|
you making stuff up isn't evidence yronic. as pathetic as usual
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Condiv posted:you making stuff up isn't evidence yronic. as pathetic as usual Hmm yes if only there was some sort of news about plaintiffs being screwed by that law you are defending. If only you could google the law and various connected terms dealing with the lawsuits against gun companies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
weird. team centrist, presented with an unequivocal demonstration of the fact that centrists decided to silence black voices in favor of protecting their own personal power, suddenly decides erasure is good and right actually how utterly unpredictable
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
its almost like centrists don't actually have any ideology, just a set of confabulations for why they shouldn't do anything ask them to address economic injustice? "Will breaking up the banks fix racism?" ask them to address racism? "BLM needs to be shut up, it's not economically viable to listen to their concerns." the fascinating thing about the circular logic express is no matter how long you stay on it, you get off at exactly the point you came on: Better Things Aren't Possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Hmm yes if only there was some sort of news about plaintiffs being screwed by that law you are defending. If only I were defending the law, instead of saying the sandy hook case would've been tossed even before the plcaa. again, sad yronic
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Hmm yes if only there was some sort of news about plaintiffs being screwed by that law you are defending. He's pretty clearly not defending the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He's pretty clearly not defending the law. Condiv posted:it wouldn't have. suing gun manufacturers for the criminal use of their products never really worked even before the law hillary was slagging bernie for even passed. He's defending the law by arguing the law has had no impact on the proliferation of guns. Ze Pollack posted:weird. team centrist, presented with an unequivocal demonstration of the fact that centrists decided to silence black voices in favor of protecting their own personal power, suddenly decides erasure is good and right actually Gun control, not an issue overwhelmingly supported by black voices, and in fact a cynical centrist ploy to hold onto power. Erasure, again!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:are you still butthurt that i called you out on supporting the iraq war? sad Aw, so he also is a warmonger. It's amazing how many of the neoliberals here are just republicans with fake wokeness. But then most of them are in fact, sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He's defending the law by arguing the law has had no impact on the proliferation of guns. i didn't say that either jc i said suits like sandy hook are near worthless wrt that Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So your argument is that it is categorically impossible for a politician to not have the best interests of their voters at heart. Yeah, this is something that has always seemed kinda trivially true to me (the idea that "X people voting for Y politician means Y politician is objectively the best for serving their interests" isn't accurate), but I generally held back on making this argument during the primaries because I feel like I'm not the best person to deliver it (since I'm not black myself). Generally speaking, voter demographics can usually be relied upon to not support politicians who are actively and explicitly* hostile towards them. Low black support for Republicans is an example; hardly anyone isn't aware of the fact that Republicans are terrible on racial issues. But the inverse (that high support implies a politician is good for the demographic) is not true. Most voters, regardless of demographic, don't really understand how policy translates to results, so all they have to go by is rhetoric and the general impression of a candidate/party created by the media, etc. Clinton had a long history as a prominent representative of the Democratic Party, which had been basically the only alternative to the obviously hostile Republican Party (not to mention the association with the civil rights era that would exist with older black Americans). Sanders also suffered due to poor messaging/interaction with PoC communities during the earlier parts of his campaign, and though he improved greatly upon this later, it was probably too late to make much of a difference. It's possible to acknowledge the fact that these factors could lead to Clinton dominating among black primary voters (who lean older; the huge age discrepancy in preference is important) while also believing/asserting that Sanders' policy/ideological goals would be objectively better for black Americans than Clinton's. This doesn't mean that black voters were ignorant or something; it just means that they're just like literally all other voters. * I say "actively and explicitly" because obviously Republicans are bad for poor rural whites, but that isn't really a part of their rhetoric. Just listening to Republicans talk won't necessarily tell you that they're bad for poor people; you have to actually understand the effects of the policy they support. On the other hand, frequent Republican opposition to ideology/policy that would clearly help PoC is very clear and explicit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i didn't say that either jc Why did the lobbyists want it so bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Why did the lobbyists want it so bad? there was a wave of cities suing manufacturers for gun crime, arguing that they held responsibility for the violence their products contributed to, and should have to pay accordingly. courts tossed the cases on the regular. imo, laws like the plcaa are a bad idea cause they can block actually worthwhile suits (like the one i quoted earlier), but suits like sandy hook are idiotic and should be tossed (and would've been even before the plcaa) though really i shouldn't have spent this much effort writing a response to you Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i didn't say that either jc "I'm not defending the law, I'm just arguing the law has no impact because lawsuits are pointless." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"I'm not defending the law, I'm just arguing the law has no impact because lawsuits are pointless." no, i already listed a case where the law had a negative impact. it's dumb and pointless to want gun control to be implemented via lawsuit though. the effort should be used on actual gun control laws imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, i already listed a case where the law had a negative impact. it's dumb and pointless to want gun control to be implemented via lawsuit though. the effort should be used on actual gun control laws imo Now you're creating a false dilemma to defend the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Now you're creating a false dilemma to defend the law. no, the sandy hook case itself was a false dilemma. it was dumb and was rightfully tossed. and hillary tried to claim bernie hated sandy hook victims' parents to create a false dilemma to distract from black lives matter messages on the advice of a rapist that the democratic party is way too entangled with
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hillary tried to claim bernie hated sandy hook victims' parents That's quite the ridiculous exaggeration. It's almost like nothing you post about HRC has ever been in good faith. Also, they should be allowed to sue the gun manufacturers. And we should ban guns. And I like Bernie better than I like Hilary but maybe he was wrong about this one point. But I do get why, being from the state he is in, maybe it's politically important for him to be wrong on this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how about actual gun control laws? those are much more effective than idiotic nuisance lawsuits that get tossed out constantly cause there's no basis for suing someone for the criminal usage of a product not designed to be used to break the law. And as I recall, Hillary's campaign wasn't the one that brought it up. O'Malley and his PAC went after Sanders well before 2016, and were still at it in the televised debates. Bernie had to respond regardless of what Hillary chose to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SterfJsQyAY
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's quite the ridiculous exaggeration. It's almost like nothing you post about HRC has ever been in good faith. nah not really quote:"That he would place gun manufacturers' rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me," said Clinton, who has long sought to highlight the candidates' differences on guns. yeah, she stopped short of saying he literally hated them, but she was trying her damndest to make it look like he did quote:Also, they should be allowed to sue the gun manufacturers. And we should ban guns. And I like Bernie better than I like Hilary but maybe he was wrong about this one point. i agree, they should be able to sue, but those suits should be tossed cause they're dumb (and they are anyway). i also agree that there should be more gun control (though ban? not so sure on that one. legitimate uses of guns like hunting rifles should stay imo). also, i do think bernie was wrong on whether people should be able to sue gun manufacturers, cause there's always the chance of something he didn't forsee happening and gun manufacturers deserving to be sued in response to a crime by a third party and i would not want that blocked. wixard posted:As I recall Bernie was also a no vote on the Brady Bill because, ahem, it's a state's right to impose a waiting period not the federal government's. I recognize he was representing his rural state which has no gun control and little gun violence, and that he is indeed not a gun nut or on the NRA's payroll. But by 2016 standards he had some explaining to do on this issue. His justifications for opposing these 2 bills that were popular with establishment Democrats were "my state's rights" and "my state's small businesses," Hillary didn't have to manufacture that. yes, bernie should be better on gun control. don't disagree with that still, the sandy hook issue brought up by the clinton campaign was a distraction, and we now know it was explicitly a distraction from blm issues
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, the sandy hook case itself was a false dilemma I don't think you know what a false dilemma is. You claim legal strategies are bad because legislative strategies are better. Setting aside the fact that this is far from obvious, there's no reason why both strategies cannot be pursued simultaneously. The dilemma that you've created, where we must choose one or the other, is false.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think you know what a false dilemma is. You claim legal strategies are bad because legislative strategies are better. Setting aside the fact that this is far from obvious, there's no reason why both strategies cannot be pursued simultaneously. The dilemma that you've created, where we must choose one or the other, is false. legal strategies like that are bad because they can be turned against good causes. also because the idea of suing manufacturers for someone using their product in an illegal fashion is really bad in of itself (which coincidentally is why these lawsuits get tossed a lot) lawsuits cost money and considerable time, both of which would be better spent on actual useful strategies like gun control legislation
