Everyone should sign this petition

[GoIrish41]

I guess we can just disagree. I think you are negotiating in bad faith here. If 41k of their constituents petitioned them to bar black persons from their Convention, and the venue would not allow it, you would not be calling on them to confront the National Committee about it. So it's not about them not following the will of the people. It's about you being anti-Republican, and attempting to twist this into some kind of hypocrisy on the candidates' part.

And I've already made it clear that I think that the people who signed this petition are idiots.

LOL at you and your hypotheticals when there are actual things to discuss. The candidates are painted into a corner, either by some clever detractors or by their own mouth breathing gun nut constituency. That's what happens when their positions are dumb to begin with. Now it is time to find out where they really stand or suffer the consequences. Bernie put Hillary in the same kind of corner about her transcripts of speeches to Wall Street bankers, and it has eroded her trust with Democrats because she refuses to address it (presumably because the transcripts would be damaging to her). That's how the game is played. It's why pandering is bad and actual principles are good. So, what are their real feelings on safe zones? Their voters have asked for clarity and action.

 

[ulukinatme]

Does anyone really want them...anyone in a position to ask, that is...or is this a hoax? Not saying people didn't petition...but who started it?

Sounds to me like the extension of the threat Trump made if he does not win. Nothing surprises me anymore with this election. I certainly could be wrong about this, but according to a posted story, 32000 people signed the petition. The survey itself claims 40000+. Pretty elaborate hoax if that's the case.

Bottom of the petition says it was started by a group called Hypernationalist.

My money is on someone from either the far right or far left.

Definitely far left, based on the way the petition was written, but I also thought at first that a crazy right winger could have created it to start.

Does it matter who it was on behalf of? A shitload of people signed the petition. That alone should give us pause. Maybe it wasn't the candidates and it was just the average Joe Sixpack voters. Let's hear the candidates condemn this effort. Will they do that, or will they support the "constitutional" rights of their party members even though this is a clearly flawed idea?

Uhh, it's a hoax and signed by a bunch of leftists or people against the 2nd Amendment, so yes.

I think you can determine who created and is signing this petition by looking at the comments. Here are the top ones listed, nothing removed:

Because I think I think nothing bad can happen when Angry armed drunk republicans are in the same arena
Charlie Monsanto, Brooklyn, NY

I've also heard that good guys with guns can cure cancer
Peter Kelly, Chicago, IL

If the RNC wants guns on my kids' college campus, then I want guns at their convention.
Jamie Darr-Hall, Katy, TX

It will make great television to see all the gun totin', God-fearin', real Americans waving their glocks and AK-47s in time with the National Anthem, especially when Trump loses the nomination. That'll be epic!
Michael Downard, Waxahachie, TX

It's time to put your own families in the same safe situation that you want the rest of us to enjoy in our schools, streets, shops, and special events!
Will Stephens, Washington, DC

The Second Amendment doesn't exclude political conventions, so EVERY person who wants to bring any weapon to the event should be encouraged to do so. You'll have so many people exercising their precious Second Amendment rights - what on Earth could go wrong?
Darren Shea, Kyle, TX

Let's see if your candidates are so desperate to kiss your asses that they'll appear in front of a sea of armed rednecks.
Allen Hanford, Philadelphia, PA

The only thing that stops a bad politician with a gun is a good politician with a gun.
Jeff Linam, Alameda, CA

Hypocrisy is the death of political parties. Stand by your frothy principles, or shut up about them.
Gregory Hay, Cardiff-By-The-Sea, CA

Everyone should have the right to carry guns everywhere, especially in an arena full of Republican candidates and delegates. Happy hunting!
Steve Baughman, Glendive, MT

Because you should be forced to live with the consequences of the policies you advocate.
Holly Guinan, Langley, Canada

I'm signing this because they hate our freedom, also I'm kinda hoping there'll be a bloodbath at the RNC.
Bryan Finch, San Luis Obispo, CA

The GOP doesn't have the balls to stand behind their alleged principles
Daniel Saks, Los Angeles, CA

In case of an emergency everyone should be able to shoot as much as they want.
Rebecca Shriner, Richmond, VA

If they want guns so badly, let them have them at their convention!
Bridget Hanks, Los Angeles, CA

Don't you want this to be the safest political convention EVER
Clark Glover, Jensen Beach, FL

