The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (2 Viewers)

[Intensesaint]

A place for all the gaffs, slip-ups and overall outlandish things Democratic candidates will say or do in lead up to the 2020 Election.

 

[JimEverett]

I would not be surprised if Biden drops out this week if he loses to Klobuchar. Meaning he comes in 5th

 

[Dadsdream]

Uncle Joe was always the least controversial candidate, an offering to the middle-of-the-road undecideds a different option.
After Schiff and Pelosi's antics in the impeachment, there simply aren't any more of those.

 

[Archies Ghost]

A pony soldier is a cavalryman. They used to ride horse.

In keeping with Biden’s plagiarism tendencies, it appears to be a line from a Tyrone Power movie

 

[Maxp]

I bet he is more worried about the joint DOJ/POTUS personal attorney's investigation into his son.

 

[Dadsdream]

A pony soldier is a cavalryman. They used to ride horse.

In keeping with Biden’s plagiarism tendencies, it appears to be a line from a Tyrone Power movie

In US Army military jargon from the late 19th and early 20th century,
Dog-face - An Infantry foot soldier
Pony soldier - A Cavalry horse soldier

Calling someone a "lying dog-faced pony soldier" means they're pretending to be something they're not, like an Infantryman pretending to be a Cavalry solder.

Putting on airs.

This is military jargon from the 1930s!

 

[Taurus]

In US Army military jargon from the late 19th and early 20th century,
Dog-face - An Infantry foot soldier
Pony soldier - A Cavalry horse soldier

Calling someone a "lying dog-faced pony soldier" means they're pretending to be something they're not, like an Infantryman pretending to be a Cavalry solder.

Putting on airs.

This is military jargon from the 1930s!

Brought to us on the "No Malarkey" tour.

Jebus, is Joe's campaign completely staffed by Greasers?

 

[Intensesaint]

Brought to us on the "No Malarkey" tour.

Jebus, is Joe's campaign completely staffed by Greasers?

OK Boomer doesn't even apply lol

 

[V Chip]

Those do not seem good analogies because when used in the gun debate the issue is about stopping an underlying crime. Not saying you don't have a point - but wouldn't a real analogy have to address something that, say, makes stealing easier, or perhaps even more analogous: something that allows a person to steal a great amount per use. And that THAT something is a thing that many people who are not thieves use?

So, something like ski-masks aid thieves in hiding their appearance. So some sort of regulation of them would be sort of like the regulation of guns. Not a perfect analogy - just trying to give an example of what I mean.

Nah, it's a fine counter to the silly "bad guys gonna get guns anyway..." argument. Especially the one about drugs, as to meet your criteria, drugs are in use during and the cause of many crimes. Make up your own if it feels easier: why make laws about drunk driving, since bad guys are gonna drink and drive anyway? And they'll cause death and destruction and break more laws while doing so.

The point remains: stating that bad people are going to break laws anyway regarding guns or anything else is akin to saying why have laws/regulations restricting anything.

 

[JimEverett]

Nah, it's a fine counter to the silly "bad guys gonna get guns anyway..." argument. Especially the one about drugs, as to meet your criteria, drugs are in use during and the cause of many crimes. Make up your own if it feels easier: why make laws about drunk driving, since bad guys are gonna drink and drive anyway? And they'll cause death and destruction and break more laws while doing so.

The point remains: stating that bad people are going to break laws anyway regarding guns or anything else is akin to saying why have laws/regulations restricting anything.

The agument does not strike me as being like "why make laws against drunk driving because people are going to drink and drive anyway" - it is something more like "why make laws restricting a person to a one drink maximum at bars and restaurants when some people are going to drink and drive anyway."
The argument Joe and others use seem to be that we should not overly restrict legal, and otherwise innocuous, behavior due to the fact that the "bad guys" are going to engage in actual harmful behavior anyway.

 

[V Chip]

The argument Joe and others use seem to be that we should not overly restrict legal, and otherwise innocuous, behavior due to the fact that the "bad guys" are going to engage in actual harmful behavior anyway.

That's not even remotely the same as the argument used.

"Bad guys gonna get guns no matter what laws we make" is basically saying: any restriction is useless. That's a ridiculous argument.

"Overly" restricting something is a different animal. That implies that "yes, restrictions should be on the table, we just have to not overreach, now let's discuss restrictions that can make a difference." That's at least a conversation starter. The other is a conversation non-starter.

