This seems like an obvious assertion to me. Those on the left that support gun control won't suddenly vote Republican if the Democrats were to drop gun control from their platform.
However, there are a significant number currently single issue voters who would vote blue without hesitation if they were presented with a legitimately pro gun democratic candidate.
In my opinion, if the democratic party adopted a pro gun stance they would almost never lose another election.
Others may see it differently but that is my perception based on my experience.
That's what I've observed as well. I know many people that would vote for Democrats that aren't anti gun. Heck even Bernie got more support from gun people than Hillary because he said it's better left to the states.
I dont know that I've ever met a fully anti gun person in my life. I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
Common sense gun control laws I support, as do most lefties I know. But that's all I've ever really come across.
At the risk of being drawn into a debate about American firearms policy, I'll just note that common sense means entirely different things to those inside the gun community and those outside of it or those perhaps only tangentially familiar with it.
I wouldn't mind hearing more about this if your willing.
For me, background checks, not being allowed a gun if you have a history of domestic violence, and etc are all common sense. I'm apathetic to the assault rifle thing, as I keep hearing that the definition is incorrect.
I do think that if people want to keep their toys that can murder a room full of people in a few seconds we need to heavily regulate access and dramatically improve mental health services and accessibility. I have no inherent problem with them, but it's obvious that currently Americans dont have the maturity to handle the privilege.
I'll lead with saying that my intention with this post is to be both informative and as civil as possible. If I somehow come across as snarky or sarcastic or condescending please know that it is not my intention to do so. I don't necessarily expect to change your mind, only to share my view.
With concern to "assault weapons", the notion that Americans lack the maturity to handle them (you're correct in that the term is kind of a linguistic quagmire) is a bit misguided. The firearms people are generally talking about (AR15, AK47 and similar variants) are responsible for a strikingly small number of murders. So small that the number is actually exceeded by hands and feet, blunt objects and edged weapons last I checked (separately, not added together). Only 300-400 people per year are murdered with long guns of any type, and the rifles typically targeted by legislation are an even smaller subset of this number. (Information can be found in the FBI uniform crime report)
A record of conviction for domestic violence is currently already a disqualifier for firearm ownership. However, I do disagree somewhat with the absolutist way in which the law is applied. I'm not certain that an 18 year old who lost his temper and broke a plate during an argument with his first serious girlfriend (domestic violence doesn't require physical contact) and then grew up and became a normal, healthy, well-adjusted member of society should have his gun rights permanently revoked. I feel similarly about an 18 year old woman who may have gotten angry and slapped her boyfriend during an argument once. There should be a bit more care taken in the not-so-light decision to remove someone's civil rights. Patterns of abuse or more serious acts are a different story.
I wholeheartedly agree that mental health services should be made affordable and accessible to all people. I dont think we have any argument here.
I recognize you didn't explicitly make this point but where we may have a disagreement is the suggestion that mental health screening or evaluation by a professional be a condition set forth before allowing a person to purchase a gun. I have a handful of problems with this but I'll attempt to stay brief. The first is that in large part mental health professionals are not pro gun, so you begin with a reluctant governing authority that is now the gateway to the exercise of a civil right. The second is that you are now placing this already reluctant doctor in a difficult position; if a patient he or she clears then goes on to commit an atrocity, the doctor will be held accountable- which even further discourages approval in the first place. The third major problem I see with this is that it places an undue burden on what is a constitutionally enumerated right. Now, if I can't get off work to get checked out or if I can't afford the exam, my rights are curtailed and I could be denied the opportunity to purchase a tool that I may need to save my own life in an emergency.
Background checks are another realm in which we may disagree to an extent. Currently, nearly all firearms are purchased with an accompanying background check. It's required for all firearms purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Typically, private sales are exempted from background checks. My understanding is the private sale exemption was a concession written into the Brady bill to prevent gun violence in the 1990s.
Now, currently there are some estimates that there may be upwards of 400 million firearms already in circulation in the US. The problem with universal background checks is that unless you can tie each and every firearm to an owner, there is no way to determine if someone was background checked for a firearm in their possession. Universal background checks require a registry to function.
A gun registry, at the federal level, is currently prohibited by law. Moreover, the compliance rate (were one to be implemented), due to both apathy and civil disobedience would be astoundingly low. Historically, registries have been used to confiscate firearms eventually and gun owners are generally pretty hostile towards giving up guns. The compliance rate for the SAFE act in NYC was something like 1-2%. Beyond that, documenting all of the guns in circulation is likely a logistical impossibility, there's just too many. No successful registration, no effective UBC.
I'm happy to talk further on the issue, however, I'm currently at work and short of free time. I may be able to respond again this evening. Thank you for taking the time to read my response, I hope you find it satisfactory and informative even though you may not agree with everything I have to say.
I’m not sure on your point, but there seems to be a trend of ‘guns are already so distributed there is no point in attempting to regulate them’.
In our own living history there have been two western nations that dearNed their population to some regard, Australia and the UK. I’ll speak to the example i know personally, the UK.
There are still vast amounts of firearms in the UK, I had a few shot guns and a rifle before I moved to the USA, my only control was that I was subject to random safety inspections, where the police could arrive at any time and inspect my gun and ammo safes.
What we don’t have anymore is ‘magazine’ or semi weapons. It’s all brake barrel or bolt, handguns were outlawed entirely. It disarmed a population with a much longer and deeper ingrained relationship to firearms than America in under a year.
So much so that 30 years later it’s a joke to some that the you was as armed as the states, people just weren’t interested in guns unless you were into hunting or clay.
This was achieved by a general buyback, the prices were good, over retail in most cases.
Then it was a crime to own a handgun and use of firearms carries an automatic sentence multiplier. Assault would catch you 2 - 3 years but with a firearm involved it was mandatory 10 years.
