Political Digression Thread -- Save UP! Move the politically focused stuff here

[LKN704]

2 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

My point that I know isn’t lost on people…. Vote… Blue… Democrats are the party of optimism, hope, community, investment in country.

I'm actually very concerned about the Biden/Harris ticket in 2024 and believe that the recent local elections are in no way indicative of national performance in 2024. 

The current conflict in the Middle East is just another thing to add to his unpopularity list with progressives and younger voters. I meet with foreign affairs staff members (from both sides) on the Hill on a near-weekly basis. Folks who work for Democratic members of Congress have expressed to me multiple times within the last two weeks that their constituency services colleagues have received more calls and emails within the last two weeks (in regard to the Middle East) than they ever had before - on any issue. Even more centrist Democrat voters are beginning to speak out on the issue. 

I know scores of young progressives who are genuinely unhappy with the Democratic Party's constant dismissal of their ideology - this was the group that centrist Democrats repeatedly said things akin to "Just settle for Biden in 2020 and wait for another candidate in 2024..." that sort of thing. I genuinely believe that we will see a massive amount of progressives and younger voters fail to show up and vote come next November. 

Biden cannot afford to lose progressives and younger voters. He needs them both to win. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by LKN704

[15895]

46 minutes ago, LKN704 said:

I'm actually very concerned about the Biden/Harris ticket in 2024 and believe that the recent local elections are in no way indicative of national performance in 2024. 

The current conflict in the Middle East is just another thing to add to his unpopularity list with progressives and younger voters. I meet with foreign affairs staff members (from both sides) on the Hill on a near-weekly basis. Folks who work for Democratic members of Congress have expressed to me multiple times within the last two weeks that their constituency services colleagues have received more calls and emails within the last two weeks (in regard to the Middle East) than they ever had before - on any issue. Even more centrist Democrat voters are beginning to speak out on the issue. 

I know scores of young progressives who are genuinely unhappy with the Democratic Party's constant dismissal of their ideology - this was the group that centrist Democrats repeatedly said things akin to "Just settle for Biden in 2020 and wait for another candidate in 2024..." that sort of thing. I genuinely believe that we will see a massive amount of progressives and younger voters fail to show up and vote come next November. 

Biden cannot afford to lose progressives and younger voters. He needs them both to win. 

I swing between your feeling and then optimism that since 2020, Dems have wildly outperformed in so many various races.

Typically the elections are a referendum of who is in power but I think Trump makes a unique scenario where a lot of people are still voting for/against Trump rather than for/against Biden. 

The elections are an eternity away so. We’ll see what happens as we March towards 2024 I suppose.

[15895]

The National Retail Federation made a giant retraction of its stats on retail theft. It pretty much amounted to a lie. 

https://wgntv.com/news/retail-group-retracts-claim-that-half-of-losses-were-from-theft/amp/

 

It was all a lie and retail theft isn’t any worse now in some of the major cities than it was in 2019. But the damage has been done, it won’t get widely reported (even though it has been mentioned dailyyyyy by media, etc.). And it’s Not like this wasn’t known, but broader America took a lie of a stat, a MAGA talking point to dehumanize certain areas. And I’m sure there will be no slow down in the looting rioting burning narrative. How lovely. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[kermit]

18 hours ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

 

It was all a lie and retail theft isn’t any worse now in some of the major cities than it was in 2019. But the damage has been done, it won’t get widely reported (even though it has been mentioned dailyyyyy by media, etc.). And it’s Not like this wasn’t known, but broader America took a lie of a stat, a MAGA talking point to dehumanize certain areas. And I’m sure there will be no slow down in the looting rioting burning narrative. How lovely. 

The retail theft narrative is just one of many political misdirections that the media appears to be happy to propagate. Along with exaggerating urban violent crime rates (which have bumped up, but are still close to multi-generational lows), the narrative surrounding the economy is following the same pattern. Record low unemployment, wage growth outpacing inflation, substantial infrastructure investment and widespread individual contentment with the current state of the economy has somehow been perverted into economic concerns becoming the primary political  issue this cycle.

While some of this is just normal political jujitsu, the unwillingness of the media (and the pervasiveness of social media which is completely devoid of critical thought) to think critically about the propaganda they are being fed is the primary cause of these false narratives having legs. Faux news is a remarkably effective amplifier for this sort of misinformation.

