Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Will Congress finally consider some gun control legislation?


62 replies to this topic

#26
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Please define "often". Though I am not a lawyer, can a university really deny a speaker their 1st Amendment rights? I understood the 1st Amendment as preventing Congress from passing laws regarding freedom of speech. Does it apply to universities, too?


Poe already covered this, but the answer is (side-stepping some nuance and cutting to the chase)- yes, it does apply, assuming it's a public university. Private universities are different.

Conservatives have a legitimate gripe here. Some universities (UC Berkeley is the prominent example) have been rather complicit in allowing left-wing violence against conservative speakers and have, to varying degrees, given in to left-wing agitators in shutting down conservative speech in order to prevent riots, a clusterf-ck, etc.  It's an example of saving your skin in the short term and abandoning principles, but then again, as I've discussed often on this board, the left isn't terribly liberal when it comes to free speech (it's more of a 'speech allowed when I agree with it' sort of thing), which we've seen more advanced stages of in Europe, and particularly the UK (where certain speech is a criminal offense).

 

You probably wonder how someone with multiple degrees, a professional career, income that exceeds the national 1% just from rental income alone, etc., can support the party of "EWWW they hate science!!!!!!" etc etc., well this is a big reason why brotha.  One doesn't care if one side has a few loonies when the other side is advocating for the world of 1984.


  • The Kurgan +1 this

#27
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

Just a random question as a firearms owner who supports the idea that there should be some sort of common sense (and limited) legislation introduced because I am genuinely curious:  How many here are anti-gun control legislation that actually own a gun to begin with?  

 

It seems to me there are a lot of people out there that are anti-gun control, and get so worked up about  it, but don't own guns themselves and ultimately have no dog in the fight.  Such people seem to be more in the debate just to argue than anything else and just end up pouring gasoline on the fire where the gun control debate is concerned.  This, in turn, ratchets up the rancor of the overall debate that some are arguing needs to be brought down a few notches.  The more vitriolic the debate, the less productive it is.

 

I find this phenomenon odd because  if you don't own a firearm, why would you oppose legislation that requires mandatory background checks prior to sales, restricting sales of firearms from people with a history of violent mental health issues in addition to violent criminal backgrounds, digitizing gun sales databases to make it easier for law enforcement to track criminal behavior,  restricting high capacity magazines, or requiring a license to purchase firearms that certifies the buyer has attended gun safety training (in a similar way we require a drivers license)?  



#28
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Chalup, I'm one of those people.  Perhaps I can help explain.

 

I do not own firearms.  I don't suspect I'll ever own firearms.  I've only shot a firearm once, and based on my lack of skills and general clumsy nature/being kinda weak and having poor coordination, it should probably stay that way.  I wouldn't trust myself anywhere near a loaded weapon.

 

I used to be in favor of sensible regulations, such as the ones you mention.  And I actually still am.  However, I have moved strongly to the right on this issue and vehemently oppose them.  Why?  It's because liberals are so disingenuous on this issue.

 

Liberals don't actually care about safety, deaths or any such nonsense like that.  If they did, then they'd be trying to do something about some of the actual root causes that there are so many firearm deaths in the US, such as gang culture/violence.  No, what the liberals actually care about, is just trying to take away something that the "other side" likes.  Firearms are important to the "deplorables," and liberals know that, so they want to stick it to them.  That's all this is.  It's about winning one of the issues in the culture war, nothing more, nothing less.  The Right has their own version of these issues (abortion being one).

 

So that's why I can't support those regulations.  Because if you give liberals an inch, they'll take a mile.  I would support regulations if I knew liberals would stop there, but that's not the case.  Their goal is to chip away at firearm ownership as much as humanely possible until they get 5 liberals on the bench, and then the plan is to overturn the 2nd amendment through the Court.  Think I'm paranoid?  Read the dissent in Heller.  The minority opinions outright admit that's the eventual goal.

 

If this was done democratically, you know, the way this is supposed to be done, then yeah.  I'd support it.  If there was a vote in front of me today over whether the 2nd amendment should be repealed, or at least replaced with something a little more restrictive, then I'd vote in favor.  Absolutely.  But the liberals know they don't have the support for that nation-wide, so they're doing the same thing they did with gay marriage- getting their agenda through by any means possible, even if un-democratic.  I supported gay marriage wholeheartedly but thought it was absolutely shameful how they pushed it through- brow beating people for years, going on witch hunts, and finally, creating a right through the Courts in a decision that left many constitutional scholars scratching their heads.  And all this, even though most states were heading in that direction anyway and it probably would've been legal just about everywhere by 2020.  But no.  I need it now! (said in whiny 6 year old voice).

 

Fool me once and all that.  A lot of otherwise would be reasonable Republicans, including myself, have woken up to what the liberals' playbook is, and that's driving a lot of our advocacy.  I support all sorts of stuff I don't even really believe in, but it's so liberals can be stopped.  That's all it is.  I've posted about this before, in different posts- but it's now fight fire with fire.  This is the world liberals wanted, so this is what they get.  If liberals were willing to dial it back a bit, turn down the perpetual 24/7 outrage machine just a tad, calm the f-ck down and put a pause on the non-stop, hysterical SJW primal screaming about every goddamn little thing... well, then, they'd find a lot of us willing to sit down at the bargaining table.  But I'm not holding my breath and I'm sure as sh-t not going to be the one to offer the olive branch.



