General Political Thread

[Atticus]

jezebel.com

 

was that necessary?

[uncool2pillow]

was that necessary?

No.  Was it hilarious? Hell yeah.

 

RE: Affirmative action.

 

Doesn't it seem a bit silly that Sasha or Melia Obama, or Willow or Jade Smith could benefit from their status as African-Americans in college admissions?  I wouldn't really have a problem with giving preferential treatment for people from lower socioeconomic status, and many African-Americans are disproportionately down low.  But to make race the only (or even predominate) factor will help many affluent people and fail to acknowledge the progress those families have made.

[Guest Jules]

I know it's not the same thing, but I lose (or don't get) business because I'm white and male. Wouldn't matter I had best price, quality, delivery, etc. It's just the way it is. Yay government contracts!

[tinnitus photography]

I know it's not the same thing, but I lose (or don't get) business because I'm white and male. Wouldn't matter I had best price, quality, delivery, etc. It's just the way it is. Yay government contracts!

 

 

 

you're white? what a shocker!

[ih8music]

I wouldn't really have a problem with giving preferential treatment for people from lower socioeconomic status.

I'm with you there.

[KevinG]

No. Was it hilarious? Hell yeah.

 

RE: Affirmative action.

 

I wouldn't really have a problem with giving preferential treatment for people from lower socioeconomic status...

Since on this board we can't agree what constitutes rich and poor, I don't think that will ever happen.

 

I am all for the President's plan to make college more affordable for all.

[Guest Jules]

He has a lot of plans.

[KevinG]

He has a lot of plans.

And a congress that is so hell bent on stopping him at every turn.

[Atticus]

My wife and stepson and I spent almost a week in DC last week.  We hit most of the Smithsonian buildings, and the National Archives.  And the Capitol.

 

It's difficult not to become hopeless when noting the contrast of the fiber and passion of previous lawmakers and leaders with the cast of characters we have now.  there's very little altruism left in politics.  or ethics.  or principles.  but then I see the people who courageously fought in the Texas Senate over the abortion bill and I get a flicker of hope back.  I also don't believe that most of the current politicians got in the game with bad motives.  I think they quickly get turned.  and that they accept it as a necessary evil to do some eventual good.  and like an addict, eventually all they're doing is trying to maintain.

 

I think the only way to make a change is with term limits and severe campaign finance laws.  people who seem to know something about all this tell me these things are impossible to effect.  so it goes.  time for a banana.

[NoJ]

Americans have war fatigue. The US will not be invading Syria any time in the near future. We will be lobbing cruise missiles at high value military targets in Syria soon enough though.

[Atticus]

 

 

A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon,

 

--Clinton today

[Hixter]

A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon

Hot air with no basis in fact.

[KevinG]

Hot air with no basis in fact.

 

You may not agree with what he said, but to say it has no basis in fact is ridiculous. 

 

In this country we have made it harder for people to vote, if you agree with the current crop of voter laws or not, in this country we have put obstacles to let people vote.  This is simply a fact.  Whereas it might not be easier to buy an assault weapon we have made it harder to vote. 

 

So just wondering other then a then the guttural reaction you gave, why do you think this this hot air with no basis in fact?

[Hixter]

Whereas it might not be easier to buy an assault weapon we have made it harder to vote. 

 

So just wondering other then a then the guttural reaction you gave, why do you think this this hot air with no basis in fact?

You answered your own question.

[bjorn_skurj]

It's pretty easy - in most states - to buy an assault weapon. It's pretty easy - in most states - to vote. In New York, it can be a little tricky to do either - the laws are designed to make both buying assault weapons and voting slightly less than convenient, both with the goal of restricting access. A single person can do a lot more damage with an assault weapon than a vote, so it makes sense to restrict one more than the other, I would think.

[Hixter]

In New York, it can be a little tricky to do either - the laws are designed to make both buying assault weapons and voting slightly less than convenient

Residents are completely banned from buying so-called "assault weapons" in New York. Actual assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns and have been banned for decades, but states like New York have decided that if you add this totally inert piece of plastic to your legal rifle, you've created an "assault weapon" out of thin air.

