• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
2,563
Points
39
What I find interesting is that several people I know to be Republican have indicated they are voting for Biden. The rallying cry seems to be to vote for country over party.

And I've seen the opposite. Several people I know who are Democrat and vote that way are holding their noses and voting for President Trump because in their opinions the Democratic party has gone off the rails and has veered much too sharply left for them. The election will be interesting to say the least. I actually think the president will be re-elected.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
16m people have already voted. In 2016 a total of 128m voted.

Although I think that most people are trying to make sure they don't get a 2016 scenario again, I don't think it is going to be close. I know that a lot of my Republican friends think that polls are wrong, and that Trump has more support than he does, but nothing, and I mean nothing, supports that beyond a gut "Trump is a winner" feeling.

Polls can be wrong. I agree. Every poll can't be wrong, though. And there are very few pollsters who actually think Trump can win. People are early voting in mass. They have already made their choice.

Although I agree that it is silly to speculate prior to the actual vote, I just don't see a pathway forward for Trump. Unless you think he is going to somehow win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which really doesn't show in even the most republican of polling. I just can't do the math to show him getting 270. There is really no reasonable pathway for him to win, unless the argument is again that gut "Trump is a winner" and people will vote for him feeling.

The betting markets are at 334 EC votes for Biden.

Almost all other "reasonable" predictors are at 290 for Biden.

Biden is up in RCP averages for Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona. Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio look to be in play. I am just confused as to what people think a pathway forward for Trump looks like. RCP no toss up map has Biden at 374, which is just stupid three weeks before the election.

Give Trump Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas and he still loses. I just don't see the math here.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,446
Points
38
Biden is up in RCP averages for Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Arizona. Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio look to be in play.

Georgia has been tending towards purple for the last few years, but it isn't in play for the 2020 Presidential election. It's a combination of the national Dem party settling on Biden and the current Georgia Dem leadership not wanting to accept that there are registered voters in the state that don't reside in metro Atlanta.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
Georgia has been tending towards purple for the last few years, but it isn't in play for the 2020 Presidential election. It's a combination of the national Dem party settling on Biden and the current Georgia Dem leadership not wanting to accept that there are registered voters in the state that don't reside in metro Atlanta.
I feel that way about Ohio too. It is a red state that has been purplish. 3C's and D are clearly blue, but the remainder of the State is pretty red. I don't see Ohio being actually in play, but the polling shows it is.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
What I find interesting is that several people I know to be Republican have indicated they are voting for Biden. The rallying cry seems to be to vote for country over party.

And I've seen the opposite. Several people I know who are Democrat and vote that way are holding their noses and voting for President Trump because in their opinions the Democratic party has gone off the rails and has veered much too sharply left for them. The election will be interesting to say the least. I actually think the president will be re-elected.

If this does not scream "The System Is Broken" nothing does. Four years ago, only a few people gave Trump any chance of winning the election and people thought they were out of their freaking minds. Clinton all but had the moving van scheduled. And then election night happened.

This year, I really think that there are two groups that are going to vote for Trump. One group is very loud about it and the other group does not want to talk about it and they will not tell a pollster who they are voting for because they fear backlash from others. And I don't blame them. I get bashed in several places every time I mention that I am pro-life. We have become such a hyper sensitive society that there are a lot of people that live in fear of really expressing their thoughts and political positions. A couple at my church fits what MD Planner indicated, but they don't want to announce it to many people because they are fearful of the response or retaliation. Much like 4 years ago, I don't think the polls represent who people are actually going to vote for.

Early voting has started here, and I am likely going to vote for a 3rd party candidate. After seeing the voting history of Biden and Harris along with many of their comments on various issues from the past, I just can't vote for them.
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
10,645
Points
47
So I voted in the the election on Tuesday, the first day of early voting.

What I find interesting is that several people I know to be Republican have indicated they are voting for Biden. The rallying cry seems to be to vote for country over party.

