|
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 05:07 Logo wrote: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.
I couldn't find anything past precenatges of domestic violence is as a result of a gun but it was statisticaly signifigant in the years I found.
On October 13 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote: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?
Are you referring to the gun show loophole or people selling guns to known criminals with their intent to use it in crimes? Either is probably good to ban but I wouldn't consider gun shows being more then informal private sales. I would argue its hard to prove which is a "friend to friend" sale and which is a "get around the background check law" sale.
On October 13 2016 05:11 IgnE 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. Inequality is a shitty made up issue by reactionaries that don't consider non Americans as people to care about?
The "middle class" in america was always for the most part the working poor its just that people are realizing it as the rest of the world catches up at a rapid rate compared to america. The rich are getting richer because they can take advantage of the greater numbers of poor people as they've always been able to take advantage of poor people. That its a major or even a minor crisis for america is whats a shitty issue.
On October 13 2016 05:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote: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.
I'm not saying the second amendment is unlimited I'm asking the person I'm quoting who gets to decide who gets their constitutional rights removed and how does that get enforced. the no fly list is a patriot act creation that is fuels by general suspicion and shouldn't be used to limit or remove peoples constitutional rights under any circumstances. The right to use a plane isn't one but the right to bear arms is.
|
Agreed. If anything it is humanizing the DNC, as the reporters seem more interested in the cooking than the day to day drudgery of running a political organization. Anyone who works at an office knows that most email is boring.
|
DWS being unseated was probably the most consequential result of the leaks. A result I'm sure a lot of us welcome.
|
did someone already link the explanation from the NYT on why the LAT poll is so drastically different than everything else?
www.nytimes.com
Pretty fun read, long story short: so apparently they have really detailed age brackets such as 18-21 year olds. But not just that but it's 18-21 year old, male, black people. And they have exactly 1 guy from Illinois who represents that group who gets weighted up like crazy to represent the entirety of how big that group would usually be.
And he's a Trump supporter. So basicly LAT works under the assumption that 18-21 year old black people all vote Republican. Or at least that's one part of the issue but that's the more hilarious one
|
On October 13 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote: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=0So 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'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
|
On October 13 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote:
DWS being unseated was probably the most consequential result of the leaks. A result I'm sure a lot of us welcome.
She seemed like a real piece of work and not very well liked. There will be a great book on how she stayed in power for so long. I bet that the fact she was a rep from Florida, the state that cost them the 2000 election, was a factor.
|
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:
The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns. None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged. Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
Hillary (and Bill) have had pretty consistent political platforms and positions across the years.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
On the other side, it's pretty clear that Trump doesn't give a fuck and doesn't even believe his own words.
As for GH, it's just that he has decided to demonize Clinton and make her the equal of Trump because he is further left than her and is butthurt that she won Saners by 2,5 million votes. He's therefore decided she was the worse person on earth.
|
On October 13 2016 05:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote:
DWS being unseated was probably the most consequential result of the leaks. A result I'm sure a lot of us welcome. She seemed like a real piece of work and not very well liked. There will be a great book on how she stayed in power for so long. I bet that the fact she was a rep from Florida, the state that cost them the 2000 election, was a factor.
And despite making as many enemies as she did, it seems that the effort by Bernie Sanders to force her out met with a rather massive resistance.
|
On October 13 2016 05:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote: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=0So 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'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary. What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
That rule on the CDC was passed in the 90s. It has been almost 20 years and I doubt may of the people who worked there still do. This is the arguments I am talking about. You say you are for gun control, but then we get an endless line of what-about-the-left. You bring up an agencies actions from nearly 20 years ago and assume we can never let them do research again because of that.
How about this, no new laws for 4 years, but we fund every agency and remove all restrictions on collecting data on gun violence and gun sales?
|
On October 13 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 00:14 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? I think you need to review the quote. Let me rephrase this in a way you might understand: Are you mad at Obama that his FBI and Justice department let a criminal go free? When you allege a miscarriage of justice, the plain meaning is under a different administration, the internal corruption wouldn't have held sway over the investigation. For the rest of it, people should open their ears to the part when Trump called for an independent investigator/special prosecutor. That point was the very one I wanted my elected representatives to push for when the story broke. I even heard from people in this thread justifying giving Hillary preferential treatment before the law given its impact on the election process who admit a low-ranking official would be put on trial and deserve it. I'd have a lot more sympathy if Democrats showed the same concern to abusing the legal process against people like David Daleiden, Scott Walker, and the broad threats of jail made against climate change deniers. If one shocks and offends and the other gets zero media attention and zero outrage, I'd say the real problem is partisanship. See my post to Biologymajor. Where is the Congressional appointed special prosecutor? 100+ ACA votes, 7 Benghazi investigations. Why is it that the Republicans have only tried to do Emailghazi through the FBI? If it is so obvious that the FBI and Obama are protecting Hillary why has Congress not acted with the power they hold?
