Sean Mooney

Just tell RLLD you weren't using "you" to mean him...he inserted himself into the discussion. It's a tactic he enjoys.

It's fun to use his words back at him and watch him twist and squirm.

Not to say the least too that it is horribly bad optics if the person who is going to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land has a report out against him that we are just going to sweep under the rug because reasons....

I'd assume MDC is referring to the amount of damage that can be done in an equal amount of time with a gun versus a knife. For example- the Ikeda school massacre in Osaka lasted several minutes- that person entered an elementary school and stabbed 23 people, killing 8. Sandy Hook lasted 5 minutes. He killed 26 and himself. He also injured 2 others. In the Ikeda one they were able to wrestle the attacker to the ground. In Sandy Hook he offed himself. The Vegas shooter shot and killed 59 people and injured at least 413 people from additional gunfire and everything. That attack lasted 10 minutes. Also, not sure we should call someone a liberal moron- I know how much RLLD hates name calling a media organization because we can learn from them. But if we can call organizations liberal morons now than maybe MDC can find a source from The Young Turks to use since we know it's okay to use their stuff as long as they agree with you.

Fun fact: I never said anything about "the right." I presented the Geek Club in the hypothetical conversation. And again- you are assigning meaning to what Joe and Mika did and are purposely positioning it because what they say doesn't align with your thoughts on it are. Then you find sources to support what you want to believe and find a source (TYT) that is way hyper partisan left which of course would push back on a guy, and show, who is more to the middle than they are. This is how an echo chamber is formed. This is why you shouldn't change the opinion on a source based off them agreeing or disagreeing with you. You should know its time to stop that. And as part of that argument you had to position me as attacking the "right" even though I never said such a thing. I was mocking the logical gymnastics from The Geek Club think tank.

A fun game here has become- how many times can RLLD contradict himself?

Again- is this "you" (me) or "you" (universal)? I've often said a healthy Democrat party would be great. So would a healthy thinking GOP. And Joe and Mika are arguing that the Trump second term should be covered fairly and they are trying to extend an olive branch to a better coverage. And your response is "Those two clowns on morning joe folded pretty quick. This suggests, to me, that they knew what they were saying was all lies..... and now they are positioning to save themselves. Cowards. At least that rabid racist Joy Reid is standing by her filth......at least she is not some coward as well as a POS" I've seen the Turks stuff. I'd argue they are way too left and when people start going that far off the reservation they are no longer serious to me and I don't care what they think. Same thing when people fly wildly to the right and try to pass that stuff off as legit. I do ingest a number of sources from all angles of the political spectrum- both ones I agree and disagree with because I am fascinated with the manipulation in coverage. But again- I don't change my opinion of something just because I agree or disagree with them. I sometimes read articles from Mother Jones or from The Post Millennial- I disagree with them 98% of the time. I'm not going to take the 2% and try to make that 50/50 just because they agree with me on one thing. Again- that's just childish thinking where you are just looking to validate your own thoughts. You agree with them on this because they are calling out truth that matches with your deeply held beliefs. This is a negative, it is an opportunity you should use to reassess how you dole out trust in the media.

If only he was half as clever as he thought he was.

That's the skyscreaming part of it where the argument falls flat more often than not.

Wait- is this "you" (me) now or is it "you" (universal)? If it's my opinion of them I get to decide what they are to me. If you are establishing your opinion of something because of someone else's opinion I urge you to reconsider. And I don't really care why people are moving away from liberalism. I'm not one, so why would I give a sh!t? Again it is not dismissing them because I disagree with them. It is disagreeing with them because I think their biases override their intent and I don't care in that instance what they have to say. Do they sometimes agree with my leanings on something? Sure. But that doesn't automatically make me think they are intelligent or worthwhile as an organization. It is childish to turn off and on my opinion of someone because they align with me. If you want to be that childish go for it. I've seen you do that here enough. But your opinion on them doesn't change mine nor should it work vice versa.

But we do nothing about mental health because it always becomes a "can we run out the clock" discussion. Also, because some of the debate about the mental health stuff drifts to "take the guns from those people" and you get the push back. Guns are a weird spin cycle we always end up in.

Right...there are things to criticize Trump over. The vaccine push isn't one of them and it's sad he didn't stand behind it at the time.

They are idiots whether I agree with them or not. I don't flip the intelligence of someone based off whether I agree with them or not. That is hypocritical and childish in thinking. But it's fun you want to elevate them in this instance because you agree with them.

The Young Turks website is a gaggle of idiots. And pretty far left. Who cares what they think?

The framing of the thread title is dumb and it's pretty clear what the OP is going for in provocatively titling it that. I never said I'm for or against gun bannings- in fact I'm not. I think there are things that could be done to control some stuff about guns but going to a position of "let's take all guns" is insipid and quite frankly delusional. But the thread is titled in such a way that is a common counter argument to the gun stuff. Someone will shoot up a building and then someone will say "We need to ban guns." and someone will reply back "Well a person took over a plane with a box cutter, should we ban them too?" Honestly, I'm glad the article mentions the idea of how the mental health system is failing these people. We should have a long discussion about that in all these issues.

Why do you people always try to say "your guy"? I don't have a guy. I don't trust anyone in government at this point and think they are all crooked. I just find it inherently interesting that a bunch of people here who play amateur sleuths over Youtube videos put out by basement dwellers that show Biden is creepily touching kids or whatever other nonsense they want to put out there, but yet when we have an ethics committee investigating Gaetz. And there are things out about what was found. And he steps down from the House for this position right before the report comes out. And the House Speaker says "Well we shouldn't release the report at this point...." Well, that is a lot of smoke being ignored because someone doesn't want to call it a fire. And it isn't people cobbling together heavily edited videos. It is straight testimony from the victims in this case. I also find it inherently interesting that when this Gaetz stuff pops up you create long posts pushing at people on the left here for believing it yet you didn't really say a word on the Biden stuff.

They also don't seem to know that mRNA testing of vaccines has been ongoing for a long time. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines And I know they will discount this but- the NIAID has stuff on this timeline as well: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/decades-making-mrna-covid-19-vaccines

So the claims against Gaetz are valid to you?

It would hold then that the difference for you is Gaetz is on your side so you think the claims are baseless.

Yeah but 10 of that 44 is utilit99 and his alter egos.

Ah the old dumb argument of "well if someone killed someone with (fill in the blank weapon) we should ban all of (them)" as a counter to doing even minor things about gun control. "I LOVES MAH GUN!!!!"

Geek Club: "These rotten people on the left need to be fairer and tone down the rhetoric." Joe and Mika: "We met with Trump and want to work to better cover his second presidency." Geek Club: "These left are cowards and backing down. THe scum."

So there is some interesting stuff in the verdict and the case. As I said earlier- McCormick was for counting these types of ballots in 2022 when it possibly benefitted him. He is against it now. The Democrat election officials pushed forward in this case because of what they said was in line with the state constitution's free and equal elections clause. Essentially they were trying to push the court to rule on that aspect of it. When the court struck this down (which is the right move by letter of the law) they purposely kicked the can down the road on the potential merits of that challenge, instead ruling it was too close to the election to change or determine it or change the rules. This is also an issue that has been argued for a while now in the past few election cycles and everything. Basically, the PA Supreme Court said "Get back to us in a year if need be."

Give him another post or two and he will top it

I will say this for the brief time he has known he is going to be President. He is saying all the right things about working across the aisle. It does feel somewhat like he has a sense of he has a moment to actually do something and leave a better legacy than the first time. Now if it still looks like that 18 months from now who knows....