Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,918 861 14
Apparently Trump's budget is being leaked. Big surprise. Huge bump to the military, cuts to Medicare and other social safety nets, and pushing Medicaid off onto states, who would then have to raise taxes or simply cut the program. Oh, and nation-wide mandatory drug-testing for people who receive assistance.

Also, when this inevitably fails, government will shut down again. Better save some cash before October.
 
Reactions
1,004 423 25
Not to mention every single time mandatory drug testing is done for welfare, the savings from not paying the drug-users are far less than the costs of the drug tests.

Oh and by complete coincidence, the politician who proposes it almost always owns the drug testing company chosen.
 
Last edited:

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,918 861 14
Oh look! 12% cut to the National Science Foundation and a $500 million cut to NASA.

Anti-science, pro-military (except for vets - they get shafted as they have lost their ability to be leveraged), anti-poor, pro-1%.

Anyone surprised? Anyone?
 
Reactions
632 264 7
I saw that a couple of days ago. I'm just numb to it at this point. Nothing's going to change in this state short of invasion or nuke from orbit.
If a guy looking suspiciously like a group of ferrets in a trench coat suddenly turns up and tells you to follow them through a weird portal in the back of your cupboard, don't ask questions, just follow him and don't look back.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,918 861 14
Yeah. There are three or four people I'm willing to vote for and will, depending on who makes it out of the primaries. Beto is my #2 choice based on ideas & electability.
 
Reactions
1,004 423 25
I'm still feeling Warren, but I'm not locked in. The only candidates I really don't want at this point are Biden and Kolbuchar. Though obviously I'll vote for either of them in the general if that's who it ends up being.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,918 861 14
My problem with Warren is her electability. The right already has a hook with her and it's going to just get worse. I love her ideas and think that she'd make an amazing president, but I worry that she'd galvanize the right like Hillary did. Beto is a safe choice because it takes away the misogynists and racists.
 
Reactions
1,004 423 25
Eh the right will say that Beto is racist because of his Latino-inspired nickname. They will also say he has dual loyalty to Mexicans for the exact same reason.

The right has real no morals or standards and choosing a candidate based on trying to prevent them from making bad-faith insults is a waste of time.
 
Reactions
418 123 1
My problem with Warren is her electability. The right already has a hook with her and it's going to just get worse. I love her ideas and think that she'd make an amazing president, but I worry that she'd galvanize the right like Hillary did. Beto is a safe choice because it takes away the misogynists and racists.
Look, at least 90% of Republicans will support President Trump. That's what this country has come down to: tribal loyalty. It doesn't matter how much they personally disapprove of him. The Republican nominee will get 90% of his party's votes, the Democratic nominee will get 90% of his/her party's votes. It's the swing voters in the middle that make a difference. So the question is, what will they think? Will they reject Warren for being a liberal woman? Will they reject O'Rourke for "sounding Latino" or having closer ties to the Latino community? Will they support or reject Cory Booker for being a black man? Will they support or reject Biden for being older, and being a part of the "establishment?" Will they reject Sanders because he's a socialist? Will they reject Kamala Harris for being a biracial person of color from California?

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all get what I'm saying. A Democratic nominee should not worry about what the right, or the GOP voting base, thinks about them. It's not going to happen no matter how hard they try.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
Look, at least 90% of Republicans will support President Trump. That's what this country has come down to: tribal loyalty. It doesn't matter how much they personally disapprove of him. The Republican nominee will get 90% of his party's votes, the Democratic nominee will get 90% of his/her party's votes. It's the swing voters in the middle that make a difference. So the question is, what will they think? Will they reject Warren for being a liberal woman? Will they reject O'Rourke for "sounding Latino" or having closer ties to the Latino community? Will they support or reject Cory Booker for being a black man? Will they support or reject Biden for being older, and being a part of the "establishment?" Will they reject Sanders because he's a socialist? Will they reject Kamala Harris for being a biracial person of color from California?

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all get what I'm saying. A Democratic nominee should not worry about what the right, or the GOP voting base, thinks about them. It's not going to happen no matter how hard they try.
I don't entirely agree that the base is a given, but not in a way that necessarily undermines your point. We saw in McCain/Obama that there's also a danger of a candidate being uninspiring enough that the base decides to stay home instead of go to the polls, and the opposite is also true - a candidate can be so inspiringly charismatic that formerly apathetic constituents can turn up to vote. As the "decideds" outnumber the moderates by around 4 to 1, it's been shown over the last 40 years that playing to the base is important, and if you're a skillful politician, you can also woo the middle with the (perceived) strength of your convictions. It worked for Reagan, Obama, and now Trump. He turned PA red by going hard right, after all.

But yes, I agree with the sentiment that it probably isn't worth worrying what the opposite base thinks of your party's candidate.
 
Reactions
745 42 1
Sure. As soon as someone mentally ill buys the product in question explicitly because of it's military appeal due to intensive, knowing marketing by Blue Bell.

To be frank, the question at hand in the lawsuit is whether or not Remington was knowingly marketing and selling it's product to unstable individuals based on it's military appeal and ease of modification, and whether such activities fall within the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, not whether Remington is responsible for it's product killing things (as it was designed to do). The Act only covers the right to sell the firearm in question and protection from legal issues regarding said sale, not the methods and means by which they advertise said product.

This seems like a legally distinct enough issue to allow the lawsuit to proceed. So much of how gun makers do business is shielded from the public eye due to a multitude of laws and it's almost assuredly because it's all shady as hell. You can't tell me that Remington doesn't know to who and why it markets it's product and I feel it's not an overreach to make that information public... especially if their intentions were to exploit those already easily exploitable.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
Sure. As soon as someone mentally ill buys the product in question explicitly because of it's military appeal due to intensive, knowing marketing by Blue Bell.

To be frank, the question at hand in the lawsuit is whether or not Remington was knowingly marketing and selling it's product to unstable individuals based on it's military appeal and ease of modification, and whether such activities fall within the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, not whether Remington is responsible for it's product killing things (as it was designed to do). The Act only covers the right to sell the firearm in question and protection from legal issues regarding said sale, not the methods and means by which they advertise said product.

This seems like a legally distinct enough issue to allow the lawsuit to proceed. So much of how gun makers do business is shielded from the public eye due to a multitude of laws and it's almost assuredly because it's all shady as hell. You can't tell me that Remington doesn't know to who and why it markets it's product and I feel it's not an overreach to make that information public... especially if their intentions were to exploit those already easily exploitable.
If making something look "cool" and emphasizing its military-like aspects are now grounds for litigation, prepare for the destruction of the video game industry.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,918 861 14
I....agree with Gas on this. To an extent. Handguns, long rifles, and shotguns certainly have their uses outside of killing people. "Automatic" or automatic style weapons do NOT. So the ability to sue for me depends completely on the weapon used.

And no, I'm not getting into the whole 2nd Amendment thing. I'm just saying that certain weapons - like cigarettes - when used properly for their intended use, kill people. That is their only function. And I'm only giving handguns a pass because of target shooting.
 
Reactions
745 42 1
Then my counter to this is should tobacco/vape pen companies be allowed to target their product at teenagers again? They were successfully (and justifiably) sued for doing this over and over again, to the point where we literally tax them to make advertisements against using their product by said teenagers.
 
Top