2016 Election Thread

[PseudoSABR]

 

If the right is so sure they are right, why are they afraid to vote on this, exactly?

Who would let democracy and majoritarian rule get in the way of righteousness?

[mikecgrimes]

 

No one wants to chop it.

 

Those that do are smart enough not to try to do it all at once, but it's foolish to say a large portion of the anti gun crowd doesn't wants a total ban.  Even those using the "common sense" and "things we can all agree on" argument aren't necessarily the reasonable people they seem.  Some are of course but I don't need Jonathan Gruber to explain true intent.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

a real life filibuster. Who woulda thunk it?

 

If the right is so sure they are right, why are they afraid to vote on this, exactly?

 

Whats the incentive to have a vote?  Good leadership is supposed to stop these votes.  We can have a daily vote on every issue every morning, but much like the supreme court nominee there is no incentive to act.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Those that do are smart enough not to try to do it all at once, but it's foolish to say a large portion of the anti gun crowd doesn't wants a total ban.  Even those using the "common sense" and "things we can all agree on" argument aren't necessarily the reasonable people they seem.  Some are of course but I don't need Jonathan Gruber to explain true intent.

 

Why can't we just start with a good pruning?  Look, if you want to be paranoid about how things will play out, I can at least work with the emotion of that if you come to the table for some reasonable concessions.  Just come to the table and talk about it.

 

Would I ideally like a mass turn-in of firearms?  Yes.  Would I be very content with a ban on all high caliber weapons and large clips?  Yes.  Have your rifles and even your hand guns, but why do you need anything that will mow down 50 people in a crowded room in seconds?

 

I'm asking that seriously - why do you need that?  Why is a rack of rifles and a selection of hand guns not enough?  It should be more than enough, especially if you can also access a wider selection at a gun range.    So I'm genuinely curious - why?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Those that do are smart enough not to try to do it all at once, but it's foolish to say a large portion of the anti gun crowd doesn't wants a total ban.  Even those using the "common sense" and "things we can all agree on" argument aren't necessarily the reasonable people they seem.  Some are of course but I don't need Jonathan Gruber to explain true intent.

Find me one politician or reputable liberal or even a poster on this board who has advocated for a total ban of guns. No one thinks that, only in right-wing nightmares.  It's all kinds of wrong to guess what is actually in people's hearts, especially when it betrays what they actually tell you. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Whats the incentive to have a vote?  Good leadership is supposed to stop these votes.  We can have a daily vote on every issue every morning, but much like the supreme court nominee there is no incentive to act.

Incentive? How about all those dead bodies piling up.  Or it's the right thing to do.   Good leadership advocates for our political process to work, not put a stick in the gears.  

[biggentleben]

 

As an aside to the bolded part, not necessarily the KKK, but if you remember there was a huge purge of southern culture/racist symbols (whether perceived or real) immediately after that. So I think the answer to your question was kind of yes on that one.

 

...but watch the coverage. It was very carefully articulated to nearly never use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist". Yet, from the get-go, this shooting was labeled as such. I cannot be the only one that smells something fishy there.

[biggentleben]

 

No one wants to chop it.  A healthy pruning seems in order.

 

Mental health could use a pouring of money, but not for this reason.  This issue has very little to do with what government considers "mental health".  Most of these shooters have no track record of mental health or even violence until the mass murders.  So while this would be great for those truly in need of mental health, those same people are really of little risk to the populace in general.  They've become a convenient talking point/scapegoat for the left and the right who are seeking to explain things.  But it isn't accurate.

 

If we want to get into the second issue, I'd love to lead the board down that road, but this subject has as much to do with mental health as my Braves and the Twins do with the 2016 World Series, so it's essentially throwing words against the wall. There's a wonderful mental health discussion to be had in this country, but it has nothing to do with gun violence. Zero, Zilch. Nada.

 

Once that distinction has been achieved by all parties, real discussion of the needs for mental health in this country can begin, because until that point, mental health will continue to be a reactionary funded area of the government, and one that constantly has other items tied to it that have no business being tied into mental health.

[biggentleben]

I've been pondering this quite a bit. After 9/11, I went on a flight (something I do very infrequently) about a year later and nearly missed my flight in spite of being nearly two hours early for the flight due to the increased security (and ironing/smoothing out those new processes). 10 years later, I get on a flight, and the process is the same as it was then, still much more intrusive than pre-9/11, but the system has realized inefficiencies and worked through those to create a better way of creating the same level of increased security while also being mindful of travelers' time.

