The Next President is...

[ClearedHot]

More unity...FIVE new Bills hitting the floor of the house on the same day...all gun control and some draconian:

1.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/121/text?r=96&s=1   

Hiring several hundred new ATF agents for "enforcement."  If you follow guns at all and recent events around pistol braces and searches this should alarm you.  The public will see it as "great, lets enforce our gun laws."

 

2.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/125/text?r=67&s=1

Seven day waiting period to buy any semi-automatic weapons, any silencer (dumb because due to approvals it takes months to get a silencer), armor piercing ammo (sounds good on the surface but they are trying to classify a wide range of ammo as "armor piercing"...even hollow points.

 

3.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text?r=17&s=1

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.  This should SCARE everyone.  First they are trying to require a training class and license in order for you to exercise a core right in the Constitution.  Second, this is a back door method of creating a gun registry....EVERY gun you own, every round of ammunition you buy is now under the purview of the government.

 

4.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/130/text?r=15&s=1

To require the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, and to require the investigation of reports of improper storage of firearms or ammunition.  Regulates how you store not only your guns, but your ammo.  Creates a red flag system where anonymous friends/family/acquaintances can report you for improper ammo storage and ATF can come search your home.

 

5.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/167/text?r=7&s=1

To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer.  No more private party transfers at gun shows.

[jazzdude]

 
Focusing on just one tree (there are many now): All I ask going forward is that every confirmed American citizen; however that can be accomplished, (those contributing to our nation via taxation, marriage license, some sort of accountable credentials/traceable with consequences attached, etc.) show up to the polls (Post-Pandemic I guess) in body and true American spirit and vote with some sort of signatory/voter registration card/ID with a well regulated vote counting method/technology (Last part is tougher). No mail-in ballots accepted unless vetted for those with disabilities/unable to participate in person same credentials required and of course well monitored absentee ballots military or those American working/chilling citizens abroad. While we do have a lot of the above it just needs to be uniform across the board with no last minute changes prior to election. 
 
*The American voter when given the opportunity to vote must have skin in the game. Even standing in a long line is really minimal effort. If you can remember sitting in a DMV without such a thing as a cell phone to bide your time. Everything is switching electronically, but this probably should stay in person. Granted several states have been doing this well so I can be definitely be wrong, especially when our own financial movements are largely electronic. Granted, I have already been hacked twice in 2020 but that’s life. Nothing is sacred it seems and many use this easy highway to garner something from nothing. No skin in the game.  

If mail in voting is secure for a subset of people like you caveat, why is it not secure for the general population?

Waiting in long lines to vote is a failure of the voting system; it means the voting infrastructure does not support the number of people that are voting. Either not enough voting sites, or not enough voting booths. Same with long waits at DMV; long waits exist due to inadequate staffing.

In addition, how would requiring everyone to vote in person actually work? It would require a complete closing of our economy for every election/vote. Otherwise, how do you ensure those that have to work have an opportunity to vote? Especially if there are long waits at the polling sites. If you don't think it'd be a problem, you've never had a crappy boss. On top of that, would there be any compensation for lost work? Primarily for low earning, hourly workers struggling to make ends meet, and don't have paid time off available to them. Mail in voting means these people do not have to take time off work to execute their civic duty to vote.

Every American citizen already has skin in the game every election, as we are voting for our representatives, it sometimes directly on measures.

If you want voter ID, what we have is completely inadequate (voter card, driver's license). You would need to verify the ID somehow. Just like our CACs; picture ID, scan and retrieve info from a database to confirm picture/name has not been altered, then two factor authentication, like chip (something you have) & PIN/password (something you know) to authenticate your vote. Anything short of that would not be secure in our modern age. If you're just going to signature match, then there is no reason it has to be done in person (so why is mail in voting insecure?).

I prefer mail in voting, because it allows me to slowly go through the ballot, research each item up for vote as needed, and make my vote without having to remember what I decided on and go somewhere to vote. Plus my state also provided a voters packet, with statements from each candidate, and for measures being considered, a statement for and against it. I'd argue it helps encourage more informed voting.

