Election 2016

[erik]

I doubt that having access to guns would even prevent murder from robbers, thrill-killers and the like anyways. If someone wants your ass dead, then you better believe that you will not be able to handle someone who wants to see you fucking dead.

You can doubt it all you want, but it's just simply true. Having less guns in society makes people in that society safer. Even where it doesn't reduce the rate of suicide attempts and assaults, it makes people survive those actions much more of the time. Because almost any situation you could possibly be in is less likely to kill you than being hit with a bullet.

I almost made a similar reply but then re-read acidblades' post a couple more times. He's saying that having a gun is still not a realistic protection against murderers and robbers (as gun nuts tend to claim that they have their weapons for protection).

[Maxus]

I doubt that having access to guns would even prevent murder from robbers, thrill-killers and the like anyways. If someone wants your ass dead, then you better believe that you will not be able to handle someone who wants to see you fucking dead.

You can doubt it all you want, but it's just simply true. Having less guns in society makes people in that society safer. Even where it doesn't reduce the rate of suicide attempts and assaults, it makes people survive those actions much more of the time. Because almost any situation you could possibly be in is less likely to kill you than being hit with a bullet.

I almost made a similar reply but then re-read acidblades' post a couple more times. He's saying that having a gun is still not a realistic protection against murderers and robbers (as gun nuts tend to claim that they have their weapons for protection).

It's true enough. Most police officers who are shot, are killed in blindside attacks where they didn't even get to pull their guns.

[ishy]

I should point out that Australia didn't have the same gun culture, didn't have the nearly as many guns, didn't have constitutional protections for gun ownership and didn't have the paranoid cold dead hands militia contingent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

[RobbyPants]

I should point out that Australia didn't have the same gun culture, didn't have the nearly as many guns, didn't have constitutional protections for gun ownership and didn't have the paranoid cold dead hands militia contingent.

Are you saying we should placate them more or less than we do, now?

I suspect that level of gun control in the United States would result in more mass shootings, not less. As many people would take it as a sign that the UN NWO Communist Sharia takeover is imminent. It also wouldn't last, and would be overturned by the courts long before it was actually implemented.

What makes you think it would result in more mass shootings or that it would be overturned?

Measures targeted at mentally ill people, however, do have broad public support.

This is likely because before anyone mentions actionable specifics, it sounds like a great way to only stop the bad people without stopping the good people.

[RobbyPants]

It's true enough. Most police officers who are shot, are killed in blindside attacks where they didn't even get to pull their guns.

I've heard that if you have a loaded gun, the other guy has a knife, and you are fully aware of him, you still need to be over thirty feet away to be able to reliably stop them before they cut you. And that's not even counting being blindsided.

The amount of diligence it would take to be in that state of readiness would be inhuman, and would certainly result in unnecessary shootings.

[AcidBlades]

There is simply no reason to not have gun-control. Any sort of revolution is frankly more or less impossible, due to simply how complacent we all are. There is simply no major insenstive for radical action, and if there was one. Then people would be able to arm themselves up enough anyways, so potential harm that could be done from having guns out and about everywhere would be utterly pointless, due to the fact that you'll get yourself murdered anyway with any sort of weapon if someone has the jump on you, and you'd probably be more likely to shot at your own family if you get real pissed off anyways.

If there is a time where revolution is necessary, I don't doubt that we'll be armed for that force to be something to be reckoned with, alas I'm afraid it'll be a right-wing fascist revolution than a left-wing one. People are simply comfortable with what they got, and we are all a bunch of douchebags anyways. So human general shittiness is another reason to strengthen up gun control. EVEN if we are also run by douche-bags themselves.

The only question here is. How could we stop a right-wing revolution in the future? That is something that I'm getting rather paranoid about honestly. It is simply a lot easier to rile someone up against an "other" if that "other" is something more easily identifiable than what they wear instead of what skin-color they are. This reason alone is why, despite everything. I wouldn't want guns to be totally obliterated from civilian hands.

[erik]

The only question here is. How could we stop a right-wing revolution in the future? That is something that I'm getting rather paranoid about honestly. It is simply a lot easier to rile someone up against an "other" if that "other" is something more easily identifiable than what they wear instead of what skin-color they are. This reason alone is why, despite everything. I wouldn't want guns to be totally obliterated from civilian hands.

