Political So now what

Political discussions within

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
Interesting to see a conservative argument for simple majority rule.

Seems like our entire Constitutional Republic was designed for something very different.
I'd love to hear how the Constitution was designed to represent the will of the minority rather than the majority. Considering that our entire system of government is based upon majority rule, that's an intriguing position to take.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
Steering away from this, I am curious to hear some Trump supporters thoughts on this.

Should the RNC pay any of Trump's legal bills? I mean, even the Jan 6th stuff seems a stretch for me, but how about his fraud trials and such?

I know she didn't explicitly state that they would, but I would not be remotely shocked if they did foot bills for Trump.

It just seems to me that Trump is slowly consolidating power in the RNC behind "his people" and he will likely rebrand it in the coming years as the Trump party because that's what he does.

I almost want him to win in November just to get 4 years over with so he can no longer run. Then again, I have a pretty firm belief that if he petitioned to eliminate the 2 term limit, his supporters would 100% rally behind that.
 

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
Steering away from this, I am curious to hear some Trump supporters thoughts on this.

Should the RNC pay any of Trump's legal bills? I mean, even the Jan 6th stuff seems a stretch for me, but how about his fraud trials and such?

I know she didn't explicitly state that they would, but I would not be remotely shocked if they did foot bills for Trump.

It just seems to me that Trump is slowly consolidating power in the RNC behind "his people" and he will likely rebrand it in the coming years as the Trump party because that's what he does.

I almost want him to win in November just to get 4 years over with so he can no longer run. Then again, I have a pretty firm belief that if he petitioned to eliminate the 2 term limit, his supporters would 100% rally behind that.
The RNC is a private organization. If it's members decide that using money from their coffers to pay off the legal fees of Trump is in their best interest, that's their choice.

Is it bad politics? Yes. Will it further alienate moderates and drive them away from voting for any Republican? You bet.

The RNC is already the "Trump Party" at the national level and in many important states. Its going to take a lot to excise Trumps influence and the culture of losing that he promotes. Unless Hailey wins the primary, which looks unlikely, Trump will continue to have a grip on the party until he dies. Because its not about policy and winning elections with him and his acolytes, its the cult of personality. Its the outrage. A political party is supposed to be there to promote ideals, but that's not what the RNC is about any more. Its about promoting the personal interests of one man.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
The RNC is a private organization. If it's members decide that using money from their coffers to pay off the legal fees of Trump is in their best interest, that's their choice.

Is it bad politics? Yes. Will it further alienate moderates and drive them away from voting for any Republican? You bet.

The RNC is already the "Trump Party" at the national level and in many important states. Its going to take a lot to excise Trumps influence and the culture of losing that he promotes. Unless Hailey wins the primary, which looks unlikely, Trump will continue to have a grip on the party until he dies. Because its not about policy and winning elections with him and his acolytes, its the cult of personality. Its the outrage. A political party is supposed to be there to promote ideals, but that's not what the RNC is about any more. Its about promoting the personal interests of one man.
I agree that they can do what they want....but it those that donate don't really get a vote in where the money goes, so I am curious how those that support Trump feel about the possibility.

No different then I am curious about those that donate to NRA or any other lobbying group that then sends their money down a unique path that isn't directly tied to the overall goal of the organization. It will alienate people for sure, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that people that actually support Trump will never shun him, nor anything he does. Many people will vote for him because it's the choice between him and Biden, but many will plug their nose and vote Trump, but those that actively support him have bought into his cult and will see nothing wrong with the RNC spending money on legal fees and not campaigning. There will be justifications galore, but I don't believe supporters will actually have the slightest issue with it.
 

johngottfredson

Threat Level Midnight
Location
Alpine
I don’t think it will turn off his supporters and small money donors. They think all the lawsuits are political witch hunts, and every time he loses he raises money off of it.

The investor class who write the big checks will probably cool down if they see their money going to defend his business shenanigans.
 

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
I'd love to hear how the Constitution was designed to represent the will of the minority rather than the majority. Considering that our entire system of government is based upon majority rule, that's an intriguing position to take.

It does not necessarily "represent the will of the minority" but it is expressly designed to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. The term "tyranny of the majority" gets used and even despite the Constitution sadly there are plenty of examples in US history (think segregation.)

Many things that are important to a lot of us on RME are not popular nationwide- gun ownership being the most obvious- that we would loose if we governed strictly on a 'majority rules' basis.

The RNC is a private organization. If it's members decide that using money from their coffers to pay off the legal fees of Trump is in their best interest, that's their choice.

Is it bad politics? Yes. Will it further alienate moderates and drive them away from voting for any Republican? You bet.

The RNC is already the "Trump Party" at the national level and in many important states. Its going to take a lot to excise Trumps influence and the culture of losing that he promotes. Unless Hailey wins the primary, which looks unlikely, Trump will continue to have a grip on the party until he dies. Because its not about policy and winning elections with him and his acolytes, its the cult of personality. Its the outrage. A political party is supposed to be there to promote ideals, but that's not what the RNC is about any more. Its about promoting the personal interests of one man.
An area we agree on!
 

