Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Topics I'm Currently Willing to Debate:

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:09:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Pro or Con?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Pro or Con?

Pro.... obvs. lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:15:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Pro or Con?

Wanna debate it?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:18:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've also given some thought to arguing that depressants and things like that should be legal, cheap and easily accessible. Imagine being able to buy prescription opiates and marijuana next to vodka...
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Just the one topic, lol?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:28:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:18:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Just the one topic, lol?

Yes. I had some other topics like sex education, decriminalizing almost all drugs, making the unlicensed ownership of firearms punishable by a minimum $10,00 fine per firearm and five years in prison.... but those are all really controversial.

If I ever run for office, I'm going to write and sponsor a bill to criminalize unlicensed ownership of firearms. Requirements for obtaining a license will be one or more of the following: (1) two years service in the United States Military and, if discharged, a requirement that such discharge be honorable, (2) five years of service in any public police force, (3) successful completion of an eight month firearm handling and safety course that can only be taken after age 21.

and all of the following here: (1) successful mental health screening by a licensed mental health professional, (2) comprehensive background check, fingerprinting and identification measures, (3) vision test, (4) medical clearance and field stress test, (5) ability to pass a written test of relevant US laws relating to gun ownership and usage, (6) ability to demonstrate firearm proficiency in both low and high stress environments in a test comparable to what New York or Boston police officers must pass before eligibility to join the force.

This would be a federal law.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:29:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:28:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:18:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Just the one topic, lol?

Yes. I had some other topics like sex education, decriminalizing almost all drugs, making the unlicensed ownership of firearms punishable by a minimum $10,000 fine per firearm and five years in prison.... but those are all really controversial.

If I ever run for office, I'm going to write and sponsor a bill to criminalize unlicensed ownership of firearms. Requirements for obtaining a license will be one or more of the following: (1) two years service in the United States Military and, if discharged, a requirement that such discharge be honorable, (2) five years of service in any public police force, (3) successful completion of an eight month firearm handling and safety course that can only be taken after age 21.

and all of the following here: (1) successful mental health screening by a licensed mental health professional, (2) comprehensive background check, fingerprinting and identification measures, (3) vision test, (4) medical clearance and field stress test, (5) ability to pass a written test of relevant US laws relating to gun ownership and usage, (6) ability to demonstrate firearm proficiency in both low and high stress environments in a test comparable to what New York or Boston police officers must pass before eligibility to join the force.

This would be a federal law.

fix'd
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:28:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:18:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Just the one topic, lol?

Yes. I had some other topics like sex education, decriminalizing almost all drugs, making the unlicensed ownership of firearms punishable by a minimum $10,00 fine per firearm and five years in prison.... but those are all really controversial.

Those are indeed controversial.

If I ever run for office, I'm going to write and sponsor a bill to criminalize unlicensed ownership of firearms. Requirements for obtaining a license will be one or more of the following: (1) two years service in the United States Military and, if discharged, a requirement that such discharge be honorable, (2) five years of service in any public police force, (3) successful completion of an eight month firearm handling and safety course that can only be taken after age 21.

and all of the following here: (1) successful mental health screening by a licensed mental health professional, (2) comprehensive background check, fingerprinting and identification measures, (3) vision test, (4) medical clearance and field stress test, (5) ability to pass a written test of relevant US laws relating to gun ownership and usage, (6) ability to demonstrate firearm proficiency in both low and high stress environments in a test comparable to what New York or Boston police officers must pass before eligibility to join the force.

This would be a federal law.

I agree with all of that.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:28:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:18:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:06:17 PM, YYW wrote:
1. Drugs are fun.

Just the one topic, lol?

Yes. I had some other topics like sex education, decriminalizing almost all drugs, making the unlicensed ownership of firearms punishable by a minimum $10,00 fine per firearm and five years in prison.... but those are all really controversial.

Those are indeed controversial.

Meant to have that be 10k fine...