#29
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,116 posts

You probably wonder how someone with multiple degrees, a professional career, income that exceeds the national 1% just from rental income alone, etc., can support the party of "EWWW they hate science!!!!!!" etc etc., well this is a big reason why brotha.  One doesn't care if one side has a few loonies when the other side is advocating for the world of 1984.


One of the main reasons I've abandoned the mainstream political spectrum is that neither side is really exemplary when it comes to stuff like this.  It became fashionable on social media from about 2014 onwards to rail against "SWJs" and their endless crusades against free speech, especially on college campuses.  Their obsessions with safe spaces, trigger warnings, hate speech, harassment and so on.  And as my previous post indicates - and indeed my entire posting history on this board - indicates, I'm certainly no fan of any of that stuff.

 

But let's take a bit of a step back here.  Anyone remember the Moral Majority?  The PMRC?  The Satanic panic of the 1980s?  I sure do.  Conservatives like Jack Thompson were going after video games for their violent content well before Anita Sarkeesian did.  What of the Comic Codes of the 1950s?  What of McCarthyism and Hollywood blacklisting?  A big, BIG part of the reason why people like me who had concerns with political correctness and speech codes were brushed off for as long as we were is because the center left in much of the western world was so accustomed to censorious moral panics coming from the right that they couldn't believe or accept that it could possibly come from the left (despite the obvious examples behind the Iron Curtain), even as their embrace of hate speech laws, date rape kangaroo courts on college campuses and so on laid the foundations for their own kinds of McCarthyism.  

 

Plus, I don't think we can say that censoriousness and prudishness on the right have been confined to the ash heap of history, and it is now a libertarian right against a regressive left as the dominant culture wars.  What I would call a right wing kind of SJW - a new Moral Majority if you will, is definitely becoming a thing now. 

 

For instance: outrage over women-only screenings of the new Wonder Woman film causing massive backlashes on social media and even lawsuits.  Howls for Kathy Griffin to be fired from CNN (despite not technically being an employee there) or even prosecuted after her admittedly tasteless image of herself holding up Donald Trump's severed head went viral on Twitter.  Conservative pundit Tomi Lahren being sacked from the Blaze for being pro-choice.  Milo Yiannopoulos being dropped from Breitbart and losing a book deal with Simon and Schuster over controversial comments regarding sex with minors.  Outrage on social media over an all female Ghostbusters reboot that amounted to little more than gendered accusations of cultural appropriation.  Donald Trump himself has indicated that he would like to tighten defamation laws.  In the UK, Conservative leader Theresa May made cracking down on unbridled expression on the internet in the wake of recent terrorist attacks there part of her campaign, and this may well have contributed to her disappointing performance in the election.  Christian rightists are up in arms over video game Far Cry 5, which apparently features a Christian Cult as antagonists.  I could go on.

 

I tried warning regressive leftists over the last several years.  They were fooling themselves if they thought they were going to be able to keep the tactics of the angry twitter mob to themselves forever.  If they could get a CEO fired for having once opposed gay marriage, how long would it take before Christian conservatives - who are still numerous and powerful in some places - would be able to get a CEO fired for transgressing some boundary they didn't like?  As if there was no historical precedent for it, or anything.  And once that did happen, the social justice mob would have zero credible ground from which to cry foul, since they had so recently used the same tactics themselves.  You can guess their responses.  

 

Truth is, though, I don't think it's the case that one side has but a few loonies while the other advocates for the world of 1984.

 

It's more the case that, besides BOTH hating science when it happens to produce results they don't find politically palatable (try talking to an avid progressive about biological sex differences or I.Q, for instance, and see just how pro-science they really are), one side advocates for the world of 1984 while the other advocates for the world of The Handmaid's Tale.  Can't say I'm enthusiastic about either one.


  • pavonis +1 this

#30
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

 

 

You probably wonder how someone with multiple degrees, a professional career, income that exceeds the national 1% just from rental income alone, etc., can support the party of "EWWW they hate science!!!!!!" etc etc., well this is a big reason why brotha.  One doesn't care if one side has a few loonies when the other side is advocating for the world of 1984.

 

I wasn't wondering, actually. You've explained your positions and decision processes clearly and thoroughly in the past. No one who has paid you any attention should be wondering about your political stances at this point - unless you have some irregular ones, or have shifted on an issue recently. 

 

Personally, I don't have any firearms, and have not had any interest in them beyond their physics and engineering, and historical use. I'm for the second amendment, and wouldn't vote to repeal it. Keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, well, that's important and apparently difficult. Who counts as "mentally ill"? There's a problem with violence, but taking away firearms won't solve it. The weapons won't go away. So we have to work on the individuals who are likely to go on shooting sprees, and find a way to predict who is likely to act and find a way to prevent it, within the limits of the law and practicality. 



#31
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
I think people who don't own guns have a problem relating to gun nuts. One of my best friends is a gun nut and I've never understood it, but I think he has every right to own firearms.

Every time I see a video of some perp getting blown away trying to rob somebody I just laugh my ass off. Passing any law that prevents people from properly defending themselves is a bad thing.

As for the people that accidentally kill themselves or loved ones, well that's just darwinism. You could make the same argument about cars.

Carrie is 100% correct about the left pushing gun legislation simply to stick it to the "deplorables". They revel in being better people than the other side and going after guns is just an example of that.

