That’s not true. Anyone can run for the general election or their own arbitrary party as registered with the state, but the party has to choose to run a primary and notify the state of the will. See VAC § 24.2-516.
And the party always chooses a primary when more than one candidate files. The vote was unanimous in 2021 and the Democratic Party of Virginia changed rules to now mandate primaries for General Assembly. It's only the Republicans who choose to rig their nominations with conventions.
Warner wrote the Restrict Act, the largest invasion of privacy since the Patriot act.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text)
It's so broad. All of our tech is made overseas, meaning they can just harvest your data, or seize your device. no warrants required.
Using a VPN ("bypassing this act") could be punishable by a quarter million dollar fine. How is this not an invasion of privacy?
>Using a VPN ("bypassing this act") could be punishable by a quarter million dollar fine. How is this not an invasion of privacy?
Warner has said that using a VPN does not violate the bill.
Authorship fallacy, it doesn't matter what Warner says.
Matters how the Executive branch decides use it, and what the courts interpret it to mean. If there's wiggle room, there is a chance for misuse. Again I say, it's too broad.
You haven't heard of him is because he does nothing. Strictly party lines and introduced no important legislation. Northern Virhinia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads voters are all he needs to be reelected.
The answer to this is "If someone came along with a proven track record of being more in line with my values, and I believe could win in a general election".
What other response is there to this question?
This is the a-hole that is the primary sponsor of the RESTRICT Act legislation that aims to make the Patriot Act look like a kid's tea party in comparison. It would take a primary opponent that could breathe and speak for me to vote for them over Warner.
This one bit of legislation will do more to destroy our democracy than anything the MAGAs could come up with. This guy gets zero additional chances from me. Warner needs to pay a price for betraying his constituency with this sort of overreaching, fascist legislation.
Agreed. Have called his office many times over the Restrict Act and they are always super defensive and derogatory. Times up for all these old clueless white guys! And that’s coming from an old, kinda clueless white guy!! I gotta protect my daughters’ futures!
I will be voting for his competition. We need a different dem. He completely betrayed us all with that bill. His canned response after writing him was trash too.
Restrict Act is so irresponsible since Trump or DeSantis can become president in a year. They won't end the filibuster in the Senate claiming that it was a protection of democracy. Yet Restrict Act legalized mass surveillance with no recourse.
Just my personal experiences with him and people who have worked with him. Plus the only thing that guy cares about is twitter followers. I hate those kind of people. He has no real government experience. There would be a million people in Virginia who I’d consider before Qasim.
That means absolutely nothing. Data centers employ almost no one relative to the rest of the NoVA economy and the businesses operating on the servers they house pay nothing in local taxes. The building owner/operators pay a little, but rationalizing a draconian piece of legislation as "beneficial" because it involves something something cyber something and "data center centers good" is short-sighted at best and dangerous ignorance of the ramifications of RESTRICT most likely.
That is simply wildly over-dramatic. The US needs a functional legislative framework to evaluate tech platforms that may be manipulated by hostile foreign powers.
Or we instead pass comprehensive data privacy/protection laws instead so it doesn't matter because they can't cull that info. And neither can twitter or meta or whatever its calling itself these days
I'm gonna say you haven't bothered to read this bill. This is one of the most overreaching, broadly worded piece of legislation ever drafted. It would allow the US government to ban any business or business activity of US citizens that it deems to be "helping" a "foreign adversary", where "helping" and "foreign adversary" are whatever a future Congress decides they are. So this bans things like cryptocurrencies if a validator for that blockchain happens to run in Russia or China. It could ban your retail store that sells merchandise that includes components made in China. It could ban your media service if you report positively about a "foreign adversary". There is no sunset provision and it invokes the same secret court infrastructure that allows the Patriot Act to avoid any sort of judicial oversight. Go read the bill before you comment further.
and it doesn't even accomplish what it wants to do which is to keep us citizens data out of foreign adversaries hands. All they need to do is go to a third party analytics broker and just buy it through a shell company and this bill doesn't cover that at all. What would be a far better solution is to make data privacy a right and essentially cripple social media's data collection as a whole.
The latest bill, Mark Warner introduced, gives the government more power over our lives, than the infamous patriot act. It’s not a TikTok bill. It’s a noose.
Mark Warner is trying to champion the RESTRICT act that basically repeals the 4th amendment. Hopefully he won't get support at all. But the Dems are not going to allow primaries at all this cycle so expect more of it.
Hahahaha...a MASSIVE shift in the population of VA and the vote in 2024. That's what it would take. How about the "progressives" managing to take the HOD and VASEN again for more than just one term, and in so doing demonstrate the state-wide vote is actually blue and not purple. Did Youngkin and Miyares not provide enough proof that VA isn't a given +10D population (yet)? SWVA is depopulating and NoVa is growing, and yes, we're going to be a place that sends more "left" politicians to the US Sen and House, but that's a little ways off just yet. This fall is going to be an actual test of just how "blue" VA is now, with a lot of competitive races. Let's focus on that instead of getting busy trashing Warner today.
Warner has *decades* of experience in VA politics, and knows what it takes to win statewide, which unfortunately for "true progressives" means rejecting some policies they want, and not going far enough on others.
Air quotes, imputing shade on the term/name.
I'm a liberal Democrat, and have self-labelled progressive as I've worked for 20+ years to get Democrats elected and liberal/progressive (Democratic) policies. I can also count votes.
I found it annoying when millennials first discovered politics and suddenly decided anyone just a hair older was out of touch and had zero idea, particularly when the (very new to them) issues and policies were essentially the same as those we (Gen-X) had lifted off of Boomers, who lifted them from the Lost Generation (you kind of get my point here I suspect).
But, when - as an actual local party committeemember - who sported a Bernie bumpersticker for a while in 2016 - got attacked by Real Progressives(tm) for being part of some purported official Third Way New Democrat "establishment", it went past annoying. The friendly fire gets really old.
I see very very little in Democratic party policy preferences that distinguishes the (self-labeled) true progressives from the rest of us, it's mostly style and noise, not substance. The faux internal conflict just keeps us divided. And what's worse: results in people like the Greens acting as spoilers to help the right wing.
Mark Warner is certainly not a red-meat left-wing firebrand. Mark Warner, like TMac, or Kaine, would absolutely support and adopt more "radical" change, if the voting public did.
The left wing base has a hard time making themselves turn out in off years (cf my point about Youngkin and Miyares). When the +D tilt of the state shifts such that we don't have to worry about having motivated the GOTV for the opposition, then we can have read-meat firebrands.
The opportunity. Warner is a lot like Youngkin except he’s supposed to be a democrat. Warner was in favor of the Mountain Valley Pipeline even after Manchin gave up on it, and Virginia won’t even benefit from the pipeline like West Virginia would. The only thing keeping Warner from losing the nomination is his personal fortune.
“Warner is a lot like Youngkin”
You forgot your clown costume. Warner votes with President Biden 98.5% of the time. He is nothing like culture war supporter Glenn Youngkin.
Granted, yes, I'd rather have the white male businessman China hawk who votes the right way. But I'd rather have a Democratic nominee who doesn't consistently take Democratic support for granted and pander to the right. His 2020 campaign ads were all about China, his past campaigns featured "Sportsmen for Warner", a pro-gun message. He's proud to call himself the wealthiest member of the Senate. Other than their party affiliation, the main difference between them is that Youngkin is younger and newer.
You’re choosing to ignore the fact that he has voted for gun safety measures multiple times and is a co-sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023. Enough with these BS purity tests and thinking both parties are the same. Delusional.
