|
Kalit posted:Once again, what are you talking about? I had literally just brought up the ghost gun regulation passed by Biden. Which was in direct response to a mass shooting in Sacramento. This argument of "Trump has done more for gun control than Biden" is ridiculous. I thought it would take at least a decade before we got to “You know, Trump wasn’t actually all that bad.” D&D continues to prove that time is in fact accelerating logarithmically.
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Bishyaler posted:You’re arguing technicalities. Trump acted decisively in response to a mass shooting, which is more than can be said of the Biden or Obama administrations. Trump didn't instruct the ATF to ban them until 4 months after the shooting. By that point he had gotten the nod from the NRA that it was safe. They're all just kind of the same.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
the gun legislation involving ghost guns or bump stocks or whatever is the gun equivalent of means-tested loan programs where you can get part of your tuition refunded if you open and maintain a successful small business in a disadvantaged community for seven years. it's performative. look, there was a problem, and we did something about it. nevermind that the implementation does not actually solve a meaningful amount of the issue to use the vegas shooting incident as an example, great, bump stocks are gone! he shoots slightly slower but he still has over twenty guns. at some point arguing between whether trump or biden did more to affect gun control so far is like calculating which one put more piss on a house fire. it doesn't matter because no amount of presidential urine will have a meaningful affect on the fire. like, you can get technical about it, and maybe there's a few hundredths of a percentage point you could squeeze out of the pile of bodies, but at the end of the day we still have a gigantic pile of bodies that everyone in the highest levels of government seems perfectly cool with
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
Any regulation or administrative rule change that both: -potentially reduce deaths from firearm violence -hurt zero legit gun hobbyists who hunt etc Is just an unequivocal good, and I appreciate it because in this loving country we claw progress one inch at a time often. Complaining about it is like ”bloobloo we didn’t ban all guns anyway!” is pure poo poo. It’s not to credit Trump. It’s just being a pragmatic person about gun deaths. Any potential deaths removed with a a rule change that literally doesn’t even hinder a legal gun owner is a gun regulation wet dream, no matter how small the effect is on a large scale.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Eh. This is how the US political system has always been, though. The practical impossibility of having more than two viable parties at the same time has traditionally forced both parties into being big-tent coalitions representing a wide variety of views. The GOP's monofocus right now is the result of what is basically a populist revolt within the base, which conservative demagogues have been spending decades laying the groundwork for. The coalition has been tamed by very loud voter sentiment, reinforced by a media operation which ensures that even the slightest defiance will be noticed and draw a heated response. The different factions have all more or less fallen in line, with their continued differences papered over by the fact that they have to do very little actual governing - the GOP Senate can mostly sit around blocking any actual action, and leave the details of actually changing policy to the other two branches. If the progressive voter base was even half as effective at overcoming the party's favored candidates as the GOP's fash wing is, the Democratic Party would be a very different organization.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is how the US political system has always been, though. The practical impossibility of having more than two viable parties at the same time has traditionally forced both parties into being big-tent coalitions representing a wide variety of views. There's only so much a voter base can do when their party will just say "lol no" if someone with actual values gets even remotely close to power The GOP don't have to do this because their extremists are only a threat to the rabble, not Real People(aka the rich) so their donors won't throw a fit if the underdog wins. e: Also GOP extremists are just GOP Normal without a filter, while progressives and centrists have directly clashing values. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 07:07 on May 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
Someone with actual values hasn't gotten remotely close to power in ages though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
Dallas Morning News: I don't think the police are going to be able to talk there way out of this mess.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
5minutes to arrive on scene, then a further 75mins of just hanging around making everything worse. Can't fault that response time tho
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
The same kid calls at 12:03, 12:10, 12:13, 12:16 and 12:36. Did they loving hang up on her or are they just really bad at answering the phone
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 08:26
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Dallas Morning News: But much like other mass tragedies, this will be seen as the problem of a few bad apples/lone wolves and not the system itself.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 08:41
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:There's only so much a voter base can do when their party will just say "lol no" if someone with actual values gets even remotely close to power I'm not sure what "lol no" is supposed to be referring to here, since neither party's leadership has simply vetoed a candidate in recent years. They can do things like deny support for a candidate or even campaign for the candidate's opponent, but that's not likely to defeat a seriously popular candidate with the strong support of the party base.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 08:49
|
|
|
they don't need to outright veto candidates when they can out spend, out advertise, and otherwise throw their full weight behind someone, regardless of which candidate is most popular never mind that at the presidential level, the dem party specifically had superdelegates to thwart popular candidates the elites weren't happy with
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 09:27
|
|
|
Zamujasa posted:they don't need to outright veto candidates when they can out spend, out advertise, and otherwise throw their full weight behind someone, regardless of which candidate is most popular Yeah, the veto is just the last resort. Well, before the full on Corbyn treatment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 10:12
|
|
|
