Shooting at the Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Election Rally

  • Thread starter TheCracker
  • 400 comments
  • 15,458 views
I'm 43. The draft signing you talk about puts you at about 40. I'm from America. At the time of 9/11 I was in Texas.

I remember it well, and it was in my mind when I wrote my last post.
Than it seems like we don’t see eye to eye in terms of the relative necessity for the potential of a draft, nor it being for “men only”; without getting into the absolute weeds of what passage into man/womanhood should mean to every individual in some sort of blanket theme

No biggie 👍🏼
 
Wait a second..

Civilians don’t just Willy-nilly get put into flash containers for a few days. What the hell is it that you do??
Hah. Yeah.

I was working for a photography studio then. The work was for a company who makes a fire retardant line. Started off with hoods, turned into the full line, and doing all sorts of stuff, in all sorts of places. I ended up test driving some of your toys because my body type worked in a pinch, and you guys like to run off..prior to that i was a fishmonger for 20yrs. Life has funny bounces. Im also a weird nerd meatball hybrid 🤷‍♂️
 
Posting a statement from the Trump White House as proof of something about the Paris Climate Accords is like sourcing Philip Morris when talking about advertising ethics.
God damn.

Edit:

Maybe he was just one of those righteous conservatives who believe in killing pedophiles? Since we're just throwing out assumptions.
I said god damn.
 
Last edited:
China's CO2 emission per capita are half what the USA's are, their emissions are of course higher overall - because they have an extra billion people... and then you have to consider how much of the developed world off-shores it's CO2 emissions by buying from China and leaving them with the associated Carbon footprint. Trumps reasoning here is little better than an 8 year olds.
Oh yeah I suppose you're right
Inclusivity doesn't mean defending every individual within a group irrespective of their behaviour, it means not excluding that group in the first place - and last time I checked wealthy, white, able-bodied males did okay in that respect.
You're suggesting that people who aren't in this category are all marginalised? How so?
As a figurehead for a party that wants to squash the agency of groups of individuals, he should anger anyone that respects peoples basic rights.
A party who believes that freedom of expression should involve dignity?
Maybe because the reason is Trump is anything but "inclusion". People in his circle literally want to rewrite what constitutes a US birth citizen so they can deport people legally born here. Others in his circle like Josh Hawley just said he believes in Christian Nationalism which is writing laws as they interpret them from the Bible. They believe that allows them to ban gay marriage. In 2022, Republican Senator Mike Braun said legalizing interracial marriage was a mistake & that states should get to decide if black & white people can get married. Braun heavily supports Trump.
Did Trump ever come out and express these views?
Nobody broke into the White House. Do you mean the Capitol? Because the insurrectionists broke into the Capitol on January 6th. The last time the White House was invaded, it was the British, and they lit it on fire.
Yes I meant the Capitol building.
And you don't think the insurrectionists weren't Trump supporters? Their sole purpose was to go to the Capitol to overturn the election because Trump told them to. There was no reason for non-Trump supporters to be there because the rest of us knew that people lose elections and power is transferred peacefully. There may have been foreign actors there, I don't know, but in terms of average people no. You have to be an extremist even to consider trying to overthrow the country.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a few non-Trump supporters got in.
No. Red states were worse off than blue states across the board. Initially, blue states were hit harder, but they tended to be more populated with larger urban areas. Put a large number of people together during a respiratory virus pandemic and chances are things will spread quickly (New York) but have people all living in BFE and your spread is slower (Wyoming).
That makes sense.
No it's not. There needs to be some agreement among countries to tackle climate change and that was it. Is it the best solution? No, of course not, but it's better than nothing. Trump doesn't really accept climate change either or, at the very least, downplays it considerably. Climate change is the single greatest threat to the globe and any politician that doesn't take it seriously shouldn't be in power. They can debate the causes and the role humans play in it, but to flat-out think it's a hoax is dangerous.
The greatest threat to the globe is war, followed by terrorism, then AI and climate change. I understand the need to reduce emissions but completely cutting off cheap and reliable supply with something that is not either of those things is bad for everyone. Wind and solar is good but it can't always provide a steady stream of power.
Posting a statement from the Trump White House as proof of something about the Paris Climate Accords is like sourcing Philip Morris when talking about advertising ethics.
Yeah no it's not.
 
