Well it looks like Harris got roasted pretty hard by Gabbard and brought up a few skeletons that many folks were probably not aware of, including me. It was the type of stuff that will definitely cause her to lose the farther left voters, so she's probably done IMO.And another round of debates are done. How do you think they did, who do you think were the winners, what was expressed last night that you like, and most importantly, do you think that anything said last night will help one of the beat Trump?
It was clearly the attack Joe Biden approach. Harris looked bad, but Booker looked okay. Yang was certainly unique. Everyone else was invisible.And another round of debates are done. How do you think they did, who do you think were the winners, what was expressed last night that you like, and most importantly, do you think that anything said last night will help one of the beat Trump?
I would certainly argue that medicare for all is not going to get passed. We just had this argument in 2010. And we got Obamacare. Which was passed with D's in the House, Senate, and Presidency. If you think we are going to get something more progressive than that passed with a likely R senate, you are crazy. Moving past the can it be passed argument, most people don't want to lose what they have. They want more, but not at the expense of paying higher taxes. What Warren / Sanders refuse to say is that EVERYONE will pay higher taxes, but they will see savings from X, Y, and Z. That is still higher taxes, which is not palatable to most people.They're not trying to "out-democrat" the others. They're trying to out-crazy the others! Some of the crap these folks are spewing is insane.
I watched a bit of it last night and I have mixed thoughts. I do think that each of them expressed little bits of genius for politics and programs that could stand a chance. I agree they missed the mark with environmental policies. However when the crazy outshines the brilliance, everyone will mark them as crazy.I would certainly argue that medicare for all is not going to get passed. We just had this argument in 2010. And we got Obamacare. Which was passed with D's in the House, Senate, and Presidency. If you think we are going to get something more progressive than that passed with a likely R senate, you are crazy. Moving past the can it be passed argument, most people don't want to lose what they have. They want more, but not at the expense of paying higher taxes. What Warren / Sanders refuse to say is that EVERYONE will pay higher taxes, but they will see savings from X, Y, and Z. That is still higher taxes, which is not palatable to most people.
An immigration policy that doesn't fix anything and instead looks like you are prioritizing immigrants over Americans (which personally I understand the nuance of this statement, but most do not) isn't going to get you any voters either. If you are fighting tooth and nail to get more rights for immigrants (i.e. lowering the legal threshold for crossing into our country illegally) but aren't really fighting for stronger protections of the American voter in West Virginia or Wisconsin who feels like they are disenfranchised, it is easy to see why the D's won't get more votes. Immigration is a loser for the D's when they try and let everyone be part of the party. They have to draw a line (which Biden tried to do, but was maimed) somewhere. Unfortunately, many of the D's are afraid to say anything remotely like a policy to fix a problem, they just want to be as far away from Trump on this position as they can. Which again is understandable, but they won't win with that mindset.
As for other policies, we didn't really see much discussion on it at the two D debates because healthcare and immigration took so much air out of the room. Unfortunately for the D's both these policies keep their base happy, but in no way expand their tent as they need to do. This is about the electoral college and winning. You have to win lots of states. You can't just win the coasts. If Florida and Texas turn it may be a different argument going forward, but that doesn't look like it will be a quick change for 2020 to see the benefit from.
They aren't all crazy (in my opinion) they are just terrible at detailing their policy positions. I do think there are probably 7-12 candidates who either have only one policy position (CLIMATE CHANGE! UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME! MEDICARE FOR ALL! etc.) and have no real chance of winning. I appreciate Biden for brushing off these folks who are just talking crazy and to look to be a Presidential figure who isn't going to bicker over impossible thoughts.
Warren said “I genuinely do not understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of running for president just to get up on this stage and talk about what’s not possible.” Maybe because they want to win, not just have fun and throw grenades at others? Or because they understand that in politics you have to win to get any policy approved. You can't be everything to everyone, but you can try and find middle ground that will get you enough votes to win, without being a complete liar. Come on D's find that line.
I think it is hard to get details because they know they are going to get killed by the far left portion of the party for not being Democratic enough. Hence Warren's comments.What I would really like to see happen is some kind of immigration reform and some kind of health care reform. I would also like to see some special interest/lobby reform. I'm not really seeing any of the details from this crew. I think Biden has ideas and maybe one or two others, but most of them have put in their bid for VP or cabinet positions and they can leave now.
