Mojo Hand

The Democratic House has already passed at least two gun control bills this year. Mitch McConnell and the GOP won't allow consideration of anything that regulates guns in the Senate, and Trump won't sign it, so it's dead. The only way to make anything happen on this is to vote Republicans out of office.

No doubt he'll try, but that doesn't mean he isn't full of shit.

The point he was trying to make is that the dominance of the white race in Texas is under attack by an invasion of brown people. And the reason he is making that point is because the GOP is now an openly white supremacist political party that counts on the racism of its members and supporters.

Emphasis on "game." He's been a vocal Trump supporter. Has even called out Trump's rhetoric against Latinos? There should be no political forgiveness in the future for any politician who supported Trump.

And injure at least 26. How can "a good guy with a gun" be any possible solution when so much damage can be done in 60 seconds?

Scientologists think that everyone else has Hubbard Derangement Syndrome.

White nationalist manifesto, Trump spelled out in guns, etc.

Trump's entire presidency is an act of cowardice. And "why won't he call it terrorism?"

Orlando nightclub shooting: "immortal13 It is true. Islam is not a religion of peace. Read the Quran" http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/170698-Orlando-nightclub-shooting-thread?p=9657643&viewfull=1#post9657643

Is that from this shooter?

Guess we just have a lot more mental illness here?

If they don't endorse non-socialists, why did I see that they endorsed Kerry and Obama? Did that not happen?

I'm not trying to cast anyone in a bad light. I like Bernie; I donated to and voted for him in 2016 and would happily support him as the nominee now. And I think the way the Dem party treated him in 2016 was a disgrace. I've argued about that numerous times with people like Hugo, who has said that the Democratic Party was right to favor actual Dems over someone who wasn't in the party. I'm just disappointed to see that DSA is essentially doing the same thing by ruling out supporting Warren if she wins. The Dems will support Bernie if he wins; why won't DSA support Liz if she does, after supporting Kerry and Obama?

I don't have a problem with them reserving judgment depending on who the Dem nominee is, and then refusing to support Biden or Harris. But ruling out all Dems categorically is a different thing altogether. Warren is to the left of Obama and Kerry, who DSA endorsed, and is standing with them on MFA.

It's not a bad faith question. It's a good faith question that uses a manner of speaking to obviously express a point of view. The point of view I explained in my response to you: it seems hypocritical to me for DSA to expect the full support of the Dem party for their guy who isn't a Democrat, but not give the full support of their party for the Dem's gal should she win, simply because she's not a socialist. I read that DSA endorsed John Kerry and Barack Obama, neither of whom professes to be a socialist, so it can't be about party or ideological purism. And wanting Bernie as the nominee is beside the point, because we're talking about the scenario if he is not. Why would they rule out Elizabeth Warren if she wins the Dem primary?

You don't think the party will endorse Bernie if he wins the primary and is the Democratic nominee? That doesn't make sense.

Maybe the same guy?

What's obtuse about it? Bernie and his supporters want the Democratic Party to give him their full party support even though he's not a member. Why wouldn't they reciprocate?

I thought he was running as a Democrat?

"They let you" means they don't report it to authorities. It's a characterization from the point of view of the predator who is bragging about what he gets away with. Supported by, and supporting, allegations from 17+ of his victims, including a sworn statement years before the tapes came out from a woman who said Trump grabbed her by the pussy without consent. Supported by the fact that he said he grabs first, out of the blue, without any signal of consent. Supported by his statement in the same conversation that "I don't even wait" for consent before forcing himself on them.

And I'll add: the moderate Republicans and right-wing independents who keep trying to convince the Dems to nominate a moderate aren't acting in the interests of the Democratic party or the people it represents. They want our help to solve their problem without giving up anything. They would love nothing more than 4 years of Biden with McConnell controlling his judicial appointments, followed by President Hawley as Trump without the tweets, and they're trying to scare us into giving it to them. Dems have never needed them to win. And if they really are never-Trumpers who believe in party over country, they'll vote for someone like Warren anyway and accept the extremely remote possibility that reparations could actually become law. Trump's extreme unpopularity is an opportunity for Dems to actually get something done. It's worth the risk to seize it.

Republicans have dominated elections for years while opposing the top 5 extremely popular major items on that list and more, and you think liberal Dems are doomed to lose because of two minor issues on the other end? Please. Dems went moderate in the early 90s and what do we have to show for it in the years since? Donald Fucking Trump. Mitch McConnell. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Roberts joining Thomas as the GOP continues its decades-long stranglehold on the Court. A bunch of Clinton-era centrist policies that caused lasting damage. A health insurance system that is being dismantled by Republicans elected on the promise to dismantle it, as like 30 million Americans remain uninsured. What is even the fucking point of 4 years of Biden followed by Republicans retaking the House and some asshole like Josh Hawley becoming Trump 2.0, only smart enough to do worse damage? And that's assuming that old man Biden stays healthy and actually wins and doesn't go down like fellow inevitable moderate Hillary Clinton. The popularity of reparations or, more likely, a commission to study reparations, is pretty much irrelevant. It would only matter to the extent that it's so unpopular that it would actually cause a liberal Dem nominee to lose the election notwithstanding all of the other issues in their favor. That poll doesn't support that notion. It's an unproven and likely false assumption that should not be the basis for returning to a continually losing electoral strategy. Do I want a Dem candidate who will make reparations the centerpiece of her campaign? Of course not. But I'm not remotely worried about a candidate who happens to support it along with 100 other policies that will actually make the difference in 2020 and beyond.

Lulz at vocal supporters of Draftdodger McBoneSpurs calling out someone for not volunteering for military service.

"The incident started with a welfare check on Brooks" Never call the cops unless it's worth dying over.