• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,943
By November 2020 Democrats hopefully won't have to care about Moscow Mitch at all, but in the here and now I'll gladly and excitedly take any gun control measure that passes Congress that intends to prevent the loss of further life, yes.

On the broader point though, for years, if not decades, Democrats have argued consistently we're not going to come to take away your guns like the Republicans are claiming we would, instead saying we support sensible gun control measures to curb the gun violence epidemic. That's in part what has led to winning suburban voters over as mass and school shootings are becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence, opening the path to actually be able to pass laws like the assault weapons ban we know work. The NRA is a shell of its former self because the positions of the NRA and Republicans are increasingly seen as extreme. The one way to lose suburban voters again, to lose this momentum, to give the NRA a new lease on life and boost rural Trump voter turnout in 2020, is to say you support mandatory gun buy-backs.

When he says Democrats shouldn't worry about Republicans but go out there and run on the right policy, I don't think he means they should go out there and support a dumb policy.

I'm not as on board with this as I once was because we can't look at these policies divorced from reality. And the reality is there is a rise in killings associated with a specific type of gun. And nobody's safe from this. This isn't about gun violence happening in the hood. This isn't even about American citizens being able to arm themselves. This is about the fact that everyone's kids, even lily white ones, are having to go to schools and do drills to better their chances of survival against a white supremacist wielding a specific type of gun. That when people going to public events and public spaces express fear of a mass violent act, it's with a specific type of weapon.

So while I understand not lending ourselves to Republican talking points, I do think we need to stop doing that to the point that we care more about not getting their voters than losing ours. Americans are afraid of the AR-15. Suburban white voters are afraid of the AR-15. Any voter who would think Democrats saying "We're going to ban those types of guns" means "We are going to take away all guns" especially out of the mouth of a Democrat from Texas was always going to fall the Republican talking point that Democrats are going to "take yer gunz." And they're just not worth it. They're not worth losing the energy of our base over.

We've had an assault weapons ban before.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Which, translated from economist-speak, means that the majority of the costs of rent control are in the fact that people don't want to live next to the poors.

Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
It absolutely has not. What you mean by "moving on" is that you decided to start ignoring experts who say things that you don't like to hear. The "political economy" of the situation is that current residents vote, future ones do not. And so politicians end up inclined to fuck over all potential future residents in the process of introducing harmful policies like Rent Control and Zoning Restrictions, with them reducing the housing supply and warping new housing construction even further up the income scale, acceleration the gentrification part of the gentrification + housing shortage combo that leads to displacement. The same way in which zoning regs are a horrible tool designed to privilege current homeowners above everyone else, the same is true of rent control. And both end up incredibly destructive. There are a lot of things you can do to help ameliorate the issue instead of the one that fucks everyone over. Being able to stay in an apartment longer but still getting kicked out eventually when your building gets converted to condos isn't a fix!

And no, that is not "economist-speak" for people don't want to live next to the poors. It's saying that new construction was massively devalued as a result of rent control. Which is what's going to happen when new construction is misaligned with actual market conditions. This is not about "perfect spherical conditions" when we have study after study looking at this stuff and saying "yeah the theory's right, and the mass negative consequences are real."
Yeah I was going to make a comment about kirblar living in an Econ textbook. I don't think he's wrong that the superior thing to do is build more apartments rather than rent control. but "economically illiterate" is very much an exaggeration. It's maybe not the best solution to the problem, but these are actual policies in the real world in major cities. And Sander's plan for housing also includes creating 2 million new units. So the criticism is strange.
The issues with rent control do NOT live in an econ textbook. The introduction of rent control delays problems for the people being subsidized. It does not eliminate them. They catch up to them down the line as their buildings are demolished, converted to condos, left in disrepair, etc. It leads to landlords being unwilling to build medium income housing because they know the prices will be locked in, making high-end expensive housing the safest best. These are not theoetical arguments that don't play out in reality, they're what actually happen.

If this is "strange" to you, you need to read the Brookings piece in full. It goes into great detail about the widespread negative consequences.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
Never trust a Rhodes Scholar.
I trust Rachel Maddow (well until like last year).
It absolutely has not. What you mean by "moving on" is that you decided to start ignoring experts who say things that you don't like to hear. The "political economy" of the situation is that current residents vote, future ones do not. And so politicians end up inclined to fuck over all potential future residents in the process of introducing harmful policies like Rent Control and Zoning Restrictions, with them reducing the housing supply and warping new housing construction even further up the income scale, acceleration the gentrification part of the gentrification + housing shortage combo that leads to displacement. The same way in which zoning regs are a horrible tool designed to privilege current homeowners above everyone else, the same is true of rent control. And both end up incredibly destructive. There are a lot of things you can do to help ameliorate the issue instead of the one that fucks everyone over. Being able to stay in an apartment longer but still getting kicked out eventually when your building gets converted to condos isn't a fix!

