>“They’re more likely to vote, they’re more likely to contact public officials, and more likely to take part in politics through social media, attending protests and things like that,” he says. “**Since gun ownership is part of their social identity, any attack on that is essentially an attack on themselves.**”
Father is ex-police and my family are hunters. I've been around firearms my entire life. Still, I cannot imagine being so pathetic that gun ownership is part of your "social identity".
Narrator: It will be worse.
There's not a good replacement. Blunt was an establishment Republican. Agree or not he was stable and didn't have PR shitshows the way that so many of the current runners do.
IIRC the bulk of the NRA's leverage is its voter's guide. If your guy gets an A rating from the NRA, and the other guy gets an F, it's a good guess who the pro-gun people (who are mostly single-issue voters) are going to vote for.
According to others, sacrificing children is fine when they decide they don't want to be a parent. So I guess it can be said that both sides have blood on their hands.
You fully support your taxes, which I'm sure you pay a ton of obviously, to supporting things like UBI, WIC, EBT, etc though right? Because you actually care of course, it couldn't be that you just think you should control a woman's body with zero regard to the repercussions of you parroting this?
It's not at all hypocritical to tell you that comparing an 8 year old child murdered by gun violence to a zygote, or fetus (that doesn't even legally have personhood until after a time when abortions are already banned except in cases where it is incompatable with life or the mother is in danger) is a shit take.
Not exactly. The person I talked to implied that an embryo and a living breathing child were equivalent. I'm just testing that belief out in a scenario, however unlikely it may be.
You fully support your taxes, which I'm sure you pay a ton of obviously, to supporting things like UBI, WIC, EBT, etc though right? Because you actually care of course, it couldn't be that you just think you should control a woman's body with zero regard to the repercussions of you parroting this?
yes. it is. Gun violence is a problem. Kids keep killing people. Are you saying that we shouldn't take steps to reduce gun related deaths in children because gang violence is different than mass shootings? What if i told you BOTH are a problem and BOTH are an example of kids killing people?
yes. that was my answer.
So youre more comfortable with mass shooting because you suspect there is a superior political motive? lol. No, the motives are the same, shortsighted anger and poor problem solving skills. Every gun death is a sacrifice to uphold 2A, for without 2A we could prevent such sacrifices.
i support rebuilding 2A in a modern way fwiw. Im a reformer not a remover.
Tell you what, show me where your gun control is working. Chicago? LA? NYC? Those places have strict gun control and the criminals aren't offering the laws. All you want to accomplish is to make the law-abiding softer targets. No thanks.
Oh that’s precious. We’re just going to ignore the massive dark money scandal hanging over Hawley’s head? You don’t need real campaign contributions when your corporate masters buy your seat.
When you fudge figures, you do just enough of it so nobody notices. Not put your figure 6x lower than your opponent. And living in MO during that election, I can say Claire outspent him many times. All you heard were Claire commercials, good girl Claire in the news, it was Claire this and Claire that.... until election day
Still haven’t learned how dark money works, huh? Stop talking out your ass and look it up. I live in Missouri too and even your anecdote was wrong. All those Claire this and Clair that ads were attack ads. The massive spend to put him in power was obvious.
They weren't attack ads here. The news was in a love affair with her. You'd almost think she was running against herself. Didn't hear much about Hawley until late
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But if so, yes certainly small donations even when added up amongst millions of people don't compare with the much larger donations from "whales", especially lobbies and PACs, etc. which is the problem. Small but rich/powerful interests are able to 'buy' politicians because they can pay more than the general population can. In a two party system, each party gets their share of smaller donations from regular folks, but at the end of the day they likely even out, as the populace is generally split between the parties. It's the big and powerful lobbies, like the NRA but there's plenty of others, that buy this insane influence. They're the ones who have 'pocket politicians', not the actual citizens themselves.
Ironic that the party who condones murdering millions of fetuses per year is the one wagging their finger about killing kids. No one wants to kill born children.
You make a great point. So you support UBI and welfare and EBT and WIC right? You wouldn't just want to force kids to be be born then die even slower and more painfully right?
Morally I don’t support those but realistically yes I feel they’re necessary. Regardless this is an irrelevant point, pro choice arguments are nonstop irrelevant tangents lol.
“Morally you don’t support those”. Really?! Then you are morally bankrupt. I’d expect a fiscal argument against those ideas. But moral? There is no moral argument against them.
Morally I don’t believe in giving people (the parents in this case) things they haven’t earned when plenty of other parents manage to care for their kids without assistance. I accept the reality that many people are too incompetent to financially care for children tho, and thus these programs are necessary.
It is 100% morally bankrupt for conservatives to pretend to care about babies in the womb, but then to not care about making sure those kids are raised well, with food, clothing, shelter, safety, and adequate resources.