We have a senate race going on here. Gary Peters is our sitting junior senator. He's widely regarded as the most inoffensive senator and is usually shown as having the lowest name recognition out of all 100 senators. His opponent ran a few years ago to try and unseat Debbie Stabenow. Leading up to the race in 2018 it looked like it would be close but on election day Stabenow still won by 7 points.

Leading up to this year's race, it looked like it might be even closer than 2018, thanks to Peters lack of name recognition, his relatively quiet (and boring) campaging, and his challenger (John James) tying himself pretty tightly to Trump when Trump still had some popularity. But the RCP analysis has gone from "Lean R" on that race to "Toss Up" to "Lean D". If Trump loses Michigan this year, I would not be surprised if Peters wins the race by an even wider margin than Stabenow did in 2018.

I will say that when I am out running, I see a lot of lawn signs for Peters and for James. I occasionally see lawn signs for James on the same lawn with signs for Biden. I NEVER see signs for Peters on the same lawns signs for Trump.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,804
Points
71
Georgia is currently polling the lightest shade of blue possible. But for all intents and purposes it appears to be a coin toss at his point. GA isn't likely to cast the deciding electoral vote regardless who wins there.

 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,446
Points
38
Georgia is currently polling the lightest shade of blue possible. But for all intents and purposes it appears to be a coin toss at his point. GA isn't likely to cast the deciding electoral vote regardless who wins there.


Right, because a sabermetrics nerd from Michigan really understands Georgia politics. :r:
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
10,645
Points
47
Right, because a sabermetrics nerd from Michigan really understands Georgia politics. :r:

You do understand that 538 and Nate Silver do not conduct their own polls and are taking averages of existing polls and weighting them based on the methodologies of those polls and pollsters.

The 538 crew may pontificate on ABC and their podcasts and other outlets, but that doesn't really play into their math.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
You do understand that 538 and Nate Silver do not conduct their own polls and are taking averages of existing polls and weighting them based on the methodologies of those polls and pollsters.

The 538 crew may pontificate on ABC and their podcasts and other outlets, but that doesn't really play into their math.
Right, because a sabermetrics nerd from Michigan really understands Georgia politics. :r:
And yes, I believe they understand Georgia politics. Why wouldn't they, it isn't like they are more complex than any other states?
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,446
Points
38
You do understand that 538 and Nate Silver do not conduct their own polls and are taking averages of existing polls and weighting them based on the methodologies of those polls and pollsters.

The 538 crew may pontificate on ABC and their podcasts and other outlets, but that doesn't really play into their math.

🤤

Yes, I understand that. Still doesn't change the fact that Silver is wrong in this instance.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,804
Points
71
You do understand that 538 and Nate Silver do not conduct their own polls and are taking averages of existing polls and weighting them based on the methodologies of those polls and pollsters.
What he said. Mr. Silver has got an impressive 'batting average' when it comes to crunching poll data....for lots of states.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,446
Points
38
And yes, I believe they understand Georgia politics. Why wouldn't they, it isn't like they are more complex than any other states?

More complex? I have no idea - I really don't care about, study, or dwell on other states' politics (aside from California since I work there, in theory, in non-pandemic times). But, hey, I'm sure a sabermetrics nerd from Michigan is totally well versed on why Georgia shifted from blue to red, why it's trending back towards purple, and what the internal influences are that are currently keeping it on a statewide basis from turning back to blue. :r:
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,020
Points
58
To defend a fellow Michigan native (of the same age), he may have been born and raised in Michigan, but has a pretty good educational resume (at least):

Having earned a bachelor's degree from The University of Chicago in 2000, Silver has since been awarded six honorary doctoral degrees: from Ripon College (2013), The New School (2013), The University of Leuven (2013), Amherst College (2014), Georgetown University (2017), and Kenyon College (2018).