You sure as hell won't stop anything with a militia. All a modern militia is capable of is intimidation of other civilians.

[AcidBlades]

You sure as hell won't stop anything with a militia. All a modern militia is capable of is intimidation of other civilians.

This is generally in the event that the government breaks down for some reason or another. I believe that it's very possible that there will be a revolt in the future of around 2030-2050 or so. Simply due to the mass deaths in China, SouthEast Asia, and Japan due to how bad global warming would get. All of that flooding and starvation and the fact that we don't have people who'd slave away at the crap that we have. Would make people's greedy, gluttonous lips moiston to the point of wanting more and more. Hell if a nuclear holocaust doesn't happen, then it is important that there would be a militia of generally left-wing liberals that would help keep the concept of liberalism alive and well into the dark future where people's instincts will naturally turn over to nationalism. Jim crow laws and the like will be reinstated, and there is simply a need to at least establish some sort of Democratic Republicanism in the face of social darwninism.

Think about this, the majority of people with power would be the ones who browses sites like /pol/ and 8chan. That is something that I believe is very plausible. The very fact that one of them got really pissed off whenever I replied "the jews" to their remark about how the X-men captures the essence of racial supremacy despite being hated. Is something that we will have to deal with in the future.

At that point, even trained soldiers would be little more than Mad-Max sorts of raiders that protect their own. We will all be civvies in the next war and being able to establish a sense of normalcy in the event of chaos and fascism. Is something that I believe should be something to at least consider.

[Maj]

I almost made a similar reply but then re-read acidblades' post a couple more times. He's saying that having a gun is still not a realistic protection against murderers and robbers (as gun nuts tend to claim that they have their weapons for protection).

Thanks for clearing that up. I obviously missed it.

[Kaelik]

On the subject of the NRA, Frank from 2012:

Now that is a reasonable discussion to have. The Left had mostly given up on gun control the last few years on the grounds that the gun lobby was simply too powerful and well funded and there were other fights to have that were either more important (healthcare reform) or easier to win (marriage equality), or both (energy independence). But it's important to understand that Realpolitik is not the same as wisdom and moderation. The fact that you're giving up on a fight on issue X to focus on issues Y and Z doesn't mean that the other side is right on issue X or even that some sort of middle ground on issue X is anything but an atrocity. It only means that you had some tactical reason to work on issues Y and Z to the exclusion of working on issue X.

The thinking wasn't that "maybe the NRA are halfway right", the NRA are still fucking crazy. Their "moms with guns" thing is literally exactly why and how the Connecticut shooting happened. Ending the assault weapons ban specifically and demonstrably led to the deaths of innocent people, including children. The thinking was that the NRA was dangerous enough politically that it just wasn't worth fighting them. But a funny thing happened: Obama basically gave them what they said they wanted and they fought him anyway. The NRA spent big on this election and did very poorly. Less than 1% of the NRA's money this cycle went to candidates that actually won.

What this means is that the NRA is actually a paper tiger. First of all, it's not negotiating in good faith, because even when Obama doesn't do a god damn thing to them they throw over nine million dollars to Mitt Romney. But secondly, who gives a crap? Yes, the gun lobby gives millions of dollars to Republicans, but if those Republicans don't win, then what exactly are we afraid of? Even though the Democrats didn't say shit about gun control, the NRA went ahead and claimed that the 2012 election was a referendum on gun control anyway. And guess what? The NRA lost almost every election they stuck their dick in on, so where's my fucking gun control?

The truth is that there is only any reason to negotiate with someone if they are willing to negotiate in turn. The reality is that the gun activists will continue to rant about how the negro president is getting the United nations to take their guns away no matter what he does. Letting them have their precious murder sticks gets you nothing. Their rhetoric, their spending, and ultimately their marginalization don't change if you give them the things they say they want.

For a long time, the Left has resigned itself to moping about as gun deaths rack up by the dozens every single day and tragedy after tragedy is punctuated by shrill conservatives shouting that each time is not the time to talk about gun control. But this time, when Meet The Press sent out invitations to all 31 "pro gun" senators to participate in their talking head roundup, every single one of them refused the invitation. Not one sentaor was willing to go on Meet The Press to reiterate the old tired talking points about how dead children was no reason to restrict access to the weapons used to kill children. This time it really seems to be different. And I think it's different because of Bob Costas. Not because he managed to get a national conversation about guns started, but because he was shouted down not very long ago. It's simply too fresh in peoples' minds that he was shouted down about how it was "not the right time" to talk about gun violence this month. And now that shrill demand for an endless tabling of the issue rings hollow. Hollower than it normally does even.