If I ever run for office, I'm going to write and sponsor a bill to criminalize unlicensed ownership of firearms. Requirements for obtaining a license will be one or more of the following: (1) two years service in the United States Military and, if discharged, a requirement that such discharge be honorable, (2) five years of service in any public police force, (3) successful completion of an eight month firearm handling and safety course that can only be taken after age 21.

and all of the following here: (1) successful mental health screening by a licensed mental health professional, (2) comprehensive background check, fingerprinting and identification measures, (3) vision test, (4) medical clearance and field stress test, (5) ability to pass a written test of relevant US laws relating to gun ownership and usage, (6) ability to demonstrate firearm proficiency in both low and high stress environments in a test comparable to what New York or Boston police officers must pass before eligibility to join the force.

This would be a federal law.

I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.

We have very similar views, I think.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:42:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.

We have very similar views, I think.

With the exception of term limits (which we only differ slightly on), the occupy movement (which I think we actually agree on, but because they never made anything happen I'm opposed to the time they wasted), the border fence (although, again, we only differ slightly on that as well. I just don't want to build a fence, but I'm opposed to profoundly increasing border security measures), and the smoking ban.. we're pretty much in total alignment.

What's especially interesting is how we both tend to be hawkish, which is uncommon in the DNC these days.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:45:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:42:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.

We have very similar views, I think.

With the exception of term limits (which we only differ slightly on), the occupy movement (which I think we actually agree on, but because they never made anything happen I'm opposed to the time they wasted), the border fence (although, again, we only differ slightly on that as well. I just don't want to build a fence, but I'm opposed to profoundly increasing border security measures), and the smoking ban.. we're pretty much in total alignment.

What are your stances of term limits, the smoking ban, and the border fence?

What's especially interesting is how we both tend to be hawkish, which is uncommon in the DNC these days.

Definitely. I was really surprised that was something we agreed on...it's just not common.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:45:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:42:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.

We have very similar views, I think.

With the exception of term limits (which we only differ slightly on), the occupy movement (which I think we actually agree on, but because they never made anything happen I'm opposed to the time they wasted), the border fence (although, again, we only differ slightly on that as well. I just don't want to build a fence, but I'm opposed to profoundly increasing border security measures), and the smoking ban.. we're pretty much in total alignment.

What are your stances of term limits, the smoking ban, and the border fence?

Well, actually, we probably differ pretty sharply on them. I oppose term limits for almost all elected federal level positions, including the president, as those term limits exist now. I'm in favor of them for state-level positions, though. I'd term limit POTUS with four, rather than two.

I oppose smoking bans of all kinds and I am categorically against sin taxes, generally.

I'd prefer to erect watch towers along the border to electronically monitor heat signatures such that wherever brigades of illegal aliens were identified in Mexico, a sufficient force of border patrol officers could be dispatched to address that problem as it happens and arrest coyotes as they smuggle people into this country. I don't want to just deter people from coming; I want to actually solve the problem.

What's especially interesting is how we both tend to be hawkish, which is uncommon in the DNC these days.

Definitely. I was really surprised that was something we agreed on...it's just not common.

Iraq left people war weary...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:56:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.

I said ran for office, not ran for president. I could get elected in MA, CA, IL, VT, NY or WA.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:58:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:56:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.

I said ran for office, not ran for president. I could get elected in MA, CA, IL, VT, NY or WA.

You're not making a federal law as a governor, and as a senator/representative, if you get elected there, you'll face too much opposition in Congress from all the Republicans and most of the Democrats. It's a lose-lose.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:59:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:53:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:42:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.

We have very similar views, I think.

With the exception of term limits (which we only differ slightly on), the occupy movement (which I think we actually agree on, but because they never made anything happen I'm opposed to the time they wasted), the border fence (although, again, we only differ slightly on that as well. I just don't want to build a fence, but I'm opposed to profoundly increasing border security measures), and the smoking ban.. we're pretty much in total alignment.

What are your stances of term limits, the smoking ban, and the border fence?

