Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Iuz the Evil]

2 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

Both Both Republicans And Democrats Severely Overestimate How Extreme The Other Side Is

 

The ironic thing about this is that all the factors that one would expect to lead to more accurate assessments only make things worse.

Thanks! That is a very interesting article

[Dr. MID-Nite]

What progressive values are "extreme" as stated in that link? I'm genuinely curious.

[TrickstaPriest]

30 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I can understand the perspective. There’s a mechanism to change that Amendment with another one if enough folks agree, after all. It could get there, at some point.

 

Yup, and I can appreciate the perspective difference too.  There's stuff I'm intractable on, and there are things on 2A that I believe must happen (risk appetite rants before), but I'm more interested in working solutions than nonworking ones.  That often means less rewriting of rules - one of the things I wholly agreed with John Stewart's latest interview on some of this, is we -did- have a period where there was registration, tracking, and so on of firearms.  I don't think bringing that back will be a great infringement of rights.

 

But that's a 'belief', and my beliefs are tractable with evidence, research, et cetera.

 

There's a lot we need to do that infighting won't help on.

[Dr.Device]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

Both Both Republicans And Democrats Severely Overestimate How Extreme The Other Side Is

 

The ironic thing about this is that all the factors that one would expect to lead to more accurate assessments only make things worse.

 

That study doesn't show what they say it does. The statements are mostly either so vague as to be useless, so extreme as to be parodies, or just to vague.

Quote

Properly controlled immigration can be good for America

 

This is going to mean completely different things to Democrats and Republicans. 

Quote

Racism still exists in America

I've heard many republicans claim with a straight face that it does, but it's against white people. Others admit it exists, but say it isn't a significant problem.

 

I won't go on, but look at just about any of those statements and think about how a Republican and a Democrat are likely to interpret it.

 

And I notice there's no question about LGBTQIA rights in there.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

What progressive values are "extreme" as stated in that link? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Crazy stuff like properly controlled immigration, whether racism exists, whether Muslims can be good Americans, or gun control.  Like, any gun control.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

Both Both Republicans And Democrats Severely Overestimate How Extreme The Other Side Is

 

The ironic thing about this is that all the factors that one would expect to lead to more accurate assessments only make things worse.

 

I note the copyright date at the bottom...2019.  OK, this is the Trump presidency so there's a lot going on...but it's before the entire stolen-election campaign and Jan. 6th.  Before the Supreme Court is stacked.  Before the Supreme Court knocked down Roe v. Wade, and multiple states moved to ban abortion.  Before a WHOLE lot of things.

 

And Dr. D is also right:  the poll questions are questionable.  "I am proud to be an American, though I acknowledge my country's flaws."  What do you consider flaws?  It's also a compound question and the answers to each part might be wildly different.  "It is important that men are protected from false accusations pertaining to sexual assault."  What, precisely, does this mean?  I'll start with a core statement:  it is important that ANYONE be protected from ANY false accusation.  That said...protected, how?  Further, where is the balance between protecting the public from a crime, and protecting the rights of the accused?  That's where the hang-up often lies.  Take an old case...3 (?) Duke lacrosse players were accused of rape.  Their names were made public.  They were suspended from the University.  They were effectively excommunicated.  I can't even *imagine* the emotional hell they went through.  Oh, but the whole case was thrown out due to MASSIVE investigative flaws...the DA was disbarred and spent time in prison for what he did, that's how bad it was.  Duke settled with the 3 players;  the amount reported (but not confirmed) is rather substantial, and the 2 players who hadn't graduated, continued their educations at highly respectable institutions.  

 

But that just says...ok, WHEN is it reasonable for names to be released?  For separation actions like suspensions be taken?  What is the balance between the rights of the accused, and the rights of the accuser?  That's what colors the interpretation of the poll question, and that's what makes it a questionable one.
 

[Old Man]

The more interesting part of the article is the strong correlation between extremist news sources and the perception gap.  Not that we didn't already know, but this is actual data.

[Ranxerox]

1 hour ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

What progressive values are "extreme" as stated in that link? I'm genuinely curious.

Example  given include that the US should have completely open borders, should adopt socialism, that most police are bad people and that not even the law abiding should have access to firearms 

6 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Crazy stuff like properly controlled immigration, whether racism exists, whether Muslims can be good Americans, or gun control.  Like, any gun control.