It's just a grip. It doesn't hold any ammunition, it doesn't make the firearm function any differently and it doesn't make the rifle any more deadly -- all it does is make the gun look scary in the eyes of gun-hating politicians.

[KevinG]

You answered your own question.

 

You understand the nature of rhetoric right?  Did he say in America it is easier to buy a gun then it is to vote?  No he did not.  He said a great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault rifle.  You said that statement is not based in fact and was hot air.  Factually we are making it hard to vote.  So the statement (which is an opinion) has a basis in fact.  It maybe hot air but still factually accurate.  

 

You may not like what he said, you may disagree but the statement that it has no basis in fact is misleading and wrong.  

[Hixter]

Did he say in America it is easier to buy a gun then it is to vote?  No he did not.  

We all know what he was saying.

 

 

You may not like what he said, you may disagree but the statement that it has no basis in fact is misleading and wrong.  

He told an untruth. It's as simple as that. Nothing but fear-mongering and political posturing at a tribute to the late, great MLK. It was a stupid thing to say.

[calvino]

Hot air with no basis in fact.

 

Would it be safe to say that the Republican party supports the gutted Voting Rights Act and the introduction of additional factors/hardships that makes it harder to cast a ballot., while they try to push legislation through to make it easier to obtain any gun of choice.

 

So in essence if the Republican party ran the whole show the below statement would be even more correct. Sure Clinton is using the stage as a platform, but to me Clinton is urging the audience to vote, to ensure that the statement doesn't fully reach it's potential, And of course, in certain areas - some Republicans are trying to suppress the vote, to ensure that statement does reach it's full potential.

 

A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon

 

 

Considering that a gun killed Dr. King and guns are tearing up cities/towns around the U.S. - I think the venue was fine and suitable to make such a statement. And yes I realize you think guns of any type are not the cause or issue in any gun violence situation and that more stricter laws will not save any lives....

 

I do agree that it is political posturing on Clinton's part.

 

Not sure if it's fear-mongering - I am more fearful of gun being pointed at me,  than someone making a anti-assault weapon statement at the steps of  the Lincoln Memorial, who oddly (not really though, I guess) ended up on the wrong end of a gun. (Yes - I  am aware of your fear of your weapons being taking away, so an anti-assault statement may have the same fear effect on you as a gun being pointed at me does.)

[Tweedling]

I put the memorial on today while doing some work around the house and it was sickening (the 3 or 4 who I paid attention to speak). The rhetoric and tone was abysmal. Very little of what I heard was about the great strides we've made in this country regarding race and peace within our culture. So negative. Anyone watch it? Thoughts...

[Hixter]

while they try to push legislation through to make it easier to obtain any gun of choice.

I have heard of no such legislation and no such attempt to pass it.

 

Considering that a gun killed Dr. King and guns are tearing up cities/towns around the U.S. 

Dr. King was killed by a hunting rifle that is legal in every state in the union, so why bring up "assault" rifles? The overwhelming majority of America's gun crimes are committed by handguns in the hands of gang members, drug dealers and street thugs. How many of them do you think are in the NRA or vote Republican?

 

I  am aware of your fear of your weapons being taking away, so an anti-assault statement may have the same fear effect on you as a gun being pointed at me does.

I do not fear that my weapons will be taken away; I worry that our politicians are trying to dismantle our constitutional right to bear arms, piece by piece. I'm disgusted about the lies and half-truths they use in order to advance their cause. I'm angry that screwing a hollow piece of plastic onto grandpa's hunting rifle turns a law-abiding gun owner into a felon.

 

It has nothing at all to do with fear.

[Atticus]

It was a catchy line. Clinton always nails public speaking. We haven't had a good speech-giver since.

[JUDE]

We need common sense voter ID regulations.  For the children.

[Atticus]

what's the worst thing that could happen if people who aren't citizens voted in our elections?  it's time someone did.

[NoJ]

It was a catchy line. Clinton always nails public speaking. We haven't had a good speech-giver since.

 

Ah, the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton '90s was an awesome time indeed.