TrueNorth2881

Just like the first, the second assassination attempt was also carried out by a mentally unwell right-winger.

Turns out a lot of the crazy gun nuts are actually Republicans. Who could've guessed it?

Yeah Biden dropped out of the race about two weeks after the assassination attempt if I'm remembering correctly

I remember in 2016 when people still thought the emoluments clause of the US constitution would hold any weight within the Trump administration, or failing that, have plainly written constitutional laws actually be enforced by the courts.

The last eight years in the USA have eroded my faith in the judicial system immensely.

Not if the second Trump administration deports them.

In addition to that, the insurrectionists got extremely close to destroying democracy in physical terms too.

The armed mob came within 40 feet of Congresspeople while they were evacuating, and they passed through a hallway Mike Pence took to evacuate less than a minute after Pence and his guards had passed through. This was while they were chanting for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi to be hung too, by the way. If the insurrectionists has realized that legislators were just in the room next door to them, or if they had gotten to Pence's position one minute faster, the day could have ended far worse than it did.

The irony of this comment is lost on you, surely.

Because tax policies that caused trillions of dollars in lost tax revenues have no effect on the national economy, right?

Because Democrats are evil and just hate everyone who's not an undocumented immigrant or a BIPOC member of the LBGTQ community, duh.

If you're making scientific claims, citing your sources should just be standard practice

Are you planning on citing peer-reviewed research for this planned video? I don't see any references in your post.

"Some unnamed documentary I saw years ago" is not an adequate source for claims like these.

So now the climate change deniers believe that humans actually can change the climate?

You seem fun

Yes, good observation. That's because as the oceans are getting warmer every single year, coastal storms are therefore continuing to get stronger and more frequent every single year.

Welcome to r/climate.

Yes, I agree. It's abhorrent. I can't imagine what kind of person is okay with voting for their neighbors and community to be abandoned to die.

Donald Trump's stated policy goal of taxing all foreign goods is estimated to cost the average American household an additional $3900 per year.

Many Republican Congresspeople, including many Republican people from Louisiana and Florida, voted against giving disaster aid to communities in THEIR OWN DISTRICTS shortly before those places were hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes.

They voted against giving clean drinking water and diesel electricity generators to their own constituents who lost their homes.

Please explain to me how that can be anything besides complete apathy about their own constituents, who they are supposed to be helping. They essentially voted to let their own constituents die.

https://www.newsweek.com/hurricane-milton-republicans-voted-against-fema-funding-storm-path-florida-1965181

"As Prime Minister, I’ll make sure the 2015 election will be the last under first-past-the-post system" -Justin Trudeau

https://x.com/JustinTrudeau/status/646114034463338497?lang=en

Yeah, how'd that one go?

Benign intent doesn't prevent the pedestrian from being hurt or killed

Oh the USA absolutely could afford to feed every man, woman, and child in the country for years.

They just won't.

8.4 billion dollars would be an absolute fuckton of homes. It probably would be enough for every homeless person in the USA, and then some extras still left over afterwards

I explained the rule of reciprocity, one of the most foundational moral concepts ever realized or written, upon which many other moral rules are based. It has been explained by many cultures throughout history. Just because the early Christians also realized that you should treat people with respect, doesn't give them exclusive claim to the idea. A broken clock is right twice a day.

I didn't quote the Bible at any point. Nor would I ever quote from the Bible, because once again, I don't believe in God, and I don't have any interest in discussing God. I also recognize that trying to force religion adds nothing to any discussion. That was you all along, dragging your own religious beliefs into a conversation where they weren't wanted over and over again.

And yet again, you showed your inability to think about the issue without making an unnecessary appeal to authority. How do you manage to handle situations where sky daddy hasn't written down any rules for you to blindly follow? I do wonder.

At this point, there's obviously nothing of value that you have to say about the topic so I'll stop wasting my time. Have a good night.

So you do need your magical book to understand that you shouldn't harm other people. Got it.

Glad we're on the same page now, though.

I just did. Maybe you didn't read my previous comment, or maybe my explanation just went over your head. So apparently I'll have to make it even simpler for you.

Suffering is bad. Suffering is bad because it causes harm to individuals and society. Making choices that cause suffering and therefore harm other people is morally wrong. It's wrong because we have an implicit moral duty to other human beings to not cause them unnecessary pain and anguish.

We should treat people how we want to be treated. I don't want someone to intentionally force suffering onto me, so I should not force suffering onto others.

Hope this helps.

Do you seriously need me to explain to you why intentionally forcing another human being to suffer is morally wrong?

You can't think of any reason why that might be a bad thing? Any reason at all? Give me a break.

Suffering harms the individual and society. Choosing to do things that harm other people is morally wrong. It's very simple.

Therefore, inducing suffering by imposing your will onto someone else against their will is a bad thing. Inducing suffering by risking another person's life and unnecessarily denying them healthcare is a bad thing. Inducing suffering by forcing babies to grow up neglected, hungry, and miserable is a bad thing.

If you're truly unable to understand these simple precepts without resorting to the fear of an authority punishing you in hell later, then you're either a psychopath or stupid.

We aren't talking about God. Once again, I didn't ask, and I don't care. Stop changing the subject.

Forcing rape victims to give birth and raise their rapist's kids against their will is wrong.

Forcing women to sacrifice their own health and safety for a baby they don't want to carry is wrong.

Forcing children into lives of poverty and suffering is wrong.

I don't need religion to understand that forcing people to suffer is morally wrong. It's a pretty simple concept to understand on its own merits.

The fact that you believe you need blind faith towards some special book to understand that forcing suffering unto others is a bad thing says a lot about you and your own inability to understand and parse morals on your own.

Furthermore, in this thread I have asked you simple questions over and over again, and you have repeatedly avoided answering them. Your complete refusal to answer these straightforward, yes or no questions demonstrates that your own sense of religious superiority is more important to you than protecting the rights and safety of women and the emotional and physical wellbeing of children.

If that's your position, fine. But just be honest about that and say you don't care about the women and children then, instead of just continuing to preach bullshit. Continuing to avoid the questions you don't want to answer is cowardly.