|
The Kingfish posted:Some people can't handle the truth. Yeah, and the truth is that the only thing you have done so far is call me a "crazy person" and "idiot culture warrior". I think the low quality of your posts speak for themselves.  I see that you're pretty new here though, so I'm humoring you.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
My modest proposal: make it so penis enlargement surgery and infinite viagra prescriptions are covered under Obamacare and Americans will stop being so obsessed with their guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yeah, and the truth is that the only thing you have done so far is call me a "crazy person" and "idiot culture warrior". I think the low quality of your posts speak for themselves. You think you have made substantive posts itt? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
NNick posted:I see you have poor reading comprehension and a fascination with toys. The fact that you insult me first before addressing my points says a lot about you. NNick posted:The fact you think the US is comparable to Mexico instead of say... France is pretty telling of just how childish you are. Wait, there are factors besides legislative gun control that influence crime and violence? But you said - NNick posted:gun deaths move dramatically downward - through the only proven method - gun control Ever thought about starting your own bespoke goalpost moving service? NNick posted:Surprisingly, people will be upset when a leading cause of homicide and suicide is dropped by a political party and will be more likely to sit out an election. A leading cause of homicide and suicide? Then why does Japan have such higher rates of suicide? Is it possible that, as you stated earlier, the issues are more complex? Funny how the causal effects of voter turnout, homicide, and suicide are simultaneously complex and simplistic, but only when it suits your post. NNick posted:First of all it will never happen, second it is bad policy, third it will not stop the NRA from turning out votes. It is better to push the divide than capitulate and lose out on the "gently caress you have mine" crowd who will never vote Democrat. Are you sure you don't have the poor reading comprehension? Pushing the divide hosed Colorado over in 2013, and its ridiculous and telling that you seem incapable of understanding this. Helsing posted:My modest proposal: make it so penis enlargement surgery and infinite viagra prescriptions are covered under Obamacare and Americans will stop being so obsessed with their guns. Excellent idea - only by insulting voters can they be turned to the Democratic side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
*Resigns in disgrace from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee*
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what the democrats actually do about guns. They could renounce gun control and the NRA would just start telling people that it was a trick so you better buy more guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
There are some ways in which the US is more like Mexico than France, and some obvious ones in which the US is more like France than Mexico. That kind of comparison on either side is silly because the US is in several different ways a singularly weird and exceptional (meaning exception to rules, not intrinsically superior) country. One of them is the nature and scope of our gun culture and the number of guns in the US per capita. Predicting what would happen here in the event of a severe gun policy shift in either direction based primarily on how gun control has or hasn't worked in other states is foolish. I can't actually believe I'm saying this given how I've responded to his posts before, but as an east Tennessean - a rural region demographically and politically dominated by poor whites - cantfindaname is right that gun control is absolutely a primary concern and consideration of voters. I'm legitimately not sure if softening their stance on gun control at a national level would reap net benefits for Democrats, and I'm skeptical that it would significantly impact society for good or ill. It would absolutely help Democrats win elections where I live, which was the original question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
The best way to get Republicans on board with gun control would be to have large groups of visible minorities walking the streets while openly brandishing their legal weapons. That's how gun control got started last time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The best way to get Republicans on board with gun control would be to have large groups of visible minorities walking the streets while openly brandishing their legal weapons. That's how gun control got started last time. It would be even more fun if they carried fake flags with Arabic text on them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
That would be a great way to convince the police to just start murdering minorities hundreds at a time instead of singly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I understand the point of banning assault rifles is to prevent mass shooting. But yeah this too. Except the part where actual legally owned assault rifles haven't been used in a mass shooting in almost a century now, and even scare-quotes Assault Weapons are used in a number of yearly murders that isn't even a statistical wobble compared to handguns. The assault weapons ban attempts get roundly poo poo on as both ineffective and coming from a view on firearms that has everything to do with Hollywood and nothing to do with reality. The national push for it also turbo fucks the downticket races in the vast majority of the country that is used to guns and doesn't want to give then up for the abstract benefit of maybe reducing murder rates in dense uran centers somehow. It gives the GOP an easy lever to win at the local level. Contrary to what seems to be national DNC policy, it's really goddamn hard to hold Congress if you write off the entire rural population before you even start campaigning. It's how shitlords like Steve King and Joanie Ernst get elected in Iowa and stay in office. Edit : cleaned up autocorrect errors Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
By focusing on economic issues rather then identity politics that people should care about but don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
What would you expect that Democratic party to do when the mass shooting occurs? And don't you realize that people could easily get primaried for supporting the gun lobby? If Democrats stopped altogether what do you think the NRA would do, support them? How many people who are worried about the government taking their toys away also paranoid about ISIS or Hillary's emails? My guess is pretty high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
