The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[V Chip]

And opposition to any new proposed regulations on the basis that people are still going to drink and drive (with or without the proposed regulation) does not mean and is not the same as saying there should be no laws for criminal activity "becasue people will still break the law."

Logically, it does.

The only probably way of looking at this that would NOT be illogical is if, when someone says "bad guys are gonna ________ no matter what laws we make" what they REALLY mean is "the current regulations/laws are the perfect set of regulations/laws -- all the current ones are great, and any possible new regulation/law would be onerous and not worth discussing because it unduly creates a burden on law-abiding people [even though we have no earthly idea what these potential new laws/regulations might be]."

"bad guys are gonna _____ no matter what laws we make" means they think a regulation/law is useless because a criminal is going to break the law anyway, so what is the point of the regulation/law.

If there exists the possibility of a law/regulation that would be useful (new or existing), the argument "bad guys are gonna ________ no matter what laws we make" is an illogical statement.

 

[JimEverett]

Logically, it does.

The only probably way of looking at this that would NOT be illogical is if, when someone says "bad guys are gonna ________ no matter what laws we make" what they REALLY mean is "the current regulations/laws are the perfect set of regulations/laws -- all the current ones are great, and any possible new regulation/law would be onerous and not worth discussing because it unduly creates a burden on law-abiding people [even though we have no earthly idea what these potential new laws/regulations might be]."

"bad guys are gonna _____ no matter what laws we make" means they think a regulation/law is useless because a criminal is going to break the law anyway, so what is the point of the regulation/law.

If there exists the possibility of a law/regulation that would be useful (new or existing), the argument "bad guys are gonna ________ no matter what laws we make" is an illogical statement.

That is not what you wrote initially. You said it must follow that a person who believes that "new regulation is useless because bad guys are going to break laws" entails, or is the same thing as stating, that we shouldn't have any laws. Which is not true.

Do you not see that?

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Joe Biden is now firmly in FIFTH place in New Hampshire polling behind Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren. Yikes.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary

www.realclearpolitics.com

I assume Joe will continue to limp along toward South Carolina but he's just about done. I don't think Mayo Pete has a prayer long term. Does that make Klobuchar the last best hope for the centrists to defeat Sanders?

 

[wardorican]

And opposition to any new proposed regulations on the basis that people are still going to drink and drive (with or without the proposed regulation) does not mean and is not the same as saying there should be no laws for criminal activity "becasue people will still break the law."

Can you rephrase this.. too many negatives there, so I"m not following your point. Sorry.

It sounds like laws are fine, even if people will break them, but adjustments aren't worth it, because people will break them.

So, don't ever update laws or regulations?

My point was that some make more sense than others. There are better ways to get weapons out of the hands of dangerous or unstable people.

 

[wardorican]

What about the people being bullet ridden every day in Chicago, Baltimore and baton rouge? Or the old people getting robbed as gunpoint?

Why is the ar15 only on your radar?

I proposed the each person must have a gun license to buy sell or have a gun. Your own liberal co host was the one saying criminals will find ways around that. Using the same argument as conservatives.

My point was proven by the fact you only think gun violence is limited to at ar15s, when you 14 and 15 years old packing heat and they are not even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes...

Why make gun laws harder for legal citizens? When you need to worrying about enforcing the laws being broken.

I was in downtown Chicago for a week. Didn't get shot once.

 

[Archies Ghost]

The common sense test for a law should be "Will the majority of the citizens to whom this law will apply comply with the law without coercion?"

If it does not fit this description, it is probably bad law.

 

[V Chip]

That is not what you wrote initially. You said it must follow that a person who believes that "new regulation is useless because bad guys are going to break laws" entails, or is the same thing as stating, that we shouldn't have any laws. Which is not true.

Do you not see that?

No, it is true.

Not saying "this specific new regulation" (which is not remotely what was said) but the blanket statement "bad guys are gonna _____ no matter what laws we make" is the same thing logically as stating laws are useless when using that argument against any (new or not) regulation/law.

