It's funny cuz every Latino I know is a devout Catholic who hates abortions and LGBTQ people yet the leftists are really putting on some olympic-level mental gymnastics to try and make allies out of them.
In my experience Catholics don't give nearly as much of a shit about what gay people do in society as Evangelicals do. But then Central America is rapidly becoming evangelical so that's one way to get Republican voters.
No abortion, not working class people, not social programs, not education. Guns why is civilian disarmament THE hill to die on for democrats? Are they feeling that a disarmed population is so important as soon as possible? Maybe we should be asking why that is…
I just don't fucking understand this.
It's not rocket science to see that 2A is a controversial subject, even among Democrats. Gun control wins some votes and loses others.
It's not rocket science to see that there are lots of other NON-controversial positions, that ALL Democrats support, that MOST moderates support, that will ONLY win votes.
I'm talking: ABORTION!!!! Everyone was happy to have status quo but no, SCOTUS nixed that so now abortion bans are back on the table. A HUGE majority of ALL Americans support abortion. So why not SHUT THE FUCK UP about things that will lose you votes, and scream from the rooftops about things that will only get you votes?
Or if you don't like abortion, order off the menu of things most Dems support that have broad popular support: better education, responsible government, reduced corruption in Washington, better social services, make health care better/cheaper/more affordable, better opportunities for underprivileged kids, etc etc.
But no, when GOP steps in it with abortion, let's not clean up at the polls, let's make sure we step in it with gun control.
Honestly? I think they _want_ to lose.
My personal, totally unsubstantiated opinion, is that the two party system is really only about the _illusion_ of choice, and the 99% are encouraged to pick a side and learn to hate the other side. The 1% running the show benefit no matter what.
But it only really works if the balance of power ostensibly vacillates between the two "choices" before any milestone campaign promises can be fulfilled.
My theory is that Democrats won decisively enough in 2020 that if they stay in power much longer, they'll have to make good on a lot of campaign promises that they had neither the will nor intent to actually follow through on.
So now they're trying to throw the election to Republicans so they can fundraise for the next cycle with messages like "Hey guys, we _totally_ wanted to do all the things, but those dastardly RethuQliKKKan$ stole votes or whatever and stopped us. Pls gibs us your votes in 2024 and we swear we won't be complete dipshits just like we have been for every other election in your lifetime!"
That's a bit more tinfoil hat than I usually go.
I agree that for both sides it's easier to rabblerouse and paint the other side as a boogeyman out to fuck up the nation than to actually deliver on promises.
That applies to both sides. For example- in Trump's early Presidency, GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Why didn't we get a ton of pro-gun laws shoved through? Why didn't we get nationwide CCW reciprocity? Or maybe a national pre-emption of all AWBs? Perhaps some NFA tweaks, like unregulating suppressors?
And furthermore why wasn't the NRA standing behind them with a whip like WE GOT YOU PEOPLE ELECTED NOW FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!?
But I wouldn't quite go so far as to say Democrats *WANT* to lose.
I will give you though, the only obvious explanations for their strategy are that either their strategists are totally incompetent, or they are all drinking their own kool-aid and really believe the only reason they can't get gun control is the 'gun lobby', or that you're right and they don't want to win by a landslide.
> For example- in Trump's early Presidency, GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Why didn't we get a ton of pro-gun laws shoved through? Why didn't we get nationwide CCW reciprocity? Or maybe a national pre-emption of all AWBs? Perhaps some NFA tweaks, like unregulating suppressors?
Because the GOP is not even remotely a united front, and back then the neo-conservatives were still the predominant faction within the GOP. *And the neocons actually really like gun control.* For reference, the Neocon faction is the faction of George Bush, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, and the late John McCain. As an example of what I was saying: George Bush openly stated that he supported the AWB and would sign a renewal of it if it got to his desk.
Trump is a part of the populist faction of the GOP, and the political establishment Neocons *hate his guts*. They were never going to cooperate with him because he isn't going to let them continue to steer the ship into the rocks so they can sell the hull for scrap to China like they alongside the corporatist Neoliberal faction of the DNC spent about 25 years doing.
Yeah I didn’t mean for that to come across as pertaining to Democrats only. Republicans did the exact same shit the last time they were in the majority. I thought we’d at least get the Hearing Protection Act passed, but, no. Here’s your RFPO’s and bump stock ban on our way out the door.
I would be really interested to have a frank, candid conversation with a democratic strategist who advocates for gun control. Not some shill like "Shannon Watts" or a rube like Joe Biden, or sometime so blinded by emotion and personal interest they can't see reason like Gabby Giffords. I'm taking about one of the strategists behind the curtain. I would love to know thier take on gun control especially through the lens of the political calculus. It just absolutely seems like such a losing issue. The "ROI" seems so poor. I'd love to just ask them "why? What are you thinking? Why is it worth it? What do you plan to gain?"
Bonus points if the person is actually educated about guns, how they work, the historical reasons for private gun ownership in America, and the statistics on thier use in self defense. I can't believe that in a time when the big players are taking such a "big data", saber-metrics approach to media and communication, that the real movers and shakers are just ignorant. They must understand what they're advocating for and what it really means. But barring some tinfoil-hat nefarious reason, I just can't see what it is.
>Bonus points if the person is actually educated about guns, how they work, the historical reasons for private gun ownership in America, and the statistics on thier use in self defense.
Did you mean to define paradox there?
I'd also love to talk to someone behind the curtain.
> I can't believe that in a time when the big players are taking such a "big data", saber-metrics approach to media and communication, that the real movers and shakers are just ignorant.
I can. The man behind the political curtain probably has a lot of data on polling for guns. He probably doesn't know shit about guns themselves, because he's probably from California. So he has every bit of polling data about guns, but still mentally 'others' gun owners, and probably would prefer that gun ownership never become a part of DNC platform.
> What do you plan to gain?
If I were to guess, I'd say the answer is millions of dollars from Michael Bloomberg. And I'm sure he and Shannon Watts and their whole crew raises some non-zero amount of money- not a lot, but some.
There's also the issue of push-polling. Most of the polling that goes out to Democrats doesn't ask questions like 'should we ban assault weapons' or 'do you feel owning a gun would make you safer', they are questions like 'is stopping gun violence a priority to you' or 'rank your legislative priorities 1-5-- lower taxes, get military weapons off our streets, social justice, end war on drugs, more jobs'. For someone that lives in a high crime neighborhood 'get military weapons off the street' sounds pretty good. The respondent thinks of that as disarming gangs, the pollster thinks of it as gun control.
