SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19070
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-12 01:55am

Gandalf wrote:
2019-09-10 05:19pm
Elheru Aran wrote:
2019-09-10 11:40am
His Divine Shadow wrote:
2019-09-10 03:56am
Joe Biden calls Angela Merkel Margaret Thatcher
https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/11 ... 5443403778

How the hell is he still running, dude's falling apart on national stage.
Because the DNC can't shake the "successful politician that wins election=(usually) old white Christian male" mindset. That, and he's Obama's VP, OBVIOUSLY he must succeed Obama.
Also, the running disaster that was Clinton's campaign has probably spooked the DNC into running a safe mode candidate.
The thing is, in a lot of ways, Biden is basically Hillary with a dick- he's an out of touch "establishment" Centrist with a lot of baggage who seems to be running a very low-energy campaign focussed more on dinners with big donors and getting support from party insiders than with engaging with voters.

That said, it should be noted that Biden does not enjoy the solid lock on DNC support or the starting "presumptive nominee" status that Clinton had. Nor, on the plus side for Biden, has he had a thirty year Republican hate campaign run against him to undermine his electabillity.

Anyhoo, new poll shows several leading Democrats including Bernie, Biden, and Warren winning Texas- the striking thing is that Bernie does the best there of all of them, with a six-point:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... texas-poll
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19070
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-13 02:07am

Well, I only saw about the middle half of tonight's debate, but it pretty much solidified my dislike of Biden, now to the point of outright fear about his ability to beat Trump, and really raised my respect for O'Rourke. I am now definitely rooting for a Warren/O'Rourke ticket. Didn't much change my view of anyone else.

I wish people wouldn't focus so much on Castro going after Biden's mental state- there's much more significant shit here, and Castro nailed Biden very well later on his constantly cloaking himself in Obama's legacy, but only when its convenient.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 28920
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-09-13 12:52pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-13 02:07am
Well, I only saw about the middle half of tonight's debate, but it pretty much solidified my dislike of Biden, now to the point of outright fear about his ability to beat Trump, and really raised my respect for O'Rourke. I am now definitely rooting for a Warren/O'Rourke ticket. Didn't much change my view of anyone else.
Bob the Fake Mexican at least put to bed the old canard "nobody's coming for your guns". :twisted:
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7457
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by FaxModem1 » 2019-09-13 10:16pm

Here's the full third Democratic Primary debate:



I think we can really put the Democratic candidates into three categories:

1. Hey everyone, there's a problem, and I'm not going to talk about it.
2. Hey everyone, there's a problem, and this is the solution.
3. Hey everyone, there's a problem, and this is the unrelated solution.
Image

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19070
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-14 03:27am

MKSheppard wrote:
2019-09-13 12:52pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-13 02:07am
Well, I only saw about the middle half of tonight's debate, but it pretty much solidified my dislike of Biden, now to the point of outright fear about his ability to beat Trump, and really raised my respect for O'Rourke. I am now definitely rooting for a Warren/O'Rourke ticket. Didn't much change my view of anyone else.
Bob the Fake Mexican at least put to bed the old canard "nobody's coming for your guns". :twisted:
First of all, considering the fact that since the debate, a far Right Christian pastor has gone on-air saying that a vision from God told him a second civil war was coming, that he thought it would be started by a confiscation of guns, and that Christians need to form militias to defend their communities, and that another far Right individual sent out a threat specifically targeting Beto O'Rourke, comments like this basically pouring gasoline on the fire are in extremely poor taste.

As for O'Rouke, his position on confiscating assault weapons is probably at least partly a product of the fact that a bunch of people in his home city were just murdered by a white supremacist terrorist for the crime of living while Latino. He's trying to protect his community, just like gun rights advocates claim they're doing. But there is no real, serious push for a general ban on civilian firearm ownership in the US, or for mass confiscation. The specter of Democrats coming to take your guns as part of a despotic takeover is a bogeyman manufactured by Right-wing propaganda (the same people who incite and defend the white supremacist terrorists and militias those guns are actually arming).

