Ten oz

A very small but fervent group of people Shepard gun policy in the U.S.. They use a mixture of national/founderism and Whataboutism to promote distrust toward democracy which prevents action on the issue. *Founderism is my made up word for the notion that the U.S. was designed, by the founders, as a White Evengelical Christian nation.

Where internal rules broken? Super delegates were free to do as they wish per the rules. In 2008 Clinton got more votes than Obama but the super delegates went to Obama. That is the way the Democratic primary system was set up. Rules weren't broken per se but rather millions of anti Clinton voters in addition to pro Sander supporters simple didn't like the process. That said the process was the same one all candidates entering the Primary were aware of. There is a huge difference between violating rules and doing things the opposition doesn't like.

All it requires in practical application is for Trump to realize Russia in putting Intelligence efforts towards propaganda that supports him and embarrasses it. At this point we know for a fact Trump was briefed by the U.S. National Security during the election that Russia was doing this and yet Trump still ran around saying maybe it was China, Don Jr. knowing took meetings with Russians soliciting to help, members of Trump campaign team had direct connections to Russia, and members of Trump campaign have already pled guilt for lying to officials about it. Trump is President now. He has receive briefs detailing what Russia is doing yet continues to call the majority of it fake news and deny it. Trump was clearly a accessory during the crime and continues to be after. Trump's supporters play a games with the meaning of collusion arguing that there is no proof Trump explicitly sat down in advance and planned on this out with Russian Intelligence. It is a ridiculous standard. Collusion and accessory can happen at any point before, during, or after a crime.

Gun laws have been so lax for so long and gun ownership conflated with patriotism (in some circles) for so long that 4 guns really doesn't seem like much. I personally know people with seemingly full armories at there homes. I personally think it is crazy. It has taken a decade of debate and numerous mass shooting to even get to a point where large portions of the population are questioning the need for military grade assault weapons in their homes.

That is an inaccurate summary in my opinion. The discussion your reference went on for pages. Truncating it down for the chance to take a petty swipe is childish. It is a dead debate in a closed thread. If you would like to continue that discussion start a thread about whether or not actively costuming gun industry products is counter productive to achieving gun control. Otherwise you are just asking for an off topic argument.

Number one type of firearm related death is suicide. The number one type of firearm used in all firearm related deaths are handgun. Look at where the energy currently: stores choosing not to sell assault weapons, the President openly calling for a ban on bump stocks, student activism capturing the nations attention, and polls showing the majority of the nation supporting an assault weapon ban. After decades of inaction there is finally a chance for action because of the national mood following recent mass shootings. How does saying we should focus on broader issues that don't have even a tenth of the national agreement or momentum help anything? Yes, less people die per year in mass shootings than suicides. Yes, assault weapons kill less people per year than handguns. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good shall we allow the moment to pass on assault weapons and bump stocks. Shift debate away from those "relatively low incidence" matters and focus on suicides? I don't believe there is any broad agreement about taking action of any kind on handguns. I also don't think there is any broad agreement about how to address firearm suicides. Currently the narrow spot light focused on assault weapons because of mass shootings in actually having an impact. Widening that light would be counter productive at this time. We are all starving. Lets eat some of the low hanging fruit on the few trees we have before trying to plant an entire orchard.

If the criterion for potential policy changes is empirical proof any specific change will eliminate all future mass shootings than we will never have policy change. Traffic laws do not prevent all traffic accidents any more than rape laws prevent all rape. The bar is set ridiculously high when arguments are launched implying specific policy changes aren't perfect; nothing is perfect. If it is better, if it can safe a life, than it is worth trying in my opinion.

A clear context was never provided for answering the OP. It is ethical to view identical twins as different; each aretheir own individual person. Yes, men and women are different. Men and men are different too. All people are different from each other and those differences created all types of advantages. People with bald heads have the advantage of saving money on shampoo.

Sports is a bad example. Even amongst people of the same height, weight, age, and years of experience/training there are very big differences. Those with different body types play different sports even within a specific sport body type often determines the position one will play. In an earlier post you mentioned fighting sports and qouted "I've never felt so overpowered in my life"; in both the Boxing and the UFC people have died. Many people are totally overpowered and there has been debates for years as to whether fighting sports in general are ethical. So in bringing gender into that discussion you are merely adding mud to murky water. Even if we shift the sports example to something more mainstream like Football you'd still be dabbling in something which already has ongoing ethical concerns regarding protecting kickers, protecting quarterbacks, concussions, and etc. All contact sports are dangerous. All have seen deaths. All have their own ongoing ethical challanges. Complicating matters even more are Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). Amongst the most elite athletes in every sport a healthy percentage are caught cheating.

