House to vote on Biden impeachment
SeeStars@kbin.social to 
Politics@kbin.social – 56 points – 
axios.com
Right-wing lawmakers are proving increasingly willing to force potentially divisive votes.
You are viewing a single comment
SeeStars@kbin.social to Politics@kbin.social – 56 points –
A pox upon both houses. Both sides are hypocritical as hell. And both sides fucking suck.
Unfortunately the American electorate is too afraid of change to do anything about it, and/or too lazy to vote in primaries in significant numbers, and/or the opposing party puts forward stupid candidates that have no change.
Thus Congress has like a 18% approval rating, but a 80+% re-election rate.
And in most cases, I'd argue that's because candidates insist on pushing stupid wedge issues. The Democrat down south is going to go anti-gun which makes them unelectable. The Republican up north is going to go anti-abortion or anti-LGBT which makes them unelectable in a blue state. And rather than set those wedge issues aside and recognize that there's FAR more important things at stake, we keep squabbling over bullshit rather than actually making progress.
I agree that both sides do shitty things, but they're no where near equivocal.
Implying that both sides suck equally is dangerous. It'd be like a kid saying "My parents made me eat my vegetables, they suck. Also the guy that broke into my house and tried to stab my family sucks. All adults suck."
Merriam-Webster on "Bothsidesing"
Seriously, Trump earned those impeachments.
He worked hard for them, he's a hard worker, perhaps the hardest worker, people come up to him with tears in their eyes and ask "how did you get those impeachments?" and he says "I just worked hard", because that's what he does, he works hard to be impeached...
Boy do I love whether I'm allowed to exist being seen as a "stupid wedge issue." Totally agree, we should comprise and only shoot half the LGBT people! /s
Real-talk, the solution here is to encourage more gays/queers/trans folk to run for elected positions of power to better represent their minority.
Agreed. I also remember that Nebraska was making headlines recently because one of the representatives' daughter was trans, so she was refusing to pass any bills that could hurt her child.
this just annoys me that much more. There have been so many cases of direct experience like with relatives moving their opinion (or at least their actions) so its like they can't adequately evaluate things in the theoretical or just with general compassion and empathy.
And vote.
Off topic - your avatar makes me miss AOKP
Didn't mean to imply that LGBT is not an important issue. Not at all. Just that it's something that one side feels more strongly about than the other.
To an Evangelical (usually conservative), persecuting LGBT people is good policy and good for the country. To a Liberal (and to many like myself, FWIW), persecuting LGBT people is a civil rights violation that makes a person unelectable.
To a Liberal, gun control is good policy that will save lives. To a gun owner (usually conservative) gun control is a civil rights violation, an unconstitutional violation of the Bill of Rights that makes a person unelectable just as much as if they suggested needing a license to exercise free speech.
So what I'm suggesting-- if the GOP stopped trying to persecute LGBT folks, or the Democrats gave up gun control, either one of them would GREATLY increase their appeal especially to moderates and people on the other side of the aisle but who are fed up with their own party.
Put differently--- if a bunch of politicians came to you and said 'we'll stop trying to take away LGBT rights, but in exchange you stop trying to take away gun rights', would you agree to that?
If I understand you correctly, your suggesting the politicians should say "We'll stop trying to deny people the right to live and exist, in exchange for not trying to stop unstable people from easily murdering random civilians"?
also I have never seen an outright ban on guns proposed in the legislature. Limitations on ownership (drug use, mental health issues, requirement to take a course) and type/options (clips size, rate of fire, concealability, etc.)
Even if an outright ban were the goal for some incremental policy changes wouldn't ever get there.
We already nearly all agree on and have weapons controls. There are weapons a private citizen simply cannot legally own.
We're debating where to draw the line on who and what and when. And at this stage, all we're asking for is to move the line a couple of inches to try and prevent the worst of the frequent, common, and unacceptable tragedies.
The gun nuts act like there's an absolute position you can hold with no exceptions. The only way that can be true is if you believe every citizen has the right to walk into the local pharmacy and buy a yellowcake bomb and jar of weaponized smallpox any time they feel like it, and if you believe that, you are insane.
There's no absolute position. It's a negotiation. The conservatives refuse to engage in any negotiation whatsoever because they do not have any sincere principle they are defending on the issue.
With respect I think you haven't spent much time listening to pro-gun people.
Different people have different opinions. Sure, there are some absolutists. But that's not everybody.