 

No, those are things that Democrats believe that all the majority of Republicans disagree with.

[Ranxerox]

39 minutes ago, Dr.Device said:

 

That study doesn't show what they say it does. The statements are mostly either so vague as to be useless, so extreme as to be parodies, or just to vague.

 

This is going to mean completely different things to Democrats and Republicans. 

I've heard many republicans claim with a straight face that it does, but it's against white people. Others admit it exists, but say it isn't a significant problem.

 

I won't go on, but look at just about any of those statements and think about how a Republican and a Democrat are likely to interpret it.

 

And I notice there's no question about LGBTQIA rights in there.

 

Yes, the survey that they did was vague and didn't address many important issues.  Still, it is worth noting that most Republicans thing that Muslims can good Americans, that the US government should do more in the way of gun control, and racism still exist in America; while, a majority of Democrats believe that most Republicans are so extreme that they would not agree to those reasonable statements. 

 

Also, apparently most Republicans believe that a majority of Democrats are ashamed to be Americans, want to abolish ICE and have completely open borders.  They also think that most Democrats want the the the US to become a socialist country.  Given how broad of a definition many Republicans have for what is socialism that last one might be true from their perspective.  However, the other ones all seem pretty straight forward and I doubt that the two sides have substantially different ideas on what it means to have an open border or abolish ICE.

[Tom]

Just as an observation, the 'extremism' issue can likely be put down to the regular use of both vague and inflammatory rhetoric by politicians and activists - mostly to garner attention in a saturated media environment and to generate passion in their targeted base.

 

Simply put, it's click bait.  Not to say there aren't people who hold extreme views, but rather that you have to state extreme positions to get anybody else to pay attention to you - all while not actually saying anything legally actionable which can be held against you.

 

The Tennessee drag bill - one of the arguments I've heard made is it doesn't really define what it means and does, which makes it easy for both sides to claim it does something different.

 

Moving to gun control, which I at least can claim to have somewhat more knowledge of the topic, I routinely hear politicians going on about 'assault weapons' and 'weapons of war' and I honestly have no idea what they think they're talking about.  Especially if they're waving around a rifle chambered in .22LR and claim they're 'protecting the children'.

 

("Protecting the children" - I think I've heard that one before from other politicians on other topics...)

 

Would anyone here care to define for me what exactly an 'assault weapon' is, or better yet a 'weapon of war'?  Other than buzz words which are supposed to let you know you're supposed to be outraged - sort of like 'woke' and 'socialism' if you're listening to someone speaking on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

 

According to the internet, only around 7% of US adults are veterans so I shouldn't be too surprised that a majority of the people in the US have absolutely no actual experience with military firearms.

 

As a thought experiment, I suggest everyone think back to any time they've watched a news reporter (or political figure) talking about a subject that they have actual personal experience with (your job/field of study - not just read it on the internet somewhere) and consider how many times you've caught yourself talking back to the screen because the person on the air is saying something that is misleading, factually wrong, or just plain nonsense.

 

The reporter, at least, has the excuse that they're reporting on a subject which they really aren't that knowledgeable in (and may have their own axe to grind) and reporting is their job.

The political figure also may be speaking on a subject they really aren't that knowledgeable on (and probably have their own axe to grind) and swaying opinions is their job.

 

Now consider that the above likely holds true on the subjects on which you don't have personal experience...

[Cygnia]

Exposed: Dallas Humber, Narrator Of Neo-Nazi ‘Terrorgram,’ Promoter Of Mass Shootings

[Old Man]

Florida courts to take emergency custody of children with trans parents or siblings--in other states

 

I'd already ruled Florida out of the drive-across-the-country-while-trans category, but this is something else.

[unclevlad]

Oh, that's not the only one.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/florida-bill-require-bloggers-write-governor-legislators-register-stat-rcna73191

 

AND, let's make a full triple...

 

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/28/florida-defamation-libel-bill-a-free-speech-disaster-advocates-say/69942631007/

[IndianaJoe3]

9 hours ago, Tom said:

Would anyone here care to define for me what exactly an 'assault weapon' is, or better yet a 'weapon of war'?  Other than buzz words which are supposed to let you know you're supposed to be outraged - sort of like 'woke' and 'socialism' if you're listening to someone speaking on the opposite side of the political spectrum...

