Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 238: Parliament-Flunkadelic

(+) Yeah! (+)

By the way, this is a shout out to Elizabeth Warren for not using any of the ugly identity politics attacks Hillary used against Bernie. It's good to see a candidate willing to stand on her own ideas who trusts the voters to decide based on ideas.
---

Also at this point I think Biden really should consider quitting. He's got to realize he can't do a good job as president if he can't stay alert and focused for 60 seconds on a debate stage. This isn't just gaffes anymore - he was rambling incoherently out there.
---

Grimlyn posted...

Beto started off his campaign just absolutely terribly, he was completely unenthusiastic and all attention was yanked by Buttigieg while Beto for some reason decided to go on a media blackout tour

then debate 1 getting his neck clawed by Castro, with debate 2 being another whatever performance blending in with the mass of candidates

... but since then I guess he's just saying f*** it I'll do what I do and he's a lot more genuine with things to say

Yeah, I didn't notice Beto at all in the first two debates, he was literal background noise, but he sure caught my attention tonight.
---

red sox 777 posted...

By the way, this is a shout out to Elizabeth Warren for not using any of the ugly identity politics attacks Hillary used against Bernie. It's good to see a candidate willing to stand on her own ideas who trusts the voters to decide based on ideas.

I mean, bit of a different situation, where Bernie and Warren are usually acting as more of a tag team in the debates, since they share most of the same policies, and most of their opponents are attacking their shared policies. (OK, they sometimes get backup from Tulsi Gabbard, Bill De Blazio, or Marianne Williamson, but that's three candidates that didn't make the stage tonight).

We'll see what happens if we get down to the point where it's them as an obvious top two. Although...honestly whoever wins probably just picks the other as their VP is my expectation. Bernie literally wanted Warren to run in 2016 and only ran when she did not. Warren has been backing Bernie up a lot, coming to internet brodcast town halls he organized in 2017. I don't really see either of them as likely to attack the other. They just don't have many points of disagreement.
---

Vermont and Massachusetts both have Republican governors, so it seems like a bad plan to double your temporary (or permanent if you get Scott Browned) automatic Senate seat losses when you're trying to pass huge new programs!

(Lmao at me for that fuckup)
---

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Oh yeah, I recently learned that Yang's dad got a PhD in physics from Berkeley!

Still not gonna vote for him in the primary, but pretty cool

For people like Ulti, top schools like Berkeley are not the problem, generally. Because most of their students are smart. It's the next tier down, in the 30-100 range in the US News rankings, that has a lot of unintelligent students who fancy themselves to be learned scholars. These are the people who love "safe spaces" and "free speech zones."

I could be biased due to knowing and being friends with quite a few Berkeley students/alum, but I feel the reputation is overblown.

No it's that this entire characterization is nothing more than a strawman in the first place.
---

Guys why is the media talking about how Biden won the debate?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Guys why is the media talking about how Biden won the debate?

Because they want Biden to be the candidate?
---

i mean literally every day the media thinks "Biden still front runner!" is a breaking news story
---

Are they saying Biden won? I guess because he didn't have like 10 gaffes in the debate like he's had in recent weeks.

I feel like everyone did okay, though at this point doing okay isn't good enough for most of the field. Harris, Yang, Beto, Booker, Klobuchar, and Castro need to have some standout moment and I don't think they have. Buttigieg would be included there but he has a unique situation where he's doing well in Iowa so like... that's a wild card he has if he can pull off a win there. Beto did the best of that group but his transformation to Punished Beto came too late. I do think he'd be a great VP pick for Warren still though.

And Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg did okay too in my estimation so... nothing much changes probably. I suppose you could argue that's a "win" for Biden in the sense that maybe it slows his collapse in the polls or just the "conventional wisdom" that a debate with no huge moment/shakeup is to the favor of the frontrunner but I imagine the trend of Biden falling and Warren rising will still be in place so =/

lol of the debate for me: Biden, who has pretty much always just stopped talking when time has been called on him, just going "No! I'm gonna do what they're all doing and go twice over!" I definitely feel like they spent the first half of the debate testing what they could get away with from the moderators and then after the commercial break they saw they were able to run them over on time and just went all in on that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Guys why is the media talking about how Biden won the debate?

