Pretty stupid to keep proving them correct in that assumption. No prominent conservative voices denounced these texts, after all, but several did try to justify/defend them.
And was ice going into the streets deporting first, questions later during Biden? No?
You're conflating two different kinds of regulations. I have no idea about gun manufacturing. Even if it is tightly controlled that’s about the specs of the weapon. The conversation was about use and ownership, where cars are regulated to an extreme degree.
Of course not, for the reason I already listed. They’d have to be nuts to even address it, and any form of defense would just be treated as an admission of some kind of guilt.
I was talking about the Obama-Biden administration specifically, since the Biden-Harris administration wasn’t characterised by anything noteworthy, at least nothing immediately comes to mind. In many ways it was just Obama 2.0, except Lite. I figured you would’ve gathered that with me linking Obama’s WH page and all, but oh well. His raids were widely publicised as well, along with the cages, all that jazz. That’s in the past though, I was just drawing a policy parallel. With a renewed and strengthened focus on immigration it’s no surprise some citizens do get caught in the crossfire, especially with all the new hires that perhaps don’t have the best of training yet. I hope that the situation improves, but it’s not exactly new.
All I said was that you can go to a dealership, purchase a car, have a buddy drive it off the lot for you, take the wheel around the bend and you’re sorted. In fact, in some states you can even legally register the vehicle at the DMV with no legal right to drive it. You can’t do that with a firearm, there’s a myriad of checks before and at the point of purchase - *significantly more* than when purchasing or registering a vehicle, which amounts to a giant piece of steel that you can drive at reckless speeds if you so wish. Criminals will always break laws, we’re in agreement there, but you made it seem like guns are some unregulated field when in reality they’re *extremely* well-regulated. Can we do more to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands? We can always do more. As you say, the roads are patrolled every single day by thousands of cops and yet here we are with a tenth of drivers driving without a license. My point is that you can only do *so much*, at some point you necessarily get diminishing returns. There’s only so many variables you can control with regulation before you’re left with the root causes of gun violence which are much, much harder to tackle.
Yeah it's clear after Vance calling 30-year-olds "kids" and Mike Johnson saying the party "defended that evil ideology (nazism)" that they do know the party is guilty of allowing fascist thoughts and ideas to permeate it. They won't even do the bare minimum in appearing to distance themselves any more.
I feel like we're trying to make two different points here. Your point is that gun purchases involve a lot of checks during the sale, and I'm not saying that those rules don't exist. My point is what happens after purchase. Once a gun is in someone's hands, there’s almost no oversight. No renewal of a license, no mandatory training, no insurance, no extra mental health checks, no checking to see if a 90 year old can still see clearly, and in most states no tracking.
For what purpose? Why would they possibly prostrate themselves for gaggle of left-wingers who consider them to be demons anyway? Because some people memed a little too hard in a private chatroom? Will they suddenly get your vote if they do that? I think not. If they have any sense in their heads, they’ll deal with it internally on the down-low and won’t waste the time of day explaining away crude humour. Unfortunately they have very little sense and it will be “a whole thing” until everybody forgets about it when the next “thing” to be upset about rolls around - it’s a pretty rapid news cycle.
What makes you think that? Such regulations vary between states, but many states do require training prior to a purchase, and if your intention is to carry, an LTC does require both firearms safety training and periodical renewal. Depending on the state this often entails fingerprinting and re-training. I’m not necessarily opposed to that kind of regulation - I’d like to know that people who carry their weapons in public know how to use them responsibly. Fact of the matter is that, realistically, anyone who owns a firearm is one felony away from not being able to own one anymore. I don’t know, the more we talk about this the more I’m convinced you’re not super familiar with how these things work in practice, no offense intended. Some states implement constitutional carry, sure, but those things are decided on the state, not national level, and it’d probably be difficult to standardise federally.
For one, to maybe reclaim some of their lost and sinking approval with level-headed conservatives and moderates. Doubling down only further proves that they'd sooner reject democracy than reject extremism. It also demonstrates that they had no intention to stick with their commitment to reduce or eliminate political violence in the wake of Kirk's murder, don't think that lasted even two weeks.
