AtomicActuator said:

---

At this point I vote against authoritarianism, which means I vote for the candidate most likely to win who isn't authoritarian, which today is synonymous with maga.

---

Ok.

Keef wouldn't go this long without crying and calling everyone racist.

David_Puddy said:

---

What authoritarianism tactics do you feel like the Republicans are practicing currently? I'm guessing by your Ag tag, you were old enough to be an adult during the 2020-2021 Covid lockdowns

---

That will take us pretty far off topic. But don't worry, I'm pretty damned old. Old enough to remember the PATRIOT act being passed, and young enough to have thought it was a really good idea at the time.

Our perspectives on whether COVID restrictions were justified probably largely hinge on whether we believe over a million people were killed by it. If you think it was a hoax, then it was an authoritarian power grab. If you think it was the largest mass death of Americans in history, then you probably see them as completely justified.

And which are you

And now we can see why AOC was railing on Kirk. She caters to the lowest common denominator of our populace.

The sanctimonious, over-educated, but yet unintelligent American voter that is unable to use logic, less alone debtate, and contantly throws emotional tantrums. They claim to be battling a higher cause, but deep down are insecure and miserable at the emptiness of their lives.

In other words.
Godlless. Single women. Cats. Betas.

You first

I believe we should have not shut down the country. Take care of vulnerable populations but no way shut down the country. It was deadly to old people and fat asses. We should have tried to isolate the old. The days aren't worried about their health so they can take care of themselves

AtomicActuator said:

---

David_Puddy said:

---

What authoritarianism tactics do you feel like the Republicans are practicing currently? I'm guessing by your Ag tag, you were old enough to be an adult during the 2020-2021 Covid lockdowns

---

That will take us pretty far off topic. But don't worry, I'm pretty damned old. Old enough to remember the PATRIOT act being passed, and young enough to have thought it was a really good idea at the time.

Our perspectives on whether COVID restrictions were justified probably largely hinge on whether we believe over a million people were killed by it. If you think it was a hoax, then it was an authoritarian power grab. If you think it was the largest mass death of Americans in history, then you probably see them as completely justified.

---

Ok, so you think Covid shutdowns which caused thousands of small businesses to fail, people to go broke, and people to rely on government handouts was not authoritarian? And Gavin Newsom was doing it to simply protect his citizens from something with a 99.9% survival rate? Got it.

Guess you also missed the embarrassing way he handled the major fire in his state as well. What authoritarianism have Vance or Desantis (the 2 most likely to win the nomination) displayed in your eyes?

Sounds like he is a branch covidian.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Sounds like he is a branch covidian.

---

Poster probably wears 3 masks.
Alone, in their Prius.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I believe we should have not shut down the country. Take care of vulnerable populations but no way shut down the country. It was deadly to old people and fat asses. We should have tried to isolate the old. The days aren't worried about their health so they can take care of themselves

---

That's a fair approach, but you didn't touch on why it would be unjustified and authoritarian to take emergency measures to save potentially millions of lives. In my mind extreme emergencies can justify extreme measures. I mean, many on the right think that it's justified to strip some minorities of rights because of one political commentator's murder. Certainly if that's justified, then actions to save millions are, right?

But I think the even bigger question is "what the heck does that have to do with whether or not it's ok to vote against a resolution because you disagree with one part, despite agreeing with the rest of it?"

Because I don't think you should take away rights because some people are vulnerable. You think it is and that's authoritarian. That's the same excuse gun grabbers use.

What rights of minorities are you talking about?

Actually before Kirk: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-gun-rights-record-back-spotlight-after-reported-doj-talks-transgender-ban

I disagree with that 100%. A ****** should be able to own guns and doesn't seem to have anything to do with Kirk. I am against any limits on 2nd amendment

You are ok with authoritarian if it fits your agenda. That's not being kind of libertarian at all.

AtomicActuator said:

---

Actually before Kirk: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-gun-rights-record-back-spotlight-after-reported-doj-talks-transgender-ban

---

Talks of a ban are just that. Talk

The Biden administration made ~10 million american felons practically overnight when the ATF passed their brace rule re-classifying pistols as SBRs.

10 million americans could have been arrested and made felons, and NOT one democrat gave a *****
THAT is authoritarian.

Throw in Dems love to say "we need red flag laws". If that's the case since trans are mentally ill would they be part of the law?

I already said I don't like democrats, I just hate maga more

I must be getting slow in my old age, but it finally occurred to me that the lockdowns were under Trump. Why the hell are we talking about that again? And again, what does that have to do with the Kirk resolution?

