2 2
skybytch

Prepping?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, fucked up that: 1) Biden approves this horseshit.  2) How you just lap it up.  3) That Jerry thinks this is all just Brent's opinion, lmao.

Yeah it is really fucked up a presidential candidate proposes to reinstate a law that led to less deadly mass shootings. 
 

Of course the party that is for the sanctity of life would oppose that. Once you are done controlling women you don’t give a shit about anybody’s life. Might cost you a penny on your taxes, can’t have that happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2020 at 9:16 AM, brenthutch said:

It depends on the election.  Gun sales plummeted after Trump won and the specter of a Clinton gun grab evaporated.  If Trump wins, great deals on guns and ammunition will be a few months away, OTOH a Biden win will ensure record sales, high prices and shortages for the foreseeable future.

Ironic, isn’t it? The party that wants to reduce the number and type of firearms citizens own, is responsible for literally millions of guns pouring into the hands of those very folks.

It isn't the party itself that causes that. It is the panic they induce in the other one. I'll agree it is ironic and I have always thought so since 1994 when I first bought into it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Yeah it is really fucked up a presidential candidate proposes to reinstate a law that led to less deadly mass shootings.

No, you were saying that it was f'd up that we protect ducks more than children, and I was saying that it's f'd up how Biden knew people like you would fall for that line of horseshit, lol.

 

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Of course the party that is for the sanctity of life would oppose that. Once you are done controlling women you don’t give a shit about anybody’s life.

Of course you're going to change the subject to that same old tiresome narrative even tho it has nothing to do with me nor what we're actually talking about.

Besides, there is no conflict with supporting a negative public opinion of abortion and supporting the 2nd amendment.

 

And again, anti-abortion isn't just some male dominated christian conservative movement:

https://www.secularprolife.org/pro-woman

https://www.secularprolife.org/religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Coreece said:

No, you were saying that it was f'd up that we protect ducks more than children

The original quote I believe was from brenthutch, and Skydekker just said it was f'd up.

53 minutes ago, Coreece said:

and I was saying that it's f'd up how Biden knew people like you would fall for that line of horseshit, lol

Oh yeah sure, and you're the independent thinker who doesn't fall for crap? hahahahahahahahaha

54 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Besides, there is no conflict with supporting a negative public opinion of abortion and supporting the 2nd amendment.

For an independent thinker you stick to the party line as if your brain were on rails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

z

52 minutes ago, olofscience said:
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

and I was saying that it's f'd up how Biden knew people like you would fall for that line of horseshit, lol

Oh yeah sure, and you're the independent thinker who doesn't fall for crap? hahahahahahahahaha

Then you should easily be able to show an example where I've supported Trump or Biden's hyperbolic bs.

53 minutes ago, olofscience said:
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Besides, there is no conflict with supporting a negative public opinion of abortion and supporting the 2nd amendment.

For an independent thinker you stick to the party line as if your brain were on rails.

I'm a registered independent, but even most democrats don't identify as liberals - many still support the 2nd amendment and can still disagree with the idea of abortion, even if they are pro-choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Then you should easily be able to show an example where I've supported Trump or Biden's hyperbolic bs.

Okay, back in March you were very supportive of Trump's "measures" to stop Covid-19:

On 3/12/2020 at 3:46 AM, Coreece said:

Sigh.  He clearly said that they'll have to be appropriately screened.

"There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings"

You people are impossible.

You fell for Trump's BS at least - they weren't screened, they weren't quarantined, and here we are, 211,000 deaths later.

Source: the covid-19 thread (edit 2: it didn't take very long to find, fulfilling the criteria of "easily")

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'm a registered independent, but even most democrats don't identify as liberals - many still support the 2nd amendment and can still disagree with the idea of abortion, even if they are pro-choice.

I'm registered as an independent as well, and consider myself both a progressive and a liberal.  And I am very much in favor of the 2nd amendment, and am anti-abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

z

Then you should easily be able to show an example where I've supported Trump or Biden's hyperbolic bs.