Well, actually, we probably differ pretty sharply on them. I oppose term limits for almost all elected federal level positions, including the president, as those term limits exist now. I'm in favor of them for state-level positions, though. I'd term limit POTUS with four, rather than two.

We do differ wildly on these. I am 100% for term limits on all positions, federal and state, judicial, legislative, and executive.

I oppose smoking bans of all kinds and I am categorically against sin taxes, generally.

I'd want smoking illegal, including recreational pot, and I support sin taxes and oppose legalizing gambling (I was furious when I was too young to vote in my state's referendum on this--it barely passed.)

I'd prefer to erect watch towers along the border to electronically monitor heat signatures such that wherever brigades of illegal aliens were identified in Mexico, a sufficient force of border patrol officers could be dispatched to address that problem as it happens and arrest coyotes as they smuggle people into this country. I don't want to just deter people from coming; I want to actually solve the problem.

I can see the rationale for this, though a border fence seems more financially viable.

What's especially interesting is how we both tend to be hawkish, which is uncommon in the DNC these days.

Definitely. I was really surprised that was something we agreed on...it's just not common.

Iraq left people war weary...

Agreed. The Iraq War, IMO, was unjustified and, perhaps, illegal. I would love to see Bush tried for war crimes too...but that's a separate issue. I do support intervention in Iraq now, however.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:06:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:58:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:56:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.

I said ran for office, not ran for president. I could get elected in MA, CA, IL, VT, NY or WA.

You're not making a federal law as a governor, and as a senator/representative, if you get elected there, you'll face too much opposition in Congress from all the Republicans and most of the Democrats. It's a lose-lose.

As a senator, proposing the kind of bill I'm talking about would be an end of career hail Mary, or a beginning of the career baseline.

You've got to think about this strategically, Endark. Democrats don't talk about meaningful gun control because they're afraid that old people won't vote for them and that the NRA will launch kill-ads against them -as they are inclined to do.

I'd fight them on every network I could, for three reasons:

1. Proposing a far-left bill like this shifts the frame of discussion. All of a sudden, the moderate who wants reasonable things like background checks and mental health screenings actually looks like a moderate -which means that they're in a better position politically, and the probability of moving towards what I eventually want is increased through gradual progress.

2. The NRA has a counter. If they're the champion of unfettered gun rights, I'd be their nemesis -which means that even if they launched kill ads on me -they'd focus on me, which, again, would consume their relatively scarce resources if they actually viewed me as a threat. It's called a gambit, and it's crafty political gamesmanship. The reason is because if they're concerned about me, they're going to ignore other things, because they do not have unlimited money to pour into attacking politicians -and even if they did, their national status would totally change if it became realized by the American people that they're more of a political mercenary group than a second amendment rights group.

3. The issue gets attention. Other than social security, gun control is the most dangerous subject for any politician to talk about -because everyone is afraid of pissing off the NRA. I'd be willing to go on every news outlet and deal with every NRA mouthpiece they could throw out, and I'd assemble a team of people who would back me up. This is more about shifting momentum than anything else, Endark.

I'd be in this for the long haul, not the quick fix.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:11:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:59:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:53:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:42:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:36:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:29:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I agree with all of that.

haha that's because we're both incredibly liberal democrats.

We have very similar views, I think.

With the exception of term limits (which we only differ slightly on), the occupy movement (which I think we actually agree on, but because they never made anything happen I'm opposed to the time they wasted), the border fence (although, again, we only differ slightly on that as well. I just don't want to build a fence, but I'm opposed to profoundly increasing border security measures), and the smoking ban.. we're pretty much in total alignment.

What are your stances of term limits, the smoking ban, and the border fence?

Well, actually, we probably differ pretty sharply on them. I oppose term limits for almost all elected federal level positions, including the president, as those term limits exist now. I'm in favor of them for state-level positions, though. I'd term limit POTUS with four, rather than two.

We do differ wildly on these. I am 100% for term limits on all positions, federal and state, judicial, legislative, and executive.

