|
Domestic Amuse posted:I can think of one. lejackal is ronald reagan???
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On another note, RIP worker's rights and class actions. Kennedy says everyone can all just hire the same lawyer separately and it's basically as good as class actions, right? I don't understand how anyone can believe in employer arbitration is a good thing without the financial incentive of a politician. Who is stupid enough to buy that line intrinsically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Don't you think the gun debate in America would be more fruitful if it was less toxic? I don't see how a focus on "gun culture" and painting gun owners as latent terrorists is gonna help. I can't really empathize with your position since I live in Sweden. But the only thing that is equally toxic in my country is how the far right talks about Islam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Don't you think the gun debate in America would be more fruitful if it was less toxic? I don't see how a focus on "gun culture" and painting gun owners as latent terrorists is gonna help. yeah it's more effective to direct criticism at the nra and the firearms industry similar to the fight against tobacco, but the current-day gun owner makes for too easy a target (har har)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I don't understand how anyone can believe in employer arbitration is a good thing without the financial incentive of a politician. Who is stupid enough to buy that line intrinsically? Conservatives who think they'll get rich if they pray and work hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Conservative jurists aren't stupid; they're evil. They know exactly what they're doing. "Well if I give a politician a million dollars and then say 'hey I really hope you see your way to deregulating my industry' and then he does it, or if the Majority Leader passes out checks from the tobacco industry to his party right on the House floor right before he calls a vote on legislation regarding that industry, how can we ever really know why the law got passed, coincidences happen you know", they don't really believe any of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Gun control is a bad area to go after. It's simply too toxic and it doesn't really do much. Focusing on both economic and racial inequality will better address the underlying causes of gun violence. Though addressing racial equality may lead to a significant uptick in gun violence in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I don't understand how anyone can believe in employer arbitration is a good thing without the financial incentive of a politician. Who is stupid enough to buy that line intrinsically? Not stupid. Kennedy merely represents his class interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Gun control is a bad area to go after. It's simply too toxic and it doesn't really do much. Focusing on both economic and racial inequality will better address the underlying causes of gun violence. can we skip to the part where you take a month off we can do more than one policy at a time
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Conservative jurists aren't stupid; they're evil. They know exactly what they're doing. Same dude REAAAAALY hated the VRA for his entire career and then when he gets onto the SCOTUS just happens to rule against it.  Anytime you have to ask yourself "how stupid is this justice that he/she thinks this is how this works??" remember they aren't dumb but are more than willing to play it in order to get their agenda pushed. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Right wing wackos are super sensitive on twitter. I called one an idiot and twitter banned me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Gun control is a bad area to go after. It's simply too toxic and it doesn't really do much. Focusing on both economic and racial inequality will better address the underlying causes of gun violence. I don't think you guys have considered ~the optics~.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The gun control endgame is confiscation of all weapons except by agents of the state, and a total legal and practical monopoly of force without consequence. Right, because you can see all the 3%ers and militias out there shooting cops on behalf of martyrs like Philando Castile and defending the lives of black men wrongfully... hahahaha... oh my god, can you guys believe this loving fucker?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Flayer posted:Does anyone else think that the real killer might not be the guy found dead in the hotel room? I can't begin to think of a motive for this guy. White. Man. Wealthy. Right-wing. That's like four right there. Hell, I'm two of those (sadly not the wealthy part). I'd like to beat Bill to death with a child-sized casket from Sandy Hook while screaming "this is the price of freedom".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Every disaffected misanthrope or terrorist sympathizer has the God-given democratic right to decide for himself whether it's in the public interest to end dozens of innocent people at a nearby concert. What do you call it when a country doesn't have a mass shooting at least once a day on average? That's right: a tragedy of monopoly power!