Even the few conservatives in this forum who labeled Trump a bigot not qualified to be President a few months ago are now defending him. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Is life just an illusion, a dream, a simulation, or etc? The question gets asked many different ways. iNow and Phi for All bring of good points. In my opinion the question opens a door and then fails to peer through it. Unless I can wake from the dream or see the illusion as one than what difference does it make? Peering through the open door how can one test reality to see if it is real? If it isn't real than what is on the otherside?

Right and wrong are not concepts that exclusively exist within humans. All animals that function in groups have basic standards of behavior that are either positive or negative to the group; members are held to those standards. All discussion of sin, immorality, choice, and etc as being uniquely human are ones of perspective. In my opinion concepts like right and wrong shouldn't be part of these types of discussions. Via evolution a species either continues or it perishes. No right or wrong just contuned and not continued. As for God there either is one or there is not. Moses brought down tablets or he did not. Valuing either outcome with subjective emotional terms like good vs evil lends no truth or confirmation.

I honest suspect that Trump is secretly a Clinton supporter and his whole campaign is meant to expose how unserious the modern conservative movement actually is. That and I think he legitimately has a grudge against Jeb Bush for something.

Just as an arroused post potential mate may say or allow themselves to momentarily believe anything that leads to intercourse the republican party has fallen into the self inflating cycle of emotional responses over reason. They want to be back in the executive branch and refuse to acknowledge anyone but them has a right be much like a jealous suiter refuses to concede they are not the only available fish in the sea. Everything done by Obama, Clinton, whomever their foe is can never be legitimate just as any touch upon the women one obsessively stalks is one deserved only to them. It is irrational, inconsiderate, and sociopathic behavior. The GOP want the country for themselves without out any regard for whether or not such is good for the country. They fondly think back on the Bush years which soiled international relations, collasped the worlds economy, lead to 2 full boots on the ground wars, turn surpluses in to record shattering deficits, but somehow satisfied their need for control. Rather Obama's more succesful messured and moderate approaches are seen as weak, unpatriotic, and abusive to the spirit of the constitution. It is truly a case where anyone do anything but them simply isn't acceptable. Long as they are in the drivers seat they are happy. What is happening outside of he car simply does not matter.

According to Public Policy Polling, a recent poll of 532 Republican primary voters found that 30 percent supported bombing Agrabah. The only problem is that Agrabah is the fictional country from the Disney movie Aladdin. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/poll-30-republicans-want-bomb-fictional-disney-country

Below are key aganda points from the current Confederate Party's home page: "CONFEDERATE PARTY PLATFORM We believe that our nation was founded on Christian ethics and principles and that our forefathers acknowledged God and called on Him for His guidance in creating this country for themselves and their posterity. We welcome all persons who hold these same beliefs and encourage the free expression of those beliefs. Having set forth those principles of our beliefs above, we have determined the following items to be key goals of our national agenda. 1. New Amendment to Constitution which repeals 14th, and 15th Amendments. 2. An Amendment to the Constitution which states that nullification and secession are inalienable and irrefutable rights of the States. 3. A law and eventual Constitutional Amendment declaring English as the official language of these United States. 4. Removal of all powers at the Federal level that are not explicitly given to the Federal government by the Constitution. 5. Immediate withdrawal from the United Nations and eviction of all United Nation agencies and organizations from United States soil. 6. Abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank. 7. Planned, gradual withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from all foreign nations and territories. 8. Federal income tax abolished and replaced by a system of funding through a direct levy on the states in proportion to the population of those states and established by convention of the states. 9. Reform of the federal judicial system removing many of the federal judiciary’s powers over the states. 10. A reaffirmation of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. If necessary, a new amendment which restates the basic principles in such a way that cannot be mis-interpreted. 11. A limit on the salaries of elected officials. No elected official will ever receive a salary more than the median salary of the nation. 12. Legislation to insure that no elected official will ever serve more than two consecutive terms." http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/CNP.html Starting with the Christian nation and continuing through the points; 3-6, 8 & 9, and 11 & 12 are all political stances various Republicans have advocated in recent years. The ideology of Confederates and modern conservatism (Tea Party, Republican, Libertarian) are clearly in line. The Modern Democratic party no longer supports or placates the above stated ideas.