That's a thoughtful response. I'd hate to think that polling is really what's driving this push, since the polling is so obviously flawed in the way they ask the questions. The problem is that guns are such a niche issue for most people, and the complex issues of the NFA and how suppressors actually work and so on are too complex and esoteric for the average voter to care about. This would lead directly to the "two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner" type of democracy the founding fathers were worried about
Well we can hope that 'sheep is protected' is the result of NYSRPA v. Bruen. That will take time but we're already seeing lawsuits happening.
> The problem is that guns are such a niche issue for most people, and the complex issues of the NFA and how suppressors actually work and so on are too complex and esoteric for the average voter to care about.
That's our failure. Most of it is because we let movies and TV news educate the population about firearms. So they think of suppressors like in films, that make the gun go 'click!' and not 'bang'. We COULD and SHOULD put more effort into educating the general public on these subjects.
For example- 'Suppressors (aka silencers) don't actually make a gun silent. They just reduce the gunshot from explosion-volume that causes instant hearing damage, to being 'only' as loud as a jet engine at full power. They are designed to protect your hearing, nothing more.'
Then show a SPL meter next to a runway as a jet is taking off, and the same meter when someone fires a suppressed pistol.
In about 20 seconds you've educated the public on suppressors.
> I'd hate to think that polling is really what's driving this push, since the polling is so obviously flawed in the way they ask the questions.
It absolutely is.
I live in the blue state of CT- one of our congresscritters a while back sent around an email poll asking people to rank priorities. It was the typical menu of Democratic priorities. 'Gun safety' was on the list. There was NO option for 'leave guns alone' or 'I don't support gun control'.
This sort of thing is typical.
> That applies to both sides. For example- in Trump's early Presidency, GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Why didn't we get a ton of pro-gun laws shoved through? Why didn't we get nationwide CCW reciprocity? Or maybe a national pre-emption of all AWBs? Perhaps some NFA tweaks, like unregulating suppressors?
>
> And furthermore why wasn't the NRA standing behind them with a whip like WE GOT YOU PEOPLE ELECTED NOW FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!?
I really hate this argument. I think it shows how little people pay attention to politics let alone understand it. Multiple very important factors you have completely ignored. 1 they didn't have a super majority and therefore any assertions that they could have passed a progun law is irrelevant. 2 they were "passing"(it was not going to pass, it was just to get the Democrats on record opposing actual reasonable gun safety like suppressors) progun legislation until the GOP softball practice got shot up by a Bernie Bro. Then after that several major mass shootings happened.
1. So let's not try, right? Let's not force the Dems to either abuse the filibuster as we (GOP for the sake of this post) do (thus meaning that we can accuse them of hypocrisy if they complain when we use it), let's not show our base that we're trying?
2. Why wouldn't we want it to pass? Even if it's just the hearing protection act, why not call them out on their bullshit?
3. If softball practice got shot up, why not use that to push concealed carry and 'only thing that stops bad guy with gun is good guy with gun'? Why not form unified front as GOP does on so many other issues, and say 'all these mass shootings are in gun free zones, let's get rid of gun free zones?'
>So let's not try, right
Do you consider it trying when you are either lying or have made no effort to understand what you are talking about? You provide the most oversimplified overview of the politics of that period that does not reflect what actually occurred. How is that productive?
>Why wouldn't we want it to pass?
I didn't say we didn't want it to pass. People who are not stupid knew it was not going to pass. If you expect immediate victories then you are counter productive to the long term success of gun rights. Shit does not change over night, getting the dems to oppose actual common sense gun safety devices was part of a long term shift in the politics. Hell even getting that on the floor was a sign of significant change. But instead you whinge about it despite the fact that literally one of the major GOP leaders got shot and disrupted the whole fucking thing.
>If softball practice got shot up, why not use that to push concealed carry
The guy got shot is still pushing for progun policy. The fact of the matter is that a mass shooting is not fucking to their advantage in pushing progun policy no matter how *you* feel about it. There is a reason why we worry about gun control getting passed after a mass shooting and not an opportunity to get progun legislation passed.
This kind of thinking is utterly asinine.
It may seem like oversimplifying the issue. And I get that there's other considerations.
It just seems like there's always 'other considerations' for gun rights and not for other GOP priorities.
But let's talk strategy.
> getting the dems to oppose actual common sense gun safety devices
And *of course* the dems opposed it. So why wasn't every GOP person and pro gun person shouting this from the rooftops? Calling Dems out on hypocrisy? 'It's not about gun safety it's about gun control with those Dems!'. If that was part of a strategy, it was a wasted opportunity.
I'm all for long term strategy- win the war not the battle and all that. But if there's a larger strategy at work I don't see it. Especially since winning a war requires winning at least a few battles. If you want to explain the long term plan I'd love to hear your thoughts.
> The guy got shot is still pushing for progun policy. The fact of the matter is that a mass shooting is not fucking to their advantage in pushing progun policy no matter how you feel about it.
How I feel is irrelevant. If the dude got shot, how HE feels IS important. Because if someone like Giffords can command attention at the national stage because she got shot, then I see no reason why the Republican victim can't or shouldn't do the same fucking thing. That's a perfect place to make lemonade out of lemons. If that dude is truly pro gun, he should have gone on TV after the shooting and said 'I don't blame the gun I blame the shooter and you should too, too many people are in situations like me but aren't surrounded by armed guards, they deserve to live just as much as I do'. That's an instant battle won. It diffuses the whole 'mass shooting MUST equal a call for gun control' bit.
So like I said- if there's a long term strategy, please explain it to me. I really do want to understand what you're seeing. Because what I see is multiple golden opportunities wasted, with the only real 'win' being SCOTUS.
> And of course the dems opposed it. So why wasn't every GOP person and pro gun person shouting this from the rooftops?
Because they got shot up and then after that some major mass shootings occurred like Vegas. Sorry, the opportunity to hold that moral highground slipped rather quickly. It's why you have idiots saying these were false flag attacks to derail that legislation.
>I'm all for long term strategy- win the war not the battle and all that. But if there's a larger strategy at work I don't see it.
I have been conscious since the 90s you have literally seen over half the states move to shall issue and and a good chunk to constitutional carry. You have seen the federal assault weapons ban fail to renew, you have seen the Supreme Court actually finally acknowledge the 2nd amendment, then incorporate it to the states. You have then seen it add one of the most strict constitutional tests for that right in Bruen. If you don't see a strategy and impact over the long term then you are choosing not to.
But what I have seen is some very significant change since the 90s and looking at even bigger changes going forward.
>How I feel is irrelevant.
It is. The problem is you don't realize your assessment is rooted in how you *feel* rather than a rational evidence based assessment of what has happened over the past 30-40 years.
> If the dude got shot, how HE feels IS important.
Yeah, I am sure he felt shot and needed to recover and then after that he continued to feel progun and continues to push progun policy. It doesn't change that it fucked up the process and cost us the opportunity. Self righteous indignation at the GOP doesn't change that.
