Politics And Current Events

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:00 pm

I mean, it's only the single most reliable predictor of reelection odds, so...
Voting for some doesn’t mean you like them as a person. That shouldn’t be difficult to understand.

Edit: quoted wrong post.

Trip McNeely
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:02 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby Trip McNeely » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:28 pm

Trump today had the ramblings of a maniac. The dude is mentally diseased and ignoring that is like voting for him next election is like voting for Nero.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50381
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:09 pm

they vote for him because they don't want to vote for the other person and have strong interests in the SCOTUS and cabinet appointees...and will just always vote R. I really think this is the majority of trump voters - and some of them will lean in with their tacit support and get into superficial disputes because of scorekeeping and being put on the defensive.
This is disturbingly accurate re: me :)

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:37 pm

voting for trump could mean a lot of things.

-single issue voting on matters like guns/immigration

I wouldn't understate this factor. It's no secret that I am (to put it mildly) a strong supporter of the RKBA. I am, in fact, perfectly willing to be a single-issue voter on the RKBA. Not a single Democratic candidate for president is pro-RKBA. Every single candidate has—at a minimum—advocated for gun bans and increased restrictions, and multiple of the Democratic candidates for president have expressly advocated for confiscation in the form of mandatory buybacks. Voters like me thus have two choices: (1) vote for Trump; or (2) vote for a third-party candidate.

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:40 pm

If the damn Democrats keep pushing an assault weapon ban, they can kiss all hope of reclaiming PA goodbye...

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:44 pm

I know several people who were ready to single issue switch to the Dems for federal cannabis legalization.

Then the AWB talk started...
Image

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Politics And Current Events

Postby shmenguin » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:50 pm

they vote for him because they don't want to vote for the other person and have strong interests in the SCOTUS and cabinet appointees...and will just always vote R. I really think this is the majority of trump voters - and some of them will lean in with their tacit support and get into superficial disputes because of scorekeeping and being put on the defensive.
This is disturbingly accurate re: me :)
What must drive you insane is that you know, if Oprah was elected president and she wanted a privilege tax on white men, people in this thread would have the same, “yeah that’s dumb, and this situation is f’d, but I’ll still vote for her” response. But that’s not what happened. It’s YOUR side that did it first. You elected the populist before we had a chance to. And now you’re painted as some sort of dimwit, even though you’re certain the other side would do the same - because of all those ancillary voting drivers.

So in that sense, I have empathy for your perspective. Voting exclusively by party lines isn’t a choice we all made. It’s something we’ve been forced into because Congress is broken.

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby AuthorTony » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:55 pm

Dems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Politics And Current Events

Postby shmenguin » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:23 pm

Dems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?
Seems like something that would absolutely require SCOTUS support. That’s not happening

Also...these are very likely primary talking points that will be rolled back in the general election. There’s an arms race going on to see who can signal the hardest.

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:24 pm

So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:33 pm

Dems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?

I don't think I've ever said that. In fact, you have my permission to believe that when any candidate for public office says, "If you elect me, I promise to do X," then that candidate will in fact do X (or at least make a sincere attempt to do X) in the event he or she is elected.

Reasons to believe that Ds will ban guns:

1. They're all promising to do it.
2. They've done it before.
3. An AWB bill pending in the House already has 200 Democrat sponsors.

tifosi77
Posts: 51514
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:37 pm

I would also say the President has pretty substantial power.... if wielded competently.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Politics And Current Events

Postby shmenguin » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:37 pm

Dems are constantly told that Pres Trump (and by default any president) has little power and can't really accomplish anything dramatic or dangerous and that we need to calm down and ride it out. So why would we believe that as soon as any D gets in office they'll take our guns?

I don't think I've ever said that. In fact, you have my permission to believe that when any candidate for public office says, "If you elect me, I promise to do X," then that candidate will in fact do X (or at least make a sincere attempt to do X) in the event he or she is elected.

Reasons to believe that Ds will ban guns:

1. They're all promising to do it.
2. They've done it before.
3. An AWB bill pending in the House already has 200 Democrat sponsors.
could a congressional act override prior SCOTUS rulings?

shafnutz05
Posts: 50381
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:41 pm

Voting exclusively by party lines isn’t a choice we all made. It’s something we’ve been forced into because Congress is broken.
Well said. We are in a totally fcked two-party system. Hell, the last time a third-party won states in a general election was 1968, and that was George Wallace running for the AIP taking a bunch of southern states. I just don't envision a scenario where that will ever change.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:46 pm

could a congressional act override prior SCOTUS rulings?