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:can we skip to the part where you take a month off We can, but we've made zero progress on meaningful gun control and it's served to massively polarize the opposition. It's incredibly stupid but spending political capital on issues adjacent to the problem as opposed to the problem itself is crazy. It's also telling that one of the few things the Clinton wing of the party won't triangulate on is gun control. There's a reason for that and it's because it's primarily symbolic. It's an abortion-style wedge issue for a certain subtype of urban liberal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:We can, but we've made zero progress on meaningful gun control and it's served to massively polarize the opposition. Stretch Marx posted:I don't think you guys have considered ~the optics~.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:We can, but we've made zero progress on meaningful gun control and it's served to massively polarize the opposition. To further the realpolitik here, I can't imagine that that many of those urban liberals would abandon the Democratic party if they dropped the gun control part of their platform. Oh they'd raise a loving stink, but what are they going to do? Vote pro-life? Meanwhile, I hold out hope that the mythical "swing voters" do exist, and that some proportion of them might be single-issue voters on this very topic. I know one or two otherwise-sane gun loving nutjobs who might fit the bill. As much as dropping ideological convictions and good policy for political gainz leaves a bad taste in my mouth, this seems like one of those issues that's so completely intractable in the current political climate there's no further point in pursuing it. Sandy Hook for gods sake. Sandy.loving.Hook. Give it a generation then swing back around with some low-key background check and registration legislation once the NRA membership has gone a bit more geriatric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:
Political capital isn't a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:Political capital isn't a real thing. Sure it is, it's an excuse to not have to try something hard
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
*an image of laughing, happy schoolchildren on their school playground, carefree without a threat in sight* *LeJackal sits bolt upright in bed, screaming, his body covered in a cold sweat. He reaches out for his AK-47, clutches her, cradles her* "What's wrong honey," asks the gun with loving concern in her voice, "What's happened?" "It was h-horrible all these children, happy, playing. Adults walking by, and not a single one shooting up the place, they were like automatons, some kind of non-spree-killing hivemind!" "Not one?" "No! No one even taking a few potshots at those kids, that beautiful target-rich environment! Like they were all programmed by some corporate state-capitalist monopoly on violence! They didn't even want to democratize murder!" "Shhhh shhhh" the gun coos, "it was just a bad dream darling. The people aren't programmed, they just forgot how to think for themselves! That's where you and I come in, one day we'll teach them, we'll show them, together....." VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
DrHammond posted:To further the realpolitik here . . . Basically this. We lost the war. Trying to refight it gets us nothing. Honestly, gun culture is so utterly against Dems, I don't see dropping 'guns' as an issue having any real impact on mythical swing voters. I do see dropping 'guns' as an issue providing space for politicians to talk about real issues were they actually can make a difference. WillyTheNewGuy posted:Political capital isn't a real thing. That's not true, it's actually a fairly well studied phenomenon. It's generally fringier/more Marxian but that shouldn't be a strike against it on SA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
We see so many republicans and conservatives talking about how "This is the price of freedom." Why are democrats so loving stupid? Take this language to the extreme and throw out every loving example out there. Endorse insane legislation lifting restrictions on personal ownership of nuclear weapons. "If a nuclear bomb goes of then this is the price of freedom." Get talking heads on every channel going to extreme just to outline how stupid and brokebrain this line of reasoning is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Take the language in the other extreme and you justify tyranny to save one life. It is a perfectly sound argument from their side. What you need to prove is that their cost-benefit analysis is retarded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Take the language in the other extreme and you justify tyranny to save one life. It is a perfectly sound argument from their side. What you need to prove is that their cost-benefit analysis is retarded. That's not what is being discussed though. The NRA uses a lot of clearly racially coded language. Black people get guns, magically there is massive gun control. It's not just the Black Panthers, look at Chicago -- or criminal firearm possession charges. Trying to out-logic the "gun control" debate is tilting at windmills because it's a proxy for a broader racial discussion. Focusing on guns qua guns misses the point entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Take this language to the extreme and throw out every loving example out there. Good idea, op. Let me try it for a pet cause: Here's a perfectly reasonable (for some value of reason) extension of the bullshit policy of justifying any/all civilian death from drone strikes. Mow down an entire market full of women and children buying food? well one guy's brother may have had contact with Al Queada once 15 years ago so everyone there is an insurgent by proxy. "The events of 9/11, while regrettable, were acceptable collateral damage in neutralizing the 12 Al Queada terrorists." It comes off as edgelord, and