The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[ArcadiaGP]

Just think the apocalyptic predictions should be toned down to more realistic levels... but I understand that doesn't help rile up the voters as much.

I'm still waiting for Obama to knock on my door and take my guns, while America thrives under his Sharia Law (you know, because the secret muslim thing).

I think this stuff just balances over time... but always slowly drifts more leftward. We'll lose 2A eventually, much slower with Republicans in office, but it's still inevitable, and hopefully beyond my lifetime.

Society just seems to be losing conservative values, and it's not like those are going to come back in style (they're shamed, "cancelled" almost)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just think the apocalyptic predictions should be toned down to more realistic levels... but I understand that doesn't help rile up the voters as much.

I'm still waiting for Obama to knock on my door and take my guns, while America thrives under his Sharia Law (you know, because the secret muslim thing).

I think this stuff just balances over time... but always slowly drifts more leftward. We'll lose 2A eventually, much slower with Republicans in office, but it's still inevitable, and hopefully beyond my lifetime.

Society just seems to be losing conservative values, and it's not like those are going to come back in style (they're shamed, "cancelled" almost)

I don't think that we'll lose the second Amendment, per se. I think it will simply be reinterpreted. Most likely, all firearms will be registered and people in possession but have a permit of some type.

 

[nonobaddog]

Just think the apocalyptic predictions should be toned down to more realistic levels... but I understand that doesn't help rile up the voters as much.

I'm still waiting for Obama to knock on my door and take my guns, while America thrives under his Sharia Law (you know, because the secret muslim thing).

I think this stuff just balances over time... but always slowly drifts more leftward. We'll lose 2A eventually, much slower with Republicans in office, but it's still inevitable, and hopefully beyond my lifetime.

Society just seems to be losing conservative values, and it's not like those are going to come back in style (they're shamed, "cancelled" almost)

I guess I agree. Every great society so far has had a finite lifetime and then shot itself in the ass by its own actions. The libtards in this country are not very patient and they want to hurry that along.

 

[printcraft]

I don't think that we'll lose the second Amendment, per se. I think it will simply be reinterpreted. Most likely, all firearms will be registered and people in possession but have a permit of some type.

Practically impossible to get a carry gun in New York unless you are politically connected to the right people.

We really need to implement this on a national level for the children.

In 2011, only about 4,000 people had permits to carry concealed handguns in New York City, according to public records reviewed by The New York Times. Most of the people who legally pack heat are retired cops, active security guards and business owners who handle significant amounts of cash, along with a few wealthy celebrities.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Practically impossible to get a carry gun in New York unless you are politically connected to the right people.

We really need to implement this on a national level for the children.

Doesn't help when a New York newspaper doxxes the people with those permits.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

 

[nonobaddog]

Practically impossible to get a carry gun in New York unless you are politically connected to the right people.

We really need to implement this on a national level for the children.

I wonder why the second amendment doesn't apply there?

 

[BugI02]

Your stated concern is fearmongering, or a reflection of it.

Gun grabbing here has happened, and either failed or been walked-back.

I suspect your sky-is-falling proclamations are rooted in an ignorance of the history of gun control in the US. The AWB was a thing right up until the time it wasn't. And that's just one example.

I am not arguing for complacency. Rather, pointing out that even on the sole basis of gun rights, this is not the "most critical election ever."

Since the past cannot be changed and the future is currently out of reach, I would argue that the next election is always the most critical election ever - it's the only thing that can change the present. Just like in warfare, the most crucial battle is the one you're in

 

[Mikey1911]

I wonder why the second amendment doesn't apply there?

Democrats, perhaps?

 

[BugI02]

The moving goalposts are created by by combining literalism and history which is not what the thread is about. This thread is called "current year" general political discussion, maybe a history analysis thread would be in order. Each election the left has moved farther and farther left, even when republicans have been elected, Trump is a big roadblock to the left and this is certainly "the most critical election ever" in contemporary terms, likely not historical terms.

Turning back the tide of "most critical election" after losing does not necessarily mean the danger was overstated. Do any of you really believe we would be in the exact same place today if Gore had won, followed by HRC or Obama? That Gore lost may just have stopped what the "most critical election" in history was about, no one will ever know that for sure, we do not know alternative history. Just as defeating the agenda of the source of the "most critical election" in history after losing that election is no guarantee those type of defeats can be repeated.

Indeed. He also used the example of there being an AWB until there wasn't. Does anyone really think we would have gotten rid of the AWB if a sunset hadn't been built into the bill but instead enough votes had to be aquired for a repeal?

