Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Jon Stewart demolishes one Repub idea after another. And makes a case for Republicans intending to cause chaos.
Give it up to Sen Nathan Dahm for having the balls. He knew what he was walking into. And to get elected these beliefs have to bypass logic. But he knew that too.
When you get to be a TV show host like John you get to select your debate partner and questions thus rigging the debate. If John wanted a real argument he might have debated someone like Ben Shapiro.
1: Gun ownership increases safety, John's question assumes everyone owns guns when them 400 million are owned by only half the country, and most of them are not even allowed to carry them. So yes they are more safe, doesn't do you unarmed people and areas any good.
2: Voting is a privilege of citizenship not a natural right. It depends upon others providing system (goverment or anything else) for you to vote for control of. A gun or weapon merely requires an item you can make yourself.
We call voting like any other service a 'right' only in that you contract for it with others, It is not natural, an as such that contract has conditions limitations and exclusions.
3: Speech is in fact a natural right, and like guns congress has no legitimate power to abridge it. However States do not all have such restrictions. At the extremes of interpretation (inconsistent with history and original understanding) you can argue the 2nd amendment which does not mention congress also prohibits state laws on guns. This however is not the case on speech laws which very specifically cannot be made by congress the federal legislator, and there is nothing at all to imply states can't make such laws if their constitutions permitted and indeed they did historically.
therefore there is no hypocrisy if your talking about the fed's or even the few States that lack such restrictions in the State constitution if you hold the out of context textual position on what the 2nd amendment literally says.
Again John is practicing a kind of straw man debate here in choosing his questions and opponent.
1) actually I’m sure it’s hard to find competent arguers being Jon Stewart. And Sen Stahl does pretty good I think. He remained calm and kept to his talking points. But he had SHIT illogical talking points. That’s my point.
2) more guns = more gun deaths and there’s no other way around that logic. Jon is correct. Your argument that guns make things safe is absolutely bullshit.
3) voting is the same as gun ownership. They’re both constitutional rights. Everyone is ok dismantling the rights they don’t like. Republicans don’t want more people voting. They when mathematically when less people vote. Proven fact.
4) limitations on constitutional rights are currently law. Like can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. Can’t own a nuke.
1) Shapiro is not hard to find. Even still his points were fine just not clearly made or defended because he either was unable or not allowed to.
2) Are you trying to make a point, more boats = more boat deaths, more house = more house deaths, etc... More anything equal more anything deaths. Your right there is no way around that fact just as there also isn't point to it.
Guns are tools and are more often used to prevent crimes and defend lives than to take them. But of course that can only happen by people who have them in areas that allow them. Otherwise guns are simply used by the people already intending to violate the law.
I really don't need to argue that having no guns would reduce deaths because that is never going to happen. As difficult to impossible to get rid of guns 10 years ago was its only going to get more difficult going forward.
Maybe you should go live on an island where most people generally agree with you, there are limited resources for the few people who don't to do what they want anyway. I'm sure you could control guns in Hawaii for instance.
I doubt you would be very successful in any of the North American States.
3) No, as I just explained voting and gun ownership are completely different That they are mentioned in a constitution is not relevant to what they are.
A) A gun is an item you can make.
B) A vote an abstract share of control given to you by other people.
To suppress a natural right, requires an army policing every person to see to it they don't exersize that right. To suppress a contract 'right' simply requires doing nothing.
4) I won't dispute that the present organization titling itself 'the Federal goverment of the united states' has violated and overthrown the constitution, regularly and repeatedly. The long chain of abuses and usurpation make for good justification should any state decide to leave or itself do the same when the opportunity arises.
@oddbeme Fast talking is normal among debater due to time constraints to prevent filibuster by length. I don't at all agree that he throws in "worthless nascent" even if its meaning evades you, it does have meaning.
Frankly I find John Steward doesn't even qualify as an debater given his less than honest control of the forum.
@oddbeme I agree with the founders on the subject of democracy, and as such am very much against it with or without Guns.
A wise man consents only to be governed under the strict terms of laws and NEVER give any group even a mere majority the power to make a slave of him or her in taking every power.
The right to keep and bare arms is part of the system of security that was designed to help make democracy difficult by allowing a minority to contest any vote beyond the limits of his or her consent to be governed. This of course is extremely important to the existence of liberty even thou we hope it never comes to that.
@oddbeme
... ehh yes the founders were very much against democracy. Democracy is a terrible system that murders itself and oppresses its people.
"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." - James Madison
Yeah the federalist debate has gone on a long time and the and anti democracy crowd back then were afraid of getting rid of slavery. Hence 3/5ths.
But let’s to the short of it. Repubs need white rural voters in Ohio and Missouri to have triple the voting power of New Yorkers and Californians. Can you give me any reason that’s ok?