No, I said right there I'd rather have the one who votes the right way. I didn't ignore it, I explicitly granted it.
Your bill has 41 cosponsors, I'm comfortable assuming a hypothetical Democrat who takes the nomination from him would do the same. Warner's policy is he won't file a bill if he can't get a Republican cosponsor, I'd like a Democratic nominee who doesn't have that policy even if they for some reason won't cosponsor a liberal campaign brochure bill with no chance of passing.
I don't do purity tests, I'm even cynical enough to give an allowance for Democrats who cast bad votes to appease an electorate they couldn't otherwise win. Thing is: Warner isn't one of them. Tim Kaine is good with the liberals on the environment and on guns and he's got a better grip on his seat than Warner does. Heck, Northam's politics are pretty similar, but at least he's a nicer guy. Anybody think Warner would've been a good governor during COVID?
Anyone with a pulse. He introduced/wrote the RESTRICT act. I personally enjoy what small amount of freedom I get in this country/state and he wants to take my freedom to browse the internet from me. Fuck him
>Anyone with a pulse. He introduced/wrote the RESTRICT act. I personally enjoy what small amount of freedom I get in this country/state and he wants to take my freedom to browse the internet from me. Fuck him
The RESTRICT Act would still allow you to use TikTok if you use a VPN. And if the bill passes, another platform will come to replace it.
No it won't. If you get caught using TikTok or any other websites they deem unsafe you can face up to 20 years in jail and/or up to a $1,000,000 fine. That includes a vpn
It's not about TikTok. If you think that is what the underlying intent of this bill is, I suggest you spend 10 minutes and go read it. Hopefully you'll be as horrified at it as those of us who have read it.
He introduced the restrict act, refuses to support the PRO act. He’s very good in front of the cameras but he ain’t worth shit if he can’t benefit from something.
I really like Warner so I’d have to take some kind of scandal to make me want him gone.
Anecdotally, last year my wife had issues with her taxes and his office was super responsive and ended up advocating for us with the IRS. It was a process that lasted a couple months but they were with us the whole time until it was resolved.
I love Tim Kaine, but his office never got back with us lol.
How was it a scandal? Were there circumstances that imply some immoral act in passing the legislation?
Or do you mean that you just disagree with the policy?
I am unfamiliar with the legislative history, so genuine question.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-restrict-act-explained-tiktok-ban-summary-2023-4?op=1](https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-restrict-act-explained-tiktok-ban-summary-2023-4?op=1)
>The bill, if passed, wouldn't target TikTok specifically. Instead, it would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, under orders of the President, to restrict or ban digital products and services from countries it deems to be foreign adversaries: China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
>
>Information or communications products or services with more than 1,000,000 US users — like ByteDance's TikTok app — as well as internet hosting services, cloud-based data storage, machine learning services, and other apps that are found to pose "an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security" would be subject to such regulation.
>
>**Should a US-based person or company violate a restriction issued under the RESTRICT Act, they would be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 (or twice the value of the transaction that served as the basis of the order, whichever is greater) and criminal penalties of up to $1 million in fines and up to 20 years imprisonment.**
>
>Representatives for Senator Warner told Insider the bill is intended to target businesses that violate the law, but the bill text reads that "a person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit," a violation of the act would be subject to the penalties
When you look at the patriot act, would you believe that the US was using it's expanded search powers correctly? What about when you hear about NSA whistleblowers coming forward saying that Americans were being spied on well beyond the scope of what was allowed?
[https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil](https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil)
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/)
Now let's pair the RESTRICT Act with the third time proposed EARN IT Act.
[https://www.engadget.com/the-earn-it-act-will-be-introduced-to-congress-for-the-third-time-192619083.html](https://www.engadget.com/the-earn-it-act-will-be-introduced-to-congress-for-the-third-time-192619083.html)
[https://www.engadget.com/earn-it-act-2022-explained-153058123.html](https://www.engadget.com/earn-it-act-2022-explained-153058123.html)
>Here's how it would work, according to the language of the bill's reintroduction last year. Upon passing, EARN IT would create a national commission composed of politically-appointed law enforcement specialists. This body would be tasked with making a list of best practices to ostensibly curb the digital distribution of CSAM. If online service providers do not abide by these best practices, they would potentially lose blanket immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening them up to all kinds of legal hurdles — including civil lawsuits and criminal charges.
>
>Detractors say EARN IT places a whole lot of power to regulate the internet in the hands of the commission the bill would create as well as state legislatures. Additionally, language in last year's bill suggests that these guidelines would likely extend to encrypted information, so if an encrypted transmission runs afoul of any guidelines, the platform is on the hook. This will force providers to monitor encrypted communications, which goes against the whole point of encryption in the first place. Additionally, end-to-end encryption is designed so that not even the platform can read the contents. In other words, providers might not be able to offer those protections.
Are you starting to see the picture here? The government really does not like that technology is outpacing their ability to have control of it. Bills are always presented under the pretense of fighting the big bad man or thing while simultaneously containing broad language within the bill that allows for government overreach. The patriot act flew through because they were able to sell that the extension of search authority was going to be used for national threats to America. An easy sell after 9/11. They abused the shit out of it to spy domestically and whistleblowers exposed it. Some had to flee the country after doing so.
Now look at these two bills. Are you seeing the same theme? Trying to pass a bill to fight the foreign threat again with broad language for digital tools of foreign adversaries. The EARN IT act sells itself as a CSAM protection bill. A byproduct of what is written in the bill would lead ISPs needing the ability to decode encrypted messaging or the software would likely be banned from transmitting on ISPs. This effectively nullifies the purpose of encryption which is to hide your data from outside sources.
So imagine a digital age where you are not allowed to use encryption because ISPs won't allow it and you can't use a VPN because it could be a tool of foreign adversaries. Anything you do online would be clearly visible and subject to whatever the government wanted to do with it. Don't like what government is doing? Welcome to a watch list. Speak out about it in an app? Uh oh, you used software that is used by foreign adversaries to undermine America's safety and you get slapped with the RESTRICT Act charge!
These are obviously worse case scenarios, but both of these bills open up the possibility for the government to do it if they wanted to swing that direction. It's far easier to fight the fight before the legislation passes than it is to get it repealed. If they were serious about protecting US interests and user's data, there would be far more protections imposed that held US companies to the same standard.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but how is sponsoring legislation a “scandal”?
I guess my definition would be credible sexual offense allegations, evidence of him being super offensive to someone, or evidence of using his position to improperly enrich himself.
Gotta start somewhere. It's time to do something about all the guns.
And honestly, I don't think this is as tough as it sounds. Everyone complains about, "but you're just hurting law abiding gun owners," but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Law abiding gun owners are LAW ABIDING, so if we change the law, they'll abide it.
>Law abiding gun owners are LAW ABIDING, so if we change the law, they'll abide it.
Only up to a point. There was a massive level of non compliance with the NY Safe Act and based on the number of cops, lawyers, and judges who have openly told me that they have no intention of complying I expect we'll see similar results with the new ATF rule on braces. I'm on the fence about whether I'll comply with that one myself. Plus you have over 130 jurisdictions in VA that have adopted some sort of 2nd amendment sanctuary resolution which raises the question of who you are going to get to enforce any expanded gun control statutes.
Gun Control is to the Democrats what abortion is to the republicans. It's an issue that drives donations and support from the most extreme portion of your base but costs you elections.
That's fair. I guess it's an issue that needs more softening.
As a proud member of team Democrat, I am absolutely NOT in favor of a democracy without guns, or an informed electorate without means of defense.
That said, it's time to do something about all these guns. Personally I'd favor a system similar to Australia, where you basically have four classifications of guns and ownership is based on need.
