I don't see how that can be the case when nearly 50 percent of the country still supported Trump despite Biden running on a centrism and reconciliation platform. If this matchup wasn't enough to get Republicans to cross the aisle then I'm not sure I believe that anything is.
It's pretty obvious that the democrats failed to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum: Down-ballot, the Dems did worse than Biden, and I suspect that the statistics will show a lot of split ballots.
Both on foxnews and on WaPo, there were more news about the more leftist actors. Bernie, AOC, etc. The Dems did not manage to show that these are not the mainstream democratic goals.
The pictures of rioters, combined with "defund the police" scared a lot of people, and if you start out skeptical, you might not look close enough that this doesn't mean "get rid of the police", but "descope the police, let them do their job, and find other people to do the things which are not their job".
> It's pretty obvious that the democrats failed to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum
tldr; Republicans did not even attempted to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum. Why is that the democrats are supposed to reach to center both when they won and loose?
I don't think so. When you are closed in right wing bubble, Biden is hardcore socialist, nearly progressive communist about to destroy American capitalism. Literally. He is also sleepy Joe in clear early stage of dementia. This has zero to do with what democrats demonstrated. This is made up, because making it up is good for "our side". It does not matter what Biden is or demonstrates.
Frankly, it is like relationship with narcissist. Dont let him/her gaslight you into thinking you are at fault for whatever was done to you. It is overall unfair and biased toward right wing. You dont fix relationship with narcissist by going out of your way further and further trying to prove made up accusations are false. It does not work, the middle just shifts constantly and abuse just escalates.
Republicans did not demonstrated the Trump along people he appointed, proud boys are not what the party is. You want left to stop pursuing their own policy goals, with threat that right wing will go crazy if they dont. But that is abusive logic, right wing is responsible for right wing does. And left wing is responsible for left wing does.
Trunp didn't, but many other Republicans did. Or let me phrase it a different way: The Democrats made it stick that the right wing fringe = Trump, but they didn't make it stick for down-ballot races. It was the other way around for the Republicans, I think.
So you can either take your ball and go home, or you can try to pierce the bubble. Hoping for them to come out of the bubble on their own seems pointless.
I do agree with ball analogy, but disagree that it has anything to do with trying to move further and further to the right to accommodate people who don't listen to you.
> It's pretty obvious that the democrats failed to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum
IMHO this is just something people say to push Democrats to the center and then further and further right ... because the evidence shows that the current Republican party won't support any Democratic policy, basically.
These folks we're talking about will not be convinced by anything.
If you read closely, you will notice that I do not make an argument that the Democrats should be more centrist, but that their strategy was to be centrist, and that they failed to sell it as such. That leaves to options for the future: Not be so centrist, because you can't sell it anyway, or be centrist, but actually sell it. But being centrist and looking leftist seems like a lose-lose, whether you prefer a more leftist or more centrist approach.
That being said, it might be interesting to look at Germany, where Merkel moved the CDU left from a center/right position to the center. This secured the CDU a rather long stretch in power, essentially spelled doom for the center/left SPD, but also gave rise to a more hard-left Die Linke and, worse, an ultra-right AfD, whicht started as a conservative party, but essentially was taken over by neo-nazis.
I may have misread your previous comment -- thank you for the clarification.
I do agree with you that it's tricky to try to sell being centrist when you are not, and, in some ways, better to just be out-and-out left.
TBH I'm not sure Biden really tried to sell himself as something he is not. He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.
If anything I'm kind of anticipating him walking back his pledges on those things when in office. Though I hope not.
Let's also bear in mind though that, while we can armchair-quarterback, his strategy succeeded.
I think the question of if moving to a more aggressively Progressive agenda would bring in voters hungry for change who are otherwise turned off by Democrats, or if moving more to the center to bring in voters turned off by a more Progressive agenda, is an extremely vexed question to which I have no answer.
That is interesting about Germany though.
And at the end of the day my own belief is that we are living in a time of change, and that it's important to offer policies I believe to be right (mainly Progressive policies) to address that change.
