GW Hayduke

You've already made it clear that those qualifications are very very important to you. That doesn't mean they are relevant to my position. Are you arguing against the position that Cruz and AOC are the exact same? Are you arguing for the position that AOC is an attack dog but that she is justified in being one? Are you arguing against the position that AOC and Gym Jordan are both attack dogs for their side, except one of them is justified in that method of politik and is actually a shepherd?

I understand the concept of counter attack. It just isn't relevant unless someone is overly sensitive about discussions about their tribe and wants to haggle. No one said she wasn't serious about policy. Again, policies and method of politik are not the same.

First you haggle over "counter" and now "for." You can do better. You are for attack-based politics. You are for them because the other side uses them and because you say they are needed in order to win. Meet force with force. That is ok. You are for AOC being the attack dog - as long as that label expands to include "counter-attack dog that is only aggressive because it was provoked." None of your qualifications matter to my position. You are just playing a game with yourself.

2001 is when the stark separation occurs in the video.

Look. You are on the side of attack-based politics. You have said so much. That is fine. Why the emotional reaction to describing AOC in those terms? Why the immediate reaction of labeling me, someone describing the situation (which you agree with), as a trump supporter or the other side or whatever? Your position is that we should use attack-based politics, but we shouldn't label attack dogs and then mix in a heavy helping of strawmen on top. The side that has used division based politics as their entire platform is currently sitting on the side lines, btw. It was effective for them - until it wasn't. I'm not denying that is has worked for them in the past. Is this a strawman or is categorization hard for you? https://www.pinterest.com/pin/553661347920903881/

Sure man. That's exactly my position. But really, here it is, again.

Sure mate. https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByAOC/ https://www.c-span.org/video/?508460-1/white-house-press-secretary-holds-briefing https://www.c-span.org/video/?508410-1/house-budget-resolution-week-speaker-pelosi

Really? You think the semantics of counter attack dog vs attack dog is the real issue here? The other side praises Gym Jordan for not being a push over. The other side praised trump cause he was a fighter - or maybe it was a counter fighter. That side is now sitting on the sidelines. We now have mature people in charge doing mature things. They are having adult-based discussions with the daily white house briefings. His team have been making the rounds using sensible policy/value based rhetoric. We need more and more of that shit. Attack dogs, uhhhh counter-attach dogs, have their role. They may or may not be effective, but they have a role. Gym Jordan and Fox News think they are effective I'm sure. Again, describing AOC's politik isn't disrespectful. She understand how to fight the battle but she isn't an attack dog? Should we use the label of "attack bull?"

It isn't disrespectful to point out her role as the attack dog for the left. It isn't disrespectful to point out that twitter clap backs and attack-based tribal politics turn folks off. Her policies and her method of politik are not the same. It is possible to critique one while supporting left policies. Listen you snot-nose little shit, I was takin' shrapnel in Khe Sanh when you were crappin' in your hands and rubbin' it on your face.

Fuck you, pussy. For some reason you aren't able to contribute except for random worthless dribble. Share a position. Contribute. Or shut the fuck up, pussy. I get that your brain might have melted by a constant stream of tribal dribble, but at least you can shut the fuck up, pussy. No one is saying to work with fascists. The two options are not "work with fascists" or "worship AOC."

This is full tilt tribe-based politics up in here. Any thought or idea about method of politik shall be shouted down. It is all about sides here, seemingly

No. I am the guy saying we shouldn't admire burning buildings and blood. I'm not the guy saying AOC is bad, AOC is the same as Gym, or that Gym is better. I'm the guy saying they are both attack dogs for their side. I'm the guy saying that her serving that role hurts her as a politician when it comes to those on the left that are tired of tribalism. Maybe you aren't tired of tribalism, but instead have embraced it. It is probably good to understand that. She has talent. That was a good moment for her, but everyone has their moments. You should watch more CSPAN. My position isn't that she isn't talented or that she doesn't support good policies. Compare AOC's twitter to Pelosi's. And to Biden. Observe that their accounts are a reflection of their roles. One role is that of an attack dog - or bull - or whatever you want to call it. Giving her an accurate label isn't an attack. Understanding her role shouldn't trigger, just as understanding that some folks are burnt out on tribalism shouldn't trigger.

You guys need to wind down the tribalism. Anyone that accurately describes AOC's politik is labeled the "others." That's rather crazy. Attack dogs have a purpose in politics. They may or may not turn out the vote, but I personally think they suck. They suck when Gym Jordan screams in a committee hearing. They suck when POTUS was an attack dog - Trump tweeting bullshit hourly from the oval office. They suck when AOC clap backs on twitter. It sucks even more when folks equate that to making someone a great politician.

Fuck you, pussy. You guys are a piece of work. I didn't do shit and am not a GOP supporter and never have been. Fuck you again.