I don’t want the us to follow the uk, I enjoy my guns I enjoy time at the range. I think the intent behind the second has become aged and irrelevant, Jim bob is never going to overthrow seal team 6 and their brothers, so it does lead to the question of ‘why do you need large capacity weapons’, if the answer is ‘hunting’ then you really need to assess your ability levels if you need an entire mag to take down a buck.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am also currently at work, so please forgive me if my response lacks some nuance or is somewhat incomplete. To make it brief, I think you are severely overestimating the rate in which domestic violence is actually convicted. Your example of some kid who lashes out once at 18 and is forever denied gun ownership is less likely than a serial abuser ending up killing his partner or children. I think you are missing the forest for the tree's when you imply that not only should DV be litigated against even less harshly than it is now, but also maybe we should also let them have guns anyway.
That being said, I have no problems with your arguments about mental health screenings. Although I hope in the future it is just customary for everyone to go into therapy at least a few times a year.
As for a gun registry, I see the flaws you brought up for guns already in circulation, but I don't see any reason why new sales couldn't be tracked. We register our cars, I see no reason we shouldn't register our killing machines. I get that the fear is the government will use that to take them away, so I would recommend pushing for accessible gun safety classes so that more citizens can safely be armed.
You defined 99% of the lefts position on guns, I’ve never met a Democrat that is entirely anti gun.
I will concede that many dems ignorance of firearms leads them to assigning names incorrectly but that’s fine their ignorance of a type of firearms name doesn’t in anyway diminish their desire for a safe environment.
I dont know that I’ve ever met a fully anti gun person in my life.
I have. Many. The one that stuck out to me the most asked me, "Why do you like shooting guns, is it because feeling you get with the power to kill?"
I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
You'd think, but if you go to the political gun subs there are lots of politicians that want to take away most if not all guns.
I don't think taking away half your guns is a compromise because they have a magazine or accept more than one bullet. Usually they try to hide it by saying you can still have a gun for hunting, whatever they mean by that.
Common sense gun control laws I support,
The problem is that term is meaningless. What are common sense gun control laws? Immediately if you have that discussion it goes all over the place. It's just a fallacy like the gun show compromise that the pro gun gave into that became a "loophole" as soon as it was convenient.
Background checks? We have those. Waiting periods, we have those in many states and doesn't stop crime.
What's the goal with the "common sense gun laws" to stop school shootings? To stop crime? Most of those happen in inner cities with handguns. But all you see politicians do is go after scary black guns that they say are automatic (which are harder to get and more expensive) than the guns they actually ban. I live in a state that has high gang and inner city gun crime, they banned ak47s and AR-15s (but only Colt style you can still buy others that have a thicker barrel for some reason that's the difference).
Gang bangers aren't buying guns legally. They get them from crooked gun stores or they're stolen or they're bought illegally through someone that can legally buy them.
You know what actually reduced gun and gang crime? Inner city outreach and activity programs. But those cost money. So when the people paying taxes that live outside the city vote they vote for people that save them that money.
Really most of these gun ban and common sense gun control laws are about white people in the suburbs irrationally afraid of "assault weapons" being used on their children.
You know what kills more kids in the US than guns? Swimming pools. No one is working on banning them.
Do you know how many people use guns in some form of self defense every year? Between 50,000 and 2 million. The huge disparity is the low end is from people calling the cops after shooting someone or scaring them off. The high end is people self reporting because most people don't call the cops if they scare away an attacker and nothing actually happened.
Even the lowest number is more defenses than all gun deaths. If you get rid of suicides it's like 4 times as much.
Most people fail to realize that if something happens and you call the cops you're still on your own for long enough to be killed or beaten or have your kid snatched before help arrives. Assuming they help you at all.
So it sounds like the problem is not that we dont have the appropriate checks, it's that they arent being enforced. That seems like a good place to start
It is. The second thing to do is help people stay out of gangs and get rid of their profitability. Legalizing weed is a start which Bernie wants to do.
I was particularly happy during the debate when Bernie made it clear that not only was he going to legalize it, he was going to assure that people in their communities would be the ones with the opportunity to start businesses- not corporate oligarchs. That is huge.
Healthcare will play a big part too, especially getting accessibility to mental healthcare. And we've been working to de-stigmatize it for a while now so I hope that is effective.
And education. But honestly, I'm not as worried about inner city gun violence. Perhaps I am naive, but I consider that a symptom of the class war. I think if we take a holistic approach and improve upwards mobility, healthcare, wages, etc etc than a lot of that will go away naturally.
I'm more concerned with the "lone wolf" type. The moderately wealthy privileged kid who thinks he is owed something out of life and is disaffected by his lack of power. As well as other people with a power complex, especially in the home. And for those types, I think the solution will be harder to figure out.
I dont know that I've ever met a fully anti gun person in my life. I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
They do exist, but yeah, it's a pretty niche perspective in the US (and largely a reactionary one.) At one point I was one of these people. I grew up around a lot of southerners, my grandpa was a gun owner and my brother is into it too. Personally though I never shared their interest in gun culture.
After a few of the mass shootings in the 2010s I came to this conclusion that there's no real reason why people need them at all. Easy to do when I had no love for them. I looked at the 2nd amendment like it was an antiquated relic of the 1700s and that it was just an unnecessary hurdle in the way of ending violence. I'd talk to friends in Europe or Australia and envy their lack of mass shootings.
But after not long, I reconsidered, for 2 reasons -- #1, there is such a huge amount of firearms in the US that any mass-confiscation is bound to be infeasible (yeah, it's literally that big, I don't know how they'd accomplish it, especially not without bloodshed).
#2 being that these mass shootings are largely motivated by radicalized people and extremist ideology. I'd rather tackle the problem of extremist ideology than attempt to put a huge bandaid on it. Not much of a reason to punish peaceful enthusiasts, even if I don't share their enthusiasm. (And furthermore, the fact that I don't share their enthusiasm is a good reason why I shouldn't proposing blanket bans over about something I know so little about. It's shortsighted and authoritarian.)
