Octopus Overlords

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:38 amat least I can understand why, or at least that, some do.

That's always been one of my hangups. I can't understand why people would choose to do some of these things. When I try to boil down the arguments, I'm often left with the only explanation being "ignorance" and "avarice" which isn't enough for me to say "Oh, yeah, good point. I get that."

I don't say "good point" but I do understand avarice and ignorance. Being reminded of why folks support him doesn't mean I have ANY respect for them. In fact, I would say it lessens it but that isn't really possible. At least I can see a "reason" even if I think it a horrible one.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am Just as an example, environmental regulations. You kill these to make a buck today for the rich and dribble some pennies into the working class, but at the cost of reducing the available natural resources for every generation that follows. It just makes no sense to me.

So you're saying the environment should be protected from ALL man made chemicals at ANY cost?

If the answer is no, then you'll understand why there might be different levels of tolerance.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:31 am

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am Just as an example, environmental regulations. You kill these to make a buck today for the rich and dribble some pennies into the working class, but at the cost of reducing the available natural resources for every generation that follows. It just makes no sense to me.

So you're saying the environment should be protected from ALL man made chemicals at ANY cost?

If the answer is no, then you'll understand why there might be different levels of tolerance.

I would say "Yes" actually, any chemical that has a lasting impact on the environment and ecosystem needs to be kept out of the environment at any cost - or, depending on the quantity and potency of the chemicals, there may be little of that ecosystem left. Regulations end up creating different markets and new profits in different ways, too. It's not a lose/lose for business in general. It's just a lose for the company that's still profiting but has to contain a problem. I guarantee that any added profit from deregulating doesn't make it into the worker's and community's pockets in any appreciable way.

On NPR last week they were interviewing three GOP candidates for the primaries in my area. Aside from listening to them try and gut each other, I got a solid belly-laugh out of the oldest one saying "Back when I was a kid, that river was covered with toxic foam - and we cleaned that up" ... that dude did NOT clean that up. The Democrats regulated the shit out of the industries killing the river until they stopped and the river cleaned itself over time, despite the GOP's complaints about hampering profits. That natural resource has returned to a state where it can be fished again, generating different revenues and having a different value. Left in the GOP's hands, you could probably drop a match on the river and watch it burn for days before it went out - but the paper mills would have been more profitable.

So, yeah - I consider the environment more important than short-term profits and think that any company can find a way around killing it if they try hard enough without killing themselves. It makes them less profitable, but leaves the world more sustainable. I'm okay with that.

There are some problems I don't have the answer to, though, like the Great Garbage Patch in the Pacific - which is more like a societal problem than a corporate one. This is also why I favor electric everything. You can regulate and control the industries that generate electricity, but you can't stop people from burning fossil fuels on an individual level. Since we can't get people to care enough personally, we should take the choice away from them and force everything to go "Green" before the world becomes intolerably hot for us to survive in. Ditto for plastics; new solutions need to be made for things and regulations put in place at the business end so people who don't give a damn can't toss straws around after 5 minutes of use that last over 1000 years in the ecosystem.

*Edit: I don't consider myself hippy-dippy, either. I consider myself a realist with kids. I'd like for those kids to enjoy the world they grow up in, and be able to pass it on to their own kids.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:31 am

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am Just as an example, environmental regulations. You kill these to make a buck today for the rich and dribble some pennies into the working class, but at the cost of reducing the available natural resources for every generation that follows. It just makes no sense to me.

So you're saying the environment should be protected from ALL man made chemicals at ANY cost?

If the answer is no, then you'll understand why there might be different levels of tolerance.

This would be a great line if any significant percentage of these people were voting with any sort of philosophy in mind or even understand the basics of the long-term irreversible damage their votes are causing to people, the environment, or simply their own long-term interests.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:03 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:31 am

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am Just as an example, environmental regulations. You kill these to make a buck today for the rich and dribble some pennies into the working class, but at the cost of reducing the available natural resources for every generation that follows. It just makes no sense to me.

So you're saying the environment should be protected from ALL man made chemicals at ANY cost?

If the answer is no, then you'll understand why there might be different levels of tolerance.

I would say "Yes" actually, any chemical that has a lasting impact on the environment and ecosystem needs to be kept out of the environment at any cost - or, depending on the quantity and potency of the chemicals, there may be little of that ecosystem left. Regulations end up creating different markets and new profits in different ways, too. It's not a lose/lose for business in general. It's just a lose for the company that's still profiting but has to contain a problem. I guarantee that any added profit from deregulating doesn't make it into the worker's and community's pockets in any appreciable way.

