Iowa Caucus Winner
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Funny and sad. Definitely embarrassing Is this the Dem Party trying to find a way a second time for Bernie not to be their Presidential candidate or did the system get hacked through the app? Or did the app fail? Gonna be lawsuits for sure from the candidates not on top. Welcome to Election 2020!
Last edited:
As SPK would say: “Not Funny”. I tend to lean incompetence over conspiracy. Somebody in the DNC had a kid whose friend probably developed a cool app that wasn’t tested or people weren’t trained properly in advance.
Early reports are that Biden came in a distant fourth, and if that holds, he’s in trouble.
Inexcusable. The idea that there wasn’t a plan B to get the results out timely is a complete joke.
The end of the dumb caucus, no doubt, and non descript Iowa's place in the sun. Coverage of the many, many individual caucus sites reminds me of a junior high school student council election.
It's really not a problem with the caucus itself. At the end of a couple hours, the numbers are the numbers and it's just a matter of getting them from here to there. It really shouldn't be that difficult.
I like that a caucus considers 2nd choices. With a state so close, it is fairly important where the supporters go if their candidate isn't viable. Though ranked choice voting could probably be a much easier solution.
Met Slava Fetisov numerous times. What a really nice person. Didn’t know he was running but happy to hear he won. He was the best choice, by a wide margin.
Bonus points for recognizing Slava....I believe Sergei Starakov is his running mate....
Didn’t they both live in West Caldwell?
I like Bloomberg a lot. I think his intentions are great but I think people will freak out with some of his policies like no sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.
I'm conflicted on Bloomberg. Never liked that he changes positions depending on which way the wind blows and I feel like he's trying to buy this election. On the other hand, maybe he really is in it to prevent Trump, Sanders or Warren from winning. I don't know.
Bloomberg was an effective mayor and you can’t argue his business success. Infinitely more qualified than the remaining Democratic candidates. Of the controversial positions he’s taken, the only one he’s going to have to have an answer for are his gun control ideas. Stop and frisk/sugar drinks he can address head on and stick with the message.
He is the Biden insurance policy and based on Iowa, he looks brilliant. Beating Trump is another story, but a lot can happen in ten months.
Every politician, including Trump, is trying to buy the election. Campaign finance laws allow it. I was home sick earlier in the week and watched a documentary on big money in this country. They suggested a limit on the amount a donor can give to a campaign, $2,700 with the government providing 4:1 for every dollar a campaign receives. This way Trump's and Bloomberg's of the world really have litte extra impact on an election. Truth be told, I'm sure there are ways to skirt around it but it would be a start.
I know your topic is Bloomberg, but since you brought up gun control I have to ask since I haven't watched the news a ton lately. How come there can't be a middle ground in Washington on gun control? Why can't we protect people's rights to own guns but not give them access to machine guns used in war?
Because there is a powerful lobby unwilling to give an inch and politicians who are afraid of the backlash.
I like liberty and freedom. Therefore, I can't stand Bloomberg.
I agree that is part of the problem. However it's not the whole problem. Typical you only see one side. Why are the people on the other side looking to take every gun away? It's both sides, not just that one side.
There is only one side preventing increased gun control. It's not like republicans are offering to give an inch and democrats are out there saying, no only a full ban would work.
None of the democratic candidates are looking to take all guns away. I am not against guns, but I believe we should enact laws which will not harm responsible gun owners and will prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them.
If you agree with that basic sentiment, this is not a "both sides" problem.
Will try to give you a view as I am an owner (one handgun) but know several people/friends that own lots of guns, dozens, a few much more than that. (Collectors, hunters, sport, historians, etc.). Have also been to a few gun ranges and observed who is also there. So I don't have a visceral reaction to any gun legislation, but can understand why some do.
In my interactions, they feel the NRA is a bogey man that the MSM and politicians use for scare tactics and an excuse why they can't get anything done. I believe like only 10% of gun owners are members of the NRA and my sense is that its really a lobby for gun manufacturers to protect their business. I think gun owners on the whole like that they have an organization that speaks for them against the opposition, but they are not loyal members or even cares what happens to any of their leaders.
IMO, the main reason why the push back on any legislation restricting gun ownership is that they see it as a one-way government overreach. I believe they would be open to legislation, but they want to the same level of effort on those issues that they believe are more important in saving lives (stricter sentencing for criminals, getting guns out of the hands of criminals, etc.).
Finally, there is also a segment of them that believes that they don't want to only depend on the government to protect them in a time of crisis. For instance, what happens if there is an attack on our power grid that has a long term effect...weeks, months? We saw how some people just went crazy during Sandy and that was only a few days.
