Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
Apparently Trump's budget is being leaked. Big surprise. Huge bump to the military, cuts to Medicare and other social safety nets, and pushing Medicaid off onto states, who would then have to raise taxes or simply cut the program. Oh, and nation-wide mandatory drug-testing for people who receive assistance.
Also, when this inevitably fails, government will shut down again. Better save some cash before October.
Also, when this inevitably fails, government will shut down again. Better save some cash before October.
It's funny how alcohol and tobacco won't be held against you. Oh, or all those other addictive substances that can destroy your life. how about fat, sugar, and tax evasion?
Not to mention every single time mandatory drug testing is done for welfare, the savings from not paying the drug-users are far less than the costs of the drug tests.
Oh and by complete coincidence, the politician who proposes it almost always owns the drug testing company chosen.
Oh and by complete coincidence, the politician who proposes it almost always owns the drug testing company chosen.
Last edited:
A 5th grade teacher held a mock slave auction where white students bid on black students. As you might expect, it didn't go well.
How many fucking times do we need this to happen before people realize it's a bad idea?!
How many fucking times do we need this to happen before people realize it's a bad idea?!
Just in case anyone had forgotten what a fucking moron Boris Johnson is, he's described police investigations into historical child abuse as money "being spaffed up the wall".
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe HE needs to be investigated for historical child abuse.
Let's add Tucker Carlson to that list, after that audio was released of him defending child brides, claiming "It's not rape if you promise to marry and take care of her"
Dave
Staff member
"state-specific science"
If a guy looking suspiciously like a group of ferrets in a trench coat suddenly turns up and tells you to follow them through a weird portal in the back of your cupboard, don't ask questions, just follow him and don't look back.
Please?
Hey, i don't control large groups of well-trained doomweasels, or nukes, for that matter. You'll have to ask someone else, nicely
I don't spend as much time in the corner as certain others, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.Hey, i don't control large groups of well-trained doomweasels, or nukes, for that matter. You'll have to ask someone else, nicely
Beto makes it official.
Dave
Staff member
My problem with Warren is her electability. The right already has a hook with her and it's going to just get worse. I love her ideas and think that she'd make an amazing president, but I worry that she'd galvanize the right like Hillary did. Beto is a safe choice because it takes away the misogynists and racists.
Eh the right will say that Beto is racist because of his Latino-inspired nickname. They will also say he has dual loyalty to Mexicans for the exact same reason.
The right has real no morals or standards and choosing a candidate based on trying to prevent them from making bad-faith insults is a waste of time.
The right has real no morals or standards and choosing a candidate based on trying to prevent them from making bad-faith insults is a waste of time.
Look, at least 90% of Republicans will support President Trump. That's what this country has come down to: tribal loyalty. It doesn't matter how much they personally disapprove of him. The Republican nominee will get 90% of his party's votes, the Democratic nominee will get 90% of his/her party's votes. It's the swing voters in the middle that make a difference. So the question is, what will they think? Will they reject Warren for being a liberal woman? Will they reject O'Rourke for "sounding Latino" or having closer ties to the Latino community? Will they support or reject Cory Booker for being a black man? Will they support or reject Biden for being older, and being a part of the "establishment?" Will they reject Sanders because he's a socialist? Will they reject Kamala Harris for being a biracial person of color from California?
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all get what I'm saying. A Democratic nominee should not worry about what the right, or the GOP voting base, thinks about them. It's not going to happen no matter how hard they try.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't entirely agree that the base is a given, but not in a way that necessarily undermines your point. We saw in McCain/Obama that there's also a danger of a candidate being uninspiring enough that the base decides to stay home instead of go to the polls, and the opposite is also true - a candidate can be so inspiringly charismatic that formerly apathetic constituents can turn up to vote. As the "decideds" outnumber the moderates by around 4 to 1, it's been shown over the last 40 years that playing to the base is important, and if you're a skillful politician, you can also woo the middle with the (perceived) strength of your convictions. It worked for Reagan, Obama, and now Trump. He turned PA red by going hard right, after all.
But yes, I agree with the sentiment that it probably isn't worth worrying what the opposite base thinks of your party's candidate.
GasBandit
Staff member
Welp, guess now I can sue Blue Bell Inc. for making me fat.
Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Gun Manufacturer
Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Gun Manufacturer
Sure. As soon as someone mentally ill buys the product in question explicitly because of it's military appeal due to intensive, knowing marketing by Blue Bell.
To be frank, the question at hand in the lawsuit is whether or not Remington was knowingly marketing and selling it's product to unstable individuals based on it's military appeal and ease of modification, and whether such activities fall within the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, not whether Remington is responsible for it's product killing things (as it was designed to do). The Act only covers the right to sell the firearm in question and protection from legal issues regarding said sale, not the methods and means by which they advertise said product.
This seems like a legally distinct enough issue to allow the lawsuit to proceed. So much of how gun makers do business is shielded from the public eye due to a multitude of laws and it's almost assuredly because it's all shady as hell. You can't tell me that Remington doesn't know to who and why it markets it's product and I feel it's not an overreach to make that information public... especially if their intentions were to exploit those already easily exploitable.
GasBandit
Staff member
If making something look "cool" and emphasizing its military-like aspects are now grounds for litigation, prepare for the destruction of the video game industry.
Dave
Staff member
I....agree with Gas on this. To an extent. Handguns, long rifles, and shotguns certainly have their uses outside of killing people. "Automatic" or automatic style weapons do NOT. So the ability to sue for me depends completely on the weapon used.
And no, I'm not getting into the whole 2nd Amendment thing. I'm just saying that certain weapons - like cigarettes - when used properly for their intended use, kill people. That is their only function. And I'm only giving handguns a pass because of target shooting.
And no, I'm not getting into the whole 2nd Amendment thing. I'm just saying that certain weapons - like cigarettes - when used properly for their intended use, kill people. That is their only function. And I'm only giving handguns a pass because of target shooting.
Then my counter to this is should tobacco/vape pen companies be allowed to target their product at teenagers again? They were successfully (and justifiably) sued for doing this over and over again, to the point where we literally tax them to make advertisements against using their product by said teenagers.