For the cheap seats, this is why I've criticized Congress for acting cravenly and part of why Congressional approval ratings are so low. They're fine taking meaningless ACA repeat votes and grandstand in Benghazi hearings, but when it comes to legitimate and necessary action they're nowhere to be found. Vote them out starting with the leadership.
Trump Ad. 26 days until election.
|
Are you referring to the gun show loophole or people selling guns to known criminals with their intent to use it in crimes? Either is probably good to ban but I wouldn't consider gun shows being more then informal private sales. I would argue its hard to prove which is a "friend to friend" sale and which is a "get around the background check law" sale.
I understood it as all one and the same. That the federal law does not require private sellers to perform background checks whether that's you selling a gun to your buddy, or doing so at a gun show to strangers. My understanding of "Private Seller" is anyone who sells guns, but not as a primary business.
In this case there's no distinguishing between "friend to friend" and "get around background check law" sales. If you sell/transfer a gun without doing it properly you are breaking the law and could be held accountable. My understanding is the way it works in states without private sales is you have to make the sale through a dealer rather than directly person to person.
|
On October 13 2016 05:28 Sermokala wrote:
I'm not saying the second amendment is unlimited I'm asking the person I'm quoting who gets to decide who gets their constitutional rights removed and how does that get enforced. the no fly list is a patriot act creation that is fuels by general suspicion and shouldn't be used to limit or remove peoples constitutional rights under any circumstances. The right to use a plane isn't one but the right to bear arms is.
I don't see how this is somehow a unique, perplexing, or otherwise difficult problem. This same issue comes up with any type of limitation that is made by the law.
Who can or can't vote?
Who can say what, when can they say it, and where can they say it?
Who can own a car?
Who can have what on their property?
There are plenty of other examples, but you see my point. Guns aren't some kind of special issue in this regard. The only thing "special" about them is how irrationally attached some people are to their guns.
|
During a meeting ahead of the final debate in Las Vegas, 25 conservative Hispanic leaders will convene to chart the way forward for a tarnished Republican Party and Latinos. They feel betrayed by Priebus, who promised to be their partner.
MIAMI — Latino leaders believe the party’s November reckoning should have serious consequences — starting, for two dozen of them, with Chairman Reince Priebus’s resignation.
Ahead of the final debate in Las Vegas next week, prominent Republican Latinos will meet at the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino. That meeting will officially be about charting a way forward for Republicans and Hispanics after what they expect will be Election Day carnage caused by Donald Trump, but there’s another major item on the agenda.
“We’re calling for the head of Reince Priebus,” said Artemio Muniz, chair of the Texas Federation of Hispanic Republicans, and one of the organizers of the conclave. “Someone has to pay for the death of Santino, like in the Godfather.”
In interviews, the Republicans said they feel “betrayed” by Priebus, who in meetings after the much ballyhooed but ultimately abandoned Growth and Opportunity Project in 2012, said he would be an ally in accomplishing immigration legislation.
“Reince told us he would call out whoever used extreme rhetoric on immigration, of course we feel betrayed,” Muniz said.
The line the Latino conservatives repeated as their argument for Priebus’s failures is that while Trump calls for “extreme vetting” of immigrants, the party was unable or unwilling to vet a candidate whose candidacy is in danger of falling apart after a damaging video was released that showed him bragging about forcibly kissing women and sexually assaulting them.
A new NBC News–WSJ poll, the first major poll released after the tape, showed Trump behind Clinton a whopping 11 points, after the race had previously tightened.
The group, whose members hail from 10 states including Texas, Colorado, California, New Mexico, and Nevada, will also discuss the creation of Project 44, an effort to embrace the inclusive values and policies that helped George W. Bush win 44% of the Latino vote.
The nascent initiative is seen as a repudiation of the traditional way the party has engaged Latinos, with members of the group arguing that outreach has been very superficial, focused on elections, and not breaking through to local communities.
“Too many Hispanics are doing piñata politics,” said Alfonso Aguilar, who briefly endorsed Trump before abandoning him after his speech on illegal immigration in Arizona and will attend the meeting. “Here’s the mariachi, here’s the candidate, ‘Yeah, viva Bush!’ We need more substantive conversations.”
The group says they want to work more closely with donors to educate them on where their resources are going when it comes to reaching Hispanics but much of it, ultimately, will come down to securing a “reasonable solution to immigration and understanding that mass deportation is not an answer,” Muniz said.
The conversation will undoubtedly have its awkward moments, with current and former members of Trump’s floundering Hispanic advisory council at the meeting.
Source
|
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
I'm not "certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman". I'm just starting with the view that "if the absolutely most pessimistic possible view of Hillary Clinton is still better than Donald Trump, then the truth (which is somewhere in between the story she tells and what her detractors say about her) is going to be far better than Trump".
