The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

Republicans use the budget reconciliation process to pass a repeal of the ACA, avoiding Democratic filibuster, which Obama will veto anyway.

Ryan Scores Dual Wins With Obamacare Repeal Vote | RealClearPolitics

GOOD USE OF TIME AND MONEY.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Republicans use the budget reconciliation process to pass a repeal of the ACA, avoiding Democratic filibuster, which Obama will veto anyway.

Ryan Scores Dual Wins With Obamacare Repeal Vote | RealClearPolitics

GOOD USE OF TIME AND MONEY.

I'm so old I remember when the reconciliation process was the very height of tyranny.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Republicans use the budget reconciliation process to pass a repeal of the ACA, avoiding Democratic filibuster, which Obama will veto anyway.

Ryan Scores Dual Wins With Obamacare Repeal Vote | RealClearPolitics

GOOD USE OF TIME AND MONEY.

I read somewhere this was something like the 62nd time the Republicans have tried to appeal ObamaCare. I get that your party hates the law, and early on at least fought against it, but now you are just wasting time and money....and to my knowledge have not proposed any alternatives to it, just back to the old way. There had to be somewhere you could compromise it or change it to make it a better law for Republicans to swallow. But you won't do that either, and I think every Republican Pres. candidate has said they will repeal it-when do you give up on this-when/if Hillary wins?

[JPhillips]

The Governor of Maine is in hot water.

“These are guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty … these types of guys … they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home,” LePage told the crowd. “Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue we have to deal with down the road.”

[NobodyHere]

The governor of Michigan needs to be dunked in the city of Flint's water.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The governor of Michigan needs to be dunked in the city of Flint's water.

No doubt. Someone needs to see prison for poisoning all those people, especially children. Damage from lead poisoning isn't something that's reversible.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Governor of Maine is in hot water.

Definitely. You gotta play to your base. Shoulda said Bubba and Cletus.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I read somewhere this was something like the 62nd time the Republicans have tried to appeal ObamaCare. I get that your party hates the law, and early on at least fought against it, but now you are just wasting time and money....and to my knowledge have not proposed any alternatives to it, just back to the old way. There had to be somewhere you could compromise it or change it to make it a better law for Republicans to swallow. But you won't do that either, and I think every Republican Pres. candidate has said they will repeal it-when do you give up on this-when/if Hillary wins?

The party doesn't hate the law. They proposed it a couple decades ago. They just don't like Obama.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I mentioned this in the Planned Parenthood thread a week or so ago. All this does is make it so Republicans can act like they kept a promise to the American people. Such progress!

And ensure another Democrat President.

[Edward64]

I like what Obama said overall but he really should have done something like this right after Sandy Hook in 2012-2013 instead of waiting for his last year.

Log In - The New York Times

On Tuesday, I announced new steps I am taking within my legal authority to protect the American people and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. They include making sure that anybody engaged in the business of selling firearms conducts background checks, expanding access to mental health treatment and improving gun safety technology. These actions won’t prevent every act of violence, or save every life — but if even one life is spared, they will be well worth the effort.

Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform. And if the 90 percent of Americans who do support common-sense gun reforms join me, we will elect the leadership we deserve.

[Groundhog]

I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that proposal. It's about 10% of what is needed, but hey, progress...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Governor of Maine is in hot water.

He won re-election last year, is term limited, and is in a state of warfare with the legislature, including the GOP in the legislature. We're going to see more, not less, of this. He's also specifically pursuing policies to hurt the bluer (i.e. Greater Portland) parts of the state that voted against him.

For a state that produced Margaret Chase Smith, George Mitchell and Olympia Snowe, it's really pathetic.

[flere-imsaho]

US jobs report: economy adds 292,000 positions in strong finish to 2015 | Business | The Guardian

5% unemployment. Even if you think that's a compromised number, it's still low and much better than in late 2008.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that proposal. It's about 10% of what is needed, but hey, progress...

Common sense is hard for some.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And ensure another Democrat President.

Probably

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that proposal. It's about 10% of what is needed, but hey, progress...

The gun lobby and their Republican buddies will because it will set a bad precedent for them, First step to the government "taking away all their guns" is how they see it. Most of this stuff was just denied in a gun control bill in Congress, so the lobby's influence runs deep.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

The gun lobby and their Republican buddies will because it will set a bad precedent for them, First step to the government "taking away all their guns" is how they see it. Most of this stuff was just denied in a gun control bill in Congress, so the lobby's influence runs deep.

I don't even know why the gun lobby opposes this stuff when the end result is inevitably this:

Gun Stocks Surge As Obama Issues Executive Orders On Gun Safety

[flere-imsaho]

@ molson

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't even know why the gun lobby opposes this stuff when the end result is inevitably this:

Gun Stocks Surge As Obama Issues Executive Orders On Gun Safety

It has occurred to me to stock up on some weapons and ammo.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty funny responses to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's tweet on Alex Gordon.

Governor Sam Brownback tried to tweet about Alex Gordon and quickly found out everybody still hates him! | DailyHaze

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It has occurred to me to stock up on some weapons and ammo.