Last edited:
Regardless that's a great impersonation of your average deranged liberal on tik tok is it not? full of blind hatred after years of being conditioned and poisoned by liberal media and irresponsible celebs.
Oh, the irony in this is so rich it's almost unbelievable.

This coming from the same person who, not once, but repeatedly posted this as proof it was a liberal shooter was behind it.

Take a look in the mirror and gain some damn perspective.
 
Did Trump ever come out and express these views?
Deporting US born citizens? Been expressing it for years.
"I don't think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers -- and I know some will disagree, but many of them agree with me -- and you're going to find they do not have American citizenship,"

There's an Amendment that contests this.

Trump's remarks on Christianity regarding the nation.
“We have to bring Christianity back into our lives and back into what will be again a great nation. I’m proud to endorse and encourage you to get this Bible. We must make America pray again."
Trump said he would repeal a 70-year-old ban on churches endorsing political candidates, something he tried to do as president, eroding a 300-year dividing line between church and state.
"In my first term, I fought for Christians harder than any president has ever done before. You know that, you know that. And I will fight even harder for Christians with four more years in the White House. I get in there, you’re gonna be using that power at a level that you’ve never used it before.”

Trump's former remarks on gay marriage.
In interviews prior to his presidency, Trump opposed same-sex marriage and said he supported "traditional marriage." In 2016, he said he would consider appointing justices who would overturn the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S., but changed his position shortly after he was elected when he described the issue as "settled."

Trump has not specifically remarked on interracial marriage, however, he has a long list of controversial exchanges when it comes to policy involving African Americans.

The other factor is that Trump does not have to come out & personally say things to prove his reluctance to promote inclusion. It is his policies, agenda, & the people he places in his administration that represent his stance.
 
Deporting US born citizens? Been expressing it for years.


There's an Amendment that contests this.

Trump's remarks on Christianity regarding the nation.


Trump's former remarks on gay marriage.


Trump has not specifically remarked on interracial marriage, however, he has a long list of controversial exchanges when it comes to policy involving African Americans.

The other factor is that Trump does not have to come out & personally say things to prove his reluctance to promote inclusion. It is his policies, agenda, & the people he places in his administration that represent his stance.
Oooh that's bad. I don't agree with these statements at all. Of course all those things are conveniently ignored by right-wing media... Now I understand why people hate him.
 
Of course all those things are conveniently ignored by right-wing media...
And I'm guessing your parents, which you have previously stated you have taken on board as a source of information.

By all means listen to what your parents have to say but don't automatically believe everything they say as to be automatically correct and accurate, that's your job.
We live in a world with all the information you need at your fingertips, what is needed though is to decipher what that information really means. There's so much crap out there that that's where you need a level head and some critical thinking.

Not being antagonistic, just a little friendly advice.
 
You're suggesting that people who aren't in this category are all marginalised? How so?
No, I'm suggesting that straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy males are probably the least marginalised in Western societies. The chances of a person such as Trump being marginalised are pretty low in the first place, but even if they weren't the criticism being brought against him is on the basis of his words and actions, not his ethnicity, gender, sex, or financial status (outside of how it's gained).

A party who believes that freedom of expression should involve dignity?
In other words, advocating that first amendment rights are subject to removal if the government thinks you're being disrespectful? Even incarcerated criminals don't lose first amendment rights.
 
The greatest threat to the globe is war, followed by terrorism, then AI and climate change.
Climate change is a global threat that increases its severity with every passing moment of not acting to reduce it.
It is the biggest threat humanity faces regarding status quo - whatever this means to any individual.
Just saying you either need to prepare for more and stronger winds, waters, heats, colds, floods, droughts.
There is nothing coming close to this.

Terrorism is a biggher threat than war, because todays wars are acts of terrorism.
War as a in declared war between 2 nations is basically non existant as this would involve lots of defensive pacts just as well as accepting being the worlds ****bag (well, not that they would care).

AI is an accelerator to any threat and definitly wont be the solution, because solution requires more goodwill than greed at the position of power. And this doesnt exist.
 
