(07-05-2022 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Newsom seems to me at least the only 'knight in waiting' that seems rearing to go should Slow Joe be convinced to not run.

Going down, the only one that I think would think themselves viable would be Kamala -- but she shares an equivalent yet different set of baggage from this President.

If Mayor Pete resigns just after the midterms, one could conceivably see him jump into it.

But the bench is so thin on that side, the one I keep seeing from others is the possibility of pulling Hillary the Witch out from the woodwork. Maybe being in the woodwork will allow her pass the test of being a witch per 'Month Python and the Holy Grail'.

On the other side -- I can see several viable candidates already hitting it, hoping that Orange Man Bad cant run while being under indictment. De Santis obviously, but also laying groundwork is Nikki Haley.

Mike Pence is said to be eying a run, but I just dont see that as being a success. I would like to see the MP run, but mainly to serve as the garlic, silver bullet, and lightning rod to be the counterpoint to an Orange Man Bad run. Kind of have MP remind the voters that when MP did his job under the law, at the very best Orange Man Bad left him adrift on Capitol Hill without a proverbial lifejacket and having a OMB try to put a shark attractor around his neck.

But agree, Newsome would be hard pressed to get any votes aside from the autonomic reflex 'Vote for the Democrat' folks.

If it is Biden or Harris on the Democratic side, put in a moderate Republican and I will vote Republican. I have no confidence that the Republicans will nominate a moderate though.

(07-05-2022 06:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Newsom seems to me at least the only 'knight in waiting' that seems rearing to go should Slow Joe be convinced to not run.

Going down, the only one that I think would think themselves viable would be Kamala -- but she shares an equivalent yet different set of baggage from this President.

If Mayor Pete resigns just after the midterms, one could conceivably see him jump into it.

But the bench is so thin on that side, the one I keep seeing from others is the possibility of pulling Hillary the Witch out from the woodwork. Maybe being in the woodwork will allow her pass the test of being a witch per 'Month Python and the Holy Grail'.

On the other side -- I can see several viable candidates already hitting it, hoping that Orange Man Bad cant run while being under indictment. De Santis obviously, but also laying groundwork is Nikki Haley.

Mike Pence is said to be eying a run, but I just dont see that as being a success. I would like to see the MP run, but mainly to serve as the garlic, silver bullet, and lightning rod to be the counterpoint to an Orange Man Bad run. Kind of have MP remind the voters that when MP did his job under the law, at the very best Orange Man Bad left him adrift on Capitol Hill without a proverbial lifejacket and having a OMB try to put a shark attractor around his neck.

But agree, Newsome would be hard pressed to get any votes aside from the autonomic reflex 'Vote for the Democrat' folks.

If it is Biden or Harris on the Democratic side, put in a moderate Republican and I will vote Republican. I have no confidence that the Republicans will nominate a moderate though.

Who might you rate as a moderate Republican, if you dont mind me asking?

Additionally, what are the issues that delineate a moderate from a non-moderate Republican for you?

I am actually curious, and these should not be taken as 'setup' questions.

The problem will be when we have a non-moderate Republican vs. a non-moderate Democrat.

(07-05-2022 08:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The problem will be when we have a non-moderate Republican vs. a non-moderate Democrat.

"Will be"?

Seems to me that describes both 2016 and 2020 to a tee.

In all honesty, I cant describe Trump as a moderate or a far --- anything. In an overall sense.

(07-05-2022 08:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 08:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The problem will be when we have a non-moderate Republican vs. a non-moderate Democrat.

"Will be"?

Seems to me that describes both 2016 and 2020 to a tee.

In all honesty, I cant describe Trump as a moderate or a far --- anything. In an overall sense.

Well, Biden passed himself off as a moderate, but that lasted only to the bottom of the steps to the inaugural stand.

Clinton just ran as the entitled sure thing.

I cannot see either party nominating a moderate.

If the Dems don't nominate Manchin, I shall be forced to vote for the Republican. If I cannot stand him, I shall not vote in that race.

(07-05-2022 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 06:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Newsom seems to me at least the only 'knight in waiting' that seems rearing to go should Slow Joe be convinced to not run.

Going down, the only one that I think would think themselves viable would be Kamala -- but she shares an equivalent yet different set of baggage from this President.

If Mayor Pete resigns just after the midterms, one could conceivably see him jump into it.

But the bench is so thin on that side, the one I keep seeing from others is the possibility of pulling Hillary the Witch out from the woodwork. Maybe being in the woodwork will allow her pass the test of being a witch per 'Month Python and the Holy Grail'.

On the other side -- I can see several viable candidates already hitting it, hoping that Orange Man Bad cant run while being under indictment. De Santis obviously, but also laying groundwork is Nikki Haley.

Mike Pence is said to be eying a run, but I just dont see that as being a success. I would like to see the MP run, but mainly to serve as the garlic, silver bullet, and lightning rod to be the counterpoint to an Orange Man Bad run. Kind of have MP remind the voters that when MP did his job under the law, at the very best Orange Man Bad left him adrift on Capitol Hill without a proverbial lifejacket and having a OMB try to put a shark attractor around his neck.