Interesting.

I oppose smoking bans of all kinds and I am categorically against sin taxes, generally.

I'd want smoking illegal, including recreational pot, and I support sin taxes and oppose legalizing gambling (I was furious when I was too young to vote in my state's referendum on this--it barely passed.)

I'd legalize gamboling entirely, make cigarettes and marijuana easily accessible, and cap the tax to 25% of retail value.

I'd prefer to erect watch towers along the border to electronically monitor heat signatures such that wherever brigades of illegal aliens were identified in Mexico, a sufficient force of border patrol officers could be dispatched to address that problem as it happens and arrest coyotes as they smuggle people into this country. I don't want to just deter people from coming; I want to actually solve the problem.

I can see the rationale for this, though a border fence seems more financially viable.

Actually, the opposite would be true. Watchtowers and response teams are way cheaper in the short term and the long term to both create and to maintain. The US border is huge, Brian. that's a lot of concrete, rebar, and shred wire... Building a border fence that would actually keep people out would be tens of billions of dollars. What I'm talking about might be a billion in materials, and a few hundred million more than what we have now to maintain.

What's especially interesting is how we both tend to be hawkish, which is uncommon in the DNC these days.

Definitely. I was really surprised that was something we agreed on...it's just not common.

Iraq left people war weary...

Agreed. The Iraq War, IMO, was unjustified and, perhaps, illegal.

It was totally legal, under both US and International law.

I would love to see Bush tried for war crimes too...but that's a separate issue.

*winces*

I do support intervention in Iraq now, however.

As do we all...
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:15:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 12:06:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:58:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:56:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.

I said ran for office, not ran for president. I could get elected in MA, CA, IL, VT, NY or WA.

You're not making a federal law as a governor, and as a senator/representative, if you get elected there, you'll face too much opposition in Congress from all the Republicans and most of the Democrats. It's a lose-lose.

As a senator, proposing the kind of bill I'm talking about would be an end of career hail Mary, or a beginning of the career baseline.

You've got to think about this strategically, Endark. Democrats don't talk about meaningful gun control because they're afraid that old people won't vote for them and that the NRA will launch kill-ads against them -as they are inclined to do.

I'd fight them on every network I could, for three reasons:

1. Proposing a far-left bill like this shifts the frame of discussion. All of a sudden, the moderate who wants reasonable things like background checks and mental health screenings actually looks like a moderate -which means that they're in a better position politically, and the probability of moving towards what I eventually want is increased through gradual progress.

2. The NRA has a counter. If they're the champion of unfettered gun rights, I'd be their nemesis -which means that even if they launched kill ads on me -they'd focus on me, which, again, would consume their relatively scarce resources if they actually viewed me as a threat. It's called a gambit, and it's crafty political gamesmanship. The reason is because if they're concerned about me, they're going to ignore other things, because they do not have unlimited money to pour into attacking politicians -and even if they did, their national status would totally change if it became realized by the American people that they're more of a political mercenary group than a second amendment rights group.

They're not just going to come after you personally; they're going to use you as a reflection of the Democratic Party, and they're going to be largely successful in doing so, mostly because it's a miracle most of their supporters can tell the difference between the butt and the muzzle of a gun. You would damage the image of the Democratic Party and lend credence to the most paranoid of Republicans.

3. The issue gets attention. Other than social security, gun control is the most dangerous subject for any politician to talk about -because everyone is afraid of pissing off the NRA. I'd be willing to go on every news outlet and deal with every NRA mouthpiece they could throw out, and I'd assemble a team of people who would back me up. This is more about shifting momentum than anything else, Endark.

I wouldn't say gun control is a quiet issue, especially not with the frequency of mass shootings.

I'd be in this for the long haul, not the quick fix.

The best you could hope for from this is exposure, which is a double-edged sword. You'd alienate your party because the Democrats aren't interested in being radical. If this even got written, it would be a miracle, let alone actually surviving to the floor.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:16:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
On sin taxes, the reason I don't like them is because they tend to punish the poor far more than anyone else -because they smoke them most, eat the most junk food, and generally lead the most unhealthy lives. It doesn't seem right that the government should punish them for that, too.