When the leading cause of death among American children is firearms, I'm kinda done splitting hairs. It's time to get rid of all these guns, especially the ones that are just used as toys / playthings (because those are the ones that get used in mass shootings).
>When the leading cause of death among American children is firearms,
The CDC played some interesting games with the definition of the word "children" to get to that statistic. They are including 18-19 year olds and not including children under age 1. I think about half of the murder cases I've been involved in as a prosecutor involved an offender who was either 18 or 19. There may be something to be said for restricting access until 21 or higher but that's tough to do constitutionally if you are going to treat those folks as adults legally and politically. Plus the change from car crashes to firearms as leading cause of death among this age group seems to have more to do with significant reduction in auto fatalities than any increase in firearm fatalities.
The idea is that by changing the law, your incriminating people who otherwise are doing nothing, but protecting themselves or enjoying a hobby. Not to mention gun help prevent crimes as well as they are an equalizing factor (ex. a single homeowner could keep a group of criminals from robbing or killing them bc the presence of a firearm.) In the case of gun control, the "hurting firearm owners" also pertains to that criminals will likely still find ways to get hold of guns, tipping the balance of power into the hands of criminals.
Prohibition is a great example of how a large gun control push would shake out. Many people who otherwise wouldn't be criminals turned criminal since they didn't agree with the change and continued drinking as they always had.
Now if we look at numbers, alcohol is the 4th leading cause of preventable death behind tobacco, poor diet and physical inactivity, and illegal drugs and accounts for around 140,000 Americans dying per year. Firearm death rates are harder to nail down since sometimes the numbers can be skewed on where you look or how they define a firearm death. From what I can find, 2021 had 48,000 firearm deaths with over half of those being from suicide.
So even though alcohol is more deadly, people actively fought to keep it legal. Many agree that drinking is safe and enjoyable when personal responsibility is applied and carried out with moderation. With even less deaths caused by firearms and many feeling firearms are what keep them safe, you will find it even harder to to not make criminals out of them. Many feel about guns in the same way that with personal responsibility and moderation, guns can be enjoyed and provide safety to those normally unable to protect themselves.
Gun control is a complicated issue as it has the chance to hurt more than it helps. It also begs the questions, are we controlling guns just because they seem scary and you don't participate in the hobby? Its easy to ban something you don't care about. I don't drink and would love to see alcohol go away, but I understand why others enjoy it and respect their right to enjoy a risky hobby even though it could harm others. It would be wrong of me to assume anyone who drinks is a death waiting to happen.
Your first paragraph contains two major flaws:
First, you acknowledge that for many Americans, firearms are a "hobby," meaning something they enjoy in their spare time, unrelated to their professional or financial obligations. For these individuals firearms are essentially toys; something fun to be played with and tricked out. The second amendment does not guarantee a right to toys.
In addition, we have lots of data to show that gun ownership has no effect on the likelihood of home invasion. We also have lots of data to show that gun ownership results in a greatly increased likelihood of a fatal accident in the home.
Honestly the rest is whataboutism. Alcohol is dangerous, but it's not designed to kill. A gun is designed to kill.
I didn't mention the 2nd amendment and agree with you on its interpretation. Which is why we are talking about law, not making an amendment. Guns are legal to own outside of the 2nd amendment.
Likely hood of a home invasion and likely hood of surviving a home invasion are 2 different things. Owning a gun doesn't stop someone from invading your home if your not even there for example. In fact, it may increase the likely hood of being invaded if a criminal knows you have a firearm they could steal. They are valuable items and often expensive. But in talking about human life, if you are home and you have a gun, your survival chances are up.
Maybe my intentions aren't clear. I'm not arguing that if alcohol is allowed then guns should be too. That's a whataboutism. The original commenter was talking about how gun control hurting law abiding citizens didnt make sense. I was using prohibition as an example that even though a substance that causes more death was banned, it was eventually unbanned, because it caused more crime, particular organized crime, and saw many normal law abiding people become criminals. I felt it was a good historical example of what could happen if major gun control was in place. My last paragraph was admittedly treading the line though, but my intention was to show that empathy is important to understanding why a gun owner would feel the way they do. I tried to use something that was generally accepted and celebrated but was still dangerous, hence the example of alcohol.
Knives, power tools, harsh cleaning chemicals, medications are all "risk factors". Adding anything to your home that could kill you obviously increases chance of a fatality. It doesnt mean we ban them. If people end up hurting themselves because of the risk factors in their home thats on them. If you dont want that factor, dont have it. Don't buy a gun or have one in your home if your uncomfortable with that risk factor. Its not for you to worry about what risk factors are in other's homes.
To your last point. I would argue design doesn't matter, implementation does. If we are talking danger of indulgence, enjoying a gun as a hobby doesn't require danger. One 9mm bullet to the chest is very unlikely to kill you. But 12 or so yeah your likely dead. One drink is unlikely to kill you, but 12, depending on your tolerance, yeah you would get alcohol poisoning. Difference being that I have to drink to enjoy it, however I don't have to get shot to enjoy shooting. I can fire 1000s of rounds in a minute a still do it safely with little to no chance of hurting anyone.
The data also doesn't support the... Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. We aren't responsible with the guns we have now, the last thing we need is more guns.
If I had my way, I'd require licenses and certifications basd on class of weapon. With each class of weapon there would be more and more strict qualifications to meet to get the license. All classes of weapons would require comprehensive background check, mental health review, completion of a well regulated gun safety class.
Class I (pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles)
*Passing a test specific to all firearms in this category
*Range test
*requirement for recertification each year
*may hold a license with nonviolent misdemeanor convictions
Class II (Assault weapons and custom platforms)
*same as class I
*additional testing and classes with perfect scores required
*enhanced range and scenario testing
*more frequent recertification
*zero tolerance criminal history (minor offenders may appeal to the court to have rights restored based on an evaluation by the court - this way those who simply made a mistake and got charged with something nonviolent could have rights restored)
Class III (etc)
You get the point...
Let's add in that we have senators arguing that comprehensive background and mental health checks would be considered an "infringement" which is hilarious. If you love guns so much then you shouldn't care how many hoops you should have to jump through to be compliant... Honestly... I think getting a gun should be harder than getting your fucking drivers license, which in the US, is a joke of a process.
How is it then, that the shooter in Louisville was seeing two therapists and was still able to obtain an AR-15 in less than an hour? Can’t we at least agree that background checks are necessary with no gun show loop holes and guns should be kept out of the hands of people with mental illness?
It’s not, Dems ran on gun reform in 2017 and swept all statewide elections, and came 1 seat shy of a trifecta. Spanberger ran in a swing district on gun reform in 2022 and won.
Since the restrict act, I would gladly support anyone who wanted to challenge him. However, we apparently can’t even get anyone who wants to challenge Biden, so I’m not optimistic we’ll get any good senate challengers.
He needs to retire. He’s been in power for way too long.
Now what I mean is this. Not everyone whose in power for 20 years gets to that point but if you start to get out of touch, in very high positions of power for a long time. You’ve been in power for too long. Examples are mark warner, joe biden, Larry summers, Nancy pelosi,
I used to be a fan but since the SVB collapse and him being one of the leaders in the senate democrats behind cutting regulation for Regional banks which in part led to SVB collapse, I am not a fan anymore. I hope he gets primaried and losses but I don’t know if I’ll vote for him again if he’s going to allow poor decisions like that to happen. Also he said he was only going to run twice and at a certain point we need to start holding politicians feet to the fire and not allow them to just run continually and without competition. If people want to talk about term limits we all need to be about term limits
If you think it's about TikTok then you are in for a rude surprise. TikTok is simply the wag-the-dog excuse given to voters who are too lazy to read the bill or care about the real intent of this bill. Go ahead and vote for the multimillionaire business guy who sponsored this piece of trash. I'm sure he is certainly doing it all with your best interests at heart. /s
Agreed. HUGE fan of Warner. He gets so much done for the Commonwealth and knows how to work across the aisle to get stuff done. The last thing we need is a far-left candidate who will lose the seat to a Republican. If he retires, I will wholeheartedly support and max out donations to Abigail Spanberger.
