Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 161: Elephants On Parade

(+) Yeah! (+)

Forceful_Dragon posted...

The skeptic in me wonders how much of that decision is her just trying to create a stir and differentiate herself.

But i do hope she is everything she seems to be.

Citizens United is awful and more people need to speak against it.

I mean, I don't know anything about her, maybe she's a cunning opportunist. But when the cunning opportunists start deciding to reject PAC money as a strategic political move, it's definitely a good sign. It makes it much more likely that the eventual 2020 nominee will not be taking PAC money. And I mean, even cunning opportunists, if they see their opponent getting an edge they're not getting, they're going to fight to level the playing field, so she would have plenty of incentives to push back as hard as she can against Citizens United.
---

Look, here's the thing; politicians using opportunism to do things that are positive is the best we can actually hope for out of politics

It doesn't matter if she's doing the right thing out of the goodness of her heart or not because hoping for that is just setting yourself up for disappointment. The best we can get out of politics is to use our votes to force politicians to do the right thing in order to get elected - that's how we can have a democracy that actually works and doesn't fuck us over

That much i can definitely agree with.
---

Can someone post the link to NPRs article about the courts blocking Trumps end to DACA? Thank God ONE branch still exists that gives a shit about this country.
---

I want to see that too. As much as I like it from policy, I cant imagine the legal justification for saying an Executive Order cant be stopped by a new Executive.
---

Concerning the New York DACA ruling:

NPR

As NPR's Joel Rose reports, "Garaufis said the administration can rescind DACA. But the judge said the reasoning behind its decision was flawed. The Justice Department argues that DACA was an illegal overreach by the Obama White House, and was likely to be overturned in court."

Garaufis, however, said the government was "erroneous" in its conclusion that DACA was unconstitutional and that it violated the Administrative Procedures and Immigration and Nationality acts. He said President Trump's termination of DACA was "arbitrary and capricious."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/13/585597527/second-federal-court-blocks-trump-from-rescinding-daca
---

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/963813406028509185

I love that the Freedom Caucus is such a headache for Ryan
---

Some conservatives seem really put off by people praising Black Panther as a triumphant black vision.

Hmmmmm
---

Yeah everyones favorite conservative mind Ben Shapiro was particularly incensed.
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DV7OqU8UMAExWDv?format=jpg&name=large

Ben Garrisons take on Obamas portrait
---

not enough hidden sperm
---

Say what you want about that portrait, but Ben Garrison took at least an equal amount of creative license on representing that portrait.
---

My favorite thing is that he takes a shot at Obama for smoking pot while also constantly berating Sessions for caring about pot
---

https://twitter.com/davideggert00/status/963862785464651776

WASHINGTON (AP) The head of the Environmental Protection Agency has broken months of silence about his frequent premium-class flights at taxpayer expense, saying he needs to fly first class because of unpleasant interactions with other travelers.

This administration is really something
---

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/963856642151415808

Some leaks from Wikileaks (oh the irony) revealed in an article today.

Sure looks like Assange was deliberately helping Trump, despite his claims to the contrary
---

What a shocker
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/davideggert00/status/963862785464651776

WASHINGTON (AP) The head of the Environmental Protection Agency has broken months of silence about his frequent premium-class flights at taxpayer expense, saying he needs to fly first class because of unpleasant interactions with other travelers.

This administration is really something

Has he tried not being an asshole? I find that helps me to not have unpleasant interactions with my fellow human beings.
---

How many people are actually recognizing the head of the EPA in public?
---

Why arent we talking about the shooting
---

Well that's interesting - looks like anti-Semites are starting to adopt Islamophobic arguments.

Aside from the fact that, you know, they've probably been mostly the same people this entire time.

Also that leak confirms everything I've suspected about Wikileaks since the 2016 election.

Jakyl25 posted...

How many people are actually recognizing the head of the EPA in public?

I wouldn't even recognize him in a photo right now, I have no clue what he looks like.