Edited December 10, 2023 by kermit

[videtur quam contuor]

Some (much?) of the issue stems from polling and surveys that are poorly designed, mis-phrase the questions, apply too little statistical science and more. For instance when one asks "What is your opinion of the US economy today?" often the answer turns to a negative since the media and casual discussions relate to eggs, gasoline and so on. When the question is "How is your personal financial condition?"  (or some such wording) the the answers are quite different. Same with crime. Respondents are primed to answer with a negative slant to a general question about such a global issue. When the question is "How often have you or a family member been a victim of crime in the past (short period of time)?" the answer is different. When random-ish people are contacted for surveys they feel they must hurriedly express an opinion even when they have none or a barely formed one. This results in answers that are contradictory unless questions are phrased in a specific way to elicit a meaningful response. 

Also social media, a scourge.

[videtur quam contuor]

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/18/americans-economy-bad-personal-finances-good

[LKN704]

I also love how retailers are now using "rising crime" and "theft" as an easy way to close unprofitable stores/get out of unfavorable lease rates or to make concessions on lease payments. Retailers aren't stupid - theft is now a cover for whatever the company wants it to be. 

My favorite story is the H&M in Downtown DC. Up until this Summer they had a large two-story location - was always busy. Closed in August and employees were told the store wasn't profitable because of widespread theft at that specific location.

Four months go by and H&M opens up a brand new location located directly across from the old location. I'm guessing stores on the lefthand side of the street are immune from theft?

[15895]

On 12/11/2023 at 3:20 PM, LKN704 said:

I also love how retailers are now using "rising crime" and "theft" as an easy way to close unprofitable stores/get out of unfavorable lease rates or to make concessions on lease payments. Retailers aren't stupid - theft is now a cover for whatever the company wants it to be. 

My favorite story is the H&M in Downtown DC. Up until this Summer they had a large two-story location - was always busy. Closed in August and employees were told the store wasn't profitable because of widespread theft at that specific location.

Four months go by and H&M opens up a brand new location located directly across from the old location. I'm guessing stores on the lefthand side of the street are immune from theft?

To add to it. That H&M that opened across the street is just a temporary one while they take over another space on the same block along G Street lol.

 

Which IMO is an upgrade in space. This will be there new space (which if I remember correctly it’s 3 floors. A basement floor and 2 floors above ground) 

 

This is the same H&M that made national headlines for weeks for “closing” xD Literally….  smh

Edited December 13, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[15895]

More lies unravel:

(credit of photo to Megan Farmer in the article below of a Starbucks in Seattle.)

Regulators (The National Labor Relations Board) seeks the reopening of 23 Starbucks are going to be as they were seemingly shut down due to Unionizing efforts. 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/nlrb-seeks-to-reopen-23-starbucks-stores-including-8-in-seattle-area/

These were mostly the Starbucks that too made national headlines for weeks due to “crime” (even though it made no sense given the location, Starbucks in higher crime areas and opening newer locations in more dangerous parts of the cities since) 

 

[davidclt]

Carolina Forward does a deep dive on the redistricting: Power at Any Price: North Carolina’s latest gerrymander – Carolina Forward

Fascinating interactive maps down to the precinct level.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:51 AM, LKN704 said:

I'm actually very concerned about the Biden/Harris ticket in 2024 and believe that the recent local elections are in no way indicative of national performance in 2024. 

The current conflict in the Middle East is just another thing to add to his unpopularity list with progressives and younger voters. I meet with foreign affairs staff members (from both sides) on the Hill on a near-weekly basis. Folks who work for Democratic members of Congress have expressed to me multiple times within the last two weeks that their constituency services colleagues have received more calls and emails within the last two weeks (in regard to the Middle East) than they ever had before - on any issue. Even more centrist Democrat voters are beginning to speak out on the issue. 

I know scores of young progressives who are genuinely unhappy with the Democratic Party's constant dismissal of their ideology - this was the group that centrist Democrats repeatedly said things akin to "Just settle for Biden in 2020 and wait for another candidate in 2024..." that sort of thing. I genuinely believe that we will see a massive amount of progressives and younger voters fail to show up and vote come next November. 

Biden cannot afford to lose progressives and younger voters. He needs them both to win. 

I'm also concerned about him losing moderate voters precisely because of the Left wing of the Party.  The majority of Americans have, historically, been right of center.  There have times, infrequent at best in times of great crisis, where the Left has prevailed (the Great Depression) but the current Democratic Party hanging their hats on the "woke" wing of the Party is a losing proposition.  I'm just making an observation, not stating a fact.  

[kermit]

Semi-honest question about national politics:

Now that the right has decided its fine to ignore the constitution and supreme court when it suits them (Eagle Pass border issue), is there anything stopping the left from saying “fudge the second amendment, we now have gun control in our states”? Is there some legal argument I am overlooking here?  Seems like federal control of borders and immigration is as constitutionally clear-cut as the law can get, I would call this a precedent for ignoring the constitution at the state level.