 

A, "weapon of war" is any firearm originally produced for the military, but adapted for civilian use (usually by removing the capability for automatic fire). I agree that it's not a very useful term.

 

An, "assault weapon" is a rifle with all of these characteristics:

• Fires a centerfire cartridge greater than 34mm in length
• Has a detachable magazine
• Is less than 41" long in fireable configuration
• Capable of semi-automatic fire

 

There's probably room for some tweaking there, but that should cover most cases. I welcome debate on the issue.

Edited March 4, 2023 by IndianaJoe3
Tweaked the definition of assault weapon

[Iuz the Evil]

Well I think an assault rifle (not “weapon” although now we are hearing about “assault pistols” and I have no idea what that could possibly be) is generally “a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.” They were designed for military use.

 

Selective fire being an operative term. The expansion of the term in California law is currently being litigated and the ruling anticipated in the next few weeks. Semi automatic rifles, including those with magazines (like the 5 rounds you can find in several variants of the .30-06) are commonly used for legal hunting and sporting purposes. Mostly they are 41-42” in length, but I could not speak exhaustively on that. Center fire rifles aren’t unusual at all. I would consider the ability to switch between fully automatic and semi automatic to be central to whether a weapon is an “assault rifle”, but others might argue that point.

[Tom]

7 hours ago, Old Man said:

Florida courts to take emergency custody of children with trans parents or siblings--in other states

 

I'd already ruled Florida out of the drive-across-the-country-while-trans category, but this is something else.

I’m really curious how Florida thinks it has authority over people in other states…

 

I know DeSantis is considered a potential candidate for the Republican nomination, but he hasn’t even unofficially stated an intent to run to the best of my knowledge let alone been elected President.

[Tom]

6 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

A, "weapon of war" is any firearm originally produced for the military, but adapted for civilian use (usually by removing the capability for automatic fire). I agree that it's not a very useful term.

 

Through what time period are we considering?  And does the firearm have to have had adaptations made to its form or functions?  How different does a civilian firearm have to be from a military-issued firearm of similar type and capabilities in order to not be considered a 'weapon of war'?  Can a rifle chambered in .22LR ( a rimfire cartridge) be considered a 'weapon of war'?

 

6 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

An, "assault weapon" is a rifle with all of these characteristics:

• Fires a centerfire cartridge greater than 34mm in length
• Has a detachable magazine
• Is less than 41" long in fireable configuration
• Capable of semi-automatic fire

 

So pretty much every semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and a barrel length of less than 20" (roughly), assuming by 'weapon' we are only referring to rifles.

 

Fairly broad, but I can think of a few rifles that would not be covered by it such as any Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC - based on cartridge length and I'm assuming you're going by overall length and not case length) and rifles such as the Springfield Armory M1A (civilianized M-14, overall length is 44.33" in Standard Issue configuration) or the Soviet SKS rifle (doesn't have a detachable magazine) which would likely still cause appropriately minded activists and politicians heartburn.

 

I'm also assuming you're not intending an overlap in definitions with 'weapon of war'.

 

What is the concern with semi-automatic?  The action type has been in use since the 1890s, though it didn't see much in the way of military adoption in rifles until the 1940s - which is still 80(ish) years ago.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

 

What is the concern with semi-automatic?  The action type has been in use since the 1890s, though it didn't see much in the way of military adoption in rifles until the 1940s - which is still 80(ish) years ago.

 

The biggest issue I have with semi-automatic is with open-bolt designs common for military weapons. The civilian versions have to be rigged to only fire semi, but any competent gunsmith can convert them to full automatic with minimal effort. Sometimes that doesn't even need skill. There's a selector switch for the Glock 17 that practically anyone can install, that will convert it to select-fire. And Glock makes magazines for that pistol that can hold 33 9mm rounds. The switch is illegal in the US, but it's not hard to find in certain circles.

[Lord Liaden]

11 hours ago, Old Man said:

Florida courts to take emergency custody of children with trans parents or siblings--in other states

 

I'd already ruled Florida out of the drive-across-the-country-while-trans category, but this is something else.