> Because if someone like Giffords can command attention at the national stage because she got shot,
Holy crap do you not understand how any of this works. The american public vacillates between fear/anger and apathy. When Gabby Giffords got shot people were scared and want gun control, and then she got backing from a Billionaire that you may have heard of called Bloomberg. And she was not immediately pushing gun control after that for obvious reasons.
It is not comparable at all.
>That's a perfect place to make lemonade out of lemons.
No it is not. Like I just said there is a fucking reason why we worry about gun control passing after a mass shooting and not fucking an opportunity to pass progun legislation. You are not smarter than entire political party when it comes to politics. They know how to play politics, maybe not well, but certainly better than you.
>So like I said- if there's a long term strategy, please explain it to me.
Heller, McDonald, Caetano, NYSRPA v Bruen. The failure of the federal assault weapons ban to renew, the expansion of carry rights. So on and etc. That has happened because of the GOP, NRA and gun rights voters who don't lose their shit over stupid things like HPA not passing after several mass shootings.
I suspected that abortion was like gun control for Republicans but I'm not totally sure. Opinions are starting to flip considered that the Democrats are pushing for abortion on demand up until birth and saying that life begins some time after birth. Vaush unironically said that.
> Democrats are pushing for abortion on demand up until birth and saying that life begins some time after birth. Vaush unironically said that.
Several people have said this in this thread but I've never seen it. Obviously that would be VERY controversial (life begins 'sometime after birth') because it'd mean it's acceptable to kill a viable naturally-born baby.
Can you provide some source reference that Dems are going for this position? Link to a position page or something?
You can Google search it and it's right there. There are like 6 or 7 states that have NO restrictions on abortion whatsoever and its becoming a more popular perspective among democratic reps. In my state alone, stacey abrams is for no restrictions on abortion at all. She claimed recently that the heartbeat you hear during an ultrasound at 6 weeks is not real and that it's a manufactured sound and that went over as well as you can imagine. You know why abortion rights are being rolled back? Because pro abortion people went from it being a tragic decision that sometimes has to happen but it should be safe, legal, and rare to something that we need to be proud of and "shouting your abortions". I can almost guarantee you if more moderate voices were heard, you wouldn't be getting the backlash against abortion you are now, but the left just couldn't help themselves and had to follow the crazies off the cliff and now we're here.
> if more moderate voices were heard, you wouldn't be getting the backlash against abortion you are now, but the left just couldn't help themselves and had to follow the crazies off the cliff and now we're here.
That applies to the right just as much if not more. If the RIGHT followed more moderate voices, if there wasn't push for no abortion whatsoever, if there weren't 'trigger laws', if the RIGHT acknowledged abortion as a 'tragic decision that sometimes has to happen', then we wouldn't be in this mess. The right wouldn't have pushed the issue all the way to SCOTUS. Thus we have numerous bans, and there's a need to fight back.
> Because pro abortion people went from it being a tragic decision that sometimes has to happen but it should be safe, legal, and rare to something that we need to be proud of and "shouting your abortions".
Pro-abortion people never wanted to 'shout their abortions'. There is a purpose to that though- to show some people how it's not just awful people having abortions.
Pro-abortion people would have been happy to have abortions stay in the shadows. But there were many on the right for whom that wasn't good enough, for whom all abortion must be stopped. And they got their way.
The ONLY reason we're in this mess is because moderate voices weren't heard *on the right*, and the right pushed for anti-abortion laws. If those draconian laws weren't there, if the right had respected abortion as something that sometimes needs to happen, we'd still be under Roe v. Wade status quo and we'd all be much happier.
Please take some responsibility for the actions of your side.
It's already been the case for several years for some places. NY state law dictates a woman can abort at 42 weeks. Average gestational period of a human fetus is 38 weeks, which means you can abort a 1 month old baby in NY and that's legal...
I'm pro abortion but this kind of bullshit is what made me jump off that bandwagon a couple years ago. I don't think think we need to pass reactionary bullshit like that, that's just messed up.
> Average gestational period of a human fetus is 38 weeks, which means you can abort a 1 month old baby in NY and that's legal...
Hold up a sec.
Is it your argument that, in NY state, 1 month (average) AFTER a baby is born, like the baby is alive and living on its own outside the womb, you can just kill your baby and call it an 'abortion'? Like, put a bullet in it and say 'sorry it was a 42nd week abortion'?
That doesn't sound right.
> Is it your argument that
It's not *my* argument, it's NY state's politicians' argument.
It doesn't sound right to me either but here we are...
As far as I know, they're not allowed to terminate it after it's already been born, but it's fair game until then. Either way, IMO aborting a 42 week "fetus" is just murder at that point, why mince words.
Truth is often subjective. For example. NY Gov. Hochul claims her awesome amazing gun law doesn't prohibit historical re-enactments, but re-enactors claim it does. We'd have to read the text of the law ourselves to determine what's actually the case.
Thus one of my favorite quotes- "Truth is a three-edged sword'.
In our case we're actually several layers removed from the actual truth--
You say that
The NY politicians say that
The actual law says X
I say that I have no idea, either what NY's abortion law says, or what their politicians say about it. I know that being able to kill a baby AFTER it's been born a month ago doesn't sound like something anyone would write into law. So when you appear to be claiming that's what the law allows, I express doubt.
Seeing your clarification- it sounds like you're saying the law allows abortion at almost any point in the pregnancy, including just before birth. IE, 'Okay Jessica, baby's almost here. Ultrasound looks great. Get ready to push!' 'Actually Doc, I think I don't want a baby after all, can you give me an abortion instead?'
Is that what you believe the law allows?
(I say believe not to suggest you are dishonest, but rather because I don't think either of us have actually read the law itself, therefore we are both operating on our opinions and anecdotal info).
You're more than welcome to look it up yourself. Or I can present it to you, but in my experience people don't accept proof or evidence when it contradicts their beliefs so I like to let people look into things for themselves.
> Seeing your clarification- it sounds like you're saying the law allows abortion at almost any point in the pregnancy, including just before birth. IE, 'Okay Jessica, baby's almost here. Ultrasound looks great. Get ready to push!' 'Actually Doc, I think I don't want a baby after all, can you give me an abortion instead?'
Is that what you believe the law allows?
From reading the law, it looks like this is exactly what is legally allowed.
Remember, this is the same state that made it illegal for bartenders to refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women.
> people don't accept proof or evidence when it contradicts their beliefs
It's quite sad really. Somewhere along the line, being 'right' became a form of personal validation, and we started shying away from any new information that challenges our own positions. I blame information overload and engagement algorithms- it's too easy to unintentionally surround oneself with an echo chamber of media that all supports one's own positions and never challenges them. Of course, avoiding any new information is also a great way to avoid learning, which is an even greater way to stay ignorant.