Or otherwise the void will be filled, as you pointed out about Germany, by something else.
At the same time we haven't seen that approach be successful on a national level in US politics yet. So I don't know.
I do think Biden stayed true to what he believes. I think he might not have pushed the green new deal so hard by himself, maybe. My point is this: For somebody sympathetic to the Democrats, Biden appears as a rather centrist person. He isn't advocating for abolishing private health-insurance for example. But if you ask a Republican voter (not even a Trumpist), I'm not sure they would say the same. Or they believe that the party would force him to be more left.
I'm not so sure with regard to the votes. 2016, yes, I believe many people on the left were not happy with Clinton and did not vote. This time, we had record vote participation, and I believe that's from both sides, so the result should reflect the true political will in America. It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.
I like the picture of the pendulum. While Obama was quite centrist, the USA made great advances in personal liberties. Gay marriage and so on. The world was changing too fast for many. Or they felt that their problems weren't in the focus as much, or at all. So the pendulum swung back, and we had Trump. We need to dampen the swinging to make steady progress, and I think Biden might be good at that, maybe especially because of his age.
Personally, I am somewhat wary of some of the more progressive ideas. I'm not a big fan of single-payer healthcare, seeing the results in England. I generally think that a market-run system is better than a government-run, but that markets need firm rules set by the government. ACA was pretty good, but long term, America has to get away from the employment-coupled insurances. And covering preexisting conditions necessarily means mandate (or mandate through the backdoor).
> It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.
You might be right. Let's also bear in mind, though, that even with all the people voting this year that's still I think less than half of all eligible voters.
Other countries which have national voting holidays or making voting mandatory (which tbh I kind of like; you're a citizen, it's your duty, you can go vote for no one but goddamnit you have to vote) see much higher turnout.
This means that votes alone don't currently present an entirely accurate picture of the view of the country.
There is also the vote surpression which is nontrivial and hard to measure. Probably not a massive difference but perhaps more than a tiny one.
Lastly I'm actually not a fan of Biden's age. I'd like to see more politicians under the age of 50.
By the way although I'm sharing my disagreements I thought your comments were thoughtful and insightful and appreciate our conversation : ).
I, too, enjoyed our discussion. Thoughtful exchange with people who are not of the same opinion is so much more rewarding than the echo chambers we often find ourselves in.
It would be quite interesting to hear from those not voting why they didn't vote. My suspicion is that these people would almost never vote, or maybe only vote for so extremely perfect candidates that it's just not realistic. But yeah, maybe there is a large group of people who would vote if the candidate would just be a little bit more progressive. But honestly, in a situation like this, with the knowledge of the last four years, I just can't understand why you wouldn't vote, at least if you are left of center.
I also cannot understand why election day isn't on a Sunday, or a holiday. It should be the highest holiday the US has. Any democracy has, actually.
Biden is also somewhat too old for my taste, but no candidate is perfect. Age does bring experience though, and he has long-lasting relationships with people on both sides of the aisle. That will help. Personally, I really liked Buttigieg, and I'm happy to see that he'll like have a role in the Biden administration.
> He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.
Those are all standard centrist neoliberal goals - aside from the green new deal, which Biden already explicitly said won’t be anything nearly as radical as what AOC/Bernie were shilling.
All of which, even if inadequate are better goals than the dark authoritarian visions of the far-right : ).
Systemic racism has been danced around by centrists until now.
And yeah I agree we have to wait and see what the Biden administration actually does.
But as a Progressive I'm heartened because now there's an opportunity for Progressives to push the Biden administration. With Trump, there was zero chance of that.
As the FDR quote goes, "You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."
I don't think any Progressives have idealistic visions of a Biden administration. What they are hoping for is a degree of influence and an opportunity to exert political pressure or leverage.