And Dr. Anthony Fauci is just a medical nerd from New York?
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,446
Points
38
To defend a fellow Michigan native (of the same age), he may have been born in Michigan, but has a pretty good educational resume (at least):

Having earned a bachelor's degree from The University of Chicago in 2000, Silver has since been awarded six honorary doctoral degrees: from Ripon College (2013), The New School (2013), The University of Leuven (2013), Amherst College (2014), Georgetown University (2017), and Kenyon College (2018).

And Dr. Anthony Fauci is just a medical nerd from New York?

See my reply above to WSUMUP - I'm just saying Silver is wrong in this instance. Nice strawman with Fauci, though.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,270
Points
54
The California GOP put out fake ballot collection boxes. Then they endorsed that decision by saying, people are going to give ballots to people they trust.

Yes, the election is rigged, but it looks like the rigging is being done by the accusers.


The Cali GOP refuses to comply with cease & desist orders & will not remove these boxes.


************************************************************************************************************


Also here's an article from David Frum, Bush former speech writer, that you might enjoy:

 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,804
Points
71
I was curious who professor Allan Lichtman would pick to win in the 2020 Presidential election. For those who may not be familiar with the name, he gained a certain notoriety after picking Trump to win in 2016. In fact he's correctly predicted every Presidential race since he started back in 1984 using 13 various index criteria. In making predictions he places no reliance whatever upon polls or campaigning.

In 2020 he's picking Trump.....to lose.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,446
Points
38
I was curious who professor Allan Lichtman would pick to win in the 2020 Presidential election. For those who may not be familiar with the name, he gained a certain notoriety after picking Trump to win in 2016. In fact he's correctly predicted every Presidential race since he started back in 1984 using 13 various index criteria. In making predictions he places no reliance whatever upon polls or campaigning.

In 2020 he's picking Trump.....to lose.

I'm waiting on a prediction from The Ghost of Paul the Octopus.

 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
Can anyone tell me if the following people still live in the US:

  • Whoopi Goldberg
  • Snoop Dogg
  • Miley Cyrus
  • George Lopez
  • Raven Symone
  • Amy Schumer
  • Cher
  • Omari Hardwick
  • Samuel L. Jackson
  • Bryan Cranston
  • Lena Dunham
  • Neve Campbell
  • Barbra Streisand
  • Ne-Yo (Whoever that is...)
  • Chelsea Handler
  • John Stewart
  • Keegan Michael Key
  • Chloe Sevigny
  • Eddie Griffin
  • Amber Rose

The reason I ask is each of the "Celebrities" indicated that they would move out of the United States if Trump won the last election.



On our neighborhood facebook page, someone posted support for the republican gubernatorial candidate and received substantial backlash from others because he was a republican and has not spoken out against Trump. They went on to indicate that because a person is voting for that candidate, not only the candidate but also the person voting for them must also have the same hate views and bombastic rhetoric.
This is what is wrong with America today. People are voting shaming because a person chooses to support a candidate that someone else might not agree with and more so they assume the negative characters trickle down to the person filling in the bubble sheet.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
Can anyone tell me if the following people still live in the US:

  • Whoopi Goldberg
  • Snoop Dogg
  • Miley Cyrus
  • George Lopez
  • Raven Symone
  • Amy Schumer
  • Cher
  • Omari Hardwick
  • Samuel L. Jackson
  • Bryan Cranston
  • Lena Dunham
  • Neve Campbell
  • Barbra Streisand
  • Ne-Yo (Whoever that is...)
  • Chelsea Handler
  • John Stewart
  • Keegan Michael Key
  • Chloe Sevigny
  • Eddie Griffin
  • Amber Rose

The reason I ask is each of the "Celebrities" indicated that they would move out of the United States if Trump won the last election.
Who cares? People continually threaten a lot of things. I am sure I can find a lot of stuff about Republicans who have done the same thing. Does it matter than Miley Cyrus said she would move out? Why do you care if they do or not? It is clearly not something that affects your decision making or life?