A serious question, why?

You'll still be able to buy guns next week, next year, next decade.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Pretty funny responses to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's tweet on Alex Gordon.

Governor Sam Brownback tried to tweet about Alex Gordon and quickly found out everybody still hates him! | DailyHaze

wow I almost feel sorry for him...almost

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A serious question, why?

You'll still be able to buy guns next week, next year, next decade.

In the short term, prices will go up and supply will be tight. Ammo was hard to find the last time.

[JPhillips]

Isn't that an argument to wait until demand slackens?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Isn't that an argument to wait until demand slackens?

Need vs cost is always an issue though, right?

There is definitely a perception among ammo buyers that the need is growing.

[JPhillips]

But if the question is whether to buy now because demand is high, it seems the best solution is to wait until demand slackens. If you really need something, demand doesn't matter, but if you can wait I don't understand why you'd buy now.

[cuervo72]

Who y'all gonna be shootin?

[Edward64]

Some what ifs ...

1) What if I anticipate demand will continue to increase (e.g. betting on a Hillary win) and/or just price increases will occur
2) What if I anticipate some gun companies that I want to buy weapons from will go broke/sued e.g. Colt, Bushmaster
3) What if smart weapons will become prevalent/compulsory
4) New gun models are announced early in the year. What if I want to buy a newer model
5) What if I just got a nice bonus at the end of the year and I better buy what I want now or else my wife will find other uses for it

And the more cynical me sometimes think

6) What if there is another Katrina-like event where law and order was missing for days. Do I have enough for a situation like that


With that all said, no I do not believe Obama is trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights. I've said before that I am okay with more gun control and do believe its too easy to buy weapons.

I already have weapons and probably don't need a new one but I will likely buy some more ammo

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Who y'all gonna be shootin?

Those smart enough to make sure they have adequate ammo are not typically dumb enough to answer that question with specifics

[Edward64]

Okay, nevermind on my #1 above.

New Poll Shows Donald Trump Is a Real Threat to Hillary Clinton - US News

So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct?

A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and "dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters" (this video shows the ad and the dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they'd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are "100 percent sure" of switching than the Republicans.

[cuervo72]

Heh.

I mean, I get it if you actively go to a range. And I don't view things from an enthusiast standpoint, but more of a utilitarian standpoint. Guns and ammo don't typically have shelf lives; if you're already prepared for Civil War II, Power Grid Pandemonium, or Zombie Apocalypse, I'd think you'd already be set.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Heh.

I mean, I get it if you actively go to a range. And I don't view things from an enthusiast standpoint, but more of a utilitarian standpoint. Guns and ammo don't typically have shelf lives; if you're already prepared for Civil War II, Power Grid Pandemonium, or Zombie Apocalypse, I'd think you'd already be set.

Or maybe just some criminal trying to kill you? I love how Obama says he's never owned a gun. But he has hired guns now! I get that he's more important to the country than I am, but I'm more important to me than he is. Same principals at play here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Heh.

I mean, I get it if you actively go to a range. And I don't view things from an enthusiast standpoint, but more of a utilitarian standpoint. Guns and ammo don't typically have shelf lives; if you're already prepared for Civil War II, Power Grid Pandemonium, or Zombie Apocalypse, I'd think you'd already be set.

Or maybe you want protection from some criminal trying to kill you? I love how Obama says he's never owned a gun. But he has hired guns now! I get that he's more important to the country than I am, but I'm more important to me than he is. Same principals at play here. Basically, at least I *understand* why he would want a gun around to protect him.

[cuervo72]

If you are being hounded by criminals trying to kill you, I'm sorry.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If you are being hounded by criminals trying to kill you, I'm sorry.

Look at the stats. Criminals in America generally don't enter the house...because we are armed to the teeth. In Chicago, where criminals do quite a bit of "hunting", 90% of the crimes take place on the street or the sidewalk where people are less likely to be armed. Think about it. You aren't armed in your home because you are taking advantage of all the people that do defend their homes, good for you, but don't turn your nose up at the benefits we provide to you. Criminals assume you are armed.

[JPhillips]

Most crime occurs between people that know each other. There have always been very few random home break-ins. I'd imagine distance, unfamiliarity with the area, fear of being seen as an outsider, etc. play as big a role as the fear that everyone is armed.

[Dutch]

I believe it's England where home invaders prefer the owners to be home so they can get to the "gold and silver" easier whereas in America, they prefer the owners to not be home because they end up getting the lead instead.

[cuervo72]

I'll grant that the prospect of meeting an armed homeowner can be a deterrent. But how do other countries avoid this rash of general lawlessness? How are the Japanese avoiding being assaulted in huge numbers? Germans? Norwegians?

[cuervo72]

Also, how many rounds do you require to prevent a home invasion?

[Dutch]

EDIT: IRT "...BUT NORWAY!"

True. I mean, if you take out our inner-city crime stats, we are in line with all those nations. I'm not normally in those Democratic bastions though, so I couldn't tell you why our cities are fucking everything up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Also, how many rounds do you require to prevent a home invasion?

Now THAT bait I'll take.

I'm