General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 149

K.

The next time you talk to Elizabeth, tell her I say what's up.

Huh?

No, it doesn't. If you think anything left of Wall Street corporate neoliberalism is socialism, you have a pretty expansive array of ideological variants to understand. Warren has endorsed alterations to our system that oppose Clinton's past policies, her own financial interests, and the bribes of her backers.

I really don't understand where you're pulling this argument from. Who is insinuating that Warren isn't a capitalist? As far as debating the interests of said capitalist institutions, there really isn't a debate that reformations, while stabilizing, would sharply decrease margins and lighten the pockets of financial elites. "Help" is relative compared to that. Whether these institutions are stabilized or their patrons strengthened economically, they will fight tooth and nail against it.

I never said that: you did. It's impressive that you can win an argument against yourself, but I cannot summarize Ms. Warren's life's work by her recent political involvement, nor do I care to. What I can say, and do so confident in the fact that I'm not engaging in alarmist bullshit, is that Warren's stance will be softened, if not to the point of toothlessness, then to the point that she is acceptable for Clinton's donors.

Could you illuminate for me what Clinton "is" today, as opposed to 25 years ago, as pertains to corporatist economics and political policy?

Did she not lobby for TPP? Did she not help suppress Haitian wages? Has she not received the most funding from Wall Street of any American politician and the second money funding, following Ted Cruz I believe, from Oil?

Again, you're paraphrasing yourself. I've said nothing about Warren's moral self or political belief system.

I skimmed this part, admittedly, because you're recycling arguments and committing the same fallacy repeatedly.

Yes, Clinton and Warren are far apart with regard to policies that are of considerable interest to posters on this board. Within the American political spectrum, are they closer together than not? Of fucking course. But guys like Louie Gohmert and Scott Walker are not relevant to this discussion, which revolves around a particular subset of policies, namely regulating financial institutions and moving away from corporate economics.

Also, please do not mistake me for having any regard for Clinton's life work or the illusion of principles therein. I don't believe she is philosophically or morally invested in shitty neoliberalism or corporate policy making: I believe she is owed to those policies by what got her to this point and by her thirst for power. If it was popular, I have zero doubt, as should anyone, that Clinton would have moved considerably to the right during this and any other election cycle because, after all, she's a suit.

 

An argument cannot be sound if the conclusions aren't valid by definition, you keep talking about logic arguments while seemingly having no idea what they are.. And you put "banning guns would violate due process" in quotes while literally no one has said in this thread, nor is that what anyone who favors gun control but hates this bill is arguing outside of this thread.

As I've said before, and I'll repeat now, Republicans can believe that the list the 2nd Amendment right to to bear arms is a fundamental right, and thus entitled to a higher level of scrutiny while believing that right to freedom of travel by air is either a lesser right, or simply just a privilege. If that's the case then they are evaluated on different basis, and while using a list to restrict guns would violate substantive due process, restricting air travel by the list would NOT violate substantive due process because the restrictions are done for a compelling, but it doesn't even have to be compelling, state interest.

While the no fly list has already been ruled a violation of procedural due process by a federal court, the amount of due process you get is still context dependent, and comes down to a balancing test which among another factor, again takes into account the right at stake and the government interest. Republicans could in good faith believe that the government interest outweighs the right to air travel and thus, the due process protections are satisfactory for the no fly list, while believing the government interest doesn't outweigh the right to bear arms and therefore the amount of due process given is unsatisfactory.

For the hundredth time, people from the left AREN'T okay with violating due process via the no fly list and think it should be reformed greatly or preferably done away with completely. And as I explained above, people on the right could justifiably think that one is a violation of due process and one isn't. But regardless, this does not serve as a justification for EXPANDING and bolstering the no fly list to apply it to other areas. "You're okay with violating due process when it comes to one liberty interest so you should be okay with expanding the violations of due process to another" is not a logical argument. No fly lists are bad, expanding and legitimizing them is bad, and trying to pass a bill that does just that for political points from a less shrewd public is also bad.

 

Supreme Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan - CNNPolitics.com

4-3. Kagan didn't vote, Kennedy, RBG, Sotomayor and Breyer were the 4 in favor!

 

Background checks are essential, however, that only eliminates individuals who are have already committed crimes or have been deemed mentally unfit due to psychological disorders.

There needs to be a discussion about legislation that requires references. For example, you need 3 references along with a universal background check to buy an assault rifle. That would shift some responsibility back onto society and generate some conversation as to the reasons of why for the purchase. I could back the idea of holding gun stores liable in deaths if references were not verified or obtained. While the idea is not fool proof and I don't believe there is any solution that fully eliminates the risks guns pose while being available to the public. Nearly all responsible gun owners could easily find 3 individuals to vouch for them, while a radicalized individual would have a more difficult time as they tend to be loners and if they have a plan to cause harm they wouldn't want to draw attention to that.

