658
Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
658 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3621 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holy deep fried frankenfuck will the Democrats NEVER LEARN?!?!?!?!
AFTER!
You talk about guns AFTER the election!
What in the actual pogostickingpopejohnpaul is he THINKING?!?!?
The optics are 1000% awful here.
Uvalde wasn't enough, but a potshot at the planet's most notorious living felon is?
Lose the election speed run any %
I’m 100% sure Dems are actively self sabotaging their re-election.
There is no way the entire party cannot read a fucking room. This has to be on purpose at this point.
P2025 will increase their stock portfolio value so they can dump it all and make millions.
Then add some more taxes on the middle class to pay for it.
They get more fundraising dollars when Trump's in power too. For the dems who are in states that'll never vote them out, they'll make a killing from a second Trump term and they're rich enough to be insulated from just about all his decisions that fuck the rest of us over.
To be fair there's large swaths of the party that want him to step down. It's his advisors and aligned leadership that insist on running him and these policies no matter what.
A though has just crossed my mind: what if the advisors want him to be there this way and wait till the last moment to say "you know what? Biden steps down [because of his health] and X runs in his place" so Democrat voters can say "we dodged the bullet".
That moment is now. And that's not really how politics usually works. It would be incredibly reckless to do such a thing.
I didn't say it wasn't reckless😁
lol, but political advisors are notoriously risk averse.
... If they see something as a risk.
Biden is simply the worst possible candidate, perhaps the only prominent Dem who can lose to Trump. And he’s determined to prove it.
He's trying to motivate the progressives. His campaign has finally figured out that progressives aren't turning out in the swing states. After over a year of warnings. This, the rent thing, (which progressives immediately identified as entirely too high and a gift to landlords everywhere), and the exponential increase in supposed policy lists. (Which like any gift horse, shouldn't be checked too thoroughly lest the corporate subsidies they hide shine through)
What we really need him to understand is the problem is Israel. Any of this would have worked a year ago. But many progressives are not willing to support the genocide in Israel just to buy themselves comfort.
Most of the progressives I know are moving toward gun ownership rather than away, out of despair
I know that, you know that, but he's so disconnected that he didn't get what would happen to his ratings when he quashed the most consequential strike action in my lifetime.
the left don't give fuck about gun control - the far left actively oppose it
its the center right, pearl clutching, NIMBY, yuppy liberals who use it for virtue signaling, but even they won't be budged on who they're going to vote for based on the lip service about guns
The center left/right is Biden's base too, they're already sure to show up. But I don't think it's accurate to say the Left, like progressives, don't care. They very much care, the ones further to the left want to arm up and the ones closer to the center want to ban guns. It's an interesting intersection to look at but it pretty much comes down to how threatened they do or do not feel.
Are you suggesting democrats will somehow fool voters into thinking they are agnostic about guns?
No, nor should they try, nor should they stick with their current seemingly nonsensical policy ideas about guns.
The "gun problem" as it stands is really more of a symptom of our mental health crisis, our ridiculously confrontational "news" cycle, and a number of other HUMAN factors that aren't going to be solved by banning a particular model of gun, though and no one seems to want to hear that.
Screeching "Ban the right's favorite model of toy" right before an election is beyond tone deaf, and an incredibly dumb move politically that won't do squat except mobilize the NRA voters to vote the other way, which we DO NOT NEED with democracy in this country at stake.
I can personally count multiple handfuls of coworkers and acquaintances who might have voted for him that will now vote trump or stay away from the polls over this.
I can't decide if I'm amazed, impressed, or utterly disgusted that the "stick to their guns" play on words was right there and you didn't go for it.
Maybe Biden actually does plan to announce that he's not running in the 2024 general election. That way, this scores some political points with Democratic voters, but doesn't impact the election much.
Other than that, I don't really see how this makes sense politically. I dunno. Maybe his team has done some kind of analysis and is convinced that a particular demographic in the swing states that they're trying to win will like this or something, so it might be disadvantageous nationwide but a win locally.
Basically, they got some breathing room on the replacement thing because of Trump getting shot at. But I guarantee you behind the scenes the message is the polling numbers in PA come up or else.
If it's viable to run someone else, I'm pretty sure that it has to happen almost immediately, if it's going to happen. The primaries have already happened, so if someone gets run, it'd have to be the party picking them already, and there's very limited time to campaign.
The general election is November 5. It's currently July 17. That's three-and-a-half months in which someone would have to sell themselves to the public.
goes back to look at presidents who didn't run again
https://www.britannica.com/story/have-any-us-presidents-decided-not-to-run-for-a-second-term
LBJ did it prior to the primaries, at the end of March of the election year.
Polk apparently promised in his initial campaign that he would only serve one term, so it was known long in advance.
Buchanan promised in his inaugural speech that he would serve only one term, so it was known almost as far in advance.
Hayes apparently also pledged not to run for re-election.
Coolidge apparently announced the summer prior to the election year, so over a year prior to the general election.
Truman did it at the end of March of the election year. So relatively-close, but still with seven months to go.
Teddy Roosevelt apparently announced after being elected the first time that he would not seek a second term.
So looks like the closest equivalent would be LBJ and Truman, and they still did so at the end of March in the election year, with twice the amount of time remaining that's still left for 2024, and before the primaries.
Like, I don't think that it'd be realistic to wait and see what happens in the polls and then have someone run with even less time.
Oh yeah they aren't talking about waiting for long. That's why Biden is throwing progressive policies at the wall. 5% rent, AWB, SCOTUS reform...
And I thought there was a fourth. So I went to go look and the breaking news is he has Covid, right after saying he'd step aside if a major medical condition happened. So that's going to get spun into a thing.
You know I remember when I started studying politics and I was thankful we had nice campaigns instead of the drama laden ones you see in other countries. I think I even uttered it once and forgot to knock on wood. I'm sorry guys, I jinxed us.
Ah, you're right, news just coming out about it today.
Ya this is where my mind went