I think the bar for Biden is so low that he gets credit for things he shouldnt get credit for.

I havent seen any coverage today but him not completely vomiting all over himself got him credit during the second debate too.
---

I also think Warren and Sanders didnt have particularly good nights and the stand outs were all in the lower tier of candidates. Thats good for Biden too.
---

Can someone explain to me why citizens need to own AR-15s and AK-47s? What purpose is there to owning these weapons. I mean, I completely get hunting rifles and handguns, but I'm at a loss for why people need to own these and why they should care so much about having the right to own them.
---

I thought Biden was disastrous. But apparently as long as he can say words, he wins.
---

anyone who complains about "bullying" Biden needs to remember he's going against donald fucking trump in the general
---

guffguy89 posted...

Can someone explain to me why citizens need to own AR-15s and AK-47s? What purpose is there to owning these weapons. I mean, I completely get hunting rifles and handguns, but I'm at a loss for why people need to own these and why they should care so much about having the right to own them.

To protect them against a tyrannical government.
---

charmander6000 posted...

guffguy89 posted...

Can someone explain to me why citizens need to own AR-15s and AK-47s? What purpose is there to owning these weapons. I mean, I completely get hunting rifles and handguns, but I'm at a loss for why people need to own these and why they should care so much about having the right to own them.

To protect them against a tyrannical government.

Was that a serious answer or a joke? If serious, please explain, because that makes no sense. The likelihood of the government turning into some tyranny that we'd need to arm ourselves against seem pretty nonexistent. I'm guessing potential alien invasions and zombie apocalypses are other reasons why we'd need these guns?

I'm looking for an honest, reasonable answer here. I'm genuinely curious if there is one.
---

the 20-30 feral hogs are coming
---

guffguy89 posted...

The likelihood of the government turning into some tyranny that we'd need to arm ourselves against seem pretty nonexistent.

I mean I'm not pro 2A at all but this line is pretty damn oblivious
---

I was going to say "remote" instead of "nonexistent" but changed it at the last second because I felt like "remote" was giving it too much of a likelihood. What precedent exactly is there to believe that some tyrannical government takeover of human rights is forthcoming that would require the need for automatic weapons versus, say, non automatic weapons, or any weapons at all really?

I must truly be oblivious if such an imminent threat is so obvious.
---

The Democrats are going to send armies of feral hogs to attack us.
---

guffguy89 posted...

I'm looking an honest, reasonable answer here. I'm genuinely curious if there is one.

I mean, the argument you'll see from the right on this generally comes in two flavors:

1. The Second Amendment protects this right. Full stop.
-I take issue with this premise on multiple levels and fronts, but you do see some basically see the argument as starting and finishing here and so any further analysis of the topic falls on deaf ears here. It's also not legally sound either IMO but whatever. "Well-regulated" is literally right there in the text but I digress.

2. The whole protection from a tyrannical government thing. This argument generally reads the 2nd Amendment's text to be interpreted as stating this. Occasionally backed up by the Revolutionary War's scenario as well as some quotes from various founders. And running with this interpretation, they argue it is only fulfilled if there's something approaching parity between what's available to the public and the government. They'd say that restricting these weapons only to the military/state would defeat the purpose. Though few would take it to its logical conclusion of like... tanks and the like, nor do they often acknowledge that in this nightmare hypothetical the state has access to weapons orders of magnitude stronger than this anyway.

Obviously I disagree strongly with either of these arguments but they're the ones I most often see.
---

There's a tyrannical government takeover of human rights happening right now, but "weirdly" all the 2Aers voted for it and support it.

---

guffguy89 posted...

Can someone explain to me why citizens need to own AR-15s and AK-47s? What purpose is there to owning these weapons. I mean, I completely get hunting rifles and handguns, but I'm at a loss for why people need to own these and why they should care so much about having the right to own them.

Theyre pretty cool and fun.
---

xp1337 posted...

guffguy89 posted...

I'm looking an honest, reasonable answer here. I'm genuinely curious if there is one.