Any responsible gun owner only wants guns in the hands of other responsible owners. I think it's fair to say they are cynical about politicians intent (can you blame them), but would be open and willing to compromise if it were a real honest dialogue.
I know very little about this topic and what I do know comes from Fox and CNN, so believe me I'm well aware that what I know is most likely useless, so forgive me if my question is ignorant. What is the purpose of selling rapid firing guns to the general public? The people I know who hunt are not using them for hunting. Unless 50 guys show up at your door with bad intentions, I really don't see the purpose for them being sold to the general public.
I know very little as well, but did my research before purchasing and talked to a lot of folks. Not an elegant analogy, but why does someone need to own a Lamborghini that can go 200 mph (and pay $400,000) for it? I know a few guys that own them and I've shot one at the range. One of them is a collector and one likes the feel of firing it occasionally at the range. Another guy is ex-military. And I'm sure there are people that think that they want to be better armed than any bad guy that will ever show up at their door. I think the mistake most non-owners make is that they group all gun owners in a one demographic.
I agree that if you want to be ignorant about the motivation to own guns, watch cable news. I have found most gun owners more than willing to talk about their interest, none of which I can say that I walked away from thinking, "Jeez, they shouldn't own a gun!"
Back in August you were very bullish on the Casey Manchin bill being resurrected and passed as it had Trump's support.
Trump met with Wayne La Pierre in September and any talks of potential action on gun legislation died.
Why do you think we failed to do anything?
It had more to do with Trump's base than the NRA. NRA members aren't the main ones going to his rallies...and as I said above, the rank and file gun owner would not favor legislation alone. And it was actually the Toomy/Mancin bi-partisan bill.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that NRA members themselves are the problem. I am saying it is the NRA leadership who spends millions of dollars in lobbying and ads to extend their reach beyond their members to convince the base that Democrats are all evil and want to take your guns away.
The debate over any legislation just stopped happening entirely after La Pierre met with Trump.
I find it pretty hard to believe that is just a coincidence.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. That meeting had nothing to do with the legislation stalling.
It is too easy to acquire weapons of death in this country. To me the NRA and munitions industry are one and the same. The main motivation for preventing the sale of automatic weapons is profits and nothing but profits. I see no signs of compromise from this lobby. More concern should be for the many school children and adults who have been mowed down by these weapons. I have no problem with hunting weapons or hand guns for protection but the sale of assault weapons should have greater controls.
TK
TK
Tom, it’s all about money. How different is the gun/munitions industry from the pharmaceutical or food and beverage industries, whose products kill far more people every year.
Hall85: You are right with regard to these industries also. But at least we are starting (much too late) to try and curb the promotion of opioids by the pharmaceutical industry.
TK
and yet there are some states where you can walk into a gun show and buy a gun with less restriction than getting cigarettes or a prescription or even just sudafed.
Of course it is always about money, but again, with 70%+ support for stronger background checks, it is crazy that the gun industry still has so much power to prevent any concession at all.
Those polling numbers are deceiving or else something would have been done already. Votes matter; not polls.
As I said before, I believe gun owners would be open for background checks but without any movement on sentencing or actions on criminals, it’s a non-starter. They feel if they give in on something, there will be a next thing and a next thing that all infringes on their rights as lawful and responsible gun owners and doesn’t address the unlawful.
Last edited:
We’re coming full circle.
here is an email I revived from the NRA while Trump was starting to hint he might support additional gun control.
“In fact, O’Rourke is not the only one calling for mass government gun roundups. Nearly all the politicians running to challenge President Trump are hardcore, gun-hating extremists who want to outlaw your freedom forever.
Bernie Sanders says he’ll outlaw every semi-automatic rifle in America and ban all private gun sales.
Elizabeth Warren promises to track you and your guns in a massive government database with gun owner licensing and registration – and impose sky-high taxes on guns and ammo.
And Joe Biden wants all “magazines that hold multiple bullets” completely banned – outlawing most of the firearms in your gun safe today!
TELL THE POLITICIANS
HELL NO, YOU’RE NOT TAKING MY GUNS!”
I don’t agree. Gun owners I know have strong and rationale beliefs in their rights. Probably a group least influenced by a fear mongering organization like the NRA.
Sure I’ll take your anecdotal few friends over years of national surveys.
I prefer researching myself, getting beneath the thin veneer of a survey and understanding context. Who said a few?
1) Automatic weapons are illegal, you can’t buy one.
2) Assault weapons are nothing more than cosmetics perpetuated by the gun control lobby.
There should be reasonable measures like background checks with no national registry and red flag laws that completely protect due process. Neither side likes these.