On NPR last week they were interviewing three GOP candidates for the primaries in my area. Aside from listening to them try and gut each other, I got a solid belly-laugh out of the oldest one saying "Back when I was a kid, that river was covered with toxic foam - and we cleaned that up" ... that dude did NOT clean that up. The Democrats regulated the shit out of the industries killing the river until they stopped and the river cleaned itself over time, despite the GOP's complaints about hampering profits. That natural resource has returned to a state where it can be fished again, generating different revenues and having a different value. Left in the GOP's hands, you could probably drop a match on the river and watch it burn for days before it went out - but the paper mills would have been more profitable.

So, yeah - I consider the environment more important than short-term profits and think that any company can find a way around killing it if they try hard enough without killing themselves. It makes them less profitable, but leaves the world more sustainable. I'm okay with that.

There are some problems I don't have the answer to, though, like the Great Garbage Patch in the Pacific - which is more like a societal problem than a corporate one. This is also why I favor electric everything. You can regulate and control the industries that generate electricity, but you can't stop people from burning fossil fuels on an individual level. Since we can't get people to care enough personally, we should take the choice away from them and force everything to go "Green" before the world becomes intolerably hot for us to survive in. Ditto for plastics; new solutions need to be made for things and regulations put in place at the business end so people who don't give a damn can't toss straws around after 5 minutes of use that last over 1000 years in the ecosystem.

You haven't thought this through.

How are you going to get away from fossil fuels if you don't allow new battery technology?

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:06 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:31 am

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am Just as an example, environmental regulations. You kill these to make a buck today for the rich and dribble some pennies into the working class, but at the cost of reducing the available natural resources for every generation that follows. It just makes no sense to me.

So you're saying the environment should be protected from ALL man made chemicals at ANY cost?

If the answer is no, then you'll understand why there might be different levels of tolerance.

This would be a great line if any significant percentage of these people were voting with any sort of philosophy in mind or even understand the basics of the long-term irreversible damage their votes are causing to people, the environment, or simply their own long-term interests.

I'm with you. The modern Republican party is a disaster on many fronts. But "Trump has done nothing" is equally ridiculous. This lack of perspective leads to the following:

I have said it before and I will say it again. The Democratic Party would never loose another Senate or presidency election if they'd modify their stances on abortion and guns.

But they won't, so it's constantly a struggle.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm I have said it before and I will say it again. The Democratic Party would never loose another Senate or presidency election if they'd modify their stances on abortion and guns.

And then they would no longer be the Democratic party that the majority of their constituents actually support. How's that working out for the GOP?

What modification would you have the Dems make regarding Abortion? Outlaw it? That position is pretty much anti-science. Studies (that Ido not have time to dig up right now) have shown that the rate abortions are preformed goes down with access and reproductive education. Banning abortion not only increases the rate at which it occurs but the risk factors involved. So where should they go with that issue when the other side is screaming "No abortion. Period." It isn't rational. Do I think people should get optional abortions? No, there are other choices. Do I feel inclined to judge those who have had or would get one? Nope. Their choice.

As far as Guns, they have bent. The other side messages it as them wanting to take ALL guns away and occasionally you get the far left candidate or office holder that feeds them the 30 second sound bite they need to continue that message but in general they have been pretty easy going about guns. Maybe you could help me understand the todo about being licensed for a lethal weapon but not being annoyed about being licensed to drive.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:16 pmHow are you going to get away from fossil fuels if you don't allow new battery technology?

Who's not allowing new battery tech? It's constantly being refined, improved, and being made more ecologically feasible. Yeah, it takes time and energy, but it's being done. It's a choice between a lesser of two evils in a place where there's no way to create a true balance unless you were to wipe out a substantial portion of the global population. You do the best you can and control what you can. You can nit-pick this regulation or that regulation and which is effective or not, but it comes down to a world without regulations on business being completely unsustainable because business has a never-ending appetite for consumption and growth and would only be stopped naturally by an absence of more things to consume - i.e. a dead world or broken markets.

Ask the folks in the 2007/2008 housing collapse how much they enjoyed the unregulated market. Maybe ask some folks if they love how fracking has turned their states into bouncy castles. Check in with the Californian Condor to see how they're doing, but hurry before they're extinct.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:51 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:16 pmHow are you going to get away from fossil fuels if you don't allow new battery technology?

