Just wondering. What did you expect a progressive to accomplish in the Utah senate?
From my perspective, he was a vocal advocate for progressive ideas, hopefully helping to temper some of the worst impulses of a legislature with a supermajority.
Every other democrat manages to pass bills. It’s an indication he doesn’t know how to work within the systems that exist. What reason do I have to think he’ll make anything better for Utahns in the US Congress and be more than just talk?
Appreciate your perspective. I do think that some politicians are better at helping shift public opinion than actually passing laws. Criticisms of AOC, for example, often concentrate on her lack of legislative productivity, but I think she’s incredibly effective at helping to move what passes as political conventional wisdom.
I don’t think Blouin is in the same league as AOC and maybe he would be better off learning how to pull the levers of power. I don’t know.
My own experience is that politicians can be super reasonable in private but have to take highly partisan positions publicly to avoid getting primaried. So I’m a little skeptical that any Democrat will be effective at persuading anyone on the other side of the aisle to temper their positions. In fact, Democrats from Utah are usually most “effective” when they sell out their base to get “moderate” issues passed as Blue Dogs.
I guess I’d rather have a reliable Dem vote in Congress and not just someone who will chase the bipartisan ideal.
But the Utah Legislature, from the perspective of Utah Democrats, creates 99% legislation that is amoral/neutral or evil/bad. The people who will vote in this Democratic primary loath what comes out of the Utah legislature.
You might want to consider that the compromises Utah Democrats have to make to get legislation passed in their name are liabilities here. Even getting your bill into committee, much lessout of committee, that doesn't come for free. You gotta scratch some powerful Republican backs to "accomplish" that. And when they trade horses with the Republicans so they can have their name on an "accomplishment," the grassroots are often puking at it.
The moral pretzel one is twisted into passing legislation against a super majority who opposes you. It's not an accomplishment, per se. It's a moral enigma.
I think he will find more allies in US Congress than the State Senate. He’s a progressive in one of the reddest state legislatures in the country and most of our Dems in there are moderates. I support him because he will have a better ability to get the things done that he can’t in the state legislature as a one man caucus.
Well, first off, my comment was directed at Blouin fans, so it's a little odd to jump in to make sure everyone knows you're not one. And in the same breath say you wish you could vote for him and are exited to see them run.
But it's also weird to paint a fan as being some kind of extremist position, when it just means you like them and their policies? Why is that bad?
But it's SUPER odd to make it a partisan issue. It's not remotely. You can't possibly claim that Bernie, AOC, Mamdani don't have fans. They do! I'm one of them! lol.
I didn’t “jump in” to say I am not a fan. This is my post. If you comment on it, I am going to have to assume you are talking to me. Is that not how Reddit works?
What would you like a democratic socialist in Utah to accomplish?
I need someone for this seat who is ideologically inflexibly married to Medicare For All. That's not all, but that's far-and-away the #1 priority for the next Congress, and one after that. If he's breathing and can pull the lever at the right time for that vote -- and any votes like it -- and we have no reason to doubt his inflexibility on this subject -- he's hired!
Nobody who has "accomplished" anything in Utah is that. You can' tbe ideologically married to something like Medicare for All and "accomplish" things locally. Accomplishing things in Utah requires a deal with the devil, it requires immense flexibility. I'm pleased this kid hasn't made that deal.
So.... we'll need to go with someone young and not-yet accomplished. That's just fine sometimes. Sometimes the youth are the only ones with the principles we need for today and tomorrow.
They are used in mass shootings. And you are correct, we have been very fortunate in UT to have not seen mass shootings like other states. But is that your best argument for keeping these guns accessible to everyday Americans? If UT is so safe, why do you feel the need to own one? America has a gun problem.
Point. Blank. PERIOD. I hope it doesn’t take a mass shooting in Utah for you to understand this.
And you are correct, we have been very fortunate in UT to have not seen mass shootings like other states. But is that your best argument for keeping these guns accessible to everyday Americans?
It's not up to me to prove we should have them. Bans need to be justified, not the other way around. And there is no data supporting that an AWB is needed in Utah.
America has a gun problem.
Point. Blank. PERIOD.
