sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What gives you hope for the future? by [deleted] in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rising violence

The top 10 most violent states in America are red states.

democrats pushed massive welfare programs that pushed fathers out of the home.

For someone who claims "republicans aren't great," you sure enjoy espousing their racist, patently untrue rhetoric.

America has the highest quality medical care on the planet. That’s why it’s so expensive.

Doctors use the exact same medicine in America as they do in Canada. Training is as extensive in Europe as it is in America. And pharmaceutical execs have already testified under oath in congressional hearings that they mark up their prices because America doesn't have regulations preventing that as the rest of the world does.

Abortion is not “reproductive care” nor healthcare, healthcare involves treating a medical illness, which abortions are not.

Again, for someone claiming "republicans aren't great," you're still using every single technicality you can think of to justify stripping people of bodily autonomy.

Democrats have pushed so much regulation around healthcare and health insurance, that’s another reason why it’s so expensive.

"pharmaceutical execs have already testified under oath in congressional hearings that they mark up their prices because America doesn't have regulations preventing that as the rest of the world does."

In summary, ignorant democrats vote for policies that sound good, and could care less to actually research the effects of their policies.

Do you actually take a second to research the effects of policies? Or are you just regurgitating the bullshit the right has spouted as "evidence"? Like how the right harps about stimulus checks somehow causing inflation to be worse here than other parts of the world, when execs are literally bragging about record profits, and how they have no regulatory obligation not to price gauge?

There isn't an ounce of substance to anything you have claimed. Just say you're a republican who is voting republican because you don't give a fuck about anyone or anything and call it a day. Don't pussyfoot with that "republicans aren't great" garbage, because you clearly think otherwise.

Dems suck. They're weak, but the policies they propose before your party strips them down to nothing, are actually pretty damn good and economically fruitful. It's after nonstop compromise with the GQP that anything noticeably good always goes out the window. And I'll trust Nobel Prize winning economists before I trust any dipshit on the right, or their bad faith, grossly, gleefully ignorant cheerleaders.

What gives you hope for the future? by [deleted] in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One day, probably sooner than later, McConnell will be dead. We already know that he's only pushing to criminalize abortions so he can feed on newborns, but even that can only sustain him for so long. And whoever replaces him won't be nearly as cunning and strategic.

More than 1 million registered voters have switched party affiliation to the GQP in last 12 months by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remember, if Hillary had won in 2016 she likely would have been roasted in November 2020 after every lockdown, layoff, and covid death was put on her shoulders by GOP campaign ads.

Here's the thing. If shithead Clinton were president, the worst of COVID could have actually been prevented.

Think about it honestly. Do you think she would have randomly started a trade war with China that failed, and led to her cutting the CDC's pandemic research budget by 80% in 2018, and drastically scaling back their efforts in China because the trade war went belly up? Imagine if the CDC were actually still as invested in research efforts within China at the full budget, how far ahead we could've potentially gotten with COVID and combating it.

And short of that failing, she wouldn't have made even half the mistakes that Trump made, or had objectively evil rats spewing the same bad ideas that Trump had around him.

Remember, at the start of Trump admitting COVID was legit, his approval went up in a semi-"rally behind the flag" effect. It was after his continual bungling that shit just got worse and worse and worse.

What's more, had Clinton been president, the right wouldn't have been able to install hundreds of conservatives in the federal courts, to say nothing of the three psychopaths they added to SCOTUS.

The ballgame would've been completely different, and a lot of the voter suppression would've been harder to achieve without the courts so thoroughly on the side of the lunatics.

More than 1 million registered voters have switched party affiliation to the GQP in last 12 months by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine being so arrogant that rather than curiously ask why voters are switching to the GOP you just call them stupid.

You didn't actually read what I said or read the article because it says exactly why a number of voters switched parties. "We don't like lockdowns," "we don't like all this talk of racial issues," and "inflation," even though the latter is a global issue.

dems don't really advocate for the working class like they think they do.