If the rest of us can't have gun free zones, why should the RNC get to have one? Besdes it will give the Republicans the chance to show the world just how safe it is to have people carrying guns in large crowds. Put their pro-gun policies to the test.
Rebecca Trotter, Hudson, WI

"Hundreds of idiots died today in a gun fight to settle who was more safe with their guns..."
Matthew Schrader, Sterling, VA

I can haz mah freedumb
Paul Stuart, ALAMEDA, CA

If there is one thing that a herd of violently fractious racist simpletons need when compressed together in an emotionally-charged atmosphere of hate and entitlement, it would have to be that they all deserve to be heavily, heavily armed. A gun-free convention means that the terrorists and liberals win.
Stanley Stritzel, Wichita, KS

I'm sure there's far more past that. There's not one legit comment in there that points to this petition actually being a good idea. I'm willing to bet there's far more similar comments past these than different ones as well, I didn't bother to keep scrolling.

 

[phgreek]

I think you are dancing around the real point here. Republican candidates trying to out "right" each other are put in a tenuous position by this position. They all support open carry laws in public venues. This petition compels them to either come out in support of their convention welcoming folks to bring guns to the arena or contradicting their own stated position. Either is a bad choice for them.

Several have made the case for why it is a bad idea to have guns at this event, so siding with petitioners will make them look like foolish ideologues who ignore the realities of public safety to make their point. Speaking out against the ideas held by the petitioners paints them as hypocrites who don't really believe the principles they so forcefully speak about on the campaign trail. It's too late to change venues to save face, and even if it weren't it would be viewed as caving to the petitioners, which we already established is a stupid idea.

Moreover you gloss over the real striking issue of all of this. Tens of thousands of people have signed the petition. And you can disagree if you wish, but that most certainly says something about the petitioners and, by extension, a troubling subset of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the party needs these people to have even a punchers chance of winning this election.

Sorry...I have been in and out of meetings with my customers all day and night...I only now had time to answer this particular post.

Totally disagree here...First and foremost having to defend the RNC makes me real unhappy. However, open carry needed to be an option for the RNC for them to have any answering to do here. I don't think it was. We'll see in the days that come if that is true. If they seem uninterested in inciting protest against the venue...well there are business ethics principles at play there too. Also, someone coming out of the woodwork now claiming they'd support an open carry convention at their venue is pretty suspect.

As for the candidates... The petition has neither the force of numbers, nor the origin giving it authority to compel anyone, so i don't agree they are compelled to say anything. So long as they stay true to their previous statements, this does nothing. If you judged them harshly before for their beliefs...what? it took this petition, and this situation for you to crystallize why...to sum up quickly, your Aha! moment on the topic does not make the petition compelling to Republican candidates...and I'm sorry but I doubt any of them are just now "thinking it through" because of this situation, or this petition...even Trump probably thought some about the implications of his gun stance.

Now, I said the petition doesn't have force of numbers...I'll just say this...if a "troubling subset" of the Democrat party is 40K, you'd certainly recognize it for the minutia it is in the scheme of things. As well how many of the signors are really conservatives/republicans...come on now.

I also said the petition doesn't have the origin giving it authority to compel anyone...by that I mean it appears to not have come from a source with genuine intent, and ignoring it won't cost a thing politically. It will serve to reinforce the voices in the echo chamber(s). So what. It will not have an impact on this election, nor will it move the needle on the gun issue itself. I'd say that is the opposite of compelling.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This is the petition everyone needs to sign: Petition for DNC Debate on The Young Turks - Democratic Underground

If you're a Conservative/Repub - They'll out HRC for all her bullshit. How can you not love the thought of that?

If you're a Liberal/Dem - They'll out HRC for all her bullshit.

In all seriousness, this is the media outlet I mentioned in another thread where a petition was started to get Bernie to do a sit down with Jenk (the host/owner). It got 18,000 signatures in a matter of days and sure enough, Bernie came on the show. Then this new petition was started to get TYT to host a debate (Jenk accepted, it's pending on the DNC). They have over 126,000 signatures in a week! That's more than what's required in 30 days to get the White House to respond. Insane.

The Young Turks is an online media news outlet which dominates it's category.