I'm merely working with "Hillary is a completely selfish, corrupt dirtbag" as a baseline to evaluate decision-making beyond that point. If she's not one, good for her, but we don't need to assume the best about Hillary to come to the conclusion that she'll be better than Trump. We can assume the worst and that'd still be the case.
|
On October 13 2016 05:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:35 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote:
DWS being unseated was probably the most consequential result of the leaks. A result I'm sure a lot of us welcome. She seemed like a real piece of work and not very well liked. There will be a great book on how she stayed in power for so long. I bet that the fact she was a rep from Florida, the state that cost them the 2000 election, was a factor. And despite making as many enemies as she did, it seems that the effort by Bernie Sanders to force her out met with a rather massive resistance.
She has (had?) a lot of leverage. I remember reading Obama wanted to push her out but decided it wasn't worth it.
|
On October 13 2016 05:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2016 00:14 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? I think you need to review the quote. Let me rephrase this in a way you might understand: Are you mad at Obama that his FBI and Justice department let a criminal go free? When you allege a miscarriage of justice, the plain meaning is under a different administration, the internal corruption wouldn't have held sway over the investigation. For the rest of it, people should open their ears to the part when Trump called for an independent investigator/special prosecutor. That point was the very one I wanted my elected representatives to push for when the story broke. I even heard from people in this thread justifying giving Hillary preferential treatment before the law given its impact on the election process who admit a low-ranking official would be put on trial and deserve it. I'd have a lot more sympathy if Democrats showed the same concern to abusing the legal process against people like David Daleiden, Scott Walker, and the broad threats of jail made against climate change deniers. If one shocks and offends and the other gets zero media attention and zero outrage, I'd say the real problem is partisanship. See my post to Biologymajor. Where is the Congressional appointed special prosecutor? 100+ ACA votes, 7 Benghazi investigations. Why is it that the Republicans have only tried to do Emailghazi through the FBI? If it is so obvious that the FBI and Obama are protecting Hillary why has Congress not acted with the power they hold? For the cheap seats, this is why I've criticized Congress for acting cravenly and part of why Congressional approval ratings are so low. They're fine taking meaningless ACA repeat votes and grandstand in Benghazi hearings, but when it comes to legitimate and necessary action they're nowhere to be found. Vote them out starting with the leadership. Trump Ad. 26 days until election. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/786204978629185536
I like how this ad not-so-subtly hints that the only way for someone to become rich is to have money to start with even though that really digs away at Trump's whole selling point of being a self made successful business man.
In terms of the leaks one of the most interesting to me was some talk about Warren and how it might seem like special interests are keeping her from being a more prominent figure in the party.
|
On October 13 2016 05:42 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man. I'm not "certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman". I'm just starting with the view that "if the absolutely most pessimistic possible view of Hillary Clinton is still better than Donald Trump, then the truth (which is somewhere in between the story she tells and what her detractors say about her) is going to be far better than Trump". I'm merely working with "Hillary is a completely selfish, corrupt dirtbag" as a baseline to evaluate decision-making beyond that point. If she's not one, good for her, but we don't need to assume the best about Hillary to come to the conclusion that she'll be better than Trump. We can assume the worst and that'd still be the case.
Ok, i misunderstood. Agree, of course..
|
On October 13 2016 05:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote: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=0So 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'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary. What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
The public and/or the government has access to countless lists, e.g.
Where basically everyone lives
Anyone that owns a car
Anyone that has any number of licenses to practice a particular profession
Anyone that has committed a crime
Anyone that's done any federal service
Anyone that's traveled to certain places
And, again, I could go on and on, but the point is that "the government having a list is scary" is a ridiculous argument. The government has lists of people for all kinds of purposes in relation to all kinds of things. Being scared of a list of registered gun owners is nothing but paranoia considering that the government can already find you in countless other ways.
|
On October 13 2016 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On October 13 2016 05:35 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote:
DWS being unseated was probably the most consequential result of the leaks. A result I'm sure a lot of us welcome. She seemed like a real piece of work and not very well liked. There will be a great book on how she stayed in power for so long. I bet that the fact she was a rep from Florida, the state that cost them the 2000 election, was a factor. And despite making as many enemies as she did, it seems that the effort by Bernie Sanders to force her out met with a rather massive resistance. She has (had?) a lot of leverage. I remember reading Obama wanted to push her out but decided it wasn't worth it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in knowing more about that.
|
On October 13 2016 05:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 05:35 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote: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=0So 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'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary. What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate. The public and/or the government has access to countless lists, e.g. Where basically everyone lives Anyone that owns a car Anyone that has any number of licenses to practice a particular profession Anyone that has committed a crime Anyone that's done any federal service Anyone that's traveled to certain places And, again, I could go on and on, but the point is that "the government having a list is scary" is a ridiculous argument. The government has lists of people for all kinds of purposes in relation to all kinds of things. Being scared of a list of registered gun owners is nothing but paranoia considering that the government can already find you in countless other ways.
And in the era of google maps and Facebook, it is hard to see a reason to fear a list like that existing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
