Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, ewsieg said:

... 

The problem isn't who has the most radicalized on their side, it's that when push comes to shove, both parties revert to focusing on 'the base' which unfortunately is carried by the loudest folks, which tend to be made up of some of the more radical folks.  So...

This is not correct.

The "base" of the Democrats is NOT the extreme left. There are a large proportion of centrists, Independents, and "traditional" Democrats. The HARD left Democrats do not make up the bulk of the Democratic Party, and to Tater's point, even those people are trying to help other people with positive policies that in their mind, are good for the US.

The BASE of the Republican Party is NOW primarily (the primaries PROVE that) right wing extremists who want to shit all over our Democracy and the Constitution of the United States. They want to establish a Fascist Dictatorship.

The makeup of these two parties is NOT equivalent. 

So quit trying.

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

In terms of quantity, probably, not sure that matters though.

The problem isn't who has the most radicalized on their side, it's that when push comes to shove, both parties revert to focusing on 'the base' which unfortunately is carried by the loudest folks, which tend to be made up of some of the more radical folks.  So regardless of who has most of the crazies, it's still the crazies that often control each of the parties or at least have a great influence on the direction.

In the end, I think the wealthy ultimately control both parties more than the bases do and they are only happy to see the rest of have class and identity wars.  

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

The far right and Republicans, as with everything else, are just projecting when it comes to teaching and what they want taught. They accuse the left and Democrats of "grooming" their kids with an LGBTQA and racially sensitive agenda. When in actuality none of that is happening and it is they who want to ban what can and cannot be taught. It is they who want to dictate to Teachers and Education Professionals what can and cannot be taught. It is they who want creationism and junk theories with no provable scientific merit taught alongside or instead of scientifically tested theories and hypothesis'. They who want to ban books like Maus and whitewash history in the process.

And between all this and talk of being required to be armed in the classroom, there’s a good chance all this is going to cost those states a lot of good teachers, and then who’s left to take those jobs?

[ewsieg]

4 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

This is not correct.

That's why Build Back Better was signed into law, oh wait.

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

In the end, I think the wealthy ultimately control both parties more than the bases do and they are only happy to lead the rest of us into class and identity wars.  

 

[oblong]

18 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

That's why Build Back Better was signed into law, oh wait.

and it's why Biden forgave all the student debt?  oh wait.

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

26 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And between all this and talk of being required to be armed in the classroom, there’s a good chance all this is going to cost those states a lot of good teachers, and then who’s left to take those jobs?

That probably part of the plan. They want to privatize schools and turn education into a for-profit, cottage industry. Once they do that, they will deregulate all education standards and credentialing required for being a teacher. The skills and preparation it takes to be a high quality, good educator of young minds means little to a lot of people on the far right. If you teach the bible, creationism, biblical literalism, the Earth being only 7,000 years old, anti-abortion education, that being gay is a mortal sin, that the Civil War was caused by northern aggression, that there are differences between the races, we aren't all equal, gun ownership is a necessity and immigrants are poisoning our society, the right would have no problem with any of that. All of the certifications and requirements for becoming a teacher are unnecessary burdens and red tape.

Furthermore, they would tell us that we need to stop all the grooming and liberal indoctrination that modern day teachers do. When they went to school a teacher could take their belt or the back of their hand to you. You bent down and prayed apparently at the start of every day and you said the words "Under God" in the pledge extra loud or something.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[pfife]

wait is the argument that the dems are so extreme they didn't pass build back better?  I'm really lost on the logic here

[gehringer_2]

45 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

In terms of quantity, probably, not sure that matters though.

The problem isn't who has the most radicalized on their side, it's that when push comes to shove, both parties revert to focusing on 'the base' which unfortunately is carried by the loudest folks, which tend to be made up of some of the more radical folks.  So regardless of who has most of the crazies, it's still the crazies that often control each of the parties or at least have a great influence on the direction.

The solution to this is more people voting in primaries. But too many people want to be able to wash their hands and say 'I'm not a member of either party, it's not my fault they keep putting up crazies in the general election"

Well, yes it is, you have chances in every election cycle to help determine the trajectory of the party you have the most affinity for, if you don't use it, you leave the field to the crazies.

And it also is if you don't go vote in the general because there is no issue motivating you enough to care if a crazy wins there.