> He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism
In case folks haven’t clued in yet, using this phrase is probably the single most important contributor to why the democrats almost lost the election and lost so many seats. The house is absolutely going red in 2022 if they don’t clue in and drop the identity politics nonsense. There is no “systemic” racism, and this is an unnecessarily divisive narrative.
It's funny, because if you talk about gun control, most Republicans think the same thing about Democrats. The difference being they've been burned over and over by compromise and the fact once something is passed it never gets reviewed or sunset for relevance.
It cuts both ways. People disagree, and where they disagree is the most likely place for both sides to hold the other side to account for previous behavior.
It's part of why I was so disgusted about fast tracking the Supreme Court nomination after McConnell set a precedent the Presidency before.
In terms of game theory it just cemented that the other side couldn't be trusted.
What I don't understand is, Bernie is painted as this rabid socialist, but what are his positions that people don't actually like? He wants single-payer healthcare. So do most Americans. (And as a Canadian I can tell you, it sure is nice not having to worry about cost every time I need to visit the doctor, or if I were to have an accident and need to go to the hospital.) If not that, then what?
For one thing, people don’t like the impossible price tag associated with his ideas. They don’t like throwing good money after bad. They are in fear of having their life depend on a system that might function similar to other organizations like the DMV or the VA or USCIS. And generally speaking, if you have insurance, quality of care is much better than Canada. So even compassionate people who understand why it’s a problem for people who can’t afford care still have some reluctance to an irreversible commitment that carries so much risk. It’s purely rational on their part, and it’s hard to criticize people for acting rationally.
I'm not sure it's actually true that the quality of care is much better than Canada. The one negative I see to the Canadian system is that it's true people can wait months for elective (but still very important) surgeries like joint replacements. It's not true, as some propaganda states, that we wait months to see the doctor, can't get prescriptions, or die in the hallways of hospitals waiting for a room. In fact we can go to any walk-in clinic when we need to see a doctor, or to any hospital when we have an emergency, and be seen without an appointment. (You can also make an appointment with your family doctor if it's non-urgent). To me that seems far superior to having to choose from those covered by your insurance, and then sometimes being unsure of what will be the cost to you until after the fact.
I will agree with you that the standard of care for those with the best insurance in the US is probably better than the Canadian system. But the standard of care here is still very good, and even as someone who could afford that good insurance, I wouldn't want to switch. Also, the US already spends more public money on healthcare than Canada does per capita despite not having single payer, so it appears there's a lot of efficiency to be gained.
Edit: please don't down vote my parent in disagreement. They answered my question in good faith and helped illuminate that viewpoint. Shouldn't be punished for that.
I have a lot of exposure to both countries systems, including close people with chronic and terminal illnesses, major and minor surgeries, etc. And yes there’s a reason that it’s not rare for wealthy Canadians come to the US for medical treatment.
Regardless, I’m answering the question that was asked. You didn’t ask which health care system is better, you asked what people don’t like about Bernie’s policies. I’m attempting to offer some clarity into why people hold those positions. And do keep in mind that even if governments in other countries manage to run a decent health care system, that does very little to boost the confidence of opponents that the US government will be equally as functional in their implementation, or how long it will take them to sort it out. They have provided too many examples of poorly run institutions for some people to just disregard.
But your question wasn’t only about health care. When I say impossible price tag, I mean everything:
Thanks, those are fair points; I do appreciate the thorough answer to my question. And for what it's worth, I'm Canadian, but I'm pretty happy with the moderate dealmaker Biden as the eventual nominee (and President-elect). I agree with you that given the existing situation, a public option as opposed to a complete replacement of the existing system is a more realistic path to providing healthcare to everyone, with less room for catastrophic error. Unfortunately it seems unlikely that even that will happen now, but who knows.
As for the rest, some aspects of it do look a bit unrealistic to me. Others look ambitious but morally right, and something I'd like to see up here too, like a real focus on basic housing as a universal right, and a corresponding push to end homelessness. Regardless, you did help me see the opposing point of view; thanks.
