About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

Most Democrats that take a radical stance as in wants no guns , wants abortions all the way up to birth , socialism , those who call our founding fathers racists , who won't compromise , who puts their ideas over the people who vote for them . I guess that's as accurate as I can get .

I see. How many of these individuals have you spoken with?

Only a handful on blue politics , none that are actually involved in the US diplomacy like leaders that are apart of the house or Senate . So if your asking how many have I talked to with actual political influence none yet .

I am not asking about individuals of political influence, just those in your normal circle. Now, what are these individual's views on guns? And why? By which I mean have you listened to their stories?

They basically said that all Americans are too stupid to own guns and their only "stories" is them pointing out school shootings and mass shootings , nothing actual personal .

I see. So we'll have to go a different route. Have you researched bills, policies and petitions that concern gun laws from the "far left"

Here are two bills I found:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

Can you find similar ones?

More to the point, what is problematic about these two?

Malicious wrote: wants abortions all the way up to birth ,

I somehow doubt that's the case, an abortion isn't possible 'up til birth' as after a certain point because it just becomes an early birth. Are you sure you have asked these people what they really think about the topics you mention?

Well more or less what I was talking about is some Democrats pushing for 3rd trimester abortion bills , and the Democratic debates where some of the candidates said they will either take our guns or issue a mandatory government buy back (or) putting a decent amount of restrictions to buy or own a gun . On the 3rd trimester abortion bills a main argument is pregnancy complications but if that happens that late in the pregnancy a baby could possibly survive by its own . And as for the gun part I was pretty much speaking about when O'Rourke said he if he won he will take them away and other nominees taking similar stances .

I might be a bit ill informed so I apologize for making this thread off topic and would like to end this debacle on my end , if you all want to continue on the matter go for it . As for me Imma just drop it here because after reading my post and what I'm briefly explaining I'm causing this thread to get off topic .

Malicious wrote: Well more or less what I was talking about is some Democrats pushing for 3rd trimester abortion bills , and the Democratic debates where some of the candidates said they will either take our guns or issue a mandatory government buy back (or) putting a decent amount of restrictions to buy or own a gun . On the 3rd trimester abortion bills a main argument is pregnancy complications but if that happens that late in the pregnancy a baby could possibly survive by its own . And as for the gun part I was pretty much speaking about when O'Rourke said he if he won he will take them away and other nominees taking similar stances .

I might be a bit ill informed so I apologize for making this thread off topic and would like to end this debacle on my end , if you all want to continue on the matter go for it . As for me Imma just drop it here because after reading my post and what I'm briefly explaining I'm causing this thread to get off topic .

You're most welcome to create topics about these things. Here are some fact checking resources https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/or-forum/open-discussions/124040-fact-check-the-best-least-biased-resources#353225

And see "Democrats are embracing “abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/27/ted-cruz/do-democrats-support-abortion-until-and-after-birt/

Malicious wrote: Most Democrats that take a radical stance as in wants no guns , wants abortions all the way up to birth , socialism , those who call our founding fathers racists , who won't compromise , who puts their ideas over the people who vote for them . I guess that's as accurate as I can get .

I have yet to meet one of these unicorn mythical democrats you speak of. And I don't know of anyone who has. So is it possible that POLITICAL PROPAGANDA might be responsible for building a mythical democrat as a strawman and a fear mongering scare tactic to get you to passionately vote against this mythical democrat who wants no guns, abortions up til birth, etc. so that you are actually voting for them and whatever their radical ideas are?

Many democrats are simply open to new ideas because we're not trying to "conserve" the status quo. The status quo has only been working for certain people. So if other countries are smart enough to look at some ideas and integrate some ideas from socialism, that doesn't make the country "socialist". But in the minds of media heads that want you to blindly give your power and support to their party, they create this fear that that is exactly what the country will become. And its nonsense. When we look at gun crime stats in Europe and Japan its obvious there should be less guns and that it should be more difficult to get and use them. But it shouldn't be impossible either. It's about balance. But this idea that democrats want to take your freedoms is a ridiculous lie. They said Obama was going to take your guns. Did he? No. So these are lies meant to control your vote.

From where I'm at (not in the US or even the Americas), conservatism is not about conserving the status quo, its about conservation of momentum in progress, as contrasted with various forms of less conservative progress which prefer rather (relatively) more urgent change.

Of course the question then becomes what to change to effect the change in a way which is not going to backfire and actually work ie how to engineer an improvement in the best balance of urgency and likelihood of success.

In that regard, the 'lefty' as its called around my parts seems to be exhibiting pretty much the same characteristics of the 'righty'. But because conservative progress is slower then unconservative process, it's much more prone for the left approach to 'appear' urgent and effective. Unfortunately for others they have might have experiences with how things work and have the view that unconservative progress usually does not solve the problem but rather is just a bandaid on a compound fracture, and together those two factors lend to the 'loud majority' problem of the left tending towards radicalism and revolution.

The problem with the right is when conservatism is abused for stagnation and maintaining the status quo, or worse if the conservative change is worse. Because conservative progress is going to be more structurally sound most of the time and have a higher chance of success if its an improvement, but harder to correct if its a change for the worse.

Both these fringe lefty and righty seem to be variations of the same fascist practices towards forcing ones will upon another. But again here, it's just the right needs to be in power to suffer that deformation while the left does not, so fascists are considered 'right'. Exaggeration, vilification, misinformation, group identity politics, etc etc. It's the same stuff which puts steam into a revolutionary peoples uprising as it is that puts steam into a fascist peoples uprising. Either way the other side gets stomped down. It's easy to do because real problems are complex, and complex problems rarely have simple solutions.

Which leads to consideration about the nature of democracy itself, and as such the fall to the left is probably inherent to this as its failsafe. Because in contrast the more harder socialist nations are way way more conservative and failsafe to the right in terms of quelling the people when change is required (thinking Russia, China et al). The only thing I think that has changed is that the threshold for popular uprising has altered dramatically given the infotech age, which might even have implications on the longevity of democracy when considered in the context of an overpopulated planet!

In America, conservatism is about keeping things the same because changes tend to mean bigger government and they (conservatives in the US) want smaller government. So, for example, they don't want Universal Healthcare... ever. Of course now that people have it it's tougher to argue that it should go back to the way it was before with many people dying, not getting coverage. Conserving the momentum of progress... I don't even understand what that means in the US political system because its not fast vs slow. It's one group wanting the government to do less and another more. Liberal vs Conservative is not about momentum. What momentum? The way we shift between parties... Nah. The US is different. Dysfunctional.

That's why people voted for Trump. They wanted to blow it up.

In our political system "lefty" is more similar to what's likely standard for other European countries. Bernie Sanders gets a lot of guff for the simple fact that he wants to take policy cues from Canada and other European countries. Universal Healthcare. Free college. These things cost money and right wing conservatives don't want to pay because they feel like that takes too much away from them. So our "left" is trying to get to where European countries were decades ago. Rightys want to spend money too, but on the military and tax cuts. They still believe (even if its just a wink and a nod) that lower taxes to the rich makes them create more business opportunities for the poor and middle class. They call this trickle down economics.

(whisper voice) it doesn't work.

What you describe as conservatives are our mainstream Democrats. People like Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi; they're all proponents of incremental more gradual change. Progressives, like AOC, are proponents of sometimes radical change. Our conservatives are so stagnant that many of them probably wouldn't mind if slavery returned. I'm exaggerating... slightly.

We do have a fascist uprising on the right as well. I believe that's definitely something to be concerned about and watch out for. Nazis and all.

It's all about balance. We move the pendulum simply by not being happy or satisfied which influences who wins the next election.