General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere are just some things that Democrats cannot talk about...
Lest they expose themselves to defeat in the next election.
For example, they cannot talk about the bloated defense budget. They cannot talk about billionaires hiding their money in overseas accounts and not paying their fair share of taxes. They cannot defend the Social Security and Medicare programs without looking like "big government" socialists. They cannot speak out on unfair trade treaties. They cannot speak up about corporate welfare. They cannot talk about poor people and poverty or the need for jobs programs.
The reason they cannot talk about many issues is because they are fearful it will cost them the next election. They would rather be quite about controversial issues. That gives them a better chance of winning their next election. And, everyone knows, that is the most important issue in the world...
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)A Cure For Capitalism - Richard Wolff
DrDan
(20,411 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)1. "Gun control" is not defined, and means different things to different people.
2. It is an issue to divide firearm-owning Democrats from Democrats that do not own firearms.
3. Underlying causes of the criminal use of firearms is not being addressed. They include economic disparity, violent movies, violent video games, and a contempt for fellow human beings.
4. It is a distraction from important issues.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)what's a school shooting or two a year as compared to asking gun owners to control their obsession
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)I doubt it. You've got your shiny object. You're going to hang on to it.
We're done.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If "you ever, EVEN ONCE," showed "any interest or concern about the underlying causes," you wouldn't need to evade the question.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I think you should venture into that one and express your indignation regarding underlying causes - use that "gun control = nothing but a shiny object" argument.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)They aren't afraid of us at all and that is a root concern and a fundamental flaw in the entire dynamic.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Do it over and over again until it hurts. Yes, this is what they do with their lies. We need to do it with truth and no matter how many times, the Joe Scars and Hannity's and O'Reillys try to swat us down, just get up and shout it out again. It's their propaganda technique. Let's use it against them.
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts)And all kinds of other perks! Like insider trading for instance. What's not to like? Fuck the people, they got theirs!
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I may keep saying I would like 100% of private citizens guns and bullets banned,
but they can't say it
But they can squeeze a little out, and open the door
Making a few judge difference in a few years, and it will happen and it starts with 10% to get to 100%.
Quite simple.
Yes, the guns will be banned from the hands of private ciitizens in the next decade or so after 1000s more will die.
It's a done deal.
But no no one will say it, so it's not going to happen.
Then it will
Thank God for that.
Not everything needs to be 100% transparent.
Because for the 35 a day who die from guns/bullets, they don't have to worry about retiring, as they are dead years before.
So it is obvious, getting rid of guns is the first and most important thing on the menu the next decade or so.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)At least 90-95% of the people we elect to office genuflect and drool at the feet of Milton Friedman and Martin Feldstein. THAT is a damned huge problem.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Win-the-fight
(47 posts)The vast majority want them to go after the bloated defense budget, billionaires hiding money etc.
That is how they would normally win elections.
No one wants them wasting any more time on their stupid ass diversion bullshit.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)to go out on the campaign trail and start talking about underlying arguments...
If the problem is Diebold voting machines, than go out and make the case "look, if we want to use voting machines, then we need BETTER ones. Here are the specs of what it needs to be able to do. Someone build the damn thing, and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY will buy 100,000 of them, and put them in your district. THEN if we lose an election, we lost it fair and square 'cause we lost on the ARGUMENT, and that's FINE."
In short, they have to be the party of actual proposed SOLUTIONS to problems, rather than just saying, "well, YES, of COURSE I agree with my esteemed collegue that there is a problem."
That get's us NOWHERE.
As an aside, I have been wondering how to get really SMART people to start running for Office, even if they feel it's not their first calling in life...maybe I'll filesh that idea out and post a new thread....