This fact doesn’t change the price of what he has been proposing. Also, I wasn’t only referring to health care. He has a lot of ideas. Free college, guaranteed free housing for all, medical debt and student debt forgiveness for all, free child care for all, increased social security, etc.
Nordic countries say hi! Those are all standard over here. We pay more taxes yes but we don't have to worry about the extra costs of the above, so it's a clear (to me) net win.
It's an impossible pricetag only because we don't tax the rich.
Billionaires have taken $50 trillion from the poor and middle class. The poor and middle class are afraid of taxes because they have nothing left to give.
Poor and middle class Americans are afraid of higher taxes because they don't have enough money.
Where did all the money go? To 400 billionaires.
50 of them now control as much wealth as the poorest 165 million Americans.
Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty, and what do we do about it? Pray to Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos?
What do I have to convince them to give their wealth to me?
Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty. 10% of Americans hold 70% of wealth, and they are all getting richer. Their income comes either from the rest of us or from inflation.
When I hear single-payer healthcare, I don't think about the Canadian system, but the English system, which is terrible, compared to the quality of care you get in Germany, or most people get in the US.
Which brings me to another reality: Most people in the US have access to a very good healthcare standard. It's not so much that they don't want all people to have that, but they do wonder if that requires a complete change of system for them.
So, I don't know much about the English system, but I do know the NHS is very popular in England. Are you sure it's actually terrible? Or could there be an element of the same propaganda I see in the US about the Canadian system, like people waiting months to see a doctor, etc.?
"defund the police" means "defund the police", it is a clear and unambiguous sentence. If you mean "let the police do their job", don't run on "defund the police". It's not that people didn't look close enough at the slogans (and by the way we have seen many cities actually defund their police depts so it doesn't help the idea that the slogan means anything else).
I don't think that Biden himself holds leftist views but he also did nothing to distance himself from this fringe, and if he is not neutralised by a republican senate, I think there is a legitimate concern that he will be held hostage by the left wing of the democratic party and apply many of those policies (not the least because Kamala Harris would if he steps down for health reasons).
I think many people are still failing to see the real split.
The split is not "Democrat VS Republican". That always was a bit of an artificial construct, at least within my living memory.
There would be debates, at the end everyone would shake hands and life went on. Nothing substantially changed in policy. Bush said XX, did some stuff, Obama said XX, did pretty much the same stuff and on it went.
But then people got sick of that game.
The left wanted real change. Not forced payments to insurance companies for health care while corporations went right on doing what they do. Real action on climate. Real addresses to the problems of generational poverty and race issues instead of a few token figures and some talk.
The right also wanted real change. An end to globalist policies. An end to unfettered immigration. And an end to meaningless foreign wars (which the left also should have been in on but for some reason were not so much). Judges that would uphold their religious values. And they managed to elect a president that actually started to do some of this much to the dismay of the old guard of both parties.
So now here we are.
The Joe Bidens and Mitt Romneys of the world think they can put Humpty Dumpty back together again and it will be back to business as usual, a few drone strikes, some trade deals and big companies growing ever more powerful. But I suspect not this time. If Biden actually is certified and elected I think he will greatly disappoint the left and the more radical wing will become increasingly hostile. Meanwhile the right, believing the election to be stolen by "communists" through voter fraud will become increasingly conspiracy minded. None of this is a recipe for reconciliation.
My feeling is we need to move beyond facile political posturing and step back and take a hard look at globalism, at nationalism, at the role of federal governments.
We can't deny globalism is here. It's not going away. Capital and information and product and even jobs are going to cross borders. There are many issues we can only solve globally. But if it's not done in a way that protects the livelihoods, dignity, traditions, cultural preferences and aspirational wishes of people there are going to be problems, and probably even bloodshed. People must get most of what they want or at least feel it's possible.
The "right" and the "left" as they are commonly understood in the US are not as far apart in this as it first appears. They both feel they are engaged in a struggle against oppression and for human freedom.
The alarming part is, in order to maintain order (and of course the system which much chug along) the paranoia about authoritarianism from both sides might be realized soon enough.