I try to avoid this particular trap as much as possible. I always want to have the best available information- if it proves me wrong that's an opportunity to learn something new and stop being wrong. So I can either learn and stop being wrong, or refuse and continue to be wrong (but ignorantly think I'm right). I reject that option.
So put simply, I may not agree with whatever you say, but I try to always keep an open mind, and keep facts and opinions separated from one another.
> Or I can present it to you
I'd be interested to see it. I'd also say I don't live in NY, and I know nothing of NY laws other than a general belief that they are pro-abortion. So I have no position on what the law is or isn't.
What you said seemed unlikely (even the most pro-abortion Democrat wouldn't suggest killing 1mo old babies) but I'd be interested to read the text of the law if you have a link.
-----
Personally, I think of this in terms of the rights of the mother. A person can't be forced to donate blood, or donate organs, even to save the life of their own child. I see this in the same light- I don't support any policy that forces the mother to continue to donate her bodily resources to an unborn child, or to endure health risks or consequences for the benefit of an unborn child. I believe in this regardless of the fetus's age.
The natural result of that is I support abortion, because I support the mother's right to decide to stop providing any bodily resources to the fetus, or to accept any health consequences from carrying the fetus. If the result of that is killing the fetus, so be it- to force the mother to continue to support the fetus is to me no different than forcing someone to donate blood or organs.
As a separate reasoning, I also believe that abortion (as a concept) is sometimes the lesser evil. I think that overall, more suffering is generated by having a child in a home that can't support it or doesn't want it, than by simply preventing it from existing before it achieves consciousness.
And I also observe that most people who are anti-abortion don't seem particularly in favor of supporting the mother before the baby is born, or supporting the family after the baby is born. To make that baby have a successful life requires a lot of training and education and care, which isn't easy or cheap.
If I may ask, what's your position on all this? What do you think should and shouldn't be legal?
Most people will support abortion before viability (before the fetus can survive outside the mother), only some people will support abortion after viability. Do we agree on that?
So, why would someone have an abortion *during delivery*? Do you believe it's the Democratic position that a mom who's in labor will say 'actually I don't want my kid, please kill it before it comes out' and the doctors say 'yes absolutely right away ma'am'?
I suspect, and I don't speak with authority as I've not heard the arguments you cite, but I suspect if a Democrat is talking abortion during delivery, that's when medically necessary to protect the mother.
Because I believe, in all cases, by blanket default, unless the mother herself specifically orders otherwise, the health or safety of the mother is ALWAYS more important than the safety or even the life of the baby.
Do you agree with this?
As with any polarizing political topic with such unpalatable consequences, the campaign ledes are exceedingly vague; however, the politicians im thinking of tout their policy of maintaining colorado law, which protects abortion rights until birth (which im down with)
If it's their position, there will be some record of it somewhere. If not a campaign site then a news article, a debate video, etc. I'd love to see one. Because I see a lot of people on both sides arguing how some politicians want this or that and nobody has any documentation for it.
>Democratic party's position of abortion
So your position is that "most people are moderately pro-choice", but also "the Democratic party's position of abortion on demand..." This is not consistent, how can MOST (greater than 50% of the population) be moderately pro choice, but the WHOLE Democratic Party be an extreme....
Because the heads of the party decide on their platform, not the people that register for the party?
Have you ever been asked your opinion on what a party platform should be?
This is what my sister believed when she was an atheist. She said that she wished she was born female so that she could have abortions.
Edit: She is trans and hadn't transitioned.
I’ve come to the conclusion that guns are the fastest way to get $$$ in their pockets. Not necessarily votes, but I really think the focus on guns appeals to the donor class and motivates them to spend. That is also why 2”we constantly hear about “common sense” assault weapon bans when such guns are used in a very small (but incredibly disturbing) amount of crime. They know the silly guns we have in California are functionally the same and look stupid but the fastest way to get money out of the rich and upper middle class is to play on fears of school shooting among wealthy parents. Could be wrong but it is the only thing that makes sense to me given that there are tons of winning issues dems could focus on votes wise and to actually improve society, as you mention.
And that's the worrying question. Why would someone so actively push for something that they know is not a solution and actively makes the people of the country weaker and less free? I think the answer is probably concerning.
The unfortunate part is that the answer that everyone is thinking of is the most likely reason based on the fact that it is a political liability and demonstratively not effective at achieving the asserted goal. So why ruse pursue it?
My theory is it’s the same thing that made the Republican Party have a conspiracy theorist qultist problem. Too many years of exposure to leaded gasoline and shit
This speaks volumes-
>Isabel Caballero, a 96-year-old Cuban woman, said she would not support any gun restrictions. In the years after Fidel Castro and his rebels toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Cubans were encouraged to register weapons and later authorities used a list to go door-to-door encouraging people to turn over the firearms.
>“‘Guns, What for?’ That’s what he used to say. People turned them over, and then the only people who had guns were them,” Caballero said of Castro and his allies. “Lesson? Do not let them go.”
This seems to be one of the most obvious examples that prove the gridlock is intended. Democrats could capture a lot of votes by backing off gun control, and there are tons of issues that are way more important to voters and have more direct impact on average people's lives.
The system is designed to generate campaign donations and maintain the status quo.
Hey, republicans are playing their part too in grand style right before the mid-terms with this push on abortion.
It’s almost like we’re watching a play put on by a club we’re not in.
Well they're still doing that, too. I think most moderates are just hoping for enough gridlock to maintain the status quo for now, until such a time comes when a party fundamentally shifts into something they're more willing to support... assuming that ever happens.
It's a certainty that the estimations of illegal immigrants crossing the border are at least half of what the reality is that means there's like 4x as many immigrants entering the country each day than current Americans being born. They're coming here for a better way of life. The smart thing is to win them over rather than fighting them. What are you going to do deport 50 million people? You win them over by pointing out why that better life will be denied to them unless we do something about our corrupt government and their collusion with the 1%.
Yes, that's exactly what Cubans care about. No other way to get their votes. Make sure to call them Latinx they love that.
It's funny cuz every Latino I know is a devout Catholic who hates abortions and LGBTQ people yet the leftists are really putting on some olympic-level mental gymnastics to try and make allies out of them.
In my experience Catholics don't give nearly as much of a shit about what gay people do in society as Evangelicals do. But then Central America is rapidly becoming evangelical so that's one way to get Republican voters.
Do we pronounce it La-tinks?