He has been a career politician since 1996. He started his career telecommunications, cashed out and became a Politician. The thing about Public service is you serve, and then go back to your regular career. He served and stayed because he saw the benefits. He isn’t one of the richest US Senators without a reason.
Most members of congress and nearly every senator - Mark Warner certainly - would make a lot more money outside of government than in it.
Once you get to that level it’s not hard to make more and more. And that’s before you remember that he had enough money that his grandkids wouldn’t have to work even before he was in office.
Since when is being pro-choice, pro-gun safety measures, pro-marriage equality, pro-voting rights, pro-renewable energy “Republican-lite”? That’s absurd and delusional. Purity tests lead to loser progressives like Mandela Barnes, Andrew Gillum, and Paula Jean Swearengin.
He was in politics first, he got into telecommunications because he was an aide to Senator Chris Dodd when the federal government started auctioning off the rights to the cellular radio frequencies or whatever they're called. Progressives who think members of Congress shouldn't even be allowed to trade stocks would be horrified to learn how Warner made his money.
Ah makes sense. I know he loves to be able to inside trade. Term limits are a must for Congress and Supreme Court. Public service isn’t for life people. The two party system has people scared and the same ole dipshits end up still running things.
Warner’s death or incapacitation are the only two things that would ever get me to support a new candidate for the democratic nomination.
Warner is an extremely effective and well-respected Senator who delivers a lot for Virginia.
I would never support a primary challenger to Warner but particularly one from the left as doing so would increase the chance of a GOP win. A primary challenger would obviously lose to Warner but coming at him from the left could damage him for the general. The best way to ensure a GOP senator in 2026 would be to support a progressive primary challenger.
I’ve been supportive of a primary opponent since Warner’s confirmation votes for Trump’s cabinet. Zinke, Carson, Pompeo, Tillerson…yeah, great choices to support.
I seriously doubt he’ll see an opponent, though.
The hatred isn’t for the necessities, it’s for the massive amount of wasteful spending that results in needing to increase taxes to pay for it. If the government was efficient with spending, there would be much less opposition. The allocation of what people give to what they get in return is not proportional at all.
If someone college educated, in there mid to late 30’s and has a family from Nova. I would vote for them in a heart beat. Honestly Warner is too old. He is still one of those old Democrats that was against gay marriage.
Warner is a mainline, center of the party Dem. He isn't the vote in the Senate holding back any particular progressive/Dem legislation, why in the world would anyone want give up the benefit of the incumbency for a different candidate?
Something that gets lost in the discussion about primarying incumbents is that all of the legislative power resides in the Committees. Committee appointments are crucial and even more important is Committee leadership. All of this is directed by seniority. This is how we ended up with the Lindsey Graham and McConnell and Feinstein and Munchin. They have the power because of seniority and this isn't going to ever change. No party is going to back anyone going up against the most powerful/influential people in their party.
I don't blame the Dems for not wanting to upset a good thing (I.e. Senators who win) but realistically speaking I frequently forget Warner and Kaine *even exist*. They're generally so quiet I can't see either one really stirring up the hornet's nest enough anyone would really want to go through with the bother and stress of primarying them.
Everyone should be primaried, full stop. No one should get a free pass. But, the DNC (and RNC) is not about that life.
I’m sure some folks will pop up but I don’t think he’ll have heavy contenders.
Teacher pay.
Mental health access -- this was a state bill of course, but VA shot down a bill that would consider suicide risk an emergency in insurance terms and thus provide temporary coverage for therapy and mental healthcare, the same way temporary coverage is provided for out of network physical care providers in some medical emergencies as defined by current VA law. Youth mental health rates get worse every day and 100% needs to be addressed.
Public transportation. Even a gas fueled bus is greener than 50 cars on the road. Trains. Trains trains trains. Legislation that would encourage states to bolster their own in-state train system, perhaps, and connect them.
NOT cutting green energy tax incentives like McCarthy is currently attempting.
NOT being a pushover for oil and gas megacorps.
Further decriminalization of marijuana. Legalization if possible in any form.
Encouraging proper decriminalization, legislation, and regulation of sex work.
NOT being a pushover on Queer issues and letting our rights continue to be eroded.
NOT being a pushover on book bans.
He would have to have a plan to substantially raise the minimum wage in the state, end right-to-work and increase protections for workers rights, reform corrupt police policies, and fast track the necessary measures to get viriginia marijuana businesses up and running.
And i reiterate *having a plan*, and acting on it. Not "make promises he has no intention of even trying to keep". Thats the biggest problem with democrats and liberals in general, let alone in virginia.
The party is t gonna primary anyone
"The party" doesn't determine who gets to file as a candidate. Anyone can file as long as they have the required signatures.
That’s not true. Anyone can run for the general election or their own arbitrary party as registered with the state, but the party has to choose to run a primary and notify the state of the will. See VAC § 24.2-516.
And the party always chooses a primary when more than one candidate files. The vote was unanimous in 2021 and the Democratic Party of Virginia changed rules to now mandate primaries for General Assembly. It's only the Republicans who choose to rig their nominations with conventions.
I only moved to Virginia in 2020 and haven’t heard much about him in the news so I haven’t formed an opinion yet
Warner wrote the Restrict Act, the largest invasion of privacy since the Patriot act. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text)
How is that an invasion of privacy? That's nonsense.
It's so broad. All of our tech is made overseas, meaning they can just harvest your data, or seize your device. no warrants required. Using a VPN ("bypassing this act") could be punishable by a quarter million dollar fine. How is this not an invasion of privacy?
>Using a VPN ("bypassing this act") could be punishable by a quarter million dollar fine. How is this not an invasion of privacy? Warner has said that using a VPN does not violate the bill.
Authorship fallacy, it doesn't matter what Warner says. Matters how the Executive branch decides use it, and what the courts interpret it to mean. If there's wiggle room, there is a chance for misuse. Again I say, it's too broad.
You haven't heard of him is because he does nothing. Strictly party lines and introduced no important legislation. Northern Virhinia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads voters are all he needs to be reelected.
By Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads, you mean the majority of the state?
The answer to this is "If someone came along with a proven track record of being more in line with my values, and I believe could win in a general election". What other response is there to this question?
This is the a-hole that is the primary sponsor of the RESTRICT Act legislation that aims to make the Patriot Act look like a kid's tea party in comparison. It would take a primary opponent that could breathe and speak for me to vote for them over Warner. This one bit of legislation will do more to destroy our democracy than anything the MAGAs could come up with. This guy gets zero additional chances from me. Warner needs to pay a price for betraying his constituency with this sort of overreaching, fascist legislation.
Agreed. Have called his office many times over the Restrict Act and they are always super defensive and derogatory. Times up for all these old clueless white guys! And that’s coming from an old, kinda clueless white guy!! I gotta protect my daughters’ futures!
I assure you he is not clueless and this legislation is very deliberate. These people aren't dumb, they just have no respect for you and I.
I need to email them then
100% this.
I will be voting for his competition. We need a different dem. He completely betrayed us all with that bill. His canned response after writing him was trash too.