>It’s possible that many Republicans did cross the aisle, just like many Democrats (such as myself) did so as well.
It's possible. But the numbers don't bear this out.
In every state that was close where Biden won, his margin of victory was less than the number of votes that Jo Jorgensen (the Libertarian candidate) received.
That tells me that enough R-types were disgusted enough with Trump that they voted Libertarian for President and R for everyone else.
Check out the numbers for yourself[0]. Just click on each state and it will break down the vote totals for each candidate. And in every. single. case. the margin of victory for Biden is less than the number of votes received by Jo Jorgensen.
Jo under performed Gary Johnson from 2016, so I do not believe your correlation is very valid
In Some States, Like Nevada, the number of people that choose "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES" for president more or less matches the number of people that voted for Jo...
Further an over all Analysis shows there were almost as many Split Biden votes, as there were Split Trump Votes
This idea that "3rd party spoils the election" or changes the election has been dis-proven often, as absent the 3rd choice most people that vote 3rd party simply do not vote at all, or choose no one in that particular race (which is an option most people for get, you do not have to pick a person in every race on a ballot, blank is a valid choice)
The history of how gun control came to become such a sharp and reliable wedge issue is well worth understanding. It's a relatively recent thing.
Something I've found worth thinking when I hear that, to paraphrase a random sentiment you might hear, "Democrats need to understand that people need to feel secure, that's why gun control matters" is this: who is telling these people that they should be scared?
> who is telling these people that they should be scared?
Life in general? If you have an idea that this country is safe, then great! But the reality is it’s not, not for many. And to take someone’s method of defense because you can’t see a reason why doesn’t do well for relations. And as the sibling post here said, the left hasn’t tried to understand guns enough to enact gun control that doesn’t sound laughable.
Again, this comes back to an underlying message people are being sold. Two, actually. The first is "It is reasonable to expect to need to defend yourself with lethal force, and a gun is a reasonable tool for doing so." The second is "Feeling the need to defend yourself such that it is a day-to-day concern is a reasonable social position."
People will vote on fear before they'll vote on the abject failure of social policy that creates situations where that fear might be justified. That's just how humans are wired: we're not rational. It shouldn't be a matter of taking someone's means of defense, it's trying to address why they feel they need it in the first place. But even then, guns just aren't a particularly good investment if what you want to do is successfully defend yourself from crime. The stats just don't bear it out. So again, who is telling people that they should have one? Who does it suit for large amounts of people to believe that this specific form of mitigation makes sense?
Unfortunately, gun control is such a hot-button issue that it's actually outside the Overton window for an entire political faction. If you bring it up at all, even if you're talking about meta-issues like this, the conversation tends to shut down instantly. This is why the response is always "the Dems need to understand" not "the Republicans need to propose." The fear it represents, and the self-image that any conversation around it challenges, are so fundamental that attempting to approach it from any direction is seen as a personal attack. Again, this is not accidental; it is worth understanding when and how this happened, and who was involved in it.
Well the other side of the second amendment, and one the left shuts down when it's brought up, is protection from government. Then there's the idea of militia's. Both of these are also reasons for people to have the "scary black rifles" in their house, and a central idea to the 2A. So add these to the questions: "Is it reasonable to believe the US may need a militia", "Is it reasonable to force citizen to provide this militia", "Will the US gov ever violate human rights such that the citizens of the US would have to defend themselves against this gov".
Then lets also consider that when you talk about self defense, and the possible loss of life, should we be forced to play the "just enough" game with defensive force? Who exactly likes gambling with their life?