[Prozac]

18 hours ago, Negatory said:

Appreciate you gents taking the bait.

Because the constant talk of the election being stolen - even by many on this forum - is a giant conspiracy theory that has no more substance than 9/11 hoaxers, yet over 70% of republicans entertain this particular theory. Including a disheartening amount of you all.

You guys spouting "let's just say that there were no shenanigans" implies that there is a debate about the election results. There isn't. And you may not understand it now, but every time that you say shit like this you're just further undercutting faith in American democracy. All for a little bit of political power. How do you see this turning out for the future of the country?

61 out of 62 election lawsuits filed by Trump/Giuliani failed in bipartisan courts The one that passed was PA saying that voters had 3 days to provide ID, but didn't come close to changing the results whatsoever. GA was recounted twice - Biden won three times in a row. Wisconsin was recounted once. Biden won twice in a row. Election officials - bipartisan officials - across all contested states have said that there is no meaningful fraud. To the point that Georgia secretary of state, a republican, has to tell the president to STFU about his elections.

And if I'm just flat out wrong here, and you can prove that there is substantial election fraud that would have affected the results, let me know.

Because the way that Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh and conservative media heads work is that they show real evidence that election fraud occurred 12 times across the state of GA. Then they have everyone take a poll that asks "do you think any election fraud happened?" And then 90% of people say "yes, of course there was election fraud, but-" and he cuts you off there and says that "an overwhelming majority of Americans believe there was a fraudulent election! Get out there and support the president! Jan 6!" Without representing the fact that the majority of rational people talking were going to finish their sentence:

"Yes, of course there was election fraud, but it was small and limited. There was fraud probably on all sides. But a handful of people registering incorrectly - or even a handful of people maliciously doing things incorrectly - does not warrant the destruction of the democratic process."

Provide proof that substantial election fraud occurred that would have changed the results or STFU saying things like "Let’s just say there were no shenanigans regarding the election itself and everything was pure, fair and balanced."

A functional society requires some level of trust and buy in from its citizenry. Public trust in the United States has been on the downswing for some time now. Some of the reasons for this are valid. Some aren’t. However, a growing faction on the Right has been actively sowing distrust in recent years because it has meant political gain for them. They have been frighteningly successful. Problem is, it’s far easier to break down trust than it is to build it. Any governing body, regardless of which party is in power, depends on public trust in order to do its job. We are reaching a point where that trust is no longer there and it doesn’t bode well for Democrats OR Republicans. 

[lloyd christmas]

5 minutes ago, Prozac said:

However, a growing faction on the Right has been actively sowing distrust in recent years because it has meant political gain for them. They have been frighteningly successful. 

The ONLY thing the left did for the last 4 years was sow distrust in the Trump administration.  

I agree with everything else you said.  

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

A functional society requires some level of trust and buy in from its citizenry. Public trust in the United States has been on the downswing for some time now. Some of the reasons for this are valid. Some aren’t. However, a growing faction on the Right has been actively sowing distrust in recent years because it has meant political gain for them. They have been frighteningly successful. Problem is, it’s far easier to break down trust than it is to build it. Any governing body, regardless of which party is in power, depends on public trust in order to do its job. We are reaching a point where that trust is no longer there and it doesn’t bode well for Democrats OR Republicans. 

Uhhhh.... This isn't just the Republicans. Democrats literally lied to everyone for 3 years that a Russian spy was running the nation's executive. 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/23/2021 at 11:16 PM, arg said:

There are a lot of worse places to pass out than there. Last time I was there was 89.

Very true. 

[Swamp Yankee]

Good discussion here.  BLM is a problematic organization.  The Marxist connections and the bizarre statement about the eliminating the nuclear family are confounding.  
 