 

[JimEverett]

That's not even remotely the same as the argument used.

"Bad guys gonna get guns no matter what laws we make" is basically saying: any restriction is useless. That's a ridiculous argument.

"Overly" restricting something is a different animal. That implies that "yes, restrictions should be on the table, we just have to not overreach, now let's discuss restrictions that can make a difference." That's at least a conversation starter. The other is a conversation non-starter.

I think it is the exact argument being used. Is there any real serious argument that people have made that call for no restrictions at all?
You are trying to make the argument look as dumb as possible. But no one is saying what you are claiming that they are saying.

Joe - do you think people incarcerated in jail and prison should own and possess firearms? What about people out of jail and on parole for committing violent offenses? Do you think a 12 year old should be able to conceal carry? Can a government restrict posession of guns in courthouses? Etc.

 

[brandon]

Joe - do you think people incarcerated in jail and prison should own and possess firearms? What about people out of jail and on parole for committing violent offenses? Do you think a 12 year old should be able to conceal carry? Can a government restrict posession of guns in courthouses? Etc.

But that's the rub. All of those scenarios are already illegal. You're implying that "we already have plenty of gun laws, and the laws we already have are good enough."

But mass shooting after mass shooting says that we need newer, tighter regulations. The status quo has been ineffective for decades.

 

[JimEverett]

But that's the rub. All of those scenarios are already illegal. You're implying that "we already have plenty of gun laws, and the laws we already have are good enough."

But mass shooting after mass shooting says that we need newer, tighter regulations. The status quo has been ineffective for decades.

Well, sure. And then the question is asked - how many of those mass shootings were done where existing law was poorly enforced allowing a person who shouldn't have a gun actually have a gun.

The point is that VChip was making a certain argument a caricature of what it actually was.

 

[brandon]

how many of those mass shootings were done where existing law was poorly enforced allowing a person who shouldn't have a gun actually have a gun.

Not very often, it seems.

Almost every time, the guns were purchased or obtained legally.

 

[brandon]

The point is that VChip was making a certain argument a caricature of what it actually was.

I don't think so. I think there are quite a few people who would describe what you think is a caricature as their actual position on new gun laws.

You're saying "oh, they don't mind SOME regulations," when in reality, you mean "they're fine with the regulations that we currently have but refuse any new ones." That's pretty much the point V Chip is making, and is hardly a caricature.

 

[JimEverett]

I don't think so. I think there are quite a few people who would describe what you think is a caricature as their actual position on new gun laws.

You're saying "oh, they don't mind SOME regulations," when in reality, you mean "they're fine with the regulations that we currently have but refuse any new ones." That's pretty much the point V Chip is making, and is hardly a caricature.

Going back to the drunk driving example - if there is a measure to restrict bars and restaurants to a 1 drink maximum per custtomer and another for convenience stores and grocery stores only to be able to sell single beers to one person per day and another allowing liquor stores only to sell 1 ounce bottles of liquor or 5 oz bottles of wine to one person per day, all in an effort to curb drunk driving - and someone opposes all of them by arguing, in part, look - people will still find a way to drink and drive so why make all these NEW onerous restrictions on responsible consumers of alcoholic beverages?
In such a situation it would be a caricature to claim that an argument against such new restrictions is like saying we shouldn't have any laws for criminal activity.

 

[brandon]

Going back to the drunk driving example - if there is a measure to restrict bars and restaurants to a 1 drink maximum per custtomer and another for convenience stores and grocery stores only to be able to sell single beers to one person per day and another allowing liquor stores only to sell 1 ounce bottles of liquor or 5 oz bottles of wine to one person per day, all in an effort to curb drunk driving - and someone opposes all of them by arguing, in part, look - people will still find a way to drink and drive so why make all these NEW onerous restrictions on responsible consumers of alcoholic beverages?
In such a situation it would be a caricature to claim that an argument against such new restrictions is like saying we shouldn't have any laws for criminal activity.

But your drunk driving analogy is itself a caricature of the gun control argument. It's simply a poor analogy.

 

[JimEverett]

But your drunk driving analogy is itself a caricature of the gun control argument. It's simply a poor analogy.

I wasn't the one who brought it up - just using it after VChip used it.