American Politics

[SharkBait]

Fantastic news. Definitely will keep the Senate focused on what matters most. Dont know why the democrats really want to dwell on this report.

 

[M3J]

Agreed. Coming from someone who studied law, Mueller did what he could within his mandate and powers. And that should be commended. Personally, I'd say Mueller came out of this looking unscathed, with nary a speck of dirt on him. Basically, he played the long game here. He'd investigated what needed to be investigated, and left more than enough trails of breadcrumbs for everyone to follow up on whatever he found were not within his mandate. I know both sides wanted some kind of dramatic bombshell out of this, but given how low-key the guy is, that's probably not his style.

Barr's decision to not pursue the investigation any further is curious, but it's still well within the realm of rationality, I guess. Given what we know so far, there may or may not be enough substantial evidence to pursue the case. Even if there were, it would take someone to make a really convincing legal argument to go further, but run the risk of losing the case judging by what we have.

Did he really? I've seen some to the left of center complain about how Mueller played a part in Trump's victory when he revealed stuff about Clinton.

So for me, perhaps the question isn't what is considered safe enough for civilians to own legally, but what does a civilian not need access to legally.

What kind of guns can they have access to, other than handguns and hunting rifles?

Fantastic news. Definitely will keep the Senate focused on what matters most. Dont know why the democrats really want to dwell on this report.

Doesn't the report exonerate Trump, supposedly? So why block it? If it was the other way around, Republicans would be fighting tooth and nail.

 

[SharkBait]

What kind of guns can they have access to, other than handguns and hunting rifles?

anything thats not automatic, or made to be automatic via the thing whose ban takes effect soon or such, rocket launchers and bazookas. Basically anything for fun and recreation, sports, is accessible.

 

[M3J]

So basically, we should just keep handguns and hunting rifles and ban assault rifles and other guns on that power level or firing rate and punish anyone who tries to modify guns.

but I was asking Gary what guns he thinks should be accessible

 

[xi0]

I don't even know how far gone you have to be to pride yourself on your scumbagery...

Because Trump supporters and the GOP at large's most important card to play consists of Whataboutism and "Buttery Males". Very little else that this president does is defensible by normal ethical standards. It's not important to pride yourself on doing things right, you just need to attempt to make the opposition look worse. This might not be nothing new in politics, but it's turned up to 11 with this administration. It's literally all they have, aside from blaming the media.

Did he really? I've seen some to the left of center complain about how Mueller played a part in Trump's victory when he revealed stuff about Clinton.

Comey did, not Mueller. Mueller was FBI director during Bush and Obama's first term.

What kind of guns can they have access to, other than handguns and hunting rifles?

Not sure if that's for me to decide. Probably not anything fully automatic. And trying to parse this and that sort of becomes futile when a crime doesn't involve legally owned weapons either. But I do not think the answer is doing nothing legally and I don't think the answer is banning all firearms either.

 

[M3J]

Asking for opinion though, and I don't think anyone suggested banning all firearms.

 

[xi0]

Asking for opinion though, and I don't think anyone suggested banning all firearms.

I gave one, but even that isn't the most informed thing. I'm no expert.

Uh, there's plenty of people suggesting banning all firearms lol

 

[M3J]

Really? that's odd, but I get where they're coming from.

 

[xi0]

Really? that's odd, but I get where they're coming from.

It's a lot of people who don't understand that the notion of banning firearms in one country isn't the same as doing it here.

 

[M3J]

Yeah but their reason is because they believe banning guns will make USA safer even though they're kinda wrong.

 

[xi0]

Yeah but their reason is because they believe banning guns will make USA safer even though they're kinda wrong.

The reasons have nothing to do with it though. It's a reductive approach and shows they're not informed on constitutional law.

 

[M3J]

I think they know constitutional law well enough, but they're desperate to stop gun homicide. In any case though, still a wrong step to take, but I could be biased as I'm both pro-gun and pro-stricter gun law control.

 

[xi0]

I think they know constitutional law well enough, but they're desperate to stop gun homicide. In any case though, still a wrong step to take, but I could be biased as I'm both pro-gun and pro-stricter gun law control.

I mean, they don't really. Especially if they bring up other countries banning guns as examples.

 

[SharkBait]

Nasty. There goes his chances.

 

[shionoro]

Nasty. There goes his chances.

It is not necessarily going to blow up. It is just a claim of one single person. It would be a different thing if, in a month, several women come forward strenghtening the claims.
Yet, i do hope Biden does not run. I don't think he would be a bad president, but i think the left kinda needs someone who is fresh (not necessarily young, sanders is fresh too).

 

[kkck]

It is not necessarily going to blow up. It is just a claim of one single person. It would be a different thing if, in a month, several women come forward strenghtening the claims.
Yet, i do hope Biden does not run. I don't think he would be a bad president, but i think the left kinda needs someone who is fresh (not necessarily young, sanders is fresh too).