Meaning what? Are you saying that minorities are not making choices based on their personal experiences, beliefs, and political understanding? Money is a terrible problem in politics. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson throw hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to buy politicians. What does that have to do with welfare?

@ Waitforufo, I asked why every minority group overwhelming votes Democrat and your response is welfare? That response demeans minority groups. It implies they collectively are being minipulated. That their voice isn't worth listening to. Democrat congressman John Lewis who was beaten over the head on Bloody Sunday in Selma is only a Democrat today because of Welfare? Never mind what he might say you already know it is all about food stamps.

Who do the Blacks alive today that lived through racist oppression in the South vote for TODAY? Over 90% of Blacks, over 70% of Latinos, and over 70% of Asians voted Democrat in 2012. http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/10-amazing-demographic-percentages-of-the-2012-election-20121109 The minorities in this country sure seem to uniformly prefer the Democratic party. Why is that?

"Johnson signed the fortified Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights What followed the Civil Rights Act? The South had been uniformily Democratic. In 1968, first post Civil Rights Act election, George Wallace a racist pro segregation advocate got close to 10 million votes and 46 electoral votes winning 5 southern states. Since then the south has been uniformly Republican. So regardless of what either of the two major parties once stood for and who use to vote for them it is clear that the racist southern vein vote Republican today. It clearly switch following the Civil Rights Act. Today if you fly a Confederate flag, dislike minorities, or think the 1950's was a utopian society you also are very likely to vote Republican.

The pendulum does swing but demographics haven't. The GOP only wins one group, white males. That group is a shrinking one. The trend is pulling away from them. It isnt swing back and forth. The GOP can still win Idaho, Utah, Kanas, Wyoming, etc because those states voters are still predominantly white male. Such is not the case in larger States necessary for winning National races.

Government that does nothing does best is just a opposition slogan for when they are out of power. When they have power they do a lot. Reagan spent massive amounts of money and grow the government by record amounts as did Bush. conservatives also love to flex international muscle selling weapons to fuel rebellions or outright invading countries for precieved strategic gain. Having a federalist packed court is critical to conservative policies. 5-4 decisions have decided many key political issues. Even put the last GOP president in office. The longer conservatives are out of the white house the more footing they loose. They aren't the one packing the courts, writting policy for the DOD, DOJ, IRS and influencing foriegn polices. Law and Order, Strong Miliatry, intimidating foriegn policy, and Taxes are the key issues GOP has focused of for the last 40yrs and without the Executive Branch they don't have control of long term influence over those things. The inability to win national office will force a shift in the party. We already see some signs of it. Current frontrunners Jeb Bush and former nominee Mitt Romney both have discussed the for the party to better court minorities and change their immigration stance. While the Libertarian wing get huge applause everywhere they go by championing marijuana legalization. By 2024 after 16yrs out of the White House I believe we will see a Republican party that is almost identical today's Democrats. Remember Bush ran as a "compassionate" conservative. Bush was pro immigration and ran around the country championing low interest rates helping poor people own their first home. He gave trillions to senior citizens for prescription medicine without working out how to pay for it. If not for 9/11 making many conservative foriegn policy, military build up, and civil rights dismantling possible Bush would've been a rather boring moderate.

@ Waitforufo, while there are 3 branches of government the Conservatives need the Executive Branch the most. That is how they pack the courts, get military contract deals, and influence forgien affairs. The motto of anti government and the best government is the one that does the least isnt one that best lends itself to the senate. Nationally the demographics are against the GOP. They are on their last leg. Winning mid term years alone won't cut it. They will have to evolve n many key issues to have a shot at winning major national elections. They have lost yhe popular vote 5 of the last 6 presidential elections and are polling for another lashing in 2016. They may hang on to Congress but that alone doesn't keep them whole.

You are right I posted Administrative branch when I meant Executive Branch good catch. Thank you.

How populated is all that red vs the blue? The demographics are strongly against the GOP. @ Overtone, Roberts will be on the bench a long time but Scalia and Thomas won't. Once federalist judges lose their 5-4 advantage lots will change.