Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski launch ‘Justice Democrats’ to counter party’s ‘corporate’ legislators
103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51735785]Yeah I was somewhat sick when I made that post, but in order for dems to come back, they have to come back to the center left and do not touch guns or abortion, because a lot of people in the midwest like guns and are pro-life, Obama presidency killed a lot of dems in state legislators, in congress, and in governer positions.[/QUOTE]
Make sense
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51735785]Yeah I was somewhat sick when I made that post, but in order for dems to come back, they have to come back to the center left and do not touch guns or abortion, because a lot of people in the midwest like guns and are pro-life, Obama presidency killed a lot of dems in state legislators, in congress, and in governer positions.[/QUOTE]
guns they can compromise on but people would [I][B]not[/B][/I] be happy if they went back on abortion, Democrats have always posed it as a question of fundamental rights. it's better to let voters agree to disagree with an individual policy than to abuse your supporters' trust
[QUOTE=Cone;51735862]guns they can compromise on but people would [I][B]not[/B][/I] be happy if they went back on abortion, Democrats have always posed it as a question of fundamental rights. it's better to let voters agree to disagree with an individual policy than to abuse your supporters' trust[/QUOTE]
We're done doing compromises on guns. All the laws on guns are either feel-good laws that do jack shit about real crime or it creates a new criminals out of law abiding gun owners. Look at Chicago where they are actively trying to stop gun ranges from educating people about how to handle guns safely. They have so many laws to prevent ownership, but the West and South sides are still shooting up the place. And don't blame Indiana if you can't take care of your violence problem. Look at NY and how low their compliance is with their Safe Act along with low compliance with Oregon's Background check law. Massachusetts opened itself up to a nice lawsuit when their attorney general basically declared ALL semiautomatic rifles to be banned outside of 2 specific models without going through the proper channels of instituting it.
As for abortion, I don't really care which way it goes. Keep the kid if you believe in it, or abort it if you don't feel ready to have a kid.
[QUOTE=Cone;51735862]guns they can compromise on but people would [I][B]not[/B][/I] be happy if they went back on abortion, Democrats have always posed it as a question of fundamental rights. it's better to let voters agree to disagree with an individual policy than to abuse your supporters' trust[/QUOTE]
You guys are not going like this either but regulations that are job-killing will have to go.
Normal Right people need the money,
Alt-right and some libertarian's think that the "nanny state" may go into communism.
Obama did "technically" create jobs, but 96% was part- time as a person from a study and the administration admitted.
[URL="https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057"]https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057[/URL]
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51735943]You guys are not going like this either but regulations that are job-killing will have to go.
Normal Right people need the money,
Alt-right and some libertarian's think that the "nanny state" may go into communism.
Obama did "technically" create jobs, but 96% was part- time as a person from a study and the administration admitted.
[URL="https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057"]https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057[/URL][/QUOTE]
Those regulations protect the your environment, your health and your rights. That jobs stat is repeated across the western world - we haven't recovered from the recession and Trump's instability won't help.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;51735911]We're done doing compromises on guns. All the laws on guns are either feel-good laws that do jack shit about real crime or it creates a new criminals out of law abiding gun owners. Look at Chicago where they are actively trying to stop gun ranges from educating people about how to handle guns safely. They have so many laws to prevent ownership, but the West and South sides are still shooting up the place. And don't blame Indiana if you can't take care of your violence problem. Look at NY and how low their compliance is with their Safe Act along with low compliance with Oregon's Background check law. Massachusetts opened itself up to a nice lawsuit when their attorney general basically declared ALL semiautomatic rifles to be banned outside of 2 specific models without going through the proper channels of instituting it.
As for abortion, I don't really care which way it goes. Keep the kid if you believe in it, or abort it if you don't feel ready to have a kid.[/QUOTE]
by compromise i mean doing stuff to start gun control on the path to being viable in America, rather than forcing it right off the bat and just criminalizing legal owners. basically just be more nuanced on how to actually do it, accept that it's never gonna happen in one or two terms, shift it away from active disarmament and more to why people want guns in the first place - a little more understanding, more or less. i reckon pro-gun voters can get behind that
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51735984]Those regulations protect the your environment, your health and your rights. That jobs stat is repeated across the western world - we haven't recovered from the recession and Trump's instability won't help.[/QUOTE]
Then you lose midwest forever.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;51736011]by compromise i mean doing stuff to start gun control on the path to being viable in America, rather than forcing it right off the bat and just criminalizing legal owners. basically just be more nuanced on how to actually do it, accept that it's never gonna happen in one or two terms, shift it away from active disarmament and more to why people want guns in the first place - a little more understanding, more or less. i reckon pro-gun voters can get behind that[/QUOTE]
nope. Guns Stay, to deter crime and stop perceive tyranny.
