• The Democrats’ Wave Could Turn Into A Flood
    180 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53001670]Then vote for someone who represents both interests. If you can't find a viable representative that does, you're going to have to start prioritizing.[/QUOTE] If prioritizing doesn't work, vote for the lesser evil and wait for a optimistic outcome. :v:
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53001485]Jesus Christ the basic right to healthcare, LGBTQ rights, and an impossibly large number of other good things for the American people are more important than the paranoia of the left taking your fucking guns away. Which by the way hasn't happened, it didn't happen under Obama, and it won't ever happen.[/QUOTE] Probably because Obama was a fairly moderate Democrat. There are Dems much further on the left than him.
I fucking love guns, but I gotta say it worries me that in modern day in a country of 300+ million where many of our social services are being constricted or threatened a lot of people's first concern seems to be what will happen to their shooty toys.
[QUOTE=TestECull;53001642]Is it really that bad to want both? Hrm? That's all most of us are after. We want all those social pluses, we want universal healthcare, we want good, fair wages and well protected worker's rights, we want well regulated businesses that don't screw us and nickle-and-dime us, but we also want AK47s and Dodge Chargers in our garages. That's not too much to ask. I'm fine with moderate D's because they won't attack the latter two but they'll push for all that other stuff. The extreme left, however? It's when those motherfuckers get into power that those things come under attack, and the extreme left isn't that far off considering what's going on in California and has been going on in California for 30 or 40 years now. The ideal US politician is a gun totin', muscle car lovin' democrat that's pushing universal healthcare and strong corporate regulation. Gives us what we want, gives us what we need, doesn't take away any of our rights. We can't lose if we elect a couple hundred of those to both houses and one to the white house.[/QUOTE] Climate change is a thing as well. Of course V8s should be taxed heavily to offset their carbon footprint. The democrats aren't idiots that deny climate change.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53001691]Probably because Obama was a fairly moderate Democrat. There are Dems much further on the left than him.[/QUOTE] The party as a whole moved further left during his presidency, it'll probably move further left with Trump
[QUOTE=nox;53001706]I fucking love guns, but I gotta say it worries me that in modern day in a country of 300+ million where many of our social services are being constricted or threatened a lot of people's first concern seems to be what will happen to their shooty toys.[/QUOTE] Gun enthusiasts will tell you that gun ownership protects you from government tyranny, and therefore keeps you free. But how free can you be without security of health? How free can you be when your "representatives" only represent the power elite and disregard your well-being? How free can you be when you're living paycheck to paycheck with no chance of accumulating wealth? You have guns, but not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's such a narrow-minded and naive way of looking at the world.
I'm a gun enthusiast and I voted for Bernie in the primaries and Hillary in the general. I enjoy guns, but I also like everything else that democrats stand for.
As someone who grew up a family house full of guns and has found a deep interest in them since when I was two, I consider myself a gun enthusiast. I like guns but I love Healthcare, equal rights and pro worker rights so I consider the whole single issue gun voters to be very narrow minded and foolish.
I'm Texan and I love my guns, and man would it suck if I lost the right to own and use them. But you know what sucks more? Being bankrupted because you had a nasty flu. Not being able to marry the man/woman you love just because you have the same genitals. Being shafted because some geriatric cunt wants a few extra bucks. Guns are fun, but the rest of my life comes first.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;53001756]I'm a gun enthusiast and I voted for Bernie in the primaries and Hillary in the general. I enjoy guns, but I also like everything else that democrats stand for.[/QUOTE] Same. Bernie got fucked in the primaries and Clinton is absolutely terrible when it comes to gun politics, but you have to be pragmatic when it comes to politics. The current political situation is a dumpster fire, and I'm confident I speak for the majority in this thread when I say "I saw it coming a mile away".