HOWEVER, I’ve taken the opportunity to sit down with (actual, real) black people and get their perspective. I’d strongly recommend doing the same in order to challenge your thinking. Some don’t perceive any racism but the vast majority do.  It can be uncomfortable as it initially comes off as  “all white people are bad” but after some reflection that wasn’t the case. After years of having grievances dismissed or having to deal with always-hostile reactions from the “I’m the least racist person I know” “I have a black friend” or the “yeah there’s maybe some racism, BUT...” crowds you get pissed off - such that opening a pressure relief valve is dramatic. Also, some folks use the problematic aspects of the BLM organization to discredit any and all complaints from the black community.  That’s Fox News, Newsmax, and talk radio SOP. All of whom, by the way, are part of the mainstream media. They celebrated/defended Trump as much as MSNBC and CNN attacked/discredited him.  So, overall Trump coverage was balanced, although bimodal.  

[slackline]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

More unity...FIVE new Bills hitting the floor of the house on the same day...all gun control and some draconian:

1.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/121/text?r=96&s=1   

Hiring several hundred new ATF agents for "enforcement."  If you follow guns at all and recent events around pistol braces and searches this should alarm you.  The public will see it as "great, lets enforce our gun laws."

 

2.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/125/text?r=67&s=1

Seven day waiting period to buy any semi-automatic weapons, any silencer (dumb because due to approvals it takes months to get a silencer), armor piercing ammo (sounds good on the surface but they are trying to classify a wide range of ammo as "armor piercing"...even hollow points.

 

3.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text?r=17&s=1

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.  This should SCARE everyone.  First they are trying to require a training class and license in order for you to exercise a core right in the Constitution.  Second, this is a back door method of creating a gun registry....EVERY gun you own, every round of ammunition you buy is now under the purview of the government.

 

4.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/130/text?r=15&s=1

To require the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, and to require the investigation of reports of improper storage of firearms or ammunition.  Regulates how you store not only your guns, but your ammo.  Creates a red flag system where anonymous friends/family/acquaintances can report you for improper ammo storage and ATF can come search your home.

 

5.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/167/text?r=7&s=1

To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer.  No more private party transfers at gun shows.

1-3 I'll agree with 100%. 4 and 5, I have zero heartburn with. I honestly think if you can't store it properly, you're too irresponsible to have it. Definitions need to be laid out based on familial circumstances like whether or not you have kids, or someone struggling with mental health, drug, etc. issues with regular access to your home, but otherwise, storing a weapon properly is a good thing.  We're all trained at the squadron, some of us with many shooter's courses under our belts because of the job, yet our weapons need to be in a secured location. Average Joe citizen has nowhere near the training we do, but they shouldn't secure their weapons?  Maybe that makes me a communist, but how many accidental deaths would have been avoided? How many school shootings by deranged, pissed off kids?  That's an easy way to prevent those deaths.

For 5, I could be convinced it's a bad thing, but on the surface I don't have an issue with it. 

[pawnman]

30 minutes ago, slackline said:

1-3 I'll agree with 100%. 4 and 5, I have zero heartburn with. I honestly think if you can't store it properly, you're too irresponsible to have it. Definitions need to be laid out based on familial circumstances like whether or not you have kids, or someone struggling with mental health, drug, etc. issues with regular access to your home, but otherwise, storing a weapon properly is a good thing.  We're all trained at the squadron, some of us with many shooter's courses under our belts because of the job, yet our weapons need to be in a secured location. Average Joe citizen has nowhere near the training we do, but they shouldn't secure their weapons?  Maybe that makes me a communist, but how many accidental deaths would have been avoided? How many school shootings by deranged, pissed off kids?  That's an easy way to prevent those deaths.

For 5, I could be convinced it's a bad thing, but on the surface I don't have an issue with it. 

I'm on-board with the idea.  I am terrified by the implementation.  Some ATF agent kicking in the door of your house at 2am because your neighbor called about a gun you were cleaning on the coffee table instead of in a gun safe?  Yikes.

[ClearedHot]

Just now, pawnman said:

I'm on-board with the idea.  I am terrified by the implementation.  Some ATF agent kicking in the door of your house at 2am because your neighbor called about a gun you were cleaning on the coffee table instead of in a gun safe?  Yikes.

Shocked he agrees with the first three...