I mean those in power are always going to put their thumb on the scale and protect their position by gatekeeping, just as the moderate Dems are doing now. And they'd be stupid not to, as would the Left if they ever gained power. Before 2016 the GOP's last two Presidential nominee's came from their establishment. Trump deviated from that, he was their Bernie, and the GOP establishment tried to undermine him too, the difference is Trump obliterated them. And it wasn''t because he's a magician, it was because he had the support of an absolutely rabid base. And now that they've usurped their party's moderates what are they doing? Gatekeeping their position just like anyone should expect them to. So it's pointless to just endlessly whine about how unfair it is. It is what it is. Figure out how to deal with it or don't.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 10:28
|
|
|
The Republican party did not resist Trump anywhere remotely near the extent that the Democrats resisted Bernie both times.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 10:59
|
|
|
I think the bigger point would be that the equivalent party-aligned media didn't effectively resist Trump. They were happy to air his speeches and boost the hell out of him. I don't remember a major reporter freaking out that Trump gaining ground in the primaries meant that they were going to be executed. Or running constant polls where Trump is ahead...but, if you add Jeb, Cruz and Kasich together they beat him so really Trump's floundering and has big loser energy. And if I missed them, let me know, sincerely.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 11:15
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:Is this the part of the “democrats r bad” side bar of this thread that repeats every 50 so pages where we poo poo on Biden for not doing blatantly doing unconstitutional things because he’s not “doing something” No, it's the part of the thread that completely excuses the president who promised "nothing will fundamentally change" as a campaign promise for not doing anything of substance to help the populace. And then someone comes around to whine that he's keeping that campaign progress but "don't you loving dare point that out." Thanks for playing that part. The Sean fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:But much like other mass tragedies, this will be seen as the problem of a few bad apples/lone wolves and not the system itself. Yeah unfortunately I have to agree with this. It's one thing for competent police to still fail at saving kids from a guy with an AR-15, which is entirely possible. It's a whole other thing for them to not even try, which is just flat-out bizarre and beyond even the most pessimistic expectations. It also obfuscates the calls for gun reform for similar reasons, even though the best solution clearly involves this guy not being able to bring an AR-15 into the situation regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
Zamujasa posted:they don't need to outright veto candidates when they can out spend, out advertise, and otherwise throw their full weight behind someone, regardless of which candidate is most popular Yeah, I specifically addressed that: quote:They can do things like deny support for a candidate or even campaign for the candidate's opponent, but that's not likely to defeat a seriously popular candidate with the strong support of the party base. If spending was so effective as to completely ignore a candidate's popularity with voters, then we'd all be complaining about President Bloomberg right now. It has some impact, but there's been plenty of cases where an popular, uncharismatic candidate tried and failed to buy their way to victory. If the Dem party had used superdelegates to thwart someone who defeated all the establishment candidates through being clearly more popular both ideologically and personally, then we could discuss that, but they have yet to ever actually use that option and it's severely doubtful that they ever would - it'd be the end of the party.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The Republican party did not resist Trump anywhere remotely near the extent that the Democrats resisted Bernie both times. The Democrats took Bernie seriously from the beginning, Bernie was already a Senator and a known threat The Repubs? They THOUGHT Trump was a joke THOUGHT
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I mean those in power are always going to put their thumb on the scale and protect their position by gatekeeping, just as the moderate Dems are doing now. And they'd be stupid not to, as would the Left if they ever gained power. The GOP doesn't have superdelegates. They do, however, have winner-take-all primary contests, which makes it easier to coalesce around one candidate. As far as "whining about how unfair it is," I agree. The way to "deal with it" isn't by voting unconditionally, by buying into the mistaken belief that Democrats will look out for you, or by believing the fairly new trope to Vote Blue No Matter Who. Leftist voters need to stop ceding their only power & start instituting litmus tests on the Democrats in exchange for their votes. Since it's clear that politicians are more beholden to their large donors than they are their voters, withholding votes while continuing to support leftist candidates is the only way to achieve victory, as the GOP has demonstrated in its success in moving rightward.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
Vote Blue No Matter Who was literally invented out of wholecloth for the 2020 primaries and used exclusively as an anti-Bernie slur. I've got few doubts it would have been anything but instantly memoryholed, like MeToo was, the moment Bernie theoretically actually won the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:5minutes to arrive on scene, then a further 75mins of just hanging around making everything worse. Can't fault that response time tho It's not their fault the janitor with the only set of keys took over an hour to show up, what were they supposed to do?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the Dem party had used superdelegates to thwart someone who defeated all the establishment candidates through being clearly more popular both ideologically and personally, then we could discuss that, but they have yet to ever actually use that option and it's severely doubtful that they ever would - it'd be the end of the party. Why use superdelegates to thwart someone when they can force candidates to drop to clear a path or have the media alternate between running hitpieces or leaving them out of discussions? You get the same effect without drawing any of the criticism for putting your finger on the scale.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The GOP doesn't have superdelegates. They do, however, have winner-take-all primary contests, which makes it easier to coalesce around one candidate. The DNC will be like "Instead of appealing to the demographics that show up to vote in every election, we should appeal to the demographics that have never consistently shown up, have competing and incompatible priorities, and constantly in-fight about the dumbest poo poo." if you just don't vote! It's brilliant!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Didn’t they reform the superdelegate system after 2016?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:Yeah unfortunately I have to agree with this. It's one thing for competent police to still fail at saving kids from a guy with an AR-15, which is entirely possible. It's a whole other thing for them to not even try, which is just flat-out bizarre and beyond even the most pessimistic expectations. It also obfuscates the calls for gun reform for similar reasons, even though the best solution clearly involves this guy not being able to bring an AR-15 into the situation regardless. Won't the narrative from the usual circles eventually take the shape of "well, we would have liked to have helped but all these liberal rules and regulations restricting what we can and can't do kind of tie our hands"?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
