats will try to take them away or curb their ownership options even more than they already have.

Jesus.

I'm implying "it's the right who benefit the most" from friction in society.

The right "benefits" from friction in society? How, exactly?

Hilarious.

Of course they're trying to put fear into people. Look at McCarthy in the 1950s, the fear of Communism.

Anti-communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look if you want to see.

Then we have the post 9/11 fear mongering. Pretty obvious that certain people were trying to make Islam the enemy because most OPEC countries were Muslim.

The reality is that the anti-Communist agenda came from the right. They celebrated the demise of the USSR in 1990/1991 and then lost the election. Clinton for 8 years. Once they got it back with Dubya, they went on the offensive, made a new enemy.

Yes, people are scared Democrats will take their guns away. Why is that?

Trump came out and said that guns should be taken off people. Not Obama. So why is it that Republicans fear their guns will be taken away by Democrats? Because they've been told this will happen.

By who?

There's a massive amount of money being spent on agendas. Manipulating people.

The Koch brothers realized when they lost (as Libertarians and as VP candidate) to Reagan that you can't win with a third party, all you can do is try and change a party to reflect what you want. And they've done that. They've changed the Republican Party. Trump is their product. Though they hate Trump.

They thought they could control it. But they can't. The Republican Party is becoming a monster.

How does the right benefit from friction?

Tell people you're "tough on crime", you need lots of crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on crime".

If you have a bogeyman outside, you can say you're going to increase defense spending to keep everyone safe. You're the ones who care about the military.

People are stupid because people are emotional. Throw emotion at them and they will vote for you. Because they want to believe.

Obama's "hope not hate", Trump's "Make America Great Again". Promises of hope for the future. Promises that will never been fulfilled, they don't need to be, they're there as emotionally charged nonsense to get stupid people to vote for them.

But see..... McCarthy was right. That's the thing.

Welcome To The Unravelling

“All we can do, Scully, is pull the thread. See what it unravels.” – The X-Files I imagine the guy who decided to use Velcro™ on shoes said, “Why knot?” Well, that struck a nerve. I’m never sure wh…

wilderwealthywise.com

From the link;
"When Tail Gunner Joe pointed out, rightly, that the State Department and Hollywood® were filled with commies, people were upset.

Leftism was generally viewed as bad. It was so obvious that Stalin was a bad guy that even the New York Times® couldn’t hide it, as they had swept the human cost of the Holodomor (In The World Murder Olympics, Communists Take Gold And Silver Medals) under the rug two decades earlier.



The way the Left did that is they went to their normal playbook. How do you trump logic and facts? A plain appeal to emotion:

“Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last?” was how they went after Senator Joe McCarthy. They tried to make his dogged pursuit of Leftism appear to be an unhinged attack against ghosts.

But McCarthy was . . . right. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was shown that Joe was right about the scope and scale of Soviet infiltration. Where? Everywhere Joe had said. McCarthyism was just what you and I would call, “Telling the truth.”

Again, McCarthy was right. Leftism had infiltrated the Federal government. Stalin had better progress reports on the atomic bomb than those that were given to Truman. There’s a reason we celebrate Juneteenth around my house.

Why did Julius and Ethel Rosenberg cross the road? Because they were never on your side. (meme: not original)

Leftism has burrowed inside of our country. For decades. When Reagan was shot we couldn’t watch it on TV. There were no televisions in our classrooms. But some teachers had radios and instead of listening to a lecture on social studies, we sat and listened to the news on a tinny AM radio.

Would President Reagan live? No one knew. All we knew was that he was in the hospital.

One kid, whose parents were Leftist professors at the local college, said, simply, “I hope he dies. Maybe then the Senate will choose Ted Kennedy as Vice President.”

The split we see now isn’t new. It’s been festering in our country for decades.

I could come up with example after example. But if I were to try to create a scenario where people would be on each other like Karens on a manager, I couldn’t create a better scenario than what I see today:

• Multiple cultures forced together in small spaces.
• Actual propaganda presented as nightly news.
• Dogs and cats, living together.
• An Internet where people can check facts for themselves.
• A demonization of the Culture that created the place."

 

[BS Filter]

Because they do want to take our guns away. Any person with any sense knows that if the Democrat party could outlaw firearms they would do so in a New York minute. As it is, they know they can't (at least not yet) so they whittle away what they can a piece at a time such as "assault" weapons bans, clip size restrictions, etc.

Just like Conservatives would ban all abortions, but they can't, so they pull shit like "late term" bans and insisting doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

"...you need lots of crime."? That's like saying that in order to sell aspirin, you need lots of headaches. This is the most bass ackwards reasoning I think I've ever seen.

We don't need lots of crime to be tough on crime, we need to be tough on crime because there's lots of crime.