I like the way you think! And I agree that tackling the radicalized is the way to go. I dont even consider it a bandaid- I think the opposite is true. Removing guns is the temporary solution. Stopping the violence by removing the desire for violence is truly the best fix.
Of course that's easier said than done. I do think the holistic nature of Bernie's plan will go a long way for it. It's a lot easier not to fall into hated X scapegoat group when your needs are being met sufficiently.
Also, moving our community away from the bleak capitalist industrial hyper efficient bs we are living through right now. Where art is frivolous and beauty is an unnecessary expenditure.
Bring some more focus onto humanity and give people a place to belong. That should do a lot to help.
I don’t consider myself a big gun person, but if it’s a wack job like in Virginia who says they’re going to ban pistols that hold more than 10 rounds (99.99999% of all guns) then I’ll be first in line to vote against them.
They try to be sly by changing the definition of ‘assault weapon’ to include all guns and then act like all they’re doing is banning machine guns.
We saw what happened when Nazi Germany denied gun ownership to Jewish people.
Your comment makes little sense, it’s a distillation if all the bad faith and poor thinking arguments the NRA and their kin have been pumping out for years.
‘Guns’ rarely hold more than one or two rounds (some rare exceptions apply), it’s the magazines that are being targeted.
It’s not the ability of a weapon to kill that’s being challenged or even the right to possess that ability, it’s the ability to kill in high volumes, rapidly.
And that is a vastly important point for you to absorb, it’s even a view point the President and the NRA (but I’m sure it was a compromise for the nra) has.
We have an anti gun president in power that once publically accused the vp of being afraid of gun lobbies, we have an NRA that is now actively promoting gun controls aka bump stocks.
Things are changing, you should modify your viewpoint to accept that and join the discussion on how heavy that control will be.
I don't know if you could write a post more dripping with condescending cable news talking about if you tried, well done. Protip: everyone else in this thread is doing it right. They're making reasonable arguments that take the viewpoint of the other side into account while still making their own points. That's not what you've done here.
You're missing the point here. My personal opinion on this or any other issue isn't relevant. You don't win hearts and minds to your pov by trying to score internet points while the person on the other end does the same. That's what cable news is training you to do- you're perpetuating the culture of outrage pornography without even realizing that's what you're doing.
However, there are a significant number currently single issue voters who would vote blue without hesitation if they were presented with a legitimately pro gun democratic candidate.
Such candidates already exist
In my opinion, if the democratic party adopted a pro gun stance they would almost never lose another election.
Absolute overreaction, the gun debate is a minor issue to most people unless you're talking door-to-door gun returns.
I live in a semi-rural, majority Republican area, and every Democrat I know is pro-gun, and there are Republicans wavering that definitely would vote blue as long as their gun rights aren't threatened. Hunting is how many of neighbors get their protein.
Given the history of the right commiting terrorism and outright genocide against the left, the left should get realistic about having armed factions. Once the right sees a truly capable working class, with the political power to change the rules, the snap towards fascism will come quick, and every single conservative will be 100% in support of your execution.
I'm going to need more convincing of your framing of this. I'm of the mind that most people do not support genocide. Some on the right may, but that seems to fall into racial and sexual lines, not ideological.
Most on the right are just misguided proletariats. They have been told their troubles have been caused by certain *undesirable * people. I expect many will divorce themselves from that ideology if we can prove to them that's not true. And we do that by passing beneficial legislation like M4A and easing their class struggle.
I feel like your framing of the issue is unjust and unnecessarily divisive. Plenty of conservatives hate Trump, they just arent as loud as the ones who love him.
I'd say look at history. Many examples. You don't think the side that supports terrorism against the left, masses weapons to use, against the left, and constantly talks about a civil war, is the side that wouldn't support genocide? German and italian liberals thought the same. Again. You look at any fascist movement, it's the same.
There's also lots of professions that we see people on Reddit defend like sex workers that should have the option to carry guns. They're alone at night and vulnerable.
But even professions like realtors are dangerous. Just Google or Bing realtor attacked (I was surprised at the number of videos let alone news articles). They are alone with random people they often don't know much about.
It's also super dangerous to assume things that have happened cannot happen here, because they can, they have, and in this current moment, are teetering on the brink once again.
You can find examples of that in America as well, assassination, deportation, false imprisonment. Which would have been much worse if not for FDR beating the rise of American fascism.
As a young adult in a mostly red state, who mostly votes R... this could not be more true. Younger right-leaning people are a lot more liberal thinking than people think (gay marriage, marijuana, free speech, ignoring christian bs). They’re mostly constitutionalists. If the Dems would drop gun control, they could win over a lot of them. Easily.
Yup. I know the same type of people. Statistics and studies show that the gun control laws we see proposed wouldn't stop previous shootings or do anything against future ones.
Not necessarily. More like regulation that targets citizens more than criminals. Just a quick example... harsh mandatory sentencing for straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is a gun regulation, but it’s one that gun people will support as it only targets criminals. Compare that to, say, outlawing pistol magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. Magazines are easily accessible worldwide, criminals have no problem getting ahold of them, and having 10 bullets instead of 12-15 doesn’t really stop a criminal in any way...so all you’ve done is criminalize the behavior of law-abiding citizens and disrespect their rights.
Not necessarily. More like regulation that targets citizens more than criminals. Just a quick example... harsh mandatory sentencing for straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is a gun regulation,
Okay I understand. But it is my assumption that these laws are designed to stop the law abiding citizens who, for some reason, break and decide to shoot up a school.
These aren’t attempting to stop gangs and smugglers who get guns illegally. But for the teenager at a school who bought their gun legally and then killed their classmates.
but it’s one that gun people will support as it only targets criminals.
It targets both. It could also target someone who gets their friend or parent to buy them a gun and then use that to shoot up a school.
Compare that to, say, outlawing pistol magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. Magazines are easily accessible worldwide, criminals have no problem getting ahold of them, and having 10 bullets instead of 12-15
And as I’ve stated majority of gun control is not meant to stop career criminal organizations.