This doesn't eliminate the hatred or desire to do harm, but asking permission from friends, family members, and even strangers for an assault weapon complicates the process for would be criminals. Plus should a criminal manage to still obtain an assault weapon and still do something stupid, law enforcement now have 3 individuals who have to explain how they vouched for such a person. A potential gunman wanting to do harm also willingly damaging 3 individuals that vouch for them ups the ante of consequences of their actions that they must weigh.

 

I don't usually care for my congressman David Jolly (R-FL), but he's being pretty reasonable about what's going on, and his No Fly No Buy bill with due process protections seems like a pretty decent compromise.

 

Some of your ideas seem to shift a lot of the responsibility from the perpetrator to the gun shop and the references. I disagree with this approach.

The thing about background checks is that other than obvious things like registered sex offenders or violent felons, I am not sure what criteria would need to be met in order to be denied a gun purchase. Most psychological disorders left undiagnosed and treated, not all psychological disorders are created equal, and you are still denying people constitutional rights based on something that they cannot control.

 

requiring references still certainly creates problems. I imagine middle class citizens are going to have a lot easier time finding solid references than poor inner city folk

we shouldn't be trying to limit the class of people that can legally buy guns, we should be trying to limit the class of guns and ammo people can legally buy.

 

Will do. Got a lunch date with her today.

And Clinton has not expressed any interest in being staunchly against most any of those endorsements by Warren.

You said Clinton "acts in the interest of existing forms of capital". To use your word, that's pretty relative. Warren and Clinton both have proposals that "act in the interest of existing forms of capital". Of course they'll fight tooth and nail against any regulation, but that doesn't change the fact that Warren isn't acting to destroy these institutions as they exist.

I didn't say it. Just look at the page or so of posts prior to my first one about Warren possibly being the VP pick. I quote:

That last one is you, BTW. "Fucking barf"? "Waste of what was a promising public official"? Are you sure you're not saying that because you assume Warren is, IDK, going against the very things she worked for by campaigning for Clinton?

Warren is going to be used as an attack dog on Trump. There is [VinceMcMahon]no chance in hell[/VinceMcmahon] she turns her back on the CFPB or financial regulations (especially since Clinton seems to support most of the same things Warren does at the moment, minus breaking up the big banks). It's literally the issue she's best known for, and the reason why progressives tend to like her. Clinton's team is, if anything, politically aware enough to know that choosing a progressive candidate and then stifling said candidate's top issue will just negate the whole reason for selecting her in the first place. Plus you'd have to convince Warren to give that up, which the Obama administration hasn't been able to do for a few years now.

"Pro-fracking". Where? Here in the US? She didn't say she'd ban all fracking, but that's a bit different than being "pro-fracking". She's favored regulations against fracking since her time in the senate, when she voted against a pro-fracking bill due to lack of regulations she supported. She was much more liberal (little L) with the idea of natural gas as an energy supply for other countries, but that's not automatically a bad thing. Natural Gas will both be cleaner than their current energy supplies, and cheap enough for some of those countries to implement in ways that some renewable are not. Long story short "pro-fracking" is a super oversimplification of her stances in the past, and completely ignores her energy policy agenda she laid out on her website. "Pro-financial deregulation"...you mean the lady who proposed pretty strict finance regulations in the fall of 2015, before Bernie was even polling at 30%?? About the only thing they don't do is restore Glass-Steagall, which would be a good step but is not the end all-be all people make it out to be. "Pro-private prisons"...maybe in the 90's. She still got money from their lobbyists, but countless politicials (including Obama) have proven that getting money from someone doesn't mean you're going to support their policies. Not to mention her campaign stopped accepting donations from said lobbyists and gave the money they got from them to charity. If criminal justice reform lands on President Clinton's desk and it includes strict regulations, or the destruction of, private prisons, I don't think President Clinton is vetoing that bill.

Nope, just responding to the way people (including you) responded to the possibility of her being the Veep.

I agree that, if it were politically popular, she'd move considerably to the right. But guess what? It's not politically popular right now. In fact, on things like financial regulation, it's politically popular right now to be to the left. This is a good thing.

 

Like a "date date" or a "friend date"?

 

Hot takes requested: Should people be officially absolved of their crimes after their time has been served. So if you get sentenced to 15 years in prison for crime x should that fact be removed from public record after you serve your 15 years?

 

Just friends. Me and Lizzie go way back.

 

Background checks are only going to eliminate individuals with an already established history. Psychological disorders most certainly are not all equal and I'm not implying that all individuals with a psychological disorder be barred, but there are those with extreme conditions who are not allowed to handle sharp objects out of concerns of hurting themselves or others would be the individuals ineligible. They most likely wouldn't be in a position to own a gun in the first place. But my point remains the same, background checks don't solve the society issue.