Because it is from the far Right, not the Left, that the main threat of despotism in America is coming, and those guns are not being used to protect our freedoms, but to murder minorities and other innocents. It isn't liberals defending the "right" of the President to commit obstruction of justice with impunity. It isn't liberals calling the press the enemy of the people. It isn't the Democratic candidates inciting violence against their opponents at rallies, or floating the idea that they should get more than two terms. So any talk about needing guns to protect against despotism from the Right rings very, very hollow.

And yet despite that, nobody in the Democratic Party actually wants to violate the 2nd. Amendment, even if we interpret it differently, or to abolish it (which would be entirely legal if done through a Constitutional Amendment). Nobody serious, anyway. What the vast majority of Americans-on both Left and Right-want is reasonable regulations of guns, just like we have of any other potentially dangerous tool or industry. People might argue over some of the details, but despite the high level of political polarization, the country is broadly in accord on this issue. And because the vast majority of Americans want it, sooner or later they WILL get it. And it will be Constitutional, because the Second Amendment refers to the right to bear arms specifically in the context of a "well-regulated militia", not "anything goes", and there is extensive legal precedent supporting regulation of firearms beyond what we are currently doing nationally. There is going to be a gun control bill, and it is going to pass Congress, and right now, it will be a fairly moderate bill, with things like stronger background checks that have strong bipartisan support from the public if not from Congress. But if gun advocates continue to reject any regulation whatsoever, if they continue to treat even the suggestion of meaningful regulation as an existential threat justifying threats of violence and civil war, and if the bodies of children continue to pile up as more and more Americans experience a mass shooting or love someone who has, then that desire for moderation will fade. Its already fading. Not because gun control activists hate your freedoms, but because they are sick of seeing their children die, and getting no response but "thoughts and prayers".

If gun lobbyists are determined, either by action or inaction, to spill the blood of your countrymen to block reform that the vast majority of the nation supports to prevent something that is killing your fellow Americans by the thousands every year, and refuse any compromise whatsoever... ask the Confederacy how that ended for them. The North wasn't planning to abolish slavery. Lincoln wasn't planning to abolish slavery. Only to limit its spread and its power in free states. But because the South viewed any compromise on slavery as an attack on their way of life, they started a civil war to subvert the will of the majority in order to defend their "right" to keep slaves. The end result was that after a great deal of needless misery and death, the victorious Union abolished slavery utterly from American soil (excepting as a punishment for a crime, anyway).

Right now, there is no widespread support for banning firearms. But if gun advocates keep blocking any attempt at reform, sooner or later the 80 or 90% of the country that doesn't agree with you that unlimited gun rights are more important than childrens' lives will push it through anyway, and the longer it takes and the more it costs, the less willing they'll be to compromise when they do. There's no serious push for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Second Amendment now, but if this shit goes on for another decade or two, you better believe that there will be.

My honest, sincere advice to gun advocates, as someone who does not believe that the Second Amendment should be abolished, is this: make a fair deal now, because your window of opportunity for doing so is rapidly closing.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by TimothyC » 2019-09-14 04:09am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 03:27am
The specter of Democrats coming to take your guns as part of a despotic takeover is a bogeyman manufactured by Right-wing propaganda (the same people who incite and defend the white supremacist terrorists and militias those guns are actually arming).
Former Rep. O'Rourke literally said that he wants to come and take semi-automatic weapons.

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 03:27am
My honest, sincere advice to gun advocates, as someone who does not believe that the Second Amendment should be abolished, is this: make a fair deal now, because your window of opportunity for doing so is rapidly closing.
I go back to what I asked in the "Is gun compromise possible" thread from six months ago. What is on the table to give to the pro-RKBA side? 'Cause if all you are offering is "We won't take all of your guns now", that's not compromise. That's a salami sliced surrender.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19070
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-14 04:21am

