Jump to content

What is the future of the Republican Party?


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You gotta admit, that's trump to a tee! Who would support that, right?   I mean, I wouldn't knowingly vote for someone like that. Would you?

for comparison sake  

It’s interesting that Republicans are so concerned about the precedent being set by the Dems.....when they seem to not be concerned at all about the precedent being set by them supporting a Qanon, rac

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Your comment on seatbelt laws is disingenuous at best.   When did I ever question the efficacy of seatbelt laws?  

I'm asking you where you draw the line on what's worth time legislating and what isn't, because based on the logic of your argument, it runs into constant historical contradictions. I'll try to be more direct.

 

You're questioning why people don't put the same amount of energy into things like tobacco or sugar consumption as they do regulating guns, and that they should, because they are comparatively greater risks to human life.

 

So, for comparison's sake, do you question why we implemented federal seatbelt laws? When the first federal law was implemented in the 60's, fatal car crashes (and fatal car crashes as a result of non-seatbelt use) were not a leading cause of death in the U.S. Far from it, in fact. So, if the argument is that "there are other things just as dangerous if not more dangerous" than the lack of seatbelt use, then by your logic, seatbelt laws were and are questionable legislation.

 

I don't think the mental gymnastics here are equitable to the question I'm asking.

 

In summary, the biggest flaw in your argument is that, yes, it marginalizes other causes you don't believe are that important, therefore it questions why we do anything unless it's the most important thing we can do. That perspective is not based in reality IMO.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

Comparing gun regulations to seat belts, tobacco or sugar consumption is nowhere close to apples to apples.

 

if I choose to not wear a seat belt, smoke or consume huge amounts of sugar which damages my health, those decisions hurt me.  If I choose to use a gun to commit a mass shooting or an armed robbery where someone his shot, that is something I'm doing with the gun that negatively affects innocent people that had no choice in the matter.

 

I'm baffled that these subjects are even being discussed as though they are the same.

Link to post
41 minutes ago, Enhance said:

 

So, for comparison's sake, do you question why we implemented federal seatbelt laws? When the first federal law was implemented in the 60's, fatal car crashes (and fatal car crashes as a result of non-seatbelt use) were not a leading cause of death in the U.S. Far from it, in fact. So, if the argument is that "there are other things just as dangerous if not more dangerous" than the lack of seatbelt use, then by your logic, seatbelt laws were and are questionable legislation.

For the life of me I can’t understand why you keep making this a situation on seatbelt laws?  Was it a commonly held view at that time, that only one law that year or decade could be passed at a time?  If so, then I guess seatbelts could have taken a back seat to other legislation.  I’m assuming other legislation also took place and by that standard I have never given an indication that seatbelt laws are questionable legislation. Trying to ask about seatbelts in any other way will not change my view.  
 

48 minutes ago, Enhance said:

 

In summary, the biggest flaw in your argument is that, yes, it marginalizes other causes you don't believe are that important, therefore it questions why we do anything unless it's the most important thing we can do. That perspective is not based in reality IMO.

You are way off base here, and claiming things I don’t believe I said.  Thought it was pretty clear.  I asked why the same amount of energy was not being used to over regulate tobacco to the point it won’t be responsible for deaths or health issues anymore if that is the point of product legislation.  
 

The ONLY reason I said don’t do anymore gun legislation is because current laws ARE NOT being enforced properly.  It was NEVER, an either/or issue that you are insinuating I claim it to be with something like tobacco.  I also made a claim that most of the laws proposed will not solve the majority of gun related issues in society.  


I like having discussions with you, but too often you turn my words into something they are not based on what you think I am trying to say vs actually commenting on what I actually say.  Bottom line, if people want to further infringe on a certain bill of  rights because of safety issue then they sure as hell should be concerned with products like tobacco AT THE SAME TIME, since it actually affects MORE people, would help a greater good and not further infringe on a certain bill of right 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Comparing gun regulations to seat belts, tobacco or sugar consumption is nowhere close to apples to apples.

 

if I choose to not wear a seat belt, smoke or consume huge amounts of sugar which damages my health, those decisions hurt me.  If I choose to use a gun to commit a mass shooting or an armed robbery where someone his shot, that is something I'm doing with the gun that negatively affects innocent people that had no choice in the matter.

 

I'm baffled that these subjects are even being discussed as though they are the same.

They don't belong in the same conversation. That's my point.

 

Neither does marginalizing one over the other based on the perception of which matters more.

Link to post

9 minutes ago, Enhance said:

They don't belong in the same conversation. That's my point.

 

Neither does marginalizing one over the other based on the perception of which matters more.

Another way of phrasing that is putting things in perspective.  

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Another way of phrasing that is putting things in perspective.  

FWIW, I don't intend to make you feel like I misrepresent your opinions. On average, I try to be honest and avoid quips/sarcasm in our discussions in order to keep conversations on track (I'm not perfect at that, admittedly).

 

That said, I have difficulty understanding the logic behind a lot of your posts. I'm not saying that's exclusively a 'you' problem. I just don't follow the logic and a lot of red flags pop out to me as I read them. Case in point, this line:

 

Quote

Bottom line, if people want to further infringe on a certain bill of  rights because of safety issue then they sure as hell should be concerned with products like tobacco AT THE SAME TIME, since it actually affects MORE people, would help a greater good and not further infringe on a certain bill of right

I see this as a marginalization and a false equivalency. You don't. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, I just can't follow the logic. I think a lot of people are concerned about tobacco, but injecting it into a conversation about guns feels dishonest and mostly irrelevant. Both issues can be addressed. That doesn't mean we all have to be concerned about both of them equitably or that they even belong in the same conversation.

 

I think it's just fundamental differences in perspectives that make it difficult to see eye to eye on some issues, but I appreciate the discussion even so.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Comparing gun regulations to seat belts, tobacco or sugar consumption is nowhere close to apples to apples.

 

if I choose to not wear a seat belt, smoke or consume huge amounts of sugar which damages my health, those decisions hurt me.  If I choose to use a gun to commit a mass shooting or an armed robbery where someone his shot, that is something I'm doing with the gun that negatively affects innocent people that had no choice in the matter.

 

I'm baffled that these subjects are even being discussed as though they are the same.


Thank God someone said this, I was reading through the thread thinking this same thing and just waiting for someone to mention it. Thank you for having common sense. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...