@oddbeme The 3/5ths compromise was the other way around, it was a dispute between counting slaves and not counting them and the states with large slave population wanted them counted.
Remember that even New England had slavery until the 1780s when they only really abolished it in 1783/1784 less than 5 years prior to the Constitutional convention of 1787. Even Pennsylvania who was first only abolished slavery in 1780 which of course was one of the first states to do so in the Atlantic world. Abolition in 1787 was a very new idea.
So for them this was about power. The North's industrialization is what made it economically possible for them to abolish slavery. Unfortunately due to the high year round heat in the south in an age before Air Conditioning industrialization simply wasn't a good option in the south.
Neither Ohio nor Missouri were States in 1787, Although the Ohio Territory would have outlawed slavery around the same time as Pennsylvania from which it was arguably taken. Missouri at this time would have been under Spanish Rule.
@oddbeme Then your not talking about 3/4th compromise. I assume your talking about the senate instead, as that is the only respect in which Ohio at 11 million people and never having had slaves has 3 times the vote of California.
That question is because Ohio is a separate self-governing state that doesn't need to agree with California on almost anything. Their equal representation in the Senate represents that fact and is intended to help protect that fact.
The same is true of most all the states. Although you could argue at the extremes a possible modern exception of tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware who no longer have the natural resources, political, or economic resources to be as effectively govern themself independently on the same level.
@oddbeme
I don't think you know what your talking about. You started on the original 3/4th compromise, which cease to be an issue after the 13th amendment 160 years ago, was never an issue for the state of Ohio. Then told me Ohio has 3 times the representation of California, which is only true if your referring ONLY to the U. S. Senate.
Now you are telling me your talking about the electoral cottage. Ohio has 15 house seats for a population of 11,780,017. or 785,334.46 people per house seat
California by contrast has 52 house seats for a shrinking population of 38,940,231 or 671,383.29 per house seat.
Missouri only has 8 house seats for a population of 6,160,281 or 770,035.12 per house seat
So no California is significantly over represented in congress, California really should only have 51 house seats to have parity of 763,533.94 per seat.
@oddbeme
Forgive me I presumed you knew the electoral cottage is based upon the number of house seats + the standard 2 senate seats. As we already discussed the propose of the senate, and you were specifically concerned about being over-represented I focused on the house the only part of the Federal goverment that is suppose to represent anyone equally.
The electoral cottage of course is anther system of elections which is not and never was suppose to reflect the people rather than their states. That is why State legislators have total control over how electors are casts. None of them are required to even have elections in the first place, just as none did originally.
So I won't entertain any reverence about the popular vote not matching the electoral vote, it is not and NEVER was suppose to. Presidents are suppose to represent the union not the people directly.
This fact is made even more self-evident when you look at the originally intended method of electing presidents (that has only happened a few times) not unlike how everyone else in the world elects prime ministers via vote of the legislator who make the laws they are suppose to enforce.
Strictly speaking I think the originally intended method was far more appropriate than the electoral cottage. Once again the function of the elective was to enforce the laws made by congress, so why should not congress have some say in whom he is?
@oddbeme
Are you not aware that 270 is the number of Electors required to win before the election goes to the house and senate to vote by state?
If someone wins 270 elector votes (you call 'points') they matter, if nobody wins soo many as was expected to be the case when the Constitution was written and voted on, they don't matter.
@oddbeme
Because America is a a union of 50 states not 336+ million people.
That federal nature is the key to what theses united States are and their success.
In fact a better solution would be to go back to the prior approach and get rid of the house all together. The house's inclusion was only a compromise to reflect the new taxing powers and the fact that taxes come from the people.
The Federal Constitution was after all a failure, it didn't solve the instability problem, the anti-federalist predictions and understanding of the situation proved to be correct, as demonstrated in the history since. We should acknowledge that fact and stop building on a incorrect understanding of people and the world.
The distributed federal nature of the republic is key to the success of any large continental scale country like America which is frankly very unusual in the history of the world. Most large countries tend to be or soon become empires where one particularity dominate faction/region basically runs everything.
Imposing policies that benefit it alone and are often incompatible with the rest, and sustainable only so long as said factions remain willing and powerfully enough to crush the rests via military force.
Theses empires are relatively poor on the whole because while they do maintain stable trade, their incompatible policies don't allow each region and people to optimize their own industry thus crippling their future potential.
We seen this even within theses united States since the abolition of their republican systems of goverment in the edict Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Where States that were subsequently completely dominated by a few cities like Illinois or New York subsequently adopted urban political policies at the state level that impoverished all other areas of the state making them more and more economic and political colonies.
