The fact that 44% of voters are glad to elect another Republican regardless of the Democratic opposition after how much of Project 2025 has been enacted already demonstrates that even in 50 years the U.S. probably won’t be as liberal as the EU is now.
117 people are killed on average by firearms in the U.S. every day; preventing as many of those deaths as possible is a worthwhile goal.
Just as the electoral college is trapping the U.S. in a two-party system, the second amendment has resulted in countless preventable deaths that don’t occur in other first world countries.
If wealth disparity were the chief cause, one would expect to see a far greater incidence of violent gun deaths internationally.
The fact that the top 15 (for 2022 data) are all in Central or South America indicates that weapons trafficked from the United States lead to higher rates of firearm homicide in neighboring countries. That factor aside, other countries with relatively high firearm homicide rates such as Canada and Sweden also have relatively liberal gun laws compared to other first-world countries.
There is a significant correlation between firearm ownership and firearm homicides; the U.S. with many guns has a high rate while Japan with almost none has an extremely low rate, even compared to countries with comparable inequality to it.
So wait a minute, you’re telling me that poor nations are killing each other at a higher rate than wealthy ones?
No way. It’s almost like you’re proving me right and that focusing on gridlock issues is a distraction from the root of the problem.
Also, you focus solely on “firearm homicide rates” instead of “homicide rates” because you know focusing on the latter would be admitting you’re wrong. It’s why you failed to mention that Japan has lower homicide rates overall even compared to nations with a comparable amount of guns.
You just reaffirmed my position that both sides, democrats included, are braindead cattle focusing on a culture war instead of a class war.
I don’t know if you can say the EU is liberal. The liberal EPP only holds 182 out of 720 seats in the European Parliament, for example. It seems in the US the term liberal is often used to indicate leftwing as well, but on (most of) the European political spectrum liberals are solidly rightwing and often fairly conservative on top of that.
‘Liberal’ in general U.S. political usage is a catch-all term for the left; when being more specific, one can also distinguish ‘Progressive’ as being those further to the left.
My point was that many of the goals of democratic socialism in the U.S. are policies that are already widespread in the EU.
While the general public is not as indoctrinated to hate socialism as in the US, they are still (being made) resistant to preserving or expanding the welfare state.
Every time cuts are made to social programmes, (conservative) people will say “we should be grateful with what we get” and “well we can’t afford to keep paying for that”, especially if it’s cuts in another country that “has it better”.
The media are an active and gleeful participant in this, constantly running stories about “OMG we are running a deficit” and “how are we going to afford to pay for pensions?”, manufacturing consent all the way.
Finally, the EU and ECB also play their role as boogeymen by reprimanding states who run deficits, which national politicians then use as an excuse to cut social spending, instead of cutting military spending or taxing the wealthy.
It’s also worth nothing that the number of people willing to identify as Republican has been dropping precipitously. I’d like to see the same poll, but with Independents added in the mix.
The fact that 44% of voters are glad to elect another Republican regardless of the Democratic opposition after how much of Project 2025 has been enacted already demonstrates that even in 50 years the U.S. probably won’t be as liberal as the EU is now.
It’s when happens when both sides promote a culture war over a class war.
Establishment democrats don’t care about the working class, but they won’t shut up about coming for our guns.
117 people are killed on average by firearms in the U.S. every day; preventing as many of those deaths as possible is a worthwhile goal.
Just as the electoral college is trapping the U.S. in a two-party system, the second amendment has resulted in countless preventable deaths that don’t occur in other first world countries.
The best way to prevent such violence is to reduce the disparity in wealth.
You are playing right into the hands of both sides by distracting from the root of the problem.
If wealth disparity were the chief cause, one would expect to see a far greater incidence of violent gun deaths internationally.
The fact that the top 15 (for 2022 data) are all in Central or South America indicates that weapons trafficked from the United States lead to higher rates of firearm homicide in neighboring countries. That factor aside, other countries with relatively high firearm homicide rates such as Canada and Sweden also have relatively liberal gun laws compared to other first-world countries.
There is a significant correlation between firearm ownership and firearm homicides; the U.S. with many guns has a high rate while Japan with almost none has an extremely low rate, even compared to countries with comparable inequality to it.
So wait a minute, you’re telling me that poor nations are killing each other at a higher rate than wealthy ones?
No way. It’s almost like you’re proving me right and that focusing on gridlock issues is a distraction from the root of the problem.
Also, you focus solely on “firearm homicide rates” instead of “homicide rates” because you know focusing on the latter would be admitting you’re wrong. It’s why you failed to mention that Japan has lower homicide rates overall even compared to nations with a comparable amount of guns.
You just reaffirmed my position that both sides, democrats included, are braindead cattle focusing on a culture war instead of a class war.
Keep being part of the problem.
I don’t know if you can say the EU is liberal. The liberal EPP only holds 182 out of 720 seats in the European Parliament, for example. It seems in the US the term liberal is often used to indicate leftwing as well, but on (most of) the European political spectrum liberals are solidly rightwing and often fairly conservative on top of that.
‘Liberal’ in general U.S. political usage is a catch-all term for the left; when being more specific, one can also distinguish ‘Progressive’ as being those further to the left.
My point was that many of the goals of democratic socialism in the U.S. are policies that are already widespread in the EU.
Widespread but being dismantled as we speak.
While the general public is not as indoctrinated to hate socialism as in the US, they are still (being made) resistant to preserving or expanding the welfare state. Every time cuts are made to social programmes, (conservative) people will say “we should be grateful with what we get” and “well we can’t afford to keep paying for that”, especially if it’s cuts in another country that “has it better”. The media are an active and gleeful participant in this, constantly running stories about “OMG we are running a deficit” and “how are we going to afford to pay for pensions?”, manufacturing consent all the way. Finally, the EU and ECB also play their role as boogeymen by reprimanding states who run deficits, which national politicians then use as an excuse to cut social spending, instead of cutting military spending or taxing the wealthy.
This this this.
This is so stupid, if anything the whole “freedom” thing is liberal, and leftist is more state control so “less liberal”.
Gotta muddy the waters eh.
It’s also worth nothing that the number of people willing to identify as Republican has been dropping precipitously. I’d like to see the same poll, but with Independents added in the mix.