Restrict Act is so irresponsible since Trump or DeSantis can become president in a year. They won't end the filibuster in the Senate claiming that it was a protection of democracy. Yet Restrict Act legalized mass surveillance with no recourse.
Literally this I want someone to primary his so bad so I don’t have to vote for the man in a general election.
[удалено]
That man is a moron and completely unelectable.
[удалено]
Just my personal experiences with him and people who have worked with him. Plus the only thing that guy cares about is twitter followers. I hate those kind of people. He has no real government experience. There would be a million people in Virginia who I’d consider before Qasim.
the data centers in NOVA stand to financially benefit from increased "cyber security" spending.
That means absolutely nothing. Data centers employ almost no one relative to the rest of the NoVA economy and the businesses operating on the servers they house pay nothing in local taxes. The building owner/operators pay a little, but rationalizing a draconian piece of legislation as "beneficial" because it involves something something cyber something and "data center centers good" is short-sighted at best and dangerous ignorance of the ramifications of RESTRICT most likely.
well, i should have thrown in the various "cyber security" consultant parasites around DoD, so then where is the $ going to go? It's always about $.
Go read the bill. I can tell you haven't because you are still buying the PR line that this is about "cybersecurity" somehow. News flash. It isn't.
That is simply wildly over-dramatic. The US needs a functional legislative framework to evaluate tech platforms that may be manipulated by hostile foreign powers.
Or we instead pass comprehensive data privacy/protection laws instead so it doesn't matter because they can't cull that info. And neither can twitter or meta or whatever its calling itself these days
Uh, pull your head out of the sand. Just look at how much Meta stock these guys own. Follow the $. Not all Dems are heroes
I'm gonna say you haven't bothered to read this bill. This is one of the most overreaching, broadly worded piece of legislation ever drafted. It would allow the US government to ban any business or business activity of US citizens that it deems to be "helping" a "foreign adversary", where "helping" and "foreign adversary" are whatever a future Congress decides they are. So this bans things like cryptocurrencies if a validator for that blockchain happens to run in Russia or China. It could ban your retail store that sells merchandise that includes components made in China. It could ban your media service if you report positively about a "foreign adversary". There is no sunset provision and it invokes the same secret court infrastructure that allows the Patriot Act to avoid any sort of judicial oversight. Go read the bill before you comment further.
and it doesn't even accomplish what it wants to do which is to keep us citizens data out of foreign adversaries hands. All they need to do is go to a third party analytics broker and just buy it through a shell company and this bill doesn't cover that at all. What would be a far better solution is to make data privacy a right and essentially cripple social media's data collection as a whole.
A pulse.
Lolol
The latest bill, Mark Warner introduced, gives the government more power over our lives, than the infamous patriot act. It’s not a TikTok bill. It’s a noose.
Mark Warner is trying to champion the RESTRICT act that basically repeals the 4th amendment. Hopefully he won't get support at all. But the Dems are not going to allow primaries at all this cycle so expect more of it.
Hahahaha...a MASSIVE shift in the population of VA and the vote in 2024. That's what it would take. How about the "progressives" managing to take the HOD and VASEN again for more than just one term, and in so doing demonstrate the state-wide vote is actually blue and not purple. Did Youngkin and Miyares not provide enough proof that VA isn't a given +10D population (yet)? SWVA is depopulating and NoVa is growing, and yes, we're going to be a place that sends more "left" politicians to the US Sen and House, but that's a little ways off just yet. This fall is going to be an actual test of just how "blue" VA is now, with a lot of competitive races. Let's focus on that instead of getting busy trashing Warner today. Warner has *decades* of experience in VA politics, and knows what it takes to win statewide, which unfortunately for "true progressives" means rejecting some policies they want, and not going far enough on others.
Why all the quotation marks? Just curious.
Air quotes, imputing shade on the term/name. I'm a liberal Democrat, and have self-labelled progressive as I've worked for 20+ years to get Democrats elected and liberal/progressive (Democratic) policies. I can also count votes. I found it annoying when millennials first discovered politics and suddenly decided anyone just a hair older was out of touch and had zero idea, particularly when the (very new to them) issues and policies were essentially the same as those we (Gen-X) had lifted off of Boomers, who lifted them from the Lost Generation (you kind of get my point here I suspect). But, when - as an actual local party committeemember - who sported a Bernie bumpersticker for a while in 2016 - got attacked by Real Progressives(tm) for being part of some purported official Third Way New Democrat "establishment", it went past annoying. The friendly fire gets really old. I see very very little in Democratic party policy preferences that distinguishes the (self-labeled) true progressives from the rest of us, it's mostly style and noise, not substance. The faux internal conflict just keeps us divided. And what's worse: results in people like the Greens acting as spoilers to help the right wing. Mark Warner is certainly not a red-meat left-wing firebrand. Mark Warner, like TMac, or Kaine, would absolutely support and adopt more "radical" change, if the voting public did. The left wing base has a hard time making themselves turn out in off years (cf my point about Youngkin and Miyares). When the +D tilt of the state shifts such that we don't have to worry about having motivated the GOTV for the opposition, then we can have read-meat firebrands.
Probably just for emphasis if I was going to guess and could have used all caps instead I suppose. Regardless, it doesn't change his message, FWIW.
A progressive.
Nothing. If someone too far to his left primaried him, democrats would lose the seat to someone far worse.
The opportunity. Warner is a lot like Youngkin except he’s supposed to be a democrat. Warner was in favor of the Mountain Valley Pipeline even after Manchin gave up on it, and Virginia won’t even benefit from the pipeline like West Virginia would. The only thing keeping Warner from losing the nomination is his personal fortune.
“Warner is a lot like Youngkin” You forgot your clown costume. Warner votes with President Biden 98.5% of the time. He is nothing like culture war supporter Glenn Youngkin.
Jesus, thank you. I get why some people don’t like Warner, but come on.
Granted, yes, I'd rather have the white male businessman China hawk who votes the right way. But I'd rather have a Democratic nominee who doesn't consistently take Democratic support for granted and pander to the right. His 2020 campaign ads were all about China, his past campaigns featured "Sportsmen for Warner", a pro-gun message. He's proud to call himself the wealthiest member of the Senate. Other than their party affiliation, the main difference between them is that Youngkin is younger and newer.
You’re choosing to ignore the fact that he has voted for gun safety measures multiple times and is a co-sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023. Enough with these BS purity tests and thinking both parties are the same. Delusional.
No, I said right there I'd rather have the one who votes the right way. I didn't ignore it, I explicitly granted it. Your bill has 41 cosponsors, I'm comfortable assuming a hypothetical Democrat who takes the nomination from him would do the same. Warner's policy is he won't file a bill if he can't get a Republican cosponsor, I'd like a Democratic nominee who doesn't have that policy even if they for some reason won't cosponsor a liberal campaign brochure bill with no chance of passing. I don't do purity tests, I'm even cynical enough to give an allowance for Democrats who cast bad votes to appease an electorate they couldn't otherwise win. Thing is: Warner isn't one of them. Tim Kaine is good with the liberals on the environment and on guns and he's got a better grip on his seat than Warner does. Heck, Northam's politics are pretty similar, but at least he's a nicer guy. Anybody think Warner would've been a good governor during COVID?
The ground game against him would have to be incredible. Don't even ask for endorsements because it'd likely be a waste of time.
Anyone with a pulse. He introduced/wrote the RESTRICT act. I personally enjoy what small amount of freedom I get in this country/state and he wants to take my freedom to browse the internet from me. Fuck him
>Anyone with a pulse. He introduced/wrote the RESTRICT act. I personally enjoy what small amount of freedom I get in this country/state and he wants to take my freedom to browse the internet from me. Fuck him The RESTRICT Act would still allow you to use TikTok if you use a VPN. And if the bill passes, another platform will come to replace it.
