Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

I'd support guns with bump stocks, and guns that can be converted to full auto, legally or illegally. That leaves hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns. Also, there should be bans again on high capacity magazines. And sporting guns.

 

Edited to add: I mean bans on those items. Sorry, forgot the word bans.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto is moving the overton window and the public is right behind him in its views. 

 

The NRA is pretty much confined to primarily white, rural districts at this point. Having a F from the NRA was a + for every house Dem in a swing suburban seat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I'd support guns with bump stocks, and guns that can be converted to full auto, legally or illegally. That leaves hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns. Also, there should be bans again on high capacity magazines. And sporting guns.

 

I agree that we are having this conversation backwards (and this isnt to add to the gun control debate, jus an observation).  This would be a different conversations if it was clarified what guns we should have the right to have, not jus throwing what guns people shouldnt have. 

 

When you say "handgun, shotgun, hunting rifle", I've floated around that feeling for a while and would support it.  That's the kind of specifics we need, because theres a ridiculous amount of technicalities regarding types of firearms and all the overlapping leads to people being afraid it means all of them, it doesnt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Llevron said:

I didn't think Buttigieg had a chance up until recently. Pretty interesting to see how he has risen. 

Rising,  he's been doing the opposite.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I'd support guns with bump stocks, and guns that can be converted to full auto, legally or illegally. That leaves hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns. Also, there should be bans again on high capacity magazines. And sporting guns.

Do you mean you'd support banning those guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody with any sense believed the Dems anyway....good on Beto for not lying like he did last year. :pint:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Do you mean you'd support banning those guns?

 

Yes, I forgot the word bans. Edited my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Yes, I forgot the word bans. Edited my post.

Wasn't trying to be a smart ass (for once). I just read and re-read it and was thinking "that can't be what she means.... can it?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Wasn't trying to be a smart ass (for once). I just read and re-read it and was thinking "that can't be what she means.... can it?"

 

An unfortunate side effect of my stroke is that I sometimes leave out words when I write, usually the most important ones needed to get my point across.

 

What's worse is that I write better than I speak because aphasia shows up more when I speak.

 

No offense taken! My omission needed corrected.  Thanks!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

An unfortunate side effect of my stroke is that I sometimes leave out words when I write, usually the most important ones needed to get my point across.

Well, now I feel like not a smart ass but a jackass for bringing it up.

 

But don't worry, I fell like one or the other about 90% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't feel that way. I need to edit more carefully before I hit the send key. I have frequently gone back and edited my post because I either left something out or wrote it wrong. I keep forgetting that I don't write as before. I don't expect all of ES community to know of my limitations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, twa said:

Nobody with any sense believed the Dems anyway....good on Beto for not lying like he did last year. :pint:

I wonder what could have happened between last year and now that would have made him change his thinking on the subject 🤔

 

edit... oh yeah, it was when all the people from his home got mowed down. Way to be a dick.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I wonder what could have happened between last year and now that would have made him change his thinking on the subject 🤔

 

edit... oh yeah, it was when all the people from his home got mowed down. Way to be a dick.

 

His mind is clouded.

better to be a dick than a idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-college-students-could-draw-new-attention-in-2020-their-turnout-doubled-for-the-midterms-study-finds/2019/09/18/7a32ca42-d981-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html

 

Quote

College students across the United States more than doubled their rate of voting between the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections, according to a study published Thursday by Tufts University — a dramatic spike in political engagement that could draw unprecedented attention to these voters in next year’s presidential election.

The study found that 40 percent of students who are eligible to vote cast ballots last year, up from 19 percent in 2014.

Census Bureau data has shown that turnout rose in nearly all demographic groups between the two midterm cycles, but it rose most sharply among young adults. The Tufts study shows the turnout spike was particularly stark among college students — an extraordinary level of engagement for voters who typically stay home in nonpresidential elections.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

College educated voters, especially women, hate Trump with the passion of a thousand burning suns. It's an interesting gamble by the GOP to double down on non-college educated voters just as an entire generation of educated young people are becoming politically engaged.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great takedown of Nate Silver and the horse race culture of media coverage of politics. I hope people in this thread listen to it, especially since many of us practice this same mentality.

 

Quote

Nate Silver tell us Joe Biden’s inconsistent political beliefs are, in fact, a benefit. They’re “his calling card” and evidence he “reads the room pretty well”. Venality, we are told, is “a normal and often successful [mode] for a politician.” Insurgent progressive groups like Justice Democrats shouldn’t call Biden out of touch with the base because, Silver tell us, “only 26 of the 79 candidates it endorsed last year won their primaries, and only 7 of those went on to win the general election.”  

 

On Twitter and his in columns, high-status pundit Nate Silver, has made a career reporting on the polls and insisting he’s just a dispassionate, non-ideological conduit of Cold Hard Facts, just channeling the holy word of data. Empirical journalism, he calls it. But this schtick, however, is very ideological - a reactionary worldview that prioritizes describing the world, rather than changing it. For Silver - and data-fetishists like him - politics is a sport to be gamed, rather than a mechanism for improving people’s lives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

But this schtick, however, is very ideological - a reactionary worldview that prioritizes describing the world, rather than changing it. For Silver - and data-fetishists like him - politics is a sport to be gamed, rather than a mechanism for improving people’s lives.

 

I listed to the first 10 minutes but couldn't get past the host's dripping sanctimony (see, e.g., "schtick," "data-fetishists").  What is wrong with a journalist/pundit describing the world as he sees it rather than trying to change it?

 

Yay, hot takes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

What is wrong with a journalist/pundit describing the world as he sees it rather than trying to change it?

Because a) it isn’t saying anything b) it has influenced people to see politics as a game.

 

And Nate’s takes, and others like him, are super flimsy and change with every poll. It doesn’t contribute much to our discourse and probably harms it.

 

Look at commentary in politics now. Instead of asking for ideas and positively impacting things, we get people beholden to numbers that change every week. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is a game. It's a popularity contest. We (the general public) don't vote because people are the best qualified or the best candidates. 

 

But whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Politics is a game. It's a popularity contest. We (the general public) don't vote because people are the best qualified or the best candidates. 

 

But whatever.

 

And that is the problem.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Because a) it isn’t saying anything b) it has influenced people to see politics as a game.

 

And Nate’s takes, and others like him, are super flimsy and change with every poll. It doesn’t contribute much to our discourse and probably harms it.

 

Look at commentary in politics now. Instead of asking for ideas and positively impacting things, we get people beholden to numbers that change every week. 

 

God forbid someone's views change with new data. :ols:  Their takes change because voter's opinions are not static.  

 

538 has a particular space in the political media ecosystem.  I don't think anyone at 538 has minced words about what they do.  Again, it reports on what is happening in the world, that's what journalism is supposed to do.

 

Also, a lot of the stuff you post comes from a pro-Bernie tilt, and I can't help but think that 538's obvious bias against Bernie (that's snark) may be at play here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie folks don't like data because it often doesn't align with their worldview. People who explain data then become someone to take down.

 

Attacking someone who runs regressions for a living because they aren't a crusader in your political fight is the height of stupidity and is something straight out of the Trumpian playbook. Do better.

55 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I listed to the first 10 minutes but couldn't get past the host's dripping sanctimony (see, e.g., "schtick," "data-fetishists").  What is wrong with a journalist/pundit describing the world as he sees it rather than trying to change it?

 

 

In the Bernie-bro world, you are either a social justice crusader or a neoliberal shill getting duped by the fascists. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.