Biden Says Beto O’Rourke Will ‘Take Care of the Gun Problem with Me’

[JerseyMike]

I appreciate the response; thank you. I don’t think this is the place to debate the merits of these items, and also don’t think it would be fruitful or a good use of our time.

The single-issue voting piece was in response to someone else and not you. I do agree that there is low likelihood that everyone will agree with any candidate on every single issue, so we are left to choose based on the best overall fit for our own beliefs.

I happen to disagree with most of what you wrote, but I am glad you took the time to put it into words so I can consider your viewpoint.

I completely agree that Trump doesn’t prioritize 2A issues, but totes the line to keep the support coming from the base. There are other things about him that I don’t particularly care for, or don’t agree with him on, but overall feel that he is pointing our country in a far better direction than any of the other candidates would.

I’m not interested in debating the merits of specific policy topics per se, but I am intrigued by what specific policies and topics that you don’t agree with Trump on, vs specific policies and topics of any other candidate that would make you choose them over Trump. Particularly from the viewpoint that there is a large amount of cross-over between stances on how different policies impact the country.

You are saying you are Pro-2A and are not interested in Medicare for all/ single payer healthcare, but are interested in progressive ideals like climate change/ environmental policy.

For instance (from my viewpoint) there is crossover regarding Healthcare, immigration, and education wherein providing Medicare to all/ eliminating private insurance, having open borders and paying for “free” college education will all increase the tax burden dramatically while decreasing free markets and handing those markets to the government to manage. I don’t agree with these policies, and am very interested in pro-2A stances. Out of the 4, Trump has 3 covered for me. No one else running has any of them covered.

So what are the topics that would cause you to consider voting for one of the democratic nominees that are important to you? Without debating the specific merits of those viewpoints.

I hope this is coming across as cordial because I intend it to be as I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

There is definitely a lot of overlap. I can’t really respond without getting into the merits, but other then Bernie’s anti-gun policies and medicare for all I’m pretty much on board with everything else he stands for. I’ll just say that I probably have a different perception of the implications of Bernie identifying as a democratic socialist and how it would affect our capitalist society. I am not a fan of socialism as it has been, or attempted to be, implemented and don’t think it could work in practice. However, I do support policies that some would label “socialist” (whether it is appropriate to do so is a serious debate in and of itself) for the purpose of correcting/mitigating some of the failings of capitalism.

Bottom line is I am not saying I know more than anyone here, that I’m right or try to convince anyone that they are wrong. I posted in this thread to express some frustration/disappointment with the state of the Democratic primary and to remind some of the right-leaning people on here that there are dems/progressives who are pro 2A and this can be a bipartisan issue.

 

[welder516]

No wonder we are where we are , I look at free stuff the government wants to give me as a scary thing .
Not sure what the yutes think about when someone says free to them .

 

[Alan3413]

We’re relatively safe for the next 4 years. I’m worried about what comes next, the writing is on the wall and coming from their mouths. Prepare accordingly.

Pence will be front and center then

 

[Ammo Jon]

That is the most cleverly subtle sales pitch I have ever heard.

Yes you got me. I’m laying the foundation for sales in 2023

 

[Alan3413]

There is definitely a lot of overlap. I can’t really respond without getting into the merits, but other then Bernie’s anti-gun policies and medicare for all I’m pretty much on board with everything else he stands for. I’ll just say that I probably have a different perception of the implications of Bernie identifying as a democratic socialist and how it would affect our capitalist society. I am not a fan of socialism as it has been, or attempted to be, implemented and don’t think it could work in practice. However, I do support policies that some would label “socialist” (whether it is appropriate to do so is a serious debate in and of itself) for the purpose of correcting/mitigating some of the failings of capitalism.

Bottom line is I am not saying I know more than anyone here, that I’m right or try to convince anyone that they are wrong. I posted in this thread to express some frustration/disappointment with the state of the Democratic primary and to remind some of the right-leaning people on here that there are dems/progressives who are pro 2A and this can be a bipartisan issue.

TANSTAAFL. Someone always pays in the end.

