this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
1028 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3992 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tim Walz has said he’s “sick and tired of hearing about thoughts and prayers” following the Apalachee High School shooting in Georgia, which left four dead.

Walz, who was named as Kamala Harris’ running mate in the race for the White House in August, spoke about the Wednesday (4 September) shooting at a campaign rally at the Highmark Amphitheater in Erie, Pennsylvania on Thursday.

He told his supporters: “We believe in the freedom to send our kids to school without being shot dead in the hall.”

“The news cycle moves on within a day,” he commented of the incident, adding that kids had returned to school feeling excited and “now we have four dead”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This is the real takeaway. The Republicans want to do nothing, and the dems want a quick fix in gun control. Neither addresses the root of the problem. The world as a whole needs to invest more in social services, education, and public health. It should be where the majority of money goes really.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've heard plenty of arguments from Dems for mental health care at various levels. Those things need to be funded, and who do you think keeps trying to defund government agencies and services for social/mental health issues? Usually not the Dems. The Dems have plenty of faults, including their lack of spines (in at least some cases), but the lack of funding for social services is not usually one of them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They talk about it sometimes. But never do anything. And more importantly, it doesn't even make Americans top ten. I don't have much faith in politicians doing anything about it until it is in the top 5. https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago

I'm sorry, I consider "introducing" a bill nothing more than talk. And I should have specified at the federal level. State level dems and even Republicans do sometimes accomplish things for the greater good.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

On the other hand some of those "quick fixes" are actually modernizing our gun laws to be like other countries that allow gun ownership. We should put all the work in but calling Universal Background Check and Red Flag quick fixes is like calling a highway lane expansion a quick fix. Yes we need a bus system, but the 2 lane road built in the 1950's isn't cutting it anymore either way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I agree they should still be done. I just want some progress on the root of the problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

One would think it would be a bipartisan idea that a kid with two parents who are addicts should receive some sort of government intervention.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Conservatives hear "sins of the father" and assume it means that children MUST suffer for what their parents did wrong

And yes, I've legitimately heard multiple CHRISTIAN conservatives use that line in that manner and it amazes me they didn't realize they had it fucking backwards

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We don't have bipartisan ideas anymore. Both sides run on hate for their opponent. So they can't be seen as working with them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Not really. One side runs on hate. The other side is willing to cross the aisle but won't compromise to the extreme level the other side demands. Look at the border bill. It was a fair bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't far enough for the right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Most democrats run on not being trump. I consider that running on hate. But I could understand if others don't. As for the border bill... they only floated that because 1.. they were pretty sure the Republicans wouldn't want to give them a win. And 2.. they were trying to woo conservative voters to vote for Biden. It was a win win stunt that they wouldn't have done if the election wasn't close.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You do realize there is a difference between hating Trump because he's a fraudulent criminal and hating everyone who isn't a white Christian, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You do realize there is a similarity between "hating Trump because he's a fraudulent criminal and hating everyone who isn't a white Christian" right? It's hate. And more importantly it is a way to rally people to your side without having to promise to accomplish anything that would move the country forward.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Hating people trying to harm you is justified. Hating people because they are different is not. Trump and MAGA Republicans are an existential threat to this country. Moving the country forward is only an option if it still exists as a representative democracy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes. We need full societal fixes. But gun control is part of that.

14 year olds have no business having unsupervised access to weapons. We need better storage laws. We need better red flag laws, national licensing laws so that everyone with a gun has to take a basic safety course, and we need universal background checks where ALL branches of law enforcement share info with each other.

Start there and you will significantly cut gun violence while we spin up the mental health infrastructure to deal with the rest. Which is going to take time. And money. Neither of which the current government wants to spend.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

While I think all of those laws make good sense. I don't think they will actually reduce gun violence much. Most of them people will just ignore like they do the advice to store guns better. The law will only punish people after the fact. And everyone else will always think that it will never happen to them.
And the system fails to protect people with straight up restraining orders against others. It won't be able to do much with all the other things you mention. So focusing on those, and of course never achieving them, is just the carrot on a stick the dems use to get the voters out. If they weren't a political focus they would actually have a better chance of happening.