With its political and social news coverage, The Young Turks channel racks up roughly 37 million monthly views, according to OpenSlate data. But The Young Turks has expanded into an entire digital network, with 35 channels spanning sports, technology, film, college life and dozens of other areas. Together, the network attracts over 75 million monthly views from more than 3 million subscribers.

They are ranked #1 in viewers under the age of 35. The average ages of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are 60+. If there was ever a time for Dems to reach out to younger voters, this is it. If TYT joins up with YouTube (like they often do), along with some advertising, this could be the first live streaming online debate that brings in ratings that compare to top TV networks. Everyone should want to see this.

Time Warner and Comcast are among HRC's top 10 donors. They own the networks that host these Democratic Debates and Town Halls. Do you think they're being honest with their questioning, story lines, etc? Hell no.

https://www.change.org/p/the-young-turks-dnc-debate-on-the-young-turks

 

[phgreek]

This is the petition everyone needs to sign: Petition for DNC Debate on The Young Turks - Democratic Underground

If you're a Conservative/Repub - They'll out HRC for all her bullshit. How can you not love the thought of that?

If you're a Liberal/Dem - They'll out HRC for all her bullshit.

In all seriousness, this is the media outlet I mentioned in another thread where a petition was started to get Bernie to do a sit down with Jenk (the host/owner). It got 18,000 signatures in a matter of days and sure enough, Bernie came on the show. Then this new petition was started to get TYT to host a debate (Jenk accepted, it's pending on the DNC). They have over 126,000 signatures in a week! That's more than what's required in 30 days to get the White House to respond. Insane.

The Young Turks is an online media news outlet which dominates it's category. They are ranked #1 in viewers under the age of 35. The average ages of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are 60+. If there was ever a time for Dems to reach out to younger voters, this is it. If TYT joins up with YouTube (like they often do), along with some advertising, this could be the first live streaming online debate that brings in ratings that compare to top TV networks. Everyone should want to see this.

Time Warner and Comcast are among HRC's top 10 donors. They own the networks that host these Democratic Debates and Town Halls. Do you think they're being honest with their questioning, story lines, etc? Hell no.

https://www.change.org/p/the-young-turks-dnc-debate-on-the-young-turks

I signed...I've seen the youtube videos here and there. Politically we are not well aligned, but if you can get Hillary on the record from someone who isn't a shill...great. BTW, DWS will never let this happen...

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I signed...I've seen the youtube videos here and there. Politically we are not well aligned, but if you can get Hillary on the record from someone who isn't a shill...great. BTW, DWS will never let this happen...

Thanks for signing! I agree, the odds of DWS and HRC agreeing to this are near zero.

And yeah, TYT is pretty progressive. They're biased towards Bernie. But that aside, I've found it refreshing to listen to their team present facts about stories and actually do some investigative research. I've heard them call out Obama, Bernie, HRC, etc when warranted. Just as I've heard them call out the Right.

Even still, like you said, if they can get HRC to face the music and own up to her lies and bullshit...awesome! Worth a shot.

 

[woolybug25]

The Young Turks is the the progressive version of Fox News.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The Young Turks is the the progressive version of Fox News.

Lol. I'm not going to completely disagree with this. There have been plenty of times where I've felt they cherry-picked their facts and viewpoints on a story. But c'mon, lets give them a little more credit. Fox News is literally the worst. I mean they don't even try to be objective.

 

[woolybug25]

Lol. I'm not going to completely disagree with this. There have been plenty of times where I've felt they cherry-picked their facts and viewpoints on a story. But c'mon, lets give them a little more credit. Fox News is literally the worst. I mean they don't even try to be objective.

Life is a pendulum, my friend. We become the things we hate.

Young Turks is utilizing the same model that Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly have done over the last couple decades. They are just using progressive stances. It's shock journalism geared towards people that want their opinion given to them, not just given facts and left to their own devices.

Fox seems outlandish and brash because it's not your opinion they are brandishing. YT's seems like they are more reasonable because their opinions don't seem wrong to you. It's not because they are messaging it differently. They are simply the opposite side of the same coin.

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed their show more than once. I'm just calling it like I see it.

 

[kmoose]

Lol. I'm not going to completely disagree with this. There have been plenty of times where I've felt they cherry-picked their facts and viewpoints on a story. But c'mon, lets give them a little more credit. Fox News is literally the worst. I mean they don't even try to be objective.