[QUOTE=Morgen;53001735]Climate change is a thing as well. Of course V8s should be taxed heavily to offset their carbon footprint. The democrats aren't idiots that deny climate change.[/QUOTE] Taxing the minute fraction of us who enjoy V8s to offset what's actually coming from rampant and nearly unchecked usage of coal in the electrical grid is nothing but petty bullshit. You want to do something about our carbon footprint? Transition us off coal fired power plants. Nuclear is a good choice, proven tech, more than capable of handling the load. The US would have fuck all problem meeting those lofty CO2 reduction targets if it spent the next five years shuttering the coal plants dotting our electrical grid. We wouldn't need a single change beyond that, just get rid of coal. Done. And while you're at it, throw some surplus reactors into our merchant marine vessels, because engines the size of apartment blocks burning heavy bunker oil at the rate of 'half a dinosaur every second' isn't doing the polar bears any favors either, and at that point we'd be one of the greenest nations on Earth [I]while enjoying throaty V8s on our daily commutes[/I]. It ain't the guys shoving 454s into Chevelles you need to be punishing, it's the guys in Washington whispering 'clean coal' and making 'campaign donations' to any senator and house rep willing to give them an ear to whisper into.
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;53001477]Honestly hype about 'the blue wave' is so misplaced its stunning. This kind of attitude is merely going to contribute to this pendulum-like back-and-forth insanity, where every other election season becomes more about shouting a big 'fuck you' to the other side, and its going to lead us to the brink. Frankly, there are many, many deeper issues that affect our world besides the generic bullshit that comes up with democrats vs. republicans, or liberals vs. conservatives. Here's the thing, [I]if we continue to place all our hopes and dreams for turning our country around into the hands of politicians, we will continue to make little or no meaningful progress.[/I] This isn't a "both parties are equally bad" statement, which is obviously not true, and it's also not a statement that there is some mythical point of centrism that will lead us to prosperity. Rather its a statement that relying on the tired, old model of having a hot-shot savior figure at the head of our government is not going to help us resolve the problems we are facing. We are far beyond a point where one person could hope to ever be able to confront the issues our nation and our world are facing. Don't buy into the politicians-as-saviors model that Donald Trump used in part to con his way into office. Donald Trump obviously isn't making America great again, but we shouldn't think that Democrats riding in on their wave is going to be the panacea for our problems. We need to break away from this way of thinking.[/QUOTE] I have to agree. From foreign perspective - the two party system of US is outdated as fuck. Perhabs with US army being as massive as it is a bloodless military coup is the way? After deconstruction of goverment, you could have hold an elections to establish new smaller parties, with new faces and fresh ideas.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;53001844]I have to agree. From foreign perspective - the two party system of US is outdated as fuck. Perhabs with US army being as massive as it is a bloodless military coup is the way? After deconstruction of goverment, you could have hold an elections to establish new smaller parties, with new faces and fresh ideas.[/QUOTE] Using the military to overthrow a democratically elected government, in the hope that a new democratic system will be implemented, that will guarantee that different people are elected? What could possibly go wrong? And where have I heard of this idea before?
[QUOTE=karimatrix;53001844]I have to agree. From foreign perspective - the two party system of US is outdated as fuck. Perhabs with US army being as massive as it is a bloodless military coup is the way? After deconstruction of goverment, you could have hold an elections to establish new smaller parties, with new faces and fresh ideas.[/QUOTE] The military does not involve itself in politics. Period. Besides, that didn't work out so well in Egypt as I recall.
Military overthrow would be a massive crisis in basically every conceivable way.