And no, that is not "economist-speak" for people don't want to live next to the poors. It's saying that new construction was massively devalued as a result of rent control. Which is what's going to happen when new construction is misaligned with actual market conditions. This is not about "perfect spherical conditions" when we have study after study looking at this stuff and saying "yeah the theory's right, and the mass negative consequences are real."

The issues with rent control do NOT live in an econ textbook. The introduction of rent control delays problems for the people being subsidized. It does not eliminate them. They catch up to them down the line as their buildings are demolished, converted to condos, left in disrepair, etc. It leads to landlords being unwilling to build medium income housing because they know the prices will be locked in, making high-end expensive housing the safest best. These are not theoetical arguments that don't play out in reality, they're what actually happen.

If this is "strange" to you, you need to read the Brookings piece in full. It goes into great detail about the widespread negative consequences.
What's strange in your criticism is that Bernie does, in fact, want to build more housing units. A lot of them. That's what I was referring to specifically. your comment was as if his only solution was controlling prices, when it is clearly not.

although my original comment was wrong in that even if rent control is a common practice in large cities, it doesn't mean its a good thing. What I I took issue with, was with your use of "economically illiterate" specifically because in New York, D.C., Maryland - we have rent controlled apartments as solutions to a real problem, whatever it is their actual economic outcomes are. but in hindsight, I see that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a sustainable or good policy.
 
Last edited:

Gurgelhals

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,709
Never trust a Rhodes Scholar.

image.jpg
 

chadskin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,013
We've had an assault weapons ban before.
Yes, and everyone but Yang supports the assault weapons ban, but that's a ban on new purchases, not weapons already in circulation. The divide is whether you support a voluntary buy-back program for them, as endorsed by Biden, Bernie, Warren, Pete and a number of other candidates. Or whether you support a mandatory buy-back program, as endorsed by Beto and Swalwell.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973
Sometimes Buttigieg seems like he just doesn't get it. Like after the debate when he insisted to Chris Mathews that progressive reforms must be done "together". The last president before this one waited for "together" too often, and it didn't come. The first step in doing progressive reforms is to do them. Contest-wise, Beto probably has the edge here, and Booker will hang in because he has a record over and above Buttigieg as mayor AND Senator.

As for Harris, perhaps her best bet at this point is to emphasize that she's done the right things and pursued injustice as a Senator, when it comes to Kavanaugh and other reviews that come before Senate committees. She can easily and effectively go beyond Klobuchar's "I'm concerned", and exceed Klobuchar's "I've never lost and I've put lots of people away" marketing. Drop the 3 am stuff and seize on McCaskill's words before the other Senator candidates do, and before they get normalized and imprinted onto any Senator running for president, or any Senate candidate. Then she will have broken through with addressing people's perception of "Who and what is she fighting for?" while supporting the entire field should she not end up the frontrunner.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
I trust Rachel Maddow (well until like last year).

What's strange in your criticism is that Bernie does, in fact, want to build more housing units. A lot of them. That's what I was referring to specifically. your comment was as if his only solution was controlling prices, when it is clearly not.

although my original comment was wrong in that even if rent control is a common practice in large cities, it doesn't mean its a good thing. What I I took issue with, was with your use of "economically illiterate" specifically because in New York, D.C., Maryland - we have rent controlled apartments as solutions to a real problem, whatever it is their actual economic outcomes are. but in hindsight, I see that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a sustainable or good policy.
Rent controlled apartments still aren't a solution though. It allows the current subset of affected people to benefit in the new term at the cost of disastrous long term consequences that don't actually solve the issues long term for the affected people anyway.

The "economic illiterate" part is me being upset that a) Rent Control completely works against building new housing, defeating the whole point of why you're proposing ways to do that and b) the constant inane replies you see to stuff like this study that found "yes, rent control fucks up your supply of housing and is counterproductive." The lefty conspiracy theory on this topic is very much a thing, and rent control making it in means it's got an influence somewhere.