That's why I'm not a Bloomberg fan, at all.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:19:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 12:11:37 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:59:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:53:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:03 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:42:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:38:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I oppose smoking bans of all kinds and I am categorically against sin taxes, generally.

I'd want smoking illegal, including recreational pot, and I support sin taxes and oppose legalizing gambling (I was furious when I was too young to vote in my state's referendum on this--it barely passed.)

I'd legalize gamboling entirely, make cigarettes and marijuana easily accessible, and cap the tax to 25% of retail value.

Wow...we really do diverge a lot there.

I'd prefer to erect watch towers along the border to electronically monitor heat signatures such that wherever brigades of illegal aliens were identified in Mexico, a sufficient force of border patrol officers could be dispatched to address that problem as it happens and arrest coyotes as they smuggle people into this country. I don't want to just deter people from coming; I want to actually solve the problem.

I can see the rationale for this, though a border fence seems more financially viable.

Actually, the opposite would be true. Watchtowers and response teams are way cheaper in the short term and the long term to both create and to maintain. The US border is huge, Brian. that's a lot of concrete, rebar, and shred wire... Building a border fence that would actually keep people out would be tens of billions of dollars. What I'm talking about might be a billion in materials, and a few hundred million more than what we have now to maintain.

Interesting.


Iraq left people war weary...

Agreed. The Iraq War, IMO, was unjustified and, perhaps, illegal.

It was totally legal, under both US and International law.

I'm not sold on that point. But I'm not really up for debating that tonight.

I would love to see Bush tried for war crimes too...but that's a separate issue.

*winces*

Enhanced interrogation techniques could constitute crimes against humanity. I would deport him to the Hague and let the Dutch deal with him. America certainly doesn't need him.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:26:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 12:15:53 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/13/2014 12:06:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:58:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:56:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.

I said ran for office, not ran for president. I could get elected in MA, CA, IL, VT, NY or WA.

You're not making a federal law as a governor, and as a senator/representative, if you get elected there, you'll face too much opposition in Congress from all the Republicans and most of the Democrats. It's a lose-lose.

As a senator, proposing the kind of bill I'm talking about would be an end of career hail Mary, or a beginning of the career baseline.

You've got to think about this strategically, Endark. Democrats don't talk about meaningful gun control because they're afraid that old people won't vote for them and that the NRA will launch kill-ads against them -as they are inclined to do.

I'd fight them on every network I could, for three reasons:

1. Proposing a far-left bill like this shifts the frame of discussion. All of a sudden, the moderate who wants reasonable things like background checks and mental health screenings actually looks like a moderate -which means that they're in a better position politically, and the probability of moving towards what I eventually want is increased through gradual progress.

2. The NRA has a counter. If they're the champion of unfettered gun rights, I'd be their nemesis -which means that even if they launched kill ads on me -they'd focus on me, which, again, would consume their relatively scarce resources if they actually viewed me as a threat. It's called a gambit, and it's crafty political gamesmanship. The reason is because if they're concerned about me, they're going to ignore other things, because they do not have unlimited money to pour into attacking politicians -and even if they did, their national status would totally change if it became realized by the American people that they're more of a political mercenary group than a second amendment rights group.

They're not just going to come after you personally; they're going to use you as a reflection of the Democratic Party, and they're going to be largely successful in doing so, mostly because it's a miracle most of their supporters can tell the difference between the butt and the muzzle of a gun. You would damage the image of the Democratic Party and lend credence to the most paranoid of Republicans.

If I went in without a group of other senators and congressmen behind me, yes. But rocking the boat does not mean that the party is going to suffer. It is in fact that exact kind of thinking that keeps the democrats from even proposing any meaningful gun control bill, because they're so afraid it's going to cost them their careers. And moreover, you just don't have enough information to know how they'd react. The NRA strategists are very smart people, and they'd tailor their response to the nature of the threat. Even if they said "hey look, all Democrats are like that" it might galvanize the GOP base, but it's not going to affect independents -they're going to reason "well, at least he's trying to do something."