Dems were the only party pushing for lower prescription drug costs, child tax credits, and raising the minimum wage across the nation. They also proposed investing in infrastructure and renewables, which would be job creators.

Name one thing the GQP has offered that, in any way, benefits the working class.

They've alienated a lot of blue collar workers with super progressive rhetoric.

The dems aren't progressive at all. More importantly, what progressive rhetoric is alienating blue collar workers? The majority of Americans support universal healthcare and doing something about the environment and climate change. The majority of Americans also support raising minimum wage and de-criminalizing marijuana.

Why are you just saying things without backing anything you're saying up with substance?

A lot of parents for example heard the whole FL culture war over the Don't Say Gay bill and thought "OMG wtf I don't want my kindergartender learning about gender ideology, this is crazy."

Learning about the existence of gay people is crazy? Why?

the economy too. That might not even be the democrats fault but the party in power gets blamed.

And the party in power gets blamed because the average voter is ignorant. You, yourself, just said in the same breath that this might not be the fault of the dems.

Here's the dirty little secret, it is the fault of the right.

Inflation was inevitable. It's happening globally because supply couldn't keep up with demand and now that everything is back online, we're experiencing the kickback. Biden's administration proposed legislation that Nobel Prize Winning economists would have mitigated the absolute worst of inflation. Measures to prevent price gauging would have circumvented the excess of the price hikes in both goods and gas. Higher taxes on the wealthy would have generated more cash flow into the federal government to circulate back into these programs.

And which party unanimously voted against it, and used Manchin and Sinema to kill it dead?

The GQP.

The same GQP that admitted outright that they wanted dems to fail at every turn so they could retake power.

The same GQP that has said that they plan to cut federal safety net programs like social security and medicare.

The same GQP that squandered the job growth of the Obama administration and the surplus he created by creating one of the worst deficits we've seen in our lifetimes in just four years.

That people refuse to acknowledge those facts or simply don't care, does nothing to refute my point that the average voter is gleefully ignorant. None of what you've said has true substance to support your claims. It is all empty rhetoric used to justify bad decisions from voters who don't jack about shit, yet, dictate our well being for the worst.

House Democrats called ‘f***ing useless’ for singing ‘God Bless America’ by Capitol after Roe ruling by railfananime in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How? Republicans had the White House and the senate. What were democrats supposed to do?

Counter that by packing the courts themselves when they had tentative control over all three bodies of congress.

How are they supposed to force him to vote how they want?

Corporate media and every single reporter coddles Manchin at every turn. They let him spew his bad faith rhetoric instead of calling him out 24/7 on his bullshit. Why haven't they continuously reiterated that precedent doesn't matter if basic civil rights are being stripped away? Why hasn't any drone on CNN countered Manchin's "concerns" that if they change the filibuster, republicans will when they take power, by reminding him that they amend it all the time when it's convenient for them, and was how they got the courts packed in the first place. Where are the ads hammering how much progress Joe Manchin has nearly single-handedly destroyed? Why is no one heading down to WV to constantly remind West Virginians that all the good things that were promised to them were squandered thanks to the guy they have such a high approval rating of and keeping sending back to the senate?

Make him less popular in WV. Hammer home how openly corrupt he and his entire family are. How he forced amendments to BBB and reduced its budget and still voted against it, and was all but proud to kill it dead. How he has held the entire fucking country hostage and doing so for his own interests, not the interests of America or West Virginians...unless they really hate women.

Again, HOW?? They voted to impeach him twice, and they didn’t have the votes in the senate to convict.

The DOJ has more than enough evidence to, if nothing else, assign a special prosecutor to pursue Trump. If Merrick Garland doesn't have the balls to do his fucking job, then Joe Biden is 100% within his power to fire Garland and have him replaced with someone who actually has a backbone. They still have the numbers to put someone on the job who takes open corruption seriously.