I don't think it'd gain much traction trying to shift the dialogue on bombing anyone who might be an enemy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:We see so many republicans and conservatives talking about how "This is the price of freedom." White dude kills 58 people with a gun: "This is the price of freedom" 9/11 happened 16 years ago: "gotta ban all Muslims and/or refugees from the country"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:We see so many republicans and conservatives talking about how "This is the price of freedom." Logic won't work, emotion and personal risk only get through to the other side. Post photos of kids who died from guns with the text "Are your children's lives worth the cost?" Becuase I honestly doubt if they care in the slightest if anyone outside thier immediate family was gunned down. Any price to pay is fine as long as they're not the ones paying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
If not for moral reasons, at least for practical reasons maybe you should have the decency to refrain from dehumanizing all your political opponents as monsters incapable of empathy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:If not for moral reasons, at least for practical reasons maybe you should have the decency to refrain from dehumanizing all your political opponents as monsters incapable of empathy. Why? That strikes me as the sort of "I don't care what you say, I care how you say it" concern trolling that basically defines the modern Democratic Party. It's . . . not a good look.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Are politicians lazy? Like, are they unable or unwilling to find people they trust to quickly make new policies? Obama did it. The ACA is a complicated mess but it is SUPER thorough. Why can't democrats parade bills around and have the supposedly sympathetic media publish them? If they get a bill polling at 70% that has obvious room to compromise, that would pull the narrative. Why aren't they doing that? Besides the litany of problems facing America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Like abortion and other wedge issues, it's better to keep it in play and do nothing aside from some cosmetic changes. That way it will keep your base engaged and enraged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Like abortion and other wedge issues, it's better to keep it in play and do nothing aside from some cosmetic changes. That way it will keep your base engaged and enraged. For republicans sure. Their base is literally the stupidest most willfully ignorant people in history. But the dems are LOSING. When they don't get poo poo done people do not vote for them. The fact that people are enraged doesn't translate to votes unless something is done. They should be doing things more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:For republicans sure. Their base is literally the stupidest most willfully ignorant people in history. But the dems are LOSING. When they don't get poo poo done people do not vote for them. The fact that people are enraged doesn't translate to votes unless something is done. I think you are overestimating the base that the donor class wants. That's part of the problem with the Democratic party, granted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:For republicans sure. Their base is literally the stupidest most willfully ignorant people in history. But the dems are LOSING. When they don't get poo poo done people do not vote for them. The fact that people are enraged doesn't translate to votes unless something is done. Like what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Are politicians lazy? Like, are they unable or unwilling to find people they trust to quickly make new policies? Obama did it. The ACA is a complicated mess but it is SUPER thorough. In the "Politicians are lazy" tally, The ACA is just rebranded Romneycare. It's one of the great ironies of Romney's campaign that perhaps the best thing that got passed under his tenure he had to disown so thoroughly to be a Republican candidate, and Obama's sole legacy is something he cribbed off a Republican. It's easy to make a policy when you just slightly tweak something that already got put in place half a decade earlier in part of the country. As it turns out, making solid policy is actually really, really loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:If not for moral reasons, at least for practical reasons maybe you should have the decency to refrain from dehumanizing all your political opponents as monsters incapable of empathy. I used to think this. I grew up in a Republican family and even after I realized conservatism is a bullshit intellectually bankrupt ideology that doesn't work, but for complex and difficult reasons that are easily papered over by simplistic common-sense-sounding salesmanship and folksy aw shucks "people like us" propaganda, I still thought Republican voters were basically good and decent people who just had some different opinions and some mistaken ideas and on many subjects were just confused by relentless corporate propaganda. But then the Republican party dropped every pretense of empathy and became openly delightfully deliriously monstrous and all those people didn't just stick with it but even more exuberantly celebrated Republicanism for finally embracing their true values, and I realized that no nearly every Republican voter is just driven by spite and fear and unwavering hatred. I didn't figure out that conservatism was a lie because of some special genius on my part, it's not because I was smarter than 47% of America or anything, the theory or workability was never of any interest to them, conservatism promised to make other people's families suffer and that's all they care about and that's why they're Republican. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