-Username17

Pretty much every part of that applies equally as much today. Except of course the optimism that things will change. We've had 4 years to prove that even with absolutely no reason to let people keep their murder weapons, absolutely no one will actually do anything about this.

[fbmf]

Anybody want to speculate on, in the overhelmingly likely event of any Democrat winning 2016, the likelihood that Texas will attempt to secede and how that will play out?

I really don't want to move, but the secessionist here seem dead set on this happening.

Game On,
fbmf

[angelfromanotherpin]

The Texas secession petition got 125,000 signatures. That's probably the ceiling for actual practical secessionists, because if you can't be fucked to sign an online petition, you probably also can't be fucked to actually get up and do something real. Even the Texas Nationalist Movement only claims 200K members total, out of a state population of ~39 million. And who knows how much of that support is low-commitment or ironically humorous.

I'm sure they make a lot of noise, but they're also statistically irrelevant.

[RobbyPants]

So, now that the GOP has admitted that the Benghazi committee was just to try and tank Clinton, does this seem like something that could affect her numbers? I have a feeling that anyone who cares about this isn't worried about the truth, and the server thing has done more harm to people's perception of her trustworthiness.

Anybody want to speculate on, in the overhelmingly likely event of any Democrat winning 2016, the likelihood that Texas will attempt to secede and how that will play out?

I really don't want to move, but the secessionist here seem dead set on this happening.

Is this actually a big deal in Texas? I know there's a separatist movement, but are they actually gaining any real traction?

[Maxus]

So, now that the GOP has admitted that the Benghazi committee was just to try and tank Clinton, does this seem like something that could affect her numbers? I have a feeling that anyone who cares about this isn't worried about the truth, and the server thing has done more harm to people's perception of her trustworthiness.

Anybody want to speculate on, in the overhelmingly likely event of any Democrat winning 2016, the likelihood that Texas will attempt to secede and how that will play out?

I really don't want to move, but the secessionist here seem dead set on this happening.

Is this actually a big deal in Texas? I know there's a separatist movement, but are they actually gaining any real traction?

I want to say some of the legislature has talked about it, but I can't find an example in the quick-and-dirty google I'm allowed before I have to head to work.

[Grek]

As a Texan: No, the secessionist thing isn't a real political movement. It's a soundbite for Rick Perry & Co to rattle their collective sabers about before "reluctantly" backing down on the issue. They don't actually think it'll ever happen, it's just a bit of Texas exceptionalism that drums up votes.

Remember, Perry spent 5 years as a Democrat and backed Al Gore during his first presidential run. When Gore lost, Perry decided the Democrats were losers and switched sides. It's never been about any particular policy, secessionist or otherwise for Perry. It's always been about saying literally anything to get elected.

[Ancient History]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ame-213225

For the tl;dr crowd, the Republican focus on the primary is more than just pissing away money on attack ads that won't win them the primary - the GOP is also just not building up the organization it needs to register and turn out voters like Obama did in 2012. From the article, none of the 15 GOP nominee candidates has more than 10 paid staff in any state; in Iowa Hilary Clinton has 90 and Bernie Sanders has 40. So that's probably going to come back and bite the GOP.

[RobbyPants]

The democratic debate is much more pleasant to watch than the GOP debate. I'm still a Sanders guy. Still, I feel a bit sorry for Webb and Chafee; they never get to talk, and Webb gets quite pissy about it. Several times.

EDIT: oops! Webb went over time a second time after bitching about never getting time, and Chafee just put his foot in his mouth hard. Apparently he voted for something he didn't understand when he just got to congress, but Cooper is being "hard on him" for asking about it. Cue audience laughter.

I think these two are walking away from this with even lower poll ratings.

EDIT 2: the mods in the Democratic debate seem to care if the candidates don't answer the question. I like this, but why can't they do this in the GOP debates?

[angelfromanotherpin]

EDIT 2: the mods in the Democratic debate seem to care if the candidates don't answer the question. I like this, but why can't they do this in the GOP debates?

