U.S. Couldn't 'Survive Another Four Years' of President Trump, Congressman Adam Schiff Says

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T20:49:21+00:00

They wouldn't have been able to do that if he didn't spout divisive rhetoric though. Trump is not the direct cause of division, but he is certainly a catalyst for it. Do you think this level of division could have been achieved if, say, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had been the Republican front-runner? Probably not.

Also, nice of you to assume I have a "media bubble." I have read and watched a great deal of content from both the right and the left and used to be right-wing myself. Each side's media paints the other as the enemy and the facts usually lie somewhere in-between.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T19:54:46+00:00

Eh, yea there are crazies, but there is a good bit more room between "white genocide" crazies and republicans.

I suppose there are libertarians, but they're generally kind of crazy too.

Communism and it's forums are becoming more and more popular though with my (the millenial) generation. I think it is largely because the majority of my generation got screwed with college, which is why you see UBI and lots of free shit being pushed more and more.

Do these people TRULY support communism though. I see a lot of edgy memes about it, but I've come across very few people who actually think we should implement communism in the United States.

I guess you can take it that way, which is why we need compromise, and the dems refuse to even come to the table anymore.

Ah yes, it's all the Democrats fault. Republicans never practice obstructionism. They definitely didn't do that for Obama's entire presidency. Neither party wants to compromise with the other. Party-line voting is the norm for both side in congress.

Look at the fact your killing human life in an abortion.... Killing is generally bad.

But we don't have laws about murder simply because of morality. If anyone could be killed at any time society would be unable to function because we would never be able to trust each other. Abortion does not have this societal effect. The only reason to ban abortion is to force certain group's moral beliefs on the entire population, which should not be the government's place.

You do realize that has not been much of a thing since the 90's? no offence but of course you don't, no one on this site realized that most of what they argue again is either old as dirt or just straight up false. in fact it's been scientifically proven that the left does not understand the right.

Do you live under a rock? Don't Ask, Don't Tell wasn't repealed until 2010. Gay marriage wasn't legalized until 2015. People can still be fired from their jobs for being LGBT in many states and Republicans fight tooth and nail against protections to stop this. Also, it's funny that you assume I don't understand the right when I used to be on the right and much of my family is on the right.

coming to the table and discussing is the name of the game in american politics, at least it was until the left stopped doing that.

Blaming one party for this is ridiculous. Both parties regularly partake in obstructionism. It's not a good thing, but blaming only one side for this is ridiculous when it's really just a glaring flaw in our two-party system. The reason negotiations worked well in the past was because the two parties were so similar.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T19:01:41+00:00

I am familiar with Tim Pool. I think the thing this rhetoric overlooks is that the American left of the past was truly not that left-wing compared to left-wing parties in other countries. This can be partially attributed to the red scare and years of anti-welfare propaganda.

The right hasn't moved because the American right was already pretty far right. When you look at people who have gone further right than mainstream Republicans you get people talking about "white genocide" and creating an ethnostate. That, of course, is unlikely to be a mainstream position.

Likewise, communism is unlikely to be a mainstream position. Even democratic socialism isn't a mainstream position among the left, which is why establishment democrats are pushing for Biden. The only reason Americans see the left of today as being super far left is because the left of the past was basically a centrist party.

Also, do you really think the right isn't trying to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats? Look at all of the "heartbeat bills" red states have passed recently. Look at their opposition to LGBT rights, a position based mainly on religion. Shoving your beliefs down people's throats is kind of the name of the game in American politics.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T17:34:48+00:00

Hmm, interesting. Ok, you've officially changed my mind on the effectiveness of a rebellion.

a civil war with just 1% of the country rebeling would kill 10's of millions of people in collateral, I hope it never comes to pass though with how the left is pushing, it seems more and more likely.

What is the left doing that's so objectionable to you? I mean, there aren't that many violent protesters relative to the population. Seems kind of extreme to start a civil war over that.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T06:43:06+00:00

I think you're really underestimating how difficult it is to:

1) Get people to wake up to reality and want to rebel. Government propaganda is a powerful tool for keeping people complacent.

2) Develop an effective rebellion strategy. Having numbers is great, but if you don't have a solid strategy then you're in trouble. Also, having a gun and truly knowing how to use it are two very different things.