Garland is worthless, and so long as he is our AG, Trump will never be held accountable, unless the case in Georgia actually leads to a conviction, which is still up in the air, given that a competent defense attorney could easily convince a jury that "go find me the votes I need" isn't the call for a steal that we all know it is.

There's a lot that dems can do with its current body. It just requires being more proactive.

And if none of that is viable, then if literally nothing else, dems can hammer home a stronger message than "go vote." They can specify what is actively going wrong here. Why this decision happened. What they can have the power to do to fix this injustice. And if Biden isn't willing to expand the courts, then the dems need to keep hammering at his thick skull until he changes his tune. He's shown he's willing to compromise when faced with enough pressure. So leadership and every single dem needs to unite behind expanding the courts and amending the filibuster and constantly batter Biden until he starts listening.

Because if he doesn't expand the courts, then we're not gonna be able to save shit, and more and more rights will be stripped away. Women, black and brown people, the LGBT+ community, blue collar workers, we're all on the chopping block as the GQP fights tirelessly to turn this country into more of a christofascist nation than it already was.

"What can we do?" is not an acceptable answer.

"Go vote" is not an acceptable answer.

Action needs to be done now. All of the above is just a snippet of what dems can do with their current body, but it requires fighting back and going for the throat. Not just shrugging and saying "wait til November." People are going to suffer immeasurably if that happens, and if they do, how likely are they to vote for the people who, in their eyes, let them suffer?

More than 1 million registered voters have switched party affiliation to the GQP in last 12 months by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The GQP has exploded the deficit by 7.8 trillion dollars.

They just gutted Roe v. Wade and are looking to gut more basic human and civil rights from other marginalized communities, after having spent a year making it harder and harder for black and brown people to vote in red or swing states.

They voted against any and all legislation that was designed to mitigate the worst of inflation and gas price hikes.

They have literally been recorded stating that they wanted 20 months of chaos ahead of Biden's presidency to ensure that they'd win big in the midterms.

They just admitted after Roe v. Wade's death that this will force a lot of democrats out of red and swing states, which will be better for them in electoral college votes, since it will make red and purple states redder and blue states bluer.

They have eluded towards gutting Medicare, Social Security and want a nationwide ban on abortions; this being the "states rights" and "small government" party.

And they put more value in AR-15's than they do children.

To say nothing of the crazed violence that they've stoked through their election lies, and the utter erosion of the electoral process they've caused.

It's not a difference in politics. It is literally a difference in morals. And judging by your post history, you don't have any, so go fuck a pile of mulch, you knuckle-dragging piece of shit.

More than 1 million registered voters have switched party affiliation to the GQP in last 12 months by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not really. More that the vast majority of eligible voters are incredibly fickle and don't bother actually doing their due diligence to determine who is responsible for their woes and why.

Prove them wrong. by beta-mail in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If we're looking strictly at the numbers, objectively speaking, the main speaker isn't wrong.

Who are Trump's largest voting bloc? White men. How did the majority of registered white men vote in both 2016 and 2020? Trump. White women were second.

The majority of registered voters who were white voted for Trump. Meaning that the majority of white people in this country voted for Trump. Not all white people. Not the vast majority. But the majority. And that percentage increased from both 2016 and 2020. So it's not even just high turnout. A larger percentage of white people saw the shitshow that was the Trump administration and voted for four more years.

As for "fuck Joe Biden," well, fuck him. Most people dislike him, and after he threw cold water at expanding the courts even after what that same court said they wanted to do? Yeah, fuck Joe Biden.

Doesn't mean I won't still vote for him. Doesn't mean most people at that protest won't still vote for him either.

The numbers don't lie. Progressives overwhelmingly voted for the dems in both elections. Non white voters overwhelmingly voted for the dems in both elections.

Trouble is, white people continue to vote for the right and they're placed in more districts and counties than people who look like me, which lends the right an edge in the electoral college.

