***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Nike Jordan]

At least Rubio had the balls to show up
He's not doing too bad tbh in the face of getting publicly roasted.

He's not up for reelection until 2022. If he had to run this year, Little Marco wouldn't have shown his face at this town hall.

 

[elpablo21]

"Reconsider"

 

[aepps20]

Kids just telling it like it is. Future President Elects in that room tonight.

 

[whywesteppin]

He's not up for reelection until 2022. If he had to run this year, Little Marco wouldn't have shown his face at this town hall.

yup let's never forget who rubio is.

he'll say what he thinks plays well but i hope there's nobody holding their breath waiting for him to act.

 

[Based Jesus]

i feel like the critism lobbed at the NRA is most often narrowly focused on the money.

Sure if people had nuanced position you just stated I could get with it, but let's be real, most people I see are screaming about politician x being bought by the NRA.

The money is a tangible indicator of NRA influence which is why it's easy to point to and focus on.

 

[biggie62]

At the end of the day, lobbying should be illegal in the degree we allow in the US. I don’t care what side of the debate of whatever topic. There are too many millions of dollars allowed relative to every other developed country.

 

[ninjahood]

guns and abortion deliver enough single issue voters to be significant come election time

someone keepin it funky.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The money is a tangible indicator of NRA influence which is why it's easy to point to and focus on.

eh. it's not really tho.

I believe Rubio sincerely believes all this **** he's saying, and even if he didn't it's the like 60% of his electorate he'd have to answer to in primary if he didn't believe this ****... regardless of the money he got from the NRA.

 

[RustyShackleford]

i feel like the critism lobbed at the NRA is most often narrowly focused on the money.

Sure if people had nuanced position you just stated I could get with it, but let's be real, most people I see are screaming about politician x being bought by the NRA.

Lot of people do have nuanced positions on the NRA.

But we are fresh off a tragedy so I think it is reasonable for people to be outraged and the most egregious and apparent forms of NRA influence

In times of crisis, people generally don't yell about the nuanced points; that goes for any issues, especially in America.

-And must point out, you said people overestimate the role of the NRA. If my points are true, then they are not overestimating them. They are just short sighted in the criticism, but they are still kinda correct in saying that the NRA ****s things up.

 

[RustyShackleford]

eh. it's not really tho.

I believe Rubio sincerely believes all this **** he's saying, and even if he didn't it's the like 60% of his electorate he'd have to answer to in primary if he didn't believe this ****... regardless of the money he got from the NRA.

Nah famb. Dudes like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are true believers in the nonsense they spew.

Marco is just an articulate dude, with poor spending habits, trying to secure the bag.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Lot of people do have nuanced positions on the NRA.

But we are fresh off a tragedy so I think it is reasonable for people to be outraged and the most egregious and apparent forms of NRA influence

In times of crisis, people generally don't yell about the nuanced points; that goes for any issues, especially in America.

-And must point out, you said people overestimate the role of the NRA. If my points are true, then they are not overestimating them. They are just short sighted in the criticism, but they are still kinda correct in saying that the NRA ****s things up.

Maybe...but in general I just don't get the feeling the american left has nuanced or deeply understood/researched positions on guns.

 

[ninjahood]

deadly serious. in the grand scheme, of things, given the huge amount of money spent in elections the amount of money rubio gets from the NRA is not significant.

What is significant is you have a country where like 35% of the people. are single issue voters who view gun ownrship as an integral part of their cultural identity, those people are active, motivated, and mostly vote republican, if you go against them as a republican, even if you are a moderate you will get primared and you will lose.

It aint about the money it's the voters.

voter intensity...

• EXPLAINERS
• POLITICS & POLICY
• German Lopez@germanrlopez[email protected] Oct 13, 2017, 11:30am EDTSHARE
  It’s something Americans hear after every mass shooting: The majority of voters support stricter gun laws. So why don’t these laws pass?
  
  Two charts from the Pew Research Center, based on surveys of nearly 4,000 US adults this past spring, provide a key answer. They show, in short, that the people who oppose stricter laws are much more engaged in the debate than the people who support stricter laws.
  
  Consider this first chart:
  
  
  
  
  About 21 percent of gun owners have ever contacted a public official to express an opinion on gun policy, compared to just 12 percent of non-gun owners. And about 22 percent of people who want less strict gun laws have contacted a public official, while just 15 percent of people who support more strict laws have.
  
  The differences are more pronounced if you look at contact in the previous 12 months. Gun owners are 80 percent more likely than non-gun owners to have contacted a public official about gun policy in the past year. And supporters of laxer gun laws are nearly 60 percent more likely than supporters of stricter gun laws to have contacted a public official over the issue in the same time span.
  
  This difference in issue intensity also shows up in other areas. Take this second chart:
  
  
  
  
  Again, the situation is skewed in favor of gun owners. About 28 percent of gun owners have contributed to an organization that takes a position on gun policy, while only 10 percent of non-gun owners have. That helps explain how a group like the National Rifle Association (NRA) has become so powerful, while there are no political equivalents — in terms of influence — on the other side.
  
