It's happening because Trump has no staff or money, not because he's doing better in the polls and doesn't see the need. Not that he would know if he's doing better in the polls since he has almost no investment in polling.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
It's happening because Trump has no staff or money, not because he's doing better in the polls and doesn't see the need. Not that he would know if he's doing better in the polls since he has almost no investment in polling.
You can come up with a "but" for pretty much anything. So you do nothing because it's not perfect? Didn't the Murphy bill have lots of these "buts" as well? How does this help? Make some progress.
I guess we shouldn't have passed the ACA either.
And by the way, if this guy had been put on hold for 3 days maybe they would have talked to his wife who would have said she thought he was going to shoot something up. Something he hadn't been planning when they came in contact with him before. The only thing that would satisfy your "buts" would be to stop gun sales altogether and take all the existing ones off the streets.
Exactly. This is what I worry about, as such a strategy led to Governor Meg Whitman.
She's pretty far behind Obama's 2012 June spending, I wouldn't worry about that right now.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
The dissent is strong in this one. Yes, feel your hatred. Let it grow and make you more powerful.
It denies the Republicans empty victories. It helps move public perception to think that the Republicans are blocking everything (since they effectively are). It might affect the Senate race a lot, which is pretty much way more important than getting bills passed now that we can pass with a Democratic Senate. The whole point of this whole voting session was to give the Democrats rhetorical victory, and they had a great night.
And then what? You can't arrest a person on hearsay. They put him in a holding cell, they question him, he says he's a former security guard and loves sport shooting, and then they say "well he's alright in our book".
Then he goes home and beats his wife so hard she never forgets it. This woman was probably afraid for her life. She wasn't going to say anything, and even if she did, it didn't matter. It's his right to own those weapons. We don't surveil every guy with anger issues in this country, so get over your silly fantasy that some superhero FBI agent with a little more insight could have stopped a law abiding member of society from snapping mentally and killing gay people because of _insert_bonkers_reason_.
The guy just should have never owned a gun, period. Because guns are dangerous, he was sick, and he was violent. That's it. That's the only thing.
There are other considerations. There are a few things that would have stopped this spontaneous attack, and those bills don't cover any of them. It is important to deny the Republicans any attempts to claim victory when those bills are useless. They are trying to distract the public.
It didn't.
It helps in a number of ways.
It denies the Republicans empty victories. It helps move public perception to think that the Republicans are blocking everything (since they effectively are). It might affect the Senate race a lot, which is pretty much way more important than getting bills passed now that we can pass with a Democratic Senate. The whole point of this whole voting session was to give the Democrats rhetorical victory, and they had a great night.
That's not even close to comparable. There was no future of making the ACA stronger. The majority was the best it was going to get.
And then what? You can't arrest a person on hearsay. They put him in a holding cell, they question him, he says he's a former security guard and loves sport shooting, and then they say "well he's alright in our book".
Then he goes home and beats his wife so hard she never forgets it. This woman was probably afraid for her life. She wasn't going to say anything, and even if she did, it didn't matter. It's his right to own those weapons. We don't surveil every guy with anger issues in this country, so get over your silly fantasy that some superhero FBI agent with a little more insight could have stopped a law abiding member of society from snapping mentally and killing gay people because of _insert_bonkers_reason_.
The guy just should have never owned a gun, period. Because guns are dangerous, he was sick, and he was violent. That's it. That's the only thing.
Yes.
User 463088
Banned
So, this was totally expected, as far as the gun control bills. I can't say I'm surprised, although I wish I was. I feel like the narrative we get out of it is better than the GOP bills, because it would have stalled future discussion for a while.
I still get so frustrated by this. The vast majority of people want what the Democrats want...yet the NRA has so much power nothing changes. It's insulting to the people that have died in each one of these shootings.
The whole thing is a mess.
I still get so frustrated by this. The vast majority of people want what the Democrats want...yet the NRA has so much power nothing changes. It's insulting to the people that have died in each one of these shootings.
The whole thing is a mess.
I already explained how it likely could have. from simply giving him second thoughts, to putting him on the run to someone in his orbit speaking out. His wife very likely might have said something because she might see it as a way to get out from under his abuse. Any number of things that have come out in the past week such as what his coworkers have said and how he was turned down from buying body armor would have given probable cause to search deeper into his life and would have interrupted his plans.