Yep, and too bad for them, the next "thing" is the same thing. After these texts and the swastika flag congressman, Trump's pick to lead the DOJ's special counsel office has now been outed as a nazi too. And a self-described one, at that.
Nah. That’s not how it works at all. The sooner they move on from this the better.
Yeah, someone posted this earlier, I had a quick skim. They’ll have to find another pick I suppose, talk about stumbling on the last yard. A little too hot to confirm now. So long as they don’t devolve into silly infighting for goofy updoots they’ll be just fine.
That's not how it works because they believe they're past the point of needing anyone's vote. They're counting on a corrupt supreme court to put the fix in for all future elections.
Has anyone told the current SCOTUS that? Because it seems they think their job is solely to dismantle the constitution instead.
You guys always say that when things don’t go your way. That is, unless your opinion aligns with that of Justice Jackson who, if I recall correctly, believes that being part of a minority is equivalent to being disabled and as such some special voting privileges are in order? It was quite humorous and quickly dismissed as gobbledygook, rightfully so. You guys really have to figure out if you’re on the side of everyone being equal *or* on the side of segregation because you blur the lines sometimes. Race-based redistricting sure is… an interesting suggestion. Sounds a lot like “gerrymandering is bad unless we do it”.
uh. Considering that both disabled people and people of color have been discriminated in more than a thousand ways in the past, even down to jobs. That's not complete crap.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/...ail-major-provision-of-the-voting-rights-act/
Who's "you guys?" The constitution has never been under attack like this under any other president, to the extent that even the heavily-conservative NRA has felt the need to step in and push back when 2A was under threat. Hyper-religious folk were super annoying about trying to control others' speech during the GWB era, but at least he wasn't so thin-skinned that he personally threatened TV networks into pulling comedians off the air. This isn't a left-right issue, SCOTUS has conditioned one malignant narcissist into believing he has absolute power, and they do an awfully pathetic job of trying to act surprised every time he abuses it.
This is a very impassioned argument for drawing maps based on whether someone’s the right shade of brown or not. Impressive, but racist. Between drawing maps based on political alignment (or “representation”, if you really insist on sticking to demographics) and maps drawn based on race I’d rather the former than the latter, but personally I’m in this completely insane club that thinks they should be based on geography.
See, if it was anybody else I would’ve chimed in with “I thought you guys didn’t like the second amendment and were all for weakening gun rights, you gotta make up your mind!”, but you don’t think that, so I’ll spare you the chain yanks.
There are certainly some downs with all of the ups, but after decades of legislating from the bench there’s a whole lot of precedent that needs to be cleaned up. No doubt it will cause a lot of chaos along the way, as all sudden change does, but I’d like to believe that the country will be better for it in the long run. Naturally not everyone shares my optimism, but it is what it is. Don’t worry - it’s Trump’s second term and I don’t really see a worthy successor as of yet. I somehow doubt presidential term limits will be overturned in the next few years (which is a bummer, you guys kept FDR until he croaked - no fair) so your guy will get the seat soon enough. As we both know, the pendulum always swings.RIiiiight.This is a very impassioned argument for drawing maps based on whether someone’s the right shade of brown or not. Impressive, but racist. Between drawing maps based on political alignment (or “representation”, if you really insist on sticking to demographics) and maps drawn based on race I’d rather the former than the latter, but personally I’m in this completely insane club that thinks they should be based on geography.
I will also add that the notion of things being “racist” or “not racist” based on the outcome is something I always found very humorous about modern American jurisprudence. It was racist to introduce a sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine use explicitly because one was prevalent in black areas and one wasn’t, and yet black leaders still pushed for it all the same in an effort to “clean their streets up”, only to complain about said disparity a couple years down the line. I guess working against your own interest is somewhat of a tradition.
To put things in a simple tl;dr, if your policy prescriptions are based on how brown or not brown someone is, you should take a step back and re-evaluate.