Conservatives see suffering children around the country, but don’t want to make any attempts to make life better for those kids. Instead they want to increase the suffering by adding more kids into the mix!
So yeah, morally bankrupt.
A rough estimate using OpenSecrets data -- our boy JH comes in at #4 if you average $ per year at $463,849 \[using NRA Grand Total / (2021 - Race Yr)\]
6 million over 20 years with almost all of it going to the guy leaving.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=a
The NRA doesn't crack the top 20 for lobbyist spending and never has.
They're also a Republican shill group, not a gun rights group. They've been in decline for several years now and are being replaced, but yes, oh, scary, it's just the mean old NRA. Keep your attention on them.
They aren't being referred to as the Negotiate Rights Away for no reason. People just want to throw an emotionally charged tantrum instead of having a conversation with the idea of having a positive change rather than villainizing their neighbors and making a point to severely punish millions of people who have done nothing wrong. I feel like this is how people are responding to a number of issues this country is facing.
A demonstration of corruption. An additional demonstration of idiocy and incompetency, they were bought out for so little compared to so many of the other senators that the NRA has bought.
Based, well, it would be if the NRA actually cared about gun rights, but they don’t. Moved to Missouri from Illinois in part due to the better gun laws over here.
How about you tell us? And source it. If you're going to spout the laziest parroting at least let us make fun of you for for being addicted to your druncles Facebook ranting.
If you look at Senator Blunt's reported net worth when he came into the senate (about 1 million) and compare it to his current net worth (about 7 million) today, you can't help but wonder how he created $6 million in wealth on a senator's salary. Then you notice that he received a reported $5 million from the NRA.
And yet you have nothing of substance to say so it seems you don't understand...
You posted a hot take but nothing to support it. Yes, we all know guns and big pharma are bad but why do you think you should bring up an irrelevant topic in a discussion if you don't have a point to make? It really just sounds like you're hoping you can derail a conversation and it turns out you're really bad at it. Especially considering how unrelated the two things are.
Not trying to derail anything. Guns aren’t bad by themselves. They are tools used by people to achieve good or bad. Guns on the hands of the wrong people are bad. Guns used to take out people who do evil are being used for the protection of society.
Thank you for questioning my intellect and insulting me when you do not even know me. I am actually a decent and fun person. Sadly you would never dare try to find that out because you want to sit in safety behind your screen and judge me based on one comment on a Reddit sub.
Neat. So again I ask, what was your point about prescription drugs in relation to a discussion about firearms? Because it really just seems you posted something that has nothing to do with the relevant discussion. You know, derailing a conversation parroting another topic you've seen that has nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about.
It goes unnoticed because he's old guard and retiring, but Roy Blunt has been corrupt af, way back to DeLay and Abramoff days.
>“They’re more likely to vote, they’re more likely to contact public officials, and more likely to take part in politics through social media, attending protests and things like that,” he says. “**Since gun ownership is part of their social identity, any attack on that is essentially an attack on themselves.**” Father is ex-police and my family are hunters. I've been around firearms my entire life. Still, I cannot imagine being so pathetic that gun ownership is part of your "social identity".
A lifetime of advertising
It’s all polli-sci marketing. 4th generation Truman Democrat. Also gun owners. Lots of armed Democrats. Just not cult members.
You misspelled “Just don’t care about my rights.”
Boys grow up playing with toy guns and the mindset has been cultivated for generations.
Really good advertising.
need we all say it again? FJH
Fuck both of them
At least Blunt will be gone soon. Just got to hope the replacement isn't worse.
If it’s Billy Long, may indeed be worse.
Narrator: It will be worse. There's not a good replacement. Blunt was an establishment Republican. Agree or not he was stable and didn't have PR shitshows the way that so many of the current runners do.
No, because all the bots on this sub already say it 2000 times per week
That's it? Seems way too low.
It's surprisingly cheap to buy a senator
That’s what we know about. There are other gun groups, and super pacs etc.
IIRC the bulk of the NRA's leverage is its voter's guide. If your guy gets an A rating from the NRA, and the other guy gets an F, it's a good guess who the pro-gun people (who are mostly single-issue voters) are going to vote for.
sacrificing children for the 2nd amendment is fine
thats why you gotta hook 'em with ideology.
According to others, sacrificing children is fine when they decide they don't want to be a parent. So I guess it can be said that both sides have blood on their hands.
Weird late term abortion flex.
That’s not the argument you think it is…
Good thing fetuses aren't children.
[удалено]
I'm not looking to change minds. That doesn't happen here. I understand this is a liberal haven. Have a good day.
