General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 148

Agreed. Hell, if she really wanted to make Clinton look "good", she could have pointed out that she's been attacked by both sides and is "still standing", so to speak.

 

I love John Lewis. Finally a good use for Periscope.

 

Anyone else watching the Libertarian Town Hall? Johnson seems to be dodging most of the questions and changing his past positions based on the people asking the questions. Weld is doing a pretty good job though, actually answering the questions lol

 

#WeVapeWeVote

 

#ivapehashoil?

 

lol what?

You think there's "not a chance" that a former lifelong Republican turned leftmost Democrat accepts a vice presidency of the most powerful nation in the world without it being on her terms? Your optimism is inspiring, albeit ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is your insinuation that Warren would sabotage her reelection and the reelection of her party in the event of the near-inevitable.

This is a straw man. What people are doing is insinuating that Clinton is a deregulation neoliberal who receives copious funding from, and acts in the interest of, existing formations of capital. That is true. Warren's shtick is populism that opposes predatory capitalist arrangements that subsist to the detriment of the citizenry. Clinton is pro-MIC, pro-financial deregulation, pro-fracking, pro-private prisons, etc., etc., etc.. All of those institutions exist to create profits at the objective expense of populations world over.

That's stupid and not at all analogous due to the fact that Clinton's appearances of fighting have often been contrary to her actual support of policy. To support Warren in anything but name would actually imply a far greater fidelity to everything that Clinton has historically claimed to have fought for.

So, in the event that I misconstrued your point, what espoused personal philosophy would Clinton be working against in endorsing Warren?

 

i enjoy reading hilarys emails..good entertainment on a friday night

 

out of curiosity, are you in the future or mentioning something you did last Friday?

 

Some may disagree with me, but I find this entire gun violence sit-in to be pretty pathetic for both sides, who, according to the vote last hour, are perfectly split along partisan lines. One side is making a huge show of a pretty meaningless bill that does little to effect actual change besides making them look more empathetic than the GOP; and the other side is refusing a the fairly innocuous bill because of partisanship and intimidation of private financers.

Meanwhile, we still have private prisons, our collective bargaining is terrible, our public offices are transparently endowed to private capital, and inequality is growing. But at least there's a chance for a dog and pony show that effects at best a -0.01% shift in gun deaths next year.

 

I find it pathetic, but I don't find this innocuous. As I said earlier, legitimizing the use of arbitrary, racist lists to deprive people of rights without due process is awful and blatantly unconstitutional. It's cool Dems are actually taking a stand on something for once, but of course they pick the not-so-subtly Islamophobic hill to die on.

 

it certainly seems like neither side is actually looking for a solution here. stuff like a complete ban to those on the no fly list violates all kinds of civil rights. even if the republicans are still going to block any push for it smaller, more sensible moves, at least they'd be fighting for something reasonable

 

To be fair though, doesn't the statement "If you aren't allowed to fly, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun" actually have some truth to it? in the sense that anyone who is okay with the federal government determining without due process that someone isn't allowed to fly, should also be okay with the federal government determining that someone isn't allowed to own a gun in the same manner.

The democrats are making a valid argument from a flawed premise to try and arrive at a conclusion they like, while the republicans are keeping the same flawed premise and instead trying to dispute the validity of the argument because it at a conclusion they dislike.

 

Yes, I definitely think there's no chance. Regardless of what she was in 1990, she's attached herself to a few certain issues and, quite obviously, feels very strong about said issues. She's not going to agree to a Veep bid unless she has certain assurances that she can continue to harp on said issues (not to mention that her baby, the CFPB, remains untouched). It's not optimism, it's politics. Unless Warren is power hungry, which I don't believe she is, she has no reason to not make a negotiation out of it.

And no, I don't believe Warren herself would run a sabotage campaign, outside of maybe saying she's not happy with what happened. I'm saying if Hillary were to promise her certain things, only to do something like de-tooth the CFPB, there's no chance she's able to keep the base in line to support her. Too unpopular as it is.

This assumes that Warren is not in support of a capitalist system or, at the very least, wants to destory "existing formations of capital", rather than act in their interest at all. I'd be willing to bet Warren believes most of these capitalist institutions would actually be helped by the reforms and regulations she proposes, not hurt. Her and Clinton probably agree on far more as it pertains to Wall Street and financial regulation than they disagree on. And, knowing that, saying she's "throwing her life's work away" by backing Clinton is nothing more than alarmist bullshit. Not to mention most of what you're insisting Clinton "is" are either 1. Mixed at best, or 2. True 25 years ago, not necessarily today.

The insinuation is that Clinton and Warren are so far apart, and Clinton is so entrenched in her neoliberal ways, that someone like Warren backing Clinton means she's completely throwing away everything she believes in and has worked for just to support a fellow Democrat. How is the opposite not true for Clinton? If Clinton really is THAT far to the right of Warren, as you and others insist she is, there's no way at all to reconcile her policy goals with Warren's. If Warren supports a government run health care option and Clinton doesn't, how is she not compromising on everything she's worked for, i.e. a private health care system that is regulated enough to provide health care to everyone without a so-called 'government takeover'? If Warren is more dove than Hillary, which she certainly is, how does Clinton support her without it being against everything she has worked for on an American-led military leadership of the world? If Warren wants financial regulation turned up to 100, and Clinton is, as you claim "pro-deregulation", then obviously supporting Warren is literally going against things Clinton apparently "works for".