On our neighborhood facebook page, someone posted support for the republican gubernatorial candidate and received substantial backlash from others because he was a republican and has not spoken out against Trump. They went on to indicate that because a person is voting for that candidate, not only the candidate but also the person voting for them must also have the same hate views and bombastic rhetoric.
This is what is wrong with America today. People are voting shaming because a person chooses to support a candidate that someone else might not agree with and more so they assume the negative characters trickle down to the person filling in the bubble sheet.
I agree. Voting is your right and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. In general, the discourse in America has become terribly negative. I would put a large cause of that being that the leader of the free world name calls, belittles, treats people whom he disagrees with no respect. People see this and think it is okay. It is not. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on.
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
2,114
Points
21
I thought this was a really interesting breakdown, specifically explaining why white and Black Christians have very different voting behaviors. While it focuses on the religious similarities between the two groups, I think it can be applied more generally to the difference between progressive and conservative perspectives.

 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
Who cares? People continually threaten a lot of things. I am sure I can find a lot of stuff about Republicans who have done the same thing. Does it matter than Miley Cyrus said she would move out? Why do you care if they do or not? It is clearly not something that affects your decision making or life?
I am sure there were republicans who said that if Obama or Clinton won they would move. My point is these celebrities spout off political opinions all the time with a real expectation that we should give a damn what they say. But when they don't actually follow through on what they said they would do, they become nothing more than hypocrites.

I agree. Voting is your right and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. In general, the discourse in America has become terribly negative. I would put a large cause of that being that the leader of the free world name calls, belittles, treats people whom he disagrees with no respect. People see this and think it is okay. It is not. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on.

Unfortunately, I feel that it goes beyond just voting and more into foundational beliefs. I was good friends with a couple in our neighborhood until they learned that I was pro-life. Another couple won't let their kids play with our kids at our house because I am pro-second amendment and they bluntly told me that they fear that their kids will get shot and killed in my house because we have guns. A few weeks ago a hyper liberal couple (both white) got angry because I declined the offer to put a black lives matter garden banner in front of my house. They accused me of being raciest instead of wanting to hear that I don't want anything in front of my house other than the American Flag because that is all the HOA restrictions allow. (that and the state flag that is) Then they accused me for calling the HOA when they were contacted about their BLM garden flag.

My point is both sides demand tolerance when it serves them, but are unwilling to offer it if it does not align with their political views.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
I am sure there were republicans who said that if Obama or Clinton won they would move. My point is these celebrities spout off political opinions all the time with a real expectation that we should give a damn what they say. But when they don't actually follow through on what they said they would do, they become nothing more than hypocrites.
There are a lot of hypocrites in this world. They are just celebrities. :shrug:

Unfortunately, I feel that it goes beyond just voting and more into foundational beliefs. I was good friends with a couple in our neighborhood until they learned that I was pro-life. Another couple won't let their kids play with our kids at our house because I am pro-second amendment and they bluntly told me that they fear that their kids will get shot and killed in my house because we have guns. A few weeks ago a hyper liberal couple (both white) got angry because I declined the offer to put a black lives matter garden banner in front of my house. They accused me of being raciest instead of wanting to hear that I don't want anything in front of my house other than the American Flag because that is all the HOA restrictions allow. (that and the state flag that is) Then they accused me for calling the HOA when they were contacted about their BLM garden flag.

My point is both sides demand tolerance when it serves them, but are unwilling to offer it if it does not align with their political views.
So you list two items, pro-life and gun rights. But you take opposite sides of the fence on them. One, you want to take away people's rights, and the other you want to protect or give more rights.

I think it is reasonable for someone to be fearful of someone whom you don't know well having guns in their home with your children. Do you care for them properly, probably, but they don't know or have to agree with that risk. Putting a BLM sign in your yard, is your choice. No one should be blamed or attacked for making that choice, because they have a right do so...

Everyone demands tolerance, but we all say that when it serves us. Very few are able to see past their own biases and be truly tolerant.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,864
Points
61

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
So you list two items, pro-life and gun rights. But you take opposite sides of the fence on them. One, you want to take away people's rights, and the other you want to protect or give more rights.