  One caveat to the charts: Based on Pew’s surveys, there are way more adults in the US who believe that gun laws should be more strict (52 percent) than those who believe gun laws should be less strict (18 percent). So the side in favor of stricter gun laws can afford to have a lower percent of its people contacting public officials.
  
  It’s demonstrative, though, to focus on the 12-month data for this. As it shows, gun owners and supporters of laxer gun laws are more likely to have recently engaged a public official or political organization on this issue. That matters: If a senator gets phone calls every few months from gun owners and opponents of stricter laws, that’s going to make a bigger impression than calls from non-gun owners and supporters of stricter laws every year or so.
  
  That’s especially true if you consider political party. Republicans are much more likely to oppose stricter laws, based on Pew’s data. So if a Republican senator mostly hears from GOP constituents, and these constituents are more likely to be really passionate about the issue since they are on the side that opposes stricter laws, that’s going to give the senator a very skewed perception of where voters are on this topic.
  
  The charts demonstrate an issue that experts and political strategists have repeatedly raisedto me in the past. As Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist said in 2000, “The question is intensity versus preference. You can always get a certain percentage to say they are in favor of some gun controls. But are they going to vote on their ‘control’ position?” Probably not, Norquist suggested, “but for that 4-5 percent who care about guns, they will vote on this.”
  
  But what explains that difference in passion? Kristin Goss, a political scientist at Duke University and author of The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know, previously told methat it’s a sense of tangible loss. Gun owners feel like the government is going to take their guns and rights. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, are motivated by more abstract notions of reducing gun violence — although, Goss noted, the victims of mass shootings and their families have begun putting a face on these policies by engaging more actively in advocacy work, which could make the gun control movement feel more relatable.
  
  The result is it’s more difficult for someone on the left to run on gun control, while someone on the right is forced to run on gun rights to avoid a revolt from a passionate base. That tilts the debate, regardless of how most of the public feels, in favor of doing nothing about guns.
  
  For more on America’s gun problem, read Vox’s explainer.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity

 

[IATT]

nah he's not hiding he's saying that banning ar-15's is too wide of a category to ban that would inappropriately infringe on legal gun owners second amendment rights.


imo it's a fair position to take if you're about that 2nd amendment life...if anything democrats are hiding, trying to pretend like the bans they propose won't effect legal gun owners.

His response was to mention the ways around the things being suggested and specifically mentioned certain states that have implemented such measures and how folks have circumvented those laws.. essentially saying people will find a way

Well that shhh applies to a lot of things.. their job is to address these things and come up with and pass comprehensive legislation to address these issues.. and if there are persisting issues, amend the damn laws and/or pass futher legislation to address the issues

The 3 branches exist for a reason and all have a role to play in the process.. laws are extremely technical things and are constantly evolving.. dude's argument is extremely weak

There is no way in hell gun legislation is a more difficult thing to handle than tax regulations

 

[RustyShackleford]

Maybe...but in general I just don't get the feeling the american left has nuanced or deeply understood/researched positions on guns.

I think the left does, but let be honest, many American voters don't want nuance, they want slogans and buzzwords. Miss them with that nuance and wonkish steez

Some voters will even get pissed at you if you try to talk to them like an adult.

So if you are on the left your nuance arguments gets you not traction, and you buzzwords don't excite you base enough to come out for you. Gun regulation is a tough egg to crack because it is all on emotion when it comes to campaigning. There is not an identity you can appeal too if you are on the left.

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Oh ****.. it's about to get real

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Maybe I read too much national review, but rubio sounds like all the other conservative "intellectuals" i read on this issue, if you are inclined towards conservative politics, seems to me you would come to hold Rubio's positions organically.

 

[ninjahood]

Maybe I read too much national review, but rubio sounds like all the other conservative "intellectuals" i read on this issue, if you are inclined towards conservative politics, seems to me you would come to hold Rubio's positions organically.

i.e. less government intervention.

 

[D StaXX]

This chick blowing smoke

 

[ksteezy]

She really tried to shade CNN

 

[whywesteppin]

this ***** out here using terms like "crazy" and "insane." regardless of her position on guns or being the NRA's *****, you'd think a public spokesperson would have better sense in what terms they use.

stupid *** ***** should shut the **** up.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

So trash.

 

[IATT]

i.e. less government intervention.

Except when it comes to social issues folks who claim to be religious can't get comfortable with..

 

[Based Jesus]

eh. it's not really tho.

I believe Rubio sincerely believes all this **** he's saying, and even if he didn't it's the like 60% of his electorate he'd have to answer to in primary if he didn't believe this ****... regardless of the money he got from the NRA.

Millions of dollars in one's campaign account from a single source isn't a tangible indicator of influence?
If they asked for your support in exchange for an extra 3mil in your coffers you'd "believe" it too

 

[ksteezy]

Omggggggg OBVIOUSLY You dumb sloot!..

 

[sonoftony]

That NRA chick feeling the heat