All of this is happening because of Silicon Valley liberalism. It used to be just New York liberalism, but the west coast controls social media and there's is a more confrontational, militant style. People hate it, and for good reason. If they can't prevent Trump from getting elected they sure as hell aren't going to pass any kind of gun legislation.

#32
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,608 posts
I also don't own a gun, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a horse in this race. That's like saying why should someone support the Fifth Amendment if they aren't accused of a crime.

Any act of the government to illegally curtail a right is a concern for everyone. I would love for there to be some gun control. Heck, I wouldn't care if it was illegal to own a firearm completely, because I just don't care. But the only way I'll support any of it is through a Constitutional Amendment.

#33
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Ultimately I don't care either because I'll never own another gun (I did once, but that's a long story). If they banned guns tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear.

The problem with doing so is that they're already out there and they're never going away. It's too little too late. The die was cast a long time ago.

#34
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I was on board with some gun control regulation a while back. It certainly makes sense to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. Problem is that the people pushing hardest for gun control think anyone who has or wants a gun is mentally ill. They aren't just fringe personalities either. They could be the ones defining "mental illness" in a few years. They have already redefined racism and tolerance and every other one of their key words. Shall we label anyone who denies global warming as mentally ill and keep them from owning weapons? A belief in God could be considered as a mental illness from some perspectives...


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#35
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Politicking by spite is bad for everyone. Just saying.
  • pavonis, Cerina and The Kurgan +1 this

#36
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,234 posts

I was on board with some gun control regulation a while back. It certainly makes sense to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. Problem is that the people pushing hardest for gun control think anyone who has or wants a gun is mentally ill. They aren't just fringe personalities either. They could be the ones defining "mental illness" in a few years. They have already redefined racism and tolerance and every other one of their key words. Shall we label anyone who denies global warming as mentally ill and keep them from owning weapons? A belief in God could be considered as a mental illness from some perspectives...

This is the biggest qualm I have about gun control. A bill locally, years ago, would have precluded anyone with a history of Depression from owning a gun of any kind. I just thought of all the battered spouses who'd get killed before they were allowed to defend themselves. I want to first know WHO gets to decide what "mental illness" means and how we implement this.



#37
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,608 posts

Politicking by spite is bad for everyone. Just saying.


Do you even America?
  • Cerina, The Kurgan and Driver +1 this

#38
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

 

I was on board with some gun control regulation a while back. It certainly makes sense to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. Problem is that the people pushing hardest for gun control think anyone who has or wants a gun is mentally ill. They aren't just fringe personalities either. They could be the ones defining "mental illness" in a few years. They have already redefined racism and tolerance and every other one of their key words. Shall we label anyone who denies global warming as mentally ill and keep them from owning weapons? A belief in God could be considered as a mental illness from some perspectives...

This is the biggest qualm I have about gun control. A bill locally, years ago, would have precluded anyone with a history of Depression from owning a gun of any kind. I just thought of all the battered spouses who'd get killed before they were allowed to defend themselves. I want to first know WHO gets to decide what "mental illness" means and how we implement this.

 

My family has a history of depression, and suicide. I have an honest fear that in 20 years that could bar me from owning weapons. It isn't the weaknesses that define us, it's how we deal with and overcome them. 

 

I accept the danger that allowing others to own weapons brings, and I expect them to do the same. It isn't perfect, but neither is free speech. Same reason I oppose Trump's travel ban, I am willing to accept a certain amount of risk and pain to maintain our liberties.



#39
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,992 posts

I like my guns too. I've got a Mossberg shotgun. I have fired multiple types of guns and really like target practice (I am getting frustrated now with my eyesight even with glasses as my aim is off now.) But honestly I can't see a reason for an M4 or other assault rifle for public consumption/sale to people with schizophrenia or another type of mental disease that affects their judgement. I also think that getting this stuff in a database is good too instead of trying to chase paper trails. One of my former students bought a gun at a gun show when he was 18 with no formal training in gun handling and shot himself in the ass trying to be cute with it.



#40
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

Politicking by spite is bad for everyone. Just saying.

So far, since my question, that is the only thing I really agree with 100%  

 

Edit:

 

However, CM,  Kurgan, Marc, MG, Spam and Tex all do raise good points, too.  



#41
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

CM, thank you for the post, and sorry for the delay, as I have been busy at work and in my personal life.  Your post seems an honest expression of being politically frustrated by extreme leftism.  As someone frustrated with extremists on both sides, and political demagoguery,  I not only can relate, but can empathize, and in some respects, agree with you.  I agree that the extreme left has, and continues to, use hyperbole, false equivocation, false accusations, exaggeration, and even out and out lies to advance their cause.  to be clear, so does the extreme right.  I also agree that there are SOME elected officials in the democratic party who really do want to see guns outlawed, and do wish to roll out incremental restrictions until that ultimate goal is achieved (the tactic of incrementalism itself isn't necessarily bad, as racial and gender equality has been achieved by this...I think it really comes down to what you are talking about, and the motive).  To a certain extent, I do understand your frustration with how  you seem to see republicans shut down when they attempt to lay out an argument or seem to be on the defense.  