I mean, the argument you'll see from the right on this generally comes in two flavors:

1. The Second Amendment protects this right. Full stop.
-I take issue with this premise on multiple levels and fronts, but you do see some basically see the argument as starting and finishing here and so any further analysis of the topic falls on deaf ears here. It's also not legally sound either IMO but whatever. "Well-regulated" is literally right there in the text but I digress.

2. The whole protection from a tyrannical government thing. This argument generally reads the 2nd Amendment's text to be interpreted as stating this. Occasionally backed up by the Revolutionary War's scenario as well as some quotes from various founders. And running with this interpretation, they argue it is only fulfilled if there's something approaching parity between what's available to the public and the government. They'd say that restricting these weapons only to the military/state would defeat the purpose. Though few would take it to its logical conclusion of like... tanks and the like, nor do they often acknowledge that in this nightmare hypothetical the state has access to weapons orders of magnitude stronger than this anyway.

Obviously I disagree strongly with either of these arguments but they're the ones I most often see.

I think with #2 the logical conclusion is that we MUST dismantle our nuclear arsenal. And of course to do that we would need to get Russia to do the same thing.
---

Grimlyn posted...

the 20-30 feral hogs are coming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

quite possibly the most amazing wikipedia article to exist
---

ok yeah, both of those are not very reasonable to me since in reason (1), there already are certain weapons we are banned from owning so there is an assumed exception there for reasonable regulation and (2) despite what you think about how our current government is handling things, there is no precedent that involves you arming an automatic rifle that will change anything about it. I mean, what is the imagine scenario here where you being armed with automatic weapons or not makes a difference, and how likely is that scenario to actually play out...

"Theyre pretty cool and fun."

^ To be honest, this is the only argument that actually makes sense. Unfortunately, I personally don't think the recreational enjoyment of shooting them is worth keeping them accessible.
---

I think theyre cool and fun is the real reason for 95%+ of assault weapon owners, but they realize that it sounds trivial compared to saving lives so they go with the my AK-47 is totally going to save me from a tank argument instead
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think theyre cool and fun is the real reason for 95%+ of assault weapon owners, but they realize that it sounds trivial compared to saving lives so they go with the my AK-47 is totally going to save me from a tank argument instead

I agree, but lets be honest, how many people are killed by AK-47s in the US?

Im for strict background checks and even mandatory training, but Betos we are going to take your Assault Rifles (and the others who agree but dont say it flatly) is a hugely bad idea that will not go over well.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im for strict background checks and even mandatory training, but Betos we are going to take your Assault Rifles (and the others who agree but dont say it flatly) is a hugely bad idea that will not go over well.

Assault Weapons ban polls at over 60% IIRC (and even polls above water with Republican women and gun owners in general). Not sure of voluntary or mandatory buyback programs though. I suspect the latter probably polls under 50% but voluntary may well be a majority opinion.

Edit: Fox News Poll from August has Assault and Semi-automatic ban at 67-27 overall. 46-46 with Republicans. 53-41 with Gun-owning Households. They didn't poll buybacks though.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im for strict background checks and even mandatory training, but Betos we are going to take your Assault Rifles (and the others who agree but dont say it flatly) is a hugely bad idea that will not go over well.

No. It is largely a good idea that will not go over well.

I dont think I really agree with the buybacks (though my concerns are mostly the cost/political blowback). Im more on the fence with a ban on future purchases, leaning towards yes.
---

Kenri posted...

There's a tyrannical government takeover of human rights happening right now, but "weirdly" all the 2Aers voted for it and support it.

Yeah idk why they're all so ok with it but shat themselves when a black president wore a tan suit
---

Dancedreamer posted...

I thought Biden was disastrous. But apparently as long as he can say words, he wins.

Biden was definitely not disastrous and Castro ended up helping immensely by basically flubbing the age issue.

Biden/Bernie/Warren all basically won by not getting drilled by the bottom feeders.

I don't agree with the idea that Castro was targetting Biden's age. Biden literally used the term "buy-in" and then claimed he didn't, or he didn't mean it. Maybe it was too aggressive for what was essentially a semantic argument, but if Biden is not an effective communicator that's still a problem.