Who are "the people?" Are you equating anyone who doesn't feel like twitter clap-backs should be the end-all, be-all of our elected officials as a hypocritical trumpkin or the GOP? I've never voted for a single republican in my entire life dip shit. I recommend you reflect on why you decided to place a label on me. Just because I don't respect twitter clap backs doesn't mean I'm on the team.

The right will always have their boogeymen. That isn't AOC's problem. Her issue is that she has embraced the role of being the attack dog for the left. Her method is division, confrontation, and twitter clap-backs. Folks are tired of twitter clap-backs and tribalism. I'm not saying the left shouldn't have attack dogs. The right has them in the Gym Jordan's and Tucker Carlson's of the world. Attack dogs have their purpose and it is possible they have a positive influence on meaningful things. Folks are just tired of divisive politics. We all lived through Trump. The worshiping of AOC seems to be a promotion of trumpist style politics by the left - the style of attacking the "others" rather than solving problems, passing legislation, and promotion of policies, ideas, values - the things that we should admire in our elected representatives - not twitter clap-backs.

It must be an intimidating force of small game to need a semi-auto with 18 rounds. Hopefully any permit system would accommodate your need

Ideally, it wouldn't matter what the magazine capacity is for semi-auto rifles if they are all removed from the population, except for those permitted to manage wildlife in certain rare circumstances. For recreational hunters and their permitted/registered bolt-action rifles, the mag size would be less relevant due to the low rate of fire. I realize this would all be a big change for a lot of folks and many sportos would left out and thus furious. Sometimes big things have to happen in order to solve our big problems. If we are ever going to provide healthcare for all of our citizens, big changes are going to need to occur. Solving homelessness will also require bold action. The AWB's problem was it was too narrow - it didn't apply to all semi-auto rifles and didn't have a need-based permit system. It catered to folks that wanted to make the requirements overly complicated, less effective, and watered down. Even so, the AWB is believed to have had a positive influence on mass-shootings during the time it was in affect.

Semi-auto rifles provide no benefit to society except in certain limited wildlife management settings. The obvious route is to implement a buy-back program and needs-based permitting system (i.e., a trained professional wildlife technician permitted to manage populations). Other long guns and hand guns could have their own tiered needs-based permits. Australia did it and it worked. It would also all require a licensing, training, background check, and registration system. It isn't rocket science. The only difficulty is that people have tied their identity to firearms, a political party uses those people, and those people have been programmed to fear (both scary government takeover of freedom eagles and rabid horde caravan of illegal migrant crack-induced pedophile rapists).

I don't give a fuck about the slippery slope argument. Society heavily regulates all kinds of things - explosives, vehicles, chemicals, etc. - to minimize harm. The people who need those potentially dangerous things still have access to them. It shouldn't be a big deal to heavily regulate semi-auto firearms, except many have entangled their identity to them and a political party shamefully decided to take advantage. The US is in an overall very sad and irresponsible place. I don't have a lot a sympathy for the stance that firearms confer benefit to a household considering they have been shown to increase suicide rates and homicide rates related to domestic violence. However, introducing licensing, registration, training and safety requirements may change that. Plus there isn't a need for semi-auto rifles for home defense (unless an identity formed watching Rambo or irresponsible media consumption allows someone to live in fear). The only need for those type of firearms are in certain limited wildlife management settings (i.e., needs-based permit system).

Putin approves of your message

How is it a problem with a two-party system when only one of those parties is broken? How exactly would a third party change that? Maybe Ralph Nader can save us? Or maybe if Bernie was the head of a third party, Trump would somehow not have won Florida? The problem is the propoganda arms of the right with their weaponized misinformation and large swath's of the US unable to protect themselves against that propoganda. The problem is the senate and EC's excessive weight to low-population, far-right states. Those problems can minimized (PR/DC statehood and regulate facebook, etc.) but it would take Dem control in the Senate.

Meh. We have rules that address divesting and financial entanglements for certain government employees. Those rules don't normally extend to children since there is an expectation that children should be able to lead their own life. There are rules that act as guardrails against nepotism, against self-dealing between family members, and ensure disclosures when potential conflicts exists. There is zero evidence any of these guardrails or rules were crossed. That should be the end of discussion - but because of right-wing propaganda - folks but into the "controversy." If folks want to expand our current system and increase prohibited activities when it comes to children, that is fair and there is a rule making process to make those kinds of things possible. However, pushing manufactured right-wing propaganda isn't the way.

Hey man. Have you ever considered whether you might be in a information bubble? Everyone is in one. The trick is to understand that and make a deliberate attempt to diversify the sources. Plus, brush up on the basics of journalism. Journalists shouldn't run with stories that aren't vetted. Plus note the difference between editorial and news and how many sources (most notable Fox) blends the two together. PBS newshour is an easy way to add is expand your bubble. https://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour

Like everyone else, Rudy has to lay down on a bed when he "tucks in his shirt" while in the presence of a young woman