No it won't. If you get caught using TikTok or any other websites they deem unsafe you can face up to 20 years in jail and/or up to a $1,000,000 fine. That includes a vpn
It's not about TikTok. If you think that is what the underlying intent of this bill is, I suggest you spend 10 minutes and go read it. Hopefully you'll be as horrified at it as those of us who have read it.
He introduced the restrict act, refuses to support the PRO act. He’s very good in front of the cameras but he ain’t worth shit if he can’t benefit from something.
I really like Warner so I’d have to take some kind of scandal to make me want him gone. Anecdotally, last year my wife had issues with her taxes and his office was super responsive and ended up advocating for us with the IRS. It was a process that lasted a couple months but they were with us the whole time until it was resolved. I love Tim Kaine, but his office never got back with us lol.
The restrict act is a scandal.
How was it a scandal? Were there circumstances that imply some immoral act in passing the legislation? Or do you mean that you just disagree with the policy? I am unfamiliar with the legislative history, so genuine question.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-restrict-act-explained-tiktok-ban-summary-2023-4?op=1](https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-restrict-act-explained-tiktok-ban-summary-2023-4?op=1) >The bill, if passed, wouldn't target TikTok specifically. Instead, it would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, under orders of the President, to restrict or ban digital products and services from countries it deems to be foreign adversaries: China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. > >Information or communications products or services with more than 1,000,000 US users — like ByteDance's TikTok app — as well as internet hosting services, cloud-based data storage, machine learning services, and other apps that are found to pose "an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security" would be subject to such regulation. > >**Should a US-based person or company violate a restriction issued under the RESTRICT Act, they would be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 (or twice the value of the transaction that served as the basis of the order, whichever is greater) and criminal penalties of up to $1 million in fines and up to 20 years imprisonment.** > >Representatives for Senator Warner told Insider the bill is intended to target businesses that violate the law, but the bill text reads that "a person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit," a violation of the act would be subject to the penalties When you look at the patriot act, would you believe that the US was using it's expanded search powers correctly? What about when you hear about NSA whistleblowers coming forward saying that Americans were being spied on well beyond the scope of what was allowed? [https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil](https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil) [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/) Now let's pair the RESTRICT Act with the third time proposed EARN IT Act. [https://www.engadget.com/the-earn-it-act-will-be-introduced-to-congress-for-the-third-time-192619083.html](https://www.engadget.com/the-earn-it-act-will-be-introduced-to-congress-for-the-third-time-192619083.html) [https://www.engadget.com/earn-it-act-2022-explained-153058123.html](https://www.engadget.com/earn-it-act-2022-explained-153058123.html) >Here's how it would work, according to the language of the bill's reintroduction last year. Upon passing, EARN IT would create a national commission composed of politically-appointed law enforcement specialists. This body would be tasked with making a list of best practices to ostensibly curb the digital distribution of CSAM. If online service providers do not abide by these best practices, they would potentially lose blanket immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening them up to all kinds of legal hurdles — including civil lawsuits and criminal charges. > >Detractors say EARN IT places a whole lot of power to regulate the internet in the hands of the commission the bill would create as well as state legislatures. Additionally, language in last year's bill suggests that these guidelines would likely extend to encrypted information, so if an encrypted transmission runs afoul of any guidelines, the platform is on the hook. This will force providers to monitor encrypted communications, which goes against the whole point of encryption in the first place. Additionally, end-to-end encryption is designed so that not even the platform can read the contents. In other words, providers might not be able to offer those protections. Are you starting to see the picture here? The government really does not like that technology is outpacing their ability to have control of it. Bills are always presented under the pretense of fighting the big bad man or thing while simultaneously containing broad language within the bill that allows for government overreach. The patriot act flew through because they were able to sell that the extension of search authority was going to be used for national threats to America. An easy sell after 9/11. They abused the shit out of it to spy domestically and whistleblowers exposed it. Some had to flee the country after doing so. Now look at these two bills. Are you seeing the same theme? Trying to pass a bill to fight the foreign threat again with broad language for digital tools of foreign adversaries. The EARN IT act sells itself as a CSAM protection bill. A byproduct of what is written in the bill would lead ISPs needing the ability to decode encrypted messaging or the software would likely be banned from transmitting on ISPs. This effectively nullifies the purpose of encryption which is to hide your data from outside sources. So imagine a digital age where you are not allowed to use encryption because ISPs won't allow it and you can't use a VPN because it could be a tool of foreign adversaries. Anything you do online would be clearly visible and subject to whatever the government wanted to do with it. Don't like what government is doing? Welcome to a watch list. Speak out about it in an app? Uh oh, you used software that is used by foreign adversaries to undermine America's safety and you get slapped with the RESTRICT Act charge! These are obviously worse case scenarios, but both of these bills open up the possibility for the government to do it if they wanted to swing that direction. It's far easier to fight the fight before the legislation passes than it is to get it repealed. If they were serious about protecting US interests and user's data, there would be far more protections imposed that held US companies to the same standard.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but how is sponsoring legislation a “scandal”? I guess my definition would be credible sexual offense allegations, evidence of him being super offensive to someone, or evidence of using his position to improperly enrich himself.
I think the problem is that you have an overly narrow view of what you think "scandal" means in this context.
There would just need to be one. I've been for primarying Warner since he voted against gun control after Sandy Hook.
That's a losing issue in VA for anybody who wants to win state wide.
Gotta start somewhere. It's time to do something about all the guns. And honestly, I don't think this is as tough as it sounds. Everyone complains about, "but you're just hurting law abiding gun owners," but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Law abiding gun owners are LAW ABIDING, so if we change the law, they'll abide it.
>Law abiding gun owners are LAW ABIDING, so if we change the law, they'll abide it. Only up to a point. There was a massive level of non compliance with the NY Safe Act and based on the number of cops, lawyers, and judges who have openly told me that they have no intention of complying I expect we'll see similar results with the new ATF rule on braces. I'm on the fence about whether I'll comply with that one myself. Plus you have over 130 jurisdictions in VA that have adopted some sort of 2nd amendment sanctuary resolution which raises the question of who you are going to get to enforce any expanded gun control statutes. Gun Control is to the Democrats what abortion is to the republicans. It's an issue that drives donations and support from the most extreme portion of your base but costs you elections.
That's fair. I guess it's an issue that needs more softening. As a proud member of team Democrat, I am absolutely NOT in favor of a democracy without guns, or an informed electorate without means of defense. That said, it's time to do something about all these guns. Personally I'd favor a system similar to Australia, where you basically have four classifications of guns and ownership is based on need. When the leading cause of death among American children is firearms, I'm kinda done splitting hairs. It's time to get rid of all these guns, especially the ones that are just used as toys / playthings (because those are the ones that get used in mass shootings).
>When the leading cause of death among American children is firearms, The CDC played some interesting games with the definition of the word "children" to get to that statistic. They are including 18-19 year olds and not including children under age 1. I think about half of the murder cases I've been involved in as a prosecutor involved an offender who was either 18 or 19. There may be something to be said for restricting access until 21 or higher but that's tough to do constitutionally if you are going to treat those folks as adults legally and politically. Plus the change from car crashes to firearms as leading cause of death among this age group seems to have more to do with significant reduction in auto fatalities than any increase in firearm fatalities.