I'm a registered independent, but even most democrats don't identify as liberals - many still support the 2nd amendment and can still disagree with the idea of abortion, even if they are pro-choice.

I'm a progressive liberal, mostly, who is definitely pro-choice. I am also pro gun ownership while at the same time being anti our badly written and falsely interpreted second amendment. I am piss tired of the narrative that all liberals are pro abortion up to and including the 4th grade. Most of us who are pro choice disagree with the idea when the fetus is viable according to medicine and science not witchcraft. Same with guns, really. I, and most liberals I know, believe owning guns should be a right up to a certain point. Basically anything useful for hunting or home defense is good. Machine guns, bump stocks and mauve pistol grips should never be allowed without serious controls. It's not one extreme or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm a progressive liberal, mostly, who is definitely pro-choice. I am also pro gun ownership while at the same time being anti our badly written and falsely interpreted second amendment. I am piss tired of the narrative that all liberals are pro abortion up to and including the 4th grade. Most of us who are pro choice disagree with the idea when the fetus is viable according to medicine and science not witchcraft. Same with guns, really. I, and most liberals I know, believe owning guns should be a right up to a certain point. Basically anything useful for hunting or home defense is good. Machine guns, bump stocks and mauve pistol grips should never be allowed without serious controls. It's not one extreme or the other.

Run for President. I'd support you.

 

I'd do it myself on this platform but we know how 'murica feels about foreigners. ;)

Oh and toss in electoral reform, would ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, yoink said:

Run for President. I'd support you.

 

I'd do it myself on this platform but we know how 'murica feels about foreigners. ;)

Oh and toss in electoral reform, would ya?

For electoral reform, I'd eliminate the electoral college ASAP, if not sooner. In fact I'd go further, I would create a special Night Police charged with rounding up anyone whoever spoke in support of the electoral college. After their excuses were made and noted they would be dragged backwards by galloping horses to a place of disposal where kind words would be spoken. Next, to fix the insane system of two Senators per state that creates a system of unequal representation and forces thinking people to be subservient to hicks, banjo players and voodoo aficionados I would immediately grant statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico. For Judicial reform, instead of court packing, I would eliminate the office budgets for all appeals court judges and eliminate 3 of the 4 clerkships that all Supreme Court Judges enjoy forcing the asshats to do a little thinking for a change and also work through the summer like the rest of us. Lastly, by Executive Order, no more teetotalers in the Oval Office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

...I would immediately grant statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico.

I have a simpler idea. Look at the map. Why should there be a little notch taken out of Maryland? Just make DC another county of Maryland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I'm not hot on the Electoral College, either. But remember a few points about that system. 

  • If we didn't HAVE it, the top four, five, seven/eleven states in population would make all the choices for President. Too bad some states are far less populated than others, but are sometimes big states in area. Why couldn't we have just settled this country equally everywhere? Like a checkerboard. Would make these things easier. 
     
  • So like Keenu Reeves said in Speed, "What do YOU do?"
     
  • The Presidential race is one of the few that affects the entire country. Senators and US Reps are by state. Not trying to give a civics lesson. I'm sure you all know that stuff. If you don't want the decision on who will lead the US made strictly by where most people live, then how do you give a voice to the people in the less-populated states? 
     
  • You see the problem here? When people say, 'He was elected by a majority of the people," what they would mean if the College was gone, would actually be: "He was elected by California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states." The top ten states in population contain more than half our citizens. Unless you are willing to relinquish complete control of Presidential elections that way, then the College serves a purpose. 
     
  • Don't get me wrong. I'm not convinced it's the best way, but I haven't seen anything created yet that would be MORE fair. Hey, I'm willing to listen. I just haven't heard of a working alternative fair to everyone, which most can agree on. 

EDIT: Let me put this to you another way. If you disband the Electoral College, then in order to make elections fair, you would have to disband all 50 states and create a very few, larger ones, that are divided by population. In other words, split the US into five sections instead according to roughly even population. Then everyone would be represented fairly. It's the only true democratic method that would have a chance to work. Some of these five 'territories' would be much larger than others, of course. 