 

Not a single one of us has thought twice about ensuring we're at the airport an hour minimum before our flights to make sure we get through security. A tragedy happened, regulations to provide security to the nation were changed immediately, and society adjusted.

 

No one cried about any rights being taken away, and anyone who has attempted to use "more intrusive" search techniques as a free pass to commit criminal acts upon travelers has been severely punished.

 

We've seen a change in regulation work in providing increased security for the nation while admittedly making things more intrusive in the common traveler's life. When the nation sees those liberties as worthwhile to the security of the nation, things can be done. Until that point, we're waiting on a 9/11 accomplished with guns before anything can truly happen.

[stringer bell]

 

Whats the incentive to have a vote?  Good leadership is supposed to stop these votes.  We can have a daily vote on every issue every morning, but much like the supreme court nominee there is no incentive to act.

IMHO, there should be plenty of incentive to vote for a centrist judge who is over 60, if I'm a conservative Republican. Donald Trump is that party's nominee and he puts his foot in his mouth on a daily basis. If Hillary Clinton is the next president, I doubt she will submit a nominee who is moderate or north of 60 years old. That is to say nothing of the horrible precedent of stalling a Supreme Court nominee for over a year.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Until that point, we're waiting on a 9/11 accomplished with guns before anything can truly happen.

 

One would've hoped a classroom full of dead six year olds would've accomplished that.  But it was literally chalked up as the "price of freedom".

 

That will never make sense to me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

...but watch the coverage. It was very carefully articulated to nearly never use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist". Yet, from the get-go, this shooting was labeled as such. I cannot be the only one that smells something fishy there.

 

That works both ways.  I agree, he should have been called a terrorist.  

 

This story was called "domestic terrorism" even before we knew the identity of the shooter or any connections to his religion or past explorations of ISIS.  Now that we know those things, why wouldn't we correctly identify him as a terrorist?  And why are so many (some of whom rushed to point out this same contradiction) so hell bent on not identifying him as such?

 

Be consistent.  That's a huge part of why this can be so annoying.  But I refer you to Bark's article - we owe it to thousands of muslims who fight this kind of man for tolerance every day to stand up and call out the problem for what it is.  Not hide behind BS accusations of racism to make us feel more tolerant and enlightened.  

[Squirrel]

 

IMHO, there should be plenty of incentive to vote for a centrist judge who is over 60, if I'm a conservative Republican. Donald Trump is that party's nominee and he puts his foot in his mouth on a daily basis. If Hillary Clinton is the next president, I doubt she will submit a nominee who is moderate or north of 60 years old. That is to say nothing of the horrible precedent of stalling a Supreme Court nominee for over a year.

He was referring to the Senate filibuster, and what is the incentive to take a vote on gun control.

 

But I also agree with you on why to vote.

[Squirrel]

 

One would've hoped a classroom full of dead six year olds would've accomplished that.  But it was literally chalked up as the "price of freedom".

 

That will never make sense to me.

Well, just add up all the deaths due to gun violence since 9/11 ... 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, just add up all the deaths due to gun violence since 9/11 ... 

 

When major hosts on Fox News are calling for changes, the momentum is at least swinging the right way.

[biggentleben]

 

That works both ways.  I agree, he should have been called a terrorist.  

 

This story was called "domestic terrorism" even before we knew the identity of the shooter or any connections to his religion or past explorations of ISIS.  Now that we know those things, why wouldn't we correctly identify him as a terrorist?  And why are so many (some of whom rushed to point out this same contradiction) so hell bent on not identifying him as such?

 

Be consistent.  That's a huge part of why this can be so annoying.  But I refer you to Bark's article - we owe it to thousands of muslims who fight this kind of man for tolerance every day to stand up and call out the problem for what it is.  Not hide behind BS accusations of racism to make us feel more tolerant and enlightened.  

 

That's the issue I have, though. It may be because we knew the victims - a black church vs. a gay night club - that one was immediately deemed terrorism and another was so carefully danced around NOT calling it exactly that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's the issue I have, though. It may be because we knew the victims - a black church vs. a gay night club - that one was immediately deemed terrorism and another was so carefully danced around NOT calling it exactly that.