If Bernie wins, I'm at an age where most of the paying will be done by someone else. Most likely Bernie supporters.

 

[fred55]

TANSTAAFL. Someone always pays in the end.

If Bernie wins, I'm at an age where most of the paying will be done by someone else. Most likely Bernie supporters.

Ditto. Bernie supporters best be careful what they vote for. fred55

 

[Biggfoot44]

Most of us live in Maryland . The reality is that none of our votes in November will mean anything . We are the most one sided state in the country, and 70% of the voters will automatically vote D , regardless of who's name is in front of it . To have an impact , we would need to cross a border, and be a campaign volunteer in either Va or Pa .


If you can't bring yourself to vote for either the D or the R for whatever reason , don't just stay home , or write in your Father, or Mickey Mouse , vote for the L candidate . It won't be any more wasted than voting Rep in Maryland , and will at least indirectly sending a message .

Yeah, yeah , " Single Issue is Bad " . But more than anything else 2A is the best predictor on their stance on the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution , and their whole political philosophy .

Never say never , but I have seen an anti- gunner that I could say, " Yeah nevermind that , but I still really support him on everything else " . ( Note , that's not the same thing as saying if they support 2A , I'm agreeing with them on everything else .)

The strangest twist took place in Va a cpl cycles ago . Both the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates totally agreed on gun rights , small government, and strict constructionism , but disagreed on virtually everything else .

 

[Kair350]

Vote For Freedom

 

[Sirex]

Beta is gonna head it up, Bloomturd is gonna finance it. Slow Joe is gonna take our guns, just like he did at the OK coral back in 1881.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

No wonder we are where we are , I look at free stuff the government wants to give me as a scary thing .
Not sure what the yutes think about when someone says free to them .

Somebody told my grandfather he should go sign up for social security when he hit sixty five... His response was short and to the point. “I didn’t put anything in it. I don’t want money from the government. I don’t need charity.”

 

[Pale Ryder]

What’s next, making Greta the energy Czar?

“Sleepy Joe’s gonna be in a home”.

 

[welder516]

Somebody told my grandfather he should go sign up for social security when he hit sixty five... His response was short and to the point. “I didn’t put anything in it. I don’t want money from the government. I don’t need charity.”

Very little of that nowadays , everyone wants what they are entitled to . Or so they believe .

Some people look at SS as an entitlement , i see it more as an (twist my arm) agreement for me and my employer putting money in when i am younger so i can draw on it when i am older and not working .
I would have rather saved my own money and handled my own SS account and i would have been a millionaire a few times over .

 

[jefflac02]

other then Bernie’s anti-gun policies and medicare for all I’m pretty much on board with everything else he stands for. I’ll just say that I probably have a different perception of the implications of Bernie identifying as a democratic socialist and how it would affect our capitalist society. I am not a fan of socialism as it has been, or attempted to be, implemented and don’t think it could work in practice. However, I do support policies that some would label “socialist” (whether it is appropriate to do so is a serious debate in and of itself) for the purpose of correcting/mitigating some of the failings of capitalism.

.

I have been sitting quitely as I’ve read this thread and obviously your opinions, you are entitled to and I will defend your right to hold them.

However, what I quoted above is more than concerning,as it’s an opinion shared among millions who religiously support Bernie. Capitalism is not perfect by any means, however, bigger Gov and creating a nanny state through increased tax burdens on the middle class are NOT the answer.

As a business owner who employs and supports 4 families, the concept of socialism is not only offensive to my traditional conservative values, it also provides a disincentive to take risks in the pursuit of larger profits. And further, actually disincentives folks to create new jobs and grow a business. Why would I work harder (emphasis) only so the gov can take more of my earnings through taxation.

I can spend my money more efficiently than the gov ever could. I contribute to many charities I believe in (over $10,000+, last year alone, please don’t take this as bragging, it’s not meant to be, simply stating that if I had to pay higher taxes, I couldn’t donate to help those in need)That alone to me does more for my community than the redistribution of my earnings towards “gov” programs because I’m donating directly to those in need, in my community.

And that’s where the money needs to go. Locally not to big gov.

