Political Discussion

TenderLovingKiller® said:
I promise it didn’t take more than a cursory scroll to find that. You want me to start deep diving on these guys post history to shine a light on how “moderate “ they actually are I can do that but the fact that was one of the first comments I saw told me aI didn’t really need to dig that deep.
Click to expand...

If thats one of the first comments you are seeing than you clearly aren't sorted by top comment. Because again, the top comments are ALL people saying they are leaning toward voting Harris but that this is a sticking point.

Of course there are going to be right wing extremists in one of the most politically diverse reddit threads- one aimed at enforcing moderate conversation. Which btw, why it's become my favorite political thread on Reddit despite the fact that I'm left wing af.
 
Angsty said:
Your math is good but it does not reflect the uneven nature of Electoral votes. To win the WH, you need to win some states that have broad rural populations, not just commandingly large cities. Gun ownership tends to be concentrated in rural areas; I take it to be even more true for assault weapons. So a small number of states with a highly rural population can tip the Electoral scales.

View attachment 210736 View attachment 210737

Said another way, assault weapon owner votes for POTUS tend to count more than those that don't because of the states they tend to live in.
Click to expand...
Surprised Texas is not in the 40 or 50 percent rages
 
Angsty said:
Your math is good but it does not reflect the uneven nature of Electoral votes. To win the WH, you need to win some states that have broad rural populations, not just commandingly large cities. Gun ownership tends to be concentrated in rural areas; I take it to be even more true for assault weapons. So a small number of states with a highly rural population can tip the Electoral scales.

View attachment 210736 View attachment 210737

Said another way, assault weapon owner votes for POTUS tend to count more than those that don't because of the states they tend to live in.
Click to expand...

This, this, this. If we lived in a nation that ran presidential elections off of the popular vote I would not be making an issue of this.

You all can claim what matters is suburban women and turning out the popular vote but the math says it's more complicated than that. 2020 had record turnout. 20% higher than Gore / Bush. And yet what won it was Biden doing better with white voters (in swing states) than any Dem in a long while. And everyone from Pod Save to Nate Silvers obnoxious ass says that that math has to stay similar for Harris to wing most of the swing states.

As to the mental health link-- every single one of these shooters has had clear as day mental health issues. I was also raised by a therapist who used to work in mental health clinics and harped on the ripple effexts of Reagan gutting those programs. . So maybe I'm biased, but right now, only the wealthy can afford mental healthcare.
 
Angsty said:
Yeah but, they still can't make anything happen by themselves. Example: Brown vs. Board of Education was ruled in 1954, yet de facto segregation of schools widely persisted until Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education in 1971.
Click to expand...
What do they need, just one angry GOP controlled state to have an AG file a lawsuit against said action?
 
Angsty said:
Said another way, assault weapon owner votes for POTUS tend to count more than those that don't because of the states they tend to live in.
Click to expand...
Agreed but even if we proportionally doled out these voters throughout the swing states, an assault weapons ban is still a net positive for Dems. The amount of voters it would turn off versus the amount that it would inspire is likely still a net positive for Dems and overall is so inconsequential that you might as well stand on their principles.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Just gonna repeat an observation that’s already been made, which is that self-identifying as a moderate or even participating in forums for moderate politics, is not a valid litmus test for determining whether one actually holds moderate positions. The great project of the far right lies in mainstreaming what are in fact extremist beliefs under the pretense of centrism.

There might be merit to this argument, but basing it off the content of a single subreddit is not persuasive.
Click to expand...

I have given polling earlier in this thread that was immediately dismissed. Angsty just dropped more of it.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
If thats one of the first comments you are seeing than you clearly aren't sorted by top comment. Because again, the top comments are ALL people saying they are leaning toward voting Harris but that this is a sticking point.

Of course there are going to be right wing extremists in one of the most politically diverse reddit threads- one aimed at enforcing moderate conversation. Which btw, why it's become my favorite political thread on Reddit despite the fact that I'm left wing af.
Click to expand...
The issue is you are the one that keeps citing Reddit. These are the people who comment on Reddit.
 
I hear far too little these days about how we need to abolish the Electoral College. Talk peaks after a President gets elected without carrying the popular vote (or barely does), then dies down a few months later. This amendment really should be the project of this generation, even though I like the idea of Supreme Court term limits, too.

www.history.com

How the Electoral College Was Nearly Abolished in 1970 | HISTORY

The House approved a constitutional amendment to dismantle the indirect voting system, but it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster.
www.history.com www.history.com
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I have given polling earlier in this thread that was immediately dismissed. Angsty just dropped more of it.
Click to expand...
You seemed to think this is a deciding factor when nothing beyond your comments is telling me this is a deciding factor in this race. If Kamala loses (which I don’t think is likely) it will be because of a multitude of reasons none of which will be because of her stance on assault weapons. If she wins, it won’t be because a small subset assault weapon owners held their nose and voted for her.

It matters more that she is for an assault weapons ban than if she was soft on guns.

Her being for a ban allows her to attack her opponent as being extreme on guns it’s a defining difference. Suburban moms favor gun control. This is a reason some will vote for her.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Way to find the most extreme comment. As opposed to the top voted comments.
Click to expand...
That the top comment is equating gun bans with abortion bans honestly just furthers the allegations that these people are just ring wing claiming to be down the middle of something.