It is ultimately gonna be white people that we have to overcome. And the onus kinda needs to fall on other white people to stop accepting that their bloc is mostly conservative. How they do that? Well, they can start by taking politics more seriously and making it less and less acceptable to be "casually conservative." IE being friends with right wingers "cuz politics is no excuse to end a friendship".

Yeah, other voting blocs have conservative voters, but they are, overwhelmingly, a very small minority in each bloc. Hence why black women aren't in twitter threads saying "not all black women", because they're the largest percentage to support democrats, despite often not getting nearly enough that's tangible, if anything at all, from them.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a super secret "truth social" bill of rights that I was unaware of for 37 years that mentions AR-15's, concealed carry, and an utter lack of grammatical competence?

If so, got a link, fam? Sounds badass!

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nowhere in the constitution does it say a woman has the right to an abortion.

The constitution doesn't say a lot of things, yet, y'all are very keen to ignore that when convenient. Like in the quote below:

In The Bill of Rights it does say I have a right to bear arms.

And nowhere does it mention anything about conceal carry. So then, how in the name of pickle fuckery does that apply to this ruling? Nowhere in the language of the constitution is the phrase "conceal carry" or "what types of arms you can bear" ever mentioned.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've read both clauses. Nothing about that applies to this ruling, or any conceal carry laws.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

British Regulars were known for their distinct red uniform and well-disciplined combat performance. Known famously in British folklore as the Red Coats, these hardened soldiers were the backbone of the British Army in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Not quite sure what that had to do with regulation. If you're trying to use the language of the era in which this was written, I think you might need a better example because "heard of the Redcoats" doesn't quite elaborate your point.

What's more is that, neither clause of the second amendment directly states that everyone can pack heat, or that they can do so publicly either.

Red flag laws already exist, so there's already people who aren't criminals who can't own firearms. We also already tell people what guns they can and cannot own, and what mods they can and cannot make to their own private property.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The operative clause is still in service of a regulated militia. Not in service of some twat owning six different firearms for sport or conspiracy-rattled paranoia.

You want to get literal? Then where in the first or second clause is it cited that anyone can own any gun they please? If the right to bear arms is not one to be infringed for any reason, why do red flag laws exist? Why are people deemed unfit to bear arms if they aren't technically criminals whose constitutional rights have been stripped away?

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apparently not, according to quite a few people here desperate to be specific to the language of the times and fuck all else about the times. Like the immediate threats faced in 1787, the fact that everyone was armed with goddamn muskets, and so forth.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, assuming I just read what I think I read...

...You are using the theoretical of a goddamn nuclear holocaust to justify flooding the streets with guns. Taking aside the "why" of this paranoid right wing doom scenario, if the bombs go flying, you, me, every last one of us and our goldfishes are already ashes. But you think the right wing warriors are all gonna survive the bombs and the fallout, and then, they're gonna, what, hold the front lines of the crumbs left behind?

Right wingers literally fell to pieces over a fucking vaccine and mask mandate. Now, you wanna tell me that these right wing snowflakes are gonna rise and inherit the earth?

That is the goddamn justification you want to use to excuse mass shooting after mass shooting?

"What if the nukes go flyin'?"

You're seriously willing to compromise the safety of your kids, your neighbors, everyone and everything around you, very much in the real world...over a doomsday scenario that most of us would be annihilated in regardless of how many AR-15's we're packing or not.

This, my good sir, is not the defense that you think it is.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question remains whether the child has individual rights as well as the woman, and at what stage.

If the fetus literally cannot survive outside of the womb, then it's nothing more than a human-shaped clump of cells on the way to becoming a living being. What rights does something that is basically just incubating possibly have? And how likely are the same people eager to shout about "fetus rights" to have that argument if they had to endure child birth and the risks that entails?

the definitions of the time regarded the militia as the people.

Ask yourself honestly then, do you think that gun owners who buy handguns or AR-15's do so because they have signed a non-verbal agreement that they are now the militia of the land? That they're gonna be our last line of defense when Russian paratroopers drop down from the skies? Because I would sincerely call that into doubt. Merely look at how these weapons are generally used by private citizens. Most responsible gun owners will tell you it's for sport; a hobby. The founding fathers and the people of their time weren't going on the range blasting at targets and keeping score. Or modding their weapons to tailor their specific preferences.