I don't know if that case specifically is going to blow up but in general I'd say biden has too much baggage to not be toxic for a democratic candidate (literally none of the stuff that would make him toxic for a democratic candidate would matter if he was running as a republican though). Just google "creepy biden" and you can see just how much baggage he has in a few pictures.

 

[shionoro]

I don't know if that case specifically is going to blow up but in general I'd say biden has too much baggage to not be toxic for a democratic candidate (literally none of the stuff that would make him toxic for a democratic candidate would matter if he was running as a republican though). Just google "creepy biden" and you can see just how much baggage he has in a few pictures.

I agree. Pretty much the same with clinton. Democrats, by now, need someone who does not even have a trace of baggage (like obama back then).
Which is kinda sad, because reps do not need that but exploit it shamelessly,l but that's just how it is.

Someone like Sanders or Harris would be far more likely to not only beat trump but also get election results that enable them to actually do policy.
Also, i REALLY would want to have a woman beat trump. I know it is petty, but i would like for it to happen.

 

[kkck]

I agree. Pretty much the same with clinton. Democrats, by now, need someone who does not even have a trace of baggage (like obama back then).
Which is kinda sad, because reps do not need that but exploit it shamelessly,l but that's just how it is.

Someone like Sanders or Harris would be far more likely to not only beat trump but also get election results that enable them to actually do policy.
Also, i REALLY would want to have a woman beat trump. I know it is petty, but i would like for it to happen.

My issue with a bunch of candidates on the democratic side is that they seem to pretty much trip themselves at every turn. Policy wise my favorite would be warren for instance but she has the whole native american thing as baggage. Sanders hurts himself and his policy at every turn by calling himself a socialist. Why not just call himself a social democrat and avoid that label? It fits his policy positions better and makes people think of norway rather than venezuela. Unless... he isn't a social democrat and he actually has national socialist in which case I'd honestly object to this. It's annoying that these terms get so confusing across borders =_=.

At the moment I'd say kamala harris and beto seem like the safer options in general tbh. At least I am not familiar with either having much baggage. Beto seems too cozy with the democrat establishment though. And as we know, the democratic establishment is the party that thought appealing to right wingers that dislike trump rather than their own base was a good idea.

 

[shionoro]

My issue with a bunch of candidates on the democratic side is that they seem to pretty much trip themselves at every turn. Policy wise my favorite would be warren for instance but she has the whole native american thing as baggage. Sanders hurts himself and his policy at every turn by calling himself a socialist. Why not just call himself a social democrat and avoid that label? It fits his policy positions better and makes people think of norway rather than venezuela. Unless... he isn't a social democrat and he actually has national socialist in which case I'd honestly object to this. It's annoying that these terms get so confusing across borders =_=.

At the moment I'd say kamala harris and beto seem like the safer options in general tbh. At least I am not familiar with either having much baggage. Beto seems too cozy with the democrat establishment though. And as we know, the democratic establishment is the party that thought appealing to right wingers that dislike trump rather than their own base was a good idea.

I think Beto is not president material. He reminds me of trudaeu but with less impulse control.
I like Kamala Harris a lot tbh, i would have no issue with her becoming president.

I do not think it is a problem when sanders calls himself socialist. That might even give him some edge was protest voters who want change. The dems are voting him anyway (moderates because they are always dem, leftists because they love him) and normal reps are NOt voting him anyway.

 

[kkck]

I think Beto is not president material. He reminds me of trudaeu but with less impulse control.
I like Kamala Harris a lot tbh, i would have no issue with her becoming president.

I do not think it is a problem when sanders calls himself socialist. That might even give him some edge was protest voters who want change. The dems are voting him anyway (moderates because they are always dem, leftists because they love him) and normal reps are NOt voting him anyway.

So far I am a bit meh on her, but I do need to read more about her in general. I disliked that she offered tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans already cut taxes for the rich and if harris cuts taxes for the middle class then.... who the hell is even going to be paying taxes? It's not possible to run a government that only cuts taxes, at some point that is just unsustainable in the long run. The US does need a tax overhaul(primarily in making it easy to calculate and pay your taxes) but arbitrarily cutting taxes left and right for political gain is not healthy. Eventually the US needs to pay for stuff it desperately needs like infrastructure and education. Heck, the reason trump dropped infraestructure as a major talking point is that he cut taxes and he'd never get support to pay for any of the things he wanted. IIRC european countries spend 5% of their gdp on infraestructure meanwhile the US was at around 2.1%~ and going lower.

Certainly the socialist label appeals to some wings in the democratic party. But not all of them... At a minimum mainstream democrats will be turned off by it. One way or the other the US is ultimately a very right wing country across the board.