To the first questions, you do have a point, those are questions that are worth asking. And it all hinges on "which government?", "is the militia well-regulated?", "is it feasible to constitute a modern militia such that it could realistically resist modern state forces?" and so on. Randomly scattering black guns into people's bedroom wardrobes does not a militia make, so if a militia is what we want, what are the processes we need to go through in addition to providing the tools to make sure that such an organisation could be effective if it was needed? What would the command structure look like? Training? Membership eligibility? And not incidentally, how does it avoid being classed as a terrorist organisation from the moment it breaks cover, rather than a constitutionally relevant political body? All that's in the mix. And that's a reasonable set of questions to pose. I don't have the answers to many of them, but critically, that's not how the second amendment is politically framed today. The prevailing interpretation of the second amendment is in support of individual rights, not collective. And again, that is an intentional framing created by specific people for a specific purpose.
> Then lets also consider that when you talk about self defense, and the possible loss of life, should we be forced to play the "just enough" game with defensive force? Who exactly likes gambling with their life?
That's exactly the situation in most of the West. It's just not normal to have to expect to be both in a life-threatening situation, and for the correct response on your part be to kill someone. That's a social and governmental failure right there.
> Randomly scattering black guns into people's bedroom wardrobes does not a militia make
Actually it does, and in some countries this is required by law. Here is the definition of militia: "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."
This is a last resort army, and in fact every able body citizen able to take up arms is already a "member".
And what will training do? If you train someone crazy who wants to kill people, this doesn't take their desire to kill people away does it? Dems keep leaning on that training as if it's a silver bullet but in reality it will do nothing. The democratic politicians holding, how come they've never been seen at a range if training is so important? This sounds like the dems saying everybody but them needs some training again. Not likely to get traction.
> organisation
organization
> That's exactly the situation in most of the West. It's just not normal to have to expect to be both in a life-threatening situation, and for the correct response on your part be to kill someone. That's a social and governmental failure right there.
What west? The US? or the Western US? This is pure opinion. It may not be normal for you, but every California politician has a conceal carry permit. Some 500k lawyers do as well. It very much is normal, just not for you.
One serious look at Feinstein and other's proposed legislation is enough to convince every gun owner I know that Democrats don't know the first thing about guns.
We need reform, not absurd threats to ban AR-15's while keeping Mini-14's. Not arbitrary tax stamps and wait times for suppressors and short barrel rifles.
I personally haven't seen gun control legislation proposed in America that isn't totally laughable. It's a deep-rooted thorn in the foot of progressive American politics.
And the underlying problem is that gun owners are populous enough that this objection is a serious political blockage. Why do so many Americans own guns? Who is telling them that this is reasonable, desirable, necessary? In most developed countries, gun control is a political footnote. Why is it different in the US?
In the context of self-defense... yes? It's just not a very good return on investment.
> I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys.
> The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational.
Right, so that's the other half of gun owners, who don't say they have a gun for self-protection, which wasn't the context of this thread. That's fine, though.
> Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1].
I mean, it clearly is. You get less gun violence in countries where there are fewer gun owners. That's trivially true. And you'll have to forgive my cynicism, but I can't take wikipedia seriously as a reference on this topic. It's too well-funded a concern for that page not to be pulled in every direction under the sun.
> The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm.
The CDC says 39,740 firearm deaths in 2018. Four or five weeks of COVID, at that rate. Whether that counts as "very rare" is subjective, I suppose. That's the cheap bit, though: because the US seems to have a congenital inability to prevent people from going bankrupt over medical bills, you've also got to factor in the same again (to a tolerable approximation) in hospitalisations, according to the NIH.
At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?"
It's not just the direct harm. In supporting a culture that normalises making things go pop for fun, you get an extensive infrastructure that also benefits people who end up being a serious problem. Yes, that includes school shootings which, yes, are rare, but they're also fairly unique to the US in scale and regularity. Saying "they're rare" doesn't absolve anyone of the need to question why that is, or what can be done to make them less lethal. They make headlines - or used to; they're frequent enough now that they're less news-worthy, which in itself points to a really deep issue - out of proportion to the number of people directly affected because of the combination of the innocence of youth and the extremity of the violence, but now all the schools need to have active-shooter drills because, as a society, the behaviour of the US shows us that it prefers making things go pop to making kids safe.
