US Politics: holding our breath waiting to see what happens next

[Altherion]

22 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Winning the two races in Georgia would make this a 50-50 split, and it would allow the passage of DC statehood which would almost certainly give the the Democrats a 52-50 advantage.

I wouldn't bet money on it. Leaving aside the constitutionality of the issue, Manchin has already said that he will not vote to get rid of the filibuster which means that any such bill requires 60 votes and the Democrats do not have them.

[Relic]

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

AR = ArmaLite Rifle

ArmaLite being the original manufacturer (they later sold the rights to Colt). The AR-15 became the M16 when the US military took it up.

as i said, im a bad american. could have sworn it meant automatic rife, but i guess that's dumb cuz ARs can be semi auto in video games

[SFDanny]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

I wouldn't bet money on it. Leaving aside the constitutionality of the issue, Manchin has already said that he will not vote to get rid of the filibuster which means that any such bill requires 60 votes and the Democrats do not have them.

Not betting on anything. Just pointing out how it could happen. Manchin would have to support the rules changes. I do not underestimate the pressure to do so if his is the only vote holding it back its passage. Again, first things first. Georgia, Georgia, Georgia.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I wouldn't bet money on it. Leaving aside the constitutionality of the issue, Manchin has already said that he will not vote to get rid of the filibuster which means that any such bill requires 60 votes and the Democrats do not have them.

Gridlock, yay!

[The Anti-Targ]

It's a little bit sad that someone has to turn to their show chickens as a source of comfort and wisdom. But if it helps you cope I suppose that's good.

Quote

When Joan Martin heard that Joe Biden had been declared the winner of the presidential election, the retired nurse and avowed supporter of President Donald Trump was deeply unsettled. To steel herself, she thought about how her household weathered Hurricane Katrina when it battered her hometown of Picayune, Mississippi, in 2005.

As the storm blew toward the town, Martin rushed out into her yard to carry her 85 show chickens to safety. Outside, howling winds lashed her family's barn, lifting the edges of the roof off its moorings.

"The next day they [the chickens] were very concerned about the changes in the yard — we had trees down," said Martin, 79. "They were very eyes-wide. But within two days, they said, 'Oh, yeah, we can deal with this,' and they did. So I have to follow their lead."

I would quite like it if this anecdote turns out to be fake news, but I think it may be a true story.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Not betting on anything. Just pointing out how it could happen. Manchin would have to support the rules changes. I do not underestimate the pressure to do so if his is the only vote holding it back its passage. Again, first things first. Georgia, Georgia, Georgia.

I have a hard time seeing, from the vote counts in the first round, how anyone can be realistically hopeful of Democrats picking up both seats. It's very optimistic to see Democrats picking up one.

[argonak]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

And this is why it’s next to impossible to have a rational conversation with hardcore Second Amendment supporters. It just devolves into a semantics battle.

Well that's a bit unfair.  Using proper terminology to discuss a complex topic adds value.  I personally facepalm whenever I see someone in favor of additional restrictions on fire arms (something I am in favor of) fail on the most basic levels of semantics.  It makes the whole side look bad.

It'd be like if I was trying to write legislation about vehicle emissions without any idea about a combustion engine's operation other than "stinky = bad."

[Larry of the Lawn]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

And this is why it’s next to impossible to have a rational conversation with hardcore Second Amendment supporters. It just devolves into a semantics battle.

Eh. This might be a pedantic example but most 2a people I know assume no one arguing for gun control is arguing in good faith and has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.  And when aesthetic stuff like thumbhole stocks and sling mounts makes a certain firearm banned it's difficult not to agree.  

Even when people talk about 'assault rifles' they usually mean, 99% of the time, scary looking semiautomatic rifle. I'd bet that most pro gun-control people couldn't even tell you what semiautomatic means without looking it up.

On the other hand, you have the whole NRA crowd refusing to even consider any reforms, reflexively screaming their freedoms are being assaulted by even broadly popular measures like universal background checks.

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Eh. This might be a pedantic example but most 2a people I know assume no one arguing for gun control is arguing in good faith and has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.  And when aesthetic stuff like thumbhole stocks and sling mounts makes a certain firearm banned it's difficult not to agree.  

Even when people talk about 'assault rifles' they usually mean, 99% of the time, scary looking semiautomatic rifle. I'd bet that most pro gun-control people couldn't even tell you what semiautomatic means without looking it up.

On the other hand, you have the whole NRA crowd refusing to even consider any reforms, reflexively screaming their freedoms are being assaulted by even broadly popular measures like universal background checks.

 

Honestly, this is why bans based on classification are stupid. Restrictions as well. There's too many semantic bullshit things that don't help. And ultimately they don't matter all that much. Magazine size kind of helps a bit (but only a bit), but really more background checks, longer wait times, better removal of weapons from people who have domestic abuse charges and have self-harm or other harm threats - all of these are better than doing it based on the kind of firearm.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Killjoybear said:

Honestly, this is why bans based on classification are stupid. Restrictions as well. There's too many semantic bullshit things that don't help. And ultimately they don't matter all that much. Magazine size kind of helps a bit (but only a bit), but really more background checks, longer wait times, better removal of weapons from people who have domestic abuse charges and have self-harm or other harm threats - all of these are better than doing it based on the kind of firearm.

