Jump to content

The Real timschochet

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    10,248

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

Posts posted by The Real timschochet

  1. Posted

    On 6/14/2024 at 11:39 AM, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

    did far more than anyone on J6

    See I don’t like the guy but this is simply crazy. This is why you guys are such hypocrites. @RLLD calls him a POS, @Strikesays he should be in prison, and you say it’s worse than Jan 6. And yet all 3 of you are planning on voting for a guy for President who is ten times worse than Bowman in every way. Which is why when you wrote this stuff you have no credibility. 

  2. Posted

    42 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

    It's so focking retarded. Hiring white people because they're the best candidate for the job is racist. Hiring minorities for the sake of hiring minorities is not racist. 

     

    Neither statement is correct. Neither statement represents the pro-diversity position. 
     

    You and other conservatives have created a caricature of what you think liberals are and you prefer that to the truth. 

  4. Posted

    3 minutes ago, squistion said:

    :mellow:

    What does The Schocheting Of America mean exactly?

    It means, in the warped mind of @HellToupee, that my sympathy towards the plight of most undocumented immigrants is the equivalent of being for rape and murder. Because in his bigoted and perverse point of view all of those who are undocumented are rapists and murderers. It’s a hateful rhetoric shared by millions of people in the age of Trump. It makes me really sad. 

    • Haha 1

  5. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

    Try public speaking sometime.  Look, you believe what you believe.  I'm not trying to convince you.  You told me the other day that you saw no difference in Biden's speech clips from four years ago compared with today.  I believe you believe that, but it's not what I see.  Trump has his flaws, I'm not making excuses for him.  I didn't vote for him in the primary.  But you shouldn't allow your bias to delude your senses.  You probably think the same of me, and that's fine.  I'm not upset by that, I just believe you're quite wrong.

    Both Trump and Biden are pretty lousy at public speaking IMO. Trump is better than Biden, especially when speaking off the cuff, but that’s a measure of degrees. Neither man comes close to the skills of a Reagan or Obama. 
     

    But that leads to the question: why should public speaking skills be important to the Presidency? Abraham Lincoln stuttered like Biden does. Harry Truman meandered like Trump does. It’s a really sad thing that we’ve allowed these non-important factors to have such significance. 

  6. Posted

    I enjoy @Engorgeous George He’s witty and I really like his song lyric references. Ironically, though he and I have pretty obvious differences politically, we have very similar musical tastes. 

    But George is simply wrong on most political opinions that he has offered here. And he also suffers from a tendency that I see all too often among conservatives these days: rather than simply offer an opinion and/or rebuttal to liberal arguments, he attempts to offer motivation for those arguments which is usually way off the mark. Go ahead and tell me why you think I’m wrong but don’t try to tell me what I’m secretly thinking. 
     

    • Sad 1

  7. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

     We've really lowered the bar here to not even have candidates who can answer questions in front of a crowd. 

    And this statement is the exact opposite of the truth. It’s far easier to answer questions in front of a crowd. You can shout, interrupt, refuse to answer, give canned one liners- in other words be a clown which is just about the only skill Trump has. Answering serious questions from informed journalists, without the ability to interrupt and play to the crowd, that’s far more difficult. This raises the bar, significantly so. 

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

    I'm not surprised you think that.  But this is a significant departure from what the past has been, by the statement above you are implying it benefits Biden to have this fairly significant change, yet you deem this as fair.  It's pretty obvious the Trump folks weren't the ones who demanded this change.  We've really lowered the bar here to not even have candidates who can answer questions in front of a crowd.  Maybe Tapper can give Biden the questions in advance so he can have his note cards made by someone on staff on how to answer.

    It’s not a significant departure. The most famous, most important televised Presidential debate in our history (Nixon vs Kennedy) was held exactly this way. It’s the live audience that is the departure. It’s the interrupting and screaming that is the departure. 

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    They didn’t want Trump to put the granddaughter Biden refuses to acknowledge in the crowd like he did with Clintons rape victim. 