But agree, Newsome would be hard pressed to get any votes aside from the autonomic reflex 'Vote for the Democrat' folks.

If it is Biden or Harris on the Democratic side, put in a moderate Republican and I will vote Republican. I have no confidence that the Republicans will nominate a moderate though.

Who might you rate as a moderate Republican, if you dont mind me asking?

Additionally, what are the issues that delineate a moderate from a non-moderate Republican for you?

I am actually curious, and these should not be taken as 'setup' questions.

Three easy starters for me:

1) A Republican who is open to what I consider common-sense gun measures like raising age for AR-15 type weapons to 21, limiting large magazines, red flag laws.

2) A Republican who is not full-on zero abortions even in cases of rape/incest

3) A Republican who does not signal that they would be interested in repealing civil rights granted to homosexuals.

Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

(07-05-2022 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

Depends on what the measures. If they are things like "assault weapons bans" which are violative of the 2nd Amendment but which offer no realistic expectation of materially reducing gun deaths or mass shootings, I hope never.

If they are things that have some likelihood of reducing mass killings, like increased security for schools and other "gun free zones," or a return to placing crazy people in mental hospitals rather than mainstreaming them into society, or of reducing gun violence overall, like some kind of shooter's license with instruction and written and demonstration tests and a link to the criminal data base, then I hope soon.

Of course, I don't see how we get there, because the only objective for democrats seems to be grabbing power (without regard to impact on gun violence or mass killing) and I don't have a clue what the republican objective is (apparently because they don't know either).

(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

Depends on what the measures. If they are things like "assault weapons bans" which are violative of the 2nd Amendment but which offer no realistic expectation of materially reducing gun deaths or mass shootings, I hope never.

If they are things that have some likelihood of reducing mass killings, like increased security for schools and other "gun free zones," or a return to placing crazy people in mental hospitals rather than mainstreaming them into society, or of reducing gun violence overall, like some kind of shooter's license with instruction and written and demonstration tests and a link to the criminal data base, then I hope soon.

It seems that mass shooters rarely have a diagnosable mental health disorder. Not sure "put the crazy people back in the mental hospitals" would change anything.

How would increased security at certain locations stop people from mowing down people gathered into large crowds?

I agree with your last option for sure...

(07-05-2022 11:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

Depends on what the measures. If they are things like "assault weapons bans" which are violative of the 2nd Amendment but which offer no realistic expectation of materially reducing gun deaths or mass shootings, I hope never.
If they are things that have some likelihood of reducing mass killings, like increased security for schools and other "gun free zones," or a return to placing crazy people in mental hospitals rather than mainstreaming them into society, or of reducing gun violence overall, like some kind of shooter's license with instruction and written and demonstration tests and a link to the criminal data base, then I hope soon.

It seems that mass shooters rarely have a diagnosable mental health disorder. Not sure "put the crazy people back in the mental hospitals" would change anything.
How would increased security at certain locations stop people from mowing down people gathered into large crowds?
I agree with your last option for sure...

When a nutcase shoots up a school, and afterwards fellow students say things like, "We always knew he was going to do something like that," then somebody should know enough to make a decision. As far as actual results, we had plenty of guns, even brought them to school, 50-60 years ago, but no proliferation of mass school shootings like now. What did change was closing mental hospitals.

Increased security at certain locations would clearly reduce gun violence at those locations. If nutcases couldn't sneak guns into "gun free zones" then they wouldn't be sooting people there.

(07-05-2022 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

Depends on what the measures. If they are things like "assault weapons bans" which are violative of the 2nd Amendment but which offer no realistic expectation of materially reducing gun deaths or mass shootings, I hope never.
If they are things that have some likelihood of reducing mass killings, like increased security for schools and other "gun free zones," or a return to placing crazy people in mental hospitals rather than mainstreaming them into society, or of reducing gun violence overall, like some kind of shooter's license with instruction and written and demonstration tests and a link to the criminal data base, then I hope soon.

It seems that mass shooters rarely have a diagnosable mental health disorder. Not sure "put the crazy people back in the mental hospitals" would change anything.
How would increased security at certain locations stop people from mowing down people gathered into large crowds?
I agree with your last option for sure...

When a nutcase shoots up a school, and afterwards fellow students say things like, "We always knew he was going to do something like that," then somebody should know enough to make a decision. As far as actual results, we had plenty of guns, even brought them to school, 50-60 years ago, but no proliferation of mass school shootings like now. What did change was closing mental hospitals.

Again... it's one thing being a weird, loner kid and it's another thing to commit somebody to a mental institution. I've read psychiatrists on this topic who say the vast majority of these mass shooters don't have a diagnosable mental disorder. There's just not a connection there to the closing of mental hospitals, IMO.

Quote:Increased security at certain locations would clearly reduce gun violence at those locations. If nutcases couldn't sneak guns into "gun free zones" then they wouldn't be sooting people there.

Perhaps they would and I'm not opposed to increasing security notwithstanding the security available at Uvalde and at plenty of other mass shooting events where security officers were unable to stop murders.