Who's not allowing new battery tech? It's constantly being refined, improved, and being made more ecologically feasible. Yeah, it takes time and energy, but it's being done. It's a choice between a lesser of two evils in a place where there's no way to create a true balance unless you were to wipe out a substantial portion of the global population. You do the best you can and control what you can. You can nit-pick this regulation or that regulation and which is effective or not, but it comes down to a world without regulations on business being completely unsustainable because business has a never-ending appetite for consumption and growth and would only be stopped naturally by an absence of more things to consume - i.e. a dead world or broken markets.

Ask the folks in the 2007/2008 housing collapse how much they enjoyed the unregulated market. Maybe ask some folks if they love how fracking has turned their states into bouncy castles. Check in with the Californian Condor to see how they're doing, but hurry before they're extinct.

You said no new chemicals can be released to the environment. Lithium, for example, is highly toxic.

And don't be ridiculous. It was your premise that was extreme; not mine."I would say "Yes" actually, any chemical that has a lasting impact on the environment and ecosystem needs to be kept out of the environment at any cost"

gilraen wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:29 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm I have said it before and I will say it again. The Democratic Party would never loose another Senate or presidency election if they'd modify their stances on abortion and guns.

And then they would no longer be the Democratic party that the majority of their constituents actually support. How's that working out for the GOP?

Hey, if that's more important than voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns, more power to you.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:05 pmYou said no new chemicals can be released to the environment. Lithium, for example, is highly toxic.

I'm going out on a limb here and say "regulate it" then... ... recycling programs, fees and perks to encourage them. No one uses a battery by dumping the lithium into a river or pouring it into the sky. It helps solve the bigger problem, but creates a new smaller one. Continue developing new tech that doesn't rely on them - which they're doing. It's not hard math. The way we're doing it now is unsustainable. Lithium, regardless of toxicity, is probably unsustainable past 2050 by one article I read. Keep searching, refining, and improving. Don't just kick you heels up on the coffee table and say "Ah, fuck it" and light the stogie with a $100 bill.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:08 pmHey, if that's more important than voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns, more power to you.

Okay, I'm having trouble parsing this, but it looks like you're suggesting the GOP is against voter representation, health care, equality, free speech, integrity, and the environment?

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:08 pm

gilraen wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:29 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm I have said it before and I will say it again. The Democratic Party would never loose another Senate or presidency election if they'd modify their stances on abortion and guns.

And then they would no longer be the Democratic party that the majority of their constituents actually support. How's that working out for the GOP?

Hey, if that's more important than voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns, more power to you.

Abortion rights are generally popular. Part of the problem is that the Senate (and to a lesser degree the electoral college) distort the wishes of the electorate such that people who oppose abortion and gun control get disproportionate political power, but at the same time it's tricky to say that the right answer is for the Democratic Party to adopt less popular positions.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm

I have said it before and I will say it again. The Democratic Party would never loose another Senate or presidency election if they'd modify their stances on abortion and guns.

I really *don't* think that's the case. We've seen pro-life/pro-gun rights Democrats lose elections. And you'd also have a large number of blue states/localities/communities where such a stance wouldn't fly at all. And, at least on the issue of abortion, if you completely flipped it (outlawing all abortion), it would be completely inconsistent with the broader philosophy of the party (I could see a compromise stance possibly being viable, but I don't think it increases the viability of the party - IMO, the best option would be a pro-choice party that has room for some moderate pro-life stances by politicians from redder states)

It also assumes that if you co-opt one or two stances, people will ignore the whole partisan/culture war difference between the pro-American patriotic Republicans and those commie traitor loser Democrats that are coming to tax you to death.

Defiant wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:40 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm

I have said it before and I will say it again. The Democratic Party would never loose another Senate or presidency election if they'd modify their stances on abortion and guns.

I really *don't* think that's the case. We've seen pro-life/pro-gun rights Democrats lose elections. And you'd also have a large number of blue states/localities/communities where such a stance wouldn't fly at all.

That's why I'm talking about it on the national and state platform level. As long as it's part of the platform, and is a consistent message, it's not going to be believed.

And, at least on the issue of abortion, if you completely flipped it (outlawing all abortion), it would be completely inconsistent with the broader philosophy of the party (I could see a compromise stance possibly being viable, but I don't think it increases the viability of the party - IMO, the best option would be a pro-choice party that has room for some moderate pro-life stances by politicians from redder states)

It also assumes that if you co-opt one or two stances, people will ignore the whole partisan/culture war difference between the pro-American patriotic Republicans and those commie traitor loser Democrats that are coming to tax you to death.

