Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

19 hours ago, CrosshairCollie said:

Well, of course the p*ssy-grabber-in-chief is going to say that.

 

I remember when Reagan was called 'The Teflon President' because any attempt to call him out on his *ahem* inaccurate statements slid right off him.  Trumpty-Dumpty has him beat all hollow on that.  He's averaged 5 lies a day, of various blatancies, every day of his regime (I refuse to say 'administration') and all he has to say is 'Fake News' and it's like shaking an Etch-A-Sketch.

 

The people who are willing to notice it have already done so. Polls suggest that may be the majority of Americans. The remainder don't want to notice, or don't care.

 

I'm reminded of the quotation from Stuart Chase: "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

[gewing]

On 11/8/2017 at 10:11 PM, Old Man said:

The deglamorization campaign is brilliant. 

sounds more like an extension of the demonizing propaganda that has been aimed at gun owners for years... 

[gewing]

On 11/9/2017 at 2:34 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I see this as aberrant behavior, and I disagree with you as to where its roots lie. I do agree that this attitude is more prevalent in the US than in other places. If you think it's a problem in the general population, though, you're seriously mistaken IMO.

Glamorization of criminals:  murderers, drug dealers, pimps, etc...   is, imo, part of the problem.   and yes, I include popular media glorification of vigilante behavior.    Historically, there have been times when it was appropriate.   Normally it was just one group killing another group they disliked.  

[gewing]

On 11/9/2017 at 6:31 PM, Zeropoint said:

 

I've fired thousands of rounds in recreational contexts. I've been to several cowboy action shooting matches, where dozens of people come together to enjoy shooting firearms in friendly competition. While I've never actually attended one, there's a thriving "three-gun" scene in which people do the same type of thing but with modern firearms.

 

So, from my perspective, saying that "there are a few other uses for guns besides killing" is at best coming from a place of ignorance about how guns are actually used. Your choosing to compare recreational firearm usage to things like drag racing on public streets and surfing on hurricane swells seems a bit disingenuous, because you picked one example that is illegal and stupid and one that's legal but even more stupid. A much better comparison would have been, say, playing sports: people get injured playing sports all the time, but playing sports is not something generally recognized as foolish or stupid to do. I've spent more time at the range than I have at sporting events, but I've still seen more people injured through sports than with firearms. Should we ban football because the players often suffer brain trauma? If public safety is the central issue, why should I be allowed to scramble my brain on the football field but forbidden from enjoying a harmless afternoon of blasting steel in a gravel pit?

I grew up shooting competitively, from age 11, iirc.   I fired many thousands of rounds of .22lr in smallbore rifle  both indoor and outdoors, and some thousands of rounds of .308 in highpower  rifle competition.  later I did a little .22 pistol shooting.   I shot in matches in 6 states, including the nationals twice, as well as one match in Australia, though it was a casual match.   (Anzac day match outside Sydney.  This was probably the most fun I ever had at a match.  We performed a WWI style "walkdown" , and the only thing I have been involved in that was anything like it was the Military oriented "Infantry trophy" matches, also called "Rattle Battle" though they did not involve automatic fire. )   

 

I have never known of an injury other than sunburn, heat exhaustion, or a rolled ankle from matches. 

back in the late 70s and early 80s, shooters were almost like a family.   THere were no serious fears about theft, though we often had well over a thousand dollars (then year) of equipment left at our firing points.   

 

But then, school shootings were never discussed, afai remember, until the kid here in WA shot up his school.  

[gewing]

On 11/12/2017 at 10:24 AM, CrosshairCollie said:

In the interests of being fair ... if Moore was after teenagers, then technically that's ephebophilia, not pedophilia.  Still awful, still illegal, still disgusting, of course, and if true, he should get castrated via a pair of rusty hedge clippers for it, then his testicles shoved up his nose.

 

 

I remember a discussion amongst us 12  year olds (terrifying creatures we were)  when our mothers and sisters were terrified of the "south hill rapist" Kevin Coe.   it involved deep fryers, as I recall.  

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, gewing said:

sounds more like an extension of the demonizing propaganda that has been aimed at gun owners for years... 

 

No, that's just the nightly news. Today's school shooter shot "only" 14 people because he couldn't get into the school. Most schools, such as the ones my kids go to, are not capable of being locked down like that. I'm waiting for the responsible gun owner crowd to come up with a realistic means of preventing further mass shootings. 