 

It seems to me (unless your political stances have changed) that over all, you are someone who is pro-free market, fiscally conservative, more or less a conservative when it comes to foreign policy, but you also seem to tick slightly left on some social issues.   I also believe that you at times in the past have been a little over the top in expressing some political views, but I have come to see over the years that sometimes often is done for a variety of reasons (your writing style to make things interesting, some cases exaggeration to make a point, etc), so I don't see you as an unreasonable person and in fact there are many times I agree with you, at least partially and it is rare I find I actually disagree with you completely (at least on topic, if not how you present it).  

 

So, I do in fact understand how someone with your expressed political views would feel that a Nancy Pelosi-led democrat party would be diametrically opposed and a party interested in stopping or reversing much of what you value. Personally, I think the democrats would be well-advised to jettison her, and start taking a more common-sense real world liberal attitude as opposed to their current completely theoretical, completely academic liberal outlook.  For the record, I don't like tactics many democrats use...they seem like left overs/rehashes of the 1960s/early 70s radical hippie movement,  which really did help cause the reactionary attitude that many on the right have, today (and have had for some time).  

 

I have been turned off in recent years by some of the rhetoric coming from the left. While some issues are raised, that DESERVE a national discussion, such as LGBT & gender equality, racial equality and law enforcement, it does seem that the extreme views  from the left on these topics do, in fact seem to dominate the discussion. For example, while I personally believe in fairness for all, how does a national debate on 10 year olds needing to be allowed to declare they are trans-gendered (something I think should be discussed by parents and child...but not imposed at school and infringe on other students' or parents' rights),  trans people needing laws to eliminate gendered restrooms, or the BLM movement, one that I see as a group that takes a worthy issue, and uses it as a tool to advance their own radical, anti-law enforcement (dare I say racist, or perhaps more accurately prejudiced, in some cases) agenda help anyone?   I don't like using or seeing others using the terms SJW, or "white genocide" because I think it does belittle the struggles that women and minority groups have endured over the centuries, but as a Caucasian man, I sometimes do feel that some on the extreme left looks at a person like me as the "opposition," and not welcome (I've felt it at times at my former job which was like 85% female, in some classes I have taken in the past where controversial social topic come up, etc) simply based on the fact I am a Caucasian male.  I have witnessed hyperbole, or double standards coming from the left.   So I do see why you feel the need to fight fire with fire, when it comes to political rhetoric.  

 

Indeed, I can even see your case of allying yourself with the extreme right-wing bible belt types that have about as much in common with you as the extreme left, if only because they at least support some of the issues you support, as opposed to the left supporting less or none in some cases.  It is unfortunate that you feel that way, and I think that is a case that supports my belief that the 2-party system is no longer appropriate in this day and age. I, too, while I tick left on some issues, feel the same way. Perhaps on different issues than you, but I feel like I am not represented by either democrat, nor republican parties.  I get it, because I come from a solidly middle class family, family members and I have served in the military (I hate war, but know it is necessary to fight sometime...I don't believe in starting wars, but when it is to protect our country or our allies, and there is a clear US interest and clear strategy and objective, I believe in finishing them), I have family members who were law enforcement and I am a blue lives matter supporter.  In recent years I have worked at a prominent global business school (in a tech support role), so through talking with staff and faculty I have come to better appreciate free trade, and have a better understanding how and why some businesses make the decisions they do and have come to take a less critical view of business on some areas.  And yet, I do have socially liberal beliefs too, stemming from both my own conscience, some liberal friends I have and agree on some things with, as well as my educational focus (history, museum studies, interdisciplinary studies....academic disciplines that are traditionally considered progressive or liberal). My point of all that, is I don't fit neatly into any single political column.  

 

That all said, specific to gun restrictions as I outlined a few posts back, seem to me reasonable, and the inability or unwillingness of the right to compromise in any way, shape, or form is something I find tiresome.  I think it is high time that there be legislation, at the very least, to implement ways to make it easier for law enforcement to track sales of weapons.  While MG makes a good point that if one is labelled depressed there is a danger of unjustly restricting rights to someone who has no intention of using a firearm legally, I think the danger of gun violence outweighs that, and this can be fixed with a doctor's clearance, if someone is depressed but no danger to anyone.  I don't want to the second amendment curtailed, but I do think it should be recognized that it is very easy and affordable to obtain a gun, that there are far more firearms than at any point in history, and I believe that shootings occur in the US more in one year in modern times, than in the entire Wild West.  SOMETHING has to be done, and it will have to take both sides working together to accomplish that.  So, on this topic, I find I have to disagree with you and I think that republicans are NOT justified in being obstructionist  and I think they are putting votes and maintaining their own political power ahead of, and at the expense of, human lives.  


  • Ms. Spam, The Kurgan, Carrie Mathison and 1 other +1 this

#42
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Wow, Chalup... I think you beat me for the longest post record. ;)
 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  Chalup, people like you are not the problem.  You say there ought to be a way to compromise, and you know what?  Everything you said in your last paragraph sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  If you and I were in Congress, I bet we could get a compromise bill hammered out in an afternoon.
 
But that's because you have a background that doesn't lead me to be suspicious.  With a military background, family in law enforcement, a firearm owner, and reading years of your posts on this board, I know you're not the screeching, hysterical SJW type that thinks the trains to Auschwitz, ran by Trump's SS, are gonna start any day now, and needs to have safe spaces available with coloring books and play-doh in case you get triggered (I'm not actually joking about those- they have appeared on college campuses).  The problem is, your type of liberal no longer makes up a majority of the party, and hasn't since the Clinton years.
 