I'm guessing he just doesn't like commoners looking at him :/
---

Nanis23 posted...

Why arent we talking about the shooting

Not sure what there is to talk about based around politics that hasnt been discussed ad nauseum

Maybe Im biased because gun control is probably the political issue Im most moderate about? The problem isnt so much gun ownership as it is gun fetish culture
---

Sometimes people just don't want to talk to strangers on a plane.

If you were rich/had access to money you wouldn't do the same thing?
---

charmander6000 posted...

Sometimes people just don't want to talk to strangers on a plane.

If you were rich/had access to money you wouldn't do the same thing?

He's fine to do whatever he wants on his own dime, that's not the problem.

However, he's using taxpayer money, so he's using our dime to do it. So ergo, I judge.

And strangely, the Republicans who thought that spending money on the poor and the hungry is a waste don't seem to blink an eye when Republican politicians spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on plane rides, forcing diplomats to stay at Trump-owned locations, or forcing the Secret Service to rent from Trump's company just to do their fucking job.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The problem isnt so much gun ownership as it is gun fetish culture

Just to amend this:

In MWCs case, gun ownership is a problem
---

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/963916118959280128

When Piers Morgan is the sensible person in the room...
---

Friendly reminder that the NRA supported Donald more in 2016 than any other Presidential candidate in history.

Since the election:

About a year ago Donald repealed a law about banning guns from people with certain mental illnesses.

I think it was May when a Republican politician was shot in baseball practice. He came back a few months later and spoke in favor of guns.

In October, the NRA went back on their word about banning bump stocks after Mandalay Bay's record-sized mass shooting.

Oh, or is now not the time to talk about any of that yet? Feeling for Florida and wishing for decisions that will lead to greater peace.
---

I too barely registered the shooting as a political issue.

Im just so numb. It feels pointless to even advocate while republicans hold all political power because theyre all bought and paid for on this issue. The best we can hope for is increased funding for psychiatric care in the next budget.
---

Eddv posted...

The best we can hope for is increased funding for psychiatric care in the next budget.

this administration has been trying from day 1 to take health care away from people

why in god's name would you expect them to do an about face and start trying to give health care to people

especially when it's related to an issue they already have a huge boner over, like guns
---

At least thats a topic theyll pay lip service too

You cant even get them to pretend to support gun control
---

Yes exactly.

We may not be able to shame them into gun control but we sure as hell can try to shame them into following through on mental healthcare.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

At least thats a topic theyll pay lip service too

You cant even get them to pretend to support gun control

Yeah, about that, let's take a trip in the wayback machine:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-set-overturn-guns-mental-health-regulation-557237

"oh"
---

I like how Trump's response is always "They're sick. That's the problem." after repealing that
---

https://twitter.com/johncassidy/status/963889816235540485

Fox News just said this is the deadliest school shooting "in the history of Broward County." Needless to say, only in America do individual counties have histories of school shootings.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/963916118959280128

When Piers Morgan is the sensible person in the room...

The spirit of Trump's argument doesn't seem that wrong to me. People who desire to commit mass murder will do it either way. I get that killing people with 55 forks is a lot harder, but like bombs and trucks are used as murder devices all the time too.
---

I think its disingenuous because people (in the US) seem to choose guns a lot more than bombs despite both being available
---

About as disingenous as bringing up domestic terrorism when the right calls for action against Islamic terrorism.

To both I say, let's not sensationalize a particular aspect just because it's "common" (even though terrorist strikes and mass shootings are rather uh, rare)
---

pjbasis posted...

About as disingenous as bringing up domestic terrorism when the right calls for action against Islamic terrorism.

To both I say, let's not sensationalize a particular aspect just because it's "common" (even though terrorist strikes and mass shootings are rather uh, rare)

Gun violence is FAR more common and easy to commit than bomb violence in this country.

And domestic terrorism is far more common than Islamic terrorism in this country.
---

Or like, gun control is a way bigger issue than the problem of school shootings.