Same basic question applies to donald’s eligibility for elected office / the 14th amendment. If that gets ignored or reinterpreted by the SC doesn’t that open the door to “abridging” our “well-regulated militias”?

Feels like a big can of worms is now open...

Edited January 27 by kermit

[LKN704]

6 hours ago, kermit said:

Semi-honest question about national politics:

Now that the right has decided its fine to ignore the constitution and supreme court when it suits them (Eagle Pass border issue), is there anything stopping the left from saying “fudge the second amendment, we now have gun control in our states”? Is there some legal argument I am overlooking here?  Seems like federal control of borders and immigration is as constitutionally clear-cut as the law can get, I would call this a precedent for ignoring the constitution at the state level.

Same basic question applies to donald’s eligibility for elected office / the 14th amendment. If that gets ignored or reinterpreted by the SC doesn’t that open the door to “abridging” our “well-regulated militias”?

Feels like a big can of worms is now open...

My take on the Eagle Pass situation is that it is tactfully designed to help push electoral support for Trump. Abbott is very much trying to provoke Biden to federalize the National Guard, put them under Federal orders, and command them to stand down. The GOP would instantly cry dictator and hope to sway moderate and never Trump voters. It's also why Trump essentially told the GOP not to pass the bipartisan bill that was almost guaranteed to pass – it’s very much “Look! Not only is Biden a dictator, but he also can’t pass anything through!”

If California did such a thing about say gun control or mandated some sort of state-wide universal government-run healthcare system that the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional under a Republican administration, you better believe the federal government would cut off all forms of federal funding overnight and DOJ lawsuits would be flying out the door. 

This is the problem with the Democrats. They are constantly concerned with not appearing partisan or lacking decorum out of fear of putting of some hypothetical voter. 

I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s always why I am wary at this point of Democrats who try to appear “tough on crime.”

For example, the Democrats truly that there is some hypothetical voter out there who cares about crime enough for that to be a major salient issue who would EVER vote blue. There is nothing the Dems are ever going to be able to do to appear tougher on crime than Republicans, who at this point are willing to execute people by firing squad for stealing packages off porches. The Republicans own that issue and Dems really need to stop making things worse for their core constituents by trying to be ToUgH oN cRiMe because they are never going to win any votes but might lose some.

It's the same thing when moderate Dems shy away from good policy because it's considered "socialist" by Republicans – they are going to call Dems a socialist no matter what at this point. 

I'm just so disillusioned by the Democrats today and how weak and spineless they are in the face of genuine threats to democracy. Stop taking the moral highroad, start calling out the authoritarian BS from right wing extremists that are literally walking all over you, and stop giving them a platform. 

Edited January 27 by LKN704

[kermit]

4 hours ago, nicholas said:

I am not a gun owner, but the sentiment from the anti-gun crowd seems absurdly unrealistic.  "All we have to do is ban guns and that will eliminate gun violence!"  Yeah....good luck with that.

Nobody even knows for sure how many guns there are in America.  Reports in 2022 indicated that there were just under 500 million known guns in the country, and given that there seem to be very minimal (at best) purchasing and registration requirements, I am sure the real number is higher.  Ignoring Constitutional arguments and political antics from both sides, does anyone honestly think it is even remotely possible to locate and confiscate half a billion guns?  That is a significantly higher number than the population of America (around 330 million).

People are acting like a simple flip of a switch will solve all of our gun problems, but is there even an answer at this point?  There are SO many guns out there, and the culture surrounding it has been baked into everyone for literally centuries, that comparisons to other countries are somewhat irrelevant and meaningless.  I'm not saying do nothing, but I think that if the Constitution was amended to the extent that guns were banned, you'd probably see a decent number of law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, while criminals (who already do not observe laws) would simply see it as another law to be broken, which would be the worst possible outcome.

Oakland's gun buyback attempt in 2008 backfired hilariously, as has pretty much every other gun buyback program in recent US history.

• I don't really see doing nothing as a viable option, this is a massive public health issue (guns the leading cause of death for children etc). As well as a massive issue tied to the right of American's to live in a place that is free of the threat of violence. Gen-Z is pretty ticked they had to do active shooter drills their whole youth.
• Data from every other country in the world reveals that reducing the number of guns (even marginally) will make us safer. Its a straw man to suggest current gun control efforts must ban all guns -- nobody is aiming for that now.
• Steps that would 'regulate the militia" that  fall short of banning, like requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance  would have dual effect of reducing the number of guns and increasing training for lawful gun owners
• The political right has already demonstrated they don't give a crap about the constitution so why should the left care about the 2nd amendment?