Less than 30% identity as members of either party. If primary turnout is 1/2 of party affiliated voters like the general is 1/2 of all voters, that puts 15% of the total population voting in a primary and so 8% wins the day. When 8% of the population can pick your candidate, sure - you've got a problem.

Edited June 16, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

That probably part of the plan. They want to privatize schools and turn education into a for-profit, cottage industry. Once they do that, they will deregulate all education standards and credentialing required for being a teacher. The skills and preparation it takes to be a high quality, good educator of young minds means little to a lot of people on the far right. If you teach the bible, creationism, biblical literalism, the Earth being only 7,000 years old, anti-abortion education, that being gay is a mortal sin, that the Civil War was caused by northern aggression, that there are differences between the races, we aren't all equal, gun ownership is a necessity and immigrants are poisoning our society, the right would have no problem with any of that. All of the certifications and requirements for becoming a teacher are unnecessary burdens and red tape.

Furthermore, they would tell us that we need to stop all the grooming and liberal indoctrination that modern day teachers do. When they went to school a teacher could take their belt or the back of their hand to you. You bent down and prayed apparently at the start of every day and you said the words "Under God" in the pledge extra loud or something.

I’m out of Likes for the day, so … like.

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

In the end, I think the wealthy ultimately control both parties more than the bases do and they are only happy to see the rest of have class and identity wars.  

From Bill Clinton forward the Dems have definitely lost their way. But how much of that is driven by the campaign system? Do candidates have any choice but to try to make nice to at least some section of Wall Street to raise the funds they need? I'm pretty sure Hillary's embrace of Wall Street types was one of the things that left so many young and blue collar dems uninspired about her candidacy.  

[Motown Bombers]

I still struggle to find what is so extreme about universal health care, gun control, LGBT rights, pro-abortion, affordable college, etc? These are all things offered in modern developed countries. Is Norway extreme? Canada? Australia? Sweden? On the flip side, what countries want to ban abortion, encourage more gun ownership, restrict what can be said in schools, ban books, anti LGBT, no universal health care, no affordable college, etc? 

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I still struggle to find what is so extreme about universal health care, gun control, LGBT rights, pro-abortion, affordable college, etc? These are all things offered in modern developed countries. Is Norway extreme? Canada? Australia? Sweden? On the flip side, what countries want to ban abortion, encourage more gun ownership, restrict what can be said in schools, ban books, anti LGBT, no universal health care, no affordable college, etc? 

I find it interesting historically that up until WWII, the US in general had a culturally inferiority complex to Europe and we were always looking for European innovations to steal, upgrade and apply here. Then a little success at global warfare and suddenly no-one can tell us anything and US shit don't stink anymore. 

[ewsieg]

52 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The solution to this is more people voting in primaries. But too many people want to be able to wash their hands and say 'I'm not a member of either party, it's not my fault they keep putting up crazies in the general election"

I'd point out, more people voting in good faith in primaries being key as well.  Dems helped Mastriano in PA, not because they would have preferred him over other GOP candidates, but because they felt he would be easier to run against.  Both sides have done this, absolutely ridiculous and dangerous if they lose.

1 hour ago, pfife said:

wait is the argument that the dems are so extreme they didn't pass build back better?  I'm really lost on the logic here

Dems had to convince 2 moderate dems to go along with them.  Those moderate dems were actually up front on what they needed to pass the bill, instead of doing it, the party vilified them.  Instead of going after the GOP, they ate themselves.  

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Dems had to convince 2 moderate dems to go along with them.  Those moderate dems were actually up front on what they needed to pass the bill, instead of doing it, the party vilified them.  Instead of going after the GOP, they ate themselves.  

So your argument actually is that the Dems are so extreme left that they didn't pass the extreme left legislation?

[Archie]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

This is not correct.

The "base" of the Democrats is NOT the extreme left. There are a large proportion of centrists, Independents, and "traditional" Democrats. The HARD left Democrats do not make up the bulk of the Democratic Party, and to Tater's point, even those people are trying to help other people with positive policies that in their mind, are good for the US.

The BASE of the Republican Party is NOW primarily (the primaries PROVE that) right wing extremists who want to shit all over our Democracy and the Constitution of the United States. They want to establish a Fascist Dictatorship.

The makeup of these two parties is NOT equivalent. 

So quit trying.