 

DeSantis and his Republican cohorts can't take the political hit of openly making scapegoats of any of the traditional targets of hatred and fear, e.g. Jews or blacks. So they've picked a group that's very small with no political clout, a classic bully's move.

 

One political commentator I follow has opined that many in the GOP have fallen down their own media rabbit hole. They seem to believe that Likes and Shares on social media will translate to large numbers of electoral votes, hence that appealing to the most vocal rabid bigots on those platforms is a winning election strategy.

[wcw43921]

CPAC Attendees Asked To Define "Woke"

[Tom]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The biggest issue I have with semi-automatic is with open-bolt designs common for military weapons.

 

Open bolt designs are typical only in submachineguns and machineguns.  You don't generally find them in firearms intended to fire in semi-automatic even with military/police guns (they do exist though).  Open bolt does terrible things to your accuracy, so anything where 'semi-' isn't included as an afterthought is generally closed bolt.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The civilian versions have to be rigged to only fire semi, but any competent gunsmith can convert them to full automatic with minimal effort. Sometimes that doesn't even need skill. There's a selector switch for the Glock 17 that practically anyone can install, that will convert it to select-fire. And Glock makes magazines for that pistol that can hold 33 9mm rounds. The switch is illegal in the US, but it's not hard to find in certain circles.

 

And this is why even 'reasonable' gun people tend to be resistant to additional legislation.  Owning an unregistered fully automatic weapon is illegal in the US.  Owning unregistered parts to make a firearm fully automatic is illegal in the US.

 

Typical response - let's make more stuff illegal...

 

Even before 3D printers, it's not particularly hard to build a submachinegun.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Tom
Added 'unregistered' - it is legal to own properly registered fully automatic firearms (and parts) under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), though the machinegun registry was closed in 1986.

[Lord Liaden]

8 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

CPAC Attendees Asked To Define "Woke"

 

Angelo Veltri, northeast regional director for Young Americans for Liberty, had a similarly vague description for what the word meant. “‘Woke’ to me means that you are basing your reality off of fiction and your feelings rather than actual facts,” he told The Independent. “‘Woke’ is more of the sense of like, if you feel a certain way, then you must be true, and they typically adhere to their truths rather than the truth as a whole. And it’s leading toward this woke postmodernism in a sense. Woke communism, where they’re trying to take over based on people’s feelings rather than actual factual evidence.”

 

The oblivious projection by the American Right today runs from top to bottom. It's really breathtaking. It won't be practical to reach many of these people. They can only be opposed. But the rather pitiful number of attendees at the conference this year suggests that MAGA as an organized movement is fading. The damage it did to your society is profound, but all polling asserts that America overall is trending away from what it stands for. You have to hold the line against the MAGAts seizing power, until enough of them die off for the country to heal.

[Iuz the Evil]

The definitions provided by the attendees appear pretty sorry, and it is also a bit of a trap because “Woke” is a slang term which is changing in common usage - whatever the origin. Currently it’s something like “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice”.

 

“Woke” comes up in my Bay Area governmental DEI trainings all the time, and has been used by trainers in every way from the original one (related to awareness of societal racism) to a general “Pro progressive” context to one related to “allyship”. It is poorly defined, and candidly is something of a pejorative as well at this point (the clients who receive our services often use it in a way similar to the term “Karen”). I suspect this is something of a campaign by conservatives in the same way liberal took on negative tones, and it’ll likely be similarly effective. While I describe myself as a liberal, in the sense of classical liberalism, pretty much nobody running for elected office does so using the term “Progressive” instead. 

[DShomshak]

On 3/4/2023 at 1:03 PM, unclevlad said:

Oh, that's not the only one.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/florida-bill-require-bloggers-write-governor-legislators-register-stat-rcna73191

 

AND, let's make a full triple...

 

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/28/florida-defamation-libel-bill-a-free-speech-disaster-advocates-say/69942631007/

Criticism is coming from some sources one might not expect. Though I would suggest to Mr Gingrich that these legislative bomb-throwers are his grandchildren.

 

Newt Gingrich Demands Withdrawal of 'Insane' Republican Bill (msn.com)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

Man if Newt Gingrich thinks you’ve gone too far, you really have gone off the deep end.