Jump to content

Politics 2016 (election edition)


Recommended Posts

Well we might not reach a consensus on the true intention of the second amendment, nor the proper role of firearms in our great nation, but we can all gawk at the fascinating theater of the absurd we call an election year.

 

Also I brought this up in yesteryear's thread:

 

Soooo... how about the armed militia that took over government property? Pretty weird huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Soooo... how about the armed militia that took over government property? Pretty weird huh?

I haven't paid much attention to the story, but they sound like a bunch of attention seekers intent on making the news. The jailed(?) ranchers say that they're unwelcome and presidential candidates are calling for them to stand down and obey the law. The administration is following a smart policy that realizes that making martyrs of them would only fan the flames, so I expect a peaceful resolution. It's in everyone's best interests.

 

Topics like this keep the really important and tricky subjects out of the news and I think both parties like it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't paid much attention to the story, but they sound like a bunch of attention seekers intent on making the news. The jailed(?) ranchers say that they're unwelcome and presidential candidates are calling for them to stand down and obey the law. The administration is following a smart policy that realizes that making martyrs of them would only fan the flames, so I expect a peaceful resolution. It's in everyone's best interests.

 

Topics like this keep the really important and tricky subjects out of the news and I think both parties like it that way.

 

This is such a non story.  I agree it is just for media attention and really has nothing to do with the jailed ranchers (who have reported to jail BTW).  If the media just packed up their trucks and their news reporters this thing would be over in a matter of days.  But the media is just fueling the flames and giving these idiots a platform.  And those on the Left who are saying if these guys were black/Muslim/non-white they would have been shot and killed etc. fail to see the big picture and realize how this is different.  

 

In other news Trump is not going away anytime soon.  And has a TV AD!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAJrT8PeOo 

BTW riddled with lies, racism, and Islamophobia it is sickening.  

 

I wonder if he like the ranchers would go away if people just stopped paying attention to him.  Unfortunately with such a large lead in the polls, the media has to pay attention to him.  At some point those that lean Right have to take a look at themselves and ask "is this who I want to be associated with?"  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  But the media is just fueling the flames and giving these idiots a platform.  And those on the Left who are saying if these guys were black/Muslim/non-white they would have been shot and killed etc. fail to see the big picture and realize how this is different. 

 

Interesting.  See, I thought the lack of coverage for the first two days was weird.  And I don't mean to be cheeky, but how exactly is this different?  I mean clearly it has obvious differences from religious-extremist-terrorism, but the racial preference seems apparent to me.  I can only put out hypotheticals to illustrate this, which can get pretty silly, but if you follow:  Imagine disenfranchised, angry black guy holes up in a post office with a sidearm.  You don't think law enforcement would take that person down immediately, as opposed to the kid gloves this self-described militia is being handled with?

 

The reason I think it's relevant because this is a strong thread in American political consciousness right now.  When you hear Rubio, or Cruz talk about restoring liberty it's clear that there is a sizable minority who feel that some vague freedom is being violated by our government, or as the militia in Oregon has suggested that we need something back that is constitutional, somehow, and goddamn it we might have to rise up to get it, cause you know the constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine disenfranchised, angry black guy holes up in a post office with a sidearm.  You don't think law enforcement would take that person down immediately, as opposed to the kid gloves this self-described militia is being handled with?

By "taking down" do you mean killing him or just arresting him? If you're talking about shooting him, it would be unlikely unless he pointed a gun at someone else. If you're talking about storming the building to arrest him, there would typically be no rush to do so. If there are no threats to anyone's life, the cops would try to talk him down or wear him down until he surrendered. Any attempt to storm the building would be put off until there was no other option and the cops would spend quite some time coming up with a detailed plan of action. (In the Oregon case, it appears that the men are well-armed and have excellent defensive positions, so any attempt to storm the building would be dangerous for everyone involved.)

 

A better example would be if a bunch of Black Lives Matter protesters took over a building. The last things the cops would want to do would be to prove the protesters' point by killing a bunch of black men on national TV. As long as no lives were threatened, the authorities would do their best to avoid the confrontation that the protesters sought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only put out hypotheticals to illustrate this, which can get pretty silly, but if you follow:  Imagine disenfranchised, angry black guy holes up in a post office with a sidearm.  You don't think law enforcement would take that person down immediately, as opposed to the kid gloves this self-described militia is being handled with?

 

The one thing that people forget when the try to make these correlations between this militia and the hypothetical is the location.  These ranchers are in the middle of nowhere.  Occupying a building that is used 3-4 months out of the year (and is not currently being used).  Protesting something that most of America doesn't really care about.  

 

If the militia took over a post office in Downtown Chicago the response from the police and the Federal Government would be quite a bit different (but of course that is hypothetical which are in its nature silly and stupid).

 

 

 

The reason I think it's relevant because this is a strong thread in American political consciousness right now.  When you hear Rubio, or Cruz talk about restoring liberty it's clear that there is a sizable minority who feel that some vague freedom is being violated by our government, or as the militia in Oregon has suggested that we need something back that is constitutional, somehow, and goddamn it we might have to rise up to get it, cause you know the constitution.

 

The restoring liberty cry by the GOP is so esoteric that I do not think Rubio, Cruz, or the average Republican knows what they are talking about.  Their cries for liberty is just anti Obama and anti democrat and nothing more.  It is some buzz words that sound good on the surface, but there is no policy or platform that any GOP has purposed that will "restore liberty."  But you are right those buzzwords to resonate something in people, even if they don't know what they mean.  And some people will see the need to use violent and extreme measures to fight for something they have no understanding of.  Just like there are groups within Islam who use a message for violence.  That is something the political candidates need to understand that their words can spur people to actions in a violent manner.  You see this over and over again, especially on the right, prime example that dude who shot up an abortion clinic to save the babies, echoing the words of Carly Fiorina and others.  