But, the truth is, everyone here knows the two women support generally the same things on most issues, so none of that talk makes any sense. Warren can support Clinton's election, and hell even be her Veep, without completely abandoning her pet issues. Same with Clinton if the roles were reversed, or if Clinton campaigned for Warren in a Senate election. One supporting the other is nothing more than "Alright, I don't really agree with her on everything, but we can talk that out. Plus, holy fuck, Trump" or "holy fuck, Republican senate candidate". Or it's the complete and total destruction of someone's beliefs and policy goals and that person obviously never truly believed the things she has been saying for years and/or decades because it was all an act. One of the two. (TBF, option 2 is far more likely with Clinton, heh)

Hyperbole is fun but jesus it's tiring.

 

The Dem sit in is mostly just about getting Republicans on the voting record. I doubt most of the Dems on the floor feel THIS strong about no fly no gun buy, moreso than other gun control in general, but rather want to force Republicans to vote no on even a basic, widely and universally supported measure, so they can really hammer home how owned those reps are by the NRA in the elections coming up. They're sensing (and I think correctly so) that people are finally starting to look around at our gun laws a little bit. A good time to get some seats back in the House.

 

Well no, not really. Republicans are essentially arguing that the right to bear arms enshrined in the constitution is a right entitled to higher protection/scrutiny than any private liberty interest in air travel, and thus, the restrictions placed on your liberty interest in air travel are entitled to a lesser standard of due process than any arbitrary restriction on your right to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. It's easy for you and me to disagree with this notion because we do not view the 2nd Amendment in such favorable terms, but it is a sound argument.

But this is getting away from the major issue, the Democrats aren't just making an argument, they're trying to pass a bill into law and the fact that they "like the conclusion" should be enough of an indictment. After all, they are appealing to latent Islamophobia and xenophobia in order to further restrict the rights of what Dems call "suspected terrorists," by which we both know they mean the Muslims and brown people who are disproportionately represented on the no fly list, all for practically no real effect on gun violence.

 

both feel like violations of due process to me. The difference is that republicans don't worry that the democrats are going to come to take the airplane rights of everyday citizens away. So they are perfectly willing to squash the civil liberties of people with the no-fly list because there isn't any sort of "slippery slope" there. Whereas when it comes to guns, they worry that if suspected terrorists can't get guns that'll be an avenue to stop everyone from getting guns, so they make a big fuss about due process not because they care about the civil liberties of suspected terrorists but because they fear it might get used against them

Anyways, my point wasn't that passing a no guns to people on the no fly list isn't xenophobic and racist, my point was that the no fly list is xenophobic and racist. People are getting upset at the conclusion the democrats are drawing (no guns to people on the no fly list) when really they should be getting upset at the premise they are using (the no fly list in its current form is a good thing to have)

 

Yes, we are all aware that Republicans are on that right side for many of the wrong reasons.

No shit.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, you can be upset at both of these, they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they flow from each other. People are pissed because the no fly list is trash and Democrats are trying to take it and expand/legitimize it by selling it to their base as a proper and effective method of gun control. You can, and should, be upset at the conclusion and the premise, I actually find it hard to understand how anyone not on the right could be upset at one but not the other. And again, I don't know why you keep talking about a "conclusion" as if the Democrats aren't trying to pass this into law.

 

I'm talking about a "conclusion" because I'm talking about a logic argument which which starts with a premises has a series of statements, and then reaches a conclusion... and that the statements they are making are logically sound statements they are just coming from a faulty premises... what does the fact that they are or aren't trying to pass something in to law have to do with an analysis of the validity of their argument?

 

First of all, Dems are in no way structuring nor representing this like a logical argument nor does it have any resemblance to one. Second of all, statements can't be "logically sound" in a logic argument, they are either true or false. Finally, faulty premises necessarily make an argument unsound.

I'm saying the substance of the policy they're trying to enact is awful, talking about the validity of their "conclusion" doesn't change shit. This is such a strange diversion you're trying to take.

 

EU referendum voting is underway. Going to leave it until after work to vote, but will spend all day debating/berating the brexiters in the office.

 

lol you're hopeless. I'm not even defending the democrats here. I was just saying the argument they were making is sound given the premises they are using, that doesn't make the conclusions they are reaching valid, it just means focusing on "banning guns would violate due process" bit ignores the fact that everyone already seems to be somehow okay with violating due process via the no-fly list. but this is the same thing I've said in the last three or four posts so clearly not getting through tonight

 

That interesting, I am seeing the opposite happen. By advocating for a sales ban for people on the no fly list, and doing so in the most sanctimonious of ways that the Democrats have mastered, they have highlighted that a) no fly lists exist and b) the system for managing them is deeply flawed.

Non-political people who generally lean left see the racist implications of denying people civil rights without due process and shudder at the thought of a President Trump being the steward of such lists.

Non-political people who generally lean right see the massive federal over-reach of denying people civil rights without due process and use it as an example of the corruption and mad power taking place in DC.

Nobody. Nobody thinks terrorists should own firearms.

 

You know I'm as anti gun as it comes but I think the list is a terrible idea.

 

Ding ding. I mean here's the thing, it's a conversation started. they should have pushed for universal background checks. That is the right solution.

 

In your opinion, what would the background check have to return to prevent someone from buying a gun?