I'd agree overall with the idea that Biden gets graded on a curve. He still, somehow, looks like he's doing okay and comes out as a "winner" even when he's rambling about record players and how parents don't know how to raise their kids in response to a question about the legacy of slavery.
---

I think some people are forgetting how beloved Obama, and by extent Biden, is by the democratic base. Castro dunking on Biden for his age played well with us, but I doubt it did anything but anger Biden's core group of older, more conservative democrats.

Another thing I've been considering (and I could be way off base here), but I think Warren/Bernie are not quite framing their approach to healthcare just right. The ACA is very popular with democrats, and we spent all of 2017 arguing about how great it was and how Trump was bad for trying to take it apart. It is one of the main reasons we rode 2018 to such a wave. Their approach here shouldn't be "healthcare is a disaster and we need to change it" but "what we did was good but we can get even better". I know that might not get people as excited, but I think they could get a bigger group of democratic voters to listen if they framed it in that way.

I know we joke that Biden is basically just going "hey remember Obama I like Obama" but Obama is far and away the most popular democrat of the past...what? 40 years? He's basically just riding Obama's coattails, but at the same time he's one of like two people up there defending Obama's signature domestic achievement.

I know Warren's poll numbers are looking better and better, but I wonder if she could do even better if she just reframed the debate slightly.

https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=

(Space for long link)

Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear&group=Party%2520ID::Democrat

Like...just look at that. I think most people in this topic agree we can do better but I worry that by being so negative she (and Bernie too but I'm more concerned with Warren) are missing out on a chunk of voters.

(Again I haven't looked into this fully just yet so I could be totally wrong. It was just something that occurred to me while watching the debate yesterday)
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I don't agree with the idea that Castro was targetting Biden's age. Biden literally used the term "buy-in" and then claimed he didn't, or he didn't mean it. Maybe it was too aggressive for what was essentially a semantic argument, but if Biden is not an effective communicator that's still a problem.

Is this exactly what happened? Because Ive seen no less than a dozen different reports that Castro was actually the wrong one, and its making me question if im just not understanding what either of them said.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I don't agree with the idea that Castro was targetting Biden's age. Biden literally used the term "buy-in" and then claimed he didn't, or he didn't mean it. Maybe it was too aggressive for what was essentially a semantic argument, but if Biden is not an effective communicator that's still a problem.

I'd agree overall with the idea that Biden gets graded on a curve. He still, somehow, looks like he's doing okay and comes out as a "winner" even when he's rambling about record players and how parents don't know how to raise their kids in response to a question about the legacy of slavery.

That looked pretty clearly like an attack on his age to me. And I think almost everyone in the media/most people watching thought so too.

Which is great for me! I would vastly prefer someone under the age of freaking 70 and its sad I have to default to Warren as the "young" candidate because she still looks like she has a lot of energy and hasn't spent chunks of the debate looking confused. I like Warren a lot, but my ideal candidate is 10-15 years younger.

But again, Biden is still very popular and going "you are old and senile" isn't really a good way to win people over (especially when Castro was flat out wrong about his accusation there).
---

No one is forgetting how popular Obama and Biden are, that's obvious. I just don't think the Democratic base that loves prominent Democrats so much will stay home or vote Trump if Biden isn't the nominee, though the media and everyone else seems to think that. Maybe I'm wrong!

Second, Warren used that exact approach to healthcare you're describing. She started off by praising Obama and saying M4A builds on what the ACA started. I think this is the general messaging of the other candidates' plans. Biden is the one insisting the other candidates are destroying Obama's legacy, and also has moved on to"how are you going to pay for it?"
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I don't agree with the idea that Castro was targetting Biden's age. Biden literally used the term "buy-in" and then claimed he didn't, or he didn't mean it. Maybe it was too aggressive for what was essentially a semantic argument, but if Biden is not an effective communicator that's still a problem.

Is this exactly what happened? Because Ive seen no less than a dozen different reports that Castro was actually the wrong one, and its making me question if im just not understanding what either of them said.