Climate change will drive wars as basic resources, food and water, as well as the usual gas and oil, will become harder to come by.
 
Oooh that's bad. I don't agree with these statements at all. Of course all those things are conveniently ignored by right-wing media... Now I understand why people hate him.

59f17301-d1ee-4115-b87a-794170cead17_text.gif
 
Oooh that's bad. I don't agree with these statements at all. Of course all those things are conveniently ignored by right-wing media... Now I understand why people hate him.
The right wing media has done a very effective job of glossing over this crap. You might see us libruls talking about "Gilead" from The Handmaid's Tale - if you haven't seen the show, watch it and you'll understand. Great show but a difficult watch in my opinion because it hits very close to home for some people. The Project 2025 thing is getting a ton of coverage now and it's almost like they ripped that idea straight out of the script of that show lol. All this talk about Christian nationalism is not an overreaction and I'm sure there are hundreds more examples of things he said throughout his term which are clear indicators but I think @McLaren did a fine job already.
 
Regardless that's a great impersonation of your average deranged liberal on tik tok is it not? full of blind hatred after years of being conditioned and poisoned by liberal media and irresponsible celebs. But the FBI is still looking at the motives, obviously it can't be the mentioned above right:rolleyes: poor guy must've been denied a selfie with Trump or something and drove him to do this :lol:
I mean, conservatives have similarly deranged bitch fits on social media, so it's not exclusive to liberals by any means.

As for what drove him to do it, you do know the last time a president was shot, the dude was trying to impress Jodie Foster, right? There isn't a motive, and until there is, one probably shouldn't jump to conclusions. We know he's a registered Republican and enjoyed gun-related YouTube channels (per his shirt). I mean, based on what we know, we'd assume he was a Trump supporter, but we probably shouldn't assume.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a few non-Trump supporters got in.
It's completely unreasonable. Are all Trump supporters like those who tried to overthrow the government? No, of course not. But everyone attempting to overthrow the country were doing so because they believed Trump told them to. Why would a non-Trump supporter be there? The sole mission of those people was to stop the vote certification and kill the vice president. You have to be pretty far up someone's ass to even attempt to do anything like that.
The greatest threat to the globe is war, followed by terrorism, then AI and climate change. I understand the need to reduce emissions but completely cutting off cheap and reliable supply with something that is not either of those things is bad for everyone. Wind and solar is good but it can't always provide a steady stream of power.
Climate change is an equal opportunity issue since everyone is effected by it, whether rich or poor. Even billionaires will feel the effects of climate change. Climate change will change how food is grown, how much water is available, and what sort of land is available to live on. I go back to when I lived in Utah and how climate change affected the Salt Lake City area. The Great Salt Lake is rapidly drying up despite a less severe drought. If the lake does dry up, the entire Salt Lake Valley will no longer be habitable since the bottom of the lake is full of toxic minerals. Arsenic clouds of dust will blow across the valley.

Climate change will cause mass migration and a strain on available resources. It will cause large, destructive storms that will devastate areas and cost billions of dollars. Wars will break out for resources or to prevent migration. And that's only a handful of things that will happen.

War isn't a huge threat on its own. Yes, it's worrisome, but it doesn't affect everyone, only the countries involved. Terrorism is the same way, except it affects even fewer people. And AI? I work with AI; it's so far from being a concern that it shouldn't even be on a list of concerning things. Could it become an issue in the future? Absolutely, but right now, it's not something we really need to worry about.

Climate change can and will cause worldwide problems if we're unprepared for it, and it will be far more costly than anything else.
 
The right wing media has done a very effective job of glossing over this crap. You might see us libruls talking about "Gilead" from The Handmaid's Tale - if you haven't seen the show, watch it and you'll understand. Great show but a difficult watch in my opinion because it hits very close to home for some people. The Project 2025 thing is getting a ton of coverage now and it's almost like they ripped that idea straight out of the script of that show lol. All this talk about Christian nationalism is not an overreaction and I'm sure there are hundreds more examples of things he said throughout his term which are clear indicators but I think @McLaren did a fine job already.
My wife is a romance writer and like most writers in that genre these days, is self published. Self publishing means marketing and advertising the book yourself. Facebook is one of the go-to places to do so since most authors have a page there and plenty of readers visit and have their own groups for all the various sub-genres. There's tons of traffic and a majority of those active there are american women.