The Democrat party now has roughly 3 factions- a) the melo-dramatic, histrionic SJW types that are outraged about something literally every second of the day; b) minorities who don't vote often and aren't really following politics but get duped by Democrat party bosses into voting for them every 4 years; c) rich latte liberals that make sure to be overly PC in public, so that they can culturally signal to other liberals that they aren't... you know... them (ugh, Red state people!), but in private don't really give much of a f-ck and are accelerating outsourcing and income inequality in the US so they can make a quick buck (you find a lot of these people working at places like Apple).
 
If it was just group C driving the train, that'd be one thing, but unfortunately it's group A more and more.  Immigration policy is a good example of this- just 10 years ago, you had many liberals arguing against illegal immigration.  Sanders argued it depressed wages and puts a lot of downward pressure on the working class.  Basically the only people it benefits are the corporate fat cats.  But- he had to "evolve" his opinion on that, since the SJWs came for his head.  Hell, even Obama in 2006 said that "When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment."  The Atlantic recently had a great article about this.  Can you imagine that being said today?  Now merely suggesting you want to do anything about illegal immigration is met with cries of "racist!!!"

 

Or take gay marriage for instance.  Clinton was against it.  Obama was against it.  Yeah yeah, I know, he was just fibbing or whatever (I don't know if this makes it better, that he felt the need to lie about his beliefs).  But the point is, this was not a controversial position in the late 2000s, in fact, it was the majority position.  And yet, the SJW mob has been on the hunt, scouring social media for any hints of previous support for gay marriage bans, and then getting these people fired.  I wish this was hyperbole, but unfortunately it is not.  Ask the Mozilla CEO.  Oh the horror.  He used to support something 15 years ago that a majority of the US did.  Off with his head!!

 

I'm sorry Chalup.  I wish I could still be the more level headed person I used to be, but I've seen the man behind the curtain, and I can't unsee it.  You are right about my beliefs, I am more or less liberal on social issues.  Somewhat conservative on economics (I've turned more to the left on this over the years as I've become more of a nationalist.. probably closer to a centrist now).  But I've also moved right quite a bit on some other issues, immigration being one.

 

Anyways, point is, I've seen the liberals playbook and I'm not going to be fooled anymore.  If you made up the majority of the Democratic Party, then we'd be in a different world, but those days have passed us by.  Like I said, it's now fight fire with fire.  Liberals have spent the better part of 6 months blaring non-stop with this Russia bullsh-t that's obviously not going anywhere, well two can play at that game.  The next time Dems get power, I look forward to never-ending investigations into how the vote was "rigged."  Hopefully there can be lawsuits and recounts and the Dem president doesn't even get to swear in.  Or take the Court.  Conservatives have spent decades trying, in vain, to explain why judges inventing constitutional rights and legislating from the bench is a bad idea, since they are not democratically elected and have life terms.  But.. wait a minute.. the constitution is old.  And a bunch of white dudes wrote it.... which is (wait for it).... racist!!!!!!  Yeah, so what if there's a way to actually amend the constitution?  That takes 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and let's face it- everyone in between the coasts is either a dumb hick or an evil racist.  So hey, when Kennedy writes the gay marriage opinion and a new right is pulled out of thin air, there is much rejoicing!

 

Again, two can play at that game.  Trump has already gotten to appoint one judge, and I hope he gets 2 or even 3 more.  Find the most arch-conservatives possible.  Since the left seems to be OK with judicial activism and doesn't understand the simple concept of why sticking to the text and only amending that text by democratic vote might be a good idea, let's just go ahead and start changing sh-t we don't like.  Birthright citizenship?  Well, that's gotta go obvi.  Right to vote?  Let's go ahead and limit that again.  Because of voter fraud, bla bla [insert bullsh-t reasons here].  And so on and so forth.

 

Guns?  The left has already shown their hand Chalup.  You may not want it, but you are in the minority, at least compared to the Dems.  They want an eventual ban on firearm ownership.  That's the goal.  And the next time there is a liberal majority court, that is what is happening.  Again, don't believe me?  Read the dissent in Heller.  The liberals outright admitted it.  Immigration?  As soon as the Dems are in power again, there will be amnesty declared and immigration laws will cease to be enforced.  Clinton freaking admitted on the campaign trail that she favored open borders, so this isn't a particularly extremist view in the party.  These things are all happening as soon as the Dems have power again, which is why- if the GOP had any sense at all, would realize that the time for principles and playing nice is over and it's fight fire with fire.  We got 3 years, at most 7, to try and prevent as much damage as we can.

 

I wish it didn't have to be this way Chalup, but this is the world we live in now.  I stuck my head in the sand and tried to be diplomatic for as long as I could but I can't ignore reality anymore.


  • The Kurgan +1 this

#43
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
Death spiral! Woo!

#44
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Pav, you show me one person willing to break it and I'll be there with my support.  I'll vote D.  Heck, 15 years ago, I voted D close to 50% of the time.

 

The Dems actually had someone in the race in '16 that would've done it- Jim Webb.  He got 0% of the vote and didn't make it to the primary.  That should probably tell you something.



#45
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

First off, my apologies to Spam, as I am going to reply to CM's post, and it really doesn't deal directly with gun control...but it does deal with the current political climate in which I believe why we will never see a resolution to this any time soon. It is related, if only by 6 or 7 degrees of separation.  