    And this is what I’m talking about. Only a moron like you would consider this sort of stunt important in terms of choosing a President. This isn’t a game. 

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    4 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

    it may be fair but the "rules" definitely favor Biden. Any reasonable person would admit that. Trump plays the bully, antagonizes, etc. Biden gets lost more often than not. It seems to have been specifically set up to be as mild mannered as possible which favors Biden, as Trump would easily rattle him and disconnect the fragile wire inside his head.

    First off I strongly disagree with the statement “Biden gets lost more often than not.” But deciding a President shouldn’t be about who gets rattled when somebody is screaming at him anyhow. In any event, Biden doesn’t get rattled easily. He won the first debate in 2020 by telling Trump to shut up. But that shouldn’t be a way to win a debate either. 
     

    If this favors Biden it’s only because Trump isn’t a serious person. He’s a clown, incompetent and totally unsuitable to be POTUS. I suspect that deep down you guys know this and that’s why you think this setting is going to be “unfair”. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 2

  11. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

    Maybe I'm wrong but the no audience thing is going to make it pretty sterile I think.  Maybe some of us more in tune with it watch the entire thing but that's just a strange change.

    We’re deciding the President of the United States. This ain’t American Idol. If by “sterile” you mean it should be serious then that’s a good thing. Trump tries to turn all politics into a clown show. Hopefully he will be exposed and defeated in this setting. 

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

    You need know nothing more to form your opinion.  Writing legislation, however, requires much more, it requires knowledge of the subject.  For years you have sought ignorance on the subject of firearms, a subject you could ahve mastered by now if you had simply processed the information shoved before you in these forums, yet you have refused to do so.  You could have taken a course in firearm handling, safety and use yet you chose not to so that you can argue from ignorance.  it would seem anyone so passionate about a subject might spend a bit of time and energy acquainting themselves with the subject, but you, you tout your own ignorance.  Your persistence in doing so, is, howevere, admirable.  Persistence is a great trait.  Unfortuantely persistence without a plan is simply the yipping of a lap dog.

    You may be confusing me with some other people. I have very little interest in firearms issues. And I actually oppose most firearms legislation. I don’t think it helps, and a lot of it interferes with the freedom of lawful gun owners who should be allowed to do what they want. Im not too big on gun control in most situations. And I’m also just not that interested. If I was I would try to educate myself more because I believe in your general premise. 
     

    But in this instance I completely differ with you. Sotomayor is not legislating and she’s not acting from emotion. Neither am I. Her position, and mine, is very well reasoned. Simply put we’re both operating on the premise of if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it’s a duck. You don’t agree with our reasoning and you agree with Thomas’ tortured attempt to differentiate between bump stocks and automated weapons. I think YOU are the one relying on emotion here- and Clarence Thomas. 
    Conservatives are extremely selective when it comes to originalist thinking. 

  15. Posted

    4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

    Same here.  I mean, the OP had no idea what a bump stock even was or does.  He just saw the headline, saw that it had to do with guns and then screamed "OMG!  AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!" without once putting any thought or research into it.  He just parroted what he was told.  For the love of God, liberals still thin "AR" means "automatic rifle".  :doh:

    To be fair, the OP does this with just about every topic he discusses.

    This is an old argument by pro-NRA types and it’s pretty tiresome. Simply put I don’t need to know how to make a hydrogen bomb or what its components are to know that I don’t want bad guys to have one. In your words, bump stocks allow one to spray bullets faster. George wrote that it’s functionally no different from having a machine gun. What else do I need to know? The answer is nothing. When Trump’s people banned bump stocks they were not rewriting law; Thomas and those who agree with him are simply wrong about this. Sotomayor’s dissent was correct. 

  16. Posted

    Turns out I won’t be on a plane, I got my date wrong. I fly out the night before. But assuming I can even get a live broadcast it would air at 3 am for me, so I won’t be watching (unless of course I’m suffering from jet lag. I suppose that’s possible.) 