I would encourage more reading on Adam Smith and on the history of our founding, if you haven’t already. Your ideas wild destroy the very fabric on which our great country has been built.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[welder516]

I have been sitting quitely as I’ve read this thread and obviously your opinions, you are entitled to and I will defend your right to hold them.

However, what I quoted above is more than concerning,as it’s an opinion shared among millions who religiously support Bernie. Capitalism is not perfect by any means, however, bigger Gov and creating a nanny state through increased tax burdens on the middle class are NOT the answer.

As a business owner who employs and supports 4 families, the concept of socialism is not only offensive to my traditional conservative values, it also provides a disincentive to take risks in the pursuit of larger profits. And further, actually disincentives folks to create new jobs and grow a business. Why would I work harder (emphasis) only so the gov can take more of my earnings through taxation.



I can spend my money more efficiently than the gov ever could. I contribute to many charities I believe in (over $10,000+, last year alone, please don’t take this as bragging, it’s not meant to be, simply stating that if I had to pay higher taxes, I couldn’t donate to help those in need)That alone to me does more for my community than the redistribution of my earnings towards “gov” programs because I’m donating directly to those in need, in my community.

And that’s where the money needs to go. Locally not to big gov.

I would encourage more reading on Adam Smith and on the history of our founding, if you haven’t already. Your ideas wild destroy the very fabric on which our great country has been built.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perfect

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

Capitalism is not perfect by any means, however, bigger Gov and creating a nanny state through increased tax burdens on the middle class are NOT the answer.

Capitalism results in an unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism results in an equal distribution of misery.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

double post...just read the next one...once

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Socialism is all about the morally blind and inherently lazy wanting someone else to level the playing field so they won’t feel so inadequate and insecure.

Anybody who has worked for anything knows the value of being constructive and productive. There is no free lunch. Somebody is paying for that sammich.

Capitalism may not be perfect or even close. Socialism is the thing that sounds great but NEVER works out the way the proponents suggest...not even close. What do they say? The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. Socialism makes the haves and have nots game look like child’s play. You’re either elite or shite. Nobody in the middle. NOBODY.

I guarantee MORE GOVERNMENT is NOT the answer. Just ask the Native Americans...

 

[Jollyllama]

There is definitely a lot of overlap. I can’t really respond without getting into the merits, but other then Bernie’s anti-gun policies and medicare for all I’m pretty much on board with everything else he stands for. I’ll just say that I probably have a different perception of the implications of Bernie identifying as a democratic socialist and how it would affect our capitalist society. I am not a fan of socialism as it has been, or attempted to be, implemented and don’t think it could work in practice. However, I do support policies that some would label “socialist” (whether it is appropriate to do so is a serious debate in and of itself) for the purpose of correcting/mitigating some of the failings of capitalism.



Bottom line is I am not saying I know more than anyone here, that I’m right or try to convince anyone that they are wrong. I posted in this thread to express some frustration/disappointment with the state of the Democratic primary and to remind some of the right-leaning people on here that there are dems/progressives who are pro 2A and this can be a bipartisan issue.

Thank you again for the response. While I pretty much completely disagree with you on all of this, I will defend your right to live as you choose.

I wish the 2A and all issues could be bipartisan issues, but they are not. Historically speaking all socialist dictatorships, communist regimes, “democratic socialist organizations,” etc have all disarmed their people and then slaughtered the dissidents. Communism and anti 2A are indeed two peas in a pod. Without the 2A and right for people to defend themselves or hold their government in check, there is only absolutism in power which has never translated to people being treated close to fairly.

I will strongly disagree with you on the ideal that “communism hasn’t been done right yet.” This really is nonsense from a historical point of view. Russia, China, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, have all implemented communism exactly how they wanted it and it destroyed their countries. There isn’t a “better way” to implement socialism than has been tried. There are great ways to read about this topic from a number of non-biased historical sources. The most prosperous communist country has likely been China, but this is because they started implementing some level of private ownership in land and companies, as well as embracing the capitalist practices of countries around the globe to initiate trade. The rest of the world and capitalism is responsible for Communistic China’s wealth gathering, not the other way around.