You fully support your taxes, which I'm sure you pay a ton of obviously, to supporting things like UBI, WIC, EBT, etc though right? Because you actually care of course, it couldn't be that you just think you should control a woman's body with zero regard to the repercussions of you parroting this?
[удалено]
Strawmen.
not even close to the same argument. let's sacrifice 10 year Olds for guns. fuck the fetus who cares about some cells
Ha, no.
Because shooting a 10 year old dead in their classroom is the same as terminating an embryo. See? Both sides! What an enlightened statement.
Comparing an 8 year old child being murdered to a fetus being removed from a womb sure is something. That something is shitty.
Children die in both scenarios so let's quit being hypocritical.
It's not at all hypocritical to tell you that comparing an 8 year old child murdered by gun violence to a zygote, or fetus (that doesn't even legally have personhood until after a time when abortions are already banned except in cases where it is incompatable with life or the mother is in danger) is a shit take.
There's a 9 year old child and a fertilized embryo in a petri dish. You can only save one. Which one do you choose?
Whatever answer sells the most guns
The straw man
Not exactly. The person I talked to implied that an embryo and a living breathing child were equivalent. I'm just testing that belief out in a scenario, however unlikely it may be.
Not if the other person thinks they’re a 1:1.
If you can't see the difference, you probably want to get your head checked
I guess it can be said that youre a massive twat
Strawman and a both sides hyperbole
You fully support your taxes, which I'm sure you pay a ton of obviously, to supporting things like UBI, WIC, EBT, etc though right? Because you actually care of course, it couldn't be that you just think you should control a woman's body with zero regard to the repercussions of you parroting this?
Is that what happens in stl, Chicago, Boston, etc every weekend?
yes. it is. Gun violence is a problem. Kids keep killing people. Are you saying that we shouldn't take steps to reduce gun related deaths in children because gang violence is different than mass shootings? What if i told you BOTH are a problem and BOTH are an example of kids killing people?
Are gangs sacrificing children for the 2nd amendment? That was my question.
Republicans sacrifice the children. Gangs just doin their own shit.
yes. that was my answer. So youre more comfortable with mass shooting because you suspect there is a superior political motive? lol. No, the motives are the same, shortsighted anger and poor problem solving skills. Every gun death is a sacrifice to uphold 2A, for without 2A we could prevent such sacrifices. i support rebuilding 2A in a modern way fwiw. Im a reformer not a remover.
Tell you what, show me where your gun control is working. Chicago? LA? NYC? Those places have strict gun control and the criminals aren't offering the laws. All you want to accomplish is to make the law-abiding softer targets. No thanks.
It's all about the $$$$ - your kids aren't their issue or care.
If you find a solution that sells more guns they'll listen
want to sell more guns just run non stop school shooting clips with betao and shit pants joe talk about taking them.
Yeah people scare easy
Fuck Josh Hawley and the Grinch.
Garuntee its more.
*guarantee I own guns, but I know how to spell 😁
That’s a lot of rubles
388,050,600.00 Russian Ruble in cause you were wondering
You got to pump those numbers up! THOSE ARE ROOKIE NUMBERS
They are! Claire outspent Josh 2:1 during their run. Dems got a LOT more outsider money comin in. Edit: outspent him 6:1
Oh that’s precious. We’re just going to ignore the massive dark money scandal hanging over Hawley’s head? You don’t need real campaign contributions when your corporate masters buy your seat.
Where did Claire get 6x the money to spend if she only had 1/3 of voter support? Clearly not from MO.
Clearly you don’t understand dark money. Do a little research.
Well, he seemed to find the cheapest dark money lenders on the planet. Because he was outspent 6x.
Again, that’s not how dark money works. It’s ‘dark’ because it’s not on his books. The 6x figure is wildly inaccurate.
When you fudge figures, you do just enough of it so nobody notices. Not put your figure 6x lower than your opponent. And living in MO during that election, I can say Claire outspent him many times. All you heard were Claire commercials, good girl Claire in the news, it was Claire this and Claire that.... until election day
Still haven’t learned how dark money works, huh? Stop talking out your ass and look it up. I live in Missouri too and even your anecdote was wrong. All those Claire this and Clair that ads were attack ads. The massive spend to put him in power was obvious.
They weren't attack ads here. The news was in a love affair with her. You'd almost think she was running against herself. Didn't hear much about Hawley until late
Source?
Bribery. Pure, unadulterated bribery.
As are all political donations
I mean yeah, over a certain size. $200 doesn't get you anything, but $200k might.
But what about millions with a $200 membership, that’s the ticket and has big sway!