The 'line in the sand' that almost ALL pro-gun people will get behind, is semi-automatic small arms- pistols and rifles and shotguns and the like, as we know them today. Not machineguns or rocket launchers or cannons. Do you see people rallying on the steps of capitol buildings demanding machineguns and rocket launchers be re-legalized? I don't.
If you want to understand why there's no negotiation, this comic explains the pro-gun position pretty well.
To put that in perspective, you must understand that in the early 1900s, you could order a machinegun, a fully-automatic weapon (hold down the trigger and it will rapidly and repeatedly fire), through the mail, delivered to your doorstep with no background checks or other interference. And you'd order this from a hardware catalog. There were shooting competitions in school- kids brought guns to school all the way up to the 1970s or so because shooting was a competitive school sport.
So follow the history, and it's the same thing repeated over and over. Anti-gun people want to compromise, we'll regulate this but not that. Wait a few years and it happens again. Go through a few iterations of that and guns are now one of the most highly regulated items you can (sometimes) buy. And yet there were no school shootings in 1920, even though you could buy a VERY effective firearm for such purpose in the mail.
So I suggest instead of writing off anyone who takes a pro-gun position as a 'gun nut', you should try listening to those who disagree with you and try to figure out WHY they disagree.
Oh god fucking forbid we engage in the hard process of incremental policy based on changing circumstances. Cry me a goddamn river.
This isn't a slippery slope. The argument to ban some classes of guns has to meet strict constitutional scrutiny, not just a rational basis. You have to successfully argue the harm justifies a limit on the right. Something our system is -- or at least was -- equipped to do. But nowadays, maybe it genuinely isn't, with the way conservatives have spread like cancer through the court system and legislatures to fill it with stubborn no-compromise 2A rights nonsense that refuses to engage in any reform.
It is a factual reality that guns have become better machines over time. They've become cheaper, more available, and more dangerous. You bring up a 1900s machine gun as if this is an example of some incredibly dangerous weapon? It goddamn isn't.
A 1900s machine gun is hardly any threat at all to modern civil society. It is large, stationary, and obvious. It is not reliable. It is not easy to use, contrary to your characterization. You cannot sneak it into a shopping mall. You cannot conceal or open carry it while out on errands. It'd be a pretty major effort to even reliably mount it in good working order to a vehicle. A modern "sport" semi-automatic rifle or even handgun offers a bigger threat than one of those things.
What an utterly ridiculous argument you make, saying there were no school shootings in the 1900s when there were likely no guns CAPABLE of that kind of thing at the time, and certainly none in regular circulation.
I did not write off anyone who takes a pro-gun position as a 'gun nut'. You cannot "respectfully" mischaracterize what I wrote in such a disingenuous way. I wrote off anyone who takes a no-compromise position as one. Want to have lots of guns in society? Do what the Swiss do. Extensive and continuing training and licensing. Universal registration. Strict rules about safe handling. And couple it all with major poverty interventions, public education, and healthcare to get rid of violence and desperation at the source. Most progressives are down for that. But instead, the gun nuts try to do the literal opposite by passing things like Constitutional Carry.
Please read my post again. I didn't make a pro-gun argument. I explained why pro-gun people don't want to 'compromise'. There's a big difference between the two.
Short version- they feel they've 'compromised' many times already and each time they give something up and get nothing back, so why should they keep playing that game?
Imagine if it was the first amendment rather than the second. Would you 'compromise'?
'Last year the compromise was we can still post anything we want online, but we need a free speech license. This year the compromise is we can still post anything we want, but we can only criticize the government in special contained free speech websites that don't show up in Google.' You'd be like the character in the comic, flipping the table and saying 'I don't want another compromise that takes away more rights, I want REAL free speech back!'.
If you step back from the confident belief that you are 100% correct and reasonable about this (or any issue really), and try to understand the other person's point of view, you'll be able to make much better arguments for your own POV. But that requires NOT writing off anyone who doesn't partially share your POV as a 'nut' (which is EXACTLY what you did when you say anyone not willing to 'compromise' by instituting your list of gun regulations is a 'nut').
This is simply incorrect.
Semi-auto firearms were available starting in 1902.
One of the most popular semi-auto pistols of all time is the M1911. It fires a .45 caliber bullet, and the design of the bullet and the gun have not majorly changed since they were invented in 1911. 1911s are very popular today still and are sold by many manufacturers.
And if you go even earlier, Thomas Jefferson owned a Girardoni Air Rifle- that was a weapon that fired a half-inch metal ball and was quite lethal at 150 yards. It wasn't semi-auto but it could fire 20 shots in fairly rapid succession (about the same as a modern bolt action rifle).
