Page 4 of 16 [ 250 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,824
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Nov 2016, 11:53 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html


In the words of the late William Burroughs: "Inarestin'.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 97,321
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Nov 2016, 12:18 am

rats_and_cats wrote:
I'm sorry to everyone who will be hurt by Trump's rhetoric. When I voted, I was not thinking of my marginalized friends. I was not thinking of the kids in school being beat up, having their property vandalized by Trump supporters. I was not thinking of the riots that my vote would cause, that hurt innocent people and animals. I was only thinking of myself. I was not thinking of my country or my peers. I voted from a place of privilege as a natural-born white Christian, and my vote hurt everyone. I am so, so sorry. I wish there was a way I could make it up to everyone. Just know that I will regret my decision for the rest of my life.

forgiven :flower:



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 97,321
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Nov 2016, 12:23 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Let's not forget ...This year, 5.6 million people were forced to pay the Obamacare tax penalty. "Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/ob ... .html?_r=0
Trump is going to fix this.

sure he will, by dumping 20+ million people off of their affordable health care, and by dint of that causing a major disruption of the domestic individual health insurance market as collateral damage. and the GOP has not a clue about how to avoid this mess. they are amateurs at everything but making unnecessary trouble for a majority of their constituents. they only serve money without even lip service to anything else.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 2:19 am

Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,824
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2016, 2:28 am

sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 3:47 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.

Sanders is just a big sell out. Under trump we'll see good things happen for gun owners that no future democrats can overturn in our lifetime. Pro gun supreme judges. Which will allow us to bring up illegal gun control laws and get them overturned. Along with the doj telling states to stop enacting illegal laws or face getting no federal funds along with lawsuits. And hopefully push through laws removing the national firearms act.



beady
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 606

22 Nov 2016, 5:05 am

Politics brings out humankind's basest truths.
We as a species are not worthy to survive.
I'm glad we are doing ourselves in at an ever increasing pace.
Wish I could witness the next evolutionary steps after we are extinct.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,824
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2016, 5:38 am

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.

Sanders is just a big sell out. Under trump we'll see good things happen for gun owners that no future democrats can overturn in our lifetime. Pro gun supreme judges. Which will allow us to bring up illegal gun control laws and get them overturned. Along with the doj telling states to stop enacting illegal laws or face getting no federal funds along with lawsuits. And hopefully push through laws removing the national firearms act.


I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 97,321
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Nov 2016, 5:51 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.

tell it!



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,824
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2016, 6:31 am

auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.

tell it!


Danke!


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Nov 2016, 9:53 am

I do not believe Trump will do any of those things. The more Democrats work with Trump(and I think Chuck Schumer has been encouraging with his words in this regard, he is already a better Democratic leader than Harry Reid) the more Trump won't have to depend on ultraconservative backbenchers to pass legislation.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

22 Nov 2016, 10:40 am

Jacoby wrote:
The electoral college will never be abolished, it would take states voting to essentially disenfranchise themselves which will never happen.

Not via a constitutional amendment, but possibly via an Interstate Compact. Mind you, that seems unlikely to happen until the Democrats come out on the "winning side" of one of these splits - maybe when Texas flips blue in the 2030s or if the five inhabited unincorporated territories gain statehood (which could give the Dems 19 extra electoral votes from 4 million people).
Quote:
Whining about it doesn't make a lot of sense, the campaign would been completely different and voters intentions would be different if it was decided by the popular vote as a lot of people don't vote because they don't live in swing states.

Agreed - and that's one of the main advantages to the system! Wouldn't things be better if Trump had to campaign in Vermont and Clinton had to campaign in Wyoming?
Quote:
All and all the electoral college works pretty well in ensuring broad geographic support rather than support concentrated in a few areas

As you just described, it does precisely the opposite by allowing the candidates to take 35+ territories for granted.

Quote:
My idea is to radically expand congress to 6000+ members so representatives don't represent more than 70k people and to repeal the 17th amendment so states would go back to appointing US Senators. The House of Representatives would represent the interests of the people and the Senate would represent the states. Right now the Senate is essentially just a super congress, I don't think it serves too much a purpose other than complicating things. Add in term limits and I think we'd see a lot better governance with much less corruption.