I understand and support the proper storage of weapons (many states already have these laws), I think the real concern is over ammunition.

[Swamp Yankee]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

If mail in voting is secure for a subset of people like you caveat, why is it not secure for the general population?

Waiting in long lines to vote is a failure of the voting system; it means the voting infrastructure does not support the number of people that are voting. Either not enough voting sites, or not enough voting booths. Same with long waits at DMV; long waits exist due to inadequate staffing.

In addition, how would requiring everyone to vote in person actually work? It would require a complete closing of our economy for every election/vote. Otherwise, how do you ensure those that have to work have an opportunity to vote? Especially if there are long waits at the polling sites. If you don't think it'd be a problem, you've never had a crappy boss. On top of that, would there be any compensation for lost work? Primarily for low earning, hourly workers struggling to make ends meet, and don't have paid time off available to them. Mail in voting means these people do not have to take time off work to execute their civic duty to vote.

Every American citizen already has skin in the game every election, as we are voting for our representatives, it sometimes directly on measures.

If you want voter ID, what we have is completely inadequate (voter card, driver's license). You would need to verify the ID somehow. Just like our CACs; picture ID, scan and retrieve info from a database to confirm picture/name has not been altered, then two factor authentication, like chip (something you have) & PIN/password (something you know) to authenticate your vote. Anything short of that would not be secure in our modern age. If you're just going to signature match, then there is no reason it has to be done in person (so why is mail in voting insecure?).

I prefer mail in voting, because it allows me to slowly go through the ballot, research each item up for vote as needed, and make my vote without having to remember what I decided on and go somewhere to vote. Plus my state also provided a voters packet, with statements from each candidate, and for measures being considered, a statement for and against it. I'd argue it helps encourage more informed voting.

 

In principal, I support Voter ID 100% with the points expressed above.   However, it is irksome that legislatures (usually Republican) trying to pass such laws can’t help themselves from also closing or curtailing DMV hours in areas with higher minority populations.  Gee, somehow there’s always a coincidental budget issue. 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/23/2021 at 1:04 PM, Blue said:

 

 

One doesn't need to be a trained mental health expert to know something is wrong with Joe Biden's mental state.

Biden is 78 years old, the oldest person to ever sit in the Oval Office.  The next closest is Reagan, who was 77 at the end of his presidency.

This is a big ing problem for the country, and I don't know how anyone can brush it off as "he's just old," or "people are just picking on poor Joe."

Age-related mental decline is insidious.  It comes and goes.  Someone can have their mental faculties at 100% at the beginning of the day, but then as the day drags on and they wear mentally and physically, they get worse and worse.  The results manifest themselves in several ways: people end up being excessively argumentative, they get tunnel vision and fixate on things with no rhyme or reason.

Anyone who's had the pleasure of working with those in their late 60s and 70s has seen this play out before. 

It was rumored that Reagan was experiencing the beginning of mental decline during his second term; he even got some raised eyebrows during the 1984 Presidential race when he seemed to falter during the debates.  That was a problem then, but at the very least you had an established team surrounding the president, and a more-or-less stable country and world.

Now you've got Joe Biden, who's starting his presidency in today's chaotic world, and surrounding himself with an eclectic band of unproven staffers and Cabinet picks.

Agree or disagree with Joe Biden's polices and ideals all you want.  That's everyone's right as a red-blooded American.  But the fact that we're starting a Presidential term with a 78 year old is a big ing problem.

True. Trump is 74 (and obese) so not really better.  I think that says alot about how both parties operate these days.   They’re both ~20 yrs older than the mean age at inauguration.  In addition,  MCConnell is 78 and Pelosi is 80.  How did we end up here? I’m sure we can all agree that some relative youth is needed in our political leadership.  

[jazzdude]

How many school shootings by deranged, pissed off kids?  That's an easy way to prevent those deaths.

This problem isn't deranged kids with guns, it's deranged kids with intent to commit violence. Guns make it easier (so yes limiting their access is important), but if someone is intent on hurting people, they will find a way.