 

CM, I appreciate your thoughtful reply, as well.  Not saying that I necessarily agree with you on all points, but I do appreciate the thought, attention to detail, time you put behind it, and the fact you are answering in an honest way that  explains your past positions, as well as how you arrived to those positions you have now.   You do raise some interesting points,  many of which I agree with, or acknowledge are problems.  I don't have the time to reply to everything (if you thought my last post was TL:DR, beware of this one), but I will try to respond to some of the points you make that stand out to me.  

 

 

 

The problem is, your type of liberal no longer makes up a majority of the party, and hasn't since the Clinton years.

 

 The Democrat party now has roughly 3 factions: a) the melo-dramatic, histrionic SJW types b) minorities who don't vote often and aren't really following politics but get duped by Democrat party bosses into voting for them every 4 years; c) rich latte liberals   

Sadly, I am forced to agree.  The Democratic Party, as it existed during the Bill Clinton presidency no longer exists.  Yes, there were extreme leftists who held the same positions of some of the current Democratic leadership, but they were kept in check by more sensible members of the party.  I believe that Bill Clinton could, and should, have gone down in history as a near great president, at least where domestic policy is concerned.  But for the scandals, he likely would have.  In retrospect, I think it is fair to say that the GOP went after Clinton with too much zeal to say it wasn't anything more than to destroy his presidency, or at least diminish his ability to govern.  But the fact remains, Clinton did give the GOP the sword ( being the scandals) which was wielded against him. I don't think it an exaggeration to say the scandals of the Clinton Presidency were not unlike tragic flaws.   He had the gift of communication, or at least the ability to connect to people that FDR and Reagan had, and had the potential to be as beloved as JFK, and for some he was DESPITE his flaws.  But I think what made Bill Clinton outstanding was that he was reflective of what the democratic party used to embody.  

 

 

Now, we could chicken and egg which side started getting nasty, and who was reacting.  In my adult life time, I saw how the GOP went after Clinton, which caused a great amount of anger in the left, and further exacerbated by the Bush presidency, which was won literally by narrowest of margins.  It wasn't decided by election, but by court decision.  We have the benefit of hindsight now, but that was unprecedented in modern times (the previous case was the Hayes VS Tilden in 1876).   Be that as it may, that is how the system works, but I can also understand how one could be upset.  Add to that the shrillness of Fox News, and AM Talk radio (IE Limbaugh, later Hannity in particular), with a constant drumbeat day after day, year after year, criticizing the "filthy liberal."    I think, at least within the last 30 years, these two points most led directly to the democratic party we have to day.  SO, I think it is not unreasonable to say that at the very least, the GOP had a significant hand in creating the monster.  What is more is that, it seems they didn't seem to learn from that, but double-downed on their own shrillness, and uncompromising, take no prisoner attitude.   

 

As to the groups, I agree with you on groups a & c, not sure that I agree on groups b.  Now, speaking as one myself, Caucasian people can never truly understand 100% what it is to be a minority.   One can conceptualize, and try to understand. I know I will never, ever truly know what it is to be African American, Latino, Asian, Native American, LGBT, any more than I would be capable of understanding the biases, insults, dismissive attitudes, condensation, or having to work twice as hard for half the credit that you, or any woman, may have faced, large and small, as a woman in a traditionally male dominated profession.  

 

Now, I am not arguing for white guilt, or that white people need some measure of comeuppance.  I am just saying that when the society views you as a minority, it affects your own world view.  There are simply things that go on, both subtle and obvious that minorities have to deal with.  Little digs here, comments there, sometimes obvious bias, sometimes out and out insult for who and what you are.   So, when you have pundits like Limbaugh, or politicians who hammer your culture (IE closing the borders to keep Latinos out), or against Muslims as Trump did, or decry how the Christian faith and marriage itself is "under attack" by the gays by a number of GOPers (who, ironically get caught toe-tapping in some beltway men's room stall), is it any wonder that they are driven into the poll both to vote against the GOP?

 

Or is it any wonder that some minority voters are suckered by race baiters willing to exploit them for their own gains, just as Trump himself played on white supremacists to gain their votes with a few cleverly crafted re-tweets with subtle inferences they would only understand?   And to be sure, I don't think Trump is a racist.   I don't even think he really is all that conservative, at least socially. He is a Trumpist: an opportunist, looking for people and situations he can use to his own ends.  

 

My final thought on this point is that I think by far, there is a fourth group you left out, and unfortunately, they are growing, and yet are also becoming increasingly irrelevant in the democratic party: people like me.  I believe in fairness for all, as I have said.  I lean left socially for the most part, and more to the middle economically and a bit right on foreign policy, and to the right on perhaps a handful of issues.  Indeed, I feel like I most identify with the democrats of the 1990s (and ironically, I was actually far more conservative in the 1990s than I am today).  

 

But the reason I feel this group is becoming irrelevant is partially because of the extreme left having hijacked the Democratic party (or at least us feeling this way),  and with the GOP seemingly running further to the extreme right just as fast if not faster than the democratic party has run to the extreme left, where does one such as I go?  I'd love to go libertarian, bit Ron and Rand Paul-type of libertarians (you know, republicans who believe in smoking pot with their legalized hookers, and complete isolationism) sort of ruined that, didn't they?  