But this doesn't seem to matter. The ones committing the mass shootings aren't people carrying weapons to church. They aren't using weapons that those people are typically packing. Assault rifles really have no place in the open market. They serve no real purpose besides recreational shooting, and they wouldn't be missed at all if they were completely banned. There is also the significant issue of gun registration. Hawaii and DC are the only two jurisdictions that require the registration of all guns. New York requires the registration of handguns. 8 states flat out prohibit gun registries. There are over 392 MILLION unregistered guns in this country. That is completely absurd to me. The US has an estimated 120 guns per 100 people.We have become a country where no where is safe to go out for a stroll. I’m embarrassed to say I know to people who “are packing” in church.
This is completely reasonable. The ONLY democratic candidate who's taken this same policy position is Marianne Williamson if you can believe that.So we start by funding the CDC to do gun violence research. It's been banned by the NRA - I mean Congress since 1996. Simple and it doesn't "take anyone's guns".
Speaking of comparing cars and guns, I think following the driver's license / vehicle registration model for guns is ideal for gun control.Do we ban types of cars for going too fast? No, but 40,000 people die in car accidents in 2018. It is not about the car, it is about the driver. The speed limits are set based on conditions and people choose to obey the laws or not. It sounds like the shooter in Dayton had illegal magazines for his weapon. My guess is he was not about to follow the law and only use standard magazines.
Good point, and one I haven't really considered. Honestly, I have no clue how that'd work.In terms of banning types of guns... Ok, you pass a law to prohibit citizens from having any semiautomatic weapons. There are estimates that there are over 100 million of these currently in use or possession. How do you go about going around collecting these? Even if it is "modern sporting rifle" which is any semiautomatic rifle... there are about 20 million of these. Do you think that people intent on committing a crime are just going to turn their guns over to authorities? Lets say 1/4 are police issue... that is still 15 million.
Honestly, this is just common sense. I have no idea how the gun problem got this out of hand. All of these things are logical and should have been the law decades ago. I don't see the argument against it.Speaking of comparing cars and guns, I think following the driver's license / vehicle registration model for guns is ideal for gun control.
* Want to own or shoot a gun? Get a license. Just like driving a car, you have to take a course on gun use, safety, marksmanship, and etiquette, Concealed and open carry, in states that allow it, would require more advanced licenses, just like a CDL.
* Want to buy a gun? Go ahead! Buy as many as you want. However, you have to register the gun (and its unique bullet fingerprint) with the state, and have insurance (loss and liability). Just like a car, you'd have to renew the registration annually,
* Want to sell your gun? Same process as if you're selling a car. The seller and owner would both need to validate the sale with the state. it would be a crime to sell a gun to someone without a license.
Okay so we have a requirement that all of those types of weapons are registered as existing non-conforming weapons. If they are not, then you get a fine / jail when one is found. If someone has one that isn't registered by a certain date it is taken as illegal and the person is fined or put in jail. It is that simple. People can choose to break the law if they please.In terms of banning types of guns... Ok, you pass a law to prohibit citizens from having any semiautomatic weapons. There are estimates that there are over 100 million of these currently in use or possession. How do you go about going around collecting these? Even if it is "modern sporting rifle" which is any semiautomatic rifle... there are about 20 million of these. Do you think that people intent on committing a crime are just going to turn their guns over to authorities? Lets say 1/4 are police issue... that is still 15 million.
**Please note, you doesn't mean you AG, it means the collective you. All loveA mandatory program would be political suicide IMO.
There you go considering the feelings of some politician. Poor Congressman Bob won't be reelected because he supported the program. Congress has let us down for years and has let us down particularly on this issue. I wish congressman Bob wouldn't get reelected and maybe get someone who will give a F$@% about the citizens out there and real policy reform over what I consider political key jangling of issue that don't really matter - sorry my ranting is going beyond the gun control thing which we all know nothing will come out of this and we'll all discuss it when the next shooting happens in a few weeks.Would this be a mandatory program or just "we really wish you'd bring these in please!". A mandatory program would be political suicide IMO.
I'm just saying that the ones who would be affected are the same types who would make a significant (violent) issue out of it, folks like Ammon Bundy. Most rational people don't have a stock pile of AR-15's lying around, and wouldn't have an issue with a mandatory buyback. I certainly understand that the government isn't out to take handguns and shotguns, and I don't think it's a slippery slope issue to require a buyback of weapons defined as assault rifles, but as a whole, we on this forum represent a minority of voters. There are plenty of people out there who vehemently disagree with any form of gun control. Hell, their argument is more "arm everyone and the problem solves itself" than anything else. That's a major issue that isn't really discussed either. Gun culture in this country is completely out of control. I'm talking primarily about far right radicals, people like the Oath Keepers.**Please note, you doesn't mean you AG, it means the collective you. All love
Why? Do you honestly believe that more than 50% of people would even be affected? I could see the slippery slope argument, but even that is weak when we are clearly talking about a specific gun or ammo capacity, etc. If you think the government really wants to take handguns or shotguns you aren't following the arguments. I am not aware of any rational politician saying that we should ban all guns.