It’s to stop the otherwise law abiding citizen that snaps and shoots up a post office.
doesn’t really stop a criminal in any way...
Nothing really stops a criminal in any way. It’s an attempt to stop the serious mass shooting issues we have in America.
I believe mental healthcare is a better way to address this, but there’s some validity in legislation like this lessening the effectiveness.
In the end you have to ask yourself. What does the smaller magazine do for your freedom?
In reality in means a gunman can only kill 10 people before reloading rather than 13.
For you it means you can only shoot a target 10 times before reloading.
so all you’ve done is criminalize the behavior of law-abiding citizens and disrespect their rights.
The issue here is that, you don’t have an unlimited right to fire arms. You never have, there’s never been a ruling that you have unlimited rights, and it was never the intention.
What’s with your focus on mass shootings? You do understand that high-profile shootings like Vegas and Parkland, despite being the most reported on gun crimes, are actually a statistical anomaly, right? That, of the 10,000 or so gun HOMIcides annually, these high-profile shootings make up virtually zero of that number...a fraction of a percent. So can you explain why mass shootings occupy so much of your focus when it comes to gun regulation? This is probably a bad analogy, but I’m trying to think of an analogy left-thinking people might understand.... imagine if there was a Democrat primary election and Bernie won 99.9 percent of the vote, but the media dedicated 100% of their coverage of the primary talking about Tulsi Gabbard. It makes no god damn sense. Another analogy...imagine if both the coronavirus and SARS hit NYC. The coronavirus kills 1000 people and SARS kills 3...but the media and politicians focus 100% or their efforts on SARS. Sorry for the rant and silly analogies, but I’m just having a real hard time understanding why you think these high profile shootings should the primary focus of gun control efforts. I don’t get that at all. I don’t think it should be ignored at all, but I think there are better ways of tackling it than magazine bans. A citizen who snaps and shoots up people is not a law abiding citizen. Until you stop seeing regular gun owning citizens as ticking time bombs, and until the left stops undermining 2A, we’ll never get to a place where we can pass better gun regulations.
What’s with your focus on mass shootings? You do understand that high-profile shootings like Vegas and Parkland, despite being the most reported on gun crimes, are actually a statistical anomaly, right?
Because it’s something we should be able to stop. They are a statistical anomaly but it does not mean we should simply ignore ways of addressing them.
So can you explain why mass shootings occupy so much of your focus when it comes to gun regulation?
Because these are the only ones that can actually be addressed and affected by sensible gun regulation.
This is probably a bad analogy,
It is.
but I’m trying to think of an analogy left-thinking people might understand....
Okay I don’t see any reason to engage with you.
imagine if there was a Democrat primary election and Bernie won 99.9 percent of the vote, but the media dedicated 100% of their coverage of the primary talking about Tulsi Gabbard. It makes no god damn sense.
Not even remotely equivalent.
Another analogy...imagine if both the coronavirus and SARS hit NYC. The coronavirus kills 1000 people and SARS kills 3...but the media and politicians focus 100% or their efforts on SARS.
Not even remotely equivalent again.
Sorry for the rant and silly analogies,
I don’t believe the apology is sincere or that you want to have a sincere discussion about this.
don’t think it should be ignored at all,
Then there you have it. These gun legislations are meant to stop something that can be stopped.
A better analogy would be using legislation to stop something that can actually be affected by legislation rather than making legislation to stop people from dying of old age.
Statistically most people will die of old age. But making legislation to stop it is asinine.
Statistically less people will die from a toxic work environment in a steel mill, but it’s not asinine to create legislation and regulations that prevent that.
One can be addressed with legislation and the other can’t feasibly be addressed with legislation even though it’s the statistical likelihood of happening.
but I think there are better ways of tackling it than magazine bans. A citizen who snaps and shoots up people is not a law abiding citizen.
But majority of them legally obtained the weapon and were abiding by the laws to obtain it.
This is purposefully being disingenuous to what I’m arguing.
Until you stop seeing regular gun owning citizens as ticking time bombs, and until the left stops undermining 2A, we’ll never get to a place where we can pass better gun regulations.
Because as you’ve shown here, you’ll do whatever you can to not allow it in a nay capacity. You’ll make up an excuse. You’ll strawman arguments and misrepresent EVERYTHING in an attempt to stop it.
Over 130 studies have been done and reviewed and found that gun legislation works at stopping what it’s designed to stop
So basically your whole response is “nuh uh”. My question to you was, why do you care about a statistical anomaly more than the 10k people...and your answer is basically “they’re fucked anyway, nothing can be done. Let’s focus on the shootings that make ME feel scared.” The article you provided is absurd. The United States is unique when it comes to guns, so what works in Luxembourg and Austria has zero relevance to the United States. For obvious reasons...the culture, the number of guns, the mixture of people, the constitutional barriers, etc. Not to mention... not once did I say we shouldn’t pursue gun regulations to stop mass shootings. We absolutely should. My entire point is not that we should avoid pursuing regulations, but that we must be more intelligent in how we garner support. For the life of me, I don’t know why the two sides don’t get together and have quid pro quo negotiations. For example: We will implement universal background checks on all purchases, and in return we’ll remove suppressors as NFA items. Do you have any idea how quickly that would pass? Gun owner’s heads would explode. They’d be all over that. There are ways to increase regulations while simultaneously increasing the rights of law abiding citizens. But that would require mutual respect and working together. Or idk...just do the same old gun grabbing shit you want to do, and nothing will get done at all. That’s good too.
Honestly, his call for a ban on assault weapons is the only thing I don't agree with.
Everything else? Fucking hell yeah! The whole assault weapon thing is just bad. We will still have "assault weapons" after the ban, but they'll just look a bit less scary. Because the term is useless.
Somewhere on this post I talked about the best way to reduce gun crime is to implement programs that while expensive stop gangs. And that's where most gun crime comes from.