So to add some class to this debate,I think it's important to remember that fun control it's also a single issue for some voters, so if the dems abandoned it, they could actually end up worse off if the number of pro-gun converts is less than the anti-gun demoralized. These a reason political coalitions are the way they are, I mean ideally you'd be better off with a direct vote on each issue, but that has it's own problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
OP while this doesn't get you the answer you wanted I think you have inadvertently landed on a whole bunch of examples of the reason nobody'll vote the Democrats back into control of the House ITT. In the flesh, as it were
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Pretty much. I vote almost straight ticket Dem these days because I agree with them on a bunch of social and economic issues, but every politician I see cry crocodile tears about assault weapons loses a ton of credibility in my eyes because they are not dumb enough to actually believe their easily falsifiable rhetoric. President Obama trotting out families who lost people for press events and then throwing a tantrum when Congress refused to pass yet another bill the SCOTUS would just shoot down lost him a lot of my respect for the sheer amount of public goodwill and resources he burned on it right before midterms. Midterms the GOP and Tea Party specifically made huge gains in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Well, that basically is the Obama administration in a nutshell. Lots of flash and no substance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Well, that basically is the Obama administration in a nutshell. Lots of flash and no substance. "But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act," I groaned perfunctorily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act," I groaned perfunctorily. Opening line in the worst erotic novel ever written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Lots of spineless coward "Democrats" ITT You guys are the real reason Democrats can't get anything done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:
Wait, how do curbs make things better for the cars? ...Pushing the corners of the road farther away from the wheel paths, maybe? But the curbs are probably going to be jointed separately and  I work for people who do pavement design things and this is not a detail that I've run across yet. (Presumably because we do effectively zero non-highway design stuff.) Edit: Okay, yeah, apparently they do provide more structural support to the pavement edge than Absolutely Nothing, which makes sense, while having load so close to zero that God can't tell the difference. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:As soon as you can persuade all of these people to vote Democratic. I just spent a half hour going over these profiles and it painted a clearer picture of the Republican base for me. I was shocked to see the number of conservatives here who were against banning muslims, who were pro choice, pro marriage equality (even against their personal beliefs) and acknowledged a need for gun restrictions. It shows that the media has been painting a very narrow and innacurate picture of the GOP party in large. The one prediction I feel comfortable making is that I believe the two party system is on its way out. I think the advancements in communication (the internet) is going to be the main catalyst for this transition. Even though there are only two parties competing for the presidency, their seems to be four parties onstage. If we are lucky this will happen and force politicians to focus more on constituents, rather than personal ambition. KING BONG fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
The two party system is never going to leave American politics unless a large faction the big donors decide that the party isn't giving them enough head and fund a new party. Even the Tea Party, for all that it made strong gains among the GOP, couldn't afford to compete against them on the national stage as a third party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Democrats main problem is their base isn't as loving retarded as the republicans, so motivating their base becomes difficult when you are blankly seen as just a center right pro business party that operates as a kabal of corporate puppets. As it stands you have the democrats split on Hillary an Sanders, which can boil down to Hillary supporters are cartoonishly stupid feminists or conservative democrats who lack the imagination to see how their gov't is bought or how a single payer healthcare system will fix a poo poo load of their social problems. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lick=sf_globefb
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The two party system is never going to leave American politics unless a large faction the big donors decide that the party isn't giving them enough head and fund a new party. Even the Tea Party, for all that it made strong gains among the GOP, couldn't afford to compete against them on the national stage as a third party. Get rid of first past the post *PROBLEM SOLVED* I never understand why activist types never mention electoral reform. Sethex fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So more seats = more representation = more difficult for gerrymandering? Yeah, in Virginia we have 11 Congressional districts and 100 House of Delegates districts. There are 3 Dem Congressmen to 8 GOPers, while the state legislature is something like 34-66. So yeah, we're marginally better off in the HoD, but it's not like cutting district size 9-fold fixes gerrymandering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The two party system is never going to leave American politics unless a large faction the big donors decide that the party isn't giving them enough head and fund a new party. Even the Tea Party, for all that it made strong gains among the GOP, couldn't afford to compete against them on the national stage as a third party. The tea party was a small fringe group who didn't have enough accumulative wealth to compete. The Sanders revolution is real in that it has divided the democratic party and proven that there is enough money to fund political endeavors. If Sanders wins the nomination and general, progressives will be successful at reigning the democratic party back to the left where it belongs and inspiring other people to run for offices on similar platforms. We are already seeing this when looking at individuals testing the waters for potential campaigns. If Sanders is not successful in his campaign I believe his supporters will dig in and double down by either forming a new party or staying democrat and seperating itself into two groups (which could itself lead to a formation of a new party.) What this election has accomplished already is showing many liberals that they're not alone in wanting to pull the party away from neoliberals. I believe that this is what the Sanders Revolution is really about. If he doesn't win the election we are going to see an uptick in liberal activism and a cultural revolution similar to what we saw in the 60's. History is seriously repeating itself. Economic disaster (Recession) Civil Rights (Police brutality, systemic racism, and riots) Cold War 2.0 (Sort of) Space Race ( I think North Korea just kicked that off. Their test launch wasn't as much about nuclear capabilities as it was of, "Hey, we can independently launch poo poo into space, let's hack the sun!" The only thing we are missing is a World War. I'm hoping we dont get one and we kinda stick to this World World War Lite thing instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Yeah, in Virginia we have 11 Congressional districts and 100 House of Delegates districts. There are 3 Dem Congressmen to 8 GOPers, while the state legislature is something like 34-66. So yeah, we're marginally better off in the HoD, but it's not like cutting district size 9-fold fixes gerrymandering. 34-66 seems comparable to 3 to 8.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:34-66 seems comparable to 3 to 8. it's 27% vs. 33% pretty much
