Kevin_BGFH
San Francisco, California
website report this user
2:52 PM yesterday Kevin_BGFH commented on An Actually Reasonable Email From an Actually Sane Sanders Supporter.
@21 - No, you're wrong. I don't know what you define as "shitty politics," but with Trump, you get fucking HORRIBLE politics and 25 years of a conservative Supreme Court. I remember Reagan. I remember both Bushes. I could go through and list the Supreme Court decisions that would be different if Gore had replaced William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor instead of George W. Bush (or even just Rehnquist, under the assumption that O'Connor would not have voluntarily retired with a Democrat in the White House). Supreme Court decisions have powerful, longterm consequences that last generations upon generations. Don't tell me that Trump will be so bad he'll usher in the revolution in four years. Everyone said the exact same thing about George Bush in 2000. There's video of Susan Sarandon saying that in 2000, urging people to vote against Gore, and she's saying the same thing again. Where was our revolution? And even if Trump loses in four years, there's no guarantee that it's a revolutionary that takes him out instead of a moderate. And how much damage will he do in the meantime?

And by the way, I don't think Hillary Clinton is the "least bad" or the "lesser evil." I think there are hundreds of reasons why she isn't evil at all.
More...
2:38 PM yesterday Kevin_BGFH commented on An Actually Reasonable Email From an Actually Sane Sanders Supporter.
@4 - Interesting point about the 1994 crime bill. And like other large, complex legislation, there are many elements of compromise tacked together in it. Civil rights leaders were pushing for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and for many of the programs providing greater assistance for at-risk inner city youth. Republicans were pushing to expand the death penalty and increase prison spending, among other things. Eventually Bill Clinton went back to civil rights leaders and other advocates and asked them to weigh in, and their consensus was that the compromise was worth it. That's why there are so many Democratic votes for the bill. Sure, there were lots of consequences that turned out to be worse than expected, but it's unfair to blame Bill Clinton, much less Hillary Clinton who didn't even get to vote on it, when civil rights leaders and then-Democratic majority of Congress also didn't foresee them. In a saner world, we would have been able to clean up those problems as they became more apparent. Let's hope we get a Democratic majority in the Senate and the House and have an opportunity to address those problems in 2017. I guarantee if we get that majority that it will be introduced and, if passed, President Clinton will sign.
More...
9:03 AM yesterday Kevin_BGFH commented on Emails From Reasonable Bernie Supporters Pour Into My Inbox.
@75 - "I don't think that he will end up causing WWIII. Even if he gets really super mad at country X, it takes a lot of people to launch nukes and the smart money is on the people that see the "launch the nukes and destroy civilization as we know it" button pushed basically saying, "Nope.""

Actually, there was an article recently about this that was very frightening. Basically said that with most of what Trump's saying, like with waterboarding and torturing suspected terrorists, there are built-in checks and balances and people who can legally step up and say "No." With nukes, nope. I think it was "The Atlantic." Let me see if I can Google it.

Found it (Politico Magazine). An excerpt:

"With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack."

(It goes into much more detail than I can excerpt here, but it's a fascinating and frightening read.)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2…
More...
Jun 29 Kevin_BGFH commented on Emails From Reasonable Bernie Supporters Pour Into My Inbox.
I wish Scott Singiser and people like him would be FUCKING SPECIFIC. Because when they complain about Clinton's corporate ties (I won't use the term he did), most of the time their accusations are flat-out wrong.

Hiring someone who is the #1 expert in the area to win the Iowa caucuses who also works as a lobbyists and has dozens of clients, one of whom is a very EVIL CORPORATION, is not the same as personally being in supportive of that evil corporation's agenda.

Don't just point to campaign contribution from a particular industry. Show me that the campaign contributions actually came from the corporation, not thousands of low-level employees who work for the corporation. Because those individuals may be contributing based on nothing to do with their employer. The contributions I have made to politicians are based on my personal beliefs, but by federal law record my employer's name and industry, and those contributions will get aggregated and summed up. If I happened to work as a file clerk for an oil company (I don't), my donations will be included as Oil Industry donations as well. Which is why Bernie also got nearly as much from the "Oil Industry" as Clinton, yet neither actually got a corporate contribution from an oil company.

So better yet, show me how those contributions translated into awful votes or policy positions. And if your summation of why her policy position is bad can be printed on a bumper sticker when her actual nuanced position is detailed and is ten pages long, then your explanation is probably too naive and simplistic.

I hate all this vagueness. Be specific so we can actually discuss whether it's based in reality or not. Or whether Clinton is being held to a standard that neither Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, nor any other male nominee for the Democratic Party have ever been held to.

And FYI, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is already all but gone as head of the DNC. Brandon Davis is the new DNC Chief of Staff. Amy Dacey, the DNC CEO, will expand her role to take on more general election responsibilities. DWS has essentially been sidelined, mostly handling DNC fundraising. Pretty standard operation -- the exact same thing happened in 2008 when Obama got the nomination and Howard Dean was pushed aside, keeping the title of Chair of the DNC in name only. Dean has explained this process extensively in recent interviews. You can Google these people's names for more.

Clinton has already begin implementing the 50 state strategy. Here are two links if they work (if not, Google "Hillary Clinton 50 state strategy")

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/…

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch…
More...
Jun 27 Kevin_BGFH commented on ICYMI: Gun Advocate Needed Her Guns To Protect Herself and Her Family.
Aside from the fact that the idea of the Second Amendment extending to private, civilian ownership of firearms is a very recent concept, the term WELL-REGULATED in the Second Amendment clearly indicates that the rights depend on being well-regulated. @42 states that SCOTUS recognized a distinction in the beginning, and said that only militias needed to be regulated and not civilians (except for some arbitrary distinction about nukes and bazookas, but they can be regulated, why not semi-automatic weapons)? But that's not true, because it the beginning, SCOTUS didn't recognize the Second Amendment to apply to a private ownership of guns.

