I mean, gun control actually is about saying in no uncertain terms "no more guns" and it is actually about getting rid of the second amendment. Just look at what other countries have done here. England makes it pretty hard to get guns, if you can get one at all. And even the police does not have guns. Take japan. You can technically own a gun for hunting but even then you have to regularly prove your sanity. Take australia, the government literally went for everyones guns. Now, obviously this is not possible at the US at the moment (I still remember a class I took when in my freshman year and I was the only one that never raised his hand when the teacher asked who had fired a gun) but I don't think it is accurate to say this will never happen. In the past I have given sources that actually make the point that as it is most folk at the US actually want more gun control. It's only the republican party that does actively fights this even though republicans actually want at least background checks. And that is a start at least. It's a shame congress has blocked any gun violence research, if reliable data existed on US specific problems it would be easier to have a more informed opinion and not just just at what other countries do....
I mean gun control in the context of our country. Repealing a constitutional amendment isn't one of those run-of-the-mill procedural things that congress does on a regular basis.
I personally think that the concept of a "social contract" allows for the government to have more of a say in regards to gun ownership, but it also would never permit the banning of all firearms. That's more of a pipedream than anything else. Such a thing would require some sort of revolution or something.
But despite my position on this, I think there is some stuff from the "right" that is at least somewhat compelling in regards to the issue. Recently, there's the bit about the Democratically-controlled senate shooting down gun legislation recently for the sake of election campaigns because too many Republicans were in favor of them (I need more information about this specifically though). There's also legislation like
Project Exile, that even the NRA themselves endorsed, but was admonished or ignored by the left due to it "disproportionately" effecting minority groups. But the law did appear to work in some cities here where they used it...so I'm not sure what to make of it.
Well, I am not as familiar with elizabeth warren as with clinton but maybe she simply is funnier than clinton? I don't really have enough information on her to make an informed opinion. But regardless of that I do think it is easy to make a case that clinton is held at a different standard than everyone else and that republicans have succesfully turned her into a cartoon villain through their smear campaigns.
It's not really about funny or not. I'm merely suggesting that I think her gender isn't as much of a factor in her likability levels as much as people like to say. Warren has consistently been a liberal female politician focused on consumer-advocate causes. It's just conjecture on my part, but I don't think Warren would be having the same issues Clinton has with certain demographics. Supporting her and just shouting sexism seems like virtue-signalling to me, existing merely to downplay the baggage she has.
What exactly do you mean when you say it isn't a binary choice? I mean, I get that
technically there are 5 choices which are donald trump, hillary clinton, gary johnson (personally I would vote trump before libertarian though, what a fucking stupid party), jill stein and your favorite spot at your couch. But regardless of how annoying or how bad the candidate are it a fact that the next president is going to be either trump or hillary and that Jill and Gary have no more and no less than 0% chance of winning. In that regard, at least to me this seems pretty binary.
Ah, that explains it.
Privilege is the problem as usual.
It's the principle of it really. Of course a third part candidate has no chance, but that's because the mainstream prefers it this way. It's more digestible and profitable. So unless either party can actually produce someone I would actually advocate for, I'm not going to be inclined to say that they must be voted for. I'll admittedly say that I would rather have Clinton elected than Trump, but that's Trump's fault for the most part.
Well if privilege was the main factor here, I'd be going against my own self interest and voting for Trump
Just take a look at the questions he asked and the questions he didn't. He didn't touch any of the hard topics for Hillary(emails, benghazi etc.), not even some of her comments like the "deplorables basket". But he has no problems asking about Trump calling a woman fat? What are the standards here?
"hardly biased" LUL, you can't be serious.
But she did talk about the emails...? Regardless of bias or not, I don't think the debate went the way it seemed to go (for me), due to moderator bias. Lester Holt wasn't even forceful enough to wrangle them into staying on topic, but it seems with every election cycle people have given less of a fuck about that. It's about ratings, not a meaningful conversation. Trump blowing his stack is what people want to see. If people were actually interested in meaningful discussion, Trump and Clinton would have never been nominated in the first place and the format would be completely different. But neither the RNC or the DNC would agree to latter.
I think her reasoning was fine and not in the least homophobic, nor siding with those who are.
The reasoning was that a marriage is a term which comes from religion, thus tradition, and that this term can be protected, while a homosexual has the same rights in front of the law for a union. Thus there is a legal concept called union which both homosexuals and heterosexuals can have, and marriage is something informal which goes into the realm of church or religion.
Naturally, you can have another opinion about that, and she did change her stance.
But i have a hard time processing that someone who fought her whole life for homosexual rights can be called a homophobe for a harmless stance like that.
She even didnt advocate against homosexual marriage, she simply said it should be decided by the different states whether it is called marriage or whether it is just a legal equivalent union.
I never said calling her homophobic was 100% justified, I said she took the same position of those who were. And I would imagine she did for obvious political reasons. Otherwise, why change her mind about it? Unless we're supposed to think she was merely being a puppet for the majority position in her state on that single issue? Of course, she blames her voting for the Defense of Marriage act on some sort of "strategic" move to derail a constitutional amendment that never ended up happening...so...
Saying that it should be left up to the states is a typical cop-out. Since 1992, when have the Clintons been states-rights activists? At most, she said she wouldn't have tried to prevent it if New York decided to pass it. Again, I'm not saying she is a homophobe, I'm saying she lacked integrity on this issue. She was only concerned with maintaining the "popular" position here until it appeared to be politically inconvenient. It happens all of the time with politicians.
I'm sort of confused with you mentioning her fighting her
entire life for homosexual rights. If that's the case, then why vote for the Defense of Marriage Act? If it wasn't for strict political reasons?
Civil Unions aren't and never were "equal". Marriage is a religious sacrament, but it is also a legally binding contract that doesn't need religion of any sort to exist.
