2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo you stand with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in trying to reduce gun violence?
19 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
17 (89%) |
|
No | |
2 (11%) |
|
4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
mmonk
(52,589 posts)support Bernie Sanders.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Similar thing with his NARAL OP.
yuiyoshida
(41,759 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)She didn't issue any orders or requirements, did she?
Actually, I don't even know of any NRA members who wouldn't agree with the notion of reducing gun violence.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)because it helps their bottom line.
When a racist like Dylan Roof shoots up a black church or a maniac kills two dozen elementary school kids, gun sales actually rise.
The NRA very much wants as much gun violence as possible.
NRA members bankroll the NRA.
Vinca
(50,168 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Sad really, because she had nothing to do with it. I think their hero worship is finally getting the best of them.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I heard that the President was giving a speech, but I didn't watch it since I have no access to network or cable TV. So I can't tell you whether or not I agree with what he said.
But WTF did Hillary Clinton have to do with it? Was she standing there with him as he spoke? Or do you just want us to think she was?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)If I think their suggestions are weak and could potentially be worse than nothing at all ..?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I don't object to what they are doing, and what he can do is severely limited by his executive power. But it is mostly window dressing on a very large problem. It's positioning for the future, even if it is for a future president. And depending upon who that president becomes, it could ultimately move things in the wrong direction. But I do understand the president's frustration and feeling that he had to try something.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)and I hate to see all the "we solved gun violence" high fiveing going on...
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It can really lead to one of two false conclusions:
1) we "fixed" it. (and so we're done)
2) These things don't work (so we shouldn't do them anymore).
Incrementalism is fine, but it MUST move us forward toward the final goal, and there must be tangible improvements from these incremental steps OTHER than the political victory itself. In this case I'm not clear that either is true, certainly not the latter.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)no one on either side will say what the goals are... how can anyone judge if anything is successful when the goals are so deliberately vague...
"Taking a small step towards gradually and potentially making things vaguely better in the long run" is not a goal anyone should really get behind, because it can mean almost literally anything, and when it doesn't come true for most people it will be seen as a failure...
"oh hey look, only 2400 kids were shot dead in 2016 - victory!"
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)It's simply enough question--yes or no. I say yes.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)since hrc is not the only dem running, the poll should also include
omalley
https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/
and sanders
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-obama-gun-control_568935b2e4b0b958f65be793
but being an honest and sincere person as you are, i am sure it was not an intentional omission
namaste
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I would hate to think the op is exploiting such an important issue in order to villify those who fall for his loaded question.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)my take: such questions are intended to subliminally unite obama with clinton (the so called third term) and solidify her status as the de facto nom.
maybe to convince us, maybe to convince themselves that it is still possible, despite bernie's momentum.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Why would any thinking person fall for the weak sauce baiting?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Standing on stage doesn't count.
cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)as Hillary.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Mostly.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)issue to the very front could very well lead to the loss
of Dems in the election. Tackle it afterwards, but not right now.
(BTW: I detest guns!)
-none
(1,884 posts)It is way past time to tackle this deadly problem as it is.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)elleng
(130,126 posts)PREVENTING AND REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE
https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/
pangaia
(24,324 posts)abakan
(1,815 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Weak sauce baiting and thats being generous towards your effort
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I stand with obama and sanders
Weak sauce baiting and thats being generous towards your effort
-SwampG8r
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I'll have to vote 'no'.