 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
Rent controlled apartments still aren't a solution though. It allows the current subset of affected people to benefit in the new term at the cost of disastrous long term consequences that don't actually solve the issues long term for the affected people anyway.

The "economic illiterate" part is me being upset that a) Rent Control completely works against building new housing, defeating the whole point of why you're buying it and b) the constant inane replies you see to stuff like this study that found "yes, rent control fucks up your supply of housing and is counterproductive." The lefty conspiracy theory on this topic is very much a thing, and rent control making it in means it's got an influence somewhere.


yeah I mean I don't think you're wrong. lol
 

Owzers

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,443
"At the end of the day, I think this is The New York Times just being bitter-enders. I bet you the next Democratic debate, they'll all be saying 'impeach Kavanaugh, impeach Trump.' There's nobody they don't want to impeach and at some point they just have to let the anger go and recognize that the Democratic process actually moves on and I think it's time for them to do that."

Ted Cruz on Democrat's being obsessed with harmless fun.
 

Ithil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,377
"At the end of the day, I think this is The New York Times just being bitter-enders. I bet you the next Democratic debate, they'll all be saying 'impeach Kavanaugh, impeach Trump.' There's nobody they don't want to impeach and at some point they just have to let the anger go and recognize that the Democratic process actually moves on and I think it's time for them to do that."

Ted Cruz on Democrat's being obsessed with harmless fun.
And now, let's talk about Hillary
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The whistleblower complaint being held back is a big deal regardless of what the actual whistleblowing is about.
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,961
South Carolina
This was a couple of days ago, but John Bolton's Bolton PAC has restarted operations



From the scum whence he came, back to it he will go.

I take in Cambridge Ana.....Emerdatas already in touch?

Also lol @ Gardner

On the IC whistleblower 👀



Oh, there are so many lids ready to blow right now. Question is, will the public continue to begin doubting their lies.

They don't do shit with the goods. It's the most pathetic thing to witness.

Your help in the matter is noted and appreciated.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Going to be fun watching Repubs whine about McCabe's "lack of candor" needing criminal prosecution despite a grand jury telling them "lol no", while blissfully ignoring Kavanaugh's provable perjury and the FBI cover-up:

Given that GOP thinks that McCabe's lack of candor in an internal investigation justified his firing and should even land him in jail, they must agree that a nominee who lied under oath should, *at the very least* result in a losing seat on SCOTUS for life, right? ()

And I absolutely can't wait for the media to put McCabe on the level of Kavanaugh and present this as just another part of the problem circus enveloping "both sides". We'll see if the conservative Democrats continue to debase themselves.

probably has something to do with the Russian spy right?

or maybe the Saudis, idk. there's some serious entanglement there.

Hell, the Epstein stuff was happening around the same time, which includes Russia and Saudis to name a few entangled factions...
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
Trump putting extra attention on the NYT story by bitching about it on twitter is giving me life. Kavanaugh must be trying to crawl into a hole right now.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
I'm sure that asshole's fine. He'd probably relish another attack over it so that he can look like a big man on TV again.
Nah, his level of outrage during the hearings indicated a man with a thin skin who was incensed by the concept of accountability and the creation of a blemish on his character. His daughters seeing it the news will be torture enough, to start.
 

Prodigal Son

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,791
Sanders' position on the filibuster either comes from a fear that it would be abused by the GOP (although reconciliation favors the kind of hatchet-jobs they like to pull and not progressive legislation), or just from the ghost of the spirit of comity in the Senate.
its very obviously from the position that the GOP will abuse it
 

legacyzero

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,252
The actual frontrunner in polls is still "undecided."

The perception that Biden has been a strong frontrunner able to coast on inevitability has never been borne out by the data. He's the frontrunner via inertia but he can't win via inertia.
Is t he leading in endorsements and "delegates" (as the media would have it)?

I mean, I get it. But still- it's really alarming. I'm sure he'll tank in Iowa, NH etc. But this is still worryingly fascinating
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,912


Beto O'Rourke @BetoORourke

Leaving millions of weapons of war on the streets because Trump and McConnell are "at least pretending to be open to reforms"?

That calculation and fear is what got us here in the first place. Let's have the courage to say what we believe and fight for it. https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1173239254257979400 …

12:02 PM - Sep 15, 2019

FUCK PETE.

Also fuck all of the candidates who are not drawing as of an aggressive line in the sand as Beto. If gun violence is where progressives begin to acknowledge realities of the world then it's a sad sight to see.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.