No we don't. Looking at murder rates by state, there is no correlation between state gun laws and murder rates. California has more than double our murder rate. DC is nearly ten times higher.
I hope it doesn’t take a mass shooting in Utah for you to understand this.
The biggest mass murders in US history, including the biggest school massacre, did not involve guns. Even if you wiped all hins from existence, murder, both mass murder and individual murder, will still happen.
Sure, handguns are also used, but look at the casualty count between those two weapons. Also, had guns are often used in combination with other guns.
How many deaths would it take for you to decide that a ban is necessary? 1,000? A million more? Is there no ceiling? Defense first grade children were gunned down. How was that not the line for you?
America has more mass shootings than any other nation by far. How have you convinced yourself that that isn’t a problem?
I’d like to prevent all violent deaths. Not just those caused by the deadliest or most common means.
Sure, handguns are also used, but look at the casualty count between those two weapons.
With limited exceptions, the casualty counts are pretty close.
How many deaths would it take for you to decide that a ban is necessary? 1,000? A million more? Is there no ceiling? Defense first grade children were gunned down. How was that not the line for you?
It would take guns being more of a net negative to society than other things that we commonly accept. (Such as alcohol) It would also take proof that banning them would actually significantly reduce murder rates. So far, looking at the data, neither thing is true.
America has more mass shootings than any other nation by far. How have you convinced yourself that that isn’t a problem?
Not counting gang violence, our mass murder rates aren't significantly higher than other countries.
I’d like to prevent all violent deaths. Not just those caused by the deadliest or most common means.
And yet you and you specifically said "mass shootings" rather than "mass murder" above. That indicates you only focus on murders involving a gun.
I know I won’t convince you, having read some of your comments OP, but someone else may be swayed to reason.
I read Blouin’s stance on guns from his website. Gun control doesn’t work. It’s the same thing as Prohibition, you can’t legislate morality.
Banning guns won’t make them disappear. Black markets will crop up just like speakeasies in the 1920s.
Blanket bans like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 show that there was not a measurable reduction in overall gun homicide rates even though there was a targeted reduction in access to certain weapons. It did not change the aggregate outcome of violence.
Laws cannot change human intent, they only punish behavior after the fact.
Guns are inanimate objects and only as dangerous as the human who wields them. Legislating them into oblivion won’t educate anyone into being a moral person.
Again, no one is claiming that stricter gun laws will make guns disappear. The goal is to minimize deaths. We’ve tried it the gun nuts way for this long, and it’s not working. Maybe it is time for a new approach.
Minimizing deaths is the stated intent, but intent isn’t evidence. We’ve already tested broad prohibitory approaches in the US- Prohibition and the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban - and neither produced a measurable reduction in overall violence. That historical record matters. If the claim is that stricter laws will reduce aggregate deaths, the burden is to explain why past failures should be expected to succeed this time.
Google search reveals that it's pretty much everywhere. Apple podcast youtube music spotify pocketkast iheartradio amazon music. They also have a website
Well, we are here because my husband finished serving his 22 years in the military and we had the opportunity to go anywhere we wanted. We wanted to be in the Southwest and near mountains. Any other questions?
I really wish the Blouin fans would look at his track record of accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Just wondering. What did you expect a progressive to accomplish in the Utah senate?
From my perspective, he was a vocal advocate for progressive ideas, hopefully helping to temper some of the worst impulses of a legislature with a supermajority.
Every other democrat manages to pass bills. It’s an indication he doesn’t know how to work within the systems that exist. What reason do I have to think he’ll make anything better for Utahns in the US Congress and be more than just talk?
Appreciate your perspective. I do think that some politicians are better at helping shift public opinion than actually passing laws. Criticisms of AOC, for example, often concentrate on her lack of legislative productivity, but I think she’s incredibly effective at helping to move what passes as political conventional wisdom.
I don’t think Blouin is in the same league as AOC and maybe he would be better off learning how to pull the levers of power. I don’t know.
My own experience is that politicians can be super reasonable in private but have to take highly partisan positions publicly to avoid getting primaried. So I’m a little skeptical that any Democrat will be effective at persuading anyone on the other side of the aisle to temper their positions. In fact, Democrats from Utah are usually most “effective” when they sell out their base to get “moderate” issues passed as Blue Dogs.