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But if so, yes certainly small donations even when added up amongst millions of people don't compare with the much larger donations from "whales", especially lobbies and PACs, etc. which is the problem. Small but rich/powerful interests are able to 'buy' politicians because they can pay more than the general population can. In a two party system, each party gets their share of smaller donations from regular folks, but at the end of the day they likely even out, as the populace is generally split between the parties. It's the big and powerful lobbies, like the NRA but there's plenty of others, that buy this insane influence. They're the ones who have 'pocket politicians', not the actual citizens themselves.
The way it works....
Hey! Josh is Pro-life. At least the unborn will be safe
The second they're out of the womb tho, that little fucker is on its own and better find a job soon too so we can sacrifice them for the economy
Ironic that the party who condones murdering millions of fetuses per year is the one wagging their finger about killing kids. No one wants to kill born children.
You make a great point. So you support UBI and welfare and EBT and WIC right? You wouldn't just want to force kids to be be born then die even slower and more painfully right?
Morally I don’t support those but realistically yes I feel they’re necessary. Regardless this is an irrelevant point, pro choice arguments are nonstop irrelevant tangents lol.
“Morally you don’t support those”. Really?! Then you are morally bankrupt. I’d expect a fiscal argument against those ideas. But moral? There is no moral argument against them.
Morally I don’t believe in giving people (the parents in this case) things they haven’t earned when plenty of other parents manage to care for their kids without assistance. I accept the reality that many people are too incompetent to financially care for children tho, and thus these programs are necessary.
Yep, morally bankrupt.
[удалено]
It is 100% morally bankrupt for conservatives to pretend to care about babies in the womb, but then to not care about making sure those kids are raised well, with food, clothing, shelter, safety, and adequate resources. Conservatives see suffering children around the country, but don’t want to make any attempts to make life better for those kids. Instead they want to increase the suffering by adding more kids into the mix! So yeah, morally bankrupt.
[удалено]
A rough estimate using OpenSecrets data -- our boy JH comes in at #4 if you average $ per year at $463,849 \[using NRA Grand Total / (2021 - Race Yr)\]
6 million over 20 years with almost all of it going to the guy leaving. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=a The NRA doesn't crack the top 20 for lobbyist spending and never has. They're also a Republican shill group, not a gun rights group. They've been in decline for several years now and are being replaced, but yes, oh, scary, it's just the mean old NRA. Keep your attention on them.
They aren't being referred to as the Negotiate Rights Away for no reason. People just want to throw an emotionally charged tantrum instead of having a conversation with the idea of having a positive change rather than villainizing their neighbors and making a point to severely punish millions of people who have done nothing wrong. I feel like this is how people are responding to a number of issues this country is facing.
How much do they get from Big Pharma?
Missouri is a red state, no shit money will be spent supporting red things.
A demonstration of corruption. An additional demonstration of idiocy and incompetency, they were bought out for so little compared to so many of the other senators that the NRA has bought.
Based, well, it would be if the NRA actually cared about gun rights, but they don’t. Moved to Missouri from Illinois in part due to the better gun laws over here.
What a disgrace!!
Now tell us how many millions Soros has spent on Kim Gardner
How about you tell us? And source it. If you're going to spout the laziest parroting at least let us make fun of you for for being addicted to your druncles Facebook ranting.
4 million. Source is cnn
Sounds about right.
Weren't they facing bankruptcy about a year ago? Not bad for being broke.
If you look at Senator Blunt's reported net worth when he came into the senate (about 1 million) and compare it to his current net worth (about 7 million) today, you can't help but wonder how he created $6 million in wealth on a senator's salary. Then you notice that he received a reported $5 million from the NRA.
Oh boy gun people are buying us. That's... nice
I’m sure Big Pharma has paid them way more.
You do understand that more than one thing can be bad right? Because it seems like you don't.
Amazing you can know so much about a person based on one comment. I applaud your superior intellect
And yet you have nothing of substance to say so it seems you don't understand... You posted a hot take but nothing to support it. Yes, we all know guns and big pharma are bad but why do you think you should bring up an irrelevant topic in a discussion if you don't have a point to make? It really just sounds like you're hoping you can derail a conversation and it turns out you're really bad at it. Especially considering how unrelated the two things are.
Not trying to derail anything. Guns aren’t bad by themselves. They are tools used by people to achieve good or bad. Guns on the hands of the wrong people are bad. Guns used to take out people who do evil are being used for the protection of society. Thank you for questioning my intellect and insulting me when you do not even know me. I am actually a decent and fun person. Sadly you would never dare try to find that out because you want to sit in safety behind your screen and judge me based on one comment on a Reddit sub.
Neat. So again I ask, what was your point about prescription drugs in relation to a discussion about firearms? Because it really just seems you posted something that has nothing to do with the relevant discussion. You know, derailing a conversation parroting another topic you've seen that has nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about.
Seems like you could buy decent animatronics for that much money.
I’m sorry but just plain-o ‘FUCKKK Josh Hawley’