I'm not suggesting flipping it completely. Just moderating the stance based on length of pregnancy with the appropriate exceptions.

Fair enough. It's a bit of hyperbole and I suppose Arkansas and Kentucky will still vote against racial equality. However, Most of the states only need a few percentage points to swing. Beto lost to Cruz by less than 3%. We're not talking about needing to sway a lot of voters.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:12 pm Okay, I'm having trouble parsing this, but it looks like you're suggesting the GOP is against voter representation, health care, equality, free speech, integrity, and the environment?

Evidence over the last 20 years would back that up, yes.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:12 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:08 pmHey, if that's more important than voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns, more power to you.

Okay, I'm having trouble parsing this, but it looks like you're suggesting the GOP is against voter representation, health care, equality, free speech, integrity, and the environment?

Not saying he's saying this, but I read it like this:

Right Now you could get all but two of these, which two would you drop :

gun control, abortion rights, voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns...

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:51 pm

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:12 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:08 pmHey, if that's more important than voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns, more power to you.

Okay, I'm having trouble parsing this, but it looks like you're suggesting the GOP is against voter representation, health care, equality, free speech, integrity, and the environment?

Not saying he's saying this, but I read it like this:

Right Now you could get all but two of these, which two would you drop :

gun control, abortion rights, voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns...

Yes. and note that you could still modify existing gun control and fight against abortion restrictions.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:26 pm
I'm not suggesting flipping it completely. Just moderating the stance based on length of pregnancy with the appropriate exceptions.

What does this mean, though? The Democratic position is not "unrestricted abortion". It's that women should have the right to choose abortion with appropriate exceptions / limitations (one of which is the length of pregnancy).

I just doubt that much beyond moving to "no abortion beyond the third trimester except for rape / health of the mother" is going to move the needle much in pro-life minded states.

It's an interesting take.


But in some way's there is a bit of a "and if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle" to the idea that the Dems should change their take on those two topics.

First, I will say Dems should be much better at clearly making and stating an actual position on 'gun control' - and perhaps to your point, that position should be clear to most people that they are in line with most gun-owners' concerns about gun owner rights but and also reasonable concerns about access (mental health, etc) and limits to what I will just call 'fire power'.

Regarding Abortion, there are some lines you can't give a whole lot of 'ground' on. I am not sure what the 'Red States' want out of democratic position change on abortion. Most things I've seen are non-starters really.

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:58 pm It's an interesting take.


But in some way's there is a bit of a "and if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle" to the idea that the Dems should change their take on those two topics.

First, I will say Dems should be much better at clearly making and stating an actual position on 'gun control' - and perhaps to your point, that position should be clear to most people that they are in line with most gun-owners' concerns about gun owner rights but and also reasonable concerns about access (mental health, etc) and limits to what I will just call 'fire power'.

Regarding Abortion, there are some lines you can't give a whole lot of 'ground' on. I am not sure what the 'Red States' want out of democratic position change on abortion. Most things I've seen are non-starters really.

But aren't Democrats fine at stating positions on gun control? The measures that I keep hearing thrown about are expanded background checks (particularly at gun shows) and assault weapon restrictions. Both are overwhelmingly popular, and both are non-starters essentially due to the undemocratic structure of the Senate (plus a couple other reasons). Essentially the most basic, popular gun control restrictions are DOA. Not sure what else they can do, at least before they fix the Senate.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:58 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:26 pm
I'm not suggesting flipping it completely. Just moderating the stance based on length of pregnancy with the appropriate exceptions.

What does this mean, though? The Democratic position is not "unrestricted abortion". It's that women should have the right to choose abortion with appropriate exceptions / limitations (one of which is the length of pregnancy).

I just doubt that much beyond moving to "no abortion beyond the third trimester except for rape / health of the mother" is going to move the needle much in pro-life minded states.

ND has posted from the democratic platform before that the language on abortion looks very aggressive. I found this in a quick search (https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/pa ... americans/):

We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

That sounds pretty unrestricted.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm and assault weapon restrictions.

My understanding is that this term is not ever used consistently

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm and assault weapon restrictions.

My understanding is that this term is not ever used consistently

Oh, I know. But you can't put "Assault weapons, by which we guns that fit the following characteristics..." in a slogan. So you are kind of stuck with calling for "Assault Weapon bans" (understanding that most people are going to understand that as 'guns that shoot a lot of bullets very very quickly'), which is simple and clear enough, and then you can get more nuanced / detailed in the appropriate forums (e.g., policy papers).