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

I'm waiting for the responsible gun owner crowd to come up with a realistic means of preventing further mass shootings. 

 

Well, the "reasonable restrictions" crowd hasn't, so I doubt if the "not one inch of compromise" side will.

[megaplayboy]

If we can figure out how organized crime syndicates work, we can figure out how the wrong people get guns, identify the potential choke points in that process, and adjust our regulatory and enforcement approach accordingly.  To wit, the first thing to do is eliminate prohibitions on firearms-related research by government agencies or sponsored by government grants.  The second thing to do is to fully fund the enforcement arm of the BATF.  The third thing to do is to ensure that the information provided to the background check system is as thorough and up to date as possible.  

[CrosshairCollie]

So, Roy Moore and his wife have evidently forged those letters of support they got from Alabama pastors.  I think it's safe to say he knows he's busted.

[DasBroot]

20 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

The people who are willing to notice it have already done so. Polls suggest that may be the majority of Americans. The remainder don't want to notice, or don't care.

 

I'm reminded of the quotation from Stuart Chase: "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

 

That quote basically sums up everything that's wrong in the world.  It's always been that way, of course, but social media, etc has done a *lot* to 'justify' peoples opinions by allowing them to find others who think just like they do.

[Hermit]

2 hours ago, CrosshairCollie said:

So, Roy Moore and his wife have evidently forged those letters of support they got from Alabama pastors.  I think it's safe to say he knows he's busted.

 

You know, I have seen innocent people screwed over by our Justice System. I have seen witch hunts in our day and age that believe due process is in the way and not needed  even after said hunt was proven wrong (Looking at you among others, Rolling Stone). I would rather have 100 guilty people walk free than one innocent person wrongfully imprisoned.

 

I think our justice system is broken in so many ways that I feel despair when I dwell on it.

 

But  imo, to vote for Moore at this stage requires mental gymnastics combined with outright denial that makes the Moon Landing Conspiracy nut look sane  by comparison.  

 

 

 

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Hermit said:

But  imo, to vote for Moore at this stage requires mental gymnastics combined with outright denial that makes the Moon Landing Conspiracy nut look sane  by comparison. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure he's still favored to win.

[CrosshairCollie]

1 minute ago, Old Man said:

 

I'm pretty sure he's still favored to win.

 

Last I heard, he was down by eight to ten.   Not that it means much.

[Hermit]

I would not be surprised if he does win sadly.

 

If he does, the Senate needs to ditch him fast as is their right.

 

 

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Hermit said:

I would not be surprised if he does win sadly.

 

If he does, the Senate needs to ditch him fast as is their right.

 

 

But would they?  And if they did, would they expel him again when Alabama inevitably reelects him?

 

Meanwhile, the corporate media is mocking Trump's avoidance of questions about this subject today.  I'm not sure what they expect him to do--either stand with a child molester or throw stones from his glass house.

[Tech priest support]

I can understand how women living in states outside Alabama might decide to refuse to let him make decisions that affect them. Same for people who believe in separation of church and state .

[CrosshairCollie]

17 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

I can understand how women living in states outside Alabama might decide to refuse to let him make decisions that affect them. Same for people who believe in separation of church and state .

 

ESPECIALLY for those who believe in separation of church and state.

 

I'm honestly of the mind that anybody who says anything indicating they're going to put their religion above the Constitution shouldn't be allowed to hold public office.  They're literally saying 'I have no intention of following my sworn Oath of Office'.

[Sociotard]

Well Roy, looks like All Franken jumped on the "public outrage" grenade for you. You'll be elected after all.

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Well Roy, looks like All Franken jumped on the "public outrage" grenade for you. You'll be elected after all.

 

The Russian botnets started pushing the story hard on social media as soon as it dropped. It's almost as though they knew it was coming. 

[Tech priest support]

The woman making the accusation as been exposed as a trump supporter and has appeared in playboy and maxim. Can you imagine if Moore's accuser was a Hillary supporter who had been in skin mags? 

[DasBroot]

I am currently uncertain which is worse:

 

That supporters of both factions (yeah, they're factions these days) are trying to weaponize the 'silent no more' movement that's sweeping through the country (a long overdue movement that I support so long as the allegations are just).

 

Or that representatives of both factions have done things to make themselves viable targets for it. 

 

Oh, what the heck - there's no need to assign magnitude to every point of disgust.  I'll dislike both equally.