If anything capitalism (which isn’t perfect either) hasn’t been implemented correctly. Endless regulations, sanctions, bailouts, etc don’t ever allow for true capitalism to market correct themselves. Our country goes down this road of subsidizing banks and other industries, (auto) to name one, while imposing massive regulatory structures on them. They become pseudo-capitalist organizations that rely of the government to prop them up due to poor business practices and because the Gov gives them money. It would be horrific to see these entities fail, which is why they get bailed out. However if they never started with the Gov teat to being with and weren’t regulated out of true free markets from the onset, the end results would likely be drastically different.

Capitalist countries aren’t rounding up dissidents and quietly killing them in order to maintain the status quo. All communist (et. al) governments have done this.

I also don’t claim to know everything or be the smartest guy here and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinion. I do think your opinion comes from a place of Naïveté as you self- described. I would agree that Bern has been pretty steadfast in his beliefs all along, his whole life even, but just because his ideals don’t flip flop to pacify the masses don’t make them good ideals.

Been likes to point to a number of “social countries” like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc as examples where democratic socialism has provided healthcare for all. Flaws about in this blatant misrepresentation of these countries as they aren’t social countries. They are in fact extremely capitalist countries with vastly smaller and more homogeneous populations that the USA. Their success in implementing shrewd capitalism has allowed them to provide a vast safety net to their citizens in the form of state sponsored healthcare. They also have maintained private health insurance for those who can afford it. Besides being an apples to oranges comparison to the US on its face in terms of cultural norms and population size, (lack of) geographic cultural divergence compared to the US, they are a poor indicator of how their systems would run here since their entire basic construct of government and liberty/ freedom is completely different than how our country was founded.

Yes Bernie has been consistent in the message he delivers, but nothing I can find discussing these topics backs his hypothesis. I happen to personally know physicians in these types of governments and the entire system is different. It is drastic once you are familiar with how healthcare is actually delivered and how those who deliver it are trained. Additionally (and I know you aren’t pro Medicare for all, but it is part and parcel to the governmental ownership of private industry which defines socialism) shutting off drug company’s ability to profit and conduct research would have a profoundly devastating impact in global healthcare advances. Our country churns our over half the medical advances globally. It is funded by private corporations and government research. Government cannot run that more efficiently than private industry can.

Yes the US has started to lag in longevity of life; we have cheap and ready access to garbage food and don’t exercise enough. We are fat. This is a result of prosperity, not a shortfall of government intervention.

I didn’t want to debate the merits of these items as previously mentioned, but when someone mistakenly starts discussing communism in a light where it has “not been done correctly yet,” I get a little triggered.

Please vote for whoever you like. It is your right. I do not think that if you are staunchly Pro2A there is a way to reconcile that with any form of socialism.

And thank you again for describing your viewpoints I have enjoyed friendly discussion, which should be the basis of how things are conducted instead of name calling and smear campaigns. But we live in a pretty rough world.

 

[willtill]

Thank you again for the response. While I pretty much completely disagree with you on all of this, I will defend your right to live as you choose.

I wish the 2A and all issues could be bipartisan issues, but they are not. Historically speaking all socialist dictatorships, communist regimes, “democratic socialist organizations,” etc have all disarmed their people and then slaughtered the dissidents. Communism and anti 2A are indeed two peas in a pod. Without the 2A and right for people to defend themselves or hold their government in check, there is only absolutism in power which has never translated to people being treated close to fairly.

I will strongly disagree with you on the ideal that “communism hasn’t been done right yet.” This really is nonsense from a historical point of view. Russia, China, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, have all implemented communism exactly how they wanted it and it destroyed their countries. There isn’t a “better way” to implement socialism than has been tried. There are great ways to read about this topic from a number of non-biased historical sources. The most prosperous communist country has likely been China, but this is because they started implementing some level of private ownership in land and companies, as well as embracing the capitalist practices of countries around the globe to initiate trade. The rest of the world and capitalism is responsible for Communistic China’s wealth gathering, not the other way around.