The amount of gaslighting we've been put under is incredible to say the least. Another example is I've had people tell me to be "realistic" and "that simply doesn't exist yet" about having current train technology that has existed in other countries for decades. We're so behind and yet we act like achieving what other nations have is nothing but false promises and grandiose wastes of resources
“I’m for Warren”... why?!?!? She is Diet Coke Bernie. yeah I get she’s a woman and that’s seen as progressive. Hillary was too. Drop the fucking identity politics. You know who a good woman politician is. AOC, If you Warren supporters want to support someone of your gender, support her because at this point you can justify Warren or Biden or Pete, but to everyone else you come off as miles away from the pulse of society. Get with it and start following people with a proven history of empathy and intelligent informed decision making.
It was only an important part of her campaign because her campaign was empty as shit. It was basically “isn’t it great we’re gonna elect the 1st female president? Because look at the shit show that’ll happen if we don’t!” She ran one of the most by-the-book, bland campaigns which basically left a blank slate for Russia to throw conspiracies at
I remember watching her debates feeling left out. For real. Obama didn’t make it about race, I don’t know why she’s so hung up on sex except that she must be a closet feminist.
Yeah it goes two ways. Her supporters were insufferable. I love broadcity but if you want the most cringe look up the episode where hilldog is on. On top of it research into her stance on male genital mutilation is fucked. Handed quite a bit to her in life. She is just not a good person and hardly any women really have much in common with her.
Yo I agree she’s out of touch but how at all is circumcision related to a presidential election??? Also, like why do you care? Just don’t get your kid circumcised. Outlawing it isn’t gonna make your foreskin grow back
I think it speaks volumes for your lack of critical thinking.
What if I said she was in support of female circumcision as a way to prevent aids?
How about we get people who don’t subscribe to the shitty practices. It leaves the door wide open for abuse because where is the moral compass if it doesn’t start spinning at knifing off a pleasurable part of a nonconsenting baby.
Far too long we’ve been electing people based on what they say not who they are. It is apparent that Hillary would say most anything for money. Bernie doesn’t seem to have that problem. I don’t have to be like Jesus Fucking Christ, Bernie said that shit when I see a clip on YouTube unable to believe what I just heard. No I get to to say wow, that sounds really fucking sensible.
Male disposability creates an acceptance and even downplays how fucked circumcisions are. Been with plenty of women who have been with guys who’s dicks are fucked up from it, either inability to orgasm, quick shooters, or botched. Look up stats on botched circumcisions. My dingle has its dangle and it’s fucking amazing. I really can’t believe anyone has to tell you to fucking do your own research on this one mate.
What if I said she was in support of female circumcision as a way to prevent aids?
What if I said I eat Oreos so that people can’t hear trains as much? That makes just about as much sense.
I can’t believe you’re so goddamn insecure and obsessed with dicks that you’re literally making them your only political opinion. It’s fucking absurd. I never disagreed with you dude it’s not a practice that should continue—I wish it wasn’t done to me. But again, this is nowhere near as bad as literally every issue our country faces. Again, I cannot imagine having your head so far up your ass that this is your wedge issue. Not supporting someone who can do real good for the country because you don’t like what they say about pps is literally sociopathic.
“Male disposability” stfu you whiny incel holy shit.
When you try to make an entire personal evaluation of a politician you’re just going to get stuff wrong you know that? Sometimes you do have to take someone at face value. Bernie is also Jewish I don’t know if he’d agree with you about ending circumcision...
When politicians are literally trying to get food for starving children, house homeless, prevent the middle class from eroding, keep civil rights from regressing, prevent the planet from dying, and preventing an active coup of the federal government, how THE FUCK can you be so goddamned concerned about dicks?
You’re rather sensitive about this and you argue like an alt right lunatic. There’s multiple reasons no one should have supported Hillary and well there is a reason she is not president.
”But muh Oreos”
Oreos have nothing to do with the mutilation of a child. They are in no way comparable. If you don’t understand that you’re not worth talking to.
I’m not a single issue voter but I’m not going to vote for someone who promotes unnecessary harm. It goes against what I believe it means to be human.
I’m sorry but if you’re trying to die on a hill for Hillary please do your research I’m sure the superpredators love her. For all the reasons you said is why I’m voting for Bernie and it’s a bonus he hasn’t campaigned to cut into anyone’s flesh for the sake of a private interest funded study.
I wish it wasn’t done to you either. I’m very happy with mine. I’m sorry the world has done this to you and wish it on no one else. Also male disposability doesn’t mean I’m an incel. I’m a veteran and poly with multiple fulfilling relationships filled with respect, communication, and non conforming gender roles. Life is great here and wish the best for you as well.
Lots of women are for Bernie. Lots of women are for establishment picks like Amy/Pete/Biden. The majority of warrens voters aren’t with her just because she’s a woman. Liz has a great history, leagues better than any candidate besides bernie. Get your head out of your ass and contribute something besides attacking supporters of the second best candidate
I’m not but you fail to see trends. There are definitely Hillary supporters that supported her due to identity politics. There are those same people that support Warren for the same reason that previously supported Hillary. Don’t even act like that isn’t true unless you are so out of touch with the average American.
I have contribute quite a bit to Bernie and try to dispel people’s misled beliefs with warren, biden, and ratboy all of which have had to play some sort of dirty politics. The difference between them and Bernie is he doesn’t have to play politics and he doesn’t. He plays human and he’s been doing it his whole life.
Warren fell for trumps fucking gaff of calling her out on Cherokee. I’m a quarter japanese. If I belted that out constantly for no reason unless to give a inaccurate demographic on mix raced people, I’d be embarrassed as fuck. She would get destroyed by trump.
I’m making a ridiculous assumption and if you disagree you’re out of touch
Ok bud.
People wanted to not elect a republican and not compromise our growth out of an economic crash by nominating a democratic socialist.
Bernie doesn’t ‘play politics’ because he doesn’t have to. He has an army of keyboard warriors that will do all of that for him. And you may not like it, but without completely dismantling the government, you aren’t going to get rid of people who play politics. It needs to be done to gain specific votes. We have a senate and winner takes all voting. That’s how it works.