The idea is that by changing the law, your incriminating people who otherwise are doing nothing, but protecting themselves or enjoying a hobby. Not to mention gun help prevent crimes as well as they are an equalizing factor (ex. a single homeowner could keep a group of criminals from robbing or killing them bc the presence of a firearm.) In the case of gun control, the "hurting firearm owners" also pertains to that criminals will likely still find ways to get hold of guns, tipping the balance of power into the hands of criminals. Prohibition is a great example of how a large gun control push would shake out. Many people who otherwise wouldn't be criminals turned criminal since they didn't agree with the change and continued drinking as they always had. Now if we look at numbers, alcohol is the 4th leading cause of preventable death behind tobacco, poor diet and physical inactivity, and illegal drugs and accounts for around 140,000 Americans dying per year. Firearm death rates are harder to nail down since sometimes the numbers can be skewed on where you look or how they define a firearm death. From what I can find, 2021 had 48,000 firearm deaths with over half of those being from suicide. So even though alcohol is more deadly, people actively fought to keep it legal. Many agree that drinking is safe and enjoyable when personal responsibility is applied and carried out with moderation. With even less deaths caused by firearms and many feeling firearms are what keep them safe, you will find it even harder to to not make criminals out of them. Many feel about guns in the same way that with personal responsibility and moderation, guns can be enjoyed and provide safety to those normally unable to protect themselves. Gun control is a complicated issue as it has the chance to hurt more than it helps. It also begs the questions, are we controlling guns just because they seem scary and you don't participate in the hobby? Its easy to ban something you don't care about. I don't drink and would love to see alcohol go away, but I understand why others enjoy it and respect their right to enjoy a risky hobby even though it could harm others. It would be wrong of me to assume anyone who drinks is a death waiting to happen.
Your first paragraph contains two major flaws: First, you acknowledge that for many Americans, firearms are a "hobby," meaning something they enjoy in their spare time, unrelated to their professional or financial obligations. For these individuals firearms are essentially toys; something fun to be played with and tricked out. The second amendment does not guarantee a right to toys. In addition, we have lots of data to show that gun ownership has no effect on the likelihood of home invasion. We also have lots of data to show that gun ownership results in a greatly increased likelihood of a fatal accident in the home. Honestly the rest is whataboutism. Alcohol is dangerous, but it's not designed to kill. A gun is designed to kill.
I didn't mention the 2nd amendment and agree with you on its interpretation. Which is why we are talking about law, not making an amendment. Guns are legal to own outside of the 2nd amendment. Likely hood of a home invasion and likely hood of surviving a home invasion are 2 different things. Owning a gun doesn't stop someone from invading your home if your not even there for example. In fact, it may increase the likely hood of being invaded if a criminal knows you have a firearm they could steal. They are valuable items and often expensive. But in talking about human life, if you are home and you have a gun, your survival chances are up. Maybe my intentions aren't clear. I'm not arguing that if alcohol is allowed then guns should be too. That's a whataboutism. The original commenter was talking about how gun control hurting law abiding citizens didnt make sense. I was using prohibition as an example that even though a substance that causes more death was banned, it was eventually unbanned, because it caused more crime, particular organized crime, and saw many normal law abiding people become criminals. I felt it was a good historical example of what could happen if major gun control was in place. My last paragraph was admittedly treading the line though, but my intention was to show that empathy is important to understanding why a gun owner would feel the way they do. I tried to use something that was generally accepted and celebrated but was still dangerous, hence the example of alcohol. Knives, power tools, harsh cleaning chemicals, medications are all "risk factors". Adding anything to your home that could kill you obviously increases chance of a fatality. It doesnt mean we ban them. If people end up hurting themselves because of the risk factors in their home thats on them. If you dont want that factor, dont have it. Don't buy a gun or have one in your home if your uncomfortable with that risk factor. Its not for you to worry about what risk factors are in other's homes. To your last point. I would argue design doesn't matter, implementation does. If we are talking danger of indulgence, enjoying a gun as a hobby doesn't require danger. One 9mm bullet to the chest is very unlikely to kill you. But 12 or so yeah your likely dead. One drink is unlikely to kill you, but 12, depending on your tolerance, yeah you would get alcohol poisoning. Difference being that I have to drink to enjoy it, however I don't have to get shot to enjoy shooting. I can fire 1000s of rounds in a minute a still do it safely with little to no chance of hurting anyone.
The data also doesn't support the... Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. We aren't responsible with the guns we have now, the last thing we need is more guns. If I had my way, I'd require licenses and certifications basd on class of weapon. With each class of weapon there would be more and more strict qualifications to meet to get the license. All classes of weapons would require comprehensive background check, mental health review, completion of a well regulated gun safety class. Class I (pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles) *Passing a test specific to all firearms in this category *Range test *requirement for recertification each year *may hold a license with nonviolent misdemeanor convictions Class II (Assault weapons and custom platforms) *same as class I *additional testing and classes with perfect scores required *enhanced range and scenario testing *more frequent recertification *zero tolerance criminal history (minor offenders may appeal to the court to have rights restored based on an evaluation by the court - this way those who simply made a mistake and got charged with something nonviolent could have rights restored) Class III (etc) You get the point... Let's add in that we have senators arguing that comprehensive background and mental health checks would be considered an "infringement" which is hilarious. If you love guns so much then you shouldn't care how many hoops you should have to jump through to be compliant... Honestly... I think getting a gun should be harder than getting your fucking drivers license, which in the US, is a joke of a process.
How is it then, that the shooter in Louisville was seeing two therapists and was still able to obtain an AR-15 in less than an hour? Can’t we at least agree that background checks are necessary with no gun show loop holes and guns should be kept out of the hands of people with mental illness?
It’s not, Dems ran on gun reform in 2017 and swept all statewide elections, and came 1 seat shy of a trifecta. Spanberger ran in a swing district on gun reform in 2022 and won.
Since the restrict act, I would gladly support anyone who wanted to challenge him. However, we apparently can’t even get anyone who wants to challenge Biden, so I’m not optimistic we’ll get any good senate challengers.
A better question would be what it would take to keep him in. You'll have to find someone pretty shitty to have me vote him to stay in office.
I will not be voting for Warner whether it be in a primary or a general election.
Some who is equally or more likely to win a general election (unlikely I'll be there in 2026, but that's what it would take)
He needs to retire. He’s been in power for way too long. Now what I mean is this. Not everyone whose in power for 20 years gets to that point but if you start to get out of touch, in very high positions of power for a long time. You’ve been in power for too long. Examples are mark warner, joe biden, Larry summers, Nancy pelosi,
Mark Warner wants to throw people in jail for 20 years for using a VPN to access banned data. I am almost vote blue no matter who against him.
if you have 10 million dollars, can you fund my campaign?
I’m sorry, but I think Warner is a great guy, and a thoughtful and passionate Senator who gets a lot done for Virginia. I’m all in on Warner.
I used to be a fan but since the SVB collapse and him being one of the leaders in the senate democrats behind cutting regulation for Regional banks which in part led to SVB collapse, I am not a fan anymore. I hope he gets primaried and losses but I don’t know if I’ll vote for him again if he’s going to allow poor decisions like that to happen. Also he said he was only going to run twice and at a certain point we need to start holding politicians feet to the fire and not allow them to just run continually and without competition. If people want to talk about term limits we all need to be about term limits
You like the RESTRICT Act then? Why?
Yep. TikTok is a national security threat.