But I don't think anyone wants that. I certainly do not. Assigning Electoral College votes as they do is not the worst idea. Maybe when the Founding Fathers thought it up, it was the best they could do. They were pretty smart guys, but couldn't see into the future. 

I just read the posts from the first few pages. Prepping? Report on that? Sure. 

We've been prepared for years. I figure we can do a few weeks easily with full power, all supplies, communications, blah blah blah. They don't call us ADVENTURE Books of Seattle for nothing. You've heard it all before on other sites. I just like to think I'm more careful, less radical, and quiet about my preparations and contingency plans. It's complicated. It's fluid. An ongoing project. 

My only advice is to assess your particular needs and build from there. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

EDIT: Let me put this to you another way. If you disband the Electoral College, then in order to make elections fair, you would have to disband all 50 states and create a very few, larger ones, that are divided by population. In other words, split the US into five sections instead according to roughly even population. Then everyone would be represented fairly. It's the only true democratic method that would have a chance to work. Some of these five 'territories' would be much larger than others, of course. 

Only because you've been brainwashed into thinking that states are like people. That a red state is a unified homogenous blob of conservative thought and a blue state contains nothing but liberal principles. It's nonsense.

 

Like your suggestion that you'd have to redistrict all the states to make a non EC election work.... Dude. Think about it. If the EC didn't exist the makeup of the states wouldn't make any difference. There would still be the same number of people living in the same places with the same regional concerns voting the same way.

Quote

You see the problem here? When people say, 'He was elected by a majority of the people," what they would mean if the College was gone, would actually be: "He was elected by California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states." The top ten states in population contain more than half our citizens. Unless you are willing to relinquish complete control of Presidential elections that way, then the College serves a purpose.

So what? Elections are generally decided by a few swing states anyway. You could just as well say that under the EC a President is elected by Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and a couple of others. 

 

So if only a few states are going to have all that power, why is it better that those states contain fewer humans?

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

If you disband the Electoral College, then in order to make elections fair, you would have to disband all 50 states and create a very few, larger ones, that are divided by population. In other words, split the US into five sections instead according to roughly even population. Then everyone would be represented fairly. It's the only true democratic method that would have a chance to work. Some of these five 'territories' would be much larger than others, of course. 

Actually, the Electoral College is basically a first-past-the-post system (FPTP) and mathematically it's actually QUITE difficult to design elections that are fair - if you use Kenneth Arrow's 4 conditions it's actually mathematically impossible.

Anyway, FPTP does have the problem that a candidate can get less than 50% of the vote and still win (i.e Trump). But if you want more "fair" elections you will also have to accept that the most populous states will dominate, unless you want to accept that not everyone's votes are equal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The Electoral College was put into place purely to encourage the Southern states to ratify the Constitution, by ensuring the less populated (Southern) states would have a disproportionate power in Washington so they could prevent the abolition of slavery.

Remember that the Electoral College means it is the states who elect the president, not the people. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the state government needs to consider how its citizens voted, when submitting its electoral votes.

To see where this could go next month, watch this:

 

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, olofscience said:
15 hours ago, Coreece said:

Then you should easily be able to show an example where I've supported Trump or Biden's hyperbolic bs.

Okay, back in March you were very supportive of Trump's "measures" to stop Covid-19

Ya, I'd suspect most of  us here support the idea of screening and quarantine.

 

14 hours ago, olofscience said:

You fell for Trump's BS at least - they weren't screened, they weren't quarantined

We knew quarantining would be voluntary, but I think it's a risk we were willing to take given most of us aren't ok with shutting out our own people or directing them to quarantine by gun point.

 

14 hours ago, olofscience said:

it didn't take very long to find, fulfilling the criteria of "easily"

What about the criteria of being "hyperbolic bs?"