This fantasy story of his wife getting beat up and superhuman FBI agents who I made no mention of, and "oh, he would have just waited" is a silly distraction.
Really, the background check will stop him from buying a gun on the black market?
I understand the purpose, but even if the dems win the presidency, and the senate, it doesn't guarantee them a win on these amendments because they won't have 60 votes. Then what? We sure did make those Repbulicans looks silly der der.
Really? It's often said they were a Joe Lieberman away from single payer. And they will continue to do things to improve the ACA.
shinra-bansho
Member
Yes, the Democrats are clearly playing 1412th dimensional chess. It has nothing to do with the existence of the NRA and gun lobby.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
it seems not to be very true then , do not pivot this
I think this gives me the idea of going for 100 per page though...
Spoiled Milk
Banned
You have no clue what you're talking about right now. The Democrats voted unanimously against 3 day waiting periods for watch list purchasers.
I now understand where all of those GIFs Adam posts come from... Hulu autoplayed RuPaul's Drag Race season 4 after I finished the most recent episode of another show I watch, so I figured I'd try it out. Two days later, I'm well into season 5. How have I never watched this before? It is the best thing ever. EVER.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
As someone in Colorado, I can say that it's not a bad thing so long as Clinton doesn't start running non-stop attack ads. So far I've seen one negative Trump ad from a Super Pac. Hillary ads have been about her record and accomplishments.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
CNN just ran a story about a young girl choosing end of life treatment
The anchor replacing Anderson was about to cry before they went to commercial
The anchor replacing Anderson was about to cry before they went to commercial
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That's probably the best use of ads right now.
User 463088
Banned
I've converted another one! One more punch on my gay card and I get 30% off Cher's online store.
whyamihere
Banned
iirc, I don't think the FL ad buy was for there.
shinra-bansho
Member
They didn't vote unanimously for Murphy or Feinstein's amendments though now did they.
Also I can't actually find the individual votes on these cloture motions right now, so I have no idea whether they voted unanimously against Grassley and Cornyn's amendments.
Isn't that due to 1) one of the senate's annoying procedural quirks/bullshit or 2) there was some poison pill attached to it?
Link
The Autumn Wind
Right. I'm guessing it's more for the rest of the state outside of South Florida.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I may very well be wrong here, but isn't the 3 day waiting period actually a reduction from a current 2 week waiting period?
I feel like I'm wrong about that, and I hope I am, because it's a kind of insane proposal if that's the case.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
People here are so reluctant to acknowledge that their party plays politics with gun control.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_114_2.htm
No and no. See below.
Summary from NPR:
So reasonable! And yet the votes were entirely party line. You're free to read the verbage yourself, but NPR would not summarize it as thus if there was such a pernicious poison pill.NPR said:
User 463088
Banned
Cory Booker was talking about it on MSNBC earlier. I'm working on a project, so I only caught the tail end of it. He was arguing that it was pointless because the bill required probable cause. If they had probable cause, they'd just arrest the person. I also read that it would require the DOJ or the Attorney General to review the information and go to court within that 3 day window
Aaron Strife
Banned
Frankly the three day investigation is a nonstarter. If federal agencies are swamped and can't carry out the investigations in three days, the person gets the gun no matter what. It's so toothless it's hardly worth considering.
I don't blame Democrats for sinking it even if it comes from a place of politicizing the issue.
I don't blame Democrats for sinking it even if it comes from a place of politicizing the issue.
shinra-bansho
Member
No, it's reluctance to think there's some convoluted game of keikaku, as opposed to Occam's Razor.
Heitkamp voting against party lines on Feinstein's amendment is because she wants to keep an A rating from the NRA. Not some elaborate ploy.
And their inability to get any movement is because they simply don't have the votes. Because on the other side of the aisle there's far more pervasive gun lobby influence.
Conversely you seem reluctant to accept that a group like the NRA holds substantial sway.
Heitkamp voting against party lines on Feinstein's amendment is because she wants to keep an A rating from the NRA. Not some elaborate ploy.
And their inability to get any movement is because they simply don't have the votes. Because on the other side of the aisle there's far more pervasive gun lobby influence.
Conversely you seem reluctant to accept that a group like the NRA holds substantial sway.