Edited February 2 by kermit

[nicholas]

6 hours ago, kermit said:

• I don't really see doing nothing as a viable option, this is a massive public health issue (guns the leading cause of death for children etc). As well as a massive issue tied to the right of American's to live in a place that is free of the threat of violence. Gen-Z is pretty ticked they had to do active shooter drills their whole youth.
• Data from every other country in the world reveals that reducing the number of guns (even marginally) will make us safer. Its a straw man to suggest current gun control efforts must ban all guns -- nobody is aiming for that now.
• Steps that would 'regulate the militia" that  fall short of banning, like requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance  would have dual effect of reducing the number of guns and increasing training for lawful gun owners
• The political right has already demonstrated they don't give a crap about the constitution so why should the left care about the 2nd amendment?

I don't think you're wrong, but again it's a cultural issue and basically no other country has ever had the obsession with guns that America does.  Is it impossible to shift that mentality?  Probably not (hopefully not), but I really don't think it's as simple as you're making it seem, and will take generations to unwind.  We can barely even build a bike lane or rezone an under-utilized urban lot without swarms of F-250 drivers organizing to shoot those down because they won't be able to park their emotional support vehicles at the front of the building anymore. 

Fwiw, I think required training and liability insurance is a good start, but unfortunately you're gonna need all the luck in the world to actually bring those into existence when basically no one has ever had to do either of those previously.

[videtur quam contuor]

The omnipresence of firearms in the United States has the effect on visitors from other advanced nations similar to the danger of air pollution in Beijing and New Delhi, contagious disease in tropical locations, high risk of random street crime in poorly governed places throughout the world. It is a factor of the society and culture, supported and (or) accepted by the population, and if one visits one must accept the situation as it is. There is uniform risk for visitors in all the foregoing instances. Certain behaviors may raise or lower the risk for visitors. It requires a conscious accommodation for the new arrivals; a recalculation of standards, behavior, values.

Can anyone think of a cultural shift from acceptance  and then to rejection of dangerous activity that would be in any way equivalent to a potential change in the gun culture*. Smoking in public and tobacco use generally, is there anything else? Changes for behaviors during decades following the awareness of germ theory? Maybe I am not looking back far enough in history.

*I dislike this term 

 

Edited February 3 by videtur quam contuor

[Windsurfer]

1 hour ago, videtur quam contuor said:

The omnipresence of firearms in the United States has the effect on visitors from other advanced nations similar to the danger of air pollution in Beijing and New Delhi, contagious disease in tropical locations, high risk of random street crime in poorly governed places throughout the world. It is a factor of the society and culture, supported and (or) accepted by the population, and if one visits one must accept the situation as it is. There is uniform risk for visitors in all the foregoing instances. Certain behaviors may raise or lower the risk for visitors. It requires a conscious accommodation for the new arrivals; a recalculation of standards, behavior, values.

Can anyone think of a cultural shift from acceptance  and then to rejection of dangerous activity that would be in any way equivalent to a potential change in the gun culture*. Smoking in public and tobacco use generally, is there anything else? Changes for behaviors during decades following the awareness of germ theory? Maybe I am not looking back far enough in history.

*I dislike this term 

 

Well, Australia and guns comes to mind right off the bat.  They're a population that shares a great deal of similar ideas.  Was there a lot of pushback ?  It seems they just outlawed guns, or at least impressed more regulation, instead of simply trying 'buy-backs'.

[videtur quam contuor]

I should have been more clear. I meant a shift "in the U. S.".

[Windsurfer]

53 minutes ago, videtur quam contuor said:

I should have been more clear. I meant a shift "in the U. S.".

Okay, thanks. 

I know this might be a little obscure, but the hole in the ozone layer has finally closed up.  That was due mostly because of banning flourocarbons at the manufacturer level.   The ban started with tariffs, then ultimately banning outright.  Voila!  the ozone layer hole disappears.  There were a lot of grumblings, and still are. There are still some underground sales, and of course illegal production of R-12 refrigerant for example, but for the most part everything fell into place and aerosols are controlled.

Is this an example?

[Guest]

“I'm not saying do nothing, but I think that if the Constitution was amended to the extent that guns were banned, you'd probably see a decent number of law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, while criminals (who already do not observe laws) would simply see it as another law to be broken, which would be the worst possible outcome.”

This has always been a flawed argument. The numbers out there for defensive gun use are hazy at best but even then show they are very uncommon. About 1% of violent crimes involve defensive gun use by the victim. There aren’t even numbers on what percentage of those uses are successful rather than escalatory.
 