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
wixard posted:As I recall Bernie was also a no vote on the Brady Bill because, ahem, it's a state's right to impose a waiting period not the federal government's. I recognize he was representing his rural state which has no gun control and little gun violence, and that he is indeed not a gun nut or on the NRA's payroll. But by 2016 standards he had some explaining to do on this issue. That's not really fair. His position has evolved considerably since then. Here is his voting record on gun control: (year, legislation, vote, result) quote:1993 Imposes a five-day waiting period and background checks on firearm purchases, part of the Brady Bill Nay, Passed Saying that he has some explaining to do is only fair if you hold Hillary Clinton, and pretty much all other Democratic politicians, to the same standard. I'm not sure people like JeffersonClay or yronic are willing to play by those rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:lawsuits cost money and considerable time, both of which would be better spent on actual useful strategies like gun control legislation Guess somebody doesn't know how contingent fees work. Shocker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Guess somebody doesn't know how contingent fees work. Shocker. dude, the people who got screwed in the aurora massacre case that you mentioned earlier were screwed cause they had to pay the legal fees of the store they sued after their case got thrown out and a bunch more got screwed by suing the theater and having to pay the theater's legal fees when they lost all of that time and money was wasted on frivolous lawsuits (especially in the case of the gun store, where there was the plcaa blocking them AND state law) and would've been better spent on advocacy for gun control laws contingent fees don't automatically make a lawsuit free
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
The special carve-out guaranteed that they would have to pay out to the gun store just for the "privilege" of getting their day in court. That is hosed up. It's also very condescending to tell these folks where to focus their energy tbh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Aw, so he also is a warmonger. It's amazing how many of the neoliberals here are just republicans with fake wokeness. But then most of them are in fact, sociopaths. you apologized for johnson's war crimes so i guess what i'm saying is takes one to know one and you're all a bunch of warmongers
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
also, duckworth duckworth duckworth duckworth duckworth duckworth duckworth duckworth
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The special carve-out guaranteed that they would have to pay out to the gun store just for the "privilege" of getting their day in court. That is hosed up. It's also very condescending to tell these folks where to focus their energy tbh. actually, it was the state law that had that provision: quote:The Colorado statute allows gun companies to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees if they’re sued and the companies win. and yeah, that sucks. but it was also really predictable, and they probably would've had to pay attorney fees in the case where neither law existed, cause better cases have been thrown out when it comes to suing manufacturers and stores for their sales. just like how a ton of them had to pay attorney fees after they lost their suit against cinemark http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cinemark-attorneys-aurora-victims-pay-700k-legal-fees-article-1.2694983 also, i'm not telling these people anything. i'm saying it was self-destructive to focus their energy into doomed lawsuits instead of focusing it into gun control advocacy (which, while seemingly futile, doesn't result in them being bankrupted)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:legal strategies like that are bad because they can be turned against good causes. also because the idea of suing manufacturers for someone using their product in an illegal fashion is really bad in of itself (which coincidentally is why these lawsuits get tossed a lot) Which other corporations are you white knighting here? No other corporations have the special liability protection carved out for gun manufacturers. quote:lawsuits cost money and considerable time, both of which would be better spent on actual useful strategies like gun control legislation Right because all the time and money spent on lobbying for gun control in the past two decades has been so remarkably effective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Which other corporations are you white knighting here? No other corporations have the special liability protection carved out for gun manufacturers. i'm not defending gun manufacturers having special liability protection jc quote:Right because all the time and money spent on lobbying for gun control in the past two decades has been so remarkably effective. much more effective than flushing it down the drain on lawsuits that get tossed out (or are now blocked) at least gun control advocacy has a chance of going somewhere