TimothyC wrote:
2019-09-14 04:09am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 03:27am
The specter of Democrats coming to take your guns as part of a despotic takeover is a bogeyman manufactured by Right-wing propaganda (the same people who incite and defend the white supremacist terrorists and militias those guns are actually arming).
Former Rep. O'Rourke literally said that he wants to come and take semi-automatic weapons.
Yes, and I addressed that in my last post. He's one fairly minor candidate, likely lashing out in part because his home town just got shot up by a white supremacist, and even still, he is only talking about confiscating a particular type of firearms, not a general ban on private gun ownership. Keep in mind also that any smart negotiator starts out asking for more than they're going to get, as any bill will get watered down on its way through Congress. And that is the very Left-ward fringe of what is politically credible in a Democratic primary, much less on the national stage.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 03:27am
My honest, sincere advice to gun advocates, as someone who does not believe that the Second Amendment should be abolished, is this: make a fair deal now, because your window of opportunity for doing so is rapidly closing.
I go back to what I asked in the "Is gun compromise possible" thread from six months ago. What is on the table to give to the pro-RKBA side? 'Cause if all you are offering is "We won't take all of your guns now", that's not compromise. That's a salami sliced surrender.
That's a slippery slope fallacy, the same one all the fear-mongering about the Democrats coming to take your guns is based on: the idea that any regulation means an inevitable slide to a complete ban, and thence straight to dictatorship (despite all the other "democratic" nations that have strict gun laws). As a logical fallacy, it can't really be argued against, except by pointing out that its a fallacy.

What is there for us to "give" you? You already have a guaranteed right to firearm ownership. You already have a country with massive amounts of privately owned firearms and very little regulation. You already have half of Congress in your lobby's pockets, and a generally friendly Supreme Court and President. You hold all the cards except the support of the majority, and are asking us to give you still more before you will "compromise". I don't think its you that's being asked to surrender under the guise of compromise.

Let me turn the question around: What regulations on guns are you willing to accept? And what sort of concessions would you like to see in return?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19070
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-14 05:15am

A Nazi Sedition Party (formerly Republican Party) lawmaker from Texas tweeted a death threat to O'Rourke after the debate. Twitter has taken it down, and the O'Rourke campaign has referred it to the FBI:

https://thedailybeast.com/briscoe-cain- ... dy-for-you
A Republican Texas lawmaker has told Beto O’Rourke “my AR is ready for you” after the Democratic presidential candidate pledged to ban and confiscate AR-15 rifles during Thursday night’s TV debate. Twitter quickly removed Briscoe Cain’s post, saying that it violated the company’s terms and conditions on threats of violence. O’Rourke’s campaign labeled the tweet a “death threat” and told The Guardian it had been reported to the FBI. Posting a screenshot of the tweet, O’Rourke’s campaign said: “This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn’t own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else.” Cain, 34, mocked Twitter users who called his comment a threat of violence, telling one: “You’re an idiot.”
How long will we tolerate a party of terrorists running this country?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19070
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-14 05:43am

Image

Its ridiculous. Guns enjoy a level of protection that no other product in America does, and yet the gun advocates are acting like they're the victims of this huge persecution and are about to be crushed underfoot, demanding that we make more concessions to them or even threatening murder and civil war.

It is frighteningly like the run-up to the Civil War, where the South had a Constitutionally-protected property "right" (in that case, slaves) which was actively harmful to the country, but on which they refused to compromise to any degree and considered any compromise to be a despotic attack on their basic rights which could only be met with violence.

That did not end well for anyone, least of all the South.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by TimothyC » 2019-09-14 11:24am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 03:27am
As for O'Rouke, his position on confiscating assault weapons is probably at least partly a product of the fact that a bunch of people in his home city were just murdered by a white supremacist terrorist for the crime of living while Latino.
This isn't the first time he's held this position however. So no, this isn't a response to the El Paso shooting. It actually makes less repugnant to me, but doesn't change the nature of his position.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 04:21am
Let me turn the question around: What regulations on guns are you willing to accept? And what sort of concessions would you like to see in return?
You're getting better at this. What am I willing to accept? A form of universal background check that can't be used as a backdoor to registration lists:
The Path Forward on Guns wrote:Swiss-style universal background checks:
Yup, the big enchilada. Gun rights people often worry that UBCs will turn into the government tracking (and later confiscating) everybody’s guns, so this system staves off those fears while still making absolutely sure that every gun buyer is checked. It’s modeled closely on Switzerland’s system. Here’s how it works:
  1. Any gun buyer can log into the NICS background check system and enter their personal information. The system gives them an ID number that expires in 1 week. (For reference here is ATF Form 4473, the background check form.)
  2. The buyer can then buy firearms from any legal seller. They have to meet face-to-face (or ship the gun to a licensed dealer for the buyer to do the check with), and the buyer shows the ID number. The seller enters that number and the buyer’s identification info into the NICS system, and the system returns just one word: “approved” or “denied”. If the check is approved, they can proceed with the sale.
  3. The system doesn’t collect any information at all on the items being sold/transferred (type, make, model, quantity, etc.) — its only job is to run a comprehensive check on whether the buyer is legally allowed to purchase firearms. After one week, when the ID number expires, the system doesn’t retain any records. (That information is already archived for 20 years on the Form 4473 for all gun shop sales, and that would stay the same.) The system collects no information about the seller, as it’s designed to work perfectly without knowing the seller’s identity.
  4. Transfers between family members are exempt. Non-commercial firearm loans of up to 14 days are also exempt — this is just to accommodate a situation where, say, two people are on a backcountry hunting trip and one needs to lend the other a gun during the trip. They need some way to do that without committing a felony.
I'm also accepting improvements to red flag laws, and moving bump stocks to the Machine Gun registry.

