US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9936

On February 18 2018 04:57 Doodsmack wrote:
He registered the MAGA trademark in 2012, made an announcement in 2011 saying that he almost ran for president but decided not to, and tweeted in 2014 about running for president and “MAGA.” So what does it say that he would tweet such a blatant lie?

On February 19 2018 01:25 a_flayer wrote:
Here's a question: how many people still think the Russians hacked, modified and released the Macron e-mails in an attempt to sway the French elections?

I saw this being mentioned on MSNBC a few days or weeks ago by a NYT reporter (who shows up there regularly) as if it was an unambiguous fact, rather than mere speculation that can't be confirmed or denied by the French cybersecurity agency based on the lack of evidence.

During a tense interview aired Sunday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) again rejected many Floridians’ criticism that certain gun control laws would have prevented Wednesday’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

He also defended his ties to the National Rifle Association, and blamed congressional inaction regarding such mass shootings on “people just mov[ing] on.”

Rubio hasn’t personally attempted to address mass shootings through legislation, he said, because “we don’t fully understand everything that could’ve been done to prevent this.”

Much of the mourning following the shooting at Stoneman Douglas, which left 17 dead and more injured, transformed with surprising speed into passionate political advocacy. And, perhaps aside from President Donald Trump, more of that passion has been directed at Rubio, a large beneficiary of the gun lobby’s support, than anyone else.

“I see this reported, it’s unfair, I’ve never said we can’t do anything,” Rubio said, repeating a point he made on the Senate floor Thursday. He added: “What I have said is that the proposals out there would not have prevented it, and that’s a fact.”

WFOR’s Jim DeFede asked Rubio about his vote against legislation to ban magazines that hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition.

Rubio said there wasn’t any evidence the ban would prevent mass shootings, and added that “there are legitimate reasons why people want those–”

“What is a legitimate reason for an AR-15 to be able to have 30 or 50 rounds in a clip,” DeFede interjected.

“Well, first of all, they don’t have 50. The second reason is people that are in– whether it’s sport shooting, or, for example they are used in hunting, I heard somebody say yesterday that they’re not.”

“And so the rationale is that they use those, and if you have to reload every time, it would affect either the sport shooting aspect or the hunting aspect,” he continued. “Now, the details of that bill had other things in it that were beyond the magazine capacity.”

The senator pointed, as he did several times, to a 2015 Washington Post fact check that concluded: “It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.”

Asked about a ban on guns like the AR-15, the semi-automatic assault rifle alleged to have been used in Parkland, Rubio said: “Number one, the law would not prevent these mass shootings. Number two, there are millions of them in the street already. They’re here to stay. The genie’s out of the bottle.”

He added: “That said, do I believe it should be harder to get one? Do I believe it should be impossible for someone to get one if they are under the condition that the shooter was in Parkland? Absolutely. And one of the problems we have there is we don’t have the complete mental health picture in the background check system.”

Rubio brought up that same point later in the interview: “I don’t think people like this guy or people like him should have any gun. Not an AR-15, any gun. We need to create a system that keeps them from getting it. We don’t have one now that does that. That’s what I’m in favor of.”

“So who’s going to take the lead on that?” DeFede pressed. “Are you?

“I’m prepared to take the lead, and others are–” Rubio began.

DeFede tried again: “Am I going to see a Rubio bill about this?”

“You should,” Rubio said. “You should.”

“But will I?”

“What I’m trying to tell you is that I don’t have that bill yet. Because we don’t fully understand everything that could’ve been done to prevent this,” he said, adding that it was “not a simple thing like there’s one idea and if you do this one thing, this’ll never happen again.”

“We need to take the time — and not forever — but we need to take time to understand what that is,” he said.

Rubio said later that Congress needed to “come up with ideas — not just one, but many, that solve this,” noting that the Senate had tried to address gun control in 2013 and failed.

“Okay, that’s five years ago, and how many mass shootings have we had since then?” DeFede asked.

“Several,” Rubio said. “And why hasn’t it? I don’t know the answer. Part of it, I think, is people just move on. The news moves on, society moves on, and politicians move on.”

Multiple times in the interview, DeFede Brought up the NRA, at one point saying Rubio’s continents believed he wouldn’t make progress on gun legislation “in part because you don’t want to anger the NRA.”

“First of all, they support my agenda, I don’t support theirs,” he replied. “These are the things I stand for and I always have. So it is logical in American politics that if you believe in a certain set of ideas, the people who support the ideas will advocate on your behalf, and by the way, the people that are against it would advocate against you.”

There is one gun control measure Rubio told DeFede he supports, one he wouldn’t have to vote on it either way: a state level proposal to allow police, with a judge’s order, to remove guns from the homes of individuals suspected of being mentally unfit to handle them.

“That is an example of a state law, that in this case, if it has been used could have prevented this,” the senator said.

On February 19 2018 08:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Rubio says:

He added: “That said, do I believe it should be harder to get one? Do I believe it should be impossible for someone to get one if they are under the condition that the shooter was in Parkland? Absolutely. And one of the problems we have there is we don’t have the complete mental health picture in the background check system.”

I have pushed that lines with my white gun loving facebook friends I grew up with. Zero traction. When I say "increased forms, regulations, and rules comparable to current CCW licensing in may issue states", they hear BAN ALL GUNS HILLARY GOING TO TAKE MY PENIS WHY YOU LET BLACKS KILL CHILDREN. This isn't about the NRA. Guns are central to white identity at this point and discussing basic licensing requirements is on par with castration.

On February 19 2018 09:33 Slaughter wrote:
White identity is such a vague and broad term that saying guns are part of it is pretty silly.

President Donald Trump appeared unsure how to read polling data properly after sharing the results of a survey that shows Democrats leading a generic 2018 Congressional matchup—with the president boasting that the GOP was ahead.

The strange observation came on Sunday, when the president tweeted that the Republican Party had made a “big gain” and was leading in the Generic Congressional Ballot—which it was not.

“Great Pollster John McLaughlin now has the GOP up in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Big gain over last 4 weeks. I guess people are loving the big Tax Cuts given them by the Republicans, the Cuts the Dems want to take away. We need more Republicans!” Trump wrote, appearing to misquote the very poll to which he was referring.

On February 19 2018 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:


How so?

On February 19 2018 09:33 Slaughter wrote:
White identity is such a vague and broad term that saying guns are part of it is pretty silly.

On February 19 2018 09:41 iamthedave wrote:


Well it would be if so many white folks didn't clearly think that guns are part of their identity.

I'm curious and I'm sure one of you can answer this: I keep hearing that the worst school shootings have happened in states with the toughest gun laws. Is that true, and if it is, does it actually support the logic put out by the right that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun? (I'm aware that in almost no cases has someone shot a perpetrator before they actually started mowing people down, but still)

On February 19 2018 09:40 Slaughter wrote:


Because it is too broad a term. Just like saying black identity. These aren't monolithic groups. You could say "rural white identity" to get more specific for example.

On February 19 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


Fair enough. Just don't think I've seen you make that same clarification regarding black identity/culture before, so I wanted to be sure.

On February 19 2018 10:16 Slaughter wrote:


Even Anthropology itself is moving past the culture concept because they are finding it to be an increasingly useless and bloated tern.

On February 19 2018 09:33 Slaughter wrote:
White identity is such a vague and broad term that saying guns are part of it is pretty silly.