Basically, I'll take a video from a conservative source talking about a particular political issue and group that video in with a video posted by a progressive source talking about the same issue. So for example, I'll watch a Ben Shapiro video talking about Russia collusion and group it in with CNN talking about Russia collusion as well. After I watch both videos, I'll write a brief summary about it. Alex Jones: EXCLUSIVE: Eyewitnesses To Santa Fe High School Shooting David Pakman: Santa Fe School Had Shooting Plan & Armed Cops. 10 People Died InfoWars Shanning Tatum lookalike interviewed several students & parents at Santa Fe. All of the interviews fit the pro gun and pro Christian narrative, but it was respectfully done and had a message of unity to it. Pakman surprisingly had one of the best videos I’ve watched so far on this subject. I didn’t agree with everything, but he provided great points, such as how is the US going to take mental health seriously when it’s so expensive for people to get help? And how the NRA won’t acknowledge any gun problem whatsoever. As you can see, I have Progressive David Pakman and Conservative Owen Shroyer on InfoWars both speaking on very similar stories. Below the 2 videos is my brief summary. There's not much else too this. I thought this would be a good way for people to hear different perspectives. I'm thinking about making a blog, because I've done about 100-150 of these comparisons. It's easy to do. Just subscribe to YouTube channels on both sides of the political spectrum and watch daily updates by those channels all talking about the same story.
There is a very clear reason why a democratic SCOTUS would retire during Trump's presidency, because even he thinks the democratic party is on the wrong track and not good for America. There is no more a gun problem than there is a automobile problem or a hammer problem or a knife problem. It's not the tool used it, the person. That is FACT.
Couldn’t agree with you more man!!! Guns don’t kill people on their own, and actually save more lives without being fired. The media just reports the few bad examples to further their agenda. We can never be fully controlled, until we are disarmed, and that will always be their goal
I agree with you 2 on the issue of guns. The fact that I overall disagreed with Pakman's stance on guns doesn't mean he didn't argue his points well. The point of the video comparisons is to try to understand where people are coming from when they're bringing something to the table that you disagree with. I do the same kind of comparisons with subjects like freedom of speech, Russia collusion, immigration, and a few others. I've consistently found time and time again that I can agree with someone on policy, while also disagreeing with the tactics they use to convey their message.
I’ve yet to see a progressive intelligently argue for gun control. There is a disconnect between conservative “country life”, where we all grew up with guns and have been properly trained in how to handle them, and the “city folk”, who have never held a gun in their lives, yet think they can decide who should be allowed to own one and who should not.
I do this daily. I actually consider myself to be progressive, but I listen to more conservatives. You can govern from the left, and you can govern from the right, they're just ideas. In reality, both will work, and both do work all around the world. What I'm more concerned with is the majority of Americans getting what they want. A majority of Americans want legalized marijuana, gay marriage, ending foreign wars, medicare for all, campaign finance reform, simplification of the tax code, abolishing of super delegates in the Democratic party, improved infrastructure, more funding for STEM, space exploration, investments in renewable energies, and on and on. How about a political party that focuses on giving the majority of Americans what they want first? That would literally be a democracy lol.
I’ve been trying to move more to the center on some issues myself. I’m sick of the bickering, it’s just what the powers that be want us to do. “United we stand!!” Well if we are arguing, we aren’t united, and they love it.
The reason why I want to understand why people oppose policies or morals that I believe in is so I can reason with them and understand their point of view. That way I can both make my stance on politics stronger by understanding the other side and also revealing whether or not they're actually willing to have a conversation instead of demonizing my opinions like most liberals do with gun control. From what I've seen, there's a lot of bad actors out there who cannot be reasoned with on both the left and the right. They'll act like they're fighting for the people and they'll act like their morals and politics are in line with their viewers, but they're only hurting the policies and party they represent. In my opinion, pundits and journalists like Owen Shroyer of InfoWars, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, Michelle Malkin of Breitbart, and left wing author Michelle Goldberg are a few examples of the kind of pundits I'm speaking of. Despite the fact they're all a part of different outlets and half don't share the same politics, they all use bullying tactics and half-truths to represent their party. My point is that there's people who's supposed to be intellectually honest when they cover politics, but instead they create more opposition and promote straw-manning political opponents, which isn't what we should be doing. So someone who's intellectually dishonest who supports every policy you just mentioned is worse for the those policies than someone who is intellectually honest, but doesn't support the policies you mentioned. An example would be the liberal coverage of Trump was mostly so dishonest and one-sided, that it helped Trump better than Fox News did.
You're comparing a douche and a turd. There is no "left" or "right" in the US and most of the rest of the world, what we've got are professional politicians who will jump on any platform or bandwagon that gets them votes. The US had one politician who was a man of his word - Ron Paul. He was portrayed as an extremist because of this and marginalized.
I think everyone is reading a little too much into the timing of this judge's retirement. The man is 81 years old. If he wanted to deny Trump a Supreme Court pick he'd need to wait another 2 whole years at least, and possibly 6 more years if Trump is re-elected, when he might not even live that long. I'm skeptical that his retirement has anything to do with political strategy, it's just pretty lucky for Trump
Trump with his appointments are going to change America for the better. So glad to have a conservative supreme court again. One of Trumps greatest accomplishments.
There are 2 types of conservative on this planet. To see which one you are is easy. Look in your wallet.
Really? I own quite a few guns and go regularly to the range. So according to your logic, if a person has never held a gun, they shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on gun control. And if they do have an opinion, their opinion isn't relevant in your mind. That being said - do I have the right to have an opinion on gun control, considering I own guns? Even though I'm an unintelligent progressive?
It's a legitimate observation that urban people tend to be more receptive to gun control than rural people. It makes sense when you consider that many urban areas already have gun bans and so people who grow up there only associate firearms with criminal activity, whereas rural people tend to grow up around them and don't see them as scary forbidden things carried by bad men. But the arguments in favor of gun control suck whether or not it's coming from someone who owns guns or not.
I agree. But that wasn't really the point of Soil2Coco's post. His point was that if you haven't ever picked up a gun, you're not qualified to have an opinion about gun control. Not to mention that he said progressives can't intelligently discuss gun control. At least that's the way I read it.
You read it right, but interpreted it wrong. I’m just saying, I have yet to see a progressive argue intelligently for gun control. I don’t argue about sewing, because I know nothing about it, and would look foolish if I tried. I didn’t say it wasn’t possible, although, there really isn’t an argument here when you look at facts. Removing the 4 largest cities in America that have the most gun violence, but toughest gun laws, makes America top 10 in safest countries in the World.
Not a good analogy. Sewing doesn't kill people and it isn't a subject that would have two opposing opinions. Nuff said.