Recent comments in /f/Pennsylvania

IamSauerKraut t1_j86liri wrote

Reply to comment by Timewasted11222 in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

>I remember when trump won Hillary and every other dem said there was voter fraud .

The claims that were made were centered around donnie dumpster fire receiving assistance from russia. Which benedict donald's henchmen attempted to turn into "russian collusion." Anyways, Mueller was investigating those claims until Billy Barr ran interference for the dumpster fire and prematurely shut down the investigation.

9

Hazel1928 t1_j86kykj wrote

Reply to comment by Ok_Season_5325 in Parents sue West Shore school district over character building program by polgara_buttercup

These people are not representative of Christianity or consevatism. A better example of conservatism and it’s success can be seen by comparing Florida with New York state. In the last 20 years, Florida has surpassed New York state in population, while having about half the annual spending. Florida also scores better on many measures of well being such as percentage of the population on Medicaid, life expectancy, and many other measures.

1

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86ixwq wrote

Reply to comment by steelceasar in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

Yes, I did write the above and I stand by it, but you have to take into consideration the entire block, not just cherry pick which parts you'd like to reply to.

In that entire reply, I was making several points that add up to my overall argument:

  1. Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

  2. Gun owners see increasing regulatory hoops to jump through in acquiring firearms legally whilst criminals continue to ignore the laws to acquire their illegal weaponry... illegally.

  3. The Constitution deals with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." You can argue about to whom the right is granted if you don't like the Heller decision. But it does explicitly refer to a "right" and it grants it by saying "it shall not be infringed" (logically, it has to have been granted and exist as a right if it can be protected from infringement, right?).

  4. a) There is no explicit mention of a "right" to abortion in the document, and so if that right does exist, it exists within something else that is explicit - i.e. the right to abortion exists in the penumbra, as SCOTUS has said. b) When gun owners are seeing their explicit right being infringed while Democrats demand their non-explicit right be upheld, it makes them feel just as angry as when women feel their rights are being infringed.

"And"

  1. a) There really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history, for example b) King George was on the wrong side of history when, for example he started the American Revolution by sending troops to confiscate arms from the colonists.

AND SO.... all of that was to support my ORIGINAL argument, which is simply that the accusation of Nazi affiliation is being bandied about unnecessarily and ad nauseum. I was not attempting to boil down the entire revolution or even just the whole "taxation without representation" thing into my own gun rights argument. My bit at the end of that whole block about King George was merely one example to support the argument that governments restricting or taking firearms rights aren't ever "in the right," which itself was to support the larger argument at hand (about the over-use of "Nazi," to be perfectly clear. I'd hate to leave any bit of ambiguity for you to cling to.)

My communication skills have served me thus fine so far in life. I used to be a pre-law student. I was in my 7th undergrad semester before ditching the field for IT. I did crap tons of writing to get to that 7th semester, my friend, so if some guy on Reddit wants to critique my writing.... I have to critique your reading skills.

−1

ShatterZero t1_j86i288 wrote

Reply to comment by No-Neighborhood-7264 in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

> wHy cAn't wE HaVe pOlL TaXeS ThAt pReVeNt pOoR PeOpLe fRoM VoTiNg? wHaT'S WrOnG WiTh hAvInG A PoLl tAx? iF YoU CaN'T PaY To vOtE, yOu sHoUlDn't bE AbLe tO VoTe. aLl wE'Re dOiNg iS MaKiNg sUrE ReSpOnSiBlE TaX PaYeRs vOtE. HoNeStLy, It sHoUlDn't cOsT AnYtHiNg, ThAt's wRoNg, BuT We sHoUlD JuSt mAkE SuRe oNlY PeOpLe wHo oWn tHeIr oWn hOmEs vOtE. HoMeOwNeRs aRe tHe rEaL ReSpOnSiBlE PeOpLe iN ThIs cOuNtRy.

/u/No-Neighborhood-7264, probably

11

SunOutrageous6098 t1_j86g3x3 wrote

Reply to comment by Timewasted11222 in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

In every election except for the 2020 General Election, and I guess the 2022 General Election in Arizona, the losing party has simply cried a river, built a bridge, and gotten over it.

No one ever seems to contest Primaries, even in States with Open Primaries.

Trump and Lake seem to be the only two that refuse to understand that their constituents chose someone else to lead.

12

steelceasar t1_j86f5n0 wrote

Reply to comment by NotTRYINGtobeLame in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

"And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord."

You wrote the above. So you are in fact arguing that you did not mean what you said? I don't need to construct a straw man argument, because either you have no idea what you are talking about, or your written communication skills are so underdeveloped that you are incapable of articulating it.

3