Statements about covid screening and quarantining are nowhere near the level of hyperbole found in the comment about us protecting ducks more than our own kids, especially when you already know it's illegal to hunt children, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Statements about covid screening and quarantining are nowhere near the level of hyperbole found in the comment about us protecting ducks more than our own kids, especially when you already know it's illegal to hunt children, lol.

Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. The rest of the world was horrified when so many children died in the Sandy Hook shooting, but the resistance to banning weapon types (and ammunition capacity) used in that shooting does make it seem that way.

21 minutes ago, Coreece said:

We knew quarantining would be voluntary, but I think it's a risk we were willing to take given most of us aren't ok with shutting out our own people or directing them to quarantine by gun point.

Guess what, in Australia and many other countries quarantining is NOT voluntary. And with your love of guns you're quite sensitive about being at gunpoint. Strange, huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I don't remember saying all that stuff, and I'm not that easily brainwashed. B)

Then defend your suggestion that states would need to be consolidated if the EC was abolished. How would it make any difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I'm not hot on the Electoral College, either. But remember a few points about that system. 

  • If we didn't HAVE it, the top four, five, seven/eleven states in population would make all the choices for President. Too bad some states are far less populated than others, but are sometimes big states in area. Why couldn't we have just settled this country equally everywhere? Like a checkerboard. Would make these things easier. 
     
  • So like Keenu Reeves said in Speed, "What do YOU do?"
     
  • The Presidential race is one of the few that affects the entire country. Senators and US Reps are by state. Not trying to give a civics lesson. I'm sure you all know that stuff. If you don't want the decision on who will lead the US made strictly by where most people live, then how do you give a voice to the people in the less-populated states? 
     
  • You see the problem here? When people say, 'He was elected by a majority of the people," what they would mean if the College was gone, would actually be: "He was elected by California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states." The top ten states in population contain more than half our citizens. Unless you are willing to relinquish complete control of Presidential elections that way, then the College serves a purpose. 
     
  • Don't get me wrong. I'm not convinced it's the best way, but I haven't seen anything created yet that would be MORE fair. Hey, I'm willing to listen. I just haven't heard of a working alternative fair to everyone, which most can agree on. 

EDIT: Let me put this to you another way. If you disband the Electoral College, then in order to make elections fair, you would have to disband all 50 states and create a very few, larger ones, that are divided by population. In other words, split the US into five sections instead according to roughly even population. Then everyone would be represented fairly. It's the only true democratic method that would have a chance to work. Some of these five 'territories' would be much larger than others, of course. 

But I don't think anyone wants that. I certainly do not. Assigning Electoral College votes as they do is not the worst idea. Maybe when the Founding Fathers thought it up, it was the best they could do. They were pretty smart guys, but couldn't see into the future. 

I just read the posts from the first few pages. Prepping? Report on that? Sure. 

We've been prepared for years. I figure we can do a few weeks easily with full power, all supplies, communications, blah blah blah. They don't call us ADVENTURE Books of Seattle for nothing. You've heard it all before on other sites. I just like to think I'm more careful, less radical, and quiet about my preparations and contingency plans. It's complicated. It's fluid. An ongoing project. 

My only advice is to assess your particular needs and build from there. 

That really is a load of bollocks.

The EC is a way for a minority to defeat a majority of the people. 

As in "We the people of the United States. . . ." and "government of the people by the people for the people."

 It is nicely explained in Federalist Paper #68. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Coreece said:

We knew quarantining would be voluntary, but I think it's a risk we were willing to take given most of us aren't ok with shutting out our own people or directing them to quarantine by gun point.

Then you weren't ok with taking any real measures to stop the virus.

Under the criteria the Chinese border "closure" was just xenophobic security theatre. Not just shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, but leaving the back door open for all the other horses to escape too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jakee said:

Under the criteria the Chinese border "closure" was just xenophobic security theatre. Not just shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, but leaving the back door open for all the other horses to escape too.

Don't forget the proposal to close the border with Mexico.

And the fact that people from Italy & Switzerland were allowed to enter, despite Covid running rampant there. Because they were 'nice people' (you know, 'not brown'). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2