Point is-- it's not accurate to say mass shootings didn't happen in the early 1900s because suitable weapons weren't available. Such weapons WERE available, and if anything, easier to buy than they are today.
Until the [Hughes Amendment of 1986](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#:~:text=Hughes%20(D%2DN.,specifically%20to%20amend%2018%20U.S.C.) you could buy your own machinegun (full-auto rapid fire). In 1986 such firearms were banned. So why not more mass shootings before the ban?
And have the >50% of states that done this turned into bloodbaths with shootouts from every fender bender?
We DO compromise on the first amendment. That's what is so utterly depraved about this no-compromise position on the second that you are defending so vigorously. And yes, I assert absolutely that you are defending the position. Don't fall back to "I'm just playing devil's advocate" or any version of "I'm just asking questions" concerning trolling. You are defending the position right now.
There are tons of kinds of speech we declare unprotected because they are harmful. Defamation. Fraud. Hate speech. Harassment. Obscenity. It's a complex process with lots of tests and case law and has been going on for ages. There are judges and lawyers that specialize entirely in the legal world of free speech. This is the hard work of governance. The hard work you are too terrified to engage in because of some remote and absurd possibility that it may one day go not just too far, but all the way too far.
But you seem to be deliberately ignoring all this even while accusing me of being close-minded. You pretend that the reason we do not have any movement on gun reform is that reasonable, thoughtful pro-gun people are concerned about the slippery slope we may go down. That isn't the reason. Reasonable and thoughtful people engage. They don't pass the Dickey amendment. The reality is that it's the unreasonable, head-empty conservatives that lead the no-compromise 2A position (and justify it with an entirely revisionist version of history that reinterprets the second to be some insane defense of the right to rebellion -- an idea that does not pass even a common sense sniff test).
I already told you all the things we can do that do not impact most people's ability to buy, own, and use guns. The gun reform policies that nearly everyone supports, but that have zero traction because of the no-compromise gun crowd that has a stranglehold over conservative politics. I want training and licensing, universal registration and background checks, widespread mental healthcare, and poverty intervention. I want to see that immediately. But I also want the pro-gun people to admit that banning some weapons is totally reasonable instead of pretending it's the first step to absolute authoritarianism. I want honest efforts at progressive policies instead of disingenuous, stupid arguments about slippery slopes.
I wrote out a whole reply to your various points (which I'll send if you want) but one thing in your post caught my eye as the most vital and important...
I'm fairly pro-gun (if you hadn't figured that out already). I also DESPERATELY want widespread mental healthcare and poverty intervention. I want to see these things IMMEDIATELY and in great quantity. As in, let's pass a bill today and start this vitally important work tomorrow. This to me is vital to the health of the nation that I love, because the nation is made up of its people and too many of those people are poor and suffering. I don't think it is (or should be) the American way to just sit and laugh at our fellow countrymen and women and let them suffer while we live the high life.
We disagree on everything else, but I think we agree on this. So why don't we set aside arguing over the things we disagree on, and focus on implementing the things we DO agree would benefit our nation?
And that was the meat of my original point. When it comes to guns, I suspect you and I are fairly opposite. But I suspect that when it comes to taking care of our fellow humans, you and I are not so different.
Yet the political machines on both sides have us at each others' throats over gun rights vs gun control, while they push for their own power. What we (people on both sides of the aisle) SHOULD be doing is TALKING to each other, figuring out what we agree on, and focusing on getting THAT done.
But top of just about everyone's list is end corruption in Washington, so there's a vested interest in making sure we keep fighting each other rather than working together. And right now that interest is winning.
If you could push a button to make a deal, that was 'you give up further pushes for gun control, but in exchange we get universal mental health care and poverty intervention', would you push that button?
FWIW, in the opposite- 'would you codify gun regulations as they currently are, but in exchange get universal mental health care and poverty intervention' I'd push that button in a heartbeat.
Anyone who comes into politics with an absolute no-compromise position is the enemy of progress. They've substituted politics with religion and religion has no place in governance.
If "pro-gun" people came to the table and agreed on the kinds of laws that would be effective to prevent death and have minimal on the ability to own and have guns - the things that have overwhelming public support like universal registration and background checks - it'd be passed right away. But they don't. They get real cagey then make up disingenuous horseshit arguments about how this is a slippery slope that surely ends with an authoritarian state where you have no right to self-defense which is a moronic idiotic stupid dumb thing to believe. They refused to come to the table because saving lives and making a better society isn't a conservative goal.