3. The issue gets attention. Other than social security, gun control is the most dangerous subject for any politician to talk about -because everyone is afraid of pissing off the NRA. I'd be willing to go on every news outlet and deal with every NRA mouthpiece they could throw out, and I'd assemble a team of people who would back me up. This is more about shifting momentum than anything else, Endark.

I wouldn't say gun control is a quiet issue, especially not with the frequency of mass shootings.

I think we're going to quibble about what "quiet" means, then. When I say "quiet" in the context of political outcomes, I mean, "insufficient to cause a policy change." It's also "quiet" in the sense that a week after a mass shooting, the issue dies away again. The pain goes away because the news stops covering it and people get back to their lives -so nothing changes.

I'd be in this for the long haul, not the quick fix.

The best you could hope for from this is exposure, which is a double-edged sword. You'd alienate your party because the Democrats aren't interested in being radical. If this even got written, it would be a miracle, let alone actually surviving to the floor.

I'd spend a long time building momentum before I wrote it, and I'd be very sure I had the votes before I even took it to committee. I understand your need to be pragmatic here, but there is a definitive limit to the impact that pragmatism has on the political process -which is to say that thinking about this issue in the way you are now is going to leave us stuck with the way things are now.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:31:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Endark

Do realize, though, that along the process I'm more than willing to do this gradually by building up to what would become comprehensive gun control reform through a series of bills passed over twenty years or so with a great deal of issue-related campaigning along the way.

This isn't a one-term or two term problem. It's an institutional and a cultural problem that will require an demographic shift in the electorate to meaningfully address -and when the boomers are too old to go the polls, that's when that window of opportunity begins.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:38:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 12:26:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/13/2014 12:15:53 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/13/2014 12:06:31 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:58:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:56:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:47:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:45:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:39:29 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I doubt you'd get elected with that stance.

There are parts of the north east where I would, on that stance.

Even if you got the nomination, I don't see you getting a significant number of electoral or even popular votes. America doesn't like the far-left. For better or worse.

I said ran for office, not ran for president. I could get elected in MA, CA, IL, VT, NY or WA.

You're not making a federal law as a governor, and as a senator/representative, if you get elected there, you'll face too much opposition in Congress from all the Republicans and most of the Democrats. It's a lose-lose.

As a senator, proposing the kind of bill I'm talking about would be an end of career hail Mary, or a beginning of the career baseline.

You've got to think about this strategically, Endark. Democrats don't talk about meaningful gun control because they're afraid that old people won't vote for them and that the NRA will launch kill-ads against them -as they are inclined to do.

I'd fight them on every network I could, for three reasons:

1. Proposing a far-left bill like this shifts the frame of discussion. All of a sudden, the moderate who wants reasonable things like background checks and mental health screenings actually looks like a moderate -which means that they're in a better position politically, and the probability of moving towards what I eventually want is increased through gradual progress.

2. The NRA has a counter. If they're the champion of unfettered gun rights, I'd be their nemesis -which means that even if they launched kill ads on me -they'd focus on me, which, again, would consume their relatively scarce resources if they actually viewed me as a threat. It's called a gambit, and it's crafty political gamesmanship. The reason is because if they're concerned about me, they're going to ignore other things, because they do not have unlimited money to pour into attacking politicians -and even if they did, their national status would totally change if it became realized by the American people that they're more of a political mercenary group than a second amendment rights group.

They're not just going to come after you personally; they're going to use you as a reflection of the Democratic Party, and they're going to be largely successful in doing so, mostly because it's a miracle most of their supporters can tell the difference between the butt and the muzzle of a gun. You would damage the image of the Democratic Party and lend credence to the most paranoid of Republicans.