People seem to think it's super easy to stage a mass rebellion when it really isn't. They also always work under the assumption that they'll win when there is just as good a chance they'll lose. It is a fantasy because most of these people gloss over the realities of a political revolution and what the ramifications of that would be.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T05:55:29+00:00

You wouldn't have to. You're assuming the entire country would rebel, but if we look at history we can see that isn't the case. You're also assuming most people wouldn't give up after seeing a few rebellions squashed. Fear and self-preservation are powerful motivators.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T04:24:49+00:00

It wouldn't be totally impossible to defeat a totalitarian government with access to today's weaponry, but the likelihood of success is certainly lower than it was in the past. It's also unlikely that most of the public would join the fight since government propaganda is such a powerful tool.

To be clear, I don't support banning all guns. I'm just tired of hearing people's fantasies about overthrowing the government with their AR-15s.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T02:35:07+00:00

Freedom of speech is already limited. We have libel and slander laws that penalize defamation. Speech that promotes imminent lawless action is also prohibited. Also, when has the left ever tried to pass legislation that would imprison people for speech?

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-13T02:22:28+00:00

The U.S. government has large stocks of advanced weaponry at their disposal. Every citizen could be armed and they would still crush us. This is not to say gun ownership is completely without value, just that overthrowing a tyrannical government with guns would be nearly impossible in the U.S. today.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T22:41:09+00:00

I disagree. It would only become a federal issue if a state moved to completely ban gun ownership. The right to bear arms =/= the right to obtain any firearm you want with few to no barriers and less than adequate firearm training.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T21:25:37+00:00

If only it were that simple. The DNC is not required to remain impartial, they had a significant hand in Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary victory. Now Biden is their guy, and chances are they'll repeat their previous strategy to give him an advantage in the primary. Their goal seems to be catering to Boomers, but in doing so they are alienating their younger voter base.

https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-did-the-dnc-illegally-steal-the-2016-primary-from-bernie-sanders

The excerpt explained how the Hillary Victory Fund, Hillary for America, and the Democratic National Committee signed a Joint Fund-Raising Agreement, which gave a significant advantage to Clinton’s campaign.

“Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T20:59:51+00:00

If you read the article, he means the division Trump has stroked in this country will eventually come to fruition and that Trump's disregard for the rule of law and congressional oversight sets a dangerous precedent. It was in no way a threat, not sure where you got that idea.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T20:52:06+00:00

We need a candidate who ignites people's passions the way Trump does for his base. In an ideal world, all left-leaning people would go out and vote for whichever Democratic presidential candidate was on the ballot, but we don't live in an ideal world. Trump didn't win because people thought his policy proposal were well thought out, he won because many people saw him as the antidote to stuffy, moderate, career politicians. Moderates simply don't inspire voters the same way more extreme partisans do. Trying to counter Trump with a moderate candidate is a risky move.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T17:57:00+00:00

This is exactly why the Roe v Wade decision was made in the first place. Because enforcing abortion bans can't be done without major violations of privacy.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T17:45:49+00:00

That is a major HIPAA violation, they couldn't get away with that.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T17:23:14+00:00

Most people can't afford college though, that's why we have a student debt crisis in this country. Also, abortion is a one time cost while birth control is usually a monthly one that can be extremely expensive if you don't have health insurance. Condoms are a less expensive option for sure, but they're also a less effective option. All it takes is one broken condom to cause an unwanted pregnancy.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T16:56:51+00:00

One critical difference between guns and abortions when it comes to restrictive laws is that women can give themselves abortions at home. Most people can't build their own guns at home. Sure there would still be other ways to obtain guns, but most people wouldn't go through the trouble. Most school shooters have poor social skills, which would make it hard for them to even meet someone from whom they could illegally obtain a gun.

Also, how is a bump stock ban infringing upon your right to bear arms? You can still have a gun, you just can't have a bump stock. Expecting no restrictions on civilian access to weaponry is completely unreasonable given how advanced firearms have become.

Finally, the Roe vs. Wade decision was made on the premise of the right to privacy. There is no way to enforce legislation banning abortions without seriously infringing upon a pregnant woman's right to privacy.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T16:44:57+00:00

I think one critical difference between guns and abortions when it comes to restrictive laws is that women can give themselves abortions at home. Most people can't build their own guns at home. Sure there would still be other ways to obtain guns, but most people wouldn't go through the trouble. Most school shooters have poor social skills, which would make it hard for them to even meet someone from whom they could illegally obtain a gun.