If all but one candidate dropping means you lose, obviously you're not the one with the most supported platform. Also, I don't think they forced anyone to drop as opposed to them seeing they're not going to win and wanting the candidate closest to the same establishment with a realistic chance to win. And media hitpieces? You respond with your own. None of that is undemocratic, shady or illegal and will be something that will be arrayed against the left every time. Either you win the popularity game, the party game and the media game or you lose. Right now progressives aren't even playing on any in their morally pure belief that all they have to do is find the right way to say their nice promises and the American people will prove they're actually nice people who care about their fellow man. Bernie has a long career but he doesn't have any dependable constituencies, states or intra-state ties and organizations. He doesn't play party politics. And he complains about unfair attacks when attacked instead of attacking himself. You're just not going to win with those.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
eXXon posted:It's not their fault the janitor with the only set of keys took over an hour to show up, what were they supposed to do? Break open the door?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Break open the door? there were windows as well
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The DNC will be like "Instead of appealing to the demographics that show up to vote in every election, we should appeal to the demographics that have never consistently shown up, have competing and incompatible priorities, and constantly in-fight about the dumbest poo poo." if you just don't vote! It's brilliant! Don’t worry, much like the GOP the leftists have a vast collection of media, cultural, and financial interests that actively steer American voters in their direction and manufacture propaganda to destroy outliers to their ideology…oh wait…
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Break open the door? I think they were being sarcastic
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The DNC will be like "Instead of appealing to the demographics that show up to vote in every election, we should appeal to the demographics that have never consistently shown up, have competing and incompatible priorities, and constantly in-fight about the dumbest poo poo." if you just don't vote! It's brilliant! Both groups already do this. This is how you get Joe Bidens.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The DNC will be like "Instead of appealing to the demographics that show up to vote in every election, we should appeal to the demographics that have never consistently shown up, have competing and incompatible priorities, and constantly in-fight about the dumbest poo poo." if you just don't vote! It's brilliant! It worked to a large extent for Trump. I can see the appeal in trying to carve into the half the country that stays home rather than shave into the 5% of undecideds or whatever that number is. Or beating your head against the wall trying to reach "reasonable" Republicans or Libertarian independents. If you CAN somehow motivate even a little bit of that huge bloc to your side and turn them out, there's a lot of headway to be gained there. Sure, probably well over half of them are just tuned out, lazy or think voting doesn't matter but the idea of the right candidate inspiring a significant number of them to get off the couch is worth looking at to me if you have the right candidate, personality, charisma, reach and good policies. The hard part is still getting your regular voters/base to turn out while also having a message palatable for people who hate politics and business as usual along with a way to reach them. So..
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The DNC will be like "Instead of appealing to the demographics that show up to vote in every election, we should appeal to the demographics that have never consistently shown up, have competing and incompatible priorities, and constantly in-fight about the dumbest poo poo." if you just don't vote! It's brilliant! If the candidate is appealing to a wider swath of voters the DNC doesn't have a choice. Willa is right. Trump was able to do this to the GOP, Bernie wasn't quite able to pull it off but hopefully they're will be other progressives running as Democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It worked to a large extent for Trump. Although in that case the people who normally never came out and voted that Trump courted were the type who go “I want to stick it to people I consider subhuman” and they came out to vote when Trump promised to actually stick it to all the people they considered subhuman, as opposed to the people who go “I want better things for people”, don’t get those better things on the first try, and then just go home sad and/or mad and are never seen again.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Although in that case the people who normally never came out and voted that Trump courted were the type who go “I want to stick it to people I consider subhuman” and they came out to vote when Trump promised to actually stick it to all the people they considered subhuman, as opposed to the people who go “I want better things for people”, don’t get those better things on the first try, and then just go home sad and/or mad and are never seen again. What if they don't get those better things after many, many tries and stop then, instead of the first try? Like is there any evidence that there's a meaningful number of people that have voted exactly once then stopped? (And heck if there is I'd love to know if there's a breakdown wrt their reasons). Srice fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:A constant stream of dead children while the leader of the free world is 'meh' will do things to people. Just because you don’t pay attention to what he says or how he’s limited by federal laws understood by elementary school children doesn’t mean “he just said meh”. Especially gently caress off with that last bit, he actually understands what it’s like to bury his own kids.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Just because you don’t pay attention to what he says or how he’s limited by federal laws understood by elementary school children doesn’t mean “he just said meh”. Especially gently caress off with that last bit, he actually understands what it’s like to bury his own kids. The guy literally gave a thumbs up to people screaming at him to do something about guns. Stow away the faked outrage.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:47
|
|