You'd need to drastically reform Congress to make that work. There would be no room for debate or amendments to bills. You'd also need to house the whole thing in a sports arena. Finally, I think it would be even more open to gerrymandering - I guess the solution is appointing an independent body, but the boundaries for that many districts would be incredibly difficult to draw fairly.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Nov 2016, 11:07 am

I don't think an interstate compact would constitutional or work in that way. One thing I guess that could be done very easily is for a state to instruct its electoral college to vote the same as the national popular vote but I don't think any state would do that. A open constitutional convention where multiple amendments could be proposed is the only way and I see there being no political will for it.

Expanding congress wouldn't need an amendment to the constitution so that part would be fairly simple altho repealing the 17th amendment would which to be fair I think would be fairly unlikely at this point as well. Expanding congress would ensure more democratic representation so I don't see the worry about gerrymandering, being in represented in a district of 70k is obviously more democratic than a district of 700k in my opinion. Procedure would have to change but I think it could made workable, I think you'd probably see many different caucuses and importance on state delegations as a whole. Expansion doesn't have to be that radical either, there is no reason for it to stay at 435 and at the very least all congressional districts should have an even representation which is not the case right now where some districts have 500,000 and others almost a million with an average of 700k which is greater than the population of several states.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 12:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I don't think an interstate compact would constitutional or work in that way. One thing I guess that could be done very easily is for a state to instruct its electoral college to vote the same as the national popular vote but I don't think any state would do that. A open constitutional convention where multiple amendments could be proposed is the only way and I see there being no political will for it.

Expanding congress wouldn't need an amendment to the constitution so that part would be fairly simple altho repealing the 17th amendment would which to be fair I think would be fairly unlikely at this point as well. Expanding congress would ensure more democratic representation so I don't see the worry about gerrymandering, being in represented in a district of 70k is obviously more democratic than a district of 700k in my opinion. Procedure would have to change but I think it could made workable, I think you'd probably see many different caucuses and importance on state delegations as a whole. Expansion doesn't have to be that radical either, there is no reason for it to stay at 435 and at the very least all congressional districts should have an even representation which is not the case right now where some districts have 500,000 and others almost a million with an average of 700k which is greater than the population of several states.

They'd have to build a new massive building. I suspect they kept it as is so they can keep using the current historical building. It simiply won't hold that many representatives



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 1:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.

Sanders is just a big sell out. Under trump we'll see good things happen for gun owners that no future democrats can overturn in our lifetime. Pro gun supreme judges. Which will allow us to bring up illegal gun control laws and get them overturned. Along with the doj telling states to stop enacting illegal laws or face getting no federal funds along with lawsuits. And hopefully push through laws removing the national firearms act.


I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.


Those are both equal issues to me. Gun rights were fading the greater threat. If Hilary had one the 2nd anmendment would be so infringed that it'd be meaningless, we have a registeration, alsmost total gun ban and likely a bloody civil war. The appointment of 1-4 Supreme Court judges was at stake. Maybe the democrats should have though of that. About half or over half of the nation owns guns. And they showed up in force, while anti gunners as shown in the past tend to be lazy, it doesn't directly effect true, so they have less motivation to show up and vote then gun owners who face losing everything. Yet the democrat party keeps supporting a losing horse over and over. Losing millions millions of votes. I'm a democrat and I'm sure other gun owners are too, but we're gun owners first. I hope trump won't give Paul Ryan his wet dream of destroying ssi and Medicaid. That's all we can do now. Democrats set trump to be elected via their arrogance, and thinking they know what's best for us even if we disagree.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

22 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm

auntblabby wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Let's not forget ...This year, 5.6 million people were forced to pay the Obamacare tax penalty. "Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/ob ... .html?_r=0
Trump is going to fix this.

sure he will, by dumping 20+ million people off of their affordable health care, and by dint of that causing a major disruption of the domestic individual health insurance market as collateral damage. and the GOP has not a clue about how to avoid this mess. they are amateurs at everything but making unnecessary trouble for a majority of their constituents. they only serve money without even lip service to anything else.


Yeah, Obama really cares about US citizens, apart from the ones he's blown up I guess.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"