But you never address the underlying causes of crime- Poverty, mental illness, addiction, racism and gun proliferation. You just assume they are bad people and lock them up, paying the prison industrial complex a lot of money to do so.

Every nation on this fucking planet cares about their military and defending their country. How is it that this is a singularly American Republican concern?

Most countries aren't blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on defense while children go to bed hungry at night.

We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined and 8 of those are allies.

View attachment 507944

Lol. Hilarious. Reading from that same old tired script that Democrats have used for the last 50 years.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

100% spot-on.

Division and polarisation is a lucrative industry and a vote winner (if you play your cards right).

I think the term is divide and conquer - and then the Democrats/left can ride in and benefit from it.

It's kinda like an approved contractor who botches the job on purpose knowing he's got the contract to do the repairs and fix it. The perfect storm.

Problem is, it's the right who benefit from it the most.

A black dude gets elected, number of gun sales go up massively..... I mean....

“I mean...” what? What are you implying?

I'm implying the right use fear as a tool to get them support.

Don't be an idiot. Nobody's trying to scare anyone for fuck's sake. The reason gun sales go up is because gun owners and wannabe gun owners are afraid Democrats will try to take them away or curb their ownership options even more than they already have.

Jesus.

I'm implying "it's the right who benefit the most" from friction in society.

The right "benefits" from friction in society? How, exactly?

Hilarious.

Of course they're trying to put fear into people. Look at McCarthy in the 1950s, the fear of Communism.

How is this any different from the left's cancel culture of today? People like you are so goddamn paranoid about racism you vilified a teenager for smiling at someone.

Anti-communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look if you want to see.

I don't want to see because it's irrelevant.

Then we have the post 9/11 fear mongering. Pretty obvious that certain people were trying to make Islam the enemy because most OPEC countries were Muslim.

The reality is that the anti-Communist agenda came from the right. They celebrated the demise of the USSR in 1990/1991 and then lost the election. Clinton for 8 years. Once they got it back with Dubya, they went on the offensive, made a new enemy.

Considering that the Democrat party is guilty of its own fearmongering, this is also irrelevant.

Yes, people are scared Democrats will take their guns away. Why is that?

Because they do want to take our guns away. Any person with any sense knows that if the Democrat party could outlaw firearms they would do so in a New York minute. As it is, they know they can't (at least not yet) so they whittle away what they can a piece at a time such as "assault" weapons bans, clip size restrictions, etc.

Trump came out and said that guns should be taken off people. Not Obama. So why is it that Republicans fear their guns will be taken away by Democrats? Because they've been told this will happen.

By who?

How does the right benefit from friction?

Tell people you're "tough on crime", you need lots of crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on crime".

"...you need lots of crime."? That's like saying that in order to sell aspirin, you need lots of headaches. This is the most bass ackwards reasoning I think I've ever seen.

We don't need lots of crime to be tough on crime, we need to be tough on crime because there's lots of crime.

If you have a bogeyman outside, you can say you're going to increase defense spending to keep everyone safe. You're the ones who care about the military.

Every nation on this fucking planet cares about their military and defending their country. How is it that this is a singularly American Republican concern?

People are stupid because people are emotional. Throw emotion at them and they will vote for you. Because they want to believe.

Are you so naive as to think Democrats don't do the exact same thing?

Obama's "hope not hate", Trump's "Make America Great Again". Promises of hope for the future. Promises that will never been fulfilled, they don't need to be, they're there as emotionally charged nonsense to get stupid people to vote for them.

Unless you're suggesting that every person who votes for a candidate in any election is stupid, I fail to see your point.

It's probably not much different to the left's cancel culture.

It's the exact same thing as the left's cancel culture. Instilling fear in the populace that there are racists and non-wokesters around every corner, that they are out to keep black and brown people in perpetual poverty to maintain their white privilege, that they are all conservatives and are in thrall to Putin and Russia. And if any white person says they are not racist, it surely means they are because of white fragility.

The left has constructed a modern day witch (white) hunt in which there is no defense against racist accusations. Any denial is simply chalked up to white fragility or white denial of systemic racism and they are stamped "racist" and subsequently and summarily destroyed with little or no evidence or critical examination.

The reality is on both sides they're trying to control the narrative. Though "both sides" is often more than just two simple black and white sides, like BLM which is made up of different views.

People like me huh? You say that as if you know me. I doubt that very much.

If that's true then it's also true you don't know gun owners very much.

Maybe the Democrats do want to see guns taken away. But what have they done about it? Under Obama did they take guns away? No. The last big federal gun control bill seems to have been in 2005.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 2005 and it was designed to stop gun manufacturers being sued.