If anything capitalism (which isn’t perfect either) hasn’t been implemented correctly. Endless regulations, sanctions, bailouts, etc don’t ever allow for true capitalism to market correct themselves. Our country goes down this road of subsidizing banks and other industries, (auto) to name one, while imposing massive regulatory structures on them. They become pseudo-capitalist organizations that rely of the government to prop them up due to poor business practices and because the Gov gives them money. It would be horrific to see these entities fail, which is why they get bailed out. However if they never started with the Gov teat to being with and weren’t regulated out of true free markets from the onset, the end results would likely be drastically different.

Capitalist countries aren’t rounding up dissidents and quietly killing them in order to maintain the status quo. All communist (et. al) governments have done this.

I also don’t claim to know everything or be the smartest guy here and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinion. I do think your opinion comes from a place of Naïveté as you self- described. I would agree that Bern has been pretty steadfast in his beliefs all along, his whole life even, but just because his ideals don’t flip flop to pacify the masses don’t make them good ideals.

Been likes to point to a number of “social countries” like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc as examples where democratic socialism has provided healthcare for all. Flaws about in this blatant misrepresentation of these countries as they aren’t social countries. They are in fact extremely capitalist countries with vastly smaller and more homogeneous populations that the USA. Their success in implementing shrewd capitalism has allowed them to provide a vast safety net to their citizens in the form of state sponsored healthcare. They also have maintained private health insurance for those who can afford it. Besides being an apples to oranges comparison to the US on its face in terms of cultural norms and population size, (lack of) geographic cultural divergence compared to the US, they are a poor indicator of how their systems would run here since their entire basic construct of government and liberty/ freedom is completely different than how our country was founded.

Yes Bernie has been consistent in the message he delivers, but nothing I can find discussing these topics backs his hypothesis. I happen to personally know physicians in these types of governments and the entire system is different. It is drastic once you are familiar with how healthcare is actually delivered and how those who deliver it are trained. Additionally (and I know you aren’t pro Medicare for all, but it is part and parcel to the governmental ownership of private industry which defines socialism) shutting off drug company’s ability to profit and conduct research would have a profoundly devastating impact in global healthcare advances. Our country churns our over half the medical advances globally. It is funded by private corporations and government research. Government cannot run that more efficiently than private industry can.

Yes the US has started to lag in longevity of life; we have cheap and ready access to garbage food and don’t exercise enough. We are fat. This is a result of prosperity, not a shortfall of government intervention.

I didn’t want to debate the merits of these items as previously mentioned, but when someone mistakenly starts discussing communism in a light where it has “not been done correctly yet,” I get a little triggered.

Please vote for whoever you like. It is your right. I do not think that if you are staunchly Pro2A there is a way to reconcile that with any form of socialism.

And thank you again for describing your viewpoints I have enjoyed friendly discussion, which should be the basis of how things are conducted instead of name calling and smear campaigns. But we live in a pretty rough world.

If all of the Bernie supporters could and would read your post (and honestly consider it) there would be far less Bernie supporters.

 

[JerseyMike]

Jollyllama (didn’t want to quote everything so this thread is n’t a wall of text)

I never mentioned communism, or that I thought it hadn’t been implemented properly. I made it a point to state that I don’t think a socialist structure could work, and I certainly don’t think communism could.

My point was that I support Bernie because some of the policies he proposes to correct the failings of capitalism are desirable, and passing them would not do away with capitalism. Some (maybe most?) of you would label these policies as socialist.

Our system need not be “pure” capitalism to be considered capitalistic, and it isn’t “pure” capitalism right now. Similarly, having some policies that are considered socialistic does not make the system socialist. It’s a false dichotomy to say we are either capitalist or socialist (you didn’t come out and say this but I understood it to be implied from what you did say). We wouldn’t call China capitalist just because it has some capitalistic elements.

I won’t argue over the merits of regulation vs laissez fare, tax structures or entitlement programs/social safety net, since I don’t think it would be productive, I’m not advocating for those policies here or trying to change anyone’s opinion and I’m sure the majority of you are very familiar with the arguments and just have a difference of opinion. I responded so you could better understand why I, and others like me, support Bernie.