But it's easier to talk removing guns than to address mental health issues and treatments, class size (smaller sizes encourage teachers to build a better relationship with students), bullying in schools, and parental responsibilities regarding their child.

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/24/2021 at 10:20 AM, ClearedHot said:

And this gem from the NY Times this morning calling Biden "the most religiously observant' president in 50 years"  SERIOUSLY?  Last I checked he is a Catholic who advocates for abortion.  The mainstream media just can't help but slobber all over his knob.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/biden-catholic-christian.html

Basically, I took the article as “Biden goes to church a lot and supports some Catholic causes and doctrine.” Obviously abortion is a huge, major outlier.  In all though, it is a typical Presidential exaggeration of leading a faith based life.  For goodness sake, Trump in some inexplicable way became the darling of the evangelical right, despite cavorting with porn actresses, grabbing genitalia, and previously being indifferent at best to abortion.  Not saying any of it is right but unfortunately this is a common tactic used to build up conventional faith bonafides.  

[ClearedHot]

11 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Basically, I took the article as “Biden goes to church a lot and supports some Catholic causes and doctrine.” Obviously abortion is a huge, major outlier.  In all though, it is a typical Presidential exaggeration of leading a faith based life.  For goodness sake, Trump in some inexplicable way became the darling of the evangelical right, despite cavorting with porn actresses, grabbing genitalia, and previously being indifferent at best to abortion.  Not saying any of it is right but unfortunately this is a common tactic used to build up conventional faith bonafides.  

Major difference.  The evangelicals are a private group, they embraced Trump and overlooked his obvious religious shortcomings because they were trying to get to the ultimate goal over reversing Roe V Wade.

The NY Times is mainstream media.  I think the same argument applies to Foxnews fawning over Trump.  Sickening on both accounts.

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/24/2021 at 10:02 AM, ClearedHot said:

100% agree that many 2016 votes were against Hillary and not for Trump.  I voted for Trump this time and it absolutely pained me.  I did it because I could not vote for the DNC polices which are now being thrust upon us (draconian gun control, "free" everything, seven-fold increase in immigration and enabling the Squad agenda). 

I disagree with your assessment that the GOP sold it's soul nominating Trump...what were they supposed to do...rig the nomination like the DNC (sucked to be Bernie in 2016 with Super-Delegates).  If Trump had the votes, he had the votes.  I can however support the soul selling argument when it comes to protesting the election and other issues. 

At the end of the day, I see Biden’s election as a reset to politics as usual, warts and all.  Given the debacle of the past four years, that’s probably okay.  If a better outsider candidate can get traction; Tulsi, Jocko(!), Crenshaw (despite the fact that SEALS annoy me) then we can try again. 
 

Two aspects pushed me away from Trump this time: 1) His unpresidential behavior, which is important - In contrast, Reagan’s ability to communicate in a mature, articulate way was key to his success and facilitated the recovery of both the economy and our national pride.  Initially I gave  Trump the benefit of the doubt in just being unpolished. That wasn’t the case; he said whatever he thought would appeal to his base no matter how vile, racist, or incendiary. 
2) Many of the numbers he claimed just weren’t correct. Job growth the last 3 yrs of Obama was slightly better than the first three years of Trump (pre-pandemic) per BLS stats.   The trajectory of major market indices was essentially consistent from 2011 until the start of the pandemic. Thus, Trump did not rescue us from the ‘terrible Obama economy’. Crime has been steadily decreasing for decades. Trump did not dramatically affect it one way or the other. 

[GrndPndr]

1 hour ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Good discussion here.  BLM is a problematic organization.  The Marxist connections and the bizarre statement about the eliminating the nuclear family are confounding.  
 

