Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
State of the Union thread - Tuesday (January 25th) at 9 PM
Posts
A man who, I'm sure, already hates Obama.
Even if he was, it's a terrible time to bring it up. He'd lose all the goodwill he gained from rising above the pettiness after Tuscon; there'd be no way to talk up gun control without looking like he was trying to politicize the tragedy to his own ends.
he could have said something like, "after this tragedy, I'm aware that many Americans have started asking why we have so much gun violence in this country, and whether we need to enact more gun control laws. I stand firm as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but at the same time I recognize that we need to fight gun violence, and I will continue working with both sides to find solutions".
That doesn't really say anything, but it would be nice to hear him acknowledge that he's listening.
Maybe he should mention his pro-infanticide stance, while he's at it; I'm sure that wouldn't distract from more pressing issues, either.
You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
It can take a long time to change the focus of public discourse, though. One big speech isn't going to be enough. He needs to get people to recognize it as an issue, first, so that he can campaign with specific solutions in 2012. If nothing else, it would be a better issue to talk about than "should we repeal Obamacare" nonsense or "lets eliminate the deficit but not cut anything major from the budget".
If nothing can be done, then why bother wasting political capital on a dead end?
This is one of my major problems with my fellow progressives. Everyone wants their pet issues handled even when there are bigger priorities on the table. We tend to be good on the policy but bad on the politics.
Bringing up gun control is unimportant; the last thing we need is to invite a culture war heading into 2012. Better to focus on defending the health care bill, continuing to bolster the economy, etc. (i.e. BIG STUFF) so Obama is re-elected with better numbers in Congress.
hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
And besides. I've already stocked up on full capacity magazines after the old ban ran out.
This neo-feudalism would be more tolerable if our betters had fancy titles.
Keep in mind that many gun owners are heavily focussed on this one issue. Probably not as much as the pro life crowd is with abortion, but close.
For example, Obama might very well lose my support over stricter gun control alone. Is it really worth the political cost?
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Touching gun rights at any level at all would whip the right voter base into a frenzied mob howling "OBAMA IS COMING FER OUR GUNS!!!!!!111ONEONE" to a point you can't even imagine right now. Think of all th people who insist that Obamacare is about death panels. Now try to explain with calm, cool reason to those people that you're not trying to reduce their right to bear arms, just limit their access to certain ammunition requirements.
No way there's a 'moderate' for republicans regarding this issue. They are very concerned about getting an "A rating" and endorsement from the NRA.
They already believe he's "comin' fer ur guns" anyway, and have shown themselves over the last two years to be completely, utterly and unrepentantly willing to lie about what he's doing. I say just roll with it. You think I'm taking your guns? Might as well take them then.
That's the thing. So far Obama has me convinced that he's not coming for my guns. No mean feat for a Democrat. Why waste that?
Whoa, so the default mental state is "omgomg they're coming for my guns"? That doesn't sounds like any way to live.
Republicans shouldn't even matter for Obama. They're not going to vote for him- no matter what he says. They already proved that by filibustering new START and RomneyCare. What matters for him is the voter turnout of his base, and pandering to republicans and gun nuts is not going to incrase that turnout.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
Thing is, lots of democrats like guns, too.
That's not how I meant that to come across. I meant something along the lines of "gun control is part of the 'typical' Democrats agenda." Not every Democrats obviously.
Yes but you rarely see democratic voters turning away from a candidate just because they half-heartedly endoursed extremely moderate gun control measures like the ban on 30-bullet pistol magazines. If Obama is smart about it, he could turn the Tuscon shooting into a major political boon for democrats\.
Dems have to just accept that the second amendment fight is over for now, and requires a major public opinion change to be anything but a way to lose seats.
edit: Trying to turn Tucson into a gun control debate is just.. not going to work unless you can prove the man wasn't crazy and actually was part of a greater shift towards stocking up on high capacity or concealable weapons in order to murder people on a large scale. Otherwise it shifts the conversation from "we need to work on our mental health facilities/tone it down a notch on the violent rhetoric" to "YOU WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS YOU COMMIE"
Which will not end well, since it has pretty much no support from the courts, no support from congress, and will bleed/polarize support in the electorate.
Well, I'm more talking about people who explicitly say "I won't vote for Candidate X because he is/isn't religious/Christian/Muslim/etc.". It's just stupid for your decision to rest solely upon this point.
In the past I would have agreed with you. These days, it seems like things are so partisan that you can look at how someone feels about any single issue, and then predict their political party, and then predict everything else about them. Me personally, I'd have a hard time voting for anyone who describes themself as a republican, no matter how awesome that person might be during interviews.
This. A candidate's religion is less important than his or her political and social leanings and how much closer they are to my own compared to the opposing candidate(s). I understand that religion plays a part in that calculation, but I think the nature of the Democratic party makes it possible for religion to not be the primary way to define a candidate.
No. No, no, no, no, NO. You cannot, and should not, attempt to turn Tuscon into a political thing. There's no "smart" way, it will just blow up in your face.
What happened there was a tragedy, but has far more to do with our failure as a nation to help the mentally ill than it has to do with gun control.
Trying to play it for points is flat out disrespectful, and thus is political suicide.
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
we need more guns to protect ourselves against them
so we can all feel safe
How is that not a political thing? Half the nation wants to improve health care, including mental health care. The other care wants to restrict it so that only rich people can have health care. Of course that ignores the larger point that having a mental illness doesn't necessarly make someone dangerous, but nevermind that. This could a catalyst to save lives.
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
since when do facts have anything to do with politics? The important issue is that someone used a weapon which would have been illegal just a few years ago to assassinate a member of congress- shouldn't that be illegal again? A lot of Americans think so. Very few Americans are going to stand up and passionately defend extended handgun magazines right now, or restricted mental health care. That's why Obama should have at least mentioned the subject in the SOTU.
Yes moral superiority does suck.