Because guess what? I'm not anti-gun. At least not in my politics, though probably in my personal life. It's the consequences of a society flooded with guns with minimal regulations and safety nets causing widespread panic and death that I'm against. But when the pro gun people don't come to the table on more difficult-to-pass policies, the progressives are going to go for low-hanging fruit solutions like a somewhat capricious assault weapons ban that they can at least pass in that moment thanks to some national tragedy of the week cowing enough no compromisers.
The next time you say that both sides are in any way equally guilty here do me a favor and retire to a hermitage on a mountain for the rest of your life. That's a bald-faced disingenuous argument. There's only one "side". There's only one group treating this like a team sport where you have to root for the home team. And that side is the people who believe in no compromise. It's the conservatives. There is no competing side. Everyone else is engaging in honest debate on issues and trying to make the world better through small changes. Everyone else is taking things one step at a time and is prepared to make small mistakes -- and reverse them -- along the way to making a brighter world. The only people who refuse to do this are conservatives because the objective of conservatism is not policy it's tribalism.
Your enlightened centrism enables bad actors to act badly.
So no, I absolutely fucking wouldn't push a button that takes away our ability to make rational policy. I won't push a button that gives conservatives everything they want in this moment especially because conservatives won't honor that in the future. I won't push a button that forces us into a no-compromise position. And anyone who would is the enemy of progress. Is the enemy of the entire human race.
I don't EVER suggest no compromise. I don't EVER suggest that nothing should ever change (and I agree that is anti-progress). I suggest that ignoring a previous compromise is disingenuous. I say that it's valid to say 'we compromised last year, we're living the compromise today, why should I compromise again if I get nothing in return?' And I suggest we should focus on doing what we agree on, rather than fighting over what we don't.
So here's a compromise I (as a pro-gun person) would agree to.
You get universal background checks. Every permanent gun transfer between people requires one. Per existing law, these checks can never be used to build a database. The government must provide the check for free (right now it costs about $50 to do the check at a gun store). And there's an exemption for temporary transfers between known people, and transfers between family members (IE, I can lend my buddy a rifle for a hunting trip without 'transferring' it to him and then back to me), and father can pass guns down to son without paperwork).
In exchange, gun owners get national reciprocity. That means if they get a carry permit from their home state, that permit is valid in all other states, just like a drivers license. They must comply with all applicable laws of the state they visit, for example magazine size limits and where it's permissible to carry.
That IMHO is a real compromise. You get something, I get something. What you get has a few limits from what I want, what I get has a few limits from what you want.
What do you think? Would you take that?
And the Dems are idiots about gun safety anyway. Let them have all the AR-15s they want, just don't allow magazines- force hand reloading when the thing is empty. Don't ban handguns, ban handguns with magazines. Slap insurance and license requirements on owners. Don't take them away, just make them far less deadly and far more expensive. That side-steps the "take away your guns" crowd entirely and passes the court challenges too.
You are aware that the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control measures, right? So LGBTQ people should die because 20% of the country has a gun fetish because they're insecure little bitches?
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-limits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence
I'd bet the person would care about you and your struggle if they met you but at a distance unfortunately they see your struggle as an obstacle to their agenda... I get careless a lot myself and say things without empathy or thought to what it might imply to others... sorry you ha e to deal with that
It's ok, I get what you mean though. Considering how my parents ended up being tainted by all of this discourse though, without even being trump supporters or antivaxxers, I doubt meeting people like me in person would be able to change their minds.
I find it hard to look at the behavior of both American political parties and see them as equally objectionable. Our Overton window has shifted wildly in the last decade. By international standards, Democrats are conservative left and Republicans have become dangerously radical right. American Republicans have abandoned the rule of law. They oppose democracy and attempted a coup when they didn't like the results. They openly lie and gaslight. They scapegoat vulnerable minorities. They force women to give birth against their will. They induce violence via stochastic terrorism. I can't look at this situation and muster comparable ire for both sides.
That's congress as a whole, most Americans have a positive view of their own representatives.
In a 2-party system there's little incentive to. I posit that voters are motivated to vote more by fear of the other party than enthusiasm about their own. This is a consequence of Duverger's Law. If we want to fix the system and encourage cooperation, the best way is ranked choice voting, which encourages candidates to reach out to all voters even on the other side because they might be their 2nd or 3rd choice. When they implemented it in SF, some candidates running against each other started campaigning together, cooperating for mutual advantage.