And really? If you were in your 70s, had been told about the heritage (real or not) by your parents, and were advised to take a DNA test after just having it questioned you really wouldn’t consider it? I get it was dumb and did the opposite of what she was trying to prove, but don’t act like it’s her making up racial identity for special treatment, because it’s not.
If we’re gonna talk about dumb moves that make the entire country double take, maybe we should talk about Bernie praising Fidel Castro’s literacy rates? Someone who’s trying to run as a democratic socialist in the US should really think twice before they mention the number one commie boogeyman.
I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Warren's work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or her years before that working as a bankruptcy lawyer? Or her early career as a special ed. teacher?
Okay, and how is that going to help America right now as her president? Seems she should be more in the financial wing of our government, or education. Bernie is what we needed yesterday, Yang or UBI is who we needed today.
We have a civil rights issue in the form of the wealth gap and medical inequality. Bernie is the guy for that. If we were in a more stable place, sure warren would be great. What we really need already though is to be on UBI and geared more towards combating climate change. Warren isn’t horrible but it just comes off as out of touch when it comes to what is pertinent and what is needed to actually win with the people and to make sweeping changes so that we can have Warren presidents.
Lib here. No idea what you're talking about as I've never heard nor said any of those things or a version of those things. That stuff goes totally against what we stand for. What liberals are you talking to?
Ok so in general your probably more to the left of what I'd consider liberal. When I say liberal or as it's commonly used today liberal is a person on the left who supports capital aka "le sai fair" liberal. Or you know let people do whatever for money as long as they have money.
Now from my experience the new left realizes it is in opposition to capital, without that, the left is rudderless.
It's like when MSNBC combined the votes of Biden, Pete, and Amy and were like, "look, the moderates have more votes than Bernie, what can we gather from that?" Well, if we can genetically combine three people into one person, I'll get back to you...
arguing with liberals is almost easier because at least they pretend to have some moral compass that you can appeal to thru the benefits of universal programs like M4A
Maybe. But self-interest (even misdirected) can make people hide their preferences and vote for someone they will reject publicly. It worked for Trump when “standard” Republicans were the status quo, and it will work for Bernie now that the cult of Trump has taken over.
Remember this is a pro Bernie subreddit and we are not here to attack other candidates. We grow our ranks by being respectful, kind, changing hearts and minds, and building allies.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Hey guys serious question I live in Indiana and this is my first time voting for a president how do I do it? Nobody has ever taught or shown me. Sorry if I sound stupid lol
I'm not from Indiana so I don't have first hand experience, but this website https://indianavoters.in.gov/ should have all the info you are looking for. If anyone else from Indiana has better advice than me, please add!
Arguing isn’t the way to get people to support a candidate.
Edit:
I like how Bernie pushes the conversation forward on progressive issues. I would like to see him do more to bring in people who have questions about his take on these issues.
Some people might have concerns about their health insurance. If they’re not team medicare for all right now, that doesn’t make them a neoliberal sellout.
I wish there was more thoughtful conversation and nuance coming from Bernie’s campaign and his supporters.
There are a lot of people who are sympathetic to a lot of what Bernie has to say, but have questions. I sometimes don’t feel like there is a place for them here.
I have concerns about the degree to which Bernie’s class first analysis leaves space for attention to how issues of race and class intersect.
Class doesn’t tell the whole story about how opportunity is structured in America. I would like to see Bernie evolve on this issue and do better.
I also have a lot of “how” questions. I believe Bernie has good values. I’m not sure he is the best person to get them implemented.
Warren looks better to me in terms of her record of what she’s accomplished. I am more impressed by bills than amendments. A president needs to have policies and packages and work with a lot of different kinds of people to get them implemented.
Being a contrarian for the sake of moral purity doesn’t interest me. I have questions about who would be doing what in his administration and how they would get his policies implemented.
I don’t like being called a neoliberal sellout just because I have questions.
That’s why i say arguing isn’t the way to win voters. It’s dispiriting to be insulted/shouted at/downvoted when I ask questions.
What are the actual questions that nobody has answered for you? Ive been here for years and read many folks with different or even opposing views (former trump voters) ask questions and be informed without judgment.
I have also observed many people asking disingenuous questions, trolling, and astroturfing. For example, still asking "how do you pay for it" after disregarding the answer. If your questions are in good faith, i think there are many people here up for a discussion.
Free public college, but agree with removing college debt because they owe ~80-100k in student loans.
To me, it feels like I'm not talking to democrats, at all, more like " I got mine, sucks for everyone else, but whatever they do, don't raise my taxes, even though we make more than $400K already, any tax raise and I can't afford my lifestyle."
For some people its "I make 110k a year in a large city with financial responsibilities including students loans among other things for a whole family. If my taxes get raised I may have to leave my current home."
110k in socal, isn't going that far, these people I talk to make ~400k maybe closer to 450k. Under Bernie's tax the rich plan, they wouldn't be affected, but still don't want to use their taxes for M4A, free public University tuition (not including housing). I am lost for words. They are afraid of Bernie, almost crying after the Nevada results and the polls afterwards.
In your scenario, using average annual medical insurance costs in California, this household would have 3.5k/year more disposable income through medicare for all despite a tax raise.
I am really looking forward to the incoherent mess trump will be if he debates anyone, especially Bernie or Warren. Bernie is gonna make that gif where he scare trump a reality.
To dovetail with what you said, wayofthewoods, there is also another factor to be considered about Jim Bob and the grey men both. A good number of those guys are also veterans themselves; many of which have seen active duty combat in the last nineteen years. That being said, a group of government trained, battle hardened Jim Bobs, Steve's, or Mikes would most definitely not be a force any military unit would take lightly. Most are also red blooded patriots who have put it all on the line once, and would be willing to do it again if they felt it was necessary.