Waiting periods are state law and vary as such. For example, Connecticut has a 2 week waiting period, Alabama has none.
I don't believe this law would affect existing waiting periods because it would only come into play if the person was on a watch list.
User 463088
Banned
No one in their right mind wouldn't believe the NRA holds a ton of sway in our politics. However, making lemonade out of lemons isn't the worst idea in the world, either. We couldn't have gotten the two decent amendments through. I expect that the three Dems who voted against could have been counted on to to be the 58-59-60th vote if necessary.
However, giving the GOP "victory" on their shitty amendments is an act of politicking. They were completely useless, except to give the GOP a feather in their cap for doing "something" even though this "something" was pointless.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
The former is more fun. What are you, anti-fun?
Who are you talking to right now? And what are you drinking? (I'm at a bar right now, just for the record.)
It does! And yet... The Republicans voted for a bill that would alert local police of an arms purchase by a watchlisted person. So gun, much NRA. The NRA must have been funding the Democrats for 20 minutes.
Exactly! The unique clairvoyance of Adam and yours truly proves that alcohol clears the mind. Now if you'll all excuse me, I have a pint to finish.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
This is absolutely amazing.
shinra-bansho
Member
Looking at the votes. They didn't actually vote unanimously anyway. Joe Donnelly plays chess with the most dimensions.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
My apologies, captain clarity. You've shattered my rhetoric by illuminating imprecision.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't even know what your endgame is here. You've previously tried to downplay the influence of the NRA. You're still downplaying it here. And you're pretending that blocking the GOP's shit measures is some sort of grand strategy, when they can't even get the caucus collectively behind their own measures.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hmm, 2:1 ad advantage in spending translates to extra 3 point lead according to some papers I've read today.
Hillary is going to end up around 6:1 so it will be interesting to see the impact. 6 points would be pretty insane...
Hillary is going to end up around 6:1 so it will be interesting to see the impact. 6 points would be pretty insane...
Kris' posts making me like
$3M sounds like a lot. That's like, 3 million hamburgers at McDonalds for Christie to pick-up. And we all know how Hillary won NYC, with McDonalds. Donald has this election on lock.
$3M sounds like a lot. That's like, 3 million hamburgers at McDonalds for Christie to pick-up. And we all know how Hillary won NYC, with McDonalds. Donald has this election on lock.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The one thing I think is positive is this is becoming a culture issue. And with declining gun ownership, growth in minorities who are far more supportive of gun control (lets not beat around the bush that a lot or "gun rights" rhetoric is build around fear of non-whites, listen to any NRA speech) its becoming a firm line, are you for lives or the NRA. The dems need these steps to firm up the two sides and when that has happened in the past they tend to win on issue even if it takes forever. We saw this with gay rights
I don't think we're getting a handgun ban or anything but we'll start to see restriction on conceal carry, registrations, assault weapon bans at the state level with eventually getting small reforms nationally
Its gonna be forever and a lot of people are gonna die in the meantime unfortunately.
And I don't see it has some death blow to the dems. Gun owners influence will continue to decline, especially in the dems coalition
I don't think we're getting a handgun ban or anything but we'll start to see restriction on conceal carry, registrations, assault weapon bans at the state level with eventually getting small reforms nationally
Its gonna be forever and a lot of people are gonna die in the meantime unfortunately.
And I don't see it has some death blow to the dems. Gun owners influence will continue to decline, especially in the dems coalition
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Donald Trump hasn't been actively trying to raise money for the campaign though right? It's all been about self-funding, so until he pivots to more actively seeking aid....I dunno it is a ridiculously small amount either way lol. I mean the mechanism is there to for people to donate but it's not like he's out there sending Bernie 'help me' emails.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump raising almost no money in May despite winning the nomination in May and being in California (where rich people live that he could ask for money) in May seems sub-optimal for him.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Why did the Democrats vote against the bill, and why did the Republicans vote for it? If not for party politics, why?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Yeah, but I guess I just assumed he wasn't asking for money. Hasn't that been one of his major selling points?
We can see Heller overturned in the next 4 years if we're lucky, which means individual cities can institute handgun bans again.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Sub optimal is barely raising enough money to fund a handful of must win swing states
Sub optimal is not raising only 3 million, that is the literal definition of a disaster
He's like Jester in Mafia. He takes your job when you ban him.
- Status