To be fair, which I am not often, Biden said Texas and Michigan.Now the f&cking moron thinks the mass shooting took place in my hometown...Toledo
President Donald Trump misidentified the site of a mass shooting in Ohio in his remarks to the nation a day after a gunman killed nine and wounded 27 in ...www.toledoblade.com
Those are pretty easy statistics to find... you're a smart guy:I wonder what percentage owns a gun and what percentage owns more than one?
That is the stupidest email I have ever read. It not only is stupidly incorrect, but the idea that anyone doesn't support red flag laws is asinine. For context, this is the email from yesterday:"I'm on my way to the Statehouse in Columbus right now.
This morning at 9:00am, Governor DeWine is going to be holding a press conference detailing his plans to "do something" in response to the Dayton Killer.
Sadly, he won't be calling for laws that actually save lives or restore rights, like Stand-Your-Ground or Constitutional Carry.
It is widely expected he will unveil or release details of the "Red Flags" Gun Confiscation legislation he has had his staff working on for the last several months.
I'll report back to you exactly what happens at this press conference, but I wanted to make sure you saw our email from yesterday, which is below.
Please read through it and when you are done, take action! "
In case you missed it, at a press conference earlier this morning President Trump announced his full support for ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ legislation in the wake of the Texas and our Ohio shootings that took place last weekend.
This is the very same legislation being pushed by the radical left and weak-kneed moderates in Washington D.C. and state legislature all over the country!
And unless gun owners push back with everything they have, this bill will sail through Congress and be signed into law, forever weakening our right to keep and bear arms in America!
I’ll explain what a ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ is down below in case you’ve not heard about it, but whatever you do, please fire off the two PRE-WRITTEN EMAILS that I’ve prepared for you immediately!
>> SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP YOUR PRE-WRITTEN EMAIL HERE <<<These emails take just seconds to send, so please take action immediately and share these links with every gun owner you know!>> SEND SENATOR ROB PORTMAN YOUR EMAIL HERE <<<
Remember, a ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ law is much worse than a ban on the AR-15, magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or anything else.
That’s because a ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ would allow virtually anyone who doesn’t like you to be able to make up a bogus complaint –- allowing a liberal judge to order your firearms to be confiscated.
Before you’ve been charged.
Before you’ve been indicted.
Before you've been tried.
And before you’ve been convicted...of anything!
And it would happen in secret, via ex-parte’ court hearings that you would know nothing about and would not be able to attend -- obliterating your ‘due process’ rights!
This is already the law in liberal states like California, New York, and Maryland, and if we don’t fight back, Ohio may soon join these ranks!
Senator Sherrod Brown is already a YES vote on Red Flags.
Actually no... there are general estimates, but we don't really know. (LINK)Those are pretty easy statistics to find... you're a smart guy:
Smartass response aside, I dug through some of the stats & their sources and can summarize them as:
About 30% own guns, and it is strongly concentrated geographically. Of that 30%, they own three guns on average. Half of them own 1-2 guns. That means about 15% of the American population owns 1-2 guns, and about 15% owns 3 or more guns.
Incidentally, Americans are estimated to own 40% of the guns ON THE PLANET.
Ditto, and they are generally** fanatical about gun safety.Gun collectors aside, most people I know who own guns own lots of kinds of guns. A shotgun or two, a hand gun, a pistol, etc.
I am not a fan of Trump, but I don't think it is a good idea to make information (even if it is public) more obvious. All that is doing is putting those people more at risk for doing what they are constitutionally able to do. If you don't like that those people gave money then talk about Trump taking all this money, but don't put the individual people on blast.tRump gives a 10 second hollow call for unity in a tone deaf staff written speech.
Within a couple hours he’s off on another Twitter trirade.
Nothing should surprise me anymore.
On another note, Julian Castro’s brother tweeted out names of tRump donors in SanAntonio who gave the maximum allowed to his campaign. Boy has he received flak for this. What these snowflakes don’t realize is that information is public record.
It has something to do with his sister I think. There's video of them together at a bar a few hours before the shooting and she was killed in it. IMO she was the target and the rest of the victims were unfortunately collateral damage.With that said, it looks like the Dayton shooter was potentially a far-left activist. I think when shootings are clearly about race or about hatred (like El Paso) we need to talk about it as such, but we need to be careful not to push identity politics on all shooters (the Dayton shooter didn't have a racist agenda, he seems to just have been batshit crazy). He also was a supporter of Sanders and Warren. My point is that we should stop trying to pinpoint blame on the R's or D's and find ways to work together to fix the problem.