Mojo Hand

And the bothsiders nod in agreement with Trump.

The reason is that there's a cult here built around the Second Amendment that doesn't exist anywhere else. If American gun owners were like French gun owners, that would be great. But they're not. American gun owners would never accept the strict regulations they have on those weapons in France: "Category B includes any firearm with a barrel shorter than 18.5 inches and a removable magazine with capacity larger than three rounds. For these, you need a sports shooting license, which means active membership in a shooting club, presenting yourself at a firing range at least three times a year, and visiting a physician annually for a physical and mental certification that you are capable of owning a firearm. The procedure and all accompanying paperwork must be presented every three years. In between, this license can be revoked in an instant by the local police. When this licensing went into effect several years back, anyone who did not want to go through all the steps had simply to turn in their weapons. As many as 500,000 were relinquished." https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/opinions/france-america-gun-laws-opinion-andelman/index.html I mean, I'd accept that as a compromise, but you don't get that unless you're about to ban them altogether.

I just don't buy that. Who says it won't stop anything? It will stop plenty of potential killers who either won't be able to figure out how to get the weapons on the black market or who will be caught in stings while trying to find the black market. People who could have otherwise gotten the guns from their parents, or at Walmart. And if you want to talk efficacy, how many lives do AKs and ARs actually save? How many people will die from attacks of feral hogs and meth head gangs if people are deprived of those guns and have to make do with shotguns or just running from the danger? And I'm not trying to be cute about the examples you gave — I get that your point is that these guns have a practical use when a person is under seige from a big group of people or animals. Yet I haven't seen many "Man mows down 14 attackers with AR-15" stories in the news. If banning these guns won't cost any lives, why isn't it worth the chance that even one school shooting will be prevented? Let alone that many might be prevented?

That's fair. But I do live in a place where my kids have to practice hiding in their elementary school because of people who own an AK or AR. And rural America hasn't given a fuck about my kids.

If fun counts as a legitimate civilian purpose, you're losing the distinction with tanks. They would be a blast to drive around and fire on a ranch, which is why Tony Buzbee had one. And that's pretty much Beto's point. Fun, hobby, curiosity, whatever, isn't enough justification for certain weapons given the cost. The ban would be on owning AR-15s and AK-47s. We're talking about Beto's statements, right? That's what he proposes. And if the practical use for those weapons is culling feral hogs and slaughtering roving bands of meth heads when you don't live within 30-45 minutes of police, as you said, they don't seem very useful to me for most Americans. For the small number of Americans who do have those needs, there could easily be exceptions for areas without police, or for animal control if that really is the only effective strategy for hogs. Registration, licensing, limited use allowed, etc. But after that tweet you mention went viral, and the "out of touch lib" backlash happened, I saw it reported that four people have been killed by feral hogs in the history of the United States. Four. They may well be terrifying, but I'd bet there are other ways of dealing with them that don't require our country being flooded with these weapons. I hear you about rural Americans. But why are Dems the ones who always need to start listening to the concerns of rural Republicans? They haven't given a shit about our concerns on guns for years, as people have been slaughtered in urban areas across the country. Multiples more than deaths by feral hogs or groups of methheads too large to handle with a shotgun. At this point, yeah, my view is, fuck 'em. I used to care about the legitimate uses for these weapons, but now I just don't. They have their right to vote, and so do I and the 80%+ (and growing) of Americans who live in urban areas. My view is, we'll see who should really be listening to whom and trying to compromise.

Actually, though, it has. The media dug up the bar card in 2019, and there have been many stories about her "struggles" with the identity issue, like: https://www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/27/native-american-critics-elizabeth-warren-1475903 https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-new-document-is-revealed-warren-struggles-with-questions-of-identity/2019/02/06/bf380538-2a24-11e9-b011-d8500644dc98_story.html The reality is that Warren has taken plenty of hits on this issue and others, and the reason they haven't sunk her is that she's done a fantastic job beating them back. She's defeating the negative narratives each day.

