2408: Pics or It Didn't Happen

[Eric M]

Really close poll choices here. Keith almost won me back at the end by being hilarious but Michael is promoting positive change no matter how hopeless it might be. Chemda's heart is in the right place about guns but wasn't thinking practically enough about it.

She's a perfect example of most progressive voters though. Conservatives are always far fewer in general elections but seem to be raised to care so much more about politics so they control the smaller levels. That's why positive change will ultimately take place, but the pace at which it happens will always be slow and disappointing to the active progressive voter.

[Todd]

To Michael's comment about each party having variations in how left/right they are:

Do you (anyone reading this) think having a national day of primaries would better represent these variations of opinion? Would every state's Republicans picking from the entire field have stopped Trump's momentum? Could it have possibly made a different outcome for the Democrats?

It seems to me that if there's a field of candidates, let everyone have the entire field of candidates to select from.

I understand that no politician will go for this because they love being able to concentrate their efforts here and then there and then there, but this system was made for a different world without television or Internet. We don't need to have candidates crisscrossing the country just to provide photo ops at rallies, appearances and speeches.

(I've lived in Iowa for 13 years. Our caucus system is completely ridiculous, and no one is douchier about the artificially inflated importance Iowa has in kicking off the political season than native Iowans.)

[Czarveillance]

When is Michael getting his own political talk show on the KATG Network? Or did he ruin his chances with Keith after the sound board wiring battle?

[Eric M]

Originally Posted by Czarveillance

When is Michael getting his own political talk show on the KATG Network? Or did he ruin his chances with Keith after the sound board wiring battle?

This. ^^ Yes.

[Keith]

When there's a guest mishap on his show, I'll tell him that he needs to keep a calendar. After he tells me that he of course keeps a calendar, I'll tell him how he wouldn't have these problems if he simply kept a calendar.

[Czarveillance]

Originally Posted by Keith

When there's a guest mishap on his show, I'll tell him that he needs to keep a calendar. After he tells me that he of course keeps a calendar, I'll tell him how he wouldn't have these problems if he simply kept a calendar.

Does this mean he will be getting his own show? Even ten minutes of Michael talking about politics to replace Danny singing along poorly to his music at the end of TTSWD would be cool.

[Jmsmittyroad]

I liked the gun debate and the frustrated "WELL WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT" discussion. It does seem like we go around and around and hear the same crap over and over again.

I am a gun owner and a member of law enforcement and here is what I would like to see.

Round 1: No firearms can be purchased by people on the FBI watchlist and background checks for all gun purchases (including the bs gun shows and on-line purchases). This should be done immediately.


Round 2: Renew the assault weapon ban and make it permanent. This should be done in the next legislative session.

and Finally, Round 3: Develop legislation that more efficiently links mental health commitments with the FBI background check database. This should be debated over the next term and passed before the first 4 years are up.

It would be nice it there was some mental or emotional fitness test had to be passed to purchase a firearm, but writing the guidelines would be very difficult and I am trying to be realistic.

Also, I liked what Chemda said about searching your feelings after pulling that trigger and living with the aftermath. I have never had to remove my firearm from the holster, but I have attended training that used video simulations of real situations where you have to decide to shoot or not to shoot. While I know that I could protect myself if needed, it is very difficult to make that decision when the situation is not as clear. People don't think about that when they are at the gun store.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Jmsmittyroad

Round 1: No firearms can be purchased by people on the FBI watchlist and background checks for all gun purchases (including the bs gun shows and on-line purchases). This should be done immediately.

Background checks, sure. However the watch list is complete bullshit.

The problem with watch lists is due process. The no-fly list is such a shit show in terms of contesting being on the list and completely wrong people getting on the list. By "completely wrong", I don't mean someone who is suspected but the FBI is going overboard, I mean literally the wrong person. People with similar names to the intended target get put on the list and have a hell of a time getting off the list. This 8-year-old is on the watch list and can't get off.

Can you imagine if the government started a list of people they suspected that shouldn't have a 1st amendment right? Remember when the FBI lost its mind with Martin Luther King Jr.? I don't trust my rights with a list the government can put you on without due process.

Remember, we're not even talking about taking rights away from someone who has been charged with a crime. The people on this list are simply suspected.

Once a name goes on the list, good luck getting it off. Who wants to be the agent who took a name off the list only to find out that guy bought a gun and shot someone. You'll need to spend thousands getting the court to pry your name off the list and you weren't even charged with a crime.

Lists end up being a dragnet that carelessly scoop people up without oversight and repercussions for violating someone's rights.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Eric M

Really close poll choices here. Keith almost won me back at the end by being hilarious but Michael is promoting positive change no matter how hopeless it might be.

It's not hopeless. Sanders built a map of progressive counties, cities and states. He also has a list of millions of people who donated over $200 million to a progressive campaign. The next progressive presidential candidate will have a much easier time running. Meanwhile, the movement continues through all levels of government.

8 ‘Sanders Democrats’ Win Congressional and State Primaries in South Carolina

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Todd

To Michael's comment about each party having variations in how left/right they are:

Do you (anyone reading this) think having a national day of primaries would better represent these variations of opinion? Would every state's Republicans picking from the entire field have stopped Trump's momentum? Could it have possibly made a different outcome for the Democrats?

It seems to me that if there's a field of candidates, let everyone have the entire field of candidates to select from.

I understand that no politician will go for this because they love being able to concentrate their efforts here and then there and then there, but this system was made for a different world without television or Internet. We don't need to have candidates crisscrossing the country just to provide photo ops at rallies, appearances and speeches.

(I've lived in Iowa for 13 years. Our caucus system is completely ridiculous, and no one is douchier about the artificially inflated importance Iowa has in kicking off the political season than native Iowans.)

Even with the internet dramatically improving the ability for an unknown candidate to run, it's still very hard to compete nationally during the primaries. As much as I dislike that a single state gets to set the tone for start of the primaries, it's still allows a non-establishment candidate to compete more effectively.

Maybe having 2 or 3 states of varying demographics would be a good compromise.