HOWEVER, I’ve taken the opportunity to sit down with (actual, real) black people and get their perspective. I’d strongly recommend doing the same in order to challenge your thinking. Some don’t perceive any racism but the vast majority do.  It can be uncomfortable as it initially comes off as  “all white people are bad” but after some reflection that wasn’t the case. After years of having grievances dismissed or having to deal with always-hostile reactions from the “I’m the least racist person I know” “I have a black friend” or the “yeah there’s maybe some racism, BUT...” crowds you get pissed off - such that opening a pressure relief valve is dramatic. Also, some folks use the problematic aspects of the BLM organization to discredit any and all complaints from the black community.  That’s Fox News, Newsmax, and talk radio SOP. All of whom, by the way, are part of the mainstream media. They celebrated/defended Trump as much as MSNBC and CNN attacked/discredited him.  So, overall Trump coverage was balanced, although bimodal.  

So what happened during the eight years of Obama/Biden?  Did we just shut of the black complaint system, because there was someone in office who should be sympathetic to the cause?  The complaints seem to rise and fall with whoever has been elected.

I too have friends who are "down with the cause," and they lay the blame for all of their troubles on Trump - including the challenges you list, and race problems dating back decades.

Well, now we have Biden.  In a post-election world, it will be interesting to see where he lays the blame for race troubles.

[jazzdude]

In principal, I support Voter ID 100% with the points expressed above.   However, it is irksome that legislatures (usually Republican) trying to pass such laws can’t help themselves from also closing or curtailing DMV hours in areas with higher minority populations.  Gee, somehow there’s always a coincidental budget issue. 

If voter ID was actually viewed as important/critical, the infrastructure allowing voter ID to be put in practice should be fully funded. This includes ID issuing sites, polling sites, backend databases, and verification (both before issuance, and at the polling sites to stop fake IDs from being used).

Since it is not, it's not really important, and there's nothing a politician can say to convince me otherwise. Where we spend our money shows us what we value in our capitalistic society.

So I agree, many times politicians calling for voter ID are using it as a means of voter suppression, because if they truly believed in it, they would fund everything necessary to implement it, though they never do.

So then it gets turned into something like getting turned away from the deployed DFAC because you're in sweaty PTUs and not a clean uniform (or without a reflective belt, remember those days?), despite being 110 degrees outside (i.e. stupid nonner games)

[Prozac]

3 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

The ONLY thing the left did for the last 4 years was sow distrust in the Trump administration.  

I agree with everything else you said.  

Perhaps. But Trump did as much or more than any Democrat or pundit to sow distrust in his own executive branch and its institutions. I think we will look back at four years of Trump as entirely self defeating for the Republican Party. Both parties should now concentrate on effective governance and restoration of people’s faith in the democratic process. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 minute ago, GrndPndr said:

So what happened during the eight years of Obama/Biden?  Did we just shut of the black complaint system, because there was someone in office who should be sympathetic to the cause?  The complaints seem to rise and fall with whoever has been elected.

I too have friends who are "down with the cause," and they lay the blame for all of their troubles on Trump - including the challenges you list, and race problems dating back decades.

Well, now we have Biden.  In a post-election world, it will be interesting to see where he lays the blame for race troubles.

Most of the people I spoke with definitely saw Trump as a major incendiary figure.  However, their major point was that this stuff has been a problem since they were born. 
 

I do agree that Republicans may get more of the blame than they’ve earned (although not completely beyond the realm of reason).  And democrats can sometime get a pass. And that some POC take advantage so as to avoid some responsibility. However, those are universals that all sides do; human nature. The point here is that there are real problems that should be acted on rather than ignored, denied, orrationalized away. 

[jazzdude]

So what happened during the eight years of Obama/Biden?  Did we just shut of the black complaint system, because there was someone in office who should be sympathetic to the cause?  The complaints seem to rise and fall with whoever has been elected.
I too have friends who are "down with the cause," and they lay the blame for all of their troubles on Trump - including the challenges you list, and race problems dating back decades.
Well, now we have Biden.  In a post-election world, it will be interesting to see where he lays the blame for race troubles.

I don't think the race issues weren't new in the Trump era- that's stuff that's been festering for decades like you noted. I think what changed under Trump was that white supremacists and those sympathetic to them were emboldened by Trump's rhetoric, combined with ever increasing usage of social media by all sides (and traditional media following suit), and that forced the issue to the forefront.