 

So, people such as I, have become apathetic. Is that our fault? Sure, to a degree.  Some may not vote, but I found my solution to be vote NO on every proposition, and against any incumbent. Mechanical? Sure. But I long for the day that there are enough of us that we will finally be heard.  Will it happen?  TBD, but even I have to say chances are slim.  But at least I stay true to myself doing it.  

 

 

 

Immigration policy is a good example of this- just 10 years ago, you had many liberals arguing against illegal immigration. 

I wish I could say you were wrong here.  But you are not.  I am against illegal immigration, myself, but I also recognize how immigration is handled in this government is just... I don't know, inefficient seems so inadequate, but the most accurate.  That said, do you really believe building a wall is going to solve a damn thing?  Many who come from Latin America aren't interested in becoming a citizen.  They really wish they had other options besides leaving their home country.  They mainly do so to feed themselves, or send as much money as they can spare back home, and do so toiling in fields, cleaning toilets, busing tables, or doing whatever other job they can get that teenagers and people on welfare in this country deem beneath them.  And many of them do it, while enduring insults or condescending attitudes of the very people they are working for.  Now I am not for open borders, but I am for compassion for those who want to work.  I am for helping these people, rather than sending foreign aid to their country that really just gets pocketed by the tin-pot dictator that is responsible for making their country a sh*thole in the first place.  Don't ask me what the solution is, because I don't know.  I can say that immigration is far more complex, and the people that it affects deserve to be more than a political football.  

 

 

 

Or take gay marriage for instance.  Clinton was against it.  Obama was against it.  Yeah yeah, I know, he was just fibbing or whatever (I don't know if this makes it better, that he felt the need to lie about his beliefs).  But the point is, this was not a controversial position in the late 2000s, in fact, it was the majority position.

While I agree the extreme left is quite shrill on this issue,  I have to mention public attitude on gay marriage has shifted since even the late 2000s.  Gay and lesbian people can serve in the military, now.  The world didn't end. Some states have passed gay marriage. Guess what, the institution of marriage remains intact.  But do we really need laws passed to allow small business owners the right to discriminate against a minority, and hide behind their faith and say it's against their religion to bake a cake for a gay wedding? And guess which party champions that position?  Gay and lesbian people are going to live together, regardless. I am not saying a politician can't have his or her own convictions, but I think we have reached a point where the people who are either indifferent or out and out support gay marriage outnumber those who oppose it.  While a politician is entitled to their beliefs on the matter, and I don't think it is right to demonize someone for simply disagreeing with gay marriage (as long as they are respectful and not motivated by hate), especially when it is more about character assassination than actually being upset that someone opposes gay marriage, I also think politicians should consider that as older generations age and die, and younger generations gain more influence in society, there will come a day when they are seen as extreme (if that day hasn't already arrived), and they need to consider whether they are the right people to represent their constituents, anymore.  

 

 

 

And yet, the SJW mob has been on the hunt, scouring social media for any hints of previous support for gay marriage bans, and then getting these people fired.  I wish this was hyperbole, but unfortunately it is not.  Ask the Mozilla CEO.  Oh the horror.  He used to support something 15 years ago that a majority of the US did.  Off with his head!!

Now this IS a serious problem.  I think people should be allowed to change.  Are you the same person you were 5, 10, 20 years ago? Is any of us?  I know I'm not.   

 

I think when someone changes their position on an issue, like say gay marriage, those who support gay marriage should LAUD that change in position.  Not look for an instance in someone's background, and punish them for a belief from their past they no longer have.  This is why I am so disheartened with today's politics.  It is so full of spite and tit-for-tat.  In fact, it is full of hate.  Irrational hatred on both sides, to be sure.  

 

Honestly,  I don't know what the answer is to this continual war and hatred between conservative and democrats.  When will it end? How will it end?  I have no clue.  But I do know what hatred can lead to.   Which leads me to reply to the rest of your post, CM.  

 

Anecdote time.  Let me tell you something about myself.   And this is not intended to be a holier than thou, sanctimonious rant, either, because I have done plenty to be ashamed of, even recently.  It wasn't all that long ago I took a break from posting for a while because I found myself posting toxic replies, and needed to figure things out.   I'm not too proud to say I even had to get some professional help, recently.   But this is something about the darker side of my personality: my own past prejudices.  Something I am ashamed to admit, and something that makes me feel terrible about myself.  Something I never even discussed here, before, because maybe I was afraid others here would be disgusted by me, and they may yet be.  And they probably would be right to be, too.

 

When I was in the military, the early 1990s, one thing ( or more properly, people) that at the time was not tolerated, was gay and lesbian people.  To a lesser degree, back there was even then a fair amount of prejudice against Middle Eastern people, too. Cadences referring to...well I won't repeat it here, but very insulting terms about middle eastern people.  But it seemed almost universally, there was a special hatred reserved for gay people.  I don't know why, really.  It was just there, inculcated and ubiquitous throughout the Army.  I entered the service before Clinton's don't ask-don't tell, and from basic (if you saw Full metal Jacket, the drill sergeants really did act and talk...scream really... like that when I was in, and that is no exaggeration), all the way to the day I was discharged in 1994, there was a culture that hated, insulted, and demeaned gay and lesbian people.  In fact, if you did not participate in disparaging gay people whenever the topic came up, someone might suspect YOU of being gay. Like that is the worst thing in the world, right?  And I participated in that behavior: speaking ill of LGBT people, using gay slurs to insult friends, or worse, people I didn't like.  I was no different and no better than the rest who did it. 