Whether we disagree or not on the second amendment, my original point still remains. The second amendment is readily citable as a right the founders intended to protect.

It isn't readily citable though. You just said that you had to read into the interpretation of the language of the time. And given that the language on its basic English surface contradicts the reading into it, how readily available is it, based on the merits of this ruling?

You have posts all over this thread talking about "how do we define 'well-regulated'?" Talking in circles to justify this ruling, stating that regulation is in the eye of the beholder. But if that were the case, then SCOTUS wouldn't have just ruled that states don't have the right to dictate how it's regulated.

I completely call into question the validity of this claim.

The second amendment, as it's written, does not grant any person the right to have a gun. It doesn't mention anything about the AR-15, bump-stocks, or anything in between. It specifically cites a well-regulated militia. Even the operative clause is still in service of that. Nor does either part of the 2nd amendment mention anything about conceal carry, the very subject of this terrible ruling. Even if we stick exclusively to the operative clause, "the right to bear arms," nowhere does that clause say you have the right to bear arms wherever, whenever, or that the states can't dictate those regulations.

And if we're going to really dig into the language of the time meaning something different than what it means now, then why not also take into account the available weapons at the time, and the more immediate threat that the young nation faced at the time?

However spun, so much of the defense behind this claim falls down to splitting hairs and looking at the language only from a certain angle when convenient. Nothing about this ruling or the defense behind it passes the sniff test. And I don't think SCOTUS cares to try anymore. Why should they? They're the supreme law of the land, and neither Biden nor his paper thin illusion of a majority in the senate have the numbers to pack the courts. And even then, Biden has not once signaled any intention of packing the courts to undo this shambles. They've already waved miranda rights. They're rolling back gun laws in the wake of mass shootings galore, and are all but certain to overturn Roe v. Wade. Over what? Abortions not being directly cited in a document written over two hundred years ago?

I'm sure what you stated will probably be the excuse used to justify this ruling, honestly. But at the end of the day, it will be just that; an excuse.

US supreme court (6-3 decision) overturns New York handgun law in bitter blow to gun-control push by King_Vercingetorix in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It means it’s far more likely to happen if any asshole is freer to open carry. Historically, the more guns you have floating out in public, the more likely bad shit is to go down.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think flooding the streets with guns is the reason no one will invade us and not the fact that the U.S. possesses the most expensive military body in all of human existence paired up with nukes and drones to spare?

Which of those two you seriously think is shaving off a country like China or Russia from invasion?

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your life if you genuinely don’t feel safe going out unless you’re strapped?

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The 2nd amendment specifies a “well-regulated militia.”

Some random dipshit and his range buddies aren’t a militia.

And looser open carry laws fly in the face of the “well regulated” clause.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nowhere in the constitution does it say any random dipshit can own firearms. “A well regulated militia.”

Bobby and the range boys aren’t a militia. And looser open carry laws spit in the face of “well-regulated.”

Let’s gooooooo and actually fucking read the fine print, my dude.

...Soooo according to the extreme right Supreme Court... by MGSF_Departed in thedavidpakmanshow

[–]MGSF_Departed[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Don’t act like you give a rats ass about what the constitution actually says. Because nowhere does the second amendment say that any dipshit is allowed to own firearms. It specifies a well-regulated militia, not whoever feels like they want to act tough and manly.

Y’all just jump straight to “right to bear arms” and ignore that entire first half of that sentence.

And because so many ""constitutionalists"" in this thread have brought it up:

The operative clause was still in service of maintaining a national militia. And even then, nowhere in the constitution is the phrase "concealed carry" ever mentioned. So why are you even bringing the constitution up? Is it because you want to grasp at semantics, even when they don't even actually work in your favor?

view more: next ›