Example: if one argues against a speed limit law (either a new one, or the existing one) by saying "people are going to speed anyway no matter what laws we make" that's logically the same as stating speeding laws are useless (it's important that the person is arguing AGAINST the law/regulation, and not just a philosophical "criminals break laws" take). If one argues against gun regulations (new or existing) by stating "bad guys are gonna get guns no matter what laws we make" its the same logically as stating gun regulations are useless. If something is useless, what is the point of it -- i.e., the law is useless, thus it isn't needed and we shouldn't have it (because you argued against the law with that argument).

If one just stated a more nuanced position like "murder laws don't affect murderers" but still was in favor of the law (as a punishment, for instance), that's different. But if you argue against murder laws (whether new or existing) by stating that, it's basically the same as arguing they are useless thus not needed.

 

[Joe Okc]

I was in downtown Chicago for a week. Didn't get shot once.

24 people shot in the past 72 hours.... none of them with an ar15...

Most of them just kids... your point?

 

[wardorican]

24 people shot in the past 72 hours.... none of them with an ar15...

Most of them just kids... your point?

If you want to make the argument about regular gun violence vs mass shootings, you dont need to bring up Chicago like it is a lawless place. You can just make the point.

Crime and most violence is done a different way and doing any ban wouldnt address that problem. However, it isnt trying to address that problem. So, I dont see why that is a retort to dealing with the mass shooting issue.

 

[wardorican]

Anyway... forget if it was in here or elsewhere, but Biden is being too testy with folks in public. You can be testy about the other side, politicians, etc, but not voters.

He is shooting himself in the foot, which is a good thing. He missed his time to be president. Get out of the way.

 

[wardorican]

Election Update: The Polling Picture In New Hampshire Is Actually Pretty Clear

Sanders remains the front-runner, but there's still a path for Buttigieg

fivethirtyeight.com

Biden tracking in 5th place at NH..

 

[brandon]

The common sense test for a law should be "Will the majority of the citizens to whom this law will apply comply with the law without coercion?"

The common sense test for a law should be “Will the common good be better served with this law than without?”

 

[Joe Okc]

If you want to make the argument about regular gun violence vs mass shootings, you dont need to bring up Chicago like it is a lawless place. You can just make the point.

Crime and most violence is done a different way and doing any ban wouldnt address that problem. However, it isnt trying to address that problem. So, I dont see why that is a retort to dealing with the mass shooting issue.

This started when I proposed gun legislation that I would support. Counter to what Democratic candidates are proposing.

I am curious why every time we talk gun control its always about mass shootings and ar15s, while plain old regular gun violence just gets brushed under the table like it doesnt exist.

According to CBS news and the FBI... Louisiana has three cities in the top ten for murder. Yet none of those stats are from mass shootings, and for some reason that just doesn't seem to be a concern.

Chicago is used because the have stricter gun laws than most of the country. My concealed permit is not honored there, but yet they average about 8 people shot a day. All youth with handguns.
But that gets swept under the carpet.

Last year The State of Oklahoma went to "constitutional carry".. You can now walk around with a six gun strapped to your hip without needing a license anymore.. but yet our gun violence crime rate is at or below the national average.. But yet other cities continie to have more gun violence even with more gun laws.

But every talking Democratic politician or internet liberal warrior either wants to either take my guns, make me go through more background checks or propose I register them and get insurance, when I have a safe full of guns, a clean record and not the problem. And I just wonder why that is.

 

[brandon]

I just did educate you.

You offered exactly nothing for what could be done to prevent school shootings.

 

[Archies Ghost]

The common sense test for a law should be “Will the common good be better served with this law than without?”

That is how you get really bad law. Prohibition was passed "for the common good". It did not work out so well.

There are plenty other examples of why that is a terrible idea.

 

[brandon]

Why is the ar15 only on your radar?

My point was proven by the fact you only think gun violence is limited to at ar15s

I never even mentioned an AR-15.

Sounds like you’re the one hung up on the AR-15. I’m definitely down for better regulation of handguns too if it fixes the problem.

Give me a second to put on my raincoat before your head explodes.

 

[brandon]

That is how you get really bad law. Prohibition was passed "for the common good". It did not work out so well.

Prohibition absolutely would fail my test.

On the other hand, yours is a strong argument for the removal of speed limits, so I guess that’s something.

 

[Beach Friends]

You offered exactly nothing for what could be done to prevent school shootings.

Correct. I was discussing some of the flaws in the Democratic position that I believe will hurt them this election cycle because this is a thread about Democratic candidates.