"Senator Al Franken Accused of Groping a Woman in 2006"

[Guest]

[Guest]

[_Chap]

When the news is 24/7 anti-trump fake news shiny ball propaganda I have no choice but to go into a kind of bunker mode.

What recent substantive news item about Trump in a major newspaper or TV channel has, in your view, been 'fake'?

by the way I am not using that word in its recent sense of 'not liked by the speaker' but in the traditional sense of 'deliberately and knowingly false and misleading'.

[_Xenophon]

I've been around here long enough I'd ask that you not confuse my style of communication with rage. More like a very sardonic dismissal. I'm not taking any of this very seriously. I don't attribute hate to your words, so no worries there and sorry if I came across that way. I do think many around here would fall in that category though. The TDS is strong. In pol debates here I generally find myself responding to the group rather than specific people, even if I'm replying to a particular quote.

Re national debt, dude, you're preaching to the choir. I have plenty of gripes. There doesn't seem to be enough air time to discuss such things, however. If we were talking about the budget, yes, I have plenty of trash to talk. When the news is 24/7 anti-trump fake news shiny ball propaganda I have no choice but to go into a kind of bunker mode. I'm not going to join in on this hysteria. The issue is no longer the issues, it's all this other stuff.

Apologies if I read you wrong, occasionally your rhetoric strikes me as extreme (the bunker talk) and it is difficult not to read it as emotional. In fairness that does happen on the other side too. I'll try to keep your general response bit in mind, it is difficult not to react when we see our name in a response. I'm sure it is not easy to represent your side here as you are mostly out numbered and the ones that might agree with you are straight trolls. Bach isn't much of a tag team partner . If it helps, I continue to engage you because I find it interesting and disagreement keeps me sharp.

As I see Chap has already pointed out. We probably disagree with how much and what constitutes "fake news" but that is what it is. I think there are still plenty of places where issues can be discussed and hashed out, occasionally we even do it here.

P.S. for anyone that hadn't seen it before, like me. TDS is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[_canpakes]

The fact that this ["Obergefell is what got you Trump, how's that working out for you?"]can be said in public and casually agreed with demonstrates with clarity how easily manipulated and fragile some Americans are with regard to their sense of self and their need to have their religious beliefs validated by The State.

Captain Irony? It was the liberals who needed and continue to need validation by the state, are you effing kidding? They are not content to leave states and local communities alone.

Again, that's the claim by conservatives that I'm acknowledging, along with the reality that the same syndrome affects their own ranks and produces the same stink.

Really, what are you going to tell me about that perennial bunch of snowflake Christmas Warriors deciding to throw a temper tantrum whenever somebody doesn't greet them with their holiday cheer message of choice? A triggered snowflake is a triggered snowflake.

Gay people can't get married in Utah, oh, the humanity! Back in the day people rode disease infested ships for months, embarked on multi-year journeys across the world, just so they could be left the hell alone. But gay people can't be troubled with, I dunno, moving to California, or New York, or Illinois, or a bazillion other places where SSM was democratically legalized.

This would be a great time to ask you exactly why a person would need to move to another state to get married, as opposed to that state revisiting its marriage laws to reflect the reality that gay folks aren't divvied up by state within the country, much like black folks are not.

Because they just needed to have their relationship validated by the Utah state government for some reason. Why was this so important to them?

It's probably because if a person lives in Utah and wants to be married, that the State of Utah issues the license to do so, for its residents. Whooda thunk?

For some reason that is a total mystery to me they want to live in Utah.

Yep, people are funny like that. Lots of them have a tie or two within the state. You know, that's where they're employed, or have family, or own a house, or keep their chickens, or just prefer the weather. Whatever. But, geez, what with all of this state licensing for marriage and all, we don't want to let those gay folks get married because somebody else outside of that union might be ... offended. Lol. So, we gotta make the gay folks ditch it all to move out of the state to do that. That makes sense, right?

And still not content, they can't even let grandma bake her damn cakes in peace.

Meh. I don't have a dog in the gay wedding cake fight. I actually prefer that folks would and could do what they like for a living and other folks wouldn't press the issue of such things (surprise!), but we have this problem of business laws and such that muck things up on that front.

Every knee must bow, every tongue must confess, that liberalism is the true religion. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

(Oh, this is very dramatic. I feel the need to burst into applause!)

My vote would be to end all marriages - ALL OF THEM. The idea of people needing a license from .gov to enter into an interpersonal relationship is offensive. The idea that local governments should be compelled to regulate such relationships and even further to limit recognition to a specific federally mandated list only adds insult to injury. This is an extremely slippery slope.

Now, there you go. I agree with you on this. It has been my preferred solution for years.

In the meantime, though, we have to deal with the actual conditions, instead of wishing our preference into the scene. At least until the Gubmint decides to get out of the marriage licensing business.