 

[Leadeye]

I vote for the candidate that's the least restrictive on 2A because that's my key issue. Leadership that doesn't allow you to be armed sees you as a subject, not a citizen. I also pay organizations that hire lobbyists to promote 2A issues. That's a dirty business but the reality is that's how things get done with leadership. Unless I make a lot more money in the remaining years of my life that's what I will be content to do.

 

[T.Lex]

Unless I make a lot more money in the remaining years of my life that's what I will be content to do.

I'm curious - what would you do with more money? I mean, more money might mean more of the same - giving dollars to organizations that support the same things you support.

Would you use that money to run for office - like a Trump or Bloomberg?

 

[nonobaddog]

If I had a LOT of money I would run for king of the world and hire the hildebeest to suicide the opposition and then hire people to run the world so I could go back to shooting and fishing.

 

[Leadeye]

I'm curious - what would you do with more money? I mean, more money might mean more of the same - giving dollars to organizations that support the same things you support.

Would you use that money to run for office - like a Trump or Bloomberg?

More of the same or run either one. A lot would depend on the time I've got left as well, mid 60s. I wonder sometimes about how addictive that dc power must be when I see leadership giving up the little time they have left just to sit in a big chair.

 

[actaeon277]

Since the past cannot be changed and the future is currently out of reach, I would argue that the next election is always the most critical election ever - it's the only thing that can change the present. Just like in warfare, the most crucial battle is the one you're in

That has the merit of being correct.
But, when you've been though 7 or 8 elections, and EVERY ONE has someone screaching doom and gloom, it does have the "boy who cried wolf" effect.

 

[printcraft]

I wonder why the second amendment doesn't apply there?

Because it's been "reinterpreted" there.

They aren't taking away your rights, they are just reinterpreting them. It's ok.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, at this point I'm not worried about Trump leaving at the legally-appointed time (whenever that may be). I remember rumors about Bush the Elder declaring some sort of emergency and staying in the office.

Seems like that's something that gets floated every cycle.

I still hope Trump resigns, though.

Fringe people say fringe things based on fringe perceptions of reality.

 

[jamil]

For whatever reason his ego deigns reasonable.


Because it never is.

I wouldn't say it's unimportant, but like climbing a hill whose peak you haven't reached, each step isn't the highest point ever. We're on an upswing of ****ed up crazy ideas, and it's pretty important to stop the crazy as soon as possible. But it's not more important than the next election if we're still on an upswing of crazy.

 

[jamil]

Were you ready in 2008 when the same doomsaying was going around?

And that's the thing. Realistically predicting reality. That election was important as it turned out. Even with McMilquetoast, we probably wouldn't have had the Obamacare we had. Wouldn't have had a high priority placed on getting the most people on public assistance as possible. The country probably would have been better off without one of the most progressive presidents we had since Carter.

On the other hand... Arguably, the culture war would have happened anyway if McCain or Obomney would have beaten Obama, and maybe every bit as bad as now. And that's really the most dangerous thing that faces America right now, IMHO. It feeds the desire for socialism, cancel culture, postmodernism, and all of that.

People do find reasons before the fact why every election is the most important. But we can only find a few elections in history when we can say after the fact that it was most important of the time. And there were some of those in our history. Maybe this is for our time. We won't know until were far enough on the other side of it. But for now, I'd really like the person in the big chair to really understand the culture war and at least not do anything to make it worse. Probably Tulsi Gabbard was the most aware. And not that Trump can do anything about it, but I just sort of feel like it would only get much worse if any of the other Democrats were elected.

 

[jamil]

Really?

If politics of who is elected does not matter, why are you posting in political threads with folks who think it does? To troll them?

If it doesn't matter why should you care if it is Trump or anyone else? Why bother to vote if it doesn't matter?

Are you saying that the outcome is the same with Trump as President as if HRC had been elected? And the outcome is the same if Bernie or Trump elected? I think not.

C'mon man. That's obviously not what he's saying. It's a matter of where in the spectrum of importance does it fall? If you're a devout Trumper and think the world will go to **** without him, you'll think it's vital. We're all just extrapolating what we think the future will be given our worldview and the inputs we have. I think it's reasonable to believe that the nation won't fold if a given candidate doesn't win. But every strong supporter of a given candidate thinks that. Who's right? We'll not know until the other side of reality.

 

[jamil]

Since the past cannot be changed and the future is currently out of reach, I would argue that the next election is always the most critical election ever - it's the only thing that can change the present. Just like in warfare, the most crucial battle is the one you're in

I think it depends more on the slope we're on. If we're on a bat**** crazy progressive trendline, every election is at least a little more important than the last. But maybe not the most critical election ever. There's some pretty stiff competition historically. FDR was perhaps the worst mistake America ever made.