To prove you are ok with authoritarian politicians. You are. You proved it. You showed who you were. You lie about being kind of libertarian. You are just another liberal. Are you against any restrictions on guns?

You can't call out your hate for authoritarian right while gladly accepting and justifying authoritarian things you believe in.

Why are you bringing up authoritarian when it's a thread about 58 democrats. I just wanted to show your hypocrisy.

AtomicActuator said:

---

I already said I don't like democrats, I just hate maga more

---

I really don't care who you like or hate.

But your pretense of not liking "authoritarian" rule is laughable. In a thread about 58 democrats choosing not to honor a man, who's death they are partly responsible for

And him defending Covid lockdowns. Gavin was the authoritarian of all authoritarian and I bet he will gladly vote for him. Also he probably rejoiced with Covid mandate.

If not already posted, that translates to at least 55% of House Democrats being open communists. Pretty close in line with a recent poll that had 2/3 of Democrats who identified as Marxists.

AtomicActuator said:

---

I must be getting slow in my old age, but it finally occurred to me that the lockdowns were under Trump. Why the hell are we talking about that again? And again, what does that have to do with the Kirk resolution?

---

In your old age, you must have forgotten that all the Red States started opening up but the Blue city mayors were arresting people trying to open their business.

And then Biden campaigned on locking down the country
The lockdowns started under Trump (authoritarian) and continued under democrat mayors and governors (not authoritarian). Blue city mayors decided which business is essential or not (totally not authoritarian)

They hate God and they hate America. That ship has sailed.

K, so we agree that it's irrelevant to the topic of the thread at least.

I've consistently said my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the purely logical argument I'm making. I only went into it a little to counter the fiction y'all were spinning.

deddog said:

---

to honor a man, who's death they are partly responsible for

---

Leaving aside the idiocy of saying they are responsible for his death, that doesn't follow at all.

It's like if I said Jeffrey Dahmer was a dirty cannibal and someone killed him later. Even if I somehow inspired the killer, it doesn't follow that I would now be morally obliged to honor his cannibalism.

You said you don't like authoritarians. You then defended authoritarian stuff as long as you believe it was for safety. Sorry we are just pointing out you are a hypocrite

I don't care that these dems voted against it. I think they are wrong but they are dems so I expect it. They are the same dems that swear people aren't paying their fair share of taxes which is another Dem lie.

They can be what they want and we can laugh at them and call them names. Same way I feel about the people getting canned for celebrating his death. Their choice but live with it and own it.

And it literally doesn't affect the validity of my arguments if I'm a hypocrite, does it? Just a ad hominem, as I said in my second comment on this thread.

You were the one who said you were against authoritarian and that's why you aren't a republican. I wanted to point out you were ok with it. You brought it up so I showed your hypocrisy. That's not an attack that's truth. I used your own words to show it.

But I'm irrelevant. And my argument has nothing to do with my background.

Let's recap:

- I made an argument y'all didn't like.

- Y'all said "nuh uh" to the argument and then proceeded to attack me and make wild assumptions.

- I explained more about my background to refute the wild assumptions

- We've been off topic back and force for hours about me and my background, with no one refuting my argument logically, and one person admitting they don't care at all about the topic of this thread.

So yeah, y'all are some master debaters up in here.

Well you chose to ignore the facts presented to you on this topic and then danced around them. Then you were a big part of derailing this thread. Soooooo there's that

No facts relevant to my argument were presented. Someone regurgitated the text of the resolution and said "look, in addition to honoring him, it also condemns the murder" which is a fact that was never in dispute.

The logical argument is simply that if a resolution contains a part you agree with and a part you don't, and you vote against it, it's more reasonable to say you voted against the part that caused you to vote no, not the part that you and everyone else agrees with.

No arguments against that have been made that I have seen.

And my best rational argument in support of my position is a reduction to absurdity. Going back to my reductio ad dahmerum, by your logic a person who votes against a resolution which condemns the prison murder of Jeffrey Dahmer and honors his life's work automatically supports the murder. While obviously one can be against prison murder and against cannibals.

. @TPUSA please sue Representative Sherrill for defamation. https://t.co/NhcZEsHHOu

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) September 20, 2025

They are. The bombastic, inciteful language never stops. It's like y'all want the violence to happen. And now you refuse to even acknowledge it.

Absolutely shameful.

What a disgraceful liar. Incapable of dealing in facts. All they do is divide and inflame.