As for what I'd like for that, Similar to what got posted on the site I linked above, I'd want a reasonable national concealed carry reciprocity that protects travelers followed by suppressors moved back down to Class I firearms from their current Class II designation. I also want to see SBRs (short barrel rifles) un-banned and a re-opening of the Machine Gun Registry (production new transferable machine guns have been banned for 28 years).
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13258
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: Tysons Corner Microwave Tower
Contact:

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by Lonestar » 2019-09-14 03:36pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 04:21am
That's a slippery slope fallacy, the same one all the fear-mongering about the Democrats coming to take your guns is based on: the idea that any regulation means an inevitable slide to a complete ban

Let me ask you something: Let's say that tomorrow all semiautomatic rifles were banned and everyone successfully turned them let's say. Waved a magic wand and it happened.

When the next shooting happens with a handgun, is there any doubt in your mind that calls for a handgun ban will follow?

How about if someone does a Washington Navy Yard and uses a pump action shotgun? Some media outlets literally called it a "law enforcement style shotgun".

Or someone uses a bolt action to re-enact the Beltway sniper? How often is a traditional hunting rifle called a "sniper rifle" in the media because it has a scope attached?

Come on, I want you to write out "oh no there totally won't be a shifting of goalposts".
What is there for us to "give" you? You already have a guaranteed right to firearm ownership. You already have a country with massive amounts of privately owned firearms and very little regulation. You already have half of Congress in your lobby's pockets, and a generally friendly Supreme Court and President. You hold all the cards except the support of the majority, and are asking us to give you still more before you will "compromise". I don't think its you that's being asked to surrender under the guise of compromise.

You know extraordinarily little if you seriously thing there's nothing to be given. Couldn't think of even one thing, huh?

National concealed carry?

Removal of silencers from the NFA?

repeal of the Hughes Amendment?

tying the age of antiques to 100 year after manufacture rather than 1898?

Let me turn the question around: What regulations on guns are you willing to accept? And what sort of concessions would you like to see in return?

UBC(if done in a way to avoid a registry)

adding violent misdemeanors to prohibited persons lists.


I would like to see national concealed carry and removal of silencers from the NFA
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 441
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by houser2112 » 2019-09-16 08:39am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-14 05:43am
Its ridiculous. Guns enjoy a level of protection that no other product in America does, and yet the gun advocates are acting like they're the victims of this huge persecution and are about to be crushed underfoot, demanding that we make more concessions to them or even threatening murder and civil war.
It reminds me of the Christians crying "persecution!" every time someone puts forth the crazy idea that Christians shouldn't be put on a pedestal. I wonder if there's any overlap between those groups? /s
It is frighteningly like the run-up to the Civil War, where the South had a Constitutionally-protected property "right" (in that case, slaves) which was actively harmful to the country, but on which they refused to compromise to any degree and considered any compromise to be a despotic attack on their basic rights which could only be met with violence.
This part of my comment may be moot depending on what you meant by the scare quotes, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that slavery was a Constitutionally-protected right, at least not to the extent that firearms were. The only two mentions I know of are:
Article 1, Section 9 wrote:The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article 1, Section 2 wrote:(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
It acknowledges they exist, and says some things about how the government should see them, but I don't think it rises to the level of affirmative right, like firearms with the 2nd Amendment.

Post Reply