A "Why can't they just shut the fuck up about gun control" take in a country where gun deaths and child deaths due to guns are multiple times higher than anywhere else in the world is just psychotic individualism.
 
ayayrawn said:
That the top comment is equating gun bans with abortion bans honestly just furthers the allegations that these people are just ring wing claiming to be down the middle of something.

A "Why can't they just shut the fuck up about gun control" take in a country where gun deaths and child deaths due to guns are multiple times higher than anywhere else in the world is just psychotic individualism.
Click to expand...

Nah it really doesn't. Their point is that abortion is a losing issue for Republicans and that assualt weapons is a losing issue for Dems. Especially in swing states.

We agree on the individualism part. But unfortunately, you and I are in the minority. Most moderates in this country are moderates specifically because they've brainwashed on the notion of Reagan economics but also lean left on things like abortion and gay rights because they aren't brainwashed by a religious institution.

When the GOP was of the Bush flavor- theee were the exact voters that made sure Colorado went repeatedly red (before the influx of younger people into the state turned things blue).
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
You all can claim what matters is suburban women and turning out the popular vote but the math says it's more complicated than that. 2020 had record turnout. 20% higher than Gore / Bush. And yet what won it was Biden doing better with white voters (in swing states) than any Dem in a long while. And everyone from Pod Save to Nate Silvers obnoxious ass says that that math has to stay similar for Harris to wing most of the swing states.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have been more pointed - Harris needs to overperform with white (not just suburban) women in the battleground states to win POTUS. It won't matter in the deep red or deep blue states, but it will in the purple-ish ones. NC, my home state, is one of those. NC Dems have the advantage of also running against a highly unpopular (with women) Republican candidate for governor who's likely to spur female turnout all on his own. Overall turnout is less of an issue than battleground turnout, which is how Hillary lost electorally in 2016. White women are the largest race/gender bloc in the election, larger than white men.
 
Angsty said:
I hear far too little these days about how we need to abolish the Electoral College. Talk peaks after a President gets elected without carrying the popular vote (or barely does), then dies down a few months later. This amendment really should be the project of this generation, even though I like the idea of Supreme Court term limits, too.

www.history.com

How the Electoral College Was Nearly Abolished in 1970 | HISTORY

The House approved a constitutional amendment to dismantle the indirect voting system, but it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster.
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...
Getting rid of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform might actually be more pressing. The Republican Party is not going to simply allow an amendment to change the electoral college which has worked in their favor every time it has overturned the popular vote.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Here's some good news:





I read the Pew research, I just don't see that it necessarily leads to the conclusions you've drawn. And, I fundamentally disagree that "moderate" is the right word to apply to someone just because they're not falling cleanly into a Republican/Democrat bucket. That's the basis for my comment: posting on a "moderate politics" forum doesn't make you a moderate. Holding moderate political positions makes you a moderate. And letting the selection bias of who chooses to post on reddit inform our beliefs about the electorate at large is a flawed approach. That's all.
Click to expand...


Saw that polling yesterday. Hopeful it sticks but would also point to the fact that Harris has done 0 interviews and has announced basically no policy at this moment in time. I think that will change after the convention... but there is still a long way to go.

As to the Overton Window- we completely agree. And my goal as an activist has always been shifting it back to the left. Perhaps that's the key to my annoyance because in my experience, expansive gun regulation (involving guns themselves, not background checks) have been counterproductive to that cause.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Perhaps that's the key to my annoyance because in my experience, expansive gun regulation (involving guns themselves, not background checks) have been counterproductive to that cause.
Click to expand...
Bro.

Then what’s the point to any of this?

The Right is always telling me that criminals don’t do background checks the problem is that criminals can go out to Naperville Topgolf and steal guns from the “upstanding citizens” that just leave em in the back seat of their cars while they go shoot a round with their buds then what is the point? This is an issue of too many guns. Less guns equals less gun deaths. It’s that simple.

www.chicagotribune.com

Naperville police make 21st gun-related arrest in Topgolf parking lot since August 2023

Naperville police have made another firearm-related arrest in the Naperville Topgolf parking lot, their 21st in almost exactly a year.
www.chicagotribune.com www.chicagotribune.com
 
Last edited:
Indymisanthrope said:
LOL at all of us, actually. r/moderatepolitics isn't at all what's been described in this thread so far:

View attachment 210739

Reading these comments about weapons bans as if it means we're losing independents or undecideds is a totally unsupported conclusion.

Edit: I take it all back, @DownIsTheNewUp did describe it accurately and I just wasn't paying attention:



But there's been a conflation of moderate discussion, and discussion by moderates, since then that is probably not helping.
Click to expand...

They have the stricted mods of any sub I regular. I've been given several temporary bans for not being careful with my language towards Republicans. The goal there really is productive conversations that avoid personal and the conversations are often filled with links- abiet the rightwing sources often come from places we would write off as propaganda.

Btw, Walz is quite popular there right now if the upvote to downvotes ratios mean anything. From a thread I posted yesterday...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top