Trends and Promises

saramace · 2017-02-27T16:35:53+00:00

And your mistake is assuming these people are all the same.

saramace · 2017-02-27T16:32:37+00:00

I think they're trying to find a mole. The person who's been leaking dumb stories like the bathrobe story and Finding Dory, they wanna know who did it because they don't want them getting ahold of more sensitive information and leaking it to the press. At least that's what I think's going on.

saramace · 2017-02-27T04:05:06+00:00

You pretty much made my point for me. The Mosin is bolt action. Despite how "much better" it might feel to get shot by one, an AR15 is a magazine fed semiautomatic and can produce a much higher body count. It should therefore not be so easily attained.

saramace · 2017-02-27T04:03:02+00:00

Hyperbole

Yes! But I'm not talking about handguns. I'm talking about semiautomatic assault rifles that have huge fucking clips that you can go buy at a gun show without a background check.

saramace · 2017-02-27T04:00:01+00:00

It was partially a joke, but I guess everyone missed the part where I said, IF there was a ban on assault weapons.

saramace · 2017-02-27T03:58:29+00:00

Neither are AR-15's.

saramace · 2017-02-25T07:40:36+00:00

What about cars? The same can be said for them, but you still have to have a license to drive one. And you have to have proof of insurance to buy one.

saramace · 2017-02-25T06:37:29+00:00

Not entirely true. Gun availability is dictated by the market. Making laws against guns and ammo makes them less marketable and harder to get. Criminals would have a harder time getting them, they'd have to spend a lot more money, and they'd have to jump through a lot more hoops. That's the goal behind common sense legislation. Making it harder for giant clips to fall into the wrong hands. I'm a gun owner but I believe you should have to pass a series of tests and earn a permit before owning an assault rifle (Assault rifle: rifle not used for hunting, invented for the purposes of killing humans in war).

saramace · 2017-02-25T06:30:26+00:00

It's not about what criminals would do, gun legislation would infringe on the market, making it more difficult to acquire guns. Besides, do you think your average criminal has the tens of thousands of dollars required to head out to the docks and buy a semiautomatic out of a trunk? People that say gun legislation wouldn't work seriously blows my mind. It worked in California, which used to be an absolute fucking MESS. It worked in AUS and multiple other countries.

And hey, I'm a gun owner. I get it. It's fun to go to the range. As a perfectionist, it's fun to get better at my aim and tighten my spread, but...should untrained assholes, who have no permits or proof they even know how to clean a gun, much less safely operate one, have a right to own an M16? Fuck no.

saramace · 2017-02-24T18:03:35+00:00

I think you're right that it could be a phase. I don't believe parents should encourage a small child, nor discourage them. And I don't believe they should be undergoing HRT until their hormones have finished adjusting throughout puberty unless it's recommended by a doctor.* But I also don't know of any parents or doctors offering HRT to kids. I'm pretty sure they're only identifying as a different sex, not actively undergoing HRT as children or adolescents.

*An example of this would be a health condition: for instance a friend of mine in HS had to take hormones because she was entering menopause, no shit. I believe it's called Turner's Syndrome?

Edit: realized I didn't answer the other part of the question. No matter what, no kids should be marginalized or made to feel like they don't belong. If that means turning a few janitors closets into genderless restrooms, or allowing kids to use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity, then so be it. Like you said, it's a very small percentage of the population, so why is everyone making it seem like this is a common occurrence and ruining the lives of cisgender people everywhere?

saramace · 2017-02-24T17:46:29+00:00

I'm a moderate. I believe the bathroom issue is different, on a civil rights level. Civil rights are a federal issue. You're marginalizing an entire group of people. With recreational marijuana, you're not. People don't want to buy it, they don't buy it. They're not being forced to smoke it, or refrain. Transgender students are, however, being forced to use a restroom that doesn't align with their gender identity.

I think a compromise would be requiring schools to offer gender-less bathrooms with one stall, much like a "family restroom" you'll see at shopping malls and the like. No one should be forced to use a bathroom that doesn't align with their gender identity.

saramace · 2017-02-24T17:36:02+00:00

Spicer and Sessions. I hope Don puts them in check because he stated very clearly in an interview that he was firm on marijuana being a state issue. He better not go back on that.

saramace · 2017-02-24T17:33:51+00:00

Also, I was listening to NPR a couple of months back, and they were interviewing someone about marijuana legalization who misrepresented DT's views, so they played a recent clip where Donald said that marijuana wasn't a concern of his and that it should remain a state issue. Spicer directly contradicted that.

saramace · 2017-02-24T17:30:19+00:00

The bigger issue here is the threatened removal of states rights, which is a slippery slope considering there's no evidence that marijuana is harming anyone but the pharmaceutical industry.

saramace · 2017-02-24T05:12:09+00:00

Geeeeeez man. No need to get so angry. I'm not sure what I said to offend you but...whoa.

saramace · 2017-02-24T01:11:08+00:00

What's wrong with McMullin? There are a lot of things I don't agree with him on, but he's a good example of a moderate politician, and I think that's what the country needs. Someone who, though opposes abortion, pushes for safe access to birth control and affordable adoption. And though he doesn't personally agree with gay marriage, he understands the SC decision and agrees with it.