To use your analogy we didn't have security at schools 50-60 years ago and there weren't mass shooting events either.

(07-05-2022 11:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There's just not a connection there to the closing of mental hospitals, IMO.

There may or may not be a connection, but there is at least correlation, which should prompt investigation of a possible connection.

Quote:To use your analogy we didn't have security at schools 50-60 years ago and there weren't mass shooting events either.

Not a valid argument, because nothing changed on the security front, so there is no correlation.

(07-06-2022 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There's just not a connection there to the closing of mental hospitals, IMO.

There may or may not be a connection, but there is at least correlation, which should prompt investigation of a possible connection.

Well then we should also investigate the fact that we have gotten rid of rotary phones over the past 50-60 years. Strong correlation with mass shooting events.

(07-05-2022 10:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three easy starters for me:

1) A Republican who is open to what I consider common-sense gun measures like raising age for AR-15 type weapons to 21, limiting large magazines, red flag laws.

2) A Republican who is not full-on zero abortions even in cases of rape/incest

3) A Republican who does not signal that they would be interested in repealing civil rights granted to homosexuals.

1. As numbers said, depends on what the "common sense" measures are. I am very much in favor of common sense, not so much more of the same stuff that isn't working. The three things you mention either aren't common sense or/and they are not working.

2. Fine with me. I would prefer somebody (on both sides) who is not extreme on this issue.

3. Homosexuals, like every other American citizen, is guaranteed certain civil rights by the constitution. These cannot be repealed, so I assume you are talking about special rights. Could you please enumerate exactly what those are?

(07-06-2022 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three easy starters for me:

1) A Republican who is open to what I consider common-sense gun measures like raising age for AR-15 type weapons to 21, limiting large magazines, red flag laws.

2) A Republican who is not full-on zero abortions even in cases of rape/incest

3) A Republican who does not signal that they would be interested in repealing civil rights granted to homosexuals.

1. As numbers said, depends on what the "common sense" measures are. I am very much in favor of common sense, not so much more of the same stuff that isn't working. The three things you mention either aren't common sense or/and they are not working.

Red flag laws aren't common sense? Or is it that they don't work?

Limiting high-capacity magazine wouldn't limit the deaths during mass shootings? Or is these not common sense?

How about requiring gun locks for home safety? How do you feel about that option?


What do you think "works"?

(07-06-2022 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three easy starters for me:

1) A Republican who is open to what I consider common-sense gun measures like raising age for AR-15 type weapons to 21, limiting large magazines, red flag laws.

2) A Republican who is not full-on zero abortions even in cases of rape/incest

3) A Republican who does not signal that they would be interested in repealing civil rights granted to homosexuals.

1. As numbers said, depends on what the "common sense" measures are. I am very much in favor of common sense, not so much more of the same stuff that isn't working. The three things you mention either aren't common sense or/and they are not working.

2. Fine with me. I would prefer somebody (on both sides) who is not extreme on this issue.

3. Homosexuals, like every other American citizen, is guaranteed certain civil rights by the constitution. These cannot be repealed, so I assume you are talking about special rights. Could you please enumerate exactly what those are?

As for 3. The right to marry, the right to adopt.

(07-06-2022 09:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How about requiring gun locks for home safety? How do you feel about that option?


What do you think "works"?

This last option is not practical. It's impossible to police this except after a tragedy, and in the meanwhile there are responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones.

Also, a gun lock on a handgun renders it useless when most needed. For sport shooters, not a problem. For people who keep a handgun for self-defense, this will be a law made to be broken.

(07-05-2022 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

Continual pushback is necessary when the opposition so obviously intends to take a mile when given an inch.

(07-06-2022 09:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three easy starters for me:

1) A Republican who is open to what I consider common-sense gun measures like raising age for AR-15 type weapons to 21, limiting large magazines, red flag laws.

2) A Republican who is not full-on zero abortions even in cases of rape/incest

3) A Republican who does not signal that they would be interested in repealing civil rights granted to homosexuals.

1. As numbers said, depends on what the "common sense" measures are. I am very much in favor of common sense, not so much more of the same stuff that isn't working. The three things you mention either aren't common sense or/and they are not working.

2. Fine with me. I would prefer somebody (on both sides) who is not extreme on this issue.

3. Homosexuals, like every other American citizen, is guaranteed certain civil rights by the constitution. These cannot be repealed, so I assume you are talking about special rights. Could you please enumerate exactly what those are?

As for 3. The right to marry, the right to adopt.

OK, I consider those rights for all Americans. As you probably do not remember, I was for for gay marriage even before the DNC, though probably for a reason that many leftists think wrong - treat everybody the same.

(07-06-2022 09:44 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you guys think that there will come a point where most Republicans get behind the idea of some bipartisan gun measures? This **** is just crazy and terrifying and sad as ***.

Continual pushback is necessary when the opposition so obviously intends to take a mile when given an inch.

And you guys seems to consider zero options to dial back on the American carnage beyond "It's a mental health issue!!!". (which it actually doesn't seem to be if you listen to the experts).