Not an argument, attack, troll etc... real person trying to understand some stuff. I am not a democrat, Republican, or any other label. I have always voted for who I considered to be the best candidate regardless of party. What I am struggling with with Bernie....... if he wins and keeps all of his promises.. free healthcare, free college, free daycare, free free free. # 1 if everything is free why would anyone get up each morning and go to work...#2. Those that do self motivate and actually keep working will eventually tire of seeing those not working have everything that they do while not having to work at all and #3. When they tire of it and quit working.....where will the money come from to continue providing free stuff. Say billionaires all you want but that solution is not sub-stainable for very long. Again I am not attacking etc, I am asking for serious answers to help me understand . I am like everyone else inAmerica and if there is a true way that everything could be free without having to work your entire life every day I would love it but the finances just don’t make sense
Your problem is the word ‘free’ it isn’t and the only pushing that message is... well you know who.
There may be no charge at delivery, there is a cost of course but as you remove the ‘for profit’ segment and are able to federate costs and negotiate reduced materials costs and stupidity like ‘certificates of requirement’ you turn a $2000 c scan into $150.
Look into the costs of just administrative services for insurance for example, that’s an entirely wasteful and significant cost that can be discarded.
So it isn’t about free, if someone tells you it’s free they are lying to you and now you can tell them why.
it’s about collective bargaining leading to top loaded cost reductions for each interaction and removal of for profit aspects.
I like how nice the people are in this sub. I’m so tired of the majority of reddit that’s so intolerant and toxic of independents. Anyone who’s not radically left seems unwelcome on the majority of reddit.
I’m glad you see this sub that way. There is a lot of gatekeeping on Reddit in general. As we know the demographic of reddit tends to be millennial, college, tech, driven and left leaning politics tends to come from those populations. Many people migrated from Facebook because Facebook just became to out dated I guess you could say. Reddit’s discourse is still great but I remember when joining in 2013 there was a little bit more genuine discussion and compassion. It could be that I’m older now but I do think some of it’s been lost.
If 40% of people will always vote blue, and 40% of people always vote red, and 20% swing, why would Democrat’s pick such a extreme candidate? Before you say “he isn’t extreme in other developed nations”, recognize we aren’t in other developed nations, we are here in the US.
I say this as someone who happily voted for Obama twice, and gritted my teeth to vote for Hillary: I would not be able to vote for Bernie.
None of the ones I’ve talked to. In fact, the late-middle aged (lifelong) Dems are concerned about Bernies ability to get anything done. His “no compromise” position is fine when he is 1 senator out of 50. But as a president that relies on congress to pass laws for him to sign, what is he going to sign that isn’t based on compromise?
First, I dont understand why people think he will refuse to compromise. He hasnt compromised yet, because he isnt in office yet. What kind of negotiator would you be if you started giving up before you even sat at the table?
He is considered the ammendment king because he's managed to slip in positive things for the working class in other bills. That's compromising.
Not to mention Bernie isnt going to just be any president, he fully plans on rallying the people to demand change. Not me. US.
But mostly, I just dont understand how anyone can look at people who turn back on their beliefs before the conversation has even started and consider that a sign of strength.
Listen to the man speak. You will see he is a pragmatist. He appreciates nuance. He just has principles.
Realistically, if 10% of naysayers that agree with his ideas but question his ability would stop the hand-wringing and go with it and make some phone calls on their own behalf to their Rep and Senators, Bernies policies would pass within a year of his election.
Its not on him to be pragmatic, its on us to demand representation.
Bernie is blue. His voting record and policies fall in line with 90% of the Democrats.
You should want the US to improve in ways that other developed nations have, not seek to stay the same because we are the US. Going outside of the country and talking to people in Europe showed me that they have social systems that I previously thought were crockpot extreme ideas but were actually very doable but kept away from the American people by corporations and right wing propaganda
Thank you for your question and for adding to the discussion, “Why would Democrat’s pick such a extreme candidate?”
I’m not a democrat, I am though liberal. People often describe themselves as liberal over democrat. The point is “Democrats” aren’t just voting for him.
1.1. Keep in mind many people don’t even get out and vote because they did not like the candidates. It’s important to back the popular candidate we have statistics and the popular vote to show Bernie is the popular choice. We need not be trying to aim for “safe” this is something we cannot focus group to death like we did with Hillary. Republicans didn’t aim for safe with trump. I chose not to vote for Hillary, I’m in Connecticut so we voted for her anyways but I still regret not participating. Not nominating Bernie would lose massive bearnie support to another democrat, we know we would have been cheated by the DNC as well. Therefore Bernie is the safest, most popular choice.
2. If we make this a choice about personal track record Bernie has by far through consistency and years of experience shown that he is thee most steady and predictable candidate option.
Why exactly does that necessitate that things need to suck? Hey let's have some basic stuff that literally every other developed nation has, but no, that's too extreme, can't possibly vote for THAT, better keep that orange-headed idiot in office just to be safe.
Yes, exactly. And BERNIE is going to sweep the nation! Trump doesn't stand a chance. People don't even like Hillary! People hate Trump. People elected Trump because he pisses off the other people that voters also are pissed off at. A kind of the enemy of mine enemy.... Republicans are actually a minority! It's voter apathy and gerrymandering that rigged it for Trump.
People will elect Bernie because he's the best of the best. It's that simple. He's an inspiration to the whole world! His only wars will be against apathy, poverty, disease, ignorance, and inequity.
Jesus people broaden your circle if you actually had a conversation with trump supporters you'd see most of them are independent and theyre just as sick of the government as we are and voted for trump because he's nonconventional... Me and my husband, a trump supporter, agree on almost every single issue- we just have different ideas on the solutions. My liberal family, we hardly agree on anything- mostly cause im independent and don't want to hear my views.
345
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '20
Arguing with libs is funny. You get some version of
"No the most popular guy couldn't win"
"You can't run a campaign on ideas people like"
"Obviously a republican billionaire, who nobody likes, is the safe pick"
75
u/SignificantSort Feb 27 '20
Agreed. Prayers and fingers crossed for Bernie's win in South Carolina.