What percentage of Americans would you say arm themselves with those weapons for those purposes? Is it even 5%? If the objection is that they have as much practical use as a tank for 95% of the population, that strikes me as more of a quibble. And even tanks/armored vehicles have potential use in some police situations. Situations like that call for limited highly regulated exceptions, but I don't see why they really detract from the notion that the default in modern society should be a ban.

It was the media that uncovered and roasted Warren for the Native American stuff. The reason we aren't talking about her being destroyed by media attacks is that she overcame them through her own efforts. I thought she was dead in the water as a presidential candidate a couple of years ago. The media sure as hell didn't resurrect her candidacy. She's also taking plenty of hits right now for siding with Bernie on health care and banning private primary insurance. And the Bernie supporters are trashing her for dodging on the tax increase and the other aspects that don't poll well. Hmm, perhaps she's just better at handling the media attacks? Nah, they've got to be in the tank for her.

What is the practical application those weapons have for an individual civilian?

Good thinking. All she has to do is say, "Being compared to a brave woman like Pocahontas is an honor. You're more like Nixon or Bernie Madoff."

What about anti-corruption as a central unifying theme? Also, Trump thinks it's him, of course, but Warren inoculated herself by maxing out the issue months ago. I said on this board at the time, taking the DNA test was a smart move. Get everything out of the way, apologize, burn it out, and it's old news by now. It caused a short term ruckus, but if she hadn't done it, Trump would be going non-stop, "If she thinks she's an Indian, why won't she just take a DNA test to prove it. I'll pay for it!" He'd start holding up a 23andme testing kit at rallies. He even let it slip that he was planning that: And that would have played well. Now Trump is botching fractions of Indian blood and has nothing to put back on her to do. And she can completely ignore his taunts, while independent fact checkers do the work of calling out Trump's lies and pointing out that she does have Indian blood: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/the-facts-on-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/ The issue won't disappear entirely, but she's in a much stronger position as a result.

Ah, well. Nevertheless

Bingo. Throw out the conventional wisdom. Trump won by disrupting the conventional wisdom. Set aside all preconceptions about what kind of person you think voters want and ask yourself, who actually has the strongest message against Trump? Is it really Biden, with his tired, "C'mon! This is a buncha malarkey! Is this really who we are as a county? Look, folks, enough with the petty insults! Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans, and get some damn things done for the American people!" That's not going to move the needle. We need someone who's going to call him a corrupt liar to his face, and who has a compelling message for the people who were left behind in the dust while Biden was busy making banks richer.

You must not remember Juicy.

Kansas 2012 will stand for all time.

Lulz what was that bullshit

"The Massachusetts senator appears to be gaining ground primarily at the expense of Sanders. She holds the support of 32% of those who say they caucused for Sanders in 2016 (Sanders himself stands at 25% among that group), stands at 48% among those who consider themselves "very liberal," and for the first time in CNN/DMR polling on the race, has edged ahead of Sanders among those under age 35 (27% back Warren, 22% Sanders)."

I dunno, I'm just trying to catch up. So y'all think the WSJ story is administration spin?

Checking in for the first time today. So the whistleblower got the info secondhand per CNN, and the call didn't contain an explicit promise of military aid per WSJ, is that the latest?

Except regional. Unless you consider Liz to be an Oklahoman.

She should wait until we are sure what the whistleblower says, but yeah. Whatever Nancy does on impeachment will send a signal to the public about how serious this is. Just like she should have launched impeachment hearings the day the Mueller report dropped.

Oh please, 8 lb 6 oz baby Jesus, let this scandal bring down Pence too.

Not to suggest that he's trying to engineer his removal. But I think it's actually possible that if impeachment is looking likely, his victim complex will kick in, and he'll pull a Nixon and resigns under protest to continue his bullshit at the new Trump OAN.

Honestly, Trump would probably love to be impeached and removed, if he could get Pence to pardon him (or if he can self-pardon). He'll avoid the fallout for his terrible policies, which he'll blame on the people who impeached him and his successors, and will make big bucks on the Republican grievance circuit. The only hitch is the New York investigations.

Yep. As if there weren't already extremely compelling grounds for impeachment.