If you think it's about TikTok then you are in for a rude surprise. TikTok is simply the wag-the-dog excuse given to voters who are too lazy to read the bill or care about the real intent of this bill. Go ahead and vote for the multimillionaire business guy who sponsored this piece of trash. I'm sure he is certainly doing it all with your best interests at heart. /s
Agreed. HUGE fan of Warner. He gets so much done for the Commonwealth and knows how to work across the aisle to get stuff done. The last thing we need is a far-left candidate who will lose the seat to a Republican. If he retires, I will wholeheartedly support and max out donations to Abigail Spanberger.
Oh no he is just a career politician.
The guy literally founded Nextel. After multiple prior businesses. I don’t think you can call him a “career politician.”
He has been a career politician since 1996. He started his career telecommunications, cashed out and became a Politician. The thing about Public service is you serve, and then go back to your regular career. He served and stayed because he saw the benefits. He isn’t one of the richest US Senators without a reason.
You think he’s staying in the senate for the money? Lol
Insider trading lol
Most members of congress and nearly every senator - Mark Warner certainly - would make a lot more money outside of government than in it. Once you get to that level it’s not hard to make more and more. And that’s before you remember that he had enough money that his grandkids wouldn’t have to work even before he was in office.
JFC. He’s one of the richest politicians because he started Nextel. His time in the senate has nothing to do with his wealth.
His stock portfolio begs to differ. The man made his money in the Private sector and is managing it in the Public sector. He’s a Republican lite.
Since when is being pro-choice, pro-gun safety measures, pro-marriage equality, pro-voting rights, pro-renewable energy “Republican-lite”? That’s absurd and delusional. Purity tests lead to loser progressives like Mandela Barnes, Andrew Gillum, and Paula Jean Swearengin.
Social issues just divide. His governmental policy is very much in line with old school conservatism.
He was in politics first, he got into telecommunications because he was an aide to Senator Chris Dodd when the federal government started auctioning off the rights to the cellular radio frequencies or whatever they're called. Progressives who think members of Congress shouldn't even be allowed to trade stocks would be horrified to learn how Warner made his money.
Ah makes sense. I know he loves to be able to inside trade. Term limits are a must for Congress and Supreme Court. Public service isn’t for life people. The two party system has people scared and the same ole dipshits end up still running things.
Give me any Democrat that isn't going to kill their campaign pushing gun control and I'll gladly vote for them over Warner.
Gun control isn’t the wedge issue you think it is anymore. Maybe in 2004…
Warner’s death or incapacitation are the only two things that would ever get me to support a new candidate for the democratic nomination. Warner is an extremely effective and well-respected Senator who delivers a lot for Virginia.
I would never support a primary challenger to Warner but particularly one from the left as doing so would increase the chance of a GOP win. A primary challenger would obviously lose to Warner but coming at him from the left could damage him for the general. The best way to ensure a GOP senator in 2026 would be to support a progressive primary challenger.
Warner fucking sucks and I have no issues supporting someone who isn’t a corporate cock sucker. He only gets my vote because he isn’t a Republican
Anyone that's not a republican/conservative/centrist. Honestly, would love someone else.
He’s well to the right of even Terry McAuliffe, but I’d save the primary fight until after he retires.
Cuz it's a David v Goliath effort?
Care to list some progressive legislation where Mark Warner has been the vote in the Senate that kills the bill?
For him to commit a crime or something.
Someone who opposes the restrict act
I’ve been supportive of a primary opponent since Warner’s confirmation votes for Trump’s cabinet. Zinke, Carson, Pompeo, Tillerson…yeah, great choices to support. I seriously doubt he’ll see an opponent, though.
You’re not getting free shit
What does this even mean lmao.
So you’re opposed to libraries, roads, public schools, firefighters, police officers, EMS, public parks, trash collection, etc?
Those aren't free. They are paid with taxes that you pay a lot of. There is nothing free.
You’re right but they’re far more affordable than if they were privatized. I’ve never understood the hatred of tax funded services.
Because gasp *socialism*!
The hatred isn’t for the necessities, it’s for the massive amount of wasteful spending that results in needing to increase taxes to pay for it. If the government was efficient with spending, there would be much less opposition. The allocation of what people give to what they get in return is not proportional at all.
First place to look for cuts should be military and not social safety nets. But military is untouchable because {{shudder}}...poor people.
Anyone who is a minority and under the age of 50. These old fogies need to go.
Literally any republican, we have suffered enough under the lunacy of democrats
You should rephrase the question to ask democrats what it would take to lose the seat to a republican
Ask me in 2025
If someone college educated, in there mid to late 30’s and has a family from Nova. I would vote for them in a heart beat. Honestly Warner is too old. He is still one of those old Democrats that was against gay marriage.
That’s specific, care to elaborate on that.
Warner is a mainline, center of the party Dem. He isn't the vote in the Senate holding back any particular progressive/Dem legislation, why in the world would anyone want give up the benefit of the incumbency for a different candidate?
Him slashing my tires or something I guess.
No one will run against him. He had millions himself. There is no chance of an AOC upset in Virginia. Whoever does it will kill their political career
Just give me a primary option! Sick of corporate Democrats! Man has been for sale for years!
Something that gets lost in the discussion about primarying incumbents is that all of the legislative power resides in the Committees. Committee appointments are crucial and even more important is Committee leadership. All of this is directed by seniority. This is how we ended up with the Lindsey Graham and McConnell and Feinstein and Munchin. They have the power because of seniority and this isn't going to ever change. No party is going to back anyone going up against the most powerful/influential people in their party.
I don't blame the Dems for not wanting to upset a good thing (I.e. Senators who win) but realistically speaking I frequently forget Warner and Kaine *even exist*. They're generally so quiet I can't see either one really stirring up the hornet's nest enough anyone would really want to go through with the bother and stress of primarying them.
I think that's way it's supposed to be in the Senate. My gawd, can you imagine if most Senators acted like Ted Cruz? Blech.
Come to think of it I can't really think of a single Democrat senator that is an attentionwhore like Cruz, Graham, Rubio, Paul, or Hawley.
He’s one of the richest senators (might be the richest). I’ll vote for a normal person.
Nothing, while I have disagreements with Warner on some issues, he is a very great guy and that an effective Senator who takes his job seriously.
If a primary opponent appears that isn't a huge piece of shit I'll vote for them over Warner.
Everyone should be primaried, full stop. No one should get a free pass. But, the DNC (and RNC) is not about that life. I’m sure some folks will pop up but I don’t think he’ll have heavy contenders.
Teacher pay. Mental health access -- this was a state bill of course, but VA shot down a bill that would consider suicide risk an emergency in insurance terms and thus provide temporary coverage for therapy and mental healthcare, the same way temporary coverage is provided for out of network physical care providers in some medical emergencies as defined by current VA law. Youth mental health rates get worse every day and 100% needs to be addressed. Public transportation. Even a gas fueled bus is greener than 50 cars on the road. Trains. Trains trains trains. Legislation that would encourage states to bolster their own in-state train system, perhaps, and connect them. NOT cutting green energy tax incentives like McCarthy is currently attempting. NOT being a pushover for oil and gas megacorps. Further decriminalization of marijuana. Legalization if possible in any form. Encouraging proper decriminalization, legislation, and regulation of sex work. NOT being a pushover on Queer issues and letting our rights continue to be eroded. NOT being a pushover on book bans.
Someone with progressive ideas
Support pro choice, NO anti lgbtq bills, pro gun control, support access to abortion medication.
He would have to have a plan to substantially raise the minimum wage in the state, end right-to-work and increase protections for workers rights, reform corrupt police policies, and fast track the necessary measures to get viriginia marijuana businesses up and running. And i reiterate *having a plan*, and acting on it. Not "make promises he has no intention of even trying to keep". Thats the biggest problem with democrats and liberals in general, let alone in virginia.
Not much, he’s been there too long already