People Coming To FL ‘Overwhelmingly’ Registering As Republicans; Democrats Switc

[Spider-Dan]

There is a certain percentage that gets off of the way Trump pisses people off but it's his policies that sell him to the majority of his voters.

I don't think this is even close to true.  As another conservative I know put it:

I don't think you realize how much conservatives felt attacked during the previous 8 years but to have an "in your face" rebuttal to it is appealing for many.

If conservatives felt "attacked" from 2008-2016, from 2017 to now they must feel like every single day is a siege on their very existence by the media, the liberal elites, the race hustlers, the wokesters, etc.  Conservatives are being "attacked" even more today than they were under Obama!

The "in your face" rebuttal is so appealing that it overrides anything else.  You guys used to be in favor of "free markets" until Trump started talking about tariffs on China, then you were in favor of tariffs.  You used to think Russia was our #1 geopolitical adversary, then Trump started fluffing Putin and now you'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat.

There is no longer any consistent policy among the right.  Hell, the Republican Party didn't even make a policy platform for 2020!  They just recycled the 2016 platform, complete with references to the failed incumbent administration.  The only conservative priority is "triggering the libs," and it takes precedence over everything else.

[pondwater]

The only conservative priority is "triggering the libs," and it takes precedence over everything else.

You people get triggered by almost any silly shit. There's no need for anyone to make it a priority LMFAO.

[ArtieChokePhin]

You people get triggered by almost any silly shit. There's no need for anyone to make it a priority LMFAO.

More like they get triggered by anything that hurts their feelings, even if it's actually truth.

[Sunstroke]

You hear whatever you want to don't you? Must of really sucked in school when being tested for reading comprehension.

Must've (or "must have") really sucked in school when being tested for basic English skills.

[CF DolFan]

Must've (or "must have") really sucked in school when being tested for basic English skills.

Conversation language or as my old professor called it conversational jargon.  Possibly you've heard of it up in your ivory tower? If you plan on being a grammar Nazi on internet message boards then it explains why you are always miserable. Might want to develop a hobby.

[Spider-Dan]

Never apologize, never admit a mistake (no matter how minor).  Instead, make up some alternative grammar and attack the person who pointed out your error.  And you still believe it's possible for another primary candidate to beat Trump in your Republican Party, when he is everything you embody and aspire to be. You're deep in denial.

You honestly believe that this is what converts blue state "liberals" to your team?  Ridiculous.  There's an easier answer: people who benefitted from the kind of policies (like investment in public infrastructure) that comes with blue state taxes... they hit retirement age, no longer have a need for parks or schools, and decide that they don't want to pay for the same perks other taxpayers provided for them in earlier times.  So they pull up the ladder behind them and move to a "low tax" red state where the feds pay for all the services that the state refuses to.

There is no more accurate summation of the anti-tax American right than "I got mine, fck you." People who attended public schools when they were children, but don't want to pay for public schools today.

[pondwater]

Never apologize, never admit a mistake (no matter how minor).  Instead, make up some alternative grammar and attack the person who pointed out your error.

Oh no you didn't. You jump on someone for alternative grammar, but at the same time act like a petulant child and complain when someone uses proper terminology when debating about restricting the rights of the American people. Or you try to argue with the dictionary about the definition of words. "Proper terminology" and "real definitions" of words are much more important than simple grammar when having an intelligent discussion. You're hypocritical, your views are non congruent, and you are the very definition of a walking contradiction. 

you obsessively focus on "proper use of terminology" as a way to avoid discussing these issues on the merits.

No sir, you obsessively focus on avoiding proper terminology and proper definitions because it blows your radical leftist agenda out of the water, LMFAO.......

[Spider-Dan]

The appropriate analogy would be if every time you tried to have a discussion about immigration policy, I would just say "You call them illegal aliens but they're actually undocumented immigrants," and I repeatedly pivoted to that terminology argument every time instead of addressing any sort of argument about policy.

I mean, I've already tried to address the "assault rifle" argument in good faith by citing the definition used in federal legislation, but that doesn't seem to stop the endless chants of "But what does 'assault rifle' mean?".  So it seems like that argument over terminology is just a smokescreen to avoid discussing policy.

[pondwater]

The appropriate analogy would be if every time you tried to have a discussion about immigration policy, I would just say "You call them illegal aliens but they're actually undocumented immigrants," and I repeatedly pivoted to that terminology argument every time instead of addressing any sort of argument about policy.