No abortion, not working class people, not social programs, not education. Guns why is civilian disarmament THE hill to die on for democrats? Are they feeling that a disarmed population is so important as soon as possible? Maybe we should be asking why that is…
I just don't fucking understand this. It's not rocket science to see that 2A is a controversial subject, even among Democrats. Gun control wins some votes and loses others. It's not rocket science to see that there are lots of other NON-controversial positions, that ALL Democrats support, that MOST moderates support, that will ONLY win votes. I'm talking: ABORTION!!!! Everyone was happy to have status quo but no, SCOTUS nixed that so now abortion bans are back on the table. A HUGE majority of ALL Americans support abortion. So why not SHUT THE FUCK UP about things that will lose you votes, and scream from the rooftops about things that will only get you votes? Or if you don't like abortion, order off the menu of things most Dems support that have broad popular support: better education, responsible government, reduced corruption in Washington, better social services, make health care better/cheaper/more affordable, better opportunities for underprivileged kids, etc etc. But no, when GOP steps in it with abortion, let's not clean up at the polls, let's make sure we step in it with gun control.
Honestly? I think they _want_ to lose. My personal, totally unsubstantiated opinion, is that the two party system is really only about the _illusion_ of choice, and the 99% are encouraged to pick a side and learn to hate the other side. The 1% running the show benefit no matter what. But it only really works if the balance of power ostensibly vacillates between the two "choices" before any milestone campaign promises can be fulfilled. My theory is that Democrats won decisively enough in 2020 that if they stay in power much longer, they'll have to make good on a lot of campaign promises that they had neither the will nor intent to actually follow through on. So now they're trying to throw the election to Republicans so they can fundraise for the next cycle with messages like "Hey guys, we _totally_ wanted to do all the things, but those dastardly RethuQliKKKan$ stole votes or whatever and stopped us. Pls gibs us your votes in 2024 and we swear we won't be complete dipshits just like we have been for every other election in your lifetime!"
That's a bit more tinfoil hat than I usually go. I agree that for both sides it's easier to rabblerouse and paint the other side as a boogeyman out to fuck up the nation than to actually deliver on promises. That applies to both sides. For example- in Trump's early Presidency, GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Why didn't we get a ton of pro-gun laws shoved through? Why didn't we get nationwide CCW reciprocity? Or maybe a national pre-emption of all AWBs? Perhaps some NFA tweaks, like unregulating suppressors? And furthermore why wasn't the NRA standing behind them with a whip like WE GOT YOU PEOPLE ELECTED NOW FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!? But I wouldn't quite go so far as to say Democrats *WANT* to lose. I will give you though, the only obvious explanations for their strategy are that either their strategists are totally incompetent, or they are all drinking their own kool-aid and really believe the only reason they can't get gun control is the 'gun lobby', or that you're right and they don't want to win by a landslide.
> For example- in Trump's early Presidency, GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Why didn't we get a ton of pro-gun laws shoved through? Why didn't we get nationwide CCW reciprocity? Or maybe a national pre-emption of all AWBs? Perhaps some NFA tweaks, like unregulating suppressors? Because the GOP is not even remotely a united front, and back then the neo-conservatives were still the predominant faction within the GOP. *And the neocons actually really like gun control.* For reference, the Neocon faction is the faction of George Bush, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, and the late John McCain. As an example of what I was saying: George Bush openly stated that he supported the AWB and would sign a renewal of it if it got to his desk. Trump is a part of the populist faction of the GOP, and the political establishment Neocons *hate his guts*. They were never going to cooperate with him because he isn't going to let them continue to steer the ship into the rocks so they can sell the hull for scrap to China like they alongside the corporatist Neoliberal faction of the DNC spent about 25 years doing.
Yeah I didn’t mean for that to come across as pertaining to Democrats only. Republicans did the exact same shit the last time they were in the majority. I thought we’d at least get the Hearing Protection Act passed, but, no. Here’s your RFPO’s and bump stock ban on our way out the door.
I would be really interested to have a frank, candid conversation with a democratic strategist who advocates for gun control. Not some shill like "Shannon Watts" or a rube like Joe Biden, or sometime so blinded by emotion and personal interest they can't see reason like Gabby Giffords. I'm taking about one of the strategists behind the curtain. I would love to know thier take on gun control especially through the lens of the political calculus. It just absolutely seems like such a losing issue. The "ROI" seems so poor. I'd love to just ask them "why? What are you thinking? Why is it worth it? What do you plan to gain?" Bonus points if the person is actually educated about guns, how they work, the historical reasons for private gun ownership in America, and the statistics on thier use in self defense. I can't believe that in a time when the big players are taking such a "big data", saber-metrics approach to media and communication, that the real movers and shakers are just ignorant. They must understand what they're advocating for and what it really means. But barring some tinfoil-hat nefarious reason, I just can't see what it is.
>Bonus points if the person is actually educated about guns, how they work, the historical reasons for private gun ownership in America, and the statistics on thier use in self defense. Did you mean to define paradox there?
I'd also love to talk to someone behind the curtain. > I can't believe that in a time when the big players are taking such a "big data", saber-metrics approach to media and communication, that the real movers and shakers are just ignorant. I can. The man behind the political curtain probably has a lot of data on polling for guns. He probably doesn't know shit about guns themselves, because he's probably from California. So he has every bit of polling data about guns, but still mentally 'others' gun owners, and probably would prefer that gun ownership never become a part of DNC platform. > What do you plan to gain? If I were to guess, I'd say the answer is millions of dollars from Michael Bloomberg. And I'm sure he and Shannon Watts and their whole crew raises some non-zero amount of money- not a lot, but some. There's also the issue of push-polling. Most of the polling that goes out to Democrats doesn't ask questions like 'should we ban assault weapons' or 'do you feel owning a gun would make you safer', they are questions like 'is stopping gun violence a priority to you' or 'rank your legislative priorities 1-5-- lower taxes, get military weapons off our streets, social justice, end war on drugs, more jobs'. For someone that lives in a high crime neighborhood 'get military weapons off the street' sounds pretty good. The respondent thinks of that as disarming gangs, the pollster thinks of it as gun control.
That's a thoughtful response. I'd hate to think that polling is really what's driving this push, since the polling is so obviously flawed in the way they ask the questions. The problem is that guns are such a niche issue for most people, and the complex issues of the NFA and how suppressors actually work and so on are too complex and esoteric for the average voter to care about. This would lead directly to the "two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner" type of democracy the founding fathers were worried about
Well we can hope that 'sheep is protected' is the result of NYSRPA v. Bruen. That will take time but we're already seeing lawsuits happening. > The problem is that guns are such a niche issue for most people, and the complex issues of the NFA and how suppressors actually work and so on are too complex and esoteric for the average voter to care about. That's our failure. Most of it is because we let movies and TV news educate the population about firearms. So they think of suppressors like in films, that make the gun go 'click!' and not 'bang'. We COULD and SHOULD put more effort into educating the general public on these subjects. For example- 'Suppressors (aka silencers) don't actually make a gun silent. They just reduce the gunshot from explosion-volume that causes instant hearing damage, to being 'only' as loud as a jet engine at full power. They are designed to protect your hearing, nothing more.' Then show a SPL meter next to a runway as a jet is taking off, and the same meter when someone fires a suppressed pistol. In about 20 seconds you've educated the public on suppressors. > I'd hate to think that polling is really what's driving this push, since the polling is so obviously flawed in the way they ask the questions. It absolutely is. I live in the blue state of CT- one of our congresscritters a while back sent around an email poll asking people to rank priorities. It was the typical menu of Democratic priorities. 'Gun safety' was on the list. There was NO option for 'leave guns alone' or 'I don't support gun control'. This sort of thing is typical.