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
NNick posted:What would you expect that Democratic party to do when the mass shooting occurs? And don't you realize that people could easily get primaried for supporting the gun lobby? Pretty much just stop talking about GUNS for a decade or two. Push some very basic common sense stuff like "allow researchers to use grants to count GUN deaths again" through and then just shut up about GUNS and tackle every other important problem that isn't directly related to GUN control first. America is just too riled up over the stupid GUN issue to actually enact sensible GUN legislation until this GUN hysteria has died down a bit. A GUN moratorium if you will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
KING BONG posted:If Sanders is not successful in his campaign I believe his supporters will dig in and double down by either forming a new party or staying democrat and seperating itself into two groups (which could itself lead to a formation of a new party.) A new party just wont happen. Fptp ensures that. I dont expect any legalistic changes under Sanders because the congress and senate will make changes impossible. The expansion of dialogue from the American political elite is what matters. One thing i notice from Americans is they have little capacity for imagination as to how government intervrntion in markets and services provides optimal conditions for society. As it stands that approach is toxic to many Americans. Sethex fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Pretty much just stop talking about GUNS for a decade or two. Push some very basic common sense stuff like "allow researchers to use grants to count GUN deaths again" through and then just shut up about GUNS and tackle every other important problem that isn't directly related to GUN control first. America is just too riled up over the stupid GUN issue to actually enact sensible GUN legislation until this GUN hysteria has died down a bit. While I am not thrilled by the idea, some gains might be made by using the Right's rhetoric against them. "The real problem is poor mental healthcare in this country!" "Yeah, you know what, you are right. Let's pass comprehensive mental healthcare reform. "
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Sethex posted:A new party just wont happen. Fptp ensures that. I dont expect any legalistic changes under Sanders because the congress and senate will make changes impossible. The expansion of dialogue from the American political elite is what matters. One thing i notice from Americans is they have little capacity for imagination as to how government intervrntion in markets and services provides optimal conditions for society. As it stands that approach is toxic to many Americans. Good point, but there is a strong force within the democratic party that has a "capacity for imagination" and wants to pull the party back to the left and away from the neoliberals. The truth, the left will never destroy the democratic party establishment. The goal is to bring it in line with democratic ideology. Give us what we want, or lose our support. The left has woken up and realized that the democratic establishment has been giving nothing but lip service to its causes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
I encourage all Democrats to staunchly oppose the second amendment and vigorously fight to ban firearms that look REAL scary. This is totally rational and not in any way contributing to Republican victories in the U.S. House or in state houses. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Lots of spineless coward "Democrats" ITT Right on brother. Keep fighting the good fight and don't let these DINOs get you down. You should run for office. Make sure to get your message out loud and clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:While I am not thrilled by the idea, some gains might be made by using the Right's rhetoric against them. "The real problem is poor mental healthcare in this country!" "Yeah, you know what, you are right. Let's pass comprehensive mental healthcare reform. " Precisely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:I encourage all Democrats to staunchly oppose the second amendment and vigorously fight to ban firearms that look REAL scary. It's not the second amendment we opposite, but the extremely liberal (ironically!) interpretation of it that allows people to almost freely buy powerful assault weapons that can be used to easily commit mass murder. Boosted_C5 posted:This is totally rational and not in any way contributing to Republican victories in the U.S. House or in state houses. Oh look, Boosted_C5 thinks getting elected is more important than saving lives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:powerful assault weapons This is what I'm talking about. I have no idea what the hell this means but MAN does it sound scary as gently caress. We cannot abide POWERFUL ASSAULT WEAPONS in our society. Say it loud, say it proud, BAN 'EM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It's not the second amendment we opposite, but the extremely liberal (ironically!) interpretation of it that allows people to almost freely buy powerful assault weapons that can be used to easily commit mass murder. People with "D-" in front of their name have been crowing about this for decades, but it almost never happens. lovely $100 handguns are used in almost all civilian shootings, because it turns out that lugging around a big fat unwieldy M16 or AK-47 attracts attention and is an inefficient way to shoot schmucks in a mall when you could just pull a pistol out of your pocket. For that matter, it's also harder to accidentally shoot yourself or your family in the face with one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:This is what I'm talking about. I have no idea what the hell this means but MAN does it sound scary as gently caress. scary black rifle with shoulder thing that goes up is way more powerful than grandpa's .308 hunting rifle, right? don't answer, I'm just going to assume, and base my entire gun control platform around that fact which I'm quite sure is true
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:41
|
|