Criminals with guns are dealt with by cops with guns, nothing is changing there. Hardly any citizens are out there protecting themselves or others with firearms right now, it won’t become a lawless bedlam if we ban guns. Also if anyone brings up property crimes it’s 2% defensive gun use, and again that doesn’t even weigh success of use, some attempted estimates say you are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime even if you do brandish a weapon to defend yourself.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

 

And not that my stance matters but I don’t think we need a gun ban, just an assault weapon ban, closing various loopholes, and better regulation of remaining firearms. And open carry is  a mistake, see this study from Charlotte itself:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weakening-requirements-to-carry-a-concealed-firearm-increases-violent-crime/#:~:text=A 2020 study using five,gun thefts and violent crime.

Edited February 4 by MothBeast

[Windsurfer]

17 minutes ago, MothBeast said:

“I'm not saying do nothing, but I think that if the Constitution was amended to the extent that guns were banned, you'd probably see a decent number of law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, while criminals (who already do not observe laws) would simply see it as another law to be broken, which would be the worst possible outcome.”

This has always been a flawed argument. The numbers out there for defensive gun use are hazy at best but even then show they are very uncommon. About 1% of violent crimes involve defensive gun use by the victim. There aren’t even numbers on what percentage of those uses are successful rather than escalatory.
 

Criminals with guns are dealt with by cops with guns, nothing is changing there. Hardly any citizens are out there protecting themselves or others with firearms right now, it won’t become a lawless bedlam if we ban guns. Also if anyone brings up property crimes it’s 2% defensive gun use, and again that doesn’t even weigh success of use, some attempted estimates say you are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime even if you do brandish a weapon to defend yourself.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

 

And not that my stance matters but I don’t think we need a gun ban, just an assault weapon ban, closing various loopholes, and better regulation of remaining firearms. And open carry is  a mistake, see this study from Charlotte itself:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weakening-requirements-to-carry-a-concealed-firearm-increases-violent-crime/#:~:text=A 2020 study using five,gun thefts and violent crime.

Yep, all of this.  Not sure how you distinguish between assault and non assault guns though.  Most, unless shotguns for bird hunting or something, ARE for use against someone.  I prefer my shotgun anyway.  I'm not very accurate with a pistol.

[stw52]

deleted

Edited February 4 by stw52

[Guest]

On 2/4/2024 at 9:16 AM, Windsurfer said:

Yep, all of this.  Not sure how you distinguish between assault and non assault guns though.  Most, unless shotguns for bird hunting or something, ARE for use against someone.  I prefer my shotgun anyway.  I'm not very accurate with a pistol.

Language would need to be airtight but I’d say by its capacity to hit a certain amount of targets (people) within a time frame. 

And yes I get mass shootings are only a small portion of shootings in this country but I think they have a disproportionate affect on our psyche as a nation. Most shooting deaths involve people who know each other, so for the majority of people who aren’t in organized crime or acquainted with reckless people who own guns, mass shootings are the most likely chance they get killed by a gun.

I personally enjoy shooting a firearm but have never and will never keep one in my home. Everyone thinks that they are a responsible gun owner but statistics show that can’t be the case. 

[Windsurfer]

29 minutes ago, MothBeast said:

Language would need to be airtight but I’d say by its capacity to hit a certain amount of targets (people) within a time frame. 

And yes I get mass shootings are only a small portion of shootings in this country but I think they have a disproportionate affect on our psyche as a nation. Most shooting deaths involve people who know each other, so for the majority of people who aren’t in organized crime or acquainted with reckless people who own guns, mass shootings are the most likely chance they get killed by a gun.

I personally enjoy shooting a firearm but have never and will never keep one in my home. Everyone thinks that they are a responsible gun owner but statistics show that can’t be the case. 

The mass shootings at schools definitely fall in the terrorist category. They have terrorized us.

My biggest fear is road rage. You can't even honk your horn anymore without wondering if the person you're honking at is looking for an excuse.  

[kermit]

Don’t fall into the right’s rhetorical trap about types of gun. Any reduction in the number of guns is a positive. One straightforward (and very American) way to reduce gun ownership is just to make guns more expensive to own. A liability insurance requirement (including an ‘uninsured shooter’ pool like we have for cars), will slightly reduce ownership and we can let insurance companies figure out how to set rates for different types of guns (actuarily) just as they do for cars. Insurance companies will probably choose to offer discounted rates to gun owners who get safety certifications which should also have some marginal harm reduction effect.

Its a first step.

Edited February 11 by kermit