My first guess is that the media does its best to create a horse race narrative, which includes propping up weaker candidates to create the illusion of a close competition. Because the Republican candidates are such a clown show to begin with, they don't want to take the chance on making them look worse.

My second guess is that the candidates' responses are such word salad to begin with, the moderators can't parse whether the question has actually been answered in a timely fashion and just move on for the sake of the show.

[Hiram McDaniels]

The democratic debate is much more pleasant to watch than the GOP debate. I'm still a Sanders guy. Still, I feel a bit sorry for Webb and Chafee; they never get to talk, and Webb gets quite pissy about it. Several times.

Yeah...but every time Webb DID say something, it was shitty. Cooper might have been trying to do him a solid.

Webb: I only made but one enemy in my career, an' he's dead! A-heh-heh. *icy stare*

[Prak]

Aren't the moderators for the GOP generally pretty solidly in the GOP/Koch Brothers' pockets?

[RobbyPants]

Yeah...but every time Webb DID say something, it was shitty. Cooper might have been trying to do him a solid.

Yeah. You don't really win a democratic primary by proving you're more conservative than everyone else.

Webb: I only made but one enemy in my career, an' he's dead! A-heh-heh. *icy stare*

That was terrible. Everyone gave reasonable answers to the question. I couldn't tell if he'd thrown the debate at that point, if he thought that acting like a badass was a last ditch effort to get attention, or if he actually thought that was a legitimate answer.

Aren't the moderators for the GOP generally pretty solidly in the GOP/Koch Brothers' pockets?

Prolly. Although, if the GOP were held to answer the questions like the Democrats were, I would have sat through the entire debate just to watch them squirm after each failed evasion.

[RobbyPants]

My take-home from each of the five candidates, in seating order:

• Webb - More conservative than the others, for the most part. The single, most resounding thing from him in the debate was he's super mad he didn't get to talk as much as everyone else*. Now, this is somewhat of a fair criticism, but that's pretty much all I'm going to remember about him. I also couldn't tell if his answer to the last question (who is your biggest enemy you've made) was serious or not. It was certainly dumb. I don't expect his candidacy to last much longer.
• Sanders - Definitely more anti-establishment than any other candidate up there. Wants to take on big interests/big money in ways other candidates won't. Looks to other countries for how we could be like them. He did a fairly good job at handling the various "tough" questions Anderson Cooper threw at him without looking like he was dodging or being intentionally vague. Of note: I think he was the only candidate to come out and solidly say he supports legalizing recreational marijuana use**.
• Clinton - She got the most time to talk*, and spent a lot of time answering questions about flip-flopping for political expediency, the email server issue, and her labeling herself as a progressive or a moderate depending on who she talks to. Anyone's opinions of her answers is largely going to be based on what they already thought of her. She handled them as well as she could; it's a matter of if people already trust her. She was the most vocal against Republicans, which makes sense. She's attacked the most by them, right now. Sanders and O'Malley both did a good job of being the first to raise various issues, with Clinton having to clarify that she also supports X, which made her look a bit reactionary. She wasn't the only one doing that, but I did get this "hey, I'm a progressive, too!" vibe from her.
• O'Malley - Of the three smaller candidates, he did a lot better, but he also got a bit more speaking time than the other two*. In all honesty, his name was the only one of those three candidates I recognized up until three days ago. He did a fairly good job answering the "tough" questions, and he has some decent Charisma, but he didn't seem to stand out the way Clinton and Sanders do. That may be my own bias or it might be part of why he's polling as low as he is. He is super big into a green energy grid by 2050. Even to the point of bringing it up, off topic.
• Chafee - Interesting in that he originally was elected to one office as a Republican, a second office as an independent, and to his current office as a Democrat. Of course, he was accused of flip-flopping. His stance is that the GOP moved further right away form him (likely true), but it means that his claims of consistency means he's a moderate and not a liberal. Some may like that and some won't. He has a creepy smile that I found distracting. He got the least time to talk of everyone*, but he didn't bitch incessantly about it. It was notable that the only time I remember the audience laughing at someone was when he admitted to voting on an issue he didn't understand when he was new in congress because "he'd just gotten there". It was painful to watch. Like Webb, I don't expect to see much more of him before he drops out.