You would have to be born after 2000 to think this.  Todays democrats are nothing like democrats of the past generations.  Current dems are the most anti-American fascists ever.  Yes, there are some far right crazies in the Republican party but a lot more far left wack jobs in the democrat party.  Up until around 1990 Dems and Republicans had the same goals and that was to better the USA.  They just had different ways of obtaining it.  Today's democrats are more about what they can do for people in other countries, how they can support criminals and crazies and tear down the USA.  Biden and his comrades have not done one single thing to help the American people.  He goes down as the biggest failure as POTUS ever!

[pfife]

LOL

[Motown Bombers]

6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'd point out, more people voting in good faith in primaries being key as well.  Dems helped Mastriano in PA, not because they would have preferred him over other GOP candidates, but because they felt he would be easier to run against.  Both sides have done this, absolutely ridiculous and dangerous if they lose.

Dems had to convince 2 moderate dems to go along with them.  Those moderate dems were actually up front on what they needed to pass the bill, instead of doing it, the party vilified them.  Instead of going after the GOP, they ate themselves.  

Are you saying that in Pennsylvania, a state with closed primaries, that registered Democrats changed their registration to Republican just to vote for Mastriano? 

[ewsieg]

17 minutes ago, pfife said:

So your argument actually is that the Dems are so extreme left that they didn't pass the extreme left legislation?

Yes, they catered to the left so much they couldn't budge to allow it to change from extreme left wing legislation to very left wing legislation, instead, they thought so highly of their ideas regarding that legislation they let it die and decided to put an all out blitz on two of their members.  

Edited June 16, 2022 by ewsieg

[ewsieg]

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Are you saying that in Pennsylvania, a state with closed primaries, that registered Democrats changed their registration to Republican just to vote for Mastriano? 

I'm unsure how many, or if any, voters changed their affiliation to vote.  Dem money went into ads supporting Mastriano over other GOP candidates though.  There have certainly been situations where both sides have pushed their folks to vote in open primaries on a specific person in the other party.

[oblong]

I'm confused.  Not trying to be a jerk at all but I don't understand the logic that a party catered to their extreme element because they didn't pass legislation that the extreme element wanted.  Isn't that the opposite?

[pfife]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

I'm confused.  Not trying to be a jerk at all but I don't understand the logic that a party catered to their extreme element because they didn't pass legislation that the extreme element wanted.  Isn't that the opposite?

yeah man that's where I am LOL

[pfife]

22 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Yes, they catered to the left so much they couldn't budge to allow it to change from extreme left wing legislation to very left wing legislation, instead, they thought so highly of their ideas regarding that legislation they let it die and decided to put an all out blitz on two of their members.  

I know you got some 6 dimensional chess going on here but it's actually that the party wasn't left enough to get the votes for the left wing legislation

[ewsieg]

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

I know you got some 6 dimensional chess going on here but it's actually that the party wasn't left enough to get the votes for the left wing legislation

You're absolutely correct, the far left portion of the Dem party didn't have enough votes to pass their very left wing bill, BUT AGAIN, they did have enough votes to get a huge bulk of it done.  Instead of incremental change, they choose nada, zip, zilch.  But yes, in a (pfife's) perfect world, the issue is simply they didn't have enough progressive votes to get the bill exactly the way they felt it should be passed.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You're absolutely correct, the far left portion of the Dem party didn't have enough votes to pass their very left wing bill, BUT AGAIN, they did have enough votes to get a huge bulk of it done.  Instead of incremental change, they choose nada, zip, zilch.  But yes, in a (pfife's) perfect world, the issue is simply they didn't have enough progressive votes to get the bill exactly the way they felt it should be passed.

The problem for the Dems is that their majority is just two narrow. Sure we can say the left lost the Manchins, but had Biden done enough surgery for Manchin and he loses the AOC  side caucus it's the same discussion just from the opposite other way. It's normal to lose votes on the edges with major legislation, the Dems just don't have the majorities sufficient for 'normal' to apply.

It also goes back to the mess the Senate has become. You might have gotten pieces of BBB with full Dem caucus support in individual bills, but in the current version of the Senate, you can't pass legislation with simple majorities in our supposed democratic country. So you have to bundle everything together and try to put it through in omnibus style with the filibuster rules doesn't apply. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by gehringer_2