Look at gun deaths per 100000 in MX. Guns are very controlled in that country, you can only own a 22LR or a 38 revolver. Gun deaths are still right on par with the US. And of those quoted 39k deaths, 13k of the were homicide, with suicide taking the majority.
> At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?"
So again, you are taking your opinion and projecting it onto others. You may think removing guns solves gun crimes. Mexico stands blatantly against that. You may think violence stops when guns disappear, then you see knife and other brutal attacks. You are stating you don't need them, so nobody else does. The second you the victim of some violent crime, or lose a family member you'll change your tune, as you see tons of democrats doing now.
Guns are notoriously out of control in Mexico. That's part of their problem. But it's interesting that you would pick a country with a long-running inter-cartel drug war, rampant police corruption, extremely weak enforcement, and less than a quarter the average household income as somehow directly being comparable to the US. The more remarkable question we should be asking is, with all that going on, how on earth is the US struggling to do any better than Mexico?
Try that comparison with literally any of the other G7 nations.
> You may think removing guns solves gun crimes. Mexico stands blatantly against that.
No, what Mexico shows is that gun control legislation is pointless if you can't enforce it. I'm not arguing that gun control legislation alone is some panacea; that would be absurd. It needs to have teeth.
> You may think violence stops when guns disappear, then you see knife and other brutal attacks.
Yep. That's a reasonable tradeoff. Apart from anything else, it means the police can de-escalate themselves from assuming that they might get shot during any encounter to assuming that if they don't get close enough to get stabbed, they're less likely to be in immediate danger. That's a good thing.
> The second you the victim of some violent crime, or lose a family member you'll change your tune
It seems reasonable to you that your position requires me to undergo an experience so traumatic as to prevent rational thought? Think I'll pass.
How did it get this way? There's laws in place to prevent it. Buying an AR in MX is impossible. How do they get in the country? They should be stopped at the border. Just like hard drugs should be stopped when coming across the US border. Proof that even import controls don't work. We're also in the age of 3d printing and home fabrication. Guns are not going to disappear from criminals hands, only law abiding citizens.
> But it's interesting that you would pick a country with a long-running inter-cartel drug war, rampant police corruption, extremely weak enforcement, and less than a quarter the average household income as somehow directly being comparable to the US.
So two questions here, how did it get corrupt in the first place? What has stopped corruption in the US? If the Mexican citizens wish to end this corruption, how can they? I'm going to disregard the poverty claim because it's just senseless to imply poor people are violent.
> The more remarkable question we should be asking is, with all that going on, how on earth is the US struggling to do any better than Mexico?
Great question! Perhaps violence is just as out of control here as in Mexico?
> No, what Mexico shows is that gun control legislation is pointless if you can't enforce it. I'm not arguing that gun control legislation alone is some panacea; that would be absurd. It needs to have teeth.
What does the legislation having "teeth" entail?
> Apart from anything else, it means the police can de-escalate themselves from assuming that they might get shot during any encounter to assuming that if they don't get close enough to get stabbed, they're less likely to be in immediate danger. That's a good thing.
So then if the police are overly violent, or if they were to take control, then what? Wasn't a majority of the left just rioting over police being too violent? You want to throw your trust entirely into the hope that they are sane?
> It seems reasonable to you that your position requires me to undergo an experience so traumatic as to prevent rational thought? Think I'll pass.
How is the desire to defend one's self irrational? This just seems like pure opinion, and slightly scary. Again, for those in immediate danger how do they defend themselves? You clearly lack experience in any traumatic event, and are now running around saying that because of your lack of experience, nobody should be able to defend themselves with firearms. Really?
Where is the abolishment of private healthcare? Universal basic income? Election reform?
Centrism is always a relative concept. Just because the right wing has radicalized over the past 30-40 years doesn't mean the left can't also radicalized, moving centrism to different places
Biden's branding during the primaries revolved around not being as extreme as candidates like Sanders and Warren. Then during the election his branding predominantly revolved around healing America's partisan divides. He was definitely running as a centrist.