[QUOTE=TestECull;53001827]Taxing the minute fraction of us who enjoy V8s to offset what's actually coming from rampant and nearly unchecked usage of coal in the electrical grid is nothing but petty bullshit. You want to do something about our carbon footprint? Transition us off coal fired power plants. Nuclear is a good choice, proven tech, more than capable of handling the load. The US would have fuck all problem meeting those lofty CO2 reduction targets if it spent the next five years shuttering the coal plants dotting our electrical grid. We wouldn't need a single change beyond that, just get rid of coal. Done. And while you're at it, throw some surplus reactors into our merchant marine vessels, because engines the size of apartment blocks burning heavy bunker oil at the rate of 'half a dinosaur every second' isn't doing the polar bears any favors either, and at that point we'd be one of the greenest nations on Earth [I]while enjoying throaty V8s on our daily commutes[/I]. It ain't the guys shoving 454s into Chevelles you need to be punishing, it's the guys in Washington whispering 'clean coal' and making 'campaign donations' to any senator and house rep willing to give them an ear to whisper into.[/QUOTE] Well you do seem to care about the environment, so why not vote for the Democrats? You're never, ever going to find a candidate or party who's going to agree with you on 100% of issues, so you might need to compromise and/or prioritise what matters to you. A shame that compromise is such a dirty word in America, though. Don't get me wrong. I'm a bit of a car nutter myself. The car in my display picture has a 290kW 5.4L Modular, and my own car has a 4.0L Ford Barra. Several of my favourite Fords have the 351ci Cleveland, while another was the very last production Ford to have the Windsor; a 5.6L in the TE50. I love cars; my dream car is a Jag F-Type, while my realistic dream car is an Alfa Giulietta. But I will sooner vote for a political party that will want to help arrest man-made climate change and ensure everyone gets a fair go in life, than a party which doesn't give a shit about those kinds of things, but will let people freely drive around town in any old muscle car, spewing out plentiful amounts of deadly nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, contributing to terrible urban air quality and premature deaths.
I was under the impression that most of the country ran on natural gas and not coal anyway?
[QUOTE=karimatrix;53001844]I have to agree. From foreign perspective - the two party system of US is outdated as fuck. Perhabs with US army being as massive as it is a bloodless military coup is the way? After deconstruction of goverment, you could have hold an elections to establish new smaller parties, with new faces and fresh ideas.[/QUOTE] The two-party state is an unintentional byproduct of our continued use of First Past the Post, which is the only type of voting you'll ever hear about in an American public school. Like they'll tell you that multi-party states exist, but if you want to have even the most basic understanding of how those states work you're on your own. The people with the power to get rid of FPTP are the ones that benefit from it, and the people with the power to [I]make them want[/I] to get rid of it (including the military), are distracted with complaining about the symptoms of FPTP rather than FPTP itself.
[QUOTE=TestECull;53001827]Taxing the minute fraction of us who enjoy V8s to offset what's actually coming from rampant and nearly unchecked usage of coal in the electrical grid is nothing but petty bullshit. You want to do something about our carbon footprint? Transition us off coal fired power plants. Nuclear is a good choice, proven tech, more than capable of handling the load. The US would have fuck all problem meeting those lofty CO2 reduction targets if it spent the next five years shuttering the coal plants dotting our electrical grid. We wouldn't need a single change beyond that, just get rid of coal. Done. And while you're at it, throw some surplus reactors into our merchant marine vessels, because engines the size of apartment blocks burning heavy bunker oil at the rate of 'half a dinosaur every second' isn't doing the polar bears any favors either, and at that point we'd be one of the greenest nations on Earth [I]while enjoying throaty V8s on our daily commutes[/I]. It ain't the guys shoving 454s into Chevelles you need to be punishing, it's the guys in Washington whispering 'clean coal' and making 'campaign donations' to any senator and house rep willing to give them an ear to whisper into.[/QUOTE] What? To say "not my problem" because another sector has larger emissions is completely ridiculous. The transportation industry is a significant carbon emitter, which needs to see severe carbon emission reductions as well as every other sector. You aren't going to meet carbon targets by simply reducing emissions from just a single sector. You need a general carbon tax for every sector. By the mid 2020s we have to have started reducing carbon emissions in a massive way to have any hope of meeting the 2c target. This is going to require a huge increase in energy efficiency of buildings, electrification of transport, a significant increase in carbon free power generation ect... Just to clarify I don't think we should ban your V8s, I just think you should have to pay for the damage the emissions cause. I don't see how you can be against paying for the damage that your own emissions cause. Edit: Cost to deal with the damage done per ton of CO2 is approximately $120 iirc. If you added that to gasoline it would increase the cost by $1.20 per gallon.
Gun rights in the 2016 election were almost completely irrelevant because even if Clinton won, we still got a republican majority in the legislature, who would nip any 'gun control' efforts right at the bud.
