Political Views vs. Personality Contests

[Kirkland Laing]

Guns:

None of the mass shootings have any effect on Americans and their thing about guns. Likely no future mass shootings will either. But maybe ban assault rifles eh. There's no actual need for them and it would prevent hundreds and probably thousands of kids dying needlessly in the future. Not to mention adults. You fucking lunatics.

https://deadline.com/2022/05/the-oni...ce-1235032722/



Also, too, Supreme Court chief justice:







Environment.

The polls say everybody wants to be green and protect the environment and climate change is a huge problem and needs to be dealt with and so on.

But then you ask people how much they'd pay to do this and the answer is not impressive. Fifty seven percent of Americans would pay a dollar a month extra on their electricity bill to combat climate change.

• $10 a month, 68% opposed
• $20 a month, 69% opposed
• $40 a month, 76% opposed
• $75 a month, 83% opposed
• $100 a month, 82% opposed
  
  https://www.cato.org/blog/68-america...climate-change
  
  
  
  People like to talk about it but don't want to pay for it. And we only have about half the energy technology needed to decarbonise anyway. And global emissions are going to continue to soar for a long time yet no matter what we do in the west. More about this when I get round to energy.
  
  Ooooooh defence next. Watching the Yankees now so another time for that one, it might run on a little.

[TIC]

Guns:

maybe ban assault rifles eh. There's no actual need for them and it would prevent hundreds and probably thousands of kids dying needlessly in the future. Not to mention adults.

who are you to say my property should be banned? i have an actual need for them. i haven't shot any kids or adults. couple of questions for you. you say maybe ban assault rifles (whatever that is) are you saying ban them completely, so no one has them or only certain people should have them? if i chose not to give up mine what would you do?

[TitoFan]

Ok @Kirkland Laing

So far from what I gather your leanings are:

Immigration - D
Healthcare - R
Taxation - D
2nd Amendment - D
Environment - R


Just my impressions after reading through some of your stuff.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ok @Kirkland Laing

So far from what I gather your leanings are:

Immigration - D
Healthcare - R
Taxation - D
2nd Amendment - D
Environment - R


Just my impressions after reading through some of your stuff.

The Democrats have fucked up on immigration. Go back even just as far as Obama's election platform and the language on immigration is exactly the same as the GOP. But they moved to the left from 2012 onwards and that gave Trump a huge opportunity. So I'm 2008-12 and before era Democratic on immigration. Use the same language as the GOP and take the issue off the table as much as is possible.

Not Republican on healthcare. The GOP seem to be entirely against any government provision of healthcare. They were dead against Medicare until it became so popular they couldn't not support it but a huge chunk of the right want to basically defund it even now. The current system is as good as it's going to get for decades to come and that's that. I would at least like to keep the current system and protect it from the GOP.

Not Republican on the environment either. The GOP used to be bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Now that the fossil fuel industry is investing untold billions in clean energy they're just anti clean energy just to own the libs and create an issue that has popular support on their side. More to come on this later when I do energy.

[Kirkland Laing]

Guns:

maybe ban assault rifles eh. There's no actual need for them and it would prevent hundreds and probably thousands of kids dying needlessly in the future. Not to mention adults.

who are you to say my property should be banned? i have an actual need for them. i haven't shot any kids or adults. couple of questions for you. you say maybe ban assault rifles (whatever that is) are you saying ban them completely, so no one has them or only certain people should have them? if i chose not to give up mine what would you do?

I would have various mental capacity tests for anybody wanting to buy a gun. Anybody who the tests showed was clearly fucked in the head would be banned from legally owning or acquiring any kind of gun.

[TIC]

Guns:

maybe ban assault rifles eh. There's no actual need for them and it would prevent hundreds and probably thousands of kids dying needlessly in the future. Not to mention adults.

who are you to say my property should be banned? i have an actual need for them. i haven't shot any kids or adults. couple of questions for you. you say maybe ban assault rifles (whatever that is) are you saying ban them completely, so no one has them or only certain people should have them? if i chose not to give up mine what would you do?

I would have various mental capacity tests for anybody wanting to buy a gun. Anybody who the tests showed was clearly fucked in the head would be banned from legally owning or acquiring any kind of gun.

who are you to conduct tests on another person for wanting to buy an inanimate object with their own money? i don't consent to that. anyone he thinks they can rule over another person & tell them what they can & can't do seems clearly fucked in the head to me. do you really think someone who wants to physically harm others or steal from them is going to take your test & by banning guns do you really think that gets rid of guns? like how they banned drugs? did that get rid of drugs? what about prohibition? did that get rid of alcohol? & are you going to be there to protect the people you would leave defenceless with your bans if something happens? banning guns doesn't stop people harming or stealing from others. the problem is people violence. you also avoided my questions, you can just say you prefer not to answer if you like. do you want assault rifles banned completely, so no one has them or only certain people should have them? if i chose not to give up my property, what would you do?

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Someone's personality is nearly inextricable from someone's political views and so inadvertently the argumentation of political views will reflect the personalities pretty well. So therefore with all good intentions idealistically trying to separate a personality from a political view is fraught with near impossibility as the speaker cannot separate him or herself from his or her personality as he or she delivers his or her political views and as the political argumentation becomes more and more adamant and heated so also do the personalities in the process become more and more animated which seems to me to be nearly inseparable and so therefore although the title of the thread implies that there should be a mechanism to keep the personalities separate from the political views, in all likelihood they are forever intertwined.

[TitoFan]

Catch your breath after that second sentence, bro.

I've actually met and befriended people with opposite political views than mine, but with the ability to discuss coherently, intelligently, and keeping an open mind to what others have to say. So I can't say I totally agree with you on that. I think my idea when creating the thread (without having gone back to read the OP) was to establish a contrast between the political discussions of the past, and the personality chest-thumping and mud-slinging that is so favored today.

But the ultimate in positive traits a human can have is the ability to change opinions, based on previously unknown facts... or on events that have transpired recently. I can feel a certain way about someone, be it a political figure or whomever, and then change my mind based on facts I didn't have before, or events that occur that cause me to change my mind.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

So I guess you're saying that if somebody for an example just hates somebody or if their only goal is to simply always be right or appear to defeat someone in order to feel better about themselves, then their political views (or even boxing views or gastronomical views, it really doesn't matter what the topic is actually I would go further and say) will be influenced or obscured by that hatred or by that juvenile need to always win or appear witty with ad hominem one-liners and then they will just always try to win at any cost even if they are arguing some kind of nonsense.

Well some people are just contrary and always take the opposite view just in order to be contrary for the sake of it and in order to try to "win" all the time and I think that becomes apparent rather quickly.

That's what I would call a personality contest