If I went in without a group of other senators and congressmen behind me, yes. But rocking the boat does not mean that the party is going to suffer. It is in fact that exact kind of thinking that keeps the democrats from even proposing any meaningful gun control bill, because they're so afraid it's going to cost them their careers. And moreover, you just don't have enough information to know how they'd react. The NRA strategists are very smart people, and they'd tailor their response to the nature of the threat. Even if they said "hey look, all Democrats are like that" it might galvanize the GOP base, but it's not going to affect independents -they're going to reason "well, at least he's trying to do something."

I think you overestimate the Democrat's desire to actually effect meaningful change, overestimate the credit you'll gain from independents - your push will make more of them uncomfortable than anything else - and underestimate the relative predictability of the NRA.

3. The issue gets attention. Other than social security, gun control is the most dangerous subject for any politician to talk about -because everyone is afraid of pissing off the NRA. I'd be willing to go on every news outlet and deal with every NRA mouthpiece they could throw out, and I'd assemble a team of people who would back me up. This is more about shifting momentum than anything else, Endark.

I wouldn't say gun control is a quiet issue, especially not with the frequency of mass shootings.

I think we're going to quibble about what "quiet" means, then. When I say "quiet" in the context of political outcomes, I mean, "insufficient to cause a policy change." It's also "quiet" in the sense that a week after a mass shooting, the issue dies away again. The pain goes away because the news stops covering it and people get back to their lives -so nothing changes.

It's insufficient because it's doubtful most people want major policy changes.

I'd be in this for the long haul, not the quick fix.

The best you could hope for from this is exposure, which is a double-edged sword. You'd alienate your party because the Democrats aren't interested in being radical. If this even got written, it would be a miracle, let alone actually surviving to the floor.

I'd spend a long time building momentum before I wrote it, and I'd be very sure I had the votes before I even took it to committee. I understand your need to be pragmatic here, but there is a definitive limit to the impact that pragmatism has on the political process -which is to say that thinking about this issue in the way you are now is going to leave us stuck with the way things are now.

There's also a need to be realistic about what can be done. Background checks and licensing are about as far as I would ever be willing to go on gun control, and even those standard safety measures face significant opposition.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:41:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, this began as a troll debate thread... and became something more like a semi-substantive rant thread about gun control... lol. This is what I think about when I get tired.

As it were, I know that everything I've said here is audacious to the point of apparent political insanity. I know that the electorate, as it is now, would make what I'm talking about look not just impossible, but disastrous to even seriously consider.

I also know that in twenty years, the boomers will be in assisted living facilities or have crossed over to the other side -and that when they do, and Millennials have an electoral presence, politics aren't going to work the same way then as they do now because there is a huge generational divergence in values. I think that will translate first into better politicians, and then into better public policy.

I wouldn't run for office until my kids were out of college, either. That's a LONG way away... so the constraints that exist now aren't going to be the same in the future. I hope by then, though, this isn't even an issue. I hope that we as a society have moved to a point where we don't even have to have discussions like this about this subject. But if not, I've got a plan.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 12:48:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 12:41:10 AM, YYW wrote:
So, this began as a troll debate thread... and became something more like a semi-substantive rant thread about gun control... lol. This is what I think about when I get tired.

Hey, it's what CP wanted.

As it were, I know that everything I've said here is audacious to the point of apparent political insanity. I know that the electorate, as it is now, would make what I'm talking about look not just impossible, but disastrous to even seriously consider.

Good.

I also know that in twenty years, the boomers will be in assisted living facilities or have crossed over to the other side -and that when they do, and Millennials have an electoral presence, politics aren't going to work the same way then as they do now because there is a huge generational divergence in values. I think that will translate first into better politicians, and then into better public policy.

Hmmmmmm.

I wouldn't run for office until my kids were out of college, either. That's a LONG way away... so the constraints that exist now aren't going to be the same in the future. I hope by then, though, this isn't even an issue. I hope that we as a society have moved to a point where we don't even have to have discussions like this about this subject. But if not, I've got a plan.