More batshit nuttery from Ohio

This is actually a huge mistake in many cases. A person from side A will be afforded much more leniency by their base towards policy X, as long as side B is considered anathema. Obama could do things with drones and surges that the liberal public would have cried and hollered about if a Republican President did it; Trump can denigrate the US military and intelligence services in a manner no Democratic President could dream of. And @Elwood makes it clear why: His view of Trump seems to be almost identical to mine, i.e. the man is despicable and absolutely unacceptable as President. But he's not going to vote for a Democratic candidate, because any Democratic candidate will be pro-choice, even though Trump is effectively pro-choice as well. @Elwood's vote will not count against Trump, and the electoral college will likely represent his part of the voting public as pro-Trump: In favour of a pro-choice candidate who has all of the vices that @Elwood clearly recognizes, but is considered to be a bit farther to side B on the issue of abortion.

It might be a mistake that people act like that, but political reality is that they do. See all the nonsense where climate deniers are given space in debates to "hear both sides" when if you go off where the actual consensus is the debates should be between scientists on how to deal with the problem overwhelmingly agreed to be taking place.

But political reality is also that in many situation, people do not act like that, and it is important to distinguish the two. Make a politician say that they believe that anthropogenic climate change is real and must be stopped, and people who believe the ame will vote for them even though their policies on climate protection don't follow suit at all.

Gee, politicians making a law without any understanding of the reality of the situation, how things really work, or how it might effect people? Color this gun owner unsurprised.

Is this you admitting that US politicians are completely fucked up in their lax gun laws and have not seen the negative effects so many guns have had on the community? It can't be, you are probably thinking something insane like more guns would be great because you huff gasoline.

despite Forbin/Paladin/Anc/Shooter etc. owning guns they have never been involved in causing somebody's death, unlike yourself who admittedly drove somebody to suicide! Go Tererun!

Can you point out a direct comparison?

More deflection. Could it be you do not have any point? Someone is triggered and melting down, and it is not me.

And yourself.

Oh, they completely understand. They just don't care.

Again, also like the gun issue.

California mandates a technology (microstamping of fired cartridge cases) for pistols that doesn't exist (or, at least, is beyond economically viable implementation), thus no new pistol models have been introduced in the California market since 2014.

"It's expensive" does not equal "doesn't exist".

And I suspect that one's a direct tweak of the GOP's nose for making abortions expensive and/or prohibitively difficult to obtain.

Thank you, but that's apparently something that can be avoided. For the Ohio law to be avoided, you'd have to put a stop to all pregnancies, or at the very least do away with gynecology.

Choke on a wishbone.

No U, fetus.

Sure that law is literally going to kill people but what about my loud shooty sticks said the man making a totally reasonable and not at all batshit insane comparison.

Nice comeback.

No U, fetus.

All I said was that politicians often make laws without understanding the facts, and indicated my reason why I believe that. Any further meaning you idiots may interpret is your own psychoses.

So you agree that the politicians who made the second amendment did not understand the facts of our times so they could not possibly have made a decision about private citizens owning modern weaponry?

That's a pretty broad over-statement (yes, I'm aware my priors are obvious)

First of all, Obama would completely wax this field if he were a candidate - yes there are progressives that say he didn't measure up in several notable ways (immigration policy for example) - but that's basically the Bernie wing, about 15% of the party, not enough to keep anyone from winning.

Warren, apart from taking a stand in M4A, isn't in any real sense Bernie. She's next-most progressive but well short of a dude who embraces the label socialist. But more to the point, the similie you draw between the parties is, IMO, failed in this regard:

Goldwater may have been the avatar, but Reagan was the "let's go for it" moment when the Pharisee religionist and the Buckley oligarch apologists joined forces to see what they could get away with. GHWB accepted the necessity of this when it was his turn but he was mostly a passenger - the real crazy train of the party was Rush>Newt>Fox>TeaParty progression ("A BLACK president? what the ACTUAL fuck?!")

Point here is that politics have swung back and forth from what might in a sloppy way be called populism (empower the common folk, build wealth from the bottom up) and what amounts to would be oligarchy (only the rich and powerful know what's good and the mudsil should shut up and get back to work)
Before the war it was the latter ascendant, Lincoln and for a short time thereafter, the former was ascendant, and back and forth it went. After the Crash of '29, the case for Oligarchy crashed and the "populist" notion became dominant via the New Deal. Immediately, of course, the would-be oligarchy began plotting to put a stop to it but for various reasons it took them half a century to gain the upper hand - which resulted in Reagan. We're now 40 years into the Reagan cycle and people see it as the "normal" state of politics and economics and so forth but on the grand scale of history it's WELL to the right (hell, Bill Clinton could best be described as a Reagan Democrat)

I said all that to say this: Warren is radical or "extreme" left by a historical measure, she's just radically to the left of Reagaisim
Warren is a 21st century Francis Perkins, this era's equivalent of a new Deal Democrat. And that's a legacy the Dems OUGHT to be leaning into. Why they are terrified of their single greatest era of political (and policy) success and think they must run as at least able to compromise with and get along with TeaParty dominated Republicans can only be credited to cowardice or having a vested financial interest in the current arrangement.

Now, it IS true they'd have to sell it. But the GOP has no trouble in stoking the passions of their base, making them the most relaiable turnout cohort in the country. They know full well, for example, they are bullshitting the Evangelicals, throwing them their hateful bones while constantly telling them to be terrified of godless liberals - but it WORKS. They aren't TRYING to expand their base to the mushy middle, they are saying "we can say and do any crazy thing because OUR people SHOW THE FUCK UP."

Meanwhile, the Dems look at the most potentially passionate part of their base and say "Settle down now, be patient, we need to be careful, we might scare someone off."

Which is literally the only strategy they could employ that could possibly lose in 2020.

The GOP is the party of "Be afraid!" and the Dems are the party of "We're scared"

Some 57% of REPUBLICANS favor a wealth tax like the one Warren proposes (not that they'd vote for her any more than Jim Hood got elected governor of MS against a Republican even Republicans here hate)

As I said (at length) above, the supposedly "liberal" media has a HUGE financial interest in the status quo of for-profit health care (particularly, but among other things also) and so do Status Quo Dems like those in the party leadership in Congress and that motivates them (consciously or unconsciously) to be accomplish to the right wing "too far left!!!" narrative that's worked well for the GOP for decades.

I am waiting on confirmation here.

"Meanwhile, the Dems look at the most potentially passionate part of their base and say "Settle down now, be patient, we need to be careful, we might scare someone off."
Which is literally the only strategy they could employ that could possibly lose in 2020." - Nova

Don't underestimate the Dems - they have a limitless supply of strategies for losing! They will leave their supports scrambling to find excuses when you see what kind of surprise FAIL awaits the nation. I can hardly wait!

The "Dems" (whoever they are - some Imaginary Alien in your universe?) may be, they clearly have you terrified you. You need to rejoin the human race here on Earth so that we can help you.

He also needs to take his pills so he is less agitated and hard for the nurses to handle with his delusional escapades.

"when you see what kind of surprise FAIL awaits the nation"

Well we're all already living with the results of the colossal failure of the GOP to be an even sane political party so there's really no way for anyone else (in the category of politics) to win the Fail Olympics at this point - the most they could hope for is a tie (which is what you'd get if they somehow managed to let Trump get re-elected - both parties having failed in equally spectacular fashion)

terrified of Democrats? I pity most of them, and fear none of them. I certainly don't see them winning in 2020 because their infighting will work against them.

sounds like a plan!