* Aside from questions that were directed at one candidate, people were given equal time to answer each question. The caveat was that if person X was brought up by one candidate, they would be given a chance to respond after the fact. Webb and Chafee were not often called out by any of the other candidates, so they often found themselves sitting there, quiet, while the three on the center stage went back and forth. Chafee took this rather quietly, and Webb did not. He went over his allotted time twice, wasting time complaining about it. Cooper pointed out the second time that he'd have more time to talk if he stopped taking time to complain about it.

** Clinton would not take a stance on recreational marijuana use. A year ago, she said she wanted to see how things went in Washington and Colorado. She was asked if her stance changed after a year. She still wants to "learn more", but she supports the use of medical marijuana. People are already making jokes that she won't take a stance yet because it's not politically expedient.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Clinton getting more time and Webb getting less was part of the debate rules. I understand him getting piqued about it and even bringing it up, but it's not going to help him. But he's in the wrong party to begin with for running for the Presidency.

My opinion of the debate is that Clinton and Sanders had two different criteria for victory and they both met them. Clinton sought to win (and did) by the traditional rules, Sanders wanted to win the viewership -- who don't judge victory the same way that media commentators do, as we can see from the aftermath of the Republican debates. I think that there is going to be an Obama/Trump-esque divide between the punditry and viewers once actual scientific polls come fup.

I do think that some of her lines will come back and bite her. The one about Keystone, medical marijuana, telling Wall Street to back off, college people needing to work 10 hours a week, so on.

I don't think O'Malley is going to go anywhere. The Baltimore riots really hurt him with the netroots and his successor losing the MD governorship hurt him with the establishment. I would've sworn that O'Malley would be in the position that Sanders was in as late as April; shows what I know.

[Hiram McDaniels]

Clinton getting more time and Webb getting less was part of the debate rules. I understand him getting piqued about it and even bringing it up, but it's not going to help him. But he's in the wrong party to begin with for running for the Presidency.

My opinion of the debate is that Clinton and Sanders had two different criteria for victory and they both met them. Clinton sought to win (and did) by the traditional rules, Sanders wanted to win the viewership -- who don't judge victory the same way that media commentators do, as we can see from the aftermath of the Republican debates. I think that there is going to be an Obama/Trump-esque divide between the punditry and viewers once actual scientific polls come fup.

I do think that some of her lines will come back and bite her. The one about Keystone, medical marijuana, telling Wall Street to back off, college people needing to work 10 hours a week, so on.

I don't think O'Malley is going to go anywhere. The Baltimore riots really hurt him with the netroots and his successor losing the MD governorship hurt him with the establishment. I would've sworn that O'Malley would be in the position that Sanders was in as late as April; shows what I know.

I think maybe Webb thought he was going to pull the conversation to the right of center the way that Sanders had pulled it to the left. Of course he did not.

O'malley's clearly running for vice president, unfortunately for him there are much better choices out there.

Sanders has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, but now has a lot of exposure. I think I read that his twitter followers shot up by like 30k immediately after the debates. Anyway seniors love him and millennials love him...he's probably not going to win the nomination, but he's enough of a threat that Clinton has to wave the progressive flag.

Chaffee, oh man Chaffee. What he said about his consistency is actually true; he started as a republican, but the party's been pulled so far to the right that he became a moderate by default. Watching Chaffee at the debates I was reminded of the weird kid that some popular mean girl invites to prom as a joke, but doesn't quite grasp the situation even after the trap has sprung and the other kids have all laughed it out. He just keeps standing there with a weird smile, occasionally trying to make out with his "date".

Clinton had a strong showing, even if some of her answers were unsatisfactory. I'm prepared to vote for her if I have to.

[RobbyPants]

Anyway seniors love him and millennials love him...he's probably not going to win the nomination, but he's enough of a threat that Clinton has to wave the progressive flag.

And she did. There was more than one point there Sanders or O'Malley would lead in with something, and Clinton would have to chime in for how she stands for that, too.

Chaffee, oh man Chaffee. What he said about his consistency is actually true; he started as a republican, but the party's been pulled so far to the right that he became a moderate by default. Watching Chaffee at the debates I was reminded of the weird kid that some popular mean girl invites to prom as a joke, but doesn't quite grasp the situation even after the trap has sprung and the other kids have all laughed it out.

Yeah, his defense on why he voted for Glass Steagall was painful. It's the one time I heard the audience laugh at one of the candidates.