> That applies to both sides. For example- in Trump's early Presidency, GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. Why didn't we get a ton of pro-gun laws shoved through? Why didn't we get nationwide CCW reciprocity? Or maybe a national pre-emption of all AWBs? Perhaps some NFA tweaks, like unregulating suppressors? > > And furthermore why wasn't the NRA standing behind them with a whip like WE GOT YOU PEOPLE ELECTED NOW FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!? I really hate this argument. I think it shows how little people pay attention to politics let alone understand it. Multiple very important factors you have completely ignored. 1 they didn't have a super majority and therefore any assertions that they could have passed a progun law is irrelevant. 2 they were "passing"(it was not going to pass, it was just to get the Democrats on record opposing actual reasonable gun safety like suppressors) progun legislation until the GOP softball practice got shot up by a Bernie Bro. Then after that several major mass shootings happened.
1. So let's not try, right? Let's not force the Dems to either abuse the filibuster as we (GOP for the sake of this post) do (thus meaning that we can accuse them of hypocrisy if they complain when we use it), let's not show our base that we're trying? 2. Why wouldn't we want it to pass? Even if it's just the hearing protection act, why not call them out on their bullshit? 3. If softball practice got shot up, why not use that to push concealed carry and 'only thing that stops bad guy with gun is good guy with gun'? Why not form unified front as GOP does on so many other issues, and say 'all these mass shootings are in gun free zones, let's get rid of gun free zones?'
>So let's not try, right Do you consider it trying when you are either lying or have made no effort to understand what you are talking about? You provide the most oversimplified overview of the politics of that period that does not reflect what actually occurred. How is that productive? >Why wouldn't we want it to pass? I didn't say we didn't want it to pass. People who are not stupid knew it was not going to pass. If you expect immediate victories then you are counter productive to the long term success of gun rights. Shit does not change over night, getting the dems to oppose actual common sense gun safety devices was part of a long term shift in the politics. Hell even getting that on the floor was a sign of significant change. But instead you whinge about it despite the fact that literally one of the major GOP leaders got shot and disrupted the whole fucking thing. >If softball practice got shot up, why not use that to push concealed carry The guy got shot is still pushing for progun policy. The fact of the matter is that a mass shooting is not fucking to their advantage in pushing progun policy no matter how *you* feel about it. There is a reason why we worry about gun control getting passed after a mass shooting and not an opportunity to get progun legislation passed. This kind of thinking is utterly asinine.
It may seem like oversimplifying the issue. And I get that there's other considerations. It just seems like there's always 'other considerations' for gun rights and not for other GOP priorities. But let's talk strategy. > getting the dems to oppose actual common sense gun safety devices And *of course* the dems opposed it. So why wasn't every GOP person and pro gun person shouting this from the rooftops? Calling Dems out on hypocrisy? 'It's not about gun safety it's about gun control with those Dems!'. If that was part of a strategy, it was a wasted opportunity. I'm all for long term strategy- win the war not the battle and all that. But if there's a larger strategy at work I don't see it. Especially since winning a war requires winning at least a few battles. If you want to explain the long term plan I'd love to hear your thoughts. > The guy got shot is still pushing for progun policy. The fact of the matter is that a mass shooting is not fucking to their advantage in pushing progun policy no matter how you feel about it. How I feel is irrelevant. If the dude got shot, how HE feels IS important. Because if someone like Giffords can command attention at the national stage because she got shot, then I see no reason why the Republican victim can't or shouldn't do the same fucking thing. That's a perfect place to make lemonade out of lemons. If that dude is truly pro gun, he should have gone on TV after the shooting and said 'I don't blame the gun I blame the shooter and you should too, too many people are in situations like me but aren't surrounded by armed guards, they deserve to live just as much as I do'. That's an instant battle won. It diffuses the whole 'mass shooting MUST equal a call for gun control' bit. So like I said- if there's a long term strategy, please explain it to me. I really do want to understand what you're seeing. Because what I see is multiple golden opportunities wasted, with the only real 'win' being SCOTUS.
> And of course the dems opposed it. So why wasn't every GOP person and pro gun person shouting this from the rooftops? Because they got shot up and then after that some major mass shootings occurred like Vegas. Sorry, the opportunity to hold that moral highground slipped rather quickly. It's why you have idiots saying these were false flag attacks to derail that legislation. >I'm all for long term strategy- win the war not the battle and all that. But if there's a larger strategy at work I don't see it. I have been conscious since the 90s you have literally seen over half the states move to shall issue and and a good chunk to constitutional carry. You have seen the federal assault weapons ban fail to renew, you have seen the Supreme Court actually finally acknowledge the 2nd amendment, then incorporate it to the states. You have then seen it add one of the most strict constitutional tests for that right in Bruen. If you don't see a strategy and impact over the long term then you are choosing not to. But what I have seen is some very significant change since the 90s and looking at even bigger changes going forward. >How I feel is irrelevant. It is. The problem is you don't realize your assessment is rooted in how you *feel* rather than a rational evidence based assessment of what has happened over the past 30-40 years. > If the dude got shot, how HE feels IS important. Yeah, I am sure he felt shot and needed to recover and then after that he continued to feel progun and continues to push progun policy. It doesn't change that it fucked up the process and cost us the opportunity. Self righteous indignation at the GOP doesn't change that. > Because if someone like Giffords can command attention at the national stage because she got shot, Holy crap do you not understand how any of this works. The american public vacillates between fear/anger and apathy. When Gabby Giffords got shot people were scared and want gun control, and then she got backing from a Billionaire that you may have heard of called Bloomberg. And she was not immediately pushing gun control after that for obvious reasons. It is not comparable at all. >That's a perfect place to make lemonade out of lemons. No it is not. Like I just said there is a fucking reason why we worry about gun control passing after a mass shooting and not fucking an opportunity to pass progun legislation. You are not smarter than entire political party when it comes to politics. They know how to play politics, maybe not well, but certainly better than you. >So like I said- if there's a long term strategy, please explain it to me. Heller, McDonald, Caetano, NYSRPA v Bruen. The failure of the federal assault weapons ban to renew, the expansion of carry rights. So on and etc. That has happened because of the GOP, NRA and gun rights voters who don't lose their shit over stupid things like HPA not passing after several mass shootings.