[Ternaugh]

 

7 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

The woman making the accusation as been exposed as a trump supporter and has appeared in playboy and maxim. Can you imagine if Moore's accuser was a Hillary supporter who had been in skin mags? 

 

 

Dude, there's a picture of Franken behaving badly with her, and he apparently has a history of making "jokes" that are not appropriate.

 

It doesn't matter who she supports, or where she's chosen to work, she didn't deserve to be the target of sexual harassment or assault. There is no excuse for treating anyone that way. It's not the victim's fault, and we should never forget that.

 

Slate and the New York Times both have opinion pieces that Franken needs to resign. Even though I like what he's done in the Senate, I'm of the opinion that they're probably right, especially if the Democrats want to take the moral high ground with Moore.

[megaplayboy]

2 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

 

 

Dude, there's a picture of Franken behaving badly with her, and he apparently has a history of making "jokes" that are not appropriate.

 

It doesn't matter who she supports, or where she's chosen to work, she didn't deserve to be the target of sexual harassment or assault. There is no excuse for treating anyone that way. It's not the victim's fault, and we should never forget that.

 

Slate and the New York Times both have opinion pieces that Franken needs to resign. Even though I like what he's done in the Senate, I'm of the opinion that they're probably right, especially if the Democrats want to take the moral high ground with Moore.

Based upon a single incident of intermediate seriousness(where 1 = an inappropriate comment and 10 = forcible rape, a forced kiss and mocked groping picture is about a 5, plus or minus 1), with no due process?  No thanks.  He's made a full apology, she accepted the apology, and he called for an ethics investigation into his behavior(an unprecedented request, apparently).  Proportionality and equity in punishment are real things in the law, maybe they should be outside the law as well.  

[Simon]

43 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Based upon a single incident of intermediate seriousness(where 1 = an inappropriate comment and 10 = forcible rape, a forced kiss and mocked groping picture is about a 5, plus or minus 1), with no due process?  No thanks.  He's made a full apology, she accepted the apology, and he called for an ethics investigation into his behavior(an unprecedented request, apparently).  Proportionality and equity in punishment are real things in the law, maybe they should be outside the law as well.  

This.

 

I'm firmly and completely in support of the push against sexual harassment (which has become endemic in our society)...but it needs to be tempered with due process and reason if it's going to avoid becoming the witch hunt that opponents have decried.  Intent of the individual needs to be part of the equation...and yes, that makes things very (VERY) tricky.  

 

We also need to stop looking to equate or distract.  It doesn't matter what Franken did (or what happens as a result) when looking to Moore.  Or vice versa. They're two different people and two different incidents/allegations.  If I go out and attack someone on the street, I don't get to point to someone else and say "they did it, too" as some sort of defense for my actions.

What I (personally) think should happen:  

 

Franken should go before the ethics committee (which he himself has recommended).  They will determine the severity of his actions and appropriate measures to be taken in response.  Unless something radical changes in the story, it is likely that he will have consequences (censure, removal from committees, etc.)  and either resign of his own choosing or have major issues in the next election (resulting in much the same). This is the type of response that we expect and want to see -- our elected officials are being held to a high standard (or should be) and are accountable for their actions both during and before their terms of office.

 

Moore needs to have the same thing occur...but he's currently in an election process. It would be best for his party (and Congress in general) for him to drop out.  Pushing forward presents a decidedly negative appearance for the GOP in regards to their response to sexual harassment. Should he continue in the election, the GOP needs to take a very strong stand on the issue -- he's essentially forcing their hand. They've more or less done this within Congress (though nothing from Trump).  Should he manage to win the election, then the ethics committee and Congress in general need to become involved, likely resulting in his ouster. 

 

Any other course of action for either individual gives credence to the "other side" when they try to distract/detract from a given situation by pointing fingers.

[Sociotard]

9 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

The woman making the accusation as been exposed as a trump supporter and has appeared in playboy and maxim. Can you imagine if Moore's accuser was a Hillary supporter who had been in skin mags? 

Please delete the portion of your post referring to her having posed in skin-mags, unless you can give a very good explanation why women who do pursue that work need less respect or bodily autonomy than other people.  Even if she were a full-fledged prostitute, posing with hands on breasts while she was asleep is wrong, and no less wrong than doing it to a nun.

 

I also don't think the Trump support matters. I can accept contrary points of view, though, and respect someone who thinks the accusation was at least partially politically motivated. Still, I think clearly non-consensual grope-pose photos are egregious enough that no political motivation is necessary.