As someone who missed voting in the previous election before the GE that resulted in the election that elected Trump, I'm never going to miss an election again. It was the first election in which I'd have been allowed to vote, and I guess I'd presumed that because I was away during my first few years of college I had an excuse for not managing to get to the polls. Too many studies, too much shit to keep track of. I'm never missing an election again. I'm never voting GOP in my lifetime. Too much bullshit, too many lies, too much anxiety. I hope everyone my age does the same.
[QUOTE=Morgen;53001941]What? To say "not my problem" because another sector has larger emissions is completely ridiculous. The transportation industry is a significant carbon emitter, which needs to see severe carbon emission reductions as well as every other sector. You aren't going to meet carbon targets by simply reducing emissions from just a single sector. You need a general carbon tax for every sector. By the mid 2020s we have to have started reducing carbon emissions in a massive way to have any hope of meeting the 2c target. This is going to require a huge increase in energy efficiency of buildings, electrification of transport, a significant increase in carbon free power generation ect... Just to clarify I don't think we should ban your V8s, I just think you should have to pay for the damage the emissions cause. I don't see how you can be against paying for the damage that your own emissions cause.[/QUOTE] The damage fee comes at the fuel pump. Don't need anything more than that.
[QUOTE=Xanadu;53001956]The damage fee comes at the fuel pump. Don't need anything more than that.[/QUOTE] Yeah, implementing a carbon tax on the fuel would be the way to go.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53001891]I was under the impression that most of the country ran on natural gas and not coal anyway?[/QUOTE] Iirc, natural gas is still pretty bad for the environment compared to a lot of other power sources. I could be wrong, there, though.
[QUOTE=Ona;53001979]Iirc, natural gas is still pretty bad for the environment compared to a lot of other power sources. I could be wrong, there, though.[/QUOTE] I think burning it is reasonably clean, it's extracting it that can get get nasty.
[QUOTE=Ona;53001979]Iirc, natural gas is still pretty bad for the environment compared to a lot of other power sources. I could be wrong, there, though.[/QUOTE] Still much better than coal
[QUOTE=Reds;53001528]Basing your political spectrum on "but they might take my toy that goes bang away if I vote for them" is ridiculously childish and not so much shortsighted as gouging your own eyes out. Your gun culture is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] It's the principle. There are some ridiculously restrictive laws that are being pushed by elements in the Democrat party that will only serve to unnecessarily restrict owners without actually preventing mass shootings or crime.
[QUOTE=Deathgrunt;53001777]As someone who grew up a family house full of guns and has found a deep interest in them since when I was two, I consider myself a gun enthusiast. I like guns but I love Healthcare, equal rights and pro worker rights so I consider the whole single issue gun voters to be very narrow minded and foolish.[/QUOTE] single issue voters are bad, but i really think that the democrat's stance on guns does more damage to their voterbase than it does any good. the party needs to work to rebuild trust with gun owners, and if they can do that then it would bridge a massive gap between working class rural whites and them. there's a lot of justified mistrust about democrats from their point of view and any confirmation of that mistrust only further serves to entrench them. if democrats can actually [i]show[/i] that they aren't going to massively restrict guns as opposed to only tell, i can see that leading to a mass exodus of support from the republicans.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53002085]single issue voters are bad, but i really think that the democrat's stance on guns does more damage to their voterbase than it does any good. the party needs to work to rebuild trust with gun owners, and if they can do that then it would bridge a massive gap between working class rural whites and them. there's a lot of justified mistrust about democrats from their point of view and any confirmation of that mistrust only further serves to entrench them. if democrats can actually [i]show[/i] that they aren't going to massively restrict guns as opposed to only tell, i can see that leading to a mass exodus of support from the republicans.[/QUOTE] I do legitimately agree a lot here. If the democrats want to win, and want to be realpolitique, the fact of the matter is that loosening their opinion on guns is one of the easiest ways to do that. Those who would be in favor of guns control will vote democrat anyways, and they would attract a large number of single issue voters who simply wish to see their gun rights protected.
Right now, any democrat who launches a platform based on gun regulation instead of fighting against Trump is being foolish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.