The subject of Project 2025 has gained traction in conventional media in the last few weeks, but in FB romance fiction groups there's been much talk on it over the past couple of months, as its anti-porn targeting would include 'steamy' romance novels. Obviously there's been a lot of discusions about it between authors (who risk losing a great deal of their income from a potential Project 2025 induced ban of this material) and fans alike.

My wife mentioned just yesterday that any posts mentioning Project 2025 are now automatically getting taken down and any of the older posts about it removed. :eek:
 
My wife is a romance writer and like most writers in that genre these days, is self published. Self publishing means marketing and advertising the book yourself. Facebook is one of the go-to places to do so since most authors have a page there and plenty of readers visit and have their own groups for all the various sub-genres. There's tons of traffic and a majority of those active there are american women.

The subject of Project 2025 has gained traction in conventional media in the last few weeks, but in FB romance fiction groups there's been much talk on it over the past couple of months, as its anti-porn targeting would include 'steamy' romance novels. Obviously there's been a lot of discusions about it between authors (who risk losing a great deal of their income from a potential Project 2025 induced ban of this material) and fans alike.

My wife mentioned just yesterday that any posts mentioning Project 2025 are now automatically getting taken down and any of the older posts about it removed. :eek:
I wasn't aware steamy romance novels are part of Project 2025's things to remove.

Good thing for Fabio to no longer be in the game or the leopard would have a new face to feed on.
 
My wife mentioned just yesterday that any posts mentioning Project 2025 are now automatically getting taken down and any of the older posts about it removed. :eek:
Just minutes ago I was in the Flying sub on Reddit and found a thread where somebody found an aviation-related issue with Project 2025. They were asking if it effected aviation. Basically, Project 2025 would gut NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the ones in charge of weather data, and end weather reports being free public information, forcing us all to pay some sort of subscription. That would end all the free weather apps we use, and have implications for literally all of aviation weather from radio weather reports to digital, even mobile, as currently we can simply text the system and get a report for literally any airport station in the country.

There were only 17 comments but most posters were saying yes this is going to make it harder and more expensive for us to function, and the OP was worried because general aviation is expensive enough already. The mods locked the thread as I was typing my comment.

American aviation in general is dominated by conservative viewpoints and it is largely a generational thing. I don't doubt that the mods stuffed it based on their political viewpoints. Currently there are a lot of liberal college-educated young people entering professional aviation and its causing clashes because the Old Guard swings strongly the other way and they're very pissed off that the way they've always done things is changing.
 
Basically, Project 2025 would gut NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the ones in charge of weather data, and end weather reports being free public information, forcing us all to pay some sort of subscription.
The best thing about that is that states like Florida and Texas would be the most harmed because they wouldn't be able to accurately track hurricanes. That's some grade A face eating going on.
 
I wasn't aware steamy romance novels are part of Project 2025's things to remove.
Anything 'adult' is essentially targeted, saying it isn't protected under the First Amendment. They're really after LGBTQ material, but trying to unpick that from everything else adult would be difficult without an outright blanket ban.
 
They're really after LGBTQ material
Some of them.

Some of them are frothing at the mouth at the idea of unraveling sexual liberation entirely - including all expressions of sexuality they can think of. Some of the religions behind the people who think they're using Trump (who are being used by Trump), are wanting to go way beyond LGBTQ, and have had it out for porn, contraception, and sex in general since forever.
 
Some of them.

Some of them are frothing at the mouth at the idea of unraveling sexual liberation entirely - including all expressions of sexuality they can think of. Some of the religions behind the people who think they're using Trump (who are being used by Trump), are wanting to go way beyond LGBTQ, and have had it out for porn, contraception, and sex in general since forever.
They would love to go back 60 years and make almost everything illegal save for the Civil Rights Act. Although, many would probably agree to that too.
 
Anything 'adult' is essentially targeted, saying it isn't protected under the First Amendment. They're really after LGBTQ material, but trying to unpick that from everything else adult would be difficult without an outright blanket ban.
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition; the end of a 60 year old American treasure.
Sad Feelings GIF
 
Back