Have you asked yourself why they thought such legislation was necessary? The only logical answer is that some Democrats and liberals want to make gun manufacturers liable because some nutcase chose to use their product to violate an already established and known law against murder. It's like suing a car manufacturer because some idiot chose to break the law against drunk driving.

The last gun control law was the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Even with Democrats in the Presidency and control the Senate and the House they didn't ban most guns, just one type.

Yet listening to Republicans it's just around the corner.

Then came Trump.

A timeline of Trump's record on gun control reform

President Trump's record on gun control reform: A timeline. ABC News looked at statements and promises Trump has made on gun control reform.

abcnews.go.com

"Feb, 28, 2018: In a meeting with lawmakers, Trump said, “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”"


But it's all about the Democrats.

It IS about the Democrats. Trump was an exception to the rule.

Going back to something you said earlier about Republicans campaigning on being tough on crime, Democrats campaign on being tough on gun control. To use your own bass ackward reasoning, I could say "Tell people you're 'tough on gun control', you need lots of gun crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on gun control".

Look, when it comes to winning elections you have to be able to connect with voters.

There are two ways of connecting with voters.

1) Find out what voters want, and then acting on this.
2) Tell voters what they want, and then act of this.

In the two party system of the USA, the first is too difficult. You need to get 50% of people to agree on something. That'll never happen. Look at countries with Proportional Representation, those with a proper system in place won't have any party with 50% of the votes.

Germany has 32% for the ruling party in 2017, 41.5% in 2013, 33.8% in 2009, 35.2% in 2005, 38.5% in 2002, 40.9% in 1998.

So, in order to get lots of people on board, what do you do? Stick to emotive issues, guns, abortion, freedom... even crime. Things you can tell people "Doing it this way is the best way", when really it's not been proven.

Being tough on crime only works as a political tool, if people fear crime. You can say "look, we reduced crime" but people will be like "there's little crime, why would we vote to reduce crime?"

Again, you have it bass ackwards. For the most part, politicians campaign on the issues voters are already concerned about. It would be an asinine, risky and pointless campaign strategy to tell potential voters what to be concerned about and then hope they become concerned about it. Why put forth the effort to work to get them concerned about an issue they may not get concerned about when you can play on their already existing fears? What you're saying makes no sense.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How is this any different from the left's cancel culture of today? People like you are so goddamn paranoid about racism you vilified a teenager for smiling at someone.

There is no cancel culture. There's consequence culture. You do stupid things, you get held accountable.

"Consequence Culture" is a euphemism and empty concept dreamed up by paranoids on the left to cover up the fact that innocent people were being ruined. They foisted it on shills and sheep like you because they knew you would buy it and parrot it like the liberal Pavlov dog you are. You quote it mindlessly and faithfully on cue just like the rule book tells you to do.

Smirky McBitchslap got vilified because he showed up at a racist rally and tried to taunt people of color.

He got vilified because idiots like you mistakenly thought he initiated the encounter with Phillips.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Because they do want to take our guns away. Any person with any sense knows that if the Democrat party could outlaw firearms they would do so in a New York minute. As it is, they know they can't (at least not yet) so they whittle away what they can a piece at a time such as "assault" weapons bans, clip size restrictions, etc.

Just like Conservatives would ban all abortions, but they can't, so they pull shit like "late term" bans and insisting doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

And? This was not addressed to you. It was addressed to frigidweirdo and was a response to his contention that Democrats don't want to take our guns. Pay attention.

"...you need lots of crime."? That's like saying that in order to sell aspirin, you need lots of headaches. This is the most bass ackwards reasoning I think I've ever seen.

We don't need lots of crime to be tough on crime, we need to be tough on crime because there's lots of crime.

But you never address the underlying causes of crime- Poverty, mental illness, addiction, racism and gun proliferation. You just assume they are bad people and lock them up, paying the prison industrial complex a lot of money to do so.

No, I didn't address it. Thank you for noticing. I didn't address it because it was irrelevant to my point.

Every nation on this fucking planet cares about their military and defending their country. How is it that this is a singularly American Republican concern?

Most countries aren't blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on defense while children go to bed hungry at night.

That's no different than you blowing $6 on a Happy Meal while children go to bed hungry at night. Either way, children go hungry when you and the U.S. Government spend money for your own purposes.

We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined and 8 of those are allies.

View attachment 507944

I consider that a good thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

100% spot-on.

Division and polarisation is a lucrative industry and a vote winner (if you play your cards right).

I think the term is divide and conquer - and then the Democrats/left can ride in and benefit from it.

It's kinda like an approved contractor who botches the job on purpose knowing he's got the contract to do the repairs and fix it. The perfect storm.

Problem is, it's the right who benefit from it the most.

A black dude gets elected, number of gun sales go up massively..... I mean....

“I mean...” what? What are you implying?