[QUOTE=Cone;51736011]by compromise i mean doing stuff to start gun control on the path to being viable in America, rather than forcing it right off the bat and just criminalizing legal owners. basically just be more nuanced on how to actually do it, accept that it's never gonna happen in one or two terms, shift it away from active disarmament and more to why people want guns in the first place - a little more understanding, more or less. i reckon pro-gun voters can get behind that[/QUOTE]
You'll never reach that compromise because it isn't a compromise. You're just trying another way to get what you want without having to give your opposition anything that they want.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51736013]nope. Guns Stay, to deter crime and stop perceive tyranny.[/QUOTE]
my point exactly. Democrats should be the ones saying "we don't much like guns, and you probably don't like that you need them." i'm sure gun owners would gladly accept lower crime and higher government accountability. the first move doesn't have to be about controlling guns, just addressing why they're so common and why previous efforts haven't really worked out.
[QUOTE=Cone;51736011]by compromise i mean doing stuff to start gun control on the path to being viable in America, rather than forcing it right off the bat and just criminalizing legal owners. basically just be more nuanced on how to actually do it, accept that it's never gonna happen in one or two terms, shift it away from active disarmament and more to why people want guns in the first place - a little more understanding, more or less. i reckon pro-gun voters can get behind that[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, nuance is lost on both sides. One side wants a reversal on all the crap laws that started in the 1920's and the other wants to make sure we are legally like Mexico or China where effectively no one can own firearms.
I can promise the idea that universal background checks would have been a lot more appealing if it wasn't required to be done through an FFL. People like having agency over their private lives over needing to pay a business to do something for the government. Just being able to call in a drivers license and have it be done over the phone would have been nice.
[QUOTE=Cone;51736068]my point exactly. Democrats should be the ones saying "we don't much like guns, and you probably don't like that you need them." i'm sure gun owners would gladly accept lower crime and higher government accountability. the first move doesn't have to be about controlling guns, just addressing why they're so common and why previous efforts haven't really worked out.[/QUOTE]
Will not work, disarming the population gives no tools for when another Tyrant comes.
[QUOTE=Cone;51736011]by compromise i mean doing stuff to start gun control on the path to being viable in America, rather than forcing it right off the bat and just criminalizing legal owners. basically just be more nuanced on how to actually do it, accept that it's never gonna happen in one or two terms, shift it away from active disarmament and more to why people want guns in the first place - a little more understanding, more or less. i reckon pro-gun voters can get behind that[/QUOTE]
That's not what compromise is. Compromise means both sides get a little and give a little. What you want is gun owners to give up everything over time.
[QUOTE=Cone;51736068] "we don't much like guns, and you probably don't like that you need them."[/QUOTE]
yeah no sorry I like being able to own guns. recently the guy that runs the reenacting group I'm in got a functional Lewis Gun, and my oh my that is going to make the Tacticals all that more interesting.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51736197]That's not what compromise is. Compromise means both sides get a little and give a little. What you want is gun owners to give up everything over time.[/QUOTE]
sure [I]i'd[/I] like for tighter gun control in the US, but that's just me. my point is that an earnest discussion on gun control right now is hard if not impossible, and setting the stage for that discussion, regardless of which way your people ultimately decide, doesn't need to be a partisan issue. right now tons of people genuinely do need guns to stay safe, a lot of the legislation on them is pointless or counter-productive, or criminalizes perfectly law-abiding people.
but everyone can agree on improving socioeconomic conditions for lower-class and middle-class people, tackling gang violence with a scalpel rather than a hammer, and leaner gun laws that actually target the right people. Democrats should focus on getting America in a state where gun control is [I]actually doable[/I] before they start talking about it, is my point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.