But SCOTUS does recognize that now, so we have to live with it. Even so, that doesn't mean we have to live with that right completely unregulated. @15 asks why he should need a license to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right, and asks which other Constitutionally-protected rights require licenses. Ummm, LOTS of them! Let's just take the First Amendment. There are all sorts of licenses and restrictions. Speech may be free, but we have noise ordinances, and regulate public airwaves, and all sorts of restrictions and protections on commercial speech (including copyright laws, trademarks, and more). We require permits for large public assemblies and parades. We have freedom of religion, but religious organizations still have to file paperwork to register as a religious nonprofit -- in other words, they need a license to exercise their Constitutional rights.

I'm not saying we should go out and take everyone's guns. (Dan may or may not be saying that, but if he is, I am not.) But I think can and should ban civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. I think every sale of a gun should require a background check, including gun shows and Internet sales. I'm willing to limit that to sales from gun dealers -- say, anyone who sells more than three guns per year -- but I'd prefer we set it up so even if you're selling your old gun to your neighbor you could do it before the sale is completed. (Yes, with their signed consent first.) I think that if we're concerned enough about someone to not allow them to fly on an airplate, we shouldn't allow them to buy guns, either. And yes, I know there are problems with the terrorist watch list, but rather than throw up our hands in despair, WHY NOT FIX THE LIST? We can add some due process to that process and fix it so that they can fly and buy if they shouldn't be on the list in the first place. I think we should require gun owners to carry liability insurance that would maybe help provide some leverage in forcing gun owners into taking more sensible precautions with locking up their guns or equipping them with safety mechanisms so kids can't accidentally shoot them.

And yes, I think we should also put more attention to critically underserved mental health services, but we shouldn't let that distract us from some pretty simple, common sense solutions. That needs to come in addition to, not in lieu of, these other approaches.
More...
Jun 22 Kevin_BGFH commented on NYTimes Prints Clueless Op-Ed By Stupid LGBT Gun-Fondler.
Trump later tried to claim he was arguing that security guards should have been armed, not patrons (in fact, a security guard was armed, something I've never seen before). But it's obvious he's lying about what he meant because his original statement, which was recorded, said the victims who were shot should have been armed. To my knowledge, although a security guard exchanged gunfire with the shooter, I never heard that the guard was hit and to my knowledge none of the victims were security guards.
Jun 20 Kevin_BGFH commented on Bernie Supporters Plan to Disrupt Acceptance Speech by First Woman Nominated by a Major Party With "Fart-In Protest".
@6 and @13 - I totally disagree. Protest is fine. This protest hurts their cause.

A protest against Hillary is fine, even if she is the first female nominee, even though I will not be protesting. A fart protest, though asinine and juvenile, would be fine against any other nominee. A fart protest by against the first female nominee by supporters of a candidate who are already perceived as being largely white, male, and young creates the impression of childish, misogynistic fratboys. Not a particularly helpful image. But what do I care? It's not Hillary Clinton who will be hurt by these antics.
Jun 18 Kevin_BGFH commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Weeded Out.
I know that some people have issues with using weed excessively to the point where it creates problems in their lives. And I'm not going to accept the Tobacco Institute's definition of "clinical addiction" to deny that it can be addicting (the Tobacco Institute denies that nicotine is addictive using similar very strict clinical definitions). Dan enumerated a lot of potential issues with marijuana abuse, and I think the LW would have gone into that if there were actual issues beyond the trust issue. So I kinda think that unless it's creating other problems, they should come to an understanding where he can use it more openly so there aren't trust issues.

And I say that as someone who generally dislikes marijuana myself. Tried it plenty of times. Smoking it makes me vomit instantly. The high from ingesting it makes me withdrawn and anti-social. It's not a particularly recreational drug for me at all. And I cannot stand the odor of it. So if I was dating someone who wanted to smoke or ingest marijuana, I'd want to work out a way where I wouldn't have to smell it on his clothes or breath. But I wouldn't put him in a position where he felt like he had to lie or hide it from me.
More...
Jun 15 Kevin_BGFH commented on Savage Love.
@29 - Ugh, that's awful, and sadly not surprising. A gay dance club I used to frequent in San Francisco started to attract some straight guys who came in to hit on the straight girls who came in to dance with their gay friends and get away from the straight guys who were constantly hitting on them. Possibly the same one. :-(
Jun 15 Kevin_BGFH commented on Savage Love.
Of course, there are tons and tons of straight guys into CFNM (Clothed Female, Naked Male) who would love to get naked for PARK in whatever scenario she wants, whether it's hard core domination with whips and chains, or soft core domination where they clean her toilet, or more casual like a cocktail party where they happen to be the only ones naked.

But if her heart is set on seeing two gay guys having sex, while many gay exhibitionists would prefer to perform in front of other men, there are absolutely some who don't mind if a woman watches and some even who might get a particular thrill out of the idea. For a gay exhibitionist, there's something more verboten about someone seeing you nude who wouldn't normally see you in a locker room.

But for their safety and yours, checking them out in crushing areas of parks may not be the best idea. I'd recommend posting something on Fetlife, Craigslist, or any number of other fetishy places. Surely you'll find gay or bi guys interested in the novelty of showing off, and no deception or disguises necessary (unless disguises are part of the prearranged fun).
More...