|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue. I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. My personal argument would be one of balance, you're having to choose between a centrist/slightly right wing candidate and a far right candidate, and I believe in a system where things go well, you should be able to choose between a left wing and a right wing candidate.
But that's not an issue of the political system but of the political body itself. America is generally more conservative that certain parts of Europe. It is also more progressive than certain parts of the Middle East. There are more voices in America than just liberal ones, and it makes it so that the best representative of the nation is one thats closer to an in between of those opinions. We don't just let half the country burn just because we have differing views than them.
For some this means that the country is too conservative. But I know many conservatives who complain that America is far too crazy left wing liberal right now. Do I agree with them? No, I don't. But I will not say they are factually wrong since these are relative values. I am of the opinion it could be more progressive, and they are of the opinion in can be more conservative. This does not mean that there is no liberal/conservative choice. Especially when you put local elections in the mix.
|
On October 13 2016 04:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue.
I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. Gun control is a farce in the nation beacuse the Pro gun control people make it a farce as much as the right does on abortion. Inequalities were much worse in the past and the middle class is being grown on a global scale undeniable as a result of globalization. And I would argue we've never been a democracy, democracy is really shitty and only marginally worse then aristocracy, and representative republics are a good compromise between the two. If you'd like to point out a better time on this particular issue I'd really be happy to hear about it.
Okay but if every other policy vote works in the same way as gun control vote works, why is it a farce? It's just the system working in the same way here as it does elsewhere. Your choice to view it as an isolated event seems counterintuitive in light of that Princeton study.
I'm not equipped to talk about inequalities of the past and inequalities of the present, I was just the messenger of this argument. If inequalities were worse in the past and if the middle class is stronger now, then of course this argument is wrong.
|
Ryan probably should have stuck with Donald, even though the race is over, for the sole reason that Donald now has an out to blame the establishment for his loss. He's going to go into right-wing media and the Republican schism is worsened.
|
On October 13 2016 04:38 Doodsmack wrote:
Ryan probably should have stuck with Donald, even though the race is over, for the sole reason that Donald now has an out to blame the establishment for his loss. He's going to go into right-wing media and the Republican schism is worsened.
The fact that Trump got the nomination meant that the GOP will schism. There is now far too much divide between the constituents and the party leaders. Having put most of their focus on local elections the past 8 years has allowed the conservatives to actually make huge changes to their party and we are starting to see the fruits of their labor.
|
On October 13 2016 04:38 Doodsmack wrote:
Ryan probably should have stuck with Donald, even though the race is over, for the sole reason that Donald now has an out to blame the establishment for his loss. He's going to go into right-wing media and the Republican schism is worsened.
I don't really see how that's a viable option. It's becoming increasingly obvious the republican party needs to start appealing to women and (or?) minorities if they're going to continue to win elections. Stick by Trump, especially if you credibly believe that the worst is yet to come, would just massively accelerate the demise of the Republican Party's ability to win simply through appealing to white men.
|
On October 13 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:
Anti bank is not anti establishment.
[quote] I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. Gun control is a farce in the nation beacuse the Pro gun control people make it a farce as much as the right does on abortion. Inequalities were much worse in the past and the middle class is being grown on a global scale undeniable as a result of globalization. And I would argue we've never been a democracy, democracy is really shitty and only marginally worse then aristocracy, and representative republics are a good compromise between the two. If you'd like to point out a better time on this particular issue I'd really be happy to hear about it. Okay but if every other policy vote works in the same way as gun control vote works, why is it a farce? It's just the system working in the same way here as it does elsewhere. Your choice to view it as an isolated event seems counterintuitive in light of that Princeton study. I'm not equipped to talk about inequalities of the past and inequalities of the present, I was just the messenger of this argument. If inequalities were worse in the past and if the middle class is stronger now, then of course this argument is wrong.
Gun control is a farce because the left is trying to create laws to stop already lawbreaking individuals. Is an isolated event because the motivations for it have nothing to do with guns but it scores easy points for the left. If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive.
I'm sorry if I'm aggressive about the middle class issue but its a shitty made up issue by the reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about.
|
On October 13 2016 04:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. Gun control is a farce in the nation beacuse the Pro gun control people make it a farce as much as the right does on abortion. Inequalities were much worse in the past and the middle class is being grown on a global scale undeniable as a result of globalization. And I would argue we've never been a democracy, democracy is really shitty and only marginally worse then aristocracy, and representative republics are a good compromise between the two. If you'd like to point out a better time on this particular issue I'd really be happy to hear about it. Okay but if every other policy vote works in the same way as gun control vote works, why is it a farce? It's just the system working in the same way here as it does elsewhere. Your choice to view it as an isolated event seems counterintuitive in light of that Princeton study. I'm not equipped to talk about inequalities of the past and inequalities of the present, I was just the messenger of this argument. If inequalities were worse in the past and if the middle class is stronger now, then of course this argument is wrong. Gun control is a farce because the left is trying to create laws to stop already lawbreaking individuals. Is an isolated event because the motivations for it have nothing to do with guns but it scores easy points for the left. If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive. I'm sorry if I'm aggressive about the middle class issue but its a shitty made up issue by the reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about.
Can you please unpack:
If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive
Because I'm a bit lost on how you got from point A to point B.
|
On October 13 2016 04:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. Gun control is a farce in the nation beacuse the Pro gun control people make it a farce as much as the right does on abortion. Inequalities were much worse in the past and the middle class is being grown on a global scale undeniable as a result of globalization. And I would argue we've never been a democracy, democracy is really shitty and only marginally worse then aristocracy, and representative republics are a good compromise between the two. If you'd like to point out a better time on this particular issue I'd really be happy to hear about it. Okay but if every other policy vote works in the same way as gun control vote works, why is it a farce? It's just the system working in the same way here as it does elsewhere. Your choice to view it as an isolated event seems counterintuitive in light of that Princeton study. I'm not equipped to talk about inequalities of the past and inequalities of the present, I was just the messenger of this argument. If inequalities were worse in the past and if the middle class is stronger now, then of course this argument is wrong. Gun control is a farce because the left is trying to create laws to stop already lawbreaking individuals. Is an isolated event because the motivations for it have nothing to do with guns but it scores easy points for the left. If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive. I'm sorry if I'm aggressive about the middle class issue but its a shitty made up issue by the reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about.
Okay, I didn't understand what you meant by farce, sorry. We're moving away from the point here though, I was talking about the complete disregard of the majority position of the voters and I used gun control as an example of that.
|
Gun safety laws and gun regulation is not something the left made up. The majority of Americans favor restrictions on gun sales, background checks and cross state data bases. The issue is a political football used to fire up 20% or so of the population that owns guns by claiming that they are going to be taken away. It has never been about punishing gun owners, but controlling the sale of new guns.
For reference, the standard line in the current election is that Clinton will take away gun owners guns. She has never made any claim as such, but it is still used as a talking point.
|
On October 13 2016 04:53 Plansix wrote:
Gun safety laws and gun regulation is not something the left made up. The majority of Americans favor restrictions on gun sales, background checks and cross state data bases. The issue is a political football used to fire up 20% or so of the population that owns guns by claiming that they are going to be taken away. It has never been about punishing gun owners, but controlling the sale of new guns.
For reference, the standard line in the current election is that Clinton will take away gun owners guns. She has never made any claim as such, but it is still used as a talking point.
My understanding is things like universal background checks are popular and have been shown to have a positive effect, but policies like assault weapon bans are unproven as effective policy and seem to be more about grandstanding (as in it could work, but it is unproven if it does).
|
The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
|
On October 13 2016 04:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post.
For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people."
If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. Gun control is a farce in the nation beacuse the Pro gun control people make it a farce as much as the right does on abortion. Inequalities were much worse in the past and the middle class is being grown on a global scale undeniable as a result of globalization. And I would argue we've never been a democracy, democracy is really shitty and only marginally worse then aristocracy, and representative republics are a good compromise between the two. If you'd like to point out a better time on this particular issue I'd really be happy to hear about it. Okay but if every other policy vote works in the same way as gun control vote works, why is it a farce? It's just the system working in the same way here as it does elsewhere. Your choice to view it as an isolated event seems counterintuitive in light of that Princeton study. I'm not equipped to talk about inequalities of the past and inequalities of the present, I was just the messenger of this argument. If inequalities were worse in the past and if the middle class is stronger now, then of course this argument is wrong. Gun control is a farce because the left is trying to create laws to stop already lawbreaking individuals. Is an isolated event because the motivations for it have nothing to do with guns but it scores easy points for the left. If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive. I'm sorry if I'm aggressive about the middle class issue but its a shitty made up issue by the reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about. Can you please unpack: Show nested quote +If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive Because I'm a bit lost on how you got from point A to point B.
So gun violence. Theres a proportion of them that come from general accidents (that could be solved through general education and PSA's about gun safty) Gun violence, and suicide/mass shootings. Gun violence as it pertains to "gang" or some other organized activity thats erstwhile already illegal in nature. Granted you have other reasons for gun violence but for the sake of this lets just say that thats a fourth portion thats much harder to get to then the first three.
Now Gun violence is related to the drug trade or other illegal crimes. Those people already don't care for following the law and are for the most part already unable to legally obtain guns. You can focus on the guns but they're really only the tool being used for the pursuit of other illegal activities and would probably be easily replaced by any other weapon (agreeably with less legality and accidental victims but thats not the point). These people are already breaking the law so adding new laws isn't going to stop them. Mental illness is a much more complex issue then what the result of it is. If someone tries to kill themselves with a gun or a knife the problem isn't that they're using either a gun or a knife at that point. Its that they've lost value for their own life and now want to end it. That they decide to take others with them isn't the fault of a gun as thats just another tool for them to use. If they wanted to kill a bunch of people with them they have many options up to them that you can't stop even other then guns. But suicide prevention and mental health are hard issues that would require complex policy such as asking people to watch each other for warning signs and to jeopardize peoples rights based on the perceived mental health of the person. Can you really argue for a strong mental health policy when the person has to make a sound decisions when their mental facilities are not sound or rational?
|
suicide/mass shootings
It's depressing that you group these two together.
Also what about domestic gun violence? My understanding is that's a significantly present type of gun violence.
|
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote:
The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
|
On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote:
The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors. But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it. Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
I don't understand this? There are many states already that have closed the private sale loophole. Are you saying these states are violating rights? Are you claiming their legislature is ineffective?
|
On October 13 2016 04:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 04:36 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:20 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect? My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight. However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment. Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. Okay so you're telling me that your argument was different from my account of it, but that you agree with my account of it anyway. I don't really think I misrepresented what you said with my account, I'm sorry if you think I have, but given that you agree it doesn't really matter, we can have this discussion. The statement that I bolded is true under the assumption that things are going well. The argument against it is that in America, this isn't the case. Maybe you don't agree with that argument, maybe you think America is doing excellent, but you cannot simply make that claim and move on, it needs to be discussed. Can you argue how things are not going well in america? I don't know what view of history you're taking but I see clear and steady progress on the majority of issues. The two main arguments that I've seen offered for this are: - Shifting from a democracy to an oligarchy (majority opinion on an issue doesn't matter, only the donors' opinions matter. This was based on a Princeton study that found there was a 0% correlation between public opinion and public policy, and you can find examples of that today with positions on gun control) - An increase of inequalities between the richer and the poorer in the society, and a shrinking of the middle class that is (I think?) related to it. Gun control is a farce in the nation beacuse the Pro gun control people make it a farce as much as the right does on abortion. Inequalities were much worse in the past and the middle class is being grown on a global scale undeniable as a result of globalization. And I would argue we've never been a democracy, democracy is really shitty and only marginally worse then aristocracy, and representative republics are a good compromise between the two. If you'd like to point out a better time on this particular issue I'd really be happy to hear about it. Okay but if every other policy vote works in the same way as gun control vote works, why is it a farce? It's just the system working in the same way here as it does elsewhere. Your choice to view it as an isolated event seems counterintuitive in light of that Princeton study. I'm not equipped to talk about inequalities of the past and inequalities of the present, I was just the messenger of this argument. If inequalities were worse in the past and if the middle class is stronger now, then of course this argument is wrong. Gun control is a farce because the left is trying to create laws to stop already lawbreaking individuals. Is an isolated event because the motivations for it have nothing to do with guns but it scores easy points for the left. If they focused on the war on drugs to stop drug dealers who cause the majority of regular gun related crimes they'd be soft on crime and mental illness is an ugly issue that would take time and social pressure thats politically expensive. I'm sorry if I'm aggressive about the middle class issue but its a shitty made up issue by the reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about.
Inequality is a shitty made up issue by reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about?
|
On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote:
The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors. But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it. Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
There are many constitutional rights that are limited. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's an unlimited right.
|
On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote:
The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors. But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it. Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?_r=0
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
|
I feel like wikileaks has done more good than harm to the DNC, albeit accidentally. Forced out the worst DNC chairman they could have picked and most of the leaks have basically painted Clinton in a better light than expected. The only person who seems threatened by this new leak is the new chair, who was likely to be awful.
|
On October 13 2016 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
I feel like wikileaks has done more good than harm to the DNC, albeit accidentally. Forced out the worst DNC chairman they could have picked and most of the leaks have basically painted Clinton in a better light than expected. The only person who seems threatened by this new leak is the new chair, who was likely to be awful.
Yeah, even I thought Clinton's speeches would be much worse than they were. It really frames this entire smear against her in a different light. Such an incredible amount of total bullshit contrived for many years for the single hope of preventing what Trump is now making a guarantee.
I mean the entire fact of the southern strategy leading to Hilary Clinton being president just blows my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
