Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Emily Lake]

She barely lost the election, with racism and misogyny being the likely reasons for her loss.

Honestly, I really don't think that's the likely reason. It really, really should have been a win for Dems. Sure, racism and/or misogyny is part of it... but Harris didn't fare well in her bid for 2020, and had a significantly lower favorability than several other women. Warren, Klobuchar, and Gabbard all did better than Harris.

I really think that if Biden had dropped out earlier, the DNC would have ended up with a different candidate - maybe even a woman - and beat Trump. I genuinely think that Trump won because of stupid games played by DNC trying to force Harris into office for idealistic reasons, without consideration for whether or not enough Americans even wanted her.

 

[crazyfingers]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

It will come to the supreme court and the court can change it on a whim. They can declare no constitutional right to same sex marriage. They can even rule that the federal government can outlaw it. They can even rule that no state needs to recognize another state's gay marriage. If you don't know this you know absolutely nothing.

When the supreme court struck down Roe, some justices actually said that. Learn something.

 

[Emily Lake]

We all know that if Biden had never announced he was restricting his pick to black women, Derec would still be complaining that Harris was picked only because she was female and black and therefore was a “DEI” hire.

Maybe. But a whole lot of other people wouldn't be.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am far more concerned about school shootings than political assassinations. School shootings are more numerous and exceedingly more likely to directly impact me and my family. Political assassinations are so few as to essentially be statistically disregarded in the whole gun violence argument. The main concern with them is the political responses and how those shape the country's future. Right now it's all talk, but we'll see how this guy's death actually affects policy changes.

I'm concerned about violence in general, and I'm concerned about school shootings.

But I disagree with your view on political assassinations. Let me be very clear though - I think the assassination of politicians are an abhorrent thing that shouldn't happen, and certainly shouldn't be celebrated in a civilized and democratic society. Even worse than that, however, is the assassination of NON-politicians on the basis of their political views. That crosses over into the realm of political persecution, and that's an entirely different level of issue.

What has concerned me most is the politicization of EVERY notable murder in the past decade, even when the murderer wasn't acting for partisan reasons. I've been aghast at the outpouring of "who should be assassinated next" on social media related to this.

 

[Emily Lake]

I just read that Europe is celebrating Kirk's movement and are mourning his death. The hard right is rising in many European countries, including England, Spain, Germany, Italy, to name some. WTF is going on in the world? Racism and xenophobia are on the rise.

There are legitimate problems in Europe that the Right exploits. Economic stagnation yes, and that is always water on the mills of populists from the right and the left. But then you have the problem of mass migration and creeping islamization that the mainstream parties refuse to acknowledge. Often even the conservative ones. David Cameron, former Tory UK prime minister, said in 2007 that "it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian [in UK that means South Asian, and mostly Pakistani] way of life, not the other way around". Angela "Willkommenskultur" Merkel, the former German chancellor (CDU), opened the floodgates in 2015 and greatly exacerbated the mass Muslim migration crisis.
And many Europeans are sick of being called racist and xenophobic for opposing current mass migration where thousands of people keep coming in every day, and it is virtually impossible to deport them.
Parties like AfD, Reform UK and Rassemblement national offer wrong solutions, but they have the advantage of offering something, instead of glibly saying "wir schaffen das" while the country gets more and more islamicized.

You know, it's not even the people themselves that are being objected to - it's the cultural colonization. It's that the predominantly muslim immigrants are bringing their muslim values and views with them, and aren't assimilating into European cultures as they stand.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then, what is not in evidence is what is wrong with being Muslim, unless one pushes the stupid argument that all Muslims are terrorists.

As a female of the human species, I have a rather large gripe with islam. And I think my objection to the cultural values that islam brings with it are quite reasonable.

 

[Emily Lake]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

As a man, I'm sure it seems that way to you.

 

[pood]

Radical Christianity is just as incompatible with US culture (as set out in your constitution) as radical Islam, and only the former is an existential threat to the USA.

As a man, I'm sure it seems that way to you.

You do realize that is a misplaced modifier, don’t you?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yup, which is why I don't care about him being dead. He defined the outcome as acceptable, it should be acceptable when applied to him.

By taking this view, you have supported his argument, and endorsed his position.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because how you judge people reflects your values, not theirs.

It's like the difference between respect and courtesy. Whether you respect someone depends on their integrity, whether you are courteous to someone you don't respect depends on your integrity.

Excellently put.

 

[Emily Lake]

Another thing I have noticed is that right-wingers in such places as youtube and Quora, in that the way they write they act like there are as many lefties as there are of them. This is because to them if you are not a right-winger, then you must be a leftie. If you have a view opposed to theirs then you are a leftie.

And that's different from here how? Seriously, I'm plain worn out from all the times I've been told that I'm a right-wing nutjob nazi fascist bigot because I'm not a progressive. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of my view as classically liberal, and a couple are downright socialist. Nope. I have a couple of views that aren't progressive therefore I'm a fascist.

 

[Elixir]

The tragedy, Elixir, is that you seem unwilling to make the effort to reduce hostility among citizens

“Submit and this will hurt less.”
I, and I hope more than half of the rest of voting age Americans, aren’t going for it. We’re going to fight and maybe even win the tainted spoils of conflict. But as Toni might say, we’re not going to just lay back and think about England.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seriously. Biden should no have artificially restricted himself, but should have selected his running mate with no regard to race or sex.

Biden could have simply refrained from publicising his intentions and it would have avoided a significant amount of criticism.

It's like conflict of interest. There doesn't need to be an actual, real conflict - the appearance of potential conflict is enough to be a concern.

 

[Elixir]

I have a couple of views that aren't progressive therefore I'm a fascist.

You might be the president of Antifa, and it would add no credibility to your posts. You have the stunning lack of threat awareness that enables the authors of chaos to dictate outcomes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course, you have not yet explained what makes her a poor pick. Any white man who had a track record as AG and senator, among other qualifications, would have been hailed as an exemplary pick.

I would argue that any white man who had her track record of delaying the release of black prisoners beyond the end of their sentence would NOT have been hailed as an exemplary pick by democrat voters.

 

[pood]

Of course, you have not yet explained what makes her a poor pick. Any white man who had a track record as AG and senator, among other qualifications, would have been hailed as an exemplary pick.

I would argue that any white man who had her track record of delaying the release of black prisoners beyond the end of their sentence would NOT have been hailed as an exemplary pick by democrat voters.

Sure, but those are details. The point is that the overall resume is impressive, and no one would suppose her unqualified if she were a he.

 

[Emily Lake]

Thank you for proving me wrong as to your character at least

The fact that you questioned Gospel's character at ALL is a very poor reflection on you.

 

[Elixir]

I would argue that any white man who had her track record of delaying the release of black prisoners beyond the end of their sentence would NOT have been hailed as an exemplary pick by democrat voters.

If they were male, had Central Casting looks, a loud overbearing manner, a fourth grade vocabulary and the cunning of a born and bred mobster, they could win as a Republican. And probably as a Democrat.

Track records don’t matter any more, QED.

 

[pood]

Having watched this, I couldn’t really tell who was saying what or why, only that it was instigated by a MAGGOT loon, and little Mikey was braying in his tinny voice about how the House should come to order. Not sure if he banged his gavel or not, or waved his little Christian dick around.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

It will come to the supreme court and the court can change it on a whim. They can declare no constitutional right to same sex marriage. They can even rule that the federal government can outlaw it. They can even rule that no state needs to recognize another state's gay marriage. If you don't know this you know absolutely nothing.

When the supreme court struck down Roe, some justices actually said that. Learn something.

Roe never had an actual law in place, it was ONLY an interpretation.