I guess I’d rather have a reliable Dem vote in Congress and not just someone who will chase the bipartisan ideal.
But the Utah Legislature, from the perspective of Utah Democrats, creates 99% legislation that is amoral/neutral or evil/bad. The people who will vote in this Democratic primary loath what comes out of the Utah legislature.
You might want to consider that the compromises Utah Democrats have to make to get legislation passed in their name are liabilities here. Even getting your bill into committee, much less out of committee, that doesn't come for free. You gotta scratch some powerful Republican backs to "accomplish" that. And when they trade horses with the Republicans so they can have their name on an "accomplishment," the grassroots are often puking at it.
The moral pretzel one is twisted into passing legislation against a super majority who opposes you. It's not an accomplishment, per se. It's a moral enigma.
Plenty of Utah Dems get bills passed.
I think he will find more allies in US Congress than the State Senate. He’s a progressive in one of the reddest state legislatures in the country and most of our Dems in there are moderates. I support him because he will have a better ability to get the things done that he can’t in the state legislature as a one man caucus.
I am not a “fan” of any politician. That is a MAGA thing.
What an odd thing to say.
How? Seems like a healthy approach.
Well, first off, my comment was directed at Blouin fans, so it's a little odd to jump in to make sure everyone knows you're not one. And in the same breath say you wish you could vote for him and are exited to see them run.
But it's also weird to paint a fan as being some kind of extremist position, when it just means you like them and their policies? Why is that bad?
But it's SUPER odd to make it a partisan issue. It's not remotely. You can't possibly claim that Bernie, AOC, Mamdani don't have fans. They do! I'm one of them! lol.
Fair enough.
I didn’t “jump in” to say I am not a fan. This is my post. If you comment on it, I am going to have to assume you are talking to me. Is that not how Reddit works?
What would you like a democratic socialist in Utah to accomplish?
I need someone for this seat who is ideologically inflexibly married to Medicare For All. That's not all, but that's far-and-away the #1 priority for the next Congress, and one after that. If he's breathing and can pull the lever at the right time for that vote -- and any votes like it -- and we have no reason to doubt his inflexibility on this subject -- he's hired!
Nobody who has "accomplished" anything in Utah is that. You can' tbe ideologically married to something like Medicare for All and "accomplish" things locally. Accomplishing things in Utah requires a deal with the devil, it requires immense flexibility. I'm pleased this kid hasn't made that deal.
So.... we'll need to go with someone young and not-yet accomplished. That's just fine sometimes. Sometimes the youth are the only ones with the principles we need for today and tomorrow.
Voters would rather want loud voice than results. See Trump for example.
Did they ask him for any data that supports his gun control proposals? Because so far he still hasn't provided any.
We know. More guns is always the answer.
Show me data that suggests "assault weapons" are such a problem in Utah that they need to be banned.
Because last time I checked, they're almost never used in murders and we have the second lowest murder per capita rate in the nation.
They are used in mass shootings. And you are correct, we have been very fortunate in UT to have not seen mass shootings like other states. But is that your best argument for keeping these guns accessible to everyday Americans? If UT is so safe, why do you feel the need to own one? America has a gun problem. Point. Blank. PERIOD. I hope it doesn’t take a mass shooting in Utah for you to understand this.
(And yes, I own firearms.)
Most of the time, handguns are used.
It's not up to me to prove we should have them. Bans need to be justified, not the other way around. And there is no data supporting that an AWB is needed in Utah.
No we don't. Looking at murder rates by state, there is no correlation between state gun laws and murder rates. California has more than double our murder rate. DC is nearly ten times higher.
The biggest mass murders in US history, including the biggest school massacre, did not involve guns. Even if you wiped all hins from existence, murder, both mass murder and individual murder, will still happen.
Sure, handguns are also used, but look at the casualty count between those two weapons. Also, had guns are often used in combination with other guns.
How many deaths would it take for you to decide that a ban is necessary? 1,000? A million more? Is there no ceiling? Defense first grade children were gunned down. How was that not the line for you?