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:09 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm and assault weapon restrictions.

My understanding is that this term is not ever used consistently

Oh, I know. But you can't put "Assault weapons, by which we guns that fit the following characteristics..." in a slogan. So you are kind of stuck with calling for "Assault Weapon bans" (understanding that most people are going to understand that as 'guns that shoot a lot of bullets very very quickly'), which is simple and clear enough, and then you can get more nuanced / detailed in the appropriate forums (e.g., policy papers).

Sure, but then their specifics (and I am going just by what 'gun experts' have said, as I have no expertise here), I hear are often just 'cosmetic' things and not always things that make a difference. I think I've learned this here.

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:12 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:09 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm and assault weapon restrictions.

My understanding is that this term is not ever used consistently

Oh, I know. But you can't put "Assault weapons, by which we guns that fit the following characteristics..." in a slogan. So you are kind of stuck with calling for "Assault Weapon bans" (understanding that most people are going to understand that as 'guns that shoot a lot of bullets very very quickly'), which is simple and clear enough, and then you can get more nuanced / detailed in the appropriate forums (e.g., policy papers).

Sure, but then their specifics (and I am going just by what 'gun experts' have said, as I have no expertise here), I hear are often just 'cosmetic' things and not always things that make a difference. I think I've learned this here.

Well, there are two different considerations here: (1) the politics; and (2) the policy. In terms of having a straightforward, coherent position, I think the Democrats' general position (assault weapon restrictions) is fine - "we want it to be harder for people to get guns that can kill 50 people in 30 seconds"). And I took us to be mostly talking about the politics at the moment - convincing voters.

I do understand that the nature of guns (and mod-ability) presents a challenge when ultimately crafting the legislation. I strongly suspect that there are viable ways to address that - other countries seem to manage assault weapon restrictions ok - although I am not an expert on this.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:17 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:12 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:09 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm and assault weapon restrictions.

My understanding is that this term is not ever used consistently

Oh, I know. But you can't put "Assault weapons, by which we guns that fit the following characteristics..." in a slogan. So you are kind of stuck with calling for "Assault Weapon bans" (understanding that most people are going to understand that as 'guns that shoot a lot of bullets very very quickly'), which is simple and clear enough, and then you can get more nuanced / detailed in the appropriate forums (e.g., policy papers).

Sure, but then their specifics (and I am going just by what 'gun experts' have said, as I have no expertise here), I hear are often just 'cosmetic' things and not always things that make a difference. I think I've learned this here.

Well, there are two different considerations here: (1) the politics; and (2) the policy. In terms of having a straightforward, coherent position, I think the Democrats' general position (assault weapon restrictions) is fine - "we want it to be harder for people to get guns that can kill 50 people in 30 seconds"). And I took us to be mostly talking about the politics at the moment - convincing voters.

I do understand that the nature of guns (and mod-ability) presents a challenge when ultimately crafting the legislation. I strongly suspect that there are viable ways to address that - other countries seem to manage assault weapon restrictions ok - although I am not an expert on this.

I guess I am trying to say that the voters in question don't trust that the dems are only talking about limiting it to X Y and Z, and that you actually can't even get X and Y anyway, etc... so they don't listen to it as being what you are I are saying (and most people, when they articulate their own position say) - which is basically "we want it to be harder for people to get guns that can kill 50 people in 30 seconds"

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm But aren't Democrats fine at stating positions on gun control? The measures that I keep hearing thrown about are expanded background checks (particularly at gun shows) and assault weapon restrictions. Both are overwhelmingly popular, and both are non-starters essentially due to the undemocratic structure of the Senate (plus a couple other reasons). Essentially the most basic, popular gun control restrictions are DOA. Not sure what else they can do, at least before they fix the Senate.

Make it absolute clear in no uncertain terms your guns will not be confiscated by publicly opposing locales that do.

In this case, I think the platform is pretty representative, but the "we can respect the rights of responsible gun owners" part of it needs to be the lead as opposed to the "ban assault weapons" part.

So yeah, I'm saying I think the Democrats have a problem showing the majority of gun owners that the Democrats don't want to do a single thing with their guns (and NEVER WILL), and they only want what those majority of gun owners also want.

Is that to say that they need to change their position on gun control. I don't think so, but it does mean they need to say what they think they are saying better.