To even utter it just because you see a scary news headline is...hasty.
---

Hey maybe it's a bad analogy, but what metric are you using to compare domestic vs Islamic terrorism?
---

pjbasis posted...

People who desire to commit mass murder will do it either way. I get that killing people with 55 forks is a lot harder, but like bombs and trucks are used as murder devices all the time too.

Bombs and trucks are much harder to use/make/come by, or even to consider. Guns are extremely common and are embedded deep in American culture. If all guns in the US magically disappeared, it's extremely likely that mass murders would go down significantly.

The logic I'm seeing used is "well it's possible to kill people with other stuff than guns, so why target guns?" Maybe because revising gun laws would make things better? Progress should not be opposed just because it doesn't immediately solve all problems.
---

Inviso posted...

Gun violence is FAR more common and easy to commit than bomb violence in this country.

How would you say it's easier exactly? Because the technical know how isn't as readily available?
---

I see a lot of confidence but not a lot of source citing.

I can tell you I'm not confident that guns aren't the easiest or most common, but I'd like something more than just strong language.
---

pjbasis posted...

Or like, gun control is a way bigger issue than the problem of school shootings.

To even utter it just because you see a scary news headline is...hasty.

Well to be fair, its dozens of headlines
---

pjbasis posted...

Inviso posted...

Gun violence is FAR more common and easy to commit than bomb violence in this country.

How would you say it's easier exactly? Because the technical know how isn't as readily available?

To commit violence with a bomb, yes you need to have the technical know-how to make a bomb. You need to buy whatever supplies or whatever, and you have to do all of this in the knowledge that bomb-manufacturing is illegal.

To commit violence with a gun, you need to go to a Walmart and buy a rifle and some bullets. Maybe go to a gun store and wait a couple days to legally purchase your weapon.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

The logic I'm seeing used is "well it's possible to kill people with other stuff than guns, so why target guns?" Maybe because revising gun laws would make things better? Progress should not be opposed just because it doesn't immediately solve all problems.

This obviously presupposes that mass shootings are the only consequence of a society with guns. Or that the existence of guns isn't actively promoting peace where it exists (as many conservatives would point out). Do you just go "bah humbug" to these claims or do you have good reason to believe they are mistaken. Convince me!
---

What are you trying to argue, exactly, pj
---

FWIW I applaud the method of pjbasiss challenges to our ideas
---

Inviso posted...

To commit violence with a bomb, yes you need to have the technical know-how to make a bomb. You need to buy whatever supplies or whatever, and you have to do all of this in the knowledge that bomb-manufacturing is illegal.

To commit violence with a gun, you need to go to a Walmart and buy a rifle and some bullets. Maybe go to a gun store and wait a couple days to legally purchase your weapon.

I think an important part of this is violence as a function of the amount of people killed too. The bare minimum gun (non automatic pistol or rifle) probably can't do as much as a bomb. Ironically 55 guns don't seem like they can do as much damage as 55 bombs on account of needing an individual to operate each gun. Did that one shooter really go through all of it?
---

pjbasis posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

The logic I'm seeing used is "well it's possible to kill people with other stuff than guns, so why target guns?" Maybe because revising gun laws would make things better? Progress should not be opposed just because it doesn't immediately solve all problems.

This obviously presupposes that mass shootings are the only consequence of a society with guns. Or that the existence of guns isn't actively promoting peace where it exists (as many conservatives would point out). Do you just go "bah humbug" to these claims or do you have good reason to believe they are mistaken. Convince me!

My personal belief is that anyone (pending background check) should be able to purchase a handgun for protection or a hunting rifle for hunting.

My issue is with firearms designed for the battlefield. I see no discernible reason for them to be widely available to civilians
---

StealThisSheen posted...

What are you trying to argue, exactly, pj

It's interesting you think I have to have a motivation other than skepticism! That's pretty much it though.
---