No, but: (1) the SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on whether an ban on semi-auto rifles or standard-capacity magazines would be constitutional, so that would be no barrier to the passage and attempted enforcement of such a ban; (2) the same candidates who are promising to take anti-gun action are also promising to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who would be hostile to the RKBA and who would presumably vote in favor of gun bans, if not vote to overrule cases like Heller outright.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Politics And Current Events

Postby shmenguin » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:54 pm

could a congressional act override prior SCOTUS rulings?

No, but: (1) the SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on whether an ban on semi-auto rifles or standard-capacity magazines would be constitutional, so that would be no barrier to the passage and attempted enforcement of such a ban; (2) the same candidates who are promising to take anti-gun action are also promising to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who would be hostile to the RKBA and who would presumably vote in favor of gun bans, if not vote to overrule cases like Heller outright.
I thought Heller addresses #1?

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby AuthorTony » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:04 pm

https://thinkprogress.org/kids-in-borde ... a48725469/
Kids in border camps are 9 times likelier to die of flu. Trump’s team won’t vaccinate them.
Customs and Border Protection will not distribute flu shots to detained children or adults and has yet to respond to medical professionals' concerns.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:17 pm

I thought Heller addresses #1?
Not directly, no. The Heller case held that the 2A represents an individual right, and that right, at a minimum, extends to the ownership and use of handguns within one's home. Therefore, Washington D.C.'s total ban on operative handguns in the home was unconstitutional. The Court also said that the "arms" encompassed by the 2A are "those in common use for lawful purposes." The subsequent McDonald case held that the 2A also applies to the states. That is the total extent of the Court's rulings to date. Beyond handguns, the Court has not ruled that any other arms are covered. While folks like me certainly believe that semi-automatic rifles are "in common use for lawful purposes" (and have been for more than 100 years), some lower courts have already ruled to the contrary. So questions like these are still open:

Would it be constitutional for the government to ban certain types of guns so long as other types are available? For example, would it be constitutional for the government to ban all semi-auto rifles so long as bolt-action rifles are still legal?

Does the 2A apply anywhere outside of the home, or does the right literally end at one's front door?

We know that handguns are 2A arms because Heller said so. Is that all handguns? Could the government ban semi-auto handguns so long as people can still buy revolvers? Could the government ban semi-autos and revolvers so long as people could still buy single-shot pistols?

On the same vein, would it be constitutional for the government to limit firearm/magazine capacities? And if so, what is the constitutional limit? Ten rounds? Five rounds? One round?

The fact that so many questions are still open is why pro-RKBA people are right up there with abortion activists in caring a great deal about the composition of the Supreme Court.

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby AuthorTony » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:14 pm

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/politics ... index.html

Anyone here want to undo birthright citizenship?

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:17 pm

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/politics ... index.html

Anyone here want to undo birthright citizenship?
Yeah, the republicans

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:37 pm

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/politics ... index.html

Anyone here want to undo birthright citizenship?
Sane people.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:44 pm

Huh. I've never looked it up, but TIL that birthright citizenship is very much a New World thing. Just about every country in North and South America has "jus soli" citizenship, and hardly any countries anywhere else do. The only countries in Europe that offer birthright citizenship are Luxembourg and Azerbaijan.*


Whether Azerbaijan is in Europe or Asia or both is something open to debate.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50381
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:54 pm

Huh. I've never looked it up, but TIL that birthright citizenship is very much a New World thing. Just about every country in North and South America has "jus soli" citizenship, and hardly any countries anywhere else do. The only countries in Europe that offer birthright citizenship are Luxembourg and Azerbaijan.*


Whether Azerbaijan is in Europe or Asia or both is something open to debate.
Yup, most European countries don't have that policy because it is patently stupid. Birthright tourism is literally a thing. Not an invented right wing thing, but actual travel packages in nice American hotels where you will be invited to give birth.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:06 pm

I don’t think anyone would argue that those pregnancy trips should not grant citizenship. But I think the opposition to birthright citizenship goes well beyond the obvious case.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:10 pm

I don’t think anyone would argue that those pregnancy trips should not grant citizenship. But I think the opposition to birthright citizenship goes well beyond the obvious case.
Yes. Just like most issues there are fringe people that want it for terrible reasons.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 117 guests