  17. Posted

    30 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Fake tough guy Biden has to have everything his way or he won’t play.  Trump walking into the lions den. Jake Tapper can’t.  

    It’s interesting that everything a reasonable person would describe as fair is described by Trump fans as Biden “having his own way.” That should tell you something. 

  18. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

    No it really doesn't, not under any form of recognized stautory interpretation.  Feelings do n ot come into it when there is a specific definition.  had congress passed a law that said in general no weapon or weapon system available to the general public shall be designed to have rates of fire over a certain limit, well then that general definition would encompass this.  When they went to a more specific definition that specificity rules.

     

    In the end none of this matters if congress can get together on a new definition.  The Democrats certainly would be willing to do so.  As the bump stock ban was a Trump era matter it may be that there are some Republicans who would join in.  Now some on the NRA right would oppose as democrats have scared them with their rhetoric, but it would only take a few republicans to join in to get this done.

    It won’t be done. Not with the 60 vote filibuster. 
     

    And I still disagree with you. But that disagreement appears to be rooted in a more fundamental disagreement about the Supreme Court. I am not what conservatives would call an “originalist”. 

  19. Posted

    The rules have been released: 

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/15/politics/trump-biden-cnn-debate-rules

    90 minutes with 2 commercial breaks. Neither guy is allowed to consult anyone during the breaks. 

    No audience. 

    No sound on mics when the other guy is talking. So there will be no interrupting allowed. 

    This seems as fair as it can be. Right now there are a ton of accusations about old age and mental disfunction: both men have been accused of not being mentally with it, etc. This debate should give us the answers to those accusations once and for all. 
     

     

  21. Posted

    The thread is filled with the usual slurs and jokes towards trans people, denial of bigotry against them, false charges of pedophilia, and denunciations of San Francisco and other “liberal” cities. Almost none of it has to do with the issue at hand. 
     

    So let’s get back to that issue: transgender people, especially teenagers, are made to feel unwelcome in many parts of this country. They are beaten up, abused, told they are mentally ill, told they are perverts, laughed at, spat upon, made outcasts (sometimes from their own family) etc. This is no different from how homosexuals who dared to openly reveal themselves were treated 50 years ago. At that time San Francisco was one of the few places in the entire country where it was generally safe to be openly gay. That didn’t come overnight. Brave leaders like Harvey Milk had to struggle against the authorities, particularly the San Francisco police force, to bring that about. But eventually he succeeded and San Francisco became a haven for gays. Now they have chosen to extend that haven to trans people. And over again I say good for them. It shouldn’t be necessary, but that’s where we are. 

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    Thanks for the responses to my questions. I appreciate and respect the arguments, particularly that of @Engorgeous George. But I’m still not sure I agree. Even George admits in his post “functionally as far as bullets discharged there is not much difference.” It seems to me that this is the point. 

    It is illegal for me to possess a tactical nuclear weapon. But suppose I designed a weapon that could do the exact same amount of damage except that it wasn’t nuclear. Would the authorities be unable to seize this new weapon from me because Congress hasn’t yet passed a law making it illegal? obviously that would be ridiculous. 
     

    Congress made owning machine guns illegal about 100 years ago because of their function, which they deemed a threat to public safety. . So if you have another gun or addition to a gun which produces the same function (in this case a continual spray of bullets) then I don’t think you need a new law to determine that should be illegal  as well. So I guess I’m with the dissents on this one. 

    • Haha 1

  23. Posted

    5 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

    An automatic rifle shoots multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger.  THOSE are illegal.

    Semi-automatics - ALL civilian made firearms - are one pull of the trigger, one round.

    Bump stocks allow you to pull the trigger faster, but you still have to pull the trigger for each round.  People who don't know any better think that is a machine gun.  It is not.  Bump stocks make use of the recoil of the firearm to allow the shooter to pull the trigger faster, but only one round comes out each time.

    How much faster? Is there really any reasonable difference? 

×