I'm implying the right use fear as a tool to get them support.

Don't be an idiot. Nobody's trying to scare anyone for fuck's sake. The reason gun sales go up is because gun owners and wannabe gun owners are afraid Democrats will try to take them away or curb their ownership options even more than they already have.

Jesus.

I'm implying "it's the right who benefit the most" from friction in society.

The right "benefits" from friction in society? How, exactly?

Hilarious.

Of course they're trying to put fear into people. Look at McCarthy in the 1950s, the fear of Communism.

Anti-communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look if you want to see.

Then we have the post 9/11 fear mongering. Pretty obvious that certain people were trying to make Islam the enemy because most OPEC countries were Muslim.

The reality is that the anti-Communist agenda came from the right. They celebrated the demise of the USSR in 1990/1991 and then lost the election. Clinton for 8 years. Once they got it back with Dubya, they went on the offensive, made a new enemy.

Yes, people are scared Democrats will take their guns away. Why is that?

Trump came out and said that guns should be taken off people. Not Obama. So why is it that Republicans fear their guns will be taken away by Democrats? Because they've been told this will happen.

By who?

There's a massive amount of money being spent on agendas. Manipulating people.

The Koch brothers realized when they lost (as Libertarians and as VP candidate) to Reagan that you can't win with a third party, all you can do is try and change a party to reflect what you want. And they've done that. They've changed the Republican Party. Trump is their product. Though they hate Trump.

They thought they could control it. But they can't. The Republican Party is becoming a monster.

How does the right benefit from friction?

Tell people you're "tough on crime", you need lots of crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on crime".

If you have a bogeyman outside, you can say you're going to increase defense spending to keep everyone safe. You're the ones who care about the military.

People are stupid because people are emotional. Throw emotion at them and they will vote for you. Because they want to believe.

Obama's "hope not hate", Trump's "Make America Great Again". Promises of hope for the future. Promises that will never been fulfilled, they don't need to be, they're there as emotionally charged nonsense to get stupid people to vote for them.

But see..... McCarthy was right. That's the thing.

Welcome To The Unravelling

“All we can do, Scully, is pull the thread. See what it unravels.” – The X-Files I imagine the guy who decided to use Velcro™ on shoes said, “Why knot?” Well, that struck a nerve. I’m never sure wh…

wilderwealthywise.com

From the link;
"When Tail Gunner Joe pointed out, rightly, that the State Department and Hollywood® were filled with commies, people were upset.

Leftism was generally viewed as bad. It was so obvious that Stalin was a bad guy that even the New York Times® couldn’t hide it, as they had swept the human cost of the Holodomor (In The World Murder Olympics, Communists Take Gold And Silver Medals) under the rug two decades earlier.



The way the Left did that is they went to their normal playbook. How do you trump logic and facts? A plain appeal to emotion:

“Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last?” was how they went after Senator Joe McCarthy. They tried to make his dogged pursuit of Leftism appear to be an unhinged attack against ghosts.

But McCarthy was . . . right. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was shown that Joe was right about the scope and scale of Soviet infiltration. Where? Everywhere Joe had said. McCarthyism was just what you and I would call, “Telling the truth.”

Again, McCarthy was right. Leftism had infiltrated the Federal government. Stalin had better progress reports on the atomic bomb than those that were given to Truman. There’s a reason we celebrate Juneteenth around my house.

Why did Julius and Ethel Rosenberg cross the road? Because they were never on your side. (meme: not original)

Leftism has burrowed inside of our country. For decades. When Reagan was shot we couldn’t watch it on TV. There were no televisions in our classrooms. But some teachers had radios and instead of listening to a lecture on social studies, we sat and listened to the news on a tinny AM radio.

Would President Reagan live? No one knew. All we knew was that he was in the hospital.

One kid, whose parents were Leftist professors at the local college, said, simply, “I hope he dies. Maybe then the Senate will choose Ted Kennedy as Vice President.”

The split we see now isn’t new. It’s been festering in our country for decades.

I could come up with example after example. But if I were to try to create a scenario where people would be on each other like Karens on a manager, I couldn’t create a better scenario than what I see today:

• Multiple cultures forced together in small spaces.
• Actual propaganda presented as nightly news.
• Dogs and cats, living together.
• An Internet where people can check facts for themselves.
• A demonization of the Culture that created the place."

Doesn't matter whether you think he was right or not.

The reality is that McCarthy used anti-Communism to boost his career as a politician.

 

[MinTrut]

Sounds accurate to me. What say you?

View attachment 507547

The left doesn't fear this - Democrats do.

So she's wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

100% spot-on.

Division and polarisation is a lucrative industry and a vote winner (if you play your cards right).

I think the term is divide and conquer - and then the Democrats/left can ride in and benefit from it.

It's kinda like an approved contractor who botches the job on purpose knowing he's got the contract to do the repairs and fix it. The perfect storm.

Problem is, it's the right who benefit from it the most.

A black dude gets elected, number of gun sales go up massively..... I mean....

“I mean...” what? What are you implying?

I'm implying the right use fear as a tool to get them support.

Don't be an idiot. Nobody's trying to scare anyone for fuck's sake. The reason gun sales go up is because gun owners and wannabe gun owners are afraid Democrats will try to take them away or curb their ownership options even more than they already have.

Jesus.

I'm implying "it's the right who benefit the most" from friction in society.

The right "benefits" from friction in society? How, exactly?

Hilarious.

Of course they're trying to put fear into people. Look at McCarthy in the 1950s, the fear of Communism.

How is this any different from the left's cancel culture of today? People like you are so goddamn paranoid about racism you vilified a teenager for smiling at someone.

Anti-communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look if you want to see.

I don't want to see because it's irrelevant.

Then we have the post 9/11 fear mongering. Pretty obvious that certain people were trying to make Islam the enemy because most OPEC countries were Muslim.

The reality is that the anti-Communist agenda came from the right. They celebrated the demise of the USSR in 1990/1991 and then lost the election. Clinton for 8 years. Once they got it back with Dubya, they went on the offensive, made a new enemy.

Considering that the Democrat party is guilty of its own fearmongering, this is also irrelevant.

Yes, people are scared Democrats will take their guns away. Why is that?

Because they do want to take our guns away. Any person with any sense knows that if the Democrat party could outlaw firearms they would do so in a New York minute. As it is, they know they can't (at least not yet) so they whittle away what they can a piece at a time such as "assault" weapons bans, clip size restrictions, etc.

Trump came out and said that guns should be taken off people. Not Obama. So why is it that Republicans fear their guns will be taken away by Democrats? Because they've been told this will happen.

By who?

How does the right benefit from friction?

Tell people you're "tough on crime", you need lots of crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on crime".

"...you need lots of crime."? That's like saying that in order to sell aspirin, you need lots of headaches. This is the most bass ackwards reasoning I think I've ever seen.

We don't need lots of crime to be tough on crime, we need to be tough on crime because there's lots of crime.

If you have a bogeyman outside, you can say you're going to increase defense spending to keep everyone safe. You're the ones who care about the military.

Every nation on this fucking planet cares about their military and defending their country. How is it that this is a singularly American Republican concern?

People are stupid because people are emotional. Throw emotion at them and they will vote for you. Because they want to believe.

Are you so naive as to think Democrats don't do the exact same thing?

Obama's "hope not hate", Trump's "Make America Great Again". Promises of hope for the future. Promises that will never been fulfilled, they don't need to be, they're there as emotionally charged nonsense to get stupid people to vote for them.

Unless you're suggesting that every person who votes for a candidate in any election is stupid, I fail to see your point.

It's probably not much different to the left's cancel culture.

It's the exact same thing as the left's cancel culture. Instilling fear in the populace that there are racists and non-wokesters around every corner, that they are out to keep black and brown people in perpetual poverty to maintain their white privilege, that they are all conservatives and are in thrall to Putin and Russia. And if any white person says they are not racist, it surely means they are because of white fragility.

The left has constructed a modern day witch (white) hunt in which there is no defense against racist accusations. Any denial is simply chalked up to white fragility or white denial of systemic racism and they are stamped "racist" and subsequently and summarily destroyed with little or no evidence or critical examination.

The reality is on both sides they're trying to control the narrative. Though "both sides" is often more than just two simple black and white sides, like BLM which is made up of different views.

People like me huh? You say that as if you know me. I doubt that very much.

If that's true then it's also true you don't know gun owners very much.

Maybe the Democrats do want to see guns taken away. But what have they done about it? Under Obama did they take guns away? No. The last big federal gun control bill seems to have been in 2005.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 2005 and it was designed to stop gun manufacturers being sued.

Have you asked yourself why they thought such legislation was necessary? The only logical answer is that some Democrats and liberals want to make gun manufacturers liable because some nutcase chose to use their product to violate an already established and known law against murder. It's like suing a car manufacturer because some idiot chose to break the law against drunk driving.

The last gun control law was the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Even with Democrats in the Presidency and control the Senate and the House they didn't ban most guns, just one type.

Yet listening to Republicans it's just around the corner.

Then came Trump.

A timeline of Trump's record on gun control reform

President Trump's record on gun control reform: A timeline. ABC News looked at statements and promises Trump has made on gun control reform.

abcnews.go.com

"Feb, 28, 2018: In a meeting with lawmakers, Trump said, “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”"


But it's all about the Democrats.

It IS about the Democrats. Trump was an exception to the rule.

Going back to something you said earlier about Republicans campaigning on being tough on crime, Democrats campaign on being tough on gun control. To use your own bass ackward reasoning, I could say "Tell people you're 'tough on gun control', you need lots of gun crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on gun control".

Look, when it comes to winning elections you have to be able to connect with voters.

There are two ways of connecting with voters.

1) Find out what voters want, and then acting on this.
2) Tell voters what they want, and then act of this.

In the two party system of the USA, the first is too difficult. You need to get 50% of people to agree on something. That'll never happen. Look at countries with Proportional Representation, those with a proper system in place won't have any party with 50% of the votes.

Germany has 32% for the ruling party in 2017, 41.5% in 2013, 33.8% in 2009, 35.2% in 2005, 38.5% in 2002, 40.9% in 1998.

So, in order to get lots of people on board, what do you do? Stick to emotive issues, guns, abortion, freedom... even crime. Things you can tell people "Doing it this way is the best way", when really it's not been proven.

Being tough on crime only works as a political tool, if people fear crime. You can say "look, we reduced crime" but people will be like "there's little crime, why would we vote to reduce crime?"

Again, you have it bass ackwards. For the most part, politicians campaign on the issues voters are already concerned about. It would be an asinine, risky and pointless campaign strategy to tell potential voters what to be concerned about and then hope they become concerned about it. Why put forth the effort to work to get them concerned about an issue they may not get concerned about when you can play on their already existing fears? What you're saying makes no sense.

I've explained my point, I don't want to get into little arguments over small things.

You think I have it ass backwards then that's your view on it. I think the politicians have got it ass backwards and I think it's the political system, FPTP, that makes them do it.

That's why I support Proportional Representation which will give voters proper choice, and make it harder for people to manipulate and be corrupt.

 

[Dadoalex]

I'm sorry. I was busy thinking about 1/6.

Yes I'm sure you are totally obsessed with the Capitol Security failure on 1/6.

You mean when a bunch of White people tried to overthrow the government and murder as many Senators, Representatives, as they could find and the VP if they could get to him?

Of course. It's the event that will put Trump and several of his lackeys in a super-max for the rest of their lives.

Now you on the other hand are obsessed with penises and peeking under dresses in the ladies room.

 

[MarathonMike]

Now you on the other hand are obsessed with penises and peeking under dresses in the ladies room.

Does your Mom know you are posting on a grown-ups message board?

 

[Dadoalex]

Now you on the other hand are obsessed with penises and peeking under dresses in the ladies room.

Does your Mom know you are posting on a grown-ups message board?

Why? Are you interested in peeking up her skirt as well?
Have you sought help for your affliction?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh yeah. There are rules in life to keep the corrupt people honest. Bothers you, huh.

When you apply the rules to the rich that the poor have to follow, I'll take you seriously.

Rush Limbaugh gets rehab, the poor black kid gets jail.

That's fucked up.

 

[JoeB131]

It's the exact same thing as the left's cancel culture. Instilling fear in the populace that there are racists and non-wokesters around every corner, that they are out to keep black and brown people in perpetual poverty to maintain their white privilege, that they are all conservatives and are in thrall to Putin and Russia. And if any white person says they are not racist, it surely means they are because of white fragility.

The goal of the right is to drive the white working class into the same poverty people of color are in... while using their racism to keep them from noticing.

The problem is, the white people who insist they are not racist are the ones who try to pretend racism isn't a thing.

I've told the story about the boss I had who continually showed preference to white employees while ignoring the contributions of employees of color. He never said anything racist the whole time I worked for him. But in terms of policy, he showed a preference for younger white workers over older workers and workers of color.

"Consequence Culture" is a euphemism and empty concept dreamed up by paranoids on the left to cover up the fact that innocent people were being ruined. They foisted it on shills and sheep like you because they knew you would buy it and parrot it like the liberal Pavlov dog you are. You quote it mindlessly and faithfully on cue just like the rule book tells you to do.

So who was "innocent" who was actually "ruined".

All you guys used the word "Cancel Culture" to describe what happened to that chick on the Mandalorian, but it looks like she's actually going to be in Season 3 now. Meanwhile, you had no problem cancelling the Dixie Chicks or Colin Kaperneack.

That's no different than you blowing $6 on a Happy Meal while children go to bed hungry at night. Either way, children go hungry when you and the U.S. Government spend money for your own purposes.

Why would I buy a happy meal? I pay my taxes, but I'd rather have it spent feeding poor kids than buying than expensive plane that the Air Force admits doesn't work.

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

The U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of aging F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. But an affordable, lightweight fighter is exactly what the F-35 was first conceived to be.

www.forbes.com

We have more black men in prison than in college. That's fucked up. But you let some sellout like Candance Owens tell you that everything is alright, and you are totes not racist, and you are fine with it.

 

[BS Filter]

Oh yeah. There are rules in life to keep the corrupt people honest. Bothers you, huh.

When you apply the rules to the rich that the poor have to follow, I'll take you seriously.

Rush Limbaugh gets rehab, the poor black kid gets jail.

That's fucked up.

You get jail if you commit a crime. Not buying your crocodile tears.

 

[JoeB131]

You get jail if you commit a crime. Not buying your crocodile tears.

Rush Limbaugh commited a bunch of crimes getting his Little Blue Friends.

He was still allowed to plead out and get Rehab.

 

[BS Filter]

You get jail if you commit a crime. Not buying your crocodile tears.

Rush Limbaugh commited a bunch of crimes getting his Little Blue Friends.

He was still allowed to plead out and get Rehab.

So?

 

[freyasman]

100% spot-on.

Division and polarisation is a lucrative industry and a vote winner (if you play your cards right).

I think the term is divide and conquer - and then the Democrats/left can ride in and benefit from it.

It's kinda like an approved contractor who botches the job on purpose knowing he's got the contract to do the repairs and fix it. The perfect storm.

Problem is, it's the right who benefit from it the most.

A black dude gets elected, number of gun sales go up massively..... I mean....

“I mean...” what? What are you implying?

I'm implying the right use fear as a tool to get them support.

Don't be an idiot. Nobody's trying to scare anyone for fuck's sake. The reason gun sales go up is because gun owners and wannabe gun owners are afraid Democrats will try to take them away or curb their ownership options even more than they already have.

Jesus.

I'm implying "it's the right who benefit the most" from friction in society.

The right "benefits" from friction in society? How, exactly?

Hilarious.

Of course they're trying to put fear into people. Look at McCarthy in the 1950s, the fear of Communism.

Anti-communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look if you want to see.

Then we have the post 9/11 fear mongering. Pretty obvious that certain people were trying to make Islam the enemy because most OPEC countries were Muslim.

The reality is that the anti-Communist agenda came from the right. They celebrated the demise of the USSR in 1990/1991 and then lost the election. Clinton for 8 years. Once they got it back with Dubya, they went on the offensive, made a new enemy.

Yes, people are scared Democrats will take their guns away. Why is that?

Trump came out and said that guns should be taken off people. Not Obama. So why is it that Republicans fear their guns will be taken away by Democrats? Because they've been told this will happen.

By who?

There's a massive amount of money being spent on agendas. Manipulating people.

The Koch brothers realized when they lost (as Libertarians and as VP candidate) to Reagan that you can't win with a third party, all you can do is try and change a party to reflect what you want. And they've done that. They've changed the Republican Party. Trump is their product. Though they hate Trump.

They thought they could control it. But they can't. The Republican Party is becoming a monster.

How does the right benefit from friction?

Tell people you're "tough on crime", you need lots of crime. Otherwise people aren't going to vote for those who are "tough on crime".

If you have a bogeyman outside, you can say you're going to increase defense spending to keep everyone safe. You're the ones who care about the military.

People are stupid because people are emotional. Throw emotion at them and they will vote for you. Because they want to believe.

Obama's "hope not hate", Trump's "Make America Great Again". Promises of hope for the future. Promises that will never been fulfilled, they don't need to be, they're there as emotionally charged nonsense to get stupid people to vote for them.

But see..... McCarthy was right. That's the thing.

Welcome To The Unravelling

“All we can do, Scully, is pull the thread. See what it unravels.” – The X-Files I imagine the guy who decided to use Velcro™ on shoes said, “Why knot?” Well, that struck a nerve. I’m never sure wh…

wilderwealthywise.com

From the link;
"When Tail Gunner Joe pointed out, rightly, that the State Department and Hollywood® were filled with commies, people were upset.

Leftism was generally viewed as bad. It was so obvious that Stalin was a bad guy that even the New York Times® couldn’t hide it, as they had swept the human cost of the Holodomor (In The World Murder Olympics, Communists Take Gold And Silver Medals) under the rug two decades earlier.



The way the Left did that is they went to their normal playbook. How do you trump logic and facts? A plain appeal to emotion:

“Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last?” was how they went after Senator Joe McCarthy. They tried to make his dogged pursuit of Leftism appear to be an unhinged attack against ghosts.

But McCarthy was . . . right. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was shown that Joe was right about the scope and scale of Soviet infiltration. Where? Everywhere Joe had said. McCarthyism was just what you and I would call, “Telling the truth.”

Again, McCarthy was right. Leftism had infiltrated the Federal government. Stalin had better progress reports on the atomic bomb than those that were given to Truman. There’s a reason we celebrate Juneteenth around my house.

Why did Julius and Ethel Rosenberg cross the road? Because they were never on your side. (meme: not original)

Leftism has burrowed inside of our country. For decades. When Reagan was shot we couldn’t watch it on TV. There were no televisions in our classrooms. But some teachers had radios and instead of listening to a lecture on social studies, we sat and listened to the news on a tinny AM radio.

Would President Reagan live? No one knew. All we knew was that he was in the hospital.

One kid, whose parents were Leftist professors at the local college, said, simply, “I hope he dies. Maybe then the Senate will choose Ted Kennedy as Vice President.”

The split we see now isn’t new. It’s been festering in our country for decades.

I could come up with example after example. But if I were to try to create a scenario where people would be on each other like Karens on a manager, I couldn’t create a better scenario than what I see today:

• Multiple cultures forced together in small spaces.
• Actual propaganda presented as nightly news.
• Dogs and cats, living together.
• An Internet where people can check facts for themselves.
• A demonization of the Culture that created the place."

Doesn't matter whether you think he was right or not.

The reality is that McCarthy used anti-Communism to boost his career as a politician.

Yes it actually DOES matter.


And the fact that you want to ignore that, tells me pretty clearly who you are, and what side you're on.

And it sure as hell ain't America's.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It's the exact same thing as the left's cancel culture. Instilling fear in the populace that there are racists and non-wokesters around every corner, that they are out to keep black and brown people in perpetual poverty to maintain their white privilege, that they are all conservatives and are in thrall to Putin and Russia. And if any white person says they are not racist, it surely means they are because of white fragility.

The goal of the right is to drive the white working class into the same poverty people of color are in... while using their racism to keep them from noticing.

Conspiracy theory much?

The problem is, the white people who insist they are not racist are the ones who try to pretend racism isn't a thing.

Maybe some, but not all. And therein lies the problem of innocent people being ruined because the paranoid self-appointed Inquisitors of the Left are too narrow minded and one dimensional to consider other possibilities.

I've told the story about the boss I had who continually showed preference to white employees while ignoring the contributions of employees of color. He never said anything racist the whole time I worked for him. But in terms of policy, he showed a preference for younger white workers over older workers and workers of color.

And? Unless you're suggesting that false accusations of racism are okay, I fail to see your point.

"Consequence Culture" is a euphemism and empty concept dreamed up by paranoids on the left to cover up the fact that innocent people were being ruined. They foisted it on shills and sheep like you because they knew you would buy it and parrot it like the liberal Pavlov dog you are. You quote it mindlessly and faithfully on cue just like the rule book tells you to do.

So who was "innocent" who was actually "ruined".

Nick Sandmann for one.

All you guys used the word "Cancel Culture" to describe what happened to that chick on the Mandalorian, but it looks like she's actually going to be in Season 3 now.

Sure, after she first got cancelled. None of that shit should have happened in the first place. That is the point regardless of Disney picking her back up.

Meanwhile, you had no problem cancelling the Dixie Chicks or Colin Kaperneack.

I didn't cancel the Dixie Chicks or Kaepernick.

That's no different than you blowing $6 on a Happy Meal while children go to bed hungry at night. Either way, children go hungry when you and the U.S. Government spend money for your own purposes.

Why would I buy a happy meal? I pay my taxes,

So do conservatives.

but I'd rather have it spent feeding poor kids than buying than expensive plane that the Air Force admits doesn't work.

Every citizen in this fucking country wishes their tax money was used in better or different ways, so what?

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

The U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of aging F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. But an affordable, lightweight fighter is exactly what the F-35 was first conceived to be.

www.forbes.com

We have more black men in prison than in college. That's fucked up. But you let some sellout like Candance Owens tell you that everything is alright, and you are totes not racist, and you are fine with it.

Owens is not saying everything is alright, she's specifically saying things are NOT alright. The difference here is the debate over what is considered "not alright" and who is at fault.

Owens knows as well as anyone that there is racism out there. She just doesn't think that blacks being made to think and act like victims all the time is the solution. She also knows that the black community may be able to rise up with the help of the white man but it will never be able to rise up without more positive action by the black community itself. In other words, they need to help themselves for any real change to happen.

 

[IM2]

Sounds accurate to me. What say you?

View attachment 507547

I don't really know too much about Candace Owens, other than the fact that she is routinely label a "house negro" by our resident race hustlers, which may give her plenty of credibility. I don't know.

But, what I do know, is that there is that is 100% the truth.

The only race hustlers here are the whites who think Candace Owens has credibility.

 

[MarathonMike]

Why? Are you interested in peeking up her skirt as well?
Have you sought help for your affliction?

My advice to you is focus on graduating high school and get off the message boards. Good luck son.