And once again, we see the problem with Bernie Sanders isn’t Sanders; it’s his supporters.
By contrast…
When baby doesn’t get their bottle… but if Bernie 2020 is really a dead deal I bet the die-hards will still hold their nose and vote Biden 2020. Double so when Bernie campaigns for Biden (which, of course, he would). When the primary is over everyone becomes allies again.
On the one hand those numbers indicate the need for Sanders (if he loses) to early and vigorously work to support whoever is the nominee. And to keep his campaign operatives from going too negative about his D opponents, especially in a dirty pool fashion.
But on the other hand … I do wonder about selection bias: Sanders tends to attract more stated support from those who are infrequent to never voters. That is his plus if he is able to motivate them to actually turn out to vote. But they may also not actually bother on election day for him either. Some of these may be him or no one … but even with him in the race they may be no one.
Exactly. Imagine if this were turned around. The exact same people sneering about Bernie Bros would be like, “See! If Sanders is the candidate, a lot of Biden voters won’t support him! HE ISN’T ELECTABLE!!!1!one!”
A Democratic candidate who can pull in voters who won’t be pulled in by other Democratic candidates has a feature, not a bug.
No, actually it doesnt. Tell me how it would in any significant number of crimes.
Criminals rarely drop their gun on the way out of the robbed bank. And even if they did, **criminals dont have to register their guns. ** Indeed they usually steal them or buy them from a straw many buyer. So that 0ne in a million gun dropped at the scene of a crime? There’s a one in a million chance it would be dropped by the registered owner. And, every new gun purchase since 1964 already has been registered at the time of purchase. The Police find it very rarely of any help.
You are correct in that thee 2nd Ad doesnt allow unfettered gun ownership. Read Heller, there’s actually a quite a long list of restrictions which are perfectly legal to put on guns.
So what’s going on with this Joe Rogan thing?
It’s about numbers, math. Over time, the more guns that are registered, the more measures that are put into place that actually transform how we view guns culturally, the less gun-related violence we will have.
Would registration result in an immediate, noticeable drop in gun-related crimes or crimes perpetrated with guns? Not necessarily, but over time, along with other restrictions, yes, I think it would.
I concede that guns by themselves aren’t the only factor that contribute to violence, but they make violent confrontations deadlier, and we need fewer firearms in our society and fewer people in possession of them. If someone is still convinced that they need to possess a handgun for self-defense, I’m fine with that, but owning one shouldn’t be as easy as owning a laptop.
Looks like the campaign officially embraced Rogan’s “endorsement”. Rogan has the biggest podcast around, and has an audience who are different from typical liberal minded people. And because he’s said some very dodgy things in the past its caused outrage.
I don’t mind Rogan. Not a regular listener but can follow in small doses. I guess though it’s cancel culture/purity tests coming back to bite them. Cenk Uygur had the same problem where progressives including hinself have set the bar so high for others, yet it turned out he failed to meet them himself in the past regarding lewd commentary on women and girls … and beastiality. Bernie had to rescind his endorsement of Cenk which I don’t think he should have because it was such a long time ago the comments were made and TYT has become much bigger and professional since, but he was pretty well forced to by the backlash.
I’ll guess there are several flaws in your argument. For starters you seem to divide gunslingers into two distinct groups: criminal and non-criminal. The reality is more complicated. Many murderers weren’t “criminal” until they committed their murder.
If having an unregistered weapon is a crime, then police might be able to arrest or deter a would-be criminal before he commits a gun crime.
Here’s an idea that just popped into my head. Knowing so little about the topic, I’ll guess there’s a 99% chance I’ve overlooking something very basic. I’ll give you the pleasure of pointing out the flaw. Why not fire a bullet from every gun sold, and save that bullet in a police database? When a bullet is recovered from a victim police would know which gun fired the bullet. (Of course this would do no good unless guns were registered.)
What’s going on is that Sanders is smart and he knows there’s more to be gained from making his movement a “big tent” than from shitting on Rogan just to placate SJWs.
And…can we please not turn this thread into a debate about guns?
Agreed, my bad. I’ll drop the topic.
It’s partially my fault because I was the one who declared Bloomberg’s support for gun control to be a political weakness. I’d say that discussion of the political viability of gun control as a campaign platform would be OK in this thread, but that debates over whether or not gun control is a good thing in general, aren’t OK - but I’m not a moderator, after all.
I liked Rogan as an MMA analyst. Personally, I think he’s overrated as an intellect and an entertainer, but he has carved out his niche and his brand with his podcast.
The kind of crowd that listens to Rogan is going to gravitate toward Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard. They’re naturally cynical and they’re simultaneously that they’re too smart for conventional politics and punditry and that people like Biden, Hillary, and the Democratic party exist solely to make politics hopelessly confusing and that once Bernie or some other magic candidate gets elected, they’ll have their little revolution and all will be well.
I don’t really know why you’d expect a generation raised on the internet to be any different. When people talk about young voters, well, shit, these are who they’re talking about. They’re simply a different political breed than their parents. The_Donald and 4Chan are one end of the spectrum, Bernie is the other end of that spectrum, and Joe Rogan is basically somewhere in the middle. It is what it is.
…wanted to add that I agree that Sanders shouldn’t reject Rogan’s endorsement. I’m not aware of the specific controversy that’s apparently offending the purists, but Rogan has never struck me as racist or a homophobe. MMA probably does have a sexism problem, but Rogan always seemed supportive of women’s participation in what was largely regarded as a male-only endeavor. My intellectual snootiness aside, I think it’s a good endorsement for Sanders. It’s something that infuses some youthful energy into his campaign and Rogan’s audience is an audience that might bring in voters who don’t normally participate in the process, which is a plus for any candidate.
There’s also a more basic underlying point here: rejecting someone’s endorsement is a bitch move. Unless that person is someone utterly loathsome - an open Nazi, or a child molester - the proper response is to welcome the gesture of loyalty in kind. It’s the old fashioned “lifting the visor on the battlefield”, a sign that you’re a stand-up guy. Today it would be a fist bump. Rejecting an endorsement - again, unless the endorsement comes from someone COMPLETELY taboo - is publicly throwing someone under the bus. That’s not a good look! For anyone! And especially not a presidential candidate. It makes you look weak, disloyal, and…like a bitch.
It’s funny that you mention a big tent. I don’t actually disagree. But do you know who does? Bernie’s number one surrogate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!
In what way is she “Bernie’s number one surrogate”? I hope it’s better than some policy overlap.
She’s campaigning in Iowa while Bernie is a juror in the impeachment trial
So is Michael Moore. Look, she is fairly high profile, but campaigning for the last 2 days in Iowa doesn’t make her surrogate number one.