It kinda depends on what you interpret Castro's attack as

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/13/castro-goes-there-joe-bidens-age-are-you-forgetting-what-you-said-two-minutes-ago/

tl;dr: Biden did state that people who met the financial requirements would be automatically enrolled in his public option. FWIW, Biden did say "buy in" when referring to someone who lost their job being able to buy-in. My reading of it is that Biden is saying that anyone who can't afford insurance is automatically enrolled into the public option, but if you can afford it but are choosing not to you would have to opt-in/buy-in.

So I think Castro is correct if you believe his attack to be that Biden's plan would leave some people uninsured, which is a valid interpretation of his attack, I think. However, on the age angle/"did you really forget?" part I think he's totally off. Biden did make the distinct between these two categories and Castro seemed to be conflating them to make that strike.

~~~

Kinda but maybe not really unrelated, but 538's post-debate polling showed Biden and Castro underperforming while Warren, Beto, Buttigieg, and Booker overperformed (all relative to what you'd expect with respect to their pre-debate approval.)

Not sure how much worth I put into a single post-debate poll (probably not much!) but that would contradict the "Biden won" narrative.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Is this exactly what happened? Because Ive seen no less than a dozen different reports that Castro was actually the wrong one, and its making me question if im just not understanding what either of them said.

https://www.vox.com/2020-presidential-election/2019/9/12/20863592/biden-castro-health-care-forgetting-democrat-debate

The option Im proposing is, Medicare for Choice, Biden said on the debate stage just minutes before Castro jumped in. If you want Medicare, if you lose the job from your insurance company, from your employer, you automatically can buy into this. You dont have no pre-existing condition can stop you from buying in. You get covered. Period.

"Medicare for Choice" is pretty stupid too but most of the transcripts are omitting this. It's complicated also because apparently, Biden's plan does not have a buy-in, and outlets are reporting on the plan itself. Except...that IS what Biden said.
---

the graphic referenced


---

The main point I had about it being a semantic argument about Biden being a bad communicator still applies regardless if you think Castro was technically incorrect. Can you tell what Biden's healthcare plan is just from him speaking about it? I sure can't! He describes it both as something you choose, but also you're automatically enrolled, and you have to buy in unless you ask him directly about it. Also there's a $1000 co-pay max which is trash.

He's just bad at this.
---

I could also be wrong, but that wasn't the impression I got. Warren was close-ish and I think Klobuchar too (but she doesn't matter) but a lot of the time was focused on the failures of the ACA and how it was urgent we acted.

I think its tough because you're not going to out praise Obama with Biden on the stage because that is the focal point of the campaign. But it is a good strategy to just hide in Obama's shadow and never leave because of how popular he is. I don't quite know what to do other than hope Biden keeps saying dumb stuff or falls asleep mid-debate.
---

While that graphic more or less makes the same point I actually meant the one that plots pre-debate favorability v debate performance but it's like... not an image or something so I can't link to it directly

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-september-poll

that first one
---

Grimlyn posted...

the graphic referenced

How did Buttigieg go up? I can't imagine someone watching that yesterday and thinking better of Buttigieg for it.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I could also be wrong, but that wasn't the impression I got. Warren was close-ish and I think Klobuchar too (but she doesn't matter) but a lot of the time was focused on the failures of the ACA and how it was urgent we acted.

I viewed this as constructive criticism and not aggressively negative at all. And there is a real sense of urgency around healthcare. If you're saying that even mild constructive criticism on Obama is too negative for voters, well...maybe you're right. And in that case we are probably screwed.
---

yeahhh Butti got my hatred in that debate for trashy populist misinformation and "you don't trust the American People... but I guess that stuff is still moderate populist trash for a reason
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

And there is a real sense of urgency around healthcare.

I gave Harris some props for bringing up the fact that Trump's DOJ is right now backing a lawsuit to throw out the ACA as we speak.
---

Grimlyn posted...

yeahhh Butti got my hatred in that debate for trashy populist misinformation and "you don't trust the American People... but I guess that stuff is still moderate populist trash for a reason

I also physically rolled my eyes when he went "guys why are we fighting lets be friends". I was so glad when Castro was like "hey this is a debate, dumb dumb".

But apparently that stuff played better than I thought so what do I know.
---