 

It sickens me now, and I make no excuses for any it, because no matter how you look at it, I was wrong. But that was me back then.  I didn't know any gay people then (let's be real, I am sure I did know gay people,  I probably just didn't know they were gay), but I "knew" they were to be made fun of, and were "less than."  Now, I like to think  most of that behavior was immaturity, which I have since outgrown.  Also, through education, formal and informal, I learned that behavior was wrong.

 

Most of all, since that time,I have had LGBT people in and out of my life, some of the kindest, gentlest souls I've ever known, and some I now call friends and acquaintances.  People who were good to me, and helped me in a couple tight situations where I needed help and had nothing to offer in return.  I have changed, hopefully for the better.  

 

But the thing that bothers me to this day is I question what kind of darkness was in me to behave that way.  Worse, what if there were a hazing incident involving a gay person? Fortunately, there wasn't, but I still wonder if I would I have resisted the pack mentality or piled on?  I'm glad I never found out, but, that also haunts me, BECAUSE I never found out. Would I have taken the higher road? I hope so!  But I cannot say.   

 

So, I try my best to never let that type of prejudice and hate infect me again.  Maybe that is why I sometimes get on a soap box about people who are prejudiced, because I am really talking about something in my past that I hate about myself.  

 

Maybe this is something someone can learn from.  What irrational hate can do.  Be it prejudice, or in this thread's case, politics, where you treat someone badly, or are irrational towards someone because of political affiliation.  Or be it a case of holding onto rage against someone and that goes for political affiliation, just like any prejudice.  Anger and prejudice are terrible things to live with and internalize.  It really does decay the soul.  

 

One last thought I have is this: being right, and getting one over the opposing political party, or refusing to compromise, only lasts as long as your party is in power.  If US history has taught us anything, it's that the American Voter is fickle, and every 8 years or so, they change back and forth, voting in one party, then the next.  So, it may feel good for a while, not compromising, excising all that pent up anger.  But what comes around, goes around.  


  • pavonis, The Kurgan and Carrie Mathison +1 this

#46
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

Pav, you show me one person willing to break it and I'll be there with my support.  I'll vote D.  Heck, 15 years ago, I voted D close to 50% of the time.

An interesting challenge, to be sure, but consider me skeptical of you voting D, considering your statement:

Guess what, I don't care...I'm gonna turn and look away as politicians feed schlock to the useful idiots, no matter how ridiculous it is...long as the GOP wins elections.

I'd sooner try to convince a Packers fan to cheer for the Vikings than try to convince you to vote D.   :shrug:  To thine own self be true. 


  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#47
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,992 posts

Both parties are a hot mess. Hillary lost. That's probably the biggest indicator with the second biggest being the Democrats have had ample opportunity to get some sort of gun control law passed. Instead they're rolling back Obama era orders that were meant as a tiny bandaids. They only reason that they can't repeal Obamacare is because OLD PEOPLE. OMG. When they added benefits to the old people medical care options that made it even harder to even do anything to get rid of it.

 

I'd post more with evidence and stuff but you know...

 

Also amusingly why  am I the bleeding heart lib?


  • The Kurgan +1 this

#48
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Come on now pav, that quote is from just six months ago, after I had already started my shift to the right in light of recent developments.  Developments that were years in the making, sure, and I certainly commented upon them over the years (you can find observations of mine from 10 years ago, suspecting this is where politics in the US were heading).  But the shift was not years in the making.  My attitude towards politics is a completely recent phenomenon of the last year.  So no, you haven't unearthed some insight into my very fiber pav. :)

 

My old self is still in there somewhere, willing to come out if there's reason.  Challenge stands.  The reason I've shifted is because there isn't a single prominent Dem politician I can think of that isn't either a) a militant SJW, or b) bends over backwards to accommodate them.  For f-cks sake, even Bill Maher, the guy who hosted a show called "Politically Incorrect" had to go through the whole dog-and-pony show about a month ago and hold a whole damn episode of him apologizing because he made a f-cking joke.  We've gotten to the point where SJWs are so goddamn humorless we can't even make jokes now.  It's like the resurrection of the f-cking temperance movement.  We're basically just one step away from having to wear the scarlet letters again.

 

But again, prove me wrong man.  There are some examples I can think of.  I already mentioned one- had Jim Webb actually gained momentum and by some miracle, won the nomination, I almost certainly would've voted for him over Trump.  Hell I even gave Sanders a serious look.  At first, that is... before he totally caved on immigration to the SJWs and demonstrated to me that he had no spine- something that also became immediately apparent in all his debates with Clinton.

 

You show me that D politician that doesn't fall into category A or B above, and I'll stop contributing to the cycle.  Promise.



#49
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Let's be fair though, the GOP is made up of terrible faction types too-- the fundamentalist Christians, the family values tea party hate-mongers, and big business lobbyist-slaves.

The idea of a fiscally conservative, socially modern, small-government Republican is just as rare as the perfect Dem you're looking for.
  • The Kurgan +1 this

#50
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
CM - I'm not sure I can, or want to, prove you wrong. Certainly we both know that's not my strength. You're the legal, political, and economic expert here. If you want to be "proved wrong", you're the best person to undertake that challenge. It'd be very scientific of you to do so, in fact.

In the meantime I just try to learn as much as I can here.



Reply to this topic