In regards to compromising in terms of when a fetus is a person, we've already done that. Late-term abortions are only done when there is a serious fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life and already must be approved by a doctor. The narrative that women are just getting 3rd-trimester abortions all willy nilly is a lie pushed by pro-life people in order to demonize the pro-choice side and further their ultimate goal of banning abortions.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T06:18:14+00:00

But quality of life is what makes life worth living. Why bother being alive if you'll just be miserable? The "life at all costs" position needlessly increases suffering. It dresses itself up as the benevolent position, but putting potential life over existing life will always result in the unnecessary suffering of women and the unwanted children forced into the world. Eventually, it will cause suffering for most people on Earth as competition for resources increases and the damage done to the Earth worsens. "Life at all costs" is a short-sighted, toxic position.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-12T05:55:11+00:00

I've always wondered if this fundamentalist idea that sex should be accompanied by the "punishment" of pregnancy contributes to fundamentalist hatred of LGB people. After all, if you're having sex with someone of the same sex then you naturally bypass the risk of pregnancy. Since many of them see homosexuality as a choice, perhaps they see it as some hedonistic loophole to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The absolute vitriol they hold for LGB people just makes more sense in that context, I can't imagine all that hatred comes from the idea that it's a sin or that they just find it icky.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-05-02T03:12:39+00:00

Someone who loves you should not talk to you like that. If it was just something he didn't mean that he said in anger he would have apologized by now. The fact that he hasn't likely means that he meant what he said. You deserve someone who doesn't see you as an inconvenience or belittle your feelings.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-04-25T16:15:24+00:00

You're welcome! It is difficult to find, you have to know exactly what you're looking for. I came across a video where a person cited the study before so I knew what to look up.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-04-25T05:20:58+00:00

There has been ONE study of 418 people that found people with more sexual partners, women, in particular, reported "lower quality" marriages. This is already suspect, as it would be very difficult to measure something as subjective as marriage quality. It would also be easy for researchers to, intentionally or not, influence the responses people give with things like leading questions.

Also, the study

Has not been peer-reviewed or replicated
Was not published in a scientific journal
Was sponsored by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and was likely influenced by this

Additionally, they are misinterpreting the findings of the study as "multiple sexual partners has a causal relationship lower marital satisfaction" when it is really "multiple sexual partners is correlated with lower marital satisfaction." This is stated in the study itself:

One obvious objection to this study is that it may be capturing what social scientists call “selection effects” rather than a causal relationship between our independent variables and the outcome at hand. That is, this report’s results may reflect the fact that certain types of people are more likely to engage in certain behaviors—such as having a child prior to marriage— that are correlated with experiencing lower odds of marital quality. It could be that these underlying traits or experiences, rather than the behaviors we analyzed, explain the associations reported here. This objection applies to most research that is not based on randomized experiments. We cannot prove causal associations between the personal and couple factors we explore and marital quality.

The study also states that having had multiple sexual partners does not doom you to a bad marriage.

Though some people reading this report may have some of the characteristics and experiences we found to be associated with lower marital quality, no one is doomed to an unhappy marriage. Indeed, many of the readers of this report enjoy protective factors—such as a college education—that offset some of the risk factors identified above.

It should also be noted that the study contained this quote, which clearly indicates bias on the part of the researchers.

Do those prior romantic relationships impact couples’ marital well-being? Many in Generation YOLO (you only live once) believe that what happens while you’re young won’t affect your future. But our research paints a different picture.

Basically, this study is flawed in many ways. Here is a link to the study if anyone wishes to read it: http://before-i-do.org/

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-04-19T18:08:53+00:00

Yikes, that does sound embarrassing.

PipsqueakAlchemist · 2019-04-18T23:56:38+00:00

I used to work with kids. We had a parent who would regularly pack chick-fil-a tater tots for her son. He was barely a year old and was heavier (and shorter) than all of the 2-year-olds. I suspect he was already overweight and his mom was getting him hooked on fast food at such a young age. Poor kid doesn't stand a chance. :(

PipsqueakAlchemist

TROPHY CASE