I think it is reasonable for someone to be fearful of someone whom you don't know well having guns in their home with your children. Do you care for them properly, probably, but they don't know or have to agree with that risk. Putting a BLM sign in your yard, is your choice. No one should be blamed or attacked for making that choice, because they have a right do so...

Everyone demands tolerance, but we all say that when it serves us. Very few are able to see past their own biases and be truly tolerant.

I respectfully disagree. 2nd Amendment is about protection of my life and the life of my loved ones when it is at risk. My pro-life view is about the protection for the life of those who have yet to be born as I fundamentally believe that life begins at conception. In both cases, it is about protection of life.

As for the parents who don't like guns, they never asked me if I had guns, they just assumed that since I support the second amendment, I have AK-47's laying around the house and everyone gets a Glock to play with. I support fast cars too... but I drive a truck, not a Ferrari.




BUT



To shift gears a bit, on the first day of early voting, we had 2 hour wait times in our community and in other places it was 3 to 4 hours wait time because the lines were so long. Early voting is not just one day but runs for a couple of weeks so I don't understand the urgency in everyone voting on the first day possible. I am going to vote early, likely sometime next week when I can stop in during a lunch break.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,270
Points
54
To shift gears a bit, on the first day of early voting, we had 2 hour wait times in our community and in other places it was 3 to 4 hours wait time because the lines were so long. Early voting is not just one day but runs for a couple of weeks so I don't understand the urgency in everyone voting on the first day possible. I am going to vote early, likely sometime next week when I can stop in during a lunch break.

It was the same here. I too am astonished with having to be there on the first day. I'll wait until Wed or Thurs of next week and be able to walk right in & vote.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
15,021
Points
52
I'm always stumped by the arugment that the 2nd amendment is to protect my life or some other bs. It was so we could form a militia to defend our country and freedoms. Remember at the time of writing we just got out of some kind of war against tyranny and didn't want that to happen again to the point we didn't really want a national army. So if everyone could form militias then we could defend ourselves. The 2nd amendment has been bastardized through court rulings over the years to mean I can have any damn weapon I want. We're focusing more on the unimpinged line and less on the in order to form a militia line. Just the planner in me reading laws literally. To be honest I don't care if rational people own guns. It's just a tool. I just wish more people didn't need to strut around showing off the size of their hammer. There's a time and a place for these things.

On the anger of politics side, there used to be a time when it just wasn't generally discussed who I voted for. It's none of your damn business. Then again there used to be a time when the party or person would have denounced white supremacy groups and entirely ignore conspiracy theories.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
I'm always stumped by the arugment that the 2nd amendment is to protect my life or some other bs. It was so we could form a militia to defend our country and freedoms. Remember at the time of writing we just got out of some kind of war against tyranny and didn't want that to happen again to the point we didn't really want a national army. So if everyone could form militias then we could defend ourselves. The 2nd amendment has been bastardized through court rulings over the years to mean I can have any damn weapon I want. We're focusing more on the unimpinged line and less on the in order to form a militia line. Just the planner in me reading laws literally. To be honest I don't care if rational people own guns. It's just a tool. I just wish more people didn't need to strut around showing off the size of their hammer. There's a time and a place for these things.

On the anger of politics side, there used to be a time when it just wasn't generally discussed who I voted for. It's none of your damn business. Then again there used to be a time when the party or person would have denounced white supremacy groups and entirely ignore conspiracy theories.
Nope.

More so, why do you spread lies? Tell you what. Go down to your local gun shop and buy a fully automatic .556 and let me know how that goes.

I agree that some groups take it too far, but it is comments like yours that prevent rational laws from being adopted.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,549
Points
21

Trump on if Biden wins: 'Maybe I'll have to leave the country'​

Politico wrote an opinion piece that read like an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor--an incomplete "sampling" of countries and regions:
"Where will Trump go if he quits the US?"
^This^ concludes that Trump would be "Welcome"--not merely "Welcome-ish"--in these parts:
-Luxembourg
-Fort Trump, Poland
-Barvikha, Russia
-North Korea
 
Last edited:

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
Nope.