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not really fair. His position has evolved considerably since then. Here is his voting record on gun control: (year, legislation, vote, result) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure his position on Brady really evolved? I'm not accusing him of ever being completely against gun control, as the votes show he was in favor of "instant" background checks in 1993, which were technically impossible at the time, but thought the mandatory waiting period while a thorough background check happened was overreaching. I don't know that he said anything in the campaign to indicate he would now support legislation with new federal waiting periods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:weird. team centrist, presented with an unequivocal demonstration of the fact that centrists decided to silence black voices in favor of protecting their own personal power, suddenly decides erasure is good and right actually And that's now led to ol' Sess Jeffons deciding that "black extremists" are more dangerous than white ones. Do you know who he considers a "black extremist"? anyone who's black Not only are centrists a-ok with this, they actively support it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not defending gun manufacturers having special liability protection jc What other corporations are "good causes" that would be harmed if they could be held liable for the predictable misuse of their products? quote:much more effective than flushing it down the drain on lawsuits that get tossed out (or are now blocked) Legislative strategies have also failed miserably in the past two decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What other corporations are "good causes" that would be harmed if they could be held liable for the predictable misuse of their products? what are you even arguing at this point JC? whatever it is, it clearly has nothing to do with me quote:Legislative strategies have also failed miserably in the past two decades. without bankrupting their supporters, unlike idiotic lawsuits
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what are you even arguing at this point JC? whatever it is, it clearly has nothing to do with me Condiv posted:legal strategies like that are bad because they can be turned against good causes. also because the idea of suing manufacturers for someone using their product in an illegal fashion is really bad in of itself Which corporations are the good ones you're describing here? quote:without bankrupting their supporters, unlike idiotic lawsuits The ones that sued the ammo store lost because of the law you're "not" defending and the ones who sued the theater in aurora didn't end up paying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Which corporations are the good ones you're describing here? none. where do i talk about good corporations at all? quote:The ones that sued the ammo store lost because of the law you're "not" defending and the ones who sued the theater in aurora didn't end up paying. they would've lost anyway, as i said before. tons of these cases have been tried before the plcaa existed and they were thrown out a ton too cause trying to implement gun control via lawsuits is a dumb idea that doesn't mesh well with the law edit: also, there were two laws preventing them from winning that case, a state and a federal one. and even with both of those off the table they would've lost Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Democratic appointed justices do combat racial inequality you dingus. So did the Obama DOJ. But lol there is no difference between parties because a neckbeard podcast said so. Sorry, this is a few pages back but black households lost half their wealth in the crash of 2008 and the Obama DOJ let the guys who did it walk away without punishment. Bummer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:actually, it was the state law that had that provision: It's the federal law that guaranteed they'd lose though. Without that they might go to trial, and when there's a possibility of a trial then the other side also might settle rather than risk it. Bottom line is it's a bad law and bad policy that takes away from victims who don't want to wait around for decades at best for legislative changes (that will do nothing to address the past damage to them personally, unlike a lawsuit which is exactly how people seek damages) and gives the moon to the people who profit when they contribute to that suffering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sorry, this is a few pages back but black households lost half their wealth in the crash of 2008 and the Obama DOJ let the guys who did it walk away without punishment. Bummer. Sorry they focused on voting rights and stuff like that rather than seeking a handful of criminal convictions they probably wouldn't get and the Republican Supreme Court would definitely overturn. And sorry black voters didn't immediately make your talking point their top issue in 2012. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sorry, this is a few pages back but black households lost half their wealth in the crash of 2008 and the Obama DOJ let the guys who did it walk away without punishment. Bummer. And black voters, particularly women, seem to be holding the party accountable. It's good that Tom Perez is acknowledging that the Dems can't take black women for granted, but I hope he actually listens to them, instead of just paying them lip service. I think he'll find that black voters and left-populists of all races have a lot of goals in common.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:38
|
|