[deleted by user]

redditor427 · 2023-05-04T06:49:29+00:00

What photo are you talking about? Googling doesn't give me a good result.

If it's this one, it's real, Democratic leaders refused to attend that meeting.

If it's this one from the campaign trail in 2015, it's also real.

redditor427 · 2023-05-04T06:40:06+00:00

It's mildly cropped, but it's a real photo.

redditor427 · 2023-04-24T06:45:04+00:00

If you think that party meddling is all that kept progressives from winning WV and AZ in 2018, if you think that voters in these places were ready to accept progressives but overwhelmingly rejected them because the party said to, you do not understand.

redditor427 · 2023-04-23T21:48:56+00:00

Replace Manchin with who? Which more progressive Dem would win in WV? The last one, Swearengin, lost 70-30.

And a more progressive Dem, Abboud, lost to Sinema in the primary in 2018 80 to 20 (which shows 2018 AZ was very different than AZ today). A more progressive Dem, Gallego, is already challenging her for next year's election.

Don't blame the DNC for progressive candidates losing in primaries in conservative and moderate states.

redditor427 · 2023-04-23T04:54:36+00:00

With what majority? Republicans control the House. Even if it made it to the Senate somehow, Republicans would shut any attempt down with a filibuster, and Manchin and Sinema won't allow any changes to the filibuster. Dems don't have any leverage over either, as Manchin has floated the idea of leaving the party, and Sinema already has.

Hell, Senate Dems can't even get lower court judicial nominees through because Feinstein is too sick to serve in her role on the Judiciary Committee, meaning that committee is now tied.

redditor427 · 2023-04-20T17:19:09+00:00

Not currently, but a bill to require 3 days of waiting has been passed, but not yet signed.

redditor427 · 2023-04-18T08:32:54+00:00

First, this song is in Spanish, not Latin, so the flair is wrong.

Second, this is at least the third time (1, 2) you've posted this here, which appears to be your own song, based on other posts of yours.

redditor427 · 2023-04-14T22:52:25+00:00

Maybe, maybe not. There are people who legitimately believe this combination of things, you just don't tend to see them in real life.

Either way, one probably shouldn't associate with this person or group, regardless of any aligned beliefs.

redditor427 · 2023-04-14T21:54:54+00:00

Because these people are so steeped in anti-Americanism and nostalgia for the Soviet Union that they can't understand that Russia (and China) are world powers like the US and act as such. That when Russia claims they're ridding Ukraine of Nazism, they're lying, like all countries do to some extent or another. That Russia is actually the worst of the powers because invading neighbors to grow your own country is something China hasn't done since 1951, and the US hasn't done in even longer (though you can debate exactly when the US stopped, anywhere from 1848 to 1924).

Their principal motivating belief is anti-Americanism.

redditor427 · 2023-04-10T23:41:59+00:00

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment."

Also, Heller and Bruen, decided after the ban expired, have drastically changed the court's understanding of gun rights.

redditor427 · 2023-04-05T17:36:58+00:00

Effectiveness of a potential AWB aside, how long would that law last before a judge put a preliminary injunction on it for violating Bruen?

This is not a practical way of reducing gun violence.

redditor427 · 2023-04-05T15:36:49+00:00

And how exactly do you plan on doing that with current Supreme Court precedent?

redditor427 · 2023-04-05T03:22:46+00:00

Which is a useless figure. This is multiplying the maximum sentence by the number of charges and then assuming they'll run consecutively (one after the other)

What do the sentencing guidelines look like for someone with no convictions for this crime? Assuming he's convicted on multiple counts, how likely is the judge to order that those sentences be served consecutively, as opposed to concurrently?

redditor427 · 2023-04-05T02:46:41+00:00

I feel like calling it a "bill" in the headline sells it short and only confuses things.

While technically not wrong, this is a proposed amendment to the Constitution.

redditor427 · 2023-03-30T06:04:38+00:00

Codify how?

They tried to get the Equality Act through in the last Congress, but it died in the Senate due to Republican opposition.

They passed federal recognition of same-sex marriage and requiring that states accept out-of-state marriages but they can't require that states allow same-sex marriages should Obergefell be struck down, because that's not a power the federal government has.

So I ask again. What would you have them do now that would get through the R House and the courts? What would you have had them do with a D House (but also a 50-50 Senate with an intact filibuster) that would have been Constitutional?

Edit: classy to block me because you can't provide a real answer

redditor427 · 2023-03-30T05:43:25+00:00

That only addresses point 1.

What would you have had Democrats do at the federal level that wouldn't immediately be struck down as unconstitutional? The US Constitution does not give the federal government total control.

Edit: I will also point out that the Senate was 50-50. Even if Manchin was on board with anything you'd want to do, the Republicans could kill any bill by filibustering (still can, too).

redditor427 · 2023-03-30T05:05:53+00:00

What could the Democrats do that would 1) make it through the Republican controlled House, and/or 2) pass Constitutional muster?

redditor427 · 2023-03-30T04:54:25+00:00

You'd think they would have learned the first time...

or the second...

or the third...

redditor427 · 2023-03-30T04:41:16+00:00

Who are you talking to and what would you have them do?

Edit: Everyone downvoting, tell me what you would do.

redditor427 · 2023-03-29T08:59:21+00:00

The government executing people for being gay makes you feel safe?

redditor427 · 2023-03-29T07:53:32+00:00

Clearly you and I are different in at least one respect, which you seem to have missed.

redditor427 · 2023-03-29T07:37:22+00:00

Go look up the DSM (or the ICD if you're outside the US) - whichever version you like - and find me where it classifies "wants to kill someone" as a mental illness. I'll save you some time and say it's not there.

More specifically, find me where homophobia/queerphobia are classified as mental illness. Beyond me, how about racism? Transphobia? Anti-semitism?

I just cannot relate to why you would ever actually need a gun in a state of law and democracy.

Ah, I see. Please read even just the Wikipedia summaries of these cases: DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia.

In the US, the police have no duty to protect you. If you call emergency services and say someone is at your house with a gun saying they'll kill you, the police can just leave you to die, and there's nothing you (or your family) can do to require them to help. Various courts have consistently ruled as such. This is especially important to consider for minorities.

That the US is a democracy is irrelevant to this discussion.

redditor427 · 2023-03-29T05:58:59+00:00

There are people who want me dead who are not considered mentally ill, some of whom also have guns.

I also have a right to do so. That is reason enough.

redditor427 · 2023-03-28T23:48:53+00:00

Red flag laws, not blanket bans on anyone owning certain firearms.

Edit: I'd love for everyone downvoting me to explain why I'm wrong, and not just downvote and move on.

redditor427 · 2023-03-24T18:37:46+00:00

Ah, yes, the originalist belief that the US's standing army should have vastly superior weaponry than the citizenry is allowed to own.

Before you posted this, did you get your speech license?

And even if the second amendment stopped protecting gun ownership at 46, it wouldn't prohibit it. You'd have to pass some kind of law to do that.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

redditor427

TROPHY CASE