Actually, I think he was being very kind in his assessment. TYT is nothing but a malcontent Cenk sitting around crying "Racism!" and "Social Injustice!", even if there isn't any evidence of it. He continually downplayed the riots in Ferguson as "anger", and whined about the State discriminating against blacks because they didn't want them to "show their anger". No, Cenk........ they didn't want them burning down businesses (black businesses at that) around town! He equates rioting to "anger", and refers to justified police shootings as "execution". The reason he is #1 with people under 35 is because almost everyone over 35 can smell the manure he is spreading from miles away.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Life is a pendulum, my friend. We become the things we hate.

Young Turks is utilizing the same model that Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly have done over the last couple decades. They are just using progressive stances. It's shock journalism geared towards people that want their opinion given to them, not just given facts and left to their own devices.

Fox seems outlandish and brash because it's not your opinion they are brandishing. YT's seems like they are more reasonable because their opinions don't seem wrong to you. It's not because they are messaging it differently. They are simply the opposite side of the same coin.

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed their show more than once. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I get what you're saying. I know there are multiple angles to all of these positions. I just feel like Fox is the most irresponsible of the mainstream media outlets. They do more pandering for ratings than any other news network. Being a pro-conservative watch dog is one thing. But re-enforcing right wing extremism regardless of objectivity is both misleading and dangerous. I feel like TYT is the pro-liberal watch dog, but they do so in a manner that presents facts to support said stance. Where as Fox just says whatever racist thing happens to be a hot commodity at the moment, regardless of the evidence.

I have absolutely no problem with a pro-conservative stance. I actually encourage it because it helps me learn. But please do so in a manner that's factual. That's my take on it anyways.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Actually, I think he was being very kind in his assessment. TYT is nothing but a malcontent Cenk sitting around crying "Racism!" and "Social Injustice!", even if there isn't any evidence of it. He continually downplayed the riots in Ferguson as "anger", and whined about the State discriminating against blacks because they didn't want them to "show their anger". No, Cenk........ they didn't want them burning down businesses (black businesses at that) around town! He equates rioting to "anger", and refers to justified police shootings as "execution". The reason he is #1 with people under 35 is because almost everyone over 35 can smell the manure he is spreading from miles away.

I mentioned in my earlier post that I don't necessarily agree with everything Cenk has to say. I'm not going to go story-for-story and debate whether TYT was right or wrong in their assessment of a situation/story line.

 

[wizards8507]

I thought this tweet was appropriate...

I mean you can't fault the guy's logic. If any of the candidates actually believe a word they say, this should be something they're all screaming for.

...except that the second amendment prohibits the government from banning firearms. It doesn't say "private venues must allow you to carry firearms on their premises."

 

[NorthDakota]

The Young Turks is the the progressive version of Fox News.

Somebody say....Young Turks?

 

[TDHeysus]

Somebody say....Young Turks?

Where 's Ana?

 

[IrishinSyria]

...except that the second amendment prohibits the government from banning firearms. It doesn't say "private venues must allow you to carry firearms on their premises."

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (compare to the first amendment, which says Congress shall make no law...).

But, to be clear, I agree that private property owners (and a lot of public ones) can legally ban guns under the Second Amendment. The sticky wicket is that if you take the candidates at their words (quoted in the petition) they don't agree. They've all spoken out agains so called "gun free zones" in places like malls and movie theaters.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (compare to the first amendment, which says Congress shall make no law...).

But, to be clear, I agree that private property owners (and a lot of public ones) can legally ban guns under the Second Amendment. The sticky wicket is that if you take the candidates at their words (quoted in the petition) they don't agree. They've all spoken out agains so called "gun free zones" in places like malls and movie theaters.

It also says that it's part of a well regulated militia. So there's that.

 

[phgreek]

It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (compare to the first amendment, which says Congress shall make no law...).

But, to be clear, I agree that private property owners (and a lot of public ones) can legally ban guns under the Second Amendment. The sticky wicket is that if you take the candidates at their words (quoted in the petition) they don't agree. They've all spoken out agains so called "gun free zones" in places like malls and movie theaters.

...so candidates can't recognize where a gun might be bad...like in a politically charged event, where there has been violence...w/o folks then extending that to a mall, where shopping is not really an emotionally charged kinda thing? Those are the same thing? Candidates who think gun free zones are generally a bad thing cannot have limits to that?

OK...makes perfect sense.