America has more mass shootings than any other nation by far. How have you convinced yourself that that isn’t a problem?
I’d like to prevent all violent deaths. Not just those caused by the deadliest or most common means.
With limited exceptions, the casualty counts are pretty close.
It would take guns being more of a net negative to society than other things that we commonly accept. (Such as alcohol) It would also take proof that banning them would actually significantly reduce murder rates. So far, looking at the data, neither thing is true.
Not counting gang violence, our mass murder rates aren't significantly higher than other countries.
And yet you and you specifically said "mass shootings" rather than "mass murder" above. That indicates you only focus on murders involving a gun.
I brought up mass shootings because you brought up guns….
And you still haven't provided any data that shows Utah needs an AWB.
Neither has Blouin, who has been asked multiple times to do so.
I believe America, as a whole, would be better off with an assault weapons ban. Not just Utah.
You don’t own firearms.
Oh?
We’ve never heard of this show. Consider posting a link if you want people to listen…..
It’s 2025. People know how to look up podcasts. 😂
Why would anyone look up this stupid podcast
Because some of us care about democracy. What a silly question.
For a podcast that averages 3 listeners? 😂😂😂. Give it up phony
🤣🤣🤣
🤢🤮
That’s exactly how I feel about UT politics in their current form, too.
I know I won’t convince you, having read some of your comments OP, but someone else may be swayed to reason.
I read Blouin’s stance on guns from his website. Gun control doesn’t work. It’s the same thing as Prohibition, you can’t legislate morality.
Banning guns won’t make them disappear. Black markets will crop up just like speakeasies in the 1920s.
Blanket bans like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 show that there was not a measurable reduction in overall gun homicide rates even though there was a targeted reduction in access to certain weapons. It did not change the aggregate outcome of violence.
Laws cannot change human intent, they only punish behavior after the fact.
Guns are inanimate objects and only as dangerous as the human who wields them. Legislating them into oblivion won’t educate anyone into being a moral person.
Again, no one is claiming that stricter gun laws will make guns disappear. The goal is to minimize deaths. We’ve tried it the gun nuts way for this long, and it’s not working. Maybe it is time for a new approach.
Minimizing deaths is the stated intent, but intent isn’t evidence. We’ve already tested broad prohibitory approaches in the US- Prohibition and the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban - and neither produced a measurable reduction in overall violence. That historical record matters. If the claim is that stricter laws will reduce aggregate deaths, the burden is to explain why past failures should be expected to succeed this time.
I was so excited for this episode. I live in Utah, but not in Nate's district. So glad to hear progressive ideas for Utah.
I wish I could vote for Nate. I’m just excited to know that there are people like him in this state who are willing to run.
Where is this viewed
Google search reveals that it's pretty much everywhere. Apple podcast youtube music spotify pocketkast iheartradio amazon music. They also have a website
Apple Podcasts, YT, or anywhere else you can access podcasts. :)
If you want gun control move to a more "controlled" state like California.
We don’t want that shit here.
But I want to stay here and change this place for the better! How about you move?
Born and raised here, its been great until all you transplants moved here.
Change this place for the better? Like New York, California and Minnesota? Piss off
Well, that just motivates me to change things even harder. :)
Explain to me why these people move from what they created just to start it all over again and destroy a solid foundation?
Well, we are here because my husband finished serving his 22 years in the military and we had the opportunity to go anywhere we wanted. We wanted to be in the Southwest and near mountains. Any other questions?
That doesnt explain the reason people move out of democrat states to try and change republican states.
Example: we are moving out of California because we can't afford it anymore, let's move to Utah and vote in the same policies.
Who said we moved from a blue state?
What is this vomit-inducing artwork for a podcast, and why did you post it here for everyone to see?
I shared it here because there are tons of like-minded folks in UT who would enjoy the podcast. Is that a problem?
Everyone's favorite blue-anon podcast.
Nope. She’s actually just a highly educated Navy Veteran. Sorry to disappoint.
I mean, I used to listen. She is highly educated, but still blue-anon. It's not mutually exclusive.
Nah, I'm good thanks
Your loss!
Thanks for letting me know who NOT to vote for.