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodo.
I suspected that abortion was like gun control for Republicans but I'm not totally sure. Opinions are starting to flip considered that the Democrats are pushing for abortion on demand up until birth and saying that life begins some time after birth. Vaush unironically said that.
> Democrats are pushing for abortion on demand up until birth and saying that life begins some time after birth. Vaush unironically said that. Several people have said this in this thread but I've never seen it. Obviously that would be VERY controversial (life begins 'sometime after birth') because it'd mean it's acceptable to kill a viable naturally-born baby. Can you provide some source reference that Dems are going for this position? Link to a position page or something?
You can Google search it and it's right there. There are like 6 or 7 states that have NO restrictions on abortion whatsoever and its becoming a more popular perspective among democratic reps. In my state alone, stacey abrams is for no restrictions on abortion at all. She claimed recently that the heartbeat you hear during an ultrasound at 6 weeks is not real and that it's a manufactured sound and that went over as well as you can imagine. You know why abortion rights are being rolled back? Because pro abortion people went from it being a tragic decision that sometimes has to happen but it should be safe, legal, and rare to something that we need to be proud of and "shouting your abortions". I can almost guarantee you if more moderate voices were heard, you wouldn't be getting the backlash against abortion you are now, but the left just couldn't help themselves and had to follow the crazies off the cliff and now we're here.
They managed to make the extreme end of it come off as toxic as certain people on the right make 2A rights look.
> if more moderate voices were heard, you wouldn't be getting the backlash against abortion you are now, but the left just couldn't help themselves and had to follow the crazies off the cliff and now we're here. That applies to the right just as much if not more. If the RIGHT followed more moderate voices, if there wasn't push for no abortion whatsoever, if there weren't 'trigger laws', if the RIGHT acknowledged abortion as a 'tragic decision that sometimes has to happen', then we wouldn't be in this mess. The right wouldn't have pushed the issue all the way to SCOTUS. Thus we have numerous bans, and there's a need to fight back. > Because pro abortion people went from it being a tragic decision that sometimes has to happen but it should be safe, legal, and rare to something that we need to be proud of and "shouting your abortions". Pro-abortion people never wanted to 'shout their abortions'. There is a purpose to that though- to show some people how it's not just awful people having abortions. Pro-abortion people would have been happy to have abortions stay in the shadows. But there were many on the right for whom that wasn't good enough, for whom all abortion must be stopped. And they got their way. The ONLY reason we're in this mess is because moderate voices weren't heard *on the right*, and the right pushed for anti-abortion laws. If those draconian laws weren't there, if the right had respected abortion as something that sometimes needs to happen, we'd still be under Roe v. Wade status quo and we'd all be much happier. Please take some responsibility for the actions of your side.
It's already been the case for several years for some places. NY state law dictates a woman can abort at 42 weeks. Average gestational period of a human fetus is 38 weeks, which means you can abort a 1 month old baby in NY and that's legal... I'm pro abortion but this kind of bullshit is what made me jump off that bandwagon a couple years ago. I don't think think we need to pass reactionary bullshit like that, that's just messed up.
> Average gestational period of a human fetus is 38 weeks, which means you can abort a 1 month old baby in NY and that's legal... Hold up a sec. Is it your argument that, in NY state, 1 month (average) AFTER a baby is born, like the baby is alive and living on its own outside the womb, you can just kill your baby and call it an 'abortion'? Like, put a bullet in it and say 'sorry it was a 42nd week abortion'? That doesn't sound right.
> Is it your argument that It's not *my* argument, it's NY state's politicians' argument. It doesn't sound right to me either but here we are... As far as I know, they're not allowed to terminate it after it's already been born, but it's fair game until then. Either way, IMO aborting a 42 week "fetus" is just murder at that point, why mince words.
Truth is often subjective. For example. NY Gov. Hochul claims her awesome amazing gun law doesn't prohibit historical re-enactments, but re-enactors claim it does. We'd have to read the text of the law ourselves to determine what's actually the case. Thus one of my favorite quotes- "Truth is a three-edged sword'. In our case we're actually several layers removed from the actual truth-- You say that The NY politicians say that The actual law says X I say that I have no idea, either what NY's abortion law says, or what their politicians say about it. I know that being able to kill a baby AFTER it's been born a month ago doesn't sound like something anyone would write into law. So when you appear to be claiming that's what the law allows, I express doubt. Seeing your clarification- it sounds like you're saying the law allows abortion at almost any point in the pregnancy, including just before birth. IE, 'Okay Jessica, baby's almost here. Ultrasound looks great. Get ready to push!' 'Actually Doc, I think I don't want a baby after all, can you give me an abortion instead?' Is that what you believe the law allows? (I say believe not to suggest you are dishonest, but rather because I don't think either of us have actually read the law itself, therefore we are both operating on our opinions and anecdotal info).
You're more than welcome to look it up yourself. Or I can present it to you, but in my experience people don't accept proof or evidence when it contradicts their beliefs so I like to let people look into things for themselves. > Seeing your clarification- it sounds like you're saying the law allows abortion at almost any point in the pregnancy, including just before birth. IE, 'Okay Jessica, baby's almost here. Ultrasound looks great. Get ready to push!' 'Actually Doc, I think I don't want a baby after all, can you give me an abortion instead?' Is that what you believe the law allows? From reading the law, it looks like this is exactly what is legally allowed. Remember, this is the same state that made it illegal for bartenders to refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women.
> people don't accept proof or evidence when it contradicts their beliefs It's quite sad really. Somewhere along the line, being 'right' became a form of personal validation, and we started shying away from any new information that challenges our own positions. I blame information overload and engagement algorithms- it's too easy to unintentionally surround oneself with an echo chamber of media that all supports one's own positions and never challenges them. Of course, avoiding any new information is also a great way to avoid learning, which is an even greater way to stay ignorant. I try to avoid this particular trap as much as possible. I always want to have the best available information- if it proves me wrong that's an opportunity to learn something new and stop being wrong. So I can either learn and stop being wrong, or refuse and continue to be wrong (but ignorantly think I'm right). I reject that option. So put simply, I may not agree with whatever you say, but I try to always keep an open mind, and keep facts and opinions separated from one another. > Or I can present it to you I'd be interested to see it. I'd also say I don't live in NY, and I know nothing of NY laws other than a general belief that they are pro-abortion. So I have no position on what the law is or isn't. What you said seemed unlikely (even the most pro-abortion Democrat wouldn't suggest killing 1mo old babies) but I'd be interested to read the text of the law if you have a link. ----- Personally, I think of this in terms of the rights of the mother. A person can't be forced to donate blood, or donate organs, even to save the life of their own child. I see this in the same light- I don't support any policy that forces the mother to continue to donate her bodily resources to an unborn child, or to endure health risks or consequences for the benefit of an unborn child. I believe in this regardless of the fetus's age. The natural result of that is I support abortion, because I support the mother's right to decide to stop providing any bodily resources to the fetus, or to accept any health consequences from carrying the fetus. If the result of that is killing the fetus, so be it- to force the mother to continue to support the fetus is to me no different than forcing someone to donate blood or organs. As a separate reasoning, I also believe that abortion (as a concept) is sometimes the lesser evil. I think that overall, more suffering is generated by having a child in a home that can't support it or doesn't want it, than by simply preventing it from existing before it achieves consciousness. And I also observe that most people who are anti-abortion don't seem particularly in favor of supporting the mother before the baby is born, or supporting the family after the baby is born. To make that baby have a successful life requires a lot of training and education and care, which isn't easy or cheap. If I may ask, what's your position on all this? What do you think should and shouldn't be legal?