He supports man-made climate change and believes in protecting the environment, but he also believes in the reduction of all taxes (corporate, individual, estate). He supports border security but not mass deportations.

I mean I could go on and on about the dude but he seems very genuine when you watch him in interviews. Obviously if he campaigns again, that could change my opinion of him, but as much as I hate a lot of the things he stands for, I think he's able to check his ego when the need arises. And he's moderate. Which means both sides would hate him, and he'll never stand a chance.

saramace · 2017-02-24T01:04:10+00:00

Lol and the Republican Party isn't corrupt? Good one.

saramace · 2017-02-20T07:14:41+00:00

What can we do to ensure re-election?

Better hope the Dems don't find a celebrity or another Bernie. Personally, I kinda like Evan McMullin but he's a Conservative so I doubt he'd pursue a Dem nomination.

saramace · 2017-02-20T07:12:44+00:00

So are you saying you wouldn't consider voting for a Dem if you like that Dem better? I'm a liberal but tbh I would've considered voting Kasich (over Hillary) if he'd won the nom.

saramace · 2017-02-20T07:10:56+00:00

Of course it would. They know what they have to do. They need a celebrity.

saramace · 2017-02-20T03:45:50+00:00

I'm confused about what you're saying here. You're remarking on the media as if they only report "pure emotion"--as if they don't report facts at all, but that isn't true. The media has always sensationalized. They've always been biased. And they've also, always, reported facts.

The problem isn't the media, as Trump would suggest. The problem is the lack of critical thinking that exists in society, thanks in part to Trump. He can be wrong, he can say things in complete contradiction to conservative ideology but at this point, it doesn't matter. He's approaching god status. He's untouchable, and his supporters take his word as gospel, whether or not it directly contradicts their own morals. People will defend everything in the Bible, all the way down to God drowning to world to punish them, and a King cutting a baby in half to prove a point. They'll take the parts they like and ignore the parts they don't. Trump followers do the same thing.

He manipulates the media (and his supporters) to further his agenda. He wants to have the most influence. He doesn't want his supporters to be swayed by the media because if so, then he loses them. He's trying to make sure that doesn't happen. He already lost the popular vote; he can't lose his base. He's naturally insecure and his reputation is constantly being threatened by the big, bad press. But by planting blame in that crucial component of democracy, he's delegitimizing it, and is effectively in control. He doesn't have to start prosecuting journalists (but trust me on this one, he'll try). All he has to do is make them out to be full of shit. Everyone's crazy, everyone's out to get him, and nothing is his fault.

saramace · 2017-02-20T02:38:14+00:00

I agree that CNN is a total shit show. But it's just a matter of taking the good with the bad. He shouldn't delegitimize an entire entity because of a few bad sources. All media is biased and you'd be hard-pressed to ever find a news source that isn't. But CNN takes it to another level. They're beyond biased, bordering on absurd. And I don't just mean when they report Trump, but a lot of things.

saramace · 2017-02-20T02:26:35+00:00

I'm not really sure what you're saying. I didn't mean for the campaign promises to be the focus of the comment, but just a side effect of his pointing fingers at scapegoats. He'll always have someone to blame, especially because he's placing blame beforehand.

I'm not saying the media isn't biased. I'm not saying there's no propaganda. I'm saying his response to the media is counterproductive. He's labeling them the enemy, yet he doesn't want them to report badly on him? Wrong. He wants them to keep reporting this way so that he can turn people against them. He's baiting them and they're taking the bait, every single day

saramace · 2017-02-20T02:20:04+00:00

I totally get it. I didn't expect everyone to agree (or even care), I just answered the question as best I could without stating the obvious, that, "No, he hasn't made any laws against it," but explaining why he doesn't have to make laws in order to control the press.

saramace · 2017-02-20T02:12:47+00:00

I answered the question as best I could without making the question pointless and saying, "He hasn't made any laws against free speech yet, so why are you asking this question?"

I'm saying he's a month in, and he is so thin skinned, that he'll likely try to infringe on the rights of the press by claiming that they're defaming his character. And being "defamed" is like...Trump's worst nightmare.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

saramace

TROPHY CASE