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
I’m am not a fan of the green card CDL program that seems to be going on. With all the driving I have none over the western US over the last 5 years I have seen a noticeable decline in the professionalism and courtesy of the “Professiknal Driver” on the roads.
 

glockman

I hate Jeep trucks
Location
Pleasant Grove
Many things that are important to a lot of us on RME are not popular nationwide- gun ownership being the most obvious- that we would loose if we governed strictly on a 'majority rules' basis.
I think this is incorrect. Do you think the 40 million AR 15s that have been manufactured and sold in the last 20 years have all been purchased by a small group? There are more guns than people in this country. I would wager that more people think guns should be legal than not. I agree my view that all gun laws are unconstitutional is probably a minority but it's also not being upheld.
 

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
I think this is incorrect. Do you think the 40 million AR 15s that have been manufactured and sold in the last 20 years have all been purchased by a small group? There are more guns than people in this country. I would wager that more people think guns should be legal than not. I agree my view that all gun laws are unconstitutional is probably a minority but it's also not being upheld.
Even if each of those 40 million AR 15s was owned a a different person, that is only around 15% of the adult population of the US.

"Assault rifle " bans, universal background checks and waiting periods are widely supported, so yes would likely be law of the land in a pure majority rules situation.
 

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
It does not necessarily "represent the will of the minority" but it is expressly designed to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. The term "tyranny of the majority" gets used and even despite the Constitution sadly there are plenty of examples in US history (think segregation.)

Many things that are important to a lot of us on RME are not popular nationwide- gun ownership being the most obvious- that we would loose if we governed strictly on a 'majority rules' basis.
But... we do live in a country governed by majority rule. Every election is decided by who wins the majority (yes, yes, the Electoral College decides the Presidency. But even then, the electors are decided by the majority vote in their state). Every law is passed via a majority vote. Minorities have rights that are protected, but the majority is not required to bend to the will of the minority opinion, just protect their rights to have that opinion. This is what "majority rule" means in a modern democracy. I think you're conflating the concept of majority rule with that of direct democracy. In a direct democracy, every law is voted on by every citizen. This is effectively mob rule and the minority opinion would rarely, if ever, be considered.

Additionally, the concept of majority rule in a representative democracy encourages debate and negotiation. For example, in Utah the majority opinion on gun ownership is that it is right and good. Where as in California the opinion is that people who own squirt guns are criminals. At the Federal level each state has a say. Not only each state, but each House and Senate district in each state has an elected representative who has a say. So in order to enact a change in federal gun laws, a majority of each house of Congress has to agree on something. And that agreement may even be the minority view of the general population, but if the majority of representatives voted for it, it becomes law.

This is 5th-grade level civics. Its such an intrinsic part of American life, I'm surprised I have to explain it. But the bottom line is that we live in a country governed by the majority but which protects minority rights.
 

glockman

I hate Jeep trucks
Location
Pleasant Grove
Even if each of those 40 million AR 15s was owned a a different person, that is only around 15% of the adult population of the US.

"Assault rifle " bans, universal background checks and waiting periods are widely supported, so yes would likely be law of the land in a pure majority rules situation.
That's 40 million in the last 20 years. Now add the other 300 million and it's not a minority anymore.

I disagree that the majority of people support background checks and waiting periods. This is a lie told by the media. There have been numerous polls about this and the majority of people change their opinion when they get an explanation of what is currently in place and how new background checks would have to be enforced.
This is exactly like the "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist. It is a myth but many, many people refer to it.
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
Gastown
That's 40 million in the last 20 years. Now add the other 300 million and it's not a minority anymore.
So you're saying that at least 51% of people own those types of weapons? Or even 51% of people own weapons at all?

Either way, I'd have to see some data on that. I grew up in a hunting family that often went shooting as a family activity. I own guns. I also know lots of people, and there is no way that something even approaching 50% of those people own guns, and that's saying something since I live in a very pro-gun state. Imagine in eastern states with less access to hunting and outdoor recreation.... I'd buy that there is more than 1 gun for every citizen, but I think the concentration of those guns is in the hands of a minority of citizens.

I also believe we need to at least constructively approach the issue of "gun control" to see if there might be a better way to go about it. Gun technology has changed, and technology technology has changed. One would think there might be a modern solution for a modern issue we now face. The "we shall not be infringed upon" argument just sounds like my 5 year old closing his eyes and yelling at the top of his lungs so he doesn't have to hear what his evil parents have to say.
 

Spork

Tin Foil Hat Equipped
So you're saying that at least 51% of people own those types of weapons? Or even 51% of people own weapons at all?

Either way, I'd have to see some data on that. I grew up in a hunting family that often went shooting as a family activity. I own guns. I also know lots of people, and there is no way that something even approaching 50% of those people own guns, and that's saying something since I live in a very pro-gun state. Imagine in eastern states with less access to hunting and outdoor recreation.... I'd buy that there is more than 1 gun for every citizen, but I think the concentration of those guns is in the hands of a minority of citizens.