More so, why do you spread lies? Tell you what. Go down to your local gun shop and buy a fully automatic .556 and let me know how that goes.

I agree that some groups take it too far, but it is comments like yours that prevent rational laws from being adopted.
I know how you feel about gun laws, but DVD isn't why rational guns laws aren't being adopted. It is the NRA and other people who think the 2nd Amendment gives them unlimited freedom. Not what it actually does. But it is clear your reading of the documents is different. Which is fine, but at least realize you are reading it as a biased person who can't possibly know what the framers wanted or meant.

With that said, I heard the Democrats are going to take all the guns. :eek::poop::fire:
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,270
Points
54

Trump on if Biden wins: 'Maybe I'll have to leave the country'​


(to steal a quote from twitter) Promise?!?!?!?!?!??


*************************************************************************************

Is it me or are the Rs working harder to block votes than actually winning them?
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
10,645
Points
47
Is it me or are the Rs working harder to block votes than actually winning them?

That's been their strategy for a while now.

I think it was pretty telling when Senator Graham said during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing that, "The majority of Americans won't like this (the Barrett nomination) but for people like us (conservatives, Republicans), this is a great day."

They've got little desire to govern for the majority or enact legislation and appoint officials that will benefit all Americans.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
I know how you feel about gun laws, but DVD isn't why rational guns laws aren't being adopted. It is the NRA and other people who think the 2nd Amendment gives them unlimited freedom. Not what it actually does. But it is clear your reading of the documents is different. Which is fine, but at least realize you are reading it as a biased person who can't possibly know what the framers wanted or meant.

With that said, I heard the Democrats are going to take all the guns. :eek::poop::fire:

I did not say that DVD was responsible, but those types of comments are. When someone says "go out and by any gun you want" it results in an irrational emotional response from the NRA and the ultra right to dig in their heals and retain what rights we still have. Furthermore, I think that there have been a lot of gun laws put forth that don't address the problems because they are too focused on the tool to commit the crime and not the reason that the crime is being committed in the first place. Limiting the size of magazine capacity or prohibiting 'assault weapons' without a real comprehension of how guns operate is just pandering to an uneducated base.

Furthermore, I don't think that you really do know how I feel about gun laws because you think this is a binary thing for me and being that you don't agree the entirety my view on the position, you don't care about the details of my thoughts on it.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
That's been their strategy for a while now.

I think it was pretty telling when Senator Graham said during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing that, "The majority of Americans won't like this (the Barrett nomination) but for people like us (conservatives, Republicans), this is a great day."

They've got little desire to govern for the majority or enact legislation and appoint officials that will benefit all Americans.
The goal used to be to change hearts and minds. The goal now is to just plough forward no matter what people want. The vocal minority are the problem with the Republicans right now.

As of today, I would guess the Republicans currently stand for:

  1. Tax Reduction. Primarily for business, but if everyone else gets some, that is fine too.
  2. Creation of jobs. This is such a priority that it is probably the most important thing, so we should subsidize business and reduce their tax burden so we get more jobs. Preferably the same jobs we used to have like coal miners.
  3. America First. Doesn't matter at what cost, or how we look or are respected by the rest of the world. This includes walls to keep "others" out.
  4. Less Regulation. Focus given to reducing environmental protections and consumer protections, again looking to have the business community as a priority.
  5. Less availability of programs paid for by the government - including public radio, public arts, public benefits, and public parks.
  6. More guns. Less regulation of guns.
  7. More personal liberty and protection of individual rights, except abortion.
I am not sure exactly what that gets the middle class or the majority of the United States population, but it certainly helps a small group of people who are generally at the top. It also allows those at the bottom to aspire to be at the top, so they too can benefit, all the while, not benefitting. So there is that.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,929
Points
52
Furthermore, I don't think that you really do know how I feel about gun laws because you think this is a binary thing for me and being that you don't agree the entirety my view on the position, you don't care about the details of my thoughts on it.
You are pretty clear about your support and why you think the 2nd amendment supports your view. Obviously, I am not you, and am unable to fully understanding the complexities of your position and feelings.