I don't think the complaints really rise and fall with the party in power, just how much focus is placed on it by media and the PR from both parties.

So it's unfair to say these recent racial issues are solely Trump's fault like some on the left would argue, but it's also disingenuous to say that Trump didn't fan the flames of a smoldering problem in our country like some on the right would argue.

[Swamp Yankee]

56 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

If voter ID was actually viewed as important/critical, the infrastructure allowing voter ID to be put in practice should be fully funded. This includes ID issuing sites, polling sites, backend databases, and verification (both before issuance, and at the polling sites to stop fake IDs from being used).

Since it is not, it's not really important, and there's nothing a politician can say to convince me otherwise. Where we spend our money shows us what we value in our capitalistic society.

So I agree, many times politicians calling for voter ID are using it as a means of voter suppression, because if they truly believed in it, they would fund everything necessary to implement it, though they never do.

So then it gets turned into something like getting turned away from the deployed DFAC because you're in sweaty PTUs and not a clean uniform (or without a reflective belt, remember those days?), despite being 110 degrees outside (i.e. stupid nonner games)

 

Good points.  
 

Ah yes, reflective belts.  I still have a couple in old helmet bags.  There’s a hilarious Reddit thread “Why is the USAF so obsessed with reflective belts?”   One of my favorites:  “I find it useful in identifying douche bags from a safe distance. If the sun is up, and you see someone running around or in an office wearing one, there is a very high probability that the individual is a jerk. Bonus points if they are holding a Big Blue coffee cup and spend free time yapping at people at the ecp about proper wear of line badges.” 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[slackline]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Shocked he agrees with the first three...

I understand and support the proper storage of weapons (many states already have these laws), I think the real concern is over ammunition.

Why?  Because I don't agree with some of the points on the right, and I'm not willing to blindly jump on board with everything spouted by people on an internet forum?  I'm a moderate, leaning conservative.  

And like I said, very clear definitions need to exist. Engage in good faith in the debate, and we get a say in those definitions.  Act like they're trying to steal our guns, refuse to engage, and we're stuck with whatever they decide.  That's a bad strategy...

Edited January 25, 2021 by slackline

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Major difference.  The evangelicals are a private group, they embraced Trump and overlooked his obvious religious shortcomings because they were trying to get to the ultimate goal over reversing Roe V Wade.

The NY Times is mainstream media.  I think the same argument applies to Foxnews fawning over Trump.  Sickening on both accounts.

Perhaps. But the evangelicals have a gigantic influence in conservative politics.  They carry at least as much weight as conventional media outlets

[slackline]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

This problem isn't deranged kids with guns, it's deranged kids with intent to commit violence. Guns make it easier (so yes limiting their access is important), but if someone is intent on hurting people, they will find a way.

But it's easier to talk removing guns than to address mental health issues and treatments, class size (smaller sizes encourage teachers to build a better relationship with students), bullying in schools, and parental responsibilities regarding their child.

I didn't say remove guns.  

Also, I hate how this lame argument about guns only making it easier to hurt people...  Yeah, a lot easier!  Why don't you go pull up statistics on mass shootings vs mass stabbings or cars used as a weapon.  The latter happen infrequently because you can't do the same amount of damage without getting up close and personal. Difference between pickling a JDAM and pulling the trigger in CQB is similar. One is much harder to do, and that's in a justified situation.  The ability to be somewhat removed by using a gun vs having to do it up close and personal is just one aspect limiting people trying to stab everyone at school.  Lock guns up in your home, and that pissed off kid, wanting to commit violence has to really think a lot more about how he is gonna go about it.

We have a right to guns and ammo in whatever qty we feel we want.  I'm not ever going to back up anything that tries to change it.  This seems like a no-brainer to put a dent in (while it won't eliminate them) mass shootings, especially at schools.

One of the dumbest things gun rights advocates can say is, "guns don't hurt people, people do!" Problem with the right is acting like they're trying to take away our guns the second the conversation even comes up. Engage in the conversation in good faith, and we should be able to find a compromise because you're kidding yourself if you think nothing needs to be done...