I also believe we need to at least constructively approach the issue of "gun control" to see if there might be a better way to go about it. Gun technology has changed, and technology technology has changed. One would think there might be a modern solution for a modern issue we now face. The "we shall not be infringed upon" argument just sounds like my 5 year old closing his eyes and yelling at the top of his lungs so he doesn't have to hear what his evil parents have to say.

Are we going to approach the issue of gun control with statistics and logic or just whatever makes us feel like we are doing something? I agree gun technology has changed, in the UK it is normal to have a suppressor attached, in the US that will be an extra $200 to Uncle Sam for the privilege. I believe it would benefit anyone who uses a gun or are we not ready to have that discussion and gun control is strictly a take away discussion?
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
Gastown
Are we going to approach the issue of gun control with statistics and logic or just whatever makes us feel like we are doing something? I agree gun technology has changed, in the UK it is normal to have a suppressor attached, in the US that will be an extra $200 to Uncle Sam for the privilege. I believe it would benefit anyone who uses a gun or are we not ready to have that discussion and gun control is strictly a take away discussion?
I'm not advocating for take away, and I would advocate for statistics. But as you are just as aware as I, statistics without context are meaningless and most people don't bother with understanding the context, so the end result is just manipulated data to support whatever the user desires. But that attitude is kind of the problem. You can't go to the table to have a discussion armed with the attitude that "the only discussion about gun control you want to have is a "take away" discussion". What's wrong with going back to the form of governance where compromise exists? Does everything need to be a line in the sand?

Personally, I think the biggest statistic is simply the number of children that have been killed in recent years. The argument that sufficiently motivated law breakers will find a way to get their hands on the things they want to get their hands on holds merit I'd agree, but one would think there still might be room to allow people the right to own the weapons they want/need to own, while still preventing some of the needless gun violence. Asking teachers to ****ing carry a gun to school is like asking the open carry dork to defend a mall in the event of a shooting. No way that ends well. People need training to responsibly handle a firearm. Teachers don't get that training in a weekend class any more than a cop gets training on how to effectively handle someone having a mental health crisis because they took a 3 hour course on it. Even trained LEO often aren't willing to enter a building where a shooting is happening. I mean, they have training and still don't' want to go into that situation...let's just let the teachers figure it out. Oh, but also, let's not pay the teachers a decent wage either ;)

I'd also say that this isn't entirely a problem with guns either. You can't just separate the mass shooting from the mental state of the shooter. I personally think our country has a growing mental health crisis, but I say this knowing it's going to piss people off (and I'm actively trying not to do that), but GENERALLY conservative governments aren't particularly high on increasing access to things like that. It's like their approach to birth control...if we just teach people not to shoot people, then the problem will go away. Man up and deal with it and you'll get through it. They don't want to restrict access to guns, but they also don't want to address access to those support services for people that might be approaching crisis. Even beginning a conversation about redirecting some funding from the police force to pay for people trained in mental health services to help address that element of their work is comically incendiary. Maybe a small tax on the sale of firearms or ammunition could go to support mental health services? Allow people to access help that might prevent some people from getting to that point, or help identify someone that maaayyyybeeee shouldn't get their hands on more firepower for awhile. Uggh, Biden wants to tax ma guns uhhh! Not everything has to be a closed door to discussion.

But there is such distrust in that system, that even if it did provide a way to eliminate 5-10-30-50% of those incidents and the firearms industry would be able to help, it's a non starter because distrust is big business. The us vs them of politics that the media feeds, private interest profits from, also turns citizens against each other. You guys like to point at "conspiracies'" but what if the big gun lobby knows that and wants to keep breeding this distrust because distrust sells more guns? No way right? Guns are a citizen's protected right, so those companies operate as nonprofits.

So no, I don't think the answer to gun violence is taking away guns. I thing the answer is to get everyone at the table to really address the root of the problem, and try out some new approaches to preventing people from getting to that point, and maybe preventing people on that path from getting access to those things. It's not going to solve it all, but maybe it helps some of it? Maybe even trying to get back to a country that can have different opinions but similar goals would be helpful. Maybe less hate and distrust is good for our mental health, and maybe that's good for people not killing each other?
 
Last edited:

glockman

I hate Jeep trucks
Location
Pleasant Grove
I'm not advocating for take away, and I would advocate for statistics. But as you are just as aware as I, statistics without context are meaningless and most people don't bother with understanding the context, so the end result is just manipulated data to support whatever the user desires. But that attitude is kind of the problem. You can't go to the table to have a discussion armed with the attitude that "the only discussion about gun control you want to have is a "take away" discussion". What's wrong with going back to the form of governance where compromise exists? Does everything need to be a line in the sand?
There is no compromise on gun control. The Pro gun control side will never stop as long a A gun kills A person. See my post a page or so back on the UK wanting to ban kitchen knives.


Personally, I think the biggest statistic is simply the number of children that have been killed in recent years.
How many is that? 0.00000001% of children in the US? Bee stings kill more children per year than AR 15's.


Asking teachers to ****ing carry a gun to school is like asking the open carry dork to defend a mall in the event of a shooting. No way that ends well.
You know that several mass shootings have been stopped recently by "open carry dorks" right? Including one in a mall.
 
Top