I mean…they hate big government, as a rule. So it would only make sense for them to act as saboteurs just to turn around and be like “SEE? We TOLD you government is bad! Maybe we should just kick it all back to the states, so there’s just absolutely no conformity and consistency in our nation’s laws!”
Actually we hate big centralized goverment (not just big goverment), and in areas either:
A) not covered by the Federal Constitution
B) advantageous to our interest.
Opposing any measure by Washington is the most desirable outcome.
That said @WhiteSteve neither is A nor B is true of immigration law, nor almost any other law among federal politicians of either party.
That said there is a huge trust issue here when you hide the text of bills until its too late to read and debate them, and a bigger still trust issue when the ones writing it demonstrate nothing short of a strong desire to open the border.
Thus we are forced to judge a bill by the character of its authors for want of timely text, and know the character of its authors is decidedly the opposite of what is needed.
Nah. Liberals like Dems want false flags to draw attention to something they did. hahaha
Opinion
15Opinion
The Republicans aren't the ones who are trying to change the definition of what a woman is and causing societal chaos that way and they're also not the ones that are opening the border up for sex traffickers and terrorists to pour in. Not to mention all the fentanyl, which actually killed my nephew.
The Republicans also were not the ones to push that covid authoritarian nonsense that caused massive chaos in our society.
I will give it to you though, the Republicans of the 90s and so on that wanted the ban masturbation and wanted perpetual wars can go fuck themselves.
Remember how Mitt Romney said corporations are people? Pure evil.
It was the left that put up title 9 and now it is the left that is destroying title 9 🤣
You don't actually care about women, you are fine with men masquerading as women completely destroying them and even injuring them brutally in sports and then they have the audacity to say that they are more beautiful than women. It is a sick ideology that says men are better women than women are.
I am not going to let society be restructured for some delusional idiots who can't tell what sex they are. What's next? Getting public litter boxes for people who identify as cats?
You have got to google shit before replying. It’s embarrassing both of us.
www.politifact.com/.../
Title nine was crucial in creating female exclusive teams because the schools would only give a shit about male teams. This was even taught in school in the way I described and there was specific emphasis on separating the sexes into different teams. Sometimes before title 9 women would join the men's team and it would be massively unfair for them and they really couldn't participate because of it and because they did not have their own women's teams.
No there’s certainly issues with trans women playing intramural sports. But intramural sports aren’t the end all of the transgender debate. It ain’t even a footnote.
I read that two years on the trans pills kills whatever testerone boost they woulda had over non trannies, so I’m sure Title X will dutifully protect intramural sports from the transgender attack! Chuckle
@TenderFantasy @Bethany22 @prchica2007
Just some random women I am tagging and I don't know any of you. Could you ladies tell me if you would be okay with competing against a biological male in sports when scholarships and whatnot are on the line?
No, there is absolutely nothing you can do to make a man on the same level as a woman. To come close to that you would have to intervene very early on in the person's life and that would be like giving a child a tattoo when they're not ready for it only with far more dire consequences.
Speaking as a European, all non-gendered restrooms I have seen here in Norway are primary ment for handicapped people, and people who need to change diapers on their baby. And there is only one toilet in them. The exception are in hospitals, and there are still only one toilet per non-gendered restroom there, unlike gendered ones that has multiple stalls.
If its such a non-issue to you, perhaps tell the SJWs who labeled JK Rowling and has hated her since to shut up and stop treating her like an awfull person because dared to wish to preserve separate restrooms to avoid predatory men in the restroom.
@Juxtapose you are absolutely right as usual
@OddBeMe your emotional blackmail argument does not work on me. I do not buy that you have to do x y or z or trans people are going to start killing themselves en mass. No, this has never been a problem throughout history and it's not going to suddenly be a problem now.
@sasahara thank you for your insight and I'm glad to see that Europe has common sense at least with bathrooms.
Anybody can cherrypick something like gun deaths and make a point that it is chaos. You can say the same thing about the democrats. Democrat cities have the strictest gun laws in the country yet their gun crimes are off the charts.
You want to see chaos, look at the real chaos. And this chaos was not the result of random mental illness it was purposely inflicted on a civilian population for the last 3 years.
u Trump is on record, saying he hopes for a economic recession before the election, so he can rile the people up and profit from it.
That Jon Stewart video is absolutely ruthless!!! Thanks!
The divide in the republican party is between those who want conservative policies to succeed and those who want to burn it all down and be fascists. The problem with the former is conservative policies have never once succeeded so they have a messaging problem. While the prospect of lots of pretty fire draws a huge crowd for fascism.
Well we've had the Democrats in power since Obama, even through trumps term. What we got was chaos and soap boxing.