100%. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, argonak said:

Well that's a bit unfair.  Using proper terminology to discuss a complex topic adds value.  I personally facepalm whenever I see someone in favor of additional restrictions on fire arms (something I am in favor of) fail on the most basic levels of semantics.  It makes the whole side look bad.

It'd be like if I was trying to write legislation about vehicle emissions without any idea about a combustion engine's operation other than "stinky = bad."

But that's just it, a lot of people think "AR" means "assault rifle," they say that in conversation and the Second Amendment types pounce on it and continue to use that as a justification to say that the reformer doesn't know what they're talking about no matter how valid their other points are. I've seen it happen all the time. One mistake, even a minor one, can invalidate all of their talking points. Hence the semantics games. 

[SFDanny]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I have a hard time seeing, from the vote counts in the first round, how anyone can be realistically hopeful of Democrats picking up both seats. It's very optimistic to see Democrats picking up one.

It will all depend on voter turnout. Historically, run offs in Georgia favor conservatives. That is exactly why they exist. Wyche Fowler being just such an example. However, we have just witnessed the power of the turnout machine Stacy Abrams and others have put together. What the Republicans have to show is they can turnout such a vote without Trump on the ticket, and in the wake of Trump's loss. I'm very hopeful. If you want change from Trump and McConnell, then donate some money to the two campaigns.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Someone might dismiss this as semantics too but I hate that the argument over the 2nd Amendment has been totally ceded to pro-gun people to the point that liberals call pro-gun people pro-2nd Amendment people. The 2nd Amendment was not construed to protect an individual right to bear arms until very recently when the conservative Supreme Court (wrongly) decided it did, over the objection of 4 liberals. It's very important that a future court overturns this, as difficult a task as that is, or we'll never get meaningful gun control.  So it's actually kind of important that we not cede the argument in the very terms of the debate!

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But that's just it, a lot of people think "AR" means "assault rifle," they say that in conversation and the Second Amendment types pounce on it and continue to use that as a justification to say that the reformer doesn't know what they're talking about no matter how valid their other points are. I've seen it happen all the time. One mistake, even a minor one, can invalidate all of their talking points. Hence the semantics games. 

That goes for any issue.  If I said premiums instead of deductibles in an M4a argument or said gerrymandering instead of voter suppression arguing about why someone with a statewide position was elected there'd be plenty of semantics and pedantry.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But that's just it, a lot of people think "AR" means "assault rifle," they say that in conversation and the Second Amendment types pounce on it and continue to use that as a justification to say that the reformer doesn't know what they're talking about no matter how valid their other points are. I've seen it happen all the time. One mistake, even a minor one, can invalidate all of their talking points. Hence the semantics games. 

If you are writing an opinion piece or an article in a newspaper, or even a blog that you want to be taken seriously as some kind of journalism, or if you are writing a policy paper to propose new regulation, the you better get the fine details right. If you are blathering on an internet forum of no consequence, who cares if you use a wrong word here or there, so long as the intent of what you are saying is clear? It's not like any pro-control person here is going to convince any gun rights advocate of anything, whether they use the right words or not.

[Kalbear]

Seriously, Trump's approval is so fucking bonkers. 45% right now? Fuck him, and those people, so very much:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[Week]

24 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Eh. This might be a pedantic example but most 2a people I know assume no one arguing for gun control is arguing in good faith and has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.  And when aesthetic stuff like thumbhole stocks and sling mounts makes a certain firearm banned it's difficult not to agree.  

Even when people talk about 'assault rifles' they usually mean, 99% of the time, scary looking semiautomatic rifle. I'd bet that most pro gun-control people couldn't even tell you what semiautomatic means without looking it up.

I'm an originalist -- front loaded muskets or GTFO.

2 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

Seriously, Trump's approval is so fucking bonkers. 45% right now? Fuck him, and those people, so very much:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

Are we trusting polling again?

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

Are we trusting polling again?

As I said before, I trust relative polling. I don't trust absolute numbers, but I do trust that the same polling has increased his approval for the last two months, and that alone is insane. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That goes for any issue.  If I said premiums instead of deductibles in an M4a argument or said gerrymandering instead of voter suppression arguing about why someone with a statewide position was elected there'd be plenty of semantics and pedantry.

Sure, but it's typically not to the same degree. This tends to be absolutist, and your prior response kind of indicates that (I do agree with what you wrote, generally). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you are writing an opinion piece or an article in a newspaper, or even a blog that you want to be taken seriously as some kind of journalism, or if you are writing a policy paper to propose new regulation, the you better get the fine details right. If you are blathering on an internet forum of no consequence, who cares if you use a wrong word here or there, so long as the intent of what you are saying is clear? It's not like any pro-control person here is going to convince any gun rights advocate of anything, whether they use the right words or not.

I'm talking about taking it so far into the weeds that the original conversation loses all meaning. For example, I had a conversation with a person on this subject, and because I didn't know what kind of ammo an obscure firearm required, therefore my opinions on gun control were completely invalid. I run into things like this all the time, where the other person won't even consider the large topic and just wants to nitpick things that are generally meaningless and nongermane.