Responsibility would shift onto references into knowing why that individual wants an assault weapon. As far as gun shops, they would only be held liable for failing to properly vet references or falsifing information. If the references check out and the gun shop did what was necessary, they have no concerns. The references would have problems should the individual they vouch for goes out and does something crazy. That's not to say they would be held responsible but they would definitely be questioned and dragged through the mud should anything happen. If your best friend hypothetically called and asked you to be a reference for them to buy an assault rifle, would you say 'ok' with no quesitons asked? By asking for references you are not denying any one their rights, but more doing what background checks can't do and can never do in asking individuals to vouch for a persons character and intent. Most importantly it's not the government making this decision but quite literally a judgement of your own peers in the literal sense. It allows for people who might be suicidal or have some really aggressive hatred which background checks would never show be caught by individuals that know them. At least, that's the ideal situation. Nothing is ever 100%.

Do inner city folk have less friends than middle class people? Lower class and poverty people might have a more difficult time buying weapons as money is tighter in their situation, which means they might resort to the guns that can't be regulated. If you are referring to areas of poverty having a higher crime rate so finding individuals with a clean record to vouch for you to be difficult, having a clean record isn't a requirement in my book. The only things that would be red flags would be any individual with a record that shows intent to do harm to other people and severe mental illness.

 

To the bolded, yes, I would say "ok" with no questions asked, it's none of my business why someone feels they want to own a firearm.

You've clarified the psychological disorder piece, but I continue to disagree with the references part. I think that's an overall bad idea that opens the door for a number of problems.

 

The only way to prevent gun violence is to take the guns out of the equation...but unfortunately, there is no logical way to do that, unless you completely say fuck the 2nd amendment and deal with the few who choose to revolt rather than comply.

There is a solid chance of people revolting, I've met a few of the "come and take it" people, and that was in the workplace. If I've met some, with my limited exposure, I'm sure there are thousands of people sharing that same mentality. Sure, they'll probably be squashed by the National Guard or whomever, but the fact still remains that people won't just overwhelmingly accept the removal - or attempted removal - of guns from the public, especially if we're talking about the removal of already legally purchased guns.

A "civil war" wouldn't break out, but rather some militant assholes attempting to come together to "protect their rights".

 

References would just pass the blame to the person who said "yea he's a good guy". It's quite possible someone would just lie also.

 

The idea is not perfect but the conversation of finding a middle ground that doesn't infringe on individuals right to bear arms and the ability to make sure gun owners are responsible individuals for societies sake is something that needs to be found. With a gun suicide every 25 minutes in this country I think the problems brought on by the idea of having references are far less severe than the problems we are having without them.

What are some glaring issues you see with a possible references policy? Would any of them pose a greater risk to the individual or the public?

 

Hence 3 references, if the society that you associate with and people that know you at least a little bit happen to think you're a responsible individual it seems fair. Plus if an individual does commit a crime, the amount of time that passed from the references being given would factor in. If it happens the same week, those references are going to look extremely bad. But if a crime is committed 20 years from the date of purchase, there was no way to really foresee that.

 

I'll paint you a picture.

Let's say there is an Arab guy you work with that is quiet, keeps to himself, but ultimately a pleasant person. You get along with him well enough. He comes to you one day and says "hey man I need a co-worker reference to complete a requirement to purchase a firearm and you're really the only person I know here, do you mind signing this?"

What do you do?

Now you could easily say that you don't know him well enough to sign it or possible say that you have a moral opposition to civilian gun ownership, and if they guy was anything but a young Arab man I am sure that would go over fine but it would be hard for him to ignore the racial implications of your discomfort with helping him purchase a weapon, perhaps damaging your relationship all together.

Or maybe you say, sure, I'll sign it. Then your co-worker turns out to Sayed Farook and kills 16 people in your office. All of the sudden you're sitting in a interrogation room with Homeland Security who are almost certainly going to hold you for questioning for an indeterminate amount of time. Meanwhile your name is plastered across every news site on the internet as a possible accomplice to a terrorist attack. Your name will forever be associated with this event, making it hard for you to get a job later in life as potential employers Google your name.

Now this is all obviously ridiculously rhetorical, but why should you have been put into this position to begin with?

 

What if you don't associate with society?

 

You'd end up being considered complicit in whatever the gun owner did if your name shows up on that reference form. Fuck that.

 

Why not just do this:

-Federal, comprehensive background (criminal/mental health) check.
-Mandatory stringent safety course(s), license given at the end, with exp. date.
-Federal "spreadsheet" of registered gun owners and the amount/type of ammo they purchase.

That's what California does. Not sure what else you need. If something bad happens yet you pass these requirements, the person is fucked up and you have to deal with that first.

 

why is the guy arab in your analogy and not white like dylan roof?

like, its true that racist people would probably give their white co-worker a referral but think twice about the arab guy. but that wasn't the point you were making so...

 

That was actually exactly the point I was making. In my analogy you are saying no because you don't know the guy well enough or you helping someone buy a gun would violate your value-set. But since the guy asking you is an Arab man, it's going to be hard to convince him that your reasoning has nothing to do with race.

 

Apparently sit-in is ending

 

And nothing was accomplished, I'll bet.

By the way, isn't it pretty fucking stupid that in the US government, you can possibly get something accomplished by sitting on the goddamn floor and complaining about something until finally the opposing side buckles?

Really weird, reminds me of when parliament wears those powder wigs while conducting legal issues (I think that's right).