It's not the outcome of Obergefell that people are upset with, it's the method. It's constitutionally and democratically offensive.

Why? Because within a system that currently defines marriage outside of religious specificity, you believe that religious specificity should be used to deny the license?

I personally do not care about gay marriage.

That's great; your wife will be relieved.

Put it to a vote, I'll vote yes. I don't care about the bathroom debates. Put it to a vote, I'll surprise you. What offends me is legislating from the bench. It's the same thing that offends me about everything on the left. The left sees the state as a tool of social engineering. Everything is the business of the state.

How much more logical is it that the state excludes gay folks from attaining a marriage license under the current system than allows it?

Is addressing the issue really legislating anything new, or just aligning the law based on how it was written?

Obamacare. Want to debate healthcare? Please, let's debate it. Let's have a real debate. Obamacare passed because the pols lied about it. They had to pass it to find out what was in it. From beginning to end it was a lie. And issue after issue it goes down like this. We don't have honest policy debates anymore. Maybe we never did, I am new to this after all. Obama was really my first president where I could participate in the election. When I look at history though it doesn't appear like this to me.

We've never had honest policy debates. There you go; now you can stop wondering.

And it's just getting worse with the installation of Trump. He sets a new standard for BS and dysfunction.

The problem is that there are some folks out there that rant on as if one side is primarily responsible for the problem, while ignoring the fat, festering dysfunction consuming their own party (or label) of choice.

Our dialogue isn't healthy.

You're right about that. Ever wonder how we got here? ; )

[_DoubtingThomas]

The point I'm trying to make, DoubtingThomas, which you're missing, is that there is no such thing as "assault" rifles or weapons.

Okay Mr. Water Dog, point accepted, but it is a minor point. If you need more clarification: No, I am not asking you about guns that are already banned.

Note, Merriam Webster is no more an "authority" than Wikipedia. They present one definition as found in society, and in this case it's a definition which is so vague it's utterly meaningless. It reads, "any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms."

The second definition says, "a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"

Water Dog, I honestly don't want to get into the semantics, that is what conservatives always do. How about we just address the elephant in the room?

by the way, I have no idea what weapons were used in Vegas, the news coming out of there got strangely quiet. There is clearly more to that story than meets the eye. Regardless, if his weapons were 100% legal in every way, my answer remains the same. As presented your question has no practical meaning. Legal yes or no? What does this mean? In what context? Federally? At the local level? How many laws were broken in the commission of this crime? Should murder be legal yes or no? Something being illegal doesn't prevent someone from doing it.

Federally? Locally? There is no need to get complicated, that is what politicians do when they don't want to answer the question. So let's stick with the second definition I gave you above, do you think assault rifles should be banned yes or no?

Dude, you can't compare drugs to guns. Give me a break. Criminals organizations exports big guns from the US, not into the US. Drugs on the other hand get imported to the US because they are on high demand.

As for your stupid "Something being illegal doesn't prevent someone from doing it." comment see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgBhZbfpSvQ

Again, this is a dumb argument. It's not an argument at all. As you said, "doesn't mean it works today, nor does it mean it cannot work today." Ok, and oranges are orange, do you have a point?

Listen Dog, I am only saying that just because something worked in the past doesn't mean it works today. We evaluate things based on modern times and circumstances. My point? My point is that the constitution for me is irrelevant, who gives a s*** about what the constitution says? Does the constitution think for you? Does the constitution have to tell you it is bad to kill?

[_DoubtingThomas]

"Gun Control vs. Restroom Control"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHmZaBKqARo

[_Brackite]

P.S. Water Dog, I'll give you a hint, I didn't vote for Clinton (any of the times). Way to get super personal there though buddy.

Good for you. My point stands, it's not about you. The attitudes are hypocritical at best, malicious at worse. The truth is this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning. Whether Moore did this thing or not, I have no idea but personally do not find the accusations credible, doesn't change the fact that this is being dropped weeks before a critical election for the specific purpose of trying to hold voters hostage. It's not right. People are sick of these dishonest tactics, the rigged elections. If there is no sense of the will of the people being genuinely honored, where do you think that ultimately leads? With each election it feels like the tension just builds up and up... eventually stuff is going to hit the fan in a big way if it stays on this trajectory. In the case of Franken, that guy shouldn't be in office to begin with. As I recall he won by something like 300 votes in an election where over a thousand convicted felons cast ballots. This plus other data points, there was strong evidence of fraud.

Voter suppression is much more widespread than voter fraud. Tens of thousands of individuals within Wisconsin last year were prevented from voting due to that State's strict voter ID law that was implemented during last year's election. Link

[_Xenophon]

I think we might be veering a touch off topic with the gun control stuff.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I think we might be veering a touch off topic with the gun control stuff.

Sorry. It's just that I have to reply to what Water Dog is saying.

Please forgive me.