|
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. |
Imagining if I were president; the media might go bankrupt from how boring it is, nothing to report on 
|
On February 09 2017 10:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 10:46 Plansix wrote:
I expect Sessions will do nothing damaging beyond aggressive indifference that board-lines on malice to civil rights issues. It is sort of amazing that he and Rick Perry are the nominees I had the fewest problems with. Tom Price? Mattis? Kelly? Shulkin? Zinke?
Mattis is acceptable, though I support civilian SoD. The rest are just stuff shirts or the wife of the Senate Majority leader. Trump got 3 that I don't consider dumpster fires or pure yes-men/women.
|
On February 09 2017 10:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 10:46 Plansix wrote:
I expect Sessions will do nothing damaging beyond aggressive indifference that board-lines on malice to civil rights issues. It is sort of amazing that he and Rick Perry are the nominees I had the fewest problems with. Tom Price? Mattis? Kelly? Shulkin? Zinke?
also Chao seems pretty solid. Only reason she wasn't unanimous was because of party politic stuff
we'll see on sessions. If he goes hard on marijuana I don't see that being popular.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sessions is going to enact a comprehensive agenda of religious fundamentalist revanchism. it's not going to be pretty.
keeping up procedure and appearances, that stuff is just overrated.
|
On February 09 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 10:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept. I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart. That's how it's done. You may want to look into what those disagreements on what the details are and come back and let us know what you find. Let me restate this to something more specific and actually important: was there a bill drafted and presented to the people being polled, did those people read that drafted bill and then vote if there were or weren't interested in that bill being passed? Is there ever, and even if there are, do you honestly think people appropriately process it? But for what it's worth, actual legislation did pass in NV.
I think you're missing the point. We're telling you the answer to your question.
"That" has not been passed yet because there is no "that". You cannot pass or vote on a bill for a vague concept. And when that stops being a vague concept is when the 90% statistic loses its meaning.
Now, if it were a more specific and more meaningful number, like "80% of Americans want people with criminal records to be denied gun licenses", then there'd be a discussion point.
|
I think some might be surprised to learn that I know lots of people with guns, and none of them have ever bought one that didn't involve a background check. Also, I can't shop for guns at the closest Gander Mountain without it being a PITA because its in a different state (but also only a few minutes away).
|
That doesn't mean anything; I don't currently own a firearm but I've literally seen one purchased without a background check in person. Ohio gun shows are fun. Michigan not as much.
|
On February 09 2017 11:32 cLutZ wrote:
I think some might be surprised to learn that I know lots of people with guns, and none of them have ever bought one that didn't involve a background check. Also, I can't shop for guns at the closest Gander Mountain without it being a PITA because its in a different state (but also only a few minutes away).
I'd be interested to know who would be surprised by that. and why they were surprised.
|
On February 09 2017 11:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 10:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks?
[quote]
And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept. I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart. That's how it's done. You may want to look into what those disagreements on what the details are and come back and let us know what you find. Let me restate this to something more specific and actually important: was there a bill drafted and presented to the people being polled, did those people read that drafted bill and then vote if there were or weren't interested in that bill being passed? Is there ever, and even if there are, do you honestly think people appropriately process it? But for what it's worth, actual legislation did pass in NV. I think you're missing the point. We're telling you the answer to your question. "That" has not been passed yet because there is no "that". You cannot pass or vote on a bill for a vague concept. And when that stops being a vague concept is when the 90% statistic loses its meaning. Now, if it were a more specific and more meaningful number, like "80% of Americans want people with criminal records to be denied gun licenses", then there'd be a discussion point.
Then the question I would ask is why aren't they getting it done. There seem to be some mysterious sticking points that no one actually knows but seem satisfactory for them to say it's why it's not getting written and passed.
Oh, and they did that. Pew asked if Americans supported expanding existing background checks to private transfers and gunshows. 85% support it.
|
Taking polls is easy. Governing and passing effective legislation is hard. Polls don't directly convert to 60 votes in the senate.
In the same vain, being a heckler is much easier than being a performer.
|
On February 09 2017 12:15 Plansix wrote:
Taking polls is easy. Governing and passing effective legislation is hard.
In the same vain, being a heckler is much easier than being a performer.
What is the hard part of passing legislation that says background checks will be extended to private transfers and gun sales? It sure as hell isn't convincing the American people it's a good idea.
Keep in mind this conversation is happening while 45 is ramming all sorts of stuff down America's throat without even having majority support from the American people. So the idea it's too hard doesn't sit well when compared to what Trump is trying without even having a majority of support let alone anywhere near 85%+
|
The senate and house of representatives exist. But other than that, it is super easy.
|
On February 09 2017 11:13 oneofthem wrote:
sessions is going to enact a comprehensive agenda of religious fundamentalist revanchism. it's not going to be pretty.
keeping up procedure and appearances, that stuff is just overrated.
The AG enacting this comprehensive agenda? You must be confusing him with a legislative appointment, or mean nothing more than "he might defend religious free expression more vociferously than past officials."
|
On February 09 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:
The senate and house of representatives exist. But other than that, it is super easy.