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:51 pm Not saying he's saying this, but I read it like this:

Right Now you could get all but two of these, which two would you drop :

gun control, abortion rights, voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns...

Get the third and the rest will follow.

Holman wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:34 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:51 pm Not saying he's saying this, but I read it like this:

Right Now you could get all but two of these, which two would you drop :

gun control, abortion rights, voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns...

Get the third and the rest will follow.

Yep, that's I think part of ND's point too. Maybe even get the fifth, and the third could follow... but the first two don't open the doors to the other's quite as much.

But I will say this, one of the main reasons I even call myself a democrat are because abortion rights and gun control are important to me, and I know there is certainly no home for me in the GOP world (well before this president).

So, the ground I give can't go backwards (speaking mostly to abortion here) and I've always been frustrated by democrat's inability to communicate their position on gun control to the right people in the right way... they are playing in the NRA's game, IMO.

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:35 pm

Holman wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:34 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:51 pm Not saying he's saying this, but I read it like this:

Right Now you could get all but two of these, which two would you drop :

gun control, abortion rights, voting representation, universal health care (and related stuff like Covid reponse), income inequality, freedom of the press, international integrity, and environmental concerns...

Get the third and the rest will follow.

Yep, that's I think part of ND's point too. Maybe even get the fifth, and the third could follow... but the first two don't open the doors to the other's quite as much.

Yes.

Frankly, it may be moot. Healthcare is so important to both groups, the Republican response to Covid might seal the deal anyway. How anyone could argue our system is better than the rest of the developed worlds' systems is beyond me.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:49 pm How anyone could argue our system is better than the rest of the developed worlds' systems is beyond me.

Because people wait months to see doctors for basic care in Canada and they can't keep doctors and nurses and drug companies are losing money on all of the drugs they don't bring to market and we keep better care of our equipment and government regulation drives up prices and all of the people coming from other countries illegally to scam social security for free medical care. Or so that's the line I hear.

I don’t for a second believe that Democrats would reap amazing electoral gains from moving away from our principles on guns and a woman’s right to make her own health decisions.

First, no moves Democrats could reasonably make without destroying our own coalition would appease those who would otherwise vote Democratic but for those issues, those voters are generally extremists on one or both of those issues. However, we WOULD lose the votes of people who would otherwise vote Republican for their own economic interest, but for their concerns about gun violence and support of abortion.

Second, if we caved in some substantial way on abortion, the goalposts would get moved, and those same voters we were supposed to lure over by throwing out the right of women to bodily autonomy would then demand that we “moderate” our positions on trans and gay rights.

I'm not sure that the Democrats could move much on abortion in a helpful way. I mean, the Democrats do occasionally go farther with those than most in the country are comfortable with (looking at you, New York) but most Democrats are still on board with "legal, safe, and rare..." and I don't know what new policy position they could adopt while staying within that framework.

When it comes to guns, on the other hand, Democrats are incoherent at best and blatantly unconstitutional at worst, and frequently both at the same time. But I'm not sure that's a problem of messaging so much as understanding. Relatively few Democrats spend much time thinking about the details of gun control, and even fewer have any real desire to. And it's really, REALLY difficult to write good legislation about a subject much of your base is opposed to learning anything about. (Republicans have the same problem with healthcare.)

A year ago, I would have agreed with ND that the Democrats could pick up a great many votes by shifting their tone on gun control, then Beto went and poisoned that well for another few years. Oh well.

Holman wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:33 am

malchior wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:26 pm This is how bad the campaign is going for Trump. Someone had to have convinced him he needed to appear somewhat sane.

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1282078842413350912

What’s hilarious about “#AmericaFirst” here is that Trump is the last in America to finally do this.

Parscale is really just phoning it in. Biden and independents like the Lincoln Project are running rings around his campaign.

If it weren’t already July, I imagine he would be fired.

Called It!

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/12835 ... 23616?s=21

I was going to go back and see who called it.
Twas you

He is crazy desperate to credit for a vaccine by November. I really do wonder how that will pandemic out for him. Will we have one? Will it be widely distributed? Will it come from a source he "pressured". I was reading just the other day that that the promising 6 dose treatment would require more needles than the US can produce in three years. (I swear I read it on OO but it all blends together nowadays)

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:57 am I was reading just the other day that that the promising 6 dose treatment would require more needles than the US can produce in three years. (I swear I read it on OO but it all blends together nowadays)

Yes.

And yes, it all blends.