I think discussions about topics are important, and having differing views is healthy and in the past, were generally cordial. I do not think you are a poo-poo head, or think that your mother was a hamster.

Let us carry on :up:
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
15,021
Points
52
My point to the 2nd is this introductory clause which always seems to be forgotten and the reason for it. It says nothing about I need a gun to defend myself, but says a lot about needing one to defend out nation. We only seem to focus on the shall not be infringed part. Hate to say it, but we've already infringed on the right by banning fully automatic weapons, tanks, missiles, and a world of other arms.

Plus I like getting Mskies fired up in the morning. It's just fun. ;)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,232
Points
52
You are pretty clear about your support and why you think the 2nd amendment supports your view. Obviously, I am not you, and am unable to fully understanding the complexities of your position and feelings.

I think discussions about topics are important, and having differing views is healthy and in the past, were generally cordial. I do not think you are a poo-poo head, or think that your mother was a hamster.

Let us carry on :up:

I thought I have been clear, but it does not appear that I have been clear enough if you don't understand my position. I support background checks, I support mandatory training before purchase of weapons, including how to properly store it. I support rational gun regulations. But limiting the capacity is not rational. Limiting weapons based on appearance is not rational.

What would be rational is to focus on why these crimes are happening rather that the tool used to carry them out. But liberals want to blame the gun rather than the shooter.

My point to the 2nd is this introductory clause which always seems to be forgotten and the reason for it. It says nothing about I need a gun to defend myself, but says a lot about needing one to defend out nation. We only seem to focus on the shall not be infringed part. Hate to say it, but we've already infringed on the right by banning fully automatic weapons, tanks, missiles, and a world of other arms.

Plus I like getting Mskies fired up in the morning. It's just fun. ;)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The part that you are forgetting is the definition of a well regulated Militia at the time of writing is very different than it is now. It was not 'the national guard or some other paramilitary group. It was the individual citizens with a similar believe called upon in a moments notice to protect a town or other area. But we only seem to focus on a modern definition of militia and reviewing the introductory clause.




And now, for a non-gun political related question... If someone vote by absentee ballot or votes early and then dies, should their vote count on election day? Given we are in a pandemic and there are record numbers early or absentee voting, I think it might be applicable.
What about someone who will be 18 before January 20, 2021? Should they be able to vote as they will be of age before the inauguration? Where is the hard line on all of this?
 
Last edited:

dw914er

Cyburbian
Messages
1,469
Points
20
I think it is reasonable for someone to be fearful of someone whom you don't know well having guns in their home with your children. Do you care for them properly, probably, but they don't know or have to agree with that risk.

I am in that camp. There are certainly those that are responsible and have their weapons secure, but based the statistics on accidental discharges, I still have a concern. Further, some of the 'responsible' owners I've seen have pretty simple security measures that probably are not as secure as they think it is. It's not to say that a gun owner's house is off limits, but I will always place the safety of my child first.
 

SlaveToTheGrind

Cyburbian
Messages
1,456
Points
27
I did not say that DVD was responsible, but those types of comments are. When someone says "go out and by any gun you want" it results in an irrational emotional response from the NRA and the ultra right to dig in their heals and retain what rights we still have. Furthermore, I think that there have been a lot of gun laws put forth that don't address the problems because they are too focused on the tool to commit the crime and not the reason that the crime is being committed in the first place. Limiting the size of magazine capacity or prohibiting 'assault weapons' without a real comprehension of how guns operate is just pandering to an uneducated base.

Furthermore, I don't think that you really do know how I feel about gun laws because you think this is a binary thing for me and being that you don't agree the entirety my view on the position, you don't care about the details of my thoughts on it.
NY (former) rep Carolyn McCarthy would agree with you.
 
Top