Well then we agree, the major obstacle to universal background checks is Congress and their corporate sponsors.
|
On February 09 2017 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 11:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 10:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back.
The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised.
[quote]
The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept. I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart. That's how it's done. You may want to look into what those disagreements on what the details are and come back and let us know what you find. Let me restate this to something more specific and actually important: was there a bill drafted and presented to the people being polled, did those people read that drafted bill and then vote if there were or weren't interested in that bill being passed? Is there ever, and even if there are, do you honestly think people appropriately process it? But for what it's worth, actual legislation did pass in NV. I think you're missing the point. We're telling you the answer to your question. "That" has not been passed yet because there is no "that". You cannot pass or vote on a bill for a vague concept. And when that stops being a vague concept is when the 90% statistic loses its meaning. Now, if it were a more specific and more meaningful number, like "80% of Americans want people with criminal records to be denied gun licenses", then there'd be a discussion point. Then the question I would ask is why aren't they getting it done. There seem to be some mysterious sticking points that no one actually knows but seem satisfactory for them to say it's why it's not getting written and passed. Oh, and they did that. Pew asked if Americans supported expanding existing background checks to private transfers and gunshows. 85% support it.
Well, after a brief Google, this is apparently a state level regulation?
|
On February 09 2017 12:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:
The senate and house of representatives exist. But other than that, it is super easy. Well then we agree, the major obstacle to universal background checks is Congress and their corporate sponsors.
And all those voters that disagree with each and other states, or simply don't want to pay for a new program.
There are many road blocks in the way from turning a simple pool into a political reality.
|
It can be but it was pushed for being a federal level regulation after sandy hook but there was never definitive word sent around about what exactly the universal background check system would be (the background checks you get now are a joke basically) and the momentum for it was squandered in NRA disinformation. Incidentally this was also where the term "assault weapon" was invented and the word still hasn't gotten around what that means either.
|
On February 09 2017 12:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 12:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:
The senate and house of representatives exist. But other than that, it is super easy. Well then we agree, the major obstacle to universal background checks is Congress and their corporate sponsors. And all those voters that disagree with each and other states, or simply don't want to pay for a new program. There are many road blocks in the way from turning a simple pool into a political reality.
You mean the ~10-15% who disagree with the overwhelming majority?
Yet there go Republicans. Sooner or later Democrats are going to learn that the party simply sucks at fighting(I'd suggest because it was mostly for show the whole time anyway). They have ~80% of Republicans on their side and they still can't win, meanwhile virtually no Democrats agree with Trump and a healthy amount of Republicans also disagree, yet he's able to get his way. Hell he's ready to make an unprecedented move in trying to take away the ACA without even replacing it (something like 25% support of that idea).
One day y'all will get tired of making excuses for ineffectual Democrats.
|
That is the real problem. Any reasonable law that is crafted will be smothered under the weight of NRA disinformation and straight up lies. It is disappointing and hopefully the public catches on. But until then, they will all get rich selling assault weapons on the boarder to Mexico.
On February 09 2017 12:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 12:27 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 12:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:
The senate and house of representatives exist. But other than that, it is super easy. Well then we agree, the major obstacle to universal background checks is Congress and their corporate sponsors. And all those voters that disagree with each and other states, or simply don't want to pay for a new program. There are many road blocks in the way from turning a simple pool into a political reality. Yet there go Republicans. Sooner or later Democrats are going to learn that the party simply sucks at fighting(I'd suggest because it was mostly for show the whole time anyway). They have ~80% of Republicans on their side and they still can't win, meanwhile virtually no Democrats agree with Trump and a healthy amount of Republicans also disagree, yet he's able to get his way. Hell he's ready to make an unprecedented move in trying to take away the ACA without even replacing it (something like 25% support of that idea). One day y'all will get tired of making excuses for ineffectual Democrats.
I already got tired. I'm over it. There is no reason to work with Republicans any more or even bother trying. Bi-partisanship is dead for the foreseeable future. My grandfather's party died in the mid 90s and I didn't notice.
You were right about trying to work with Republicans, its a waste of time and hurts the message. The Democrats have been wrong on the for 16 years or longer. I don't blame them, they wanted to be optimistic about people and kept getting burned. But they should have learned earlier.
But here we are and I hope the GOP gets everything they want. Especially the wall. I want that 32 billion dollar nightmare hanging around their neck for the next 10 years.
|
On February 09 2017 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 12:15 Plansix wrote:
Taking polls is easy. Governing and passing effective legislation is hard.
In the same vain, being a heckler is much easier than being a performer. What is the hard part of passing legislation that says background checks will be extended to private transfers and gun sales? It sure as hell isn't convincing the American people it's a good idea. Keep in mind this conversation is happening while 45 is ramming all sorts of stuff down America's throat without even having majority support from the American people. So the idea it's too hard doesn't sit well when compared to what Trump is trying without even having a majority of support let alone anywhere near 85%+
it's not just about how many people feel about something, it's about how much each of them feel. a small number of people who'll change their votes based on an issue do far more than a large number who think it sounds nice but won't change their votes for it or seriously care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