The GOP method is to cause chaos in government, point at the Dems at say "see what happens when you have too much government", then claim they are anti big government. Of course, it's all nonsense. All you need do is look up under which administrations "government" expands or contracts. By the way, not appointing people to necessary positions is NOT making government smaller.
i get it, it is hard for him to admit he voted a guy who ruined supply chain and caused inflation.
he is a comedian not an analyst. just entertainment. maybe he didn't even write it, just read some producer opinion.
i only don't think it's only republicans but also democrats. i'm completely against government
My guess is they remember this scene from game of thrones and said 'wow so thats how we can gain power again!'
Good Republicans (not RINO's who are actually disguised Democrats) want conservative government.
I hope so. “Business as usual” only benefits the ruling class.
Right, because I’m not a member of the ruling class.
Your dems are probably in cahoots with these far right characters. You’re focusing so hard on which one is to blame that you haven’t considered that they’re both in on it. Chaos may not be beneficial in the short term. But no salt comes out of the shaker unless you turn the shaker upside down and start shaking.
Which party actually implements them? It’s all theater.
They do when it comes to raising spending or launching illegal wars of aggression against random countries.
“Forced.” By whom? Listen, our debt keeps going up and up. That’s a fact. It’s been a fact since time immemorial.
“Google it” is not a rebuttal. If you don’t have the time (cause I’m sure you’re a very busy guy) to thoroughly discuss a matter, then you probably shouldn’t reply to begin with. Both parties support spending hikes. These budget increases would not pass unless they had bipartisan support. Reform is not possible. Normalcy is unacceptable.
That’s not them being forced to act. It’s them kicking the van down the road.
The GOP way
Unfortunately the Repub is afraid to tell the truth about gun deaths.
What is the truth?
Majority are suicides by handguns. Remember when your side got angry at Swedish suicide pods?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59577162
if we ban democrats from owning guns, the gun violence rate drops dramatically.
But since you love playing statistics. What % of guns owned in the US are used to harm people?
If that delusion keeps you from shooting up a school or synagogue, then it's all good. But you're truly the most clueless leftist, and it's amazing you make it through life. Oh wait, your wife doesn't let you leave the house...
Depression is often co-morbid with other mental illnesses.
Let's go with your cherry picking a few here (remember you see the world through caricatures, not as it really is).
The Uvalde shooter was a case of mental health problems, yet you've falsely ascribed political motives to it. www.npr.org/.../uvalde-shooter-warning-signs-report
Besides, a poor person in that region of Texas is much more likely to be a Democrat.
The Tree of Life Synagogue shooter is, like you, someone who hates Jews. And he criticized Trump for "having too many Jews around him" and the shooter specifically said he didn't vote for Trump.
The Wisconsin Sikh shooter was definitely a racist and neo-Nazi, but again mental illness may have been a factor.
www.npr.org/.../a-link-between-mental-health-and-mass-violence
Again, no link to Trump, much as that disappoints those of you who see everything through false caricatures.
And you wonder why I am concerned about your mental health, Odd?
@Avicenna agreed, and I’d say mental illness on the far right is a huge issue.
https://youtu.be/9rDSX02HwVs
Except for reality that shows it’s the shitlibs who are mentally ill. It’’s you dopes who think a man can turn into a woman.
Please…send me the research and reports or mentally ill shit libs.
www.psychologytoday.com/.../fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes
From your same site…
www.psychologytoday.com/.../personality-traits-mental-illness-and-ideology
What are you whining about now?
Odd, who sees everything through his crude caricatures (including seeing leftist totalitarians as Mother Teresas) can't understand that everything doesn't fit neatly into his self-serving and simplistic caricatures.
You're about to go 0 for 4, Odd (an everyday occurrence for you) because the El Paso shooter was critical of both Democrats and Republicans. Even when you cherry pick certain mass shootings, we see that your claims are easily refuted by basic evidence, things you ignore because you assume everyone is a hyper-partisan like you.
And everyone knows mental illness is a much bigger problem among leftists, as we see all the time.
Once again, you miss the forest for the trees. Your use of caricatures, your rigid adherence to an extreme, far-left ideology, and your lack of attention to detail on everything causes to the lurch from one unfounded assumption to another. You're constantly being shown why your ideologically-motivated assumptions are wrong and can't handle it.
Your narcissism and pure stupidity are really on display now. Leftist totalitarians don't help people except fellow apparatchiks and those close to them. Useful idiots like you have perished horribly in many a totalitarian society, but you never learn from history. Nor would any reasonable person say that Democratic Party policies have been helpful to anyone other than bureaucrats, administrators, political consultants, trial attorneys, and oligarchs.
And you're too stupid to know that "far right" is libertarianism (Cato Institute, for example).
Yes, they try to cause it to play with peoples emotions. Stupid People fall for it.
When the President is a Democrat, yes.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
