gulliver
gulliver's JournalLicense, register, and require insurance for guns
There's no good argument against that, and it would solve the problem as much as it can be solved.
We need to focus on concrete action or we're just going to see the usual political bonfire that burns down to the usual result: no change.
Looks like your questions are good questions
A lot of people seem to be bringing up the points you're bringing up, so I'll answer them here.
My answer? Of course cops are supposed to use good judgment. Of course cops are trained. Of course they're supposed to protect and serve. Of course they're supposed to be brave and not cowards. Of course they're supposed to take charge.
And to your question, "How do we honor and respect officers who didn't protect the most vulnerable?"
The answer is we don't.
That's not the point. The above are all givens.
You can't put a 5-ton load in a 2-ton truck and expect the truck not to buckle, at least sometimes.
Who put the 5-ton load in the truck in the first place? I'm not saying don't ask whether the cops made bad decisions. By all means do. Just don't forget to ask why they made those "bad decisions," and, above all, why they were in a position to have to make those decisions in the first place. The answer to those questions, imo, leads to true accountability.
And who put the cops in the situation where they made "the wrong decision?"
That's the question I don't see being asked, and that's an important question. Every single time we get new details about how one or more of the cops "made the wrong decision," I think it's only right that we ask the obvious follow-up: "And why did they make the wrong decision?" And then the follow-up to that: "Are America's gun industry and Republicans making policing untenable by the normal, non-suicidal, family having, imperfect human beings normally found on Earth?"
The Uvalde first responders are also victims of the gun industry and Republicans
Just being a first responder at something as bad as this would be horrible. But imagine there's a cop there who didn't live up to our "expectations" as we sit here at our keyboards. We don't know there is such a cop, not even one. But if some cop were feeling guilty and hated themselves right now for something they did or didn't do, or they can't stop thinking about something they "think" they did or didn't do, that cop is a victim too in my book. They wouldn't have had to be there at all if it weren't for the gun manufactures, gun dealers, and the pitiable cartoon that the Republican Party has let itself become.
Claiming the new liberal center
I'd argue that there is a motherlode of votes to be found among the sensible folks. I've noticed that the phrase "common sense" (formerly an oxymoron) has been getting more traction. Call me superstitious, but I think that's a good sign.
Which side will be the one to bench its self-selected zealots in favor of its wise, to achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio? I'm very encouraged with what I see in our Dems. The Republicans are getting close to being sick of their clowns, though. We may start to see a gold rush to compete for the reliable majority in the middle, the true base, the people who count to ten. I just hope it doesn't happen too late. And I hope it's the Dems who are the first to take a closer look at the glittering rocks right under our feet and stake our claim.
If that were in every state it would hurt Republicans
It would keep demonstrators from making Dems look bad by protesting outside people's homes. We would keep some of the votes demonstrators currently cost us and our causes would benefit. I'm not sure DeSantis has thought this through.
I tend to disapprove of such judgmental "litmus tests"
The existence of the test is, in part, a rhetorical assertion of a set of hidden premises. I.e., it's in a category that includes push polls and other such backhanded ways of persuasion and advocacy. A particularly unfortunate unstated implication of this particular test (I would say) is, "Pass this test or you're a homophobe." (Others are free to dispute that that is an implication, of course.)
Making such an implication would be immoral (probably unintentionally) on at least two grounds, in my opinion: 1) It asserts one's authority to stand in judgment of others and, 2) The implication attempts to persuade by striking fear. The former puts one in danger of evincing a form of authoritarianism. The latter is the destructive irony that accompanies any argument made for a good cause that is made less than well, thus damaging the cause.
His heart and mind are both in the right place
His admirers aren't into his personality so much as his very evident ability to accomplish great things. I have yet to hear a good argument against him. Most of the arguments against him I've heard come across as arguments for him. They're so seemingly ill-considered and superficial that they backfire.
Musk is not the only area where we sometimes hear loud arguments from voices whose logical backup, reasoning, and effective morality (not "intended morality," effective morality) argue for their being more on the listening side than the talking side.
Musk's goal is a sustainable world of abundance for all. And he's someone who accomplishes what he sets out to accomplish.
I'd say mainly attack Republican "owners" and their mouth parts
The regular Joe's and Jane's among the Republicans need to realize they're now officially sleeping with dogs. They need to look at the Dems and ask, are my Dem neighbors and co-workers really pedophiles or have I just been listening to dogs and guzzling doggy hooch?
And who grouped Joe and Jane Normal Republican with a smelly, stupid mob of addled dogs anyway? I mean, they did it to themselves of course. They chose their company. But who helped pull the levers that let the riffraff, not just into the show, but let them literally take the show over?
Rupert Murdoch and his troop of Murdoch Players come to mind. Trump, Carlson, Cruz and the rest are just mouth parts. "Get in there with the dogs, Joe and Jane Republican!" they commanded, laughing to themselves. "That buffalo guy and the guy who shits on furniture? Consider them your masters. You're the dogs!"
Voting against a Trump Republican owns Putin
I'm not seeing this message out there much. Just looking for something powerful and true to drown out the Republican Hunter/CRT lie thrumming.
If you're voting against a Trump Republican, you're owning Putin. Every vote for a Trump Republican makes Putin happy. Louder and louder. Repeat and repeat.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,180