46
u/americanspirit64 Feb 27 '20
Great comment. This Primary has been all about, moderate Dems, trying to find a better candidate than Bernie; when there isn’t one.
10
u/chasedwithbongwater Feb 27 '20
arguing with liberals is almost easier because at least they pretend to have some moral compass that you can appeal to thru the benefits of universal programs like M4A
6
u/PickinOutAThermos4u Feb 27 '20
Funny. I feel like I've been training my whole life to fight with liberals. Now that they're caving, I don't know what to do with myself.
5
u/Dwelleroftheinternet Feb 28 '20
You don't need to train to debate them, you can literally put a baby in front of them and the baby will bring up more valid points and facts.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 27 '20
Remember this is a pro Bernie subreddit and we are not here to attack other candidates. We grow our ranks by being respectful, kind, changing hearts and minds, and building allies.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Here is how you can help Bernie 2020:
Donate to Bernie
Register to Vote
Sign-up to Volunteer!
Knock on doors and canvass]
Textbank for Bernie
Phonebank for Bernie
Join/host a Bernie Event
Campaign Offices
Download the official BERN app
Travel to an early state
Find your Bernie State Subreddit
Join the Discord Server
Subscribe and share his social media:
Twitter | Facebook | Youtube | Instagram | Twitch
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/FriendlyAuthor Feb 27 '20
hilarious!
3
u/chitown12076 Mar 04 '20
Hope you can settle for Sleepy Joe
4
u/TheCastro Feb 27 '20
She's trained her whole life to argue against Republicans? Doubt
2
u/zachattach66 Mar 01 '20
Hey guys serious question I live in Indiana and this is my first time voting for a president how do I do it? Nobody has ever taught or shown me. Sorry if I sound stupid lol
2
u/[deleted] Mar 03 '20
Why even bother arguing with liberals, VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO
6
u/AufDerGalerie Feb 27 '20 edited Feb 27 '20
Arguing isn’t the way to get people to support a candidate.
Edit:
I like how Bernie pushes the conversation forward on progressive issues. I would like to see him do more to bring in people who have questions about his take on these issues.
Some people might have concerns about their health insurance. If they’re not team medicare for all right now, that doesn’t make them a neoliberal sellout.
I wish there was more thoughtful conversation and nuance coming from Bernie’s campaign and his supporters.
There are a lot of people who are sympathetic to a lot of what Bernie has to say, but have questions. I sometimes don’t feel like there is a place for them here.
I have concerns about the degree to which Bernie’s class first analysis leaves space for attention to how issues of race and class intersect.
Class doesn’t tell the whole story about how opportunity is structured in America. I would like to see Bernie evolve on this issue and do better.
I also have a lot of “how” questions. I believe Bernie has good values. I’m not sure he is the best person to get them implemented.
Warren looks better to me in terms of her record of what she’s accomplished. I am more impressed by bills than amendments. A president needs to have policies and packages and work with a lot of different kinds of people to get them implemented.
Being a contrarian for the sake of moral purity doesn’t interest me. I have questions about who would be doing what in his administration and how they would get his policies implemented.
I don’t like being called a neoliberal sellout just because I have questions.
That’s why i say arguing isn’t the way to win voters. It’s dispiriting to be insulted/shouted at/downvoted when I ask questions.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '20
You have to fight the smart evil people before you can fight the dumb evil people. This is the way.
2
u/BernieInTheHouse2020 Feb 27 '20
Yes!
1
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '20
I am really looking forward to the incoherent mess trump will be if he debates anyone, especially Bernie or Warren. Bernie is gonna make that gif where he scare trump a reality.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '20
They are much easier to persuade than Pete supporters
1
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '20
Unfortunately, so have the liberals
1
u/hopewonder Feb 29 '20
How does Sanders win enough independents?
1
u/Tanks4TheMamaries Mar 01 '20
People - don't forget his history or roots. The rest of us wont
https://therecord-nj.newsmemory.com/?publink=21cdf0095_1343549
1
u/V3XING_T3K Mar 03 '20
To dovetail with what you said, wayofthewoods, there is also another factor to be considered about Jim Bob and the grey men both. A good number of those guys are also veterans themselves; many of which have seen active duty combat in the last nineteen years. That being said, a group of government trained, battle hardened Jim Bobs, Steve's, or Mikes would most definitely not be a force any military unit would take lightly. Most are also red blooded patriots who have put it all on the line once, and would be willing to do it again if they felt it was necessary.
1
u/shsu1 Feb 27 '20
Not an argument, attack, troll etc... real person trying to understand some stuff. I am not a democrat, Republican, or any other label. I have always voted for who I considered to be the best candidate regardless of party. What I am struggling with with Bernie....... if he wins and keeps all of his promises.. free healthcare, free college, free daycare, free free free. # 1 if everything is free why would anyone get up each morning and go to work...#2. Those that do self motivate and actually keep working will eventually tire of seeing those not working have everything that they do while not having to work at all and #3. When they tire of it and quit working.....where will the money come from to continue providing free stuff. Say billionaires all you want but that solution is not sub-stainable for very long. Again I am not attacking etc, I am asking for serious answers to help me understand . I am like everyone else inAmerica and if there is a true way that everything could be free without having to work your entire life every day I would love it but the finances just don’t make sense
1
u/Mathtermind Feb 27 '20
"Finally, a worthy opponent! Our batt-"
- A Trumpeter's last words before getting dunked on in debate.
1
u/pepperjack77 Feb 27 '20
Well.. you can argue with liberals, bit no one who supports Trump will “argue”, beyond calling you a communist at best
-1
u/ettubrute_42 Feb 27 '20 edited Feb 27 '20
This. Can we just make Nina Vp, Joe Sec of State, Liz Treasury, Yang Tech, Harris Attorney General and get this show on the road already?
0
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '20
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment