US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Yeah, Christianity is dumb and outdated, like every other religion. It falls apart under the merest hint of examination, like every other religion. It's offensive, like every other religion. Filled with violence and contradictions, like every other religion. In essence, full of shit. like every other religion.

Pretty much like every non-religious ideology then. I doubt Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao were ever singing in the church choir, yet they managed to killed millions.

If you removed religion it would make pretty much zero difference. People are tribal - they'd just gravitate toward another tribe - polical, national or whatever was the flavour of the day.

Peel pack the veneer of civilization, you've basically got a bunch of savages roaming the planet.

 

[calitennis127]

I agree it's full of shit, just as much as Jesus dying for our sins is.

Actually, that is a much more sensible leap of faith than anything that the modern left claims. It makes more sense than saying, for example, that the sexes are equal or that gender is an illusion.

 

[britbox]

Because you moron, mental health and video games aren't exclusive to America. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world (so mental health issues are clearly prominent), and makes, on average, 19 billion American dollars from video game sales every year... do you know how many gun related deaths they've had in 2018?

Three. Count them...1, 2...3. That's it. Three gun related deaths in a whole fucking year. You guys had two mass shootings in one weekend.

Seriously, educate yourself by reading something that isn't a book about a loving God wiping thousands off the face of the earth with his wrath and vengeance.

Japan's got a unique relationship with suicide - always has.

 

[calitennis127]

Pretty much like every none-religious ideology then. I doubt Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao were ever singing in the church choir, yet they managed to killed millions.

If you removed religion it would make pretty much zero difference. People are tribal - they'd just gravitate toward another tribe - polical, national or whatever was the flavour of the day.

Peel pack the veneer of civilization, you've basically got a bunch of savages roaming the planet.

The historical record of violence by Christians who killed explicitly for theological reasons does not even compare to the record of atheist ideologues who killed for ideological reasons. People point to the Inquisition, which killed about 4,000-5,000 people over 400 years. That is nothing compared to the record of atheist Communists who the left still covers up for and shills for to this day. Or they make the boneheaded historically ignorant argument that the likes of Stalin were just "bad people," even though atheism is explicitly written into the traditional Communist texts.

People like Broken are historically ignorant. They know next to nothing while having immense egos. In that sense, he is very much a white American leftist. He would have no problem assimilating. He might be the most American person on these boards in that sense.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Pretty much like every non-religious ideology then. I doubt Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao were ever singing in the church choir, yet they managed to killed millions.

If you removed religion it would make pretty much zero difference. People are tribal - they'd just gravitate toward another tribe - polical, national or whatever was the flavour of the day.

Peel pack the veneer of civilization, you've basically got a bunch of savages roaming the planet.

Accepting something that has caused more harm than literally anything else in history on the assumption that people would just find something else to ruin the world with is an odd stance.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Japan's got a unique relationship with suicide - always has.

Ok, so?

Take literally any other country where mass shootings don't happen, and there are many to choose form...

 

[britbox]

Accepting something that has caused more harm than literally anything else in history on the assumption that people would just find something else to ruin the world with is an odd stance.

No, it's based on historical record.

How many people did Mao kill?
How many people did Stalin kill?
How many people did Pol Pot kill?

Buddy, I could list a million dictators (figure of speech) who killed on ideological grounds for power and to retain power over the course of history.

People are tribal... and extremists take it another level. They'll find a cause. Patriotism, Politics, Race, Religion... it doesn't matter. Even sport for fuck's sake... where you'll have fans maiming or even killing each other in extreme cases.

 

[britbox]

Ok, so?

Take literally any other country where mass shootings don't happen, and there are many to choose form...

Mass shootings do happen in other countries - not on the scale of the US obviously and that's probably to do with lack of access to military level weapons. You don't need to convince me of the strange relationship the United States has with guns - they'd be better off having reduced or no access... but that genie was let out of the bottle when they wrote the constitution... it would be pretty difficult to roll it back.

If the populace of other countries had the same access to weapons as US Citizens then I suspect there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference in mass shooting stats pro-rata.

 

[calitennis127]

Mass shootings do happen in other countries - not on the scale of the US obviously and that's probably to do with lack of access to military level weapons. You don't need to convince me of the strange relationship the United States has with guns - they'd be better off having reduced or no access... but that genie was let out of the bottle when they wrote the constitution... it would be pretty difficult to roll it back.

If the populace of other countries had the same access to weapons as US Citizens then I suspect there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference in mass shooting stats pro-rata.

The mass shooting phenomenon in the United States has started very recently. It did not start in 1787 with the Constitution.

 

[britbox]

The mass shooting phenomenon in the United States has started very recently. It did not start in 1787 with the Constitution.

No, but changing the constitution and the lobbying power of the NRA clearly have an impact.

 

[DarthFed]

Accepting something that has caused more harm than literally anything else in history on the assumption that people would just find something else to ruin the world with is an odd stance.

I'm not religious at all but blaming organized religion for "causing the most harm" is lazy thinking. Of course it is all a matter of POV but I believe people are wired to be intolerant of differences, different race, nationality, religion, etc. And then there are also those who want to seize as much power as they can and in order to influence the large group/nation to help in their bid for power it has to be in the name of something such as religion, national interests, exterminating a group of different people, etc.

There were plenty of wars before Christ even with a lot smaller worldwide population. People will always find some reason to kill one another.

 

[calitennis127]

"Go back to where you came from" is racist dog-whistling. It has a long history. It actually gets yelled at black people, and often in cases where they go way back longer than the sons of (white European) immigrants who yell it at them.

Yeah, it does have a long history, like leaders of La Raza telling Europeans to go back to Europe. Mexico in its constitution explicitly states a concern for maitaining the brown racial purity of the country. People all over the world have tribal/national/local loyalties. Americans are not unique for this.

It is attached to the notion that this country was founded by and for white people, as a way of assuaging white guilt about slavery.

Well white Christians should not have any guilt about slavery because they were the ones who led the movement for ending it.

It gets propagated for many reasons, but a major one is to foster the racial divide amongst the poor, lest they rise together against those that actually hold wealth and power.

Lol.....the Democratic Party is largely predicated on generating racial animosity and fear in order to get votes, particularly among blacks but also increasingly among other minorities. The Democratic Party has been exploiting black hatred of whites for decades.

I'm pretty sure you know that, somewhere in your small-mindedness. If not, I can't help you.

Your mind is miniscule and very tiny, Moxie. Very tiny.

As to your Nazi that "Trump deported," if you read your own link, he was stripped of his US citizenship in 2003 and ordered deported by a federal judge in 2004. However, no country would take him. Germany finally relented during the Trump administration, and Trump proceeded to take the credit, but it seems more than obvious that the work was done by a federal judge, and eventually, diplomats.

Oh really? I guess that's why the article from NPR (a mostly stupid source) said this:

"The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, said he had raised the question of Palij's deportation in every meeting with German officials, based in part on the urging of the president, NPR reported."

So Trump did play an important role in the process, even if you hate to admit it.

In any case, that is WAY beside the point of shouting "go back where you came from."

Which amounts simply to words 99.9999999% of the time. Why are you so offended by mere words?

Also, let me flip this question around: why exactly should I be ecstatic that Ilhan Omar is in the United States? She is a clear fraud who even calls the left-wing, pro-Omar Minneapolis Star-Tribune racist for asking her questions about whether she married her brother and committed immigration fraud. She is ignorant and she is as politically stupid as you are. We already have enough Moxies and Federbergs in the United States. We already have enough vile white leftists in the country. Why should I be ecstatic about the possibility of bringing in more such buffoons?

 

[calitennis127]

No, but changing the constitution and the lobbying power of the NRA clearly have an impact.

But if the Second Amendment and widespread gun ownership lead to mass shootings, why did it take 225 years for that causal link to finally reveal itself?

 

[DarthFed]

The mass shooting phenomenon in the United States has started very recently. It did not start in 1787 with the Constitution.

The Constitution was written in the time of muskets and farmers with a way lower population. We might as well compare horses and cars as means of transportation while we are at it.

 

[britbox]

But if the Second Amendment and widespread gun ownership lead to mass shootings, why did it take 225 years for that causal link to finally reveal itself?

I'm talking within the parameters of the here and now. I doubt that many guns were in circulation 200 years ago or readily available to to the average joe.

So, I'll ask you a question (for an American citizen)... why are guns in such widespread circulation? Is it necessary? Why so?

I'm not here for "points scoring", I'm genuinely interested in the psyche behind it all.

 

[calitennis127]

The Constitution was written in the time of muskets and farmers with a way lower population. We might as well compare horses and cars as means of transportation while we are at it.

How many mass shootings were there in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, well past the time of muskets? Not many.

225 years is a lot of time for little to no mass shootings.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm talking within the parameters of the here and now. I doubt that many guns were in circulation 200 years ago or readily available to to the average joe.

So, I'll ask you a question (for an American citizen)... why are guns in such widespread circulation? Is it necessary? Why so?

I'm not here for "points scoring", I'm genuinely interested in the psyche behind it all.

You don't have to go back 200 years. Go back to the mid-to-late 20th century. There was widespread gun ownership at the same level as today and there were no mass shootings.

Personally I don't think guns need to be owned in such large quantities, but I do think there are clear advantages to gun ownership in society. And I would also point out that almost every mass shooting occurs in a gun-free zone.

Also, the rate of gun violence in America outside of urban areas is very low. Misinformed anti-American bigots like Broken think that a bunch of MAGA-hat-wearing rednecks are running around shooting people with AR-15's every day, but if you look at the statistics, rural areas in America that vote Republican have rates of violence as low as those in Japan.

Broken and Federberg are both slaves to the American media church (New York Times-Washington Post).

And what's funny is they think they are superior to Americans while being enslaved to American media. It's quite comical.

 

[britbox]

You don't have to go back 200 years. Go back to the mid-to-late 20th century. There was widespread gun ownership at the same level as today and there were no mass shootings.

Personally I don't think guns need to be owned in such large quantities, but I do think there are clear advantages to gun ownership in society. And I would also point out that almost every mass shooting occurs in a gun-free zone.

Also, the rate of gun violence in America outside of urban areas is very low. Misinformed anti-American bigots like Broken think that a bunch of MAGA-hat-wearing rednecks are running around shooting people with AR-15's every day, but if you look at the statistics, rural areas in America that vote Republican have rates of violence as low as those in Japan.

Broken and Federberg are both slaves to the American media church (New York Times-Washington Post).

And what's funny is they think they are superior to Americans while being enslaved to American media. It's quite comical.

Mass shootings are only one measure of the stat though? Murder in general, using firearms is statistically high compared to comparative western civilizations. I lived in the UK when they had the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres and they made changes to gun ownership rules each time. The same happened in Oz with the Port Arthur massacre. The same is happening in New Zealand...

You can't legislate totally for nutcases - where there is a will there is a way, but you can remove the opportunistic element by removing wide-scale gun ownership. They did a documentary on it on Oz - about buying guns in the US... and it seemed easier than buying a beer. I'm not sure how true that was, but it seemed gun ownership was ingrained in large chunks of the American psyche.

 

[DarthFed]

How many mass shootings were there in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, well past the time of muskets? Not many.

225 years is a lot of time for little to no mass shootings.

And since then there are a lot more guns and a lot more people. Anyways I don't think any one factor is to blame for the epidemic but part of the problem is those who act like the conditions today are similar to the days of the Constitution. There are amendments for a reason.

 

[mrzz]

How many mass shootings were there in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, well past the time of muskets? Not many.

The question you need to ask here is if the guns available then were nearly as effective to mass shootings as the ones that are out there today. Obviously, cultural factors related to violence -- from TV, movies, and the night news -- get into that as well.

Also, the rate of gun violence in America outside of urban areas is very low

That is true for most countries in the world, but first the population density is much lower -- thus violence of any kind is statistically smaller - and extreme poverty is also way less present. Point is that this (mass shootings) is an urban phenomenon mostly (if not always) committed by urban people. Since urban population is much larger, you simply cannot analyze it from any other viewpoint.