 

 

A better example would be if a bunch of Black Lives Matter protesters took over a building. The last things the cops would want to do would be to prove the protesters' point by killing a bunch of black men on national TV. As long as no lives were threatened, the authorities would do their best to avoid the confrontation that the protesters sought.

 

Exactly.  It must be a new year, cause I find myself agreeing with Hixter.  I guess as long as we don't talk about the President's actions on guns that is coming later today.   :nailbite

Link to post
Share on other sites

 or as the militia in Oregon has suggested that we need something back that is constitutional, somehow, and goddamn it we might have to rise up to get it, cause you know the constitution.

 

I really enjoyed this sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kevin and Hixter for helping me mitigate some of my outrage with logic.  I would like to reiterate, as you both have already noticed, you did it as a team.  Cats and dogs shall now be married.

 

Kevin, I also think you're right on about the blind rage removed from the facts being dangerous.  It would seem anger is one of the easier ways to manipulate people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem anger is one of the easier ways to manipulate people.

 

I think this is the unofficial slogan of the Trump campaign.   

Invoking anger, sadness and dead children are among the oldest tricks of the propaganda trade. The president scored a hat trick at today's gun control event.

 

arBWqof.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Invoking anger, sadness and dead children are among the oldest tricks of the propaganda trade. The president scored a hat trick at today's gun control event.

 

arBWqof.jpg

 

Well that was quick.  

 

Not wanting to get into a debate about guns, but it is ultimately fruitless.  But from a political side, regardless of what you think of gun control or the proposals put forth by the President, do you think he is overstepping the powers of the office by issuing such executive actions?    

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think he is overstepping the powers of the office by issuing such executive actions?    

I'm quite certain that a team of lawyers spent months ensuring that the actions were within the scope of the law. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're a good thing. From what I've seen, they'll likely prove to be completely ineffective in reducing gun violence. But they'll inconvenience law-abiding gun owners and cost them some money and that's essentially what most new gun legislation has been all about. The rest is theater.

 

Yeah, it's easy to not get sad and angry over dead children.

Of course, but would it be any different if the head of the NRA got all teary eyed on national television at the grave of a young child who was killed at a school that was a declared gun-free zone? I'd consider both instances to be extremely tacky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It closes a loop hole.  I know plenty of gun owners who are cool with it.

 

On some fresh issues:

 

When I was in California I was reading the paper and found out that some biofuel power plants are at risk of shutting down because they're being out priced by solar energy.

 

When I got home to Colorado there was a story on the radio about how owning an electric car in my state is not much better than a typical gas engine because most of our electricity comes from coal.

 

It might not grab as many clicks as gun debates, or as emotional rhetoric form the average Joe, or Nancy, but the energy discussion is going to get pretty busy over the next several decades.  There's a lot going on, and some potential for positive innovation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in California I was reading the paper and found out that some biofuel power plants are at risk of shutting down because they're being out priced by solar energy.

 

When I got home to Colorado there was a story on the radio about how owning an electric car in my state is not much better than a typical gas engine because most of our electricity comes from coal.

 

It might not grab as many clicks as gun debates, or as emotional rhetoric form the average Joe, or Nancy, but the energy discussion is going to get pretty busy over the next several decades.  There's a lot going on, and some potential for positive innovation.

Lots of trash that people painstakingly sort into recycle bins ends up in landfills because there's no market for it. Aluminum, yes, but glass and paper are not in much demand. 

 

Electric cars are cool, but if they're powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels, what's the point?

 

Solar power and wind turbines are nice, but they are an unreliable source of energy. There should be a worldwide Manhattan Project II to develop a cheap, safe nuclear power plant design that can be built everywhere without serving as a vector to obtaining nuclear weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Electric cars are cool, but if they're powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels, what's the point?

 

the best car for the environment is a well maintained used car

http://www.alternet.org/environment/4-reasons-you-should-buy-used-car-instead-new-one (point 1)

 

 

 

Solar power and wind turbines are nice, but they are an unreliable source of energy. There should be a worldwide Manhattan Project II to develop a cheap, safe nuclear power plant design that can be built everywhere without serving as a vector to obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

I am not sure why you have to limit it to nuclear power.  Why not a worldwide Manhattan Project for energy, with no option off the table.  That would make the most sense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the life of me I am not sure what Hixter thinks would be effective.

As far as reducing gun crime? My first suggestion would be more cops on the street.

 

I am not sure why you have to limit it to nuclear power.  Why not a worldwide Manhattan Project for energy, with no option off the table.

Fine with me. I just can't think of any other feasible source of vast amounts of energy that works 24/7. Renewables are fine, but we'll always need a backup source for cloudy days, calm days, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't think of any other feasible source of vast amounts of energy that works 24/7. Renewables are fine, but we'll always need a backup source for cloudy days, calm days, etc.

 

Well I wouldn't want you on the Manhattan Project II then. 

 

 

As far as reducing gun crime? My first suggestion would be more cops on the street.

 

As a cost person this would be the most expensive and of course not that feasible.  To get more cops on the streets would either require more taxpayer dollars or a reduction in other services.  Also there is not a direct correlation to more cops to a lower crime rate.  There are many differing opinions on that matter.  

 

From what I've seen, it will likely prove to be completely ineffective in reducing gun violence. But it will inconvenience law-citizens and cost them some money and that's essentially what most new the call for more cops really is. The rest is theater. See what I did there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...