I mean, I've already tried to address the "assault rifle" argument in good faith by citing the definition used in federal legislation, but that doesn't seem to stop the endless chants of "But what does 'assault rifle' mean?".  So it seems like that argument over terminology is just a smokescreen to avoid discussing policy.

2013, LMFAO. Hey remember all those little kids that were blown up and stabbed to death with with grenade launchers and bayonets? That's why the left doesn't want to define these made up terms, because it shows you people are fucking silly.

Don't be shy, just come out and say it already. You people don't want to ban assault weapons. You want to ban all firearms.

[Spider-Dan]

Once again: I give you the definition used in federal legislation, and we're back to the "bUt wHaT iS aN aSsAuLt wEaPoN?" merry-go-round.
When you are given a straightforward legal definition, you simply refuse to accept it.  Because for you, perpetually squabbling over the definition of "assault weapon" is more hospitable ground than discussing actual gun policy.  (And I'm not sure why you're laughing about "2013," as it seems your positions are the same now as they were then.)

Are you also under the illusion that another Republican could beat Trump in a GOP primary?  You seem more in touch with current-day conservatism than CF, who is still wrapped up in 20th-century GOP kayfabe.

[ArtieChokePhin]

You honestly believe that this is what converts blue state "liberals" to your team?  Ridiculous.  

We don't want blue state liberals on our team.  We're fine as we are.

I mean, I've already tried to address the "assault rifle" argument in good faith by citing the definition used in federal legislation, but that doesn't seem to stop the endless chants of "But what does 'assault rifle' mean?".  So it seems like that argument over terminology is just a smokescreen to avoid discussing policy.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.  That label is a term made up by the liberals themselves to promote their agenda of banning guns in the U.S.  Assault is an action, not an object.  If you pissed me off and I responded by throwing my smartphone at your head, does that make it an assault smartphone?

[pondwater]

Once again: I give you the definition used in federal legislation, and we're back to the "bUt wHaT iS aN aSsAuLt wEaPoN?" merry-go-round.
When you are given a straightforward legal definition, you simply refuse to accept it.  Because for you, perpetually squabbling over the definition of "assault weapon" is more hospitable ground than discussing actual gun policy.  (And I'm not sure why you're laughing about "2013," as it seems your positions are the same now as they were then.)

Fine, if that's the definition you want to use, we can discuss actual gun policy. If you want a policy to ban something, you need a reason to ban it.

Please explain to me how certain cosmetic features make one semi automatic weapon more dangerous than another semi automatic weapon.  To my knowledge, there have been no mass shootings with a bayonet. There have been no mass shootings with a grenade launcher, which by the way is already NFA regulated. So why ban it again other than dramatic effect? Beyond that, pistol grips, telescoping stocks, and threaded barrels have no effect on how deadly a firearm is. You might as well ban them based on their color or smell.

Are you also under the illusion that another Republican could beat Trump in a GOP primary?  You seem more in touch with current-day conservatism than CF, who is still wrapped up in 20th-century GOP kayfabe.

I don't even know what this means

[Tenshot13]

DeSantis 2024 woo

[Spider-Dan]

And here we are, back in the terminology vortex.

"Assault rifle is a made up term"... that was already on the books as enforced federal legislation for 10 years.
"Tell me what makes this particular weapon more dangerous" - ask the people who wrote the laws!  I'm not an expert on firearms (and neither are you).

If we're trying to have a discussion about whether drunk driving is a problem, it's a distraction to fixate on "Why is it .08% BAC instead of .07% or .10%?  Tell me what makes .08% BAC dangerous but .07% BAC perfectly fine."   Especially if you don't think there should be ANY laws restricting drinking and driving at all!

It's all a smokescreen.

[pondwater]

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.  That label is a term made up by the liberals themselves to promote their agenda of banning guns in the U.S.  Assault is an action, not an object.  If you pissed me off and I responded by throwing my smartphone at your head, does that make it an assault smartphone?

No actually, assault rifle is a valid term. It's a selective fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

However, the liberals use the political term "assault weapon" with a fluid and ever changing definition that usually encompass the majority of semi automatic firearms in the country. They do this in their goal to ban all guns without saying they want to ban all guns. They're conflating military weapons with civilian firearms with the word "assault" trying to scare and/or fool the uninformed and ignorant portion of the public. Same with their use of "weapons of war" and "ghost guns". How the hell can a civilian market AR15 be a weapon of war if one has never been used in a war? Ignorant liberal logic and scare tactics, that's all.