 

I think you're right that there was hypocrisy in that case.  I don't approve of that either.

 

The flip is that, like it or not, most acts of terror in our current time are inspired by radical Islam.  I don't understand why we can't acknowledge that and work to help that religion heal it's ugly side.

[nicksaviking]

 

Those that do are smart enough not to try to do it all at once, but it's foolish to say a large portion of the anti gun crowd doesn't wants a total ban.

 

Than there's room for compromise. I'd guess those that want a complete ban would come to the table for automatic/assault rifle bans. How about those that want no firearm restrictions at all?

[Craig Arko]

 

How about those that want no firearm restrictions at all?

Crossbows at 50 yards.

[TheLeviathan]

I think this is worth listening to.  I don't agree with all of the first half of his rant (there are parts I do, but by and large he's taking it farther than I think is warranted), but the second half is, in my opinion, a seminal moment.  

 

The leading right-wing talker in the country just crossed the line into gun restrictions.  It can't be understated how important this is.  Combine that with the presumptive Republican nominee from pushing back on the NRA and we are in interesting times.

 

Whether the NRA pursues sanity or not is another question, but the tide is turning.

[Badsmerf]

Wow. That is a pretty big deal. The criticism if Obama is whatever. The entire nation wanted a pullback and he was criticized for staying too long. Now he's criticized for saying too short. I'd it was a Republican the other side would be doing it so whatever. It's all hindsight.

[PseudoSABR]

Clinton's VP short list got leaked/floated

Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.

 

Vox has a nice rundown of the candidates.

 

Notably, Sanders is not being considered.

[Squirrel]

 

Clinton's VP short list got leaked/floated

Vox has a nice rundown of the candidates.

 

Notably, Sanders is not being considered.

I don't think Sanders wanted it. Could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't think Sanders wanted it. Could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

You're probably right.  Still, if the list was floated, why not include Sanders' name on the shortlist...I think it'd be a nod towards party unity, even if he's not seriously being considered.  

[Squirrel]

 

You're probably right.  Still, if the list was floated, why not include Sanders' name on the shortlist...I think it'd be a nod towards party unity, even if he's not seriously being considered.  

I'd read not too long ago that he was on a list, and was being seriously considered .. not sure which site I read that on ... Vox? 538? NPR? Anyway ... the fact that he now doesn't show up on that list, after all the meetings he's had with various party members, including Clinton, Obama, Reid, Warren ... makes me wonder if that's just not the route he wants to go. Again, just my reasoning on it. I agree that it could have gone a long way toward party unity, but I'm guessing that perhaps they agreed to give Sanders a different role moving forward, one that he may have wanted instead? Being VP isn't really a 'mover-shaker' role.

[Squirrel]

But then, that said, I'm not sure I trust 'leaked' lists anyway.

[Badsmerf]

I also don't think he wants the vp. Clinton has a better shot adding someone that helps her demographic. Sanders will help unify the party eventually, Clinton can also do that by adopting some of his agenda. I will be pretty surprised if this race is with 10 percent. Especially since Gary Johnson is polling at 9 percent and might be enough to get in the debates. Like i said before, adding him to debates will be the best way to stick it to trump.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I also don't think he wants the vp. Clinton has a better shot adding someone that helps her demographic. Sanders will help unify the party eventually, Clinton can also do that by adopting some of his agenda. I will be pretty surprised if this race is with 10 percent. Especially since Gary Johnson is polling at 9 percent and might be enough to get in the debates. Like i said before, adding him to debates will be the best way to stick it to trump.

Johnson will need to hit a 15 percent polling average to qualify for debates (I'm not sure how this works exactly, what polls, by what date, etc.).  I think the libertarian the rational conservative, and the conservative women  vote will stick to Trump regardless whether there's a third-party candidate in the debates.  I tend to think the more time Trump can talk the worse it is for him, so adding another person to the debate will limit Trump's risk/exposure.  

[Badsmerf]

See, I've already heard him talk enough. I think people need a different option. Listening to Gary Johnson will bring the Kasich crowd in. There is a significant percent of republicans that will never vote trump. This is a great chance for the libertarian party to rise up. We'll see if they have the savvy.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd like their chances better if they had a charismatic candidate. Johnson just isn't it.