I don't think anyone knows how to write comprehensive legislation anymore... to borrow a term from Battletech I think it is Los-Tech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
DrHammond posted:To further the realpolitik here, I can't imagine that that many of those urban liberals would abandon the Democratic party if they dropped the gun control part of their platform. Oh they'd raise a loving stink, but what are they going to do? Vote pro-life? Meanwhile, I hold out hope that the mythical "swing voters" do exist, and that some proportion of them might be single-issue voters on this very topic. I know one or two otherwise-sane gun loving nutjobs who might fit the bill. The first thing to remember about Sandy Hook is that "Nothing happened after Sandy Hook" is a lie. A bunch of things happened after Sandy Hook, important things. And none of them were good for Democrats, gun control advocates, or people looking to reduce gun crime. Take New York. Something happened in New York. A hastily drafted law passed in an "emergency" midnight session, without meaningful debate or a chance for legislators to read it. It banned rifles with certain cosmetic features, handguns above a certain weight limit (note: in other words those least used for crime already), and set magazine size limits not related to any actually on the market*. Very little of it would have even theoretical crime impact....well, other than how the hasty drafting process accidentally made it illegal for police officers to carry their standard sidearms. This hilariously might have actually saved lives, if not how they intended, though happily the governor went and said "Well of course until we fix it we're not going to expect police to comply with the law!" Other blue states did similar reactionary flailing: not honestly intended to reduce crime any more than The Wall is, but just as desperately wanted by people with very strong opinions about topics they're willfully ignorant of. On the federal level we got nothing.... passed. But there was the attempt to pass messed up private sale ban that was dressed as "universal background checks" yet anyone who knew about existing background check laws would easily be able to distinguish from what an actual universal background check law look like. It was also a pretty naked gun industry handout like classic gun control tended to be, but companies stopped biting on those as quick once their customers started noticing when they did some years back. So yeah, not only did all of this fail to reduce gun crime, it shone a big spotlight on bullshit easily visible as bullshit to a hundred million people who know anything about guns and gun laws. And it made a perfect set of ammo for the right to point out, "Hey, those guys are willing to play legislative Calvinball to screw people they don't like over with laws they themselves don't understand!" Even to people who would be winnable for the left on lots of other issues, it makes both sides being the same much more believable at first glance. Sure, the right does that harder, on more issues that hurt more people. That takes nuance though, and gleefully ignorant gun shot makes "both sides do it!" become honestly (if only technically) correct, especially if you directly interact with gun laws but only indirectly interact with the policy areas where Republicans screw us over. Probably for a generation anyone who hears Democrats say they want good-faith laws intended to reduce gun crime without interfering with honest gun-owners will be suspicious, even if it suddenly became true. So yeah, it drove a bunch of people to the polls, and it closed a bunch of other people to negotiation. It hurt the left beyond the scope of gun laws alone, and in a totally self-inflicted fashion. And all of it for laws which, if fully enacted, would have had an effect somewhere between "easy to lose in statistical noise" and "nothing at all." It's not that we can only do one cause at once. It's that this one backfires hard and any actual progressive cause like better health care or other social programs would probably even reduce gun deaths specifically more than current serious gun control proposals. *It eventually shook out that you could use existing small magazines, as long as you pinky-swear to only load seven rounds in them rather than ten. To stop spree shooters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
"No see, gun nuts only became paranoid and fanatical and obsessed with their penis replacements because gun control wasn't effective enough at taking their guns" has to be the most dishonest argument I've seen in a long while. Like gun humpers were only mad because they were concerned that the magazine limits were too weak and weren't enforceable anyway, but if we'd gone Norway or even full Australia on them they would have seen the public safety need for reasonable and effective regulations on gun ownership    Gun nuts have been unreasonable and insane since before I was even born, ever since gun manufacturers gained control of the NRA and turned it into a culture war marketing tool to drive consumption on the one hand and a lobbying arm on the other to defeat gun regulation because hey every gun sold to a mass shooter is a few more bucks in quarterly profit, just lol that it was the drat demmycrats who made them this way after a gun humper's kid piled up a roomful of six-year-old corpses. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:06
|
|