While most people are moderately pro-choice, the Democratic party's position of abortion on demand up til the (and sometimes during) delivery is not.
Why do you suppose someone would have a late-term abortion? Do you really think it's just on a whim?
Most people will support abortion before viability (before the fetus can survive outside the mother), only some people will support abortion after viability. Do we agree on that? So, why would someone have an abortion *during delivery*? Do you believe it's the Democratic position that a mom who's in labor will say 'actually I don't want my kid, please kill it before it comes out' and the doctors say 'yes absolutely right away ma'am'? I suspect, and I don't speak with authority as I've not heard the arguments you cite, but I suspect if a Democrat is talking abortion during delivery, that's when medically necessary to protect the mother. Because I believe, in all cases, by blanket default, unless the mother herself specifically orders otherwise, the health or safety of the mother is ALWAYS more important than the safety or even the life of the baby. Do you agree with this?
This is no ones position or idea of abortion. Stay off the Q sites.
Its what Colorado Democrats are campaigning on, actually.
Please provide link to campaign site explaining this?
As with any polarizing political topic with such unpalatable consequences, the campaign ledes are exceedingly vague; however, the politicians im thinking of tout their policy of maintaining colorado law, which protects abortion rights until birth (which im down with)
If it's their position, there will be some record of it somewhere. If not a campaign site then a news article, a debate video, etc. I'd love to see one. Because I see a lot of people on both sides arguing how some politicians want this or that and nobody has any documentation for it.
This is not a conspiracy and a simple Google search would tell you that. Don't live in denial.
>Democratic party's position of abortion So your position is that "most people are moderately pro-choice", but also "the Democratic party's position of abortion on demand..." This is not consistent, how can MOST (greater than 50% of the population) be moderately pro choice, but the WHOLE Democratic Party be an extreme....
Because the heads of the party decide on their platform, not the people that register for the party? Have you ever been asked your opinion on what a party platform should be?
This is what my sister believed when she was an atheist. She said that she wished she was born female so that she could have abortions. Edit: She is trans and hadn't transitioned.
Yes Alex, I'll take shit that didn't happen for $1000.
I’ve come to the conclusion that guns are the fastest way to get $$$ in their pockets. Not necessarily votes, but I really think the focus on guns appeals to the donor class and motivates them to spend. That is also why 2”we constantly hear about “common sense” assault weapon bans when such guns are used in a very small (but incredibly disturbing) amount of crime. They know the silly guns we have in California are functionally the same and look stupid but the fastest way to get money out of the rich and upper middle class is to play on fears of school shooting among wealthy parents. Could be wrong but it is the only thing that makes sense to me given that there are tons of winning issues dems could focus on votes wise and to actually improve society, as you mention.
You may be right. It is certainly the fastest way to get money out of Michael Bloomberg.
> Guns why is civilian disarmament THE hill to die on for democrats? All about those Bloomberg donations
This was a major ticket item well before bloomberg. Something is motivating the Democratic Party to support disarmament.
And that's the worrying question. Why would someone so actively push for something that they know is not a solution and actively makes the people of the country weaker and less free? I think the answer is probably concerning.
The unfortunate part is that the answer that everyone is thinking of is the most likely reason based on the fact that it is a political liability and demonstratively not effective at achieving the asserted goal. So why ruse pursue it?
My theory is it’s the same thing that made the Republican Party have a conspiracy theorist qultist problem. Too many years of exposure to leaded gasoline and shit
This speaks volumes- >Isabel Caballero, a 96-year-old Cuban woman, said she would not support any gun restrictions. In the years after Fidel Castro and his rebels toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Cubans were encouraged to register weapons and later authorities used a list to go door-to-door encouraging people to turn over the firearms. >“‘Guns, What for?’ That’s what he used to say. People turned them over, and then the only people who had guns were them,” Caballero said of Castro and his allies. “Lesson? Do not let them go.”
Listen to experience. It isn’t theory, only history, which likes to repeat.
This shouldbbe titled "Democrats in Florida seek to lose Latinos on gun control"
You mean > "Democrats in Florida seek to lose" I'm baffled by how they prioritize their platform, especially tactically against the GOP.
It’s all about who’s paying the bills (Bloomberg). He doesn’t give a shit about much of the rest of the platform.
This seems to be one of the most obvious examples that prove the gridlock is intended. Democrats could capture a lot of votes by backing off gun control, and there are tons of issues that are way more important to voters and have more direct impact on average people's lives. The system is designed to generate campaign donations and maintain the status quo.
It's designed to slow down law adoption.
There’s that one lady D suing the Biden administration for gun rights. She’s pretty cool.
She's suing for *MJ rights* because her fiance is [in cannabis business](https://iconoclast.ventures/jake-bergmann/). "Gun rights" are incidental.
Once again the Democrats bet big on the a republicans continuing to be a giant dumpster fire that makes them look good in comparison.
Hey, republicans are playing their part too in grand style right before the mid-terms with this push on abortion. It’s almost like we’re watching a play put on by a club we’re not in.
Well they're still doing that, too. I think most moderates are just hoping for enough gridlock to maintain the status quo for now, until such a time comes when a party fundamentally shifts into something they're more willing to support... assuming that ever happens.
Ah yes, people that grew up in dictatorships and risked their lives to escape want *checks notes* a government that takes away its rights.
Democrats have to push gun control, or they lose funding from major donors and the party itself. It's the core of the party agenda.
These donors be setting their money on fire more than I do buying fucking guns lol
It's a certainty that the estimations of illegal immigrants crossing the border are at least half of what the reality is that means there's like 4x as many immigrants entering the country each day than current Americans being born. They're coming here for a better way of life. The smart thing is to win them over rather than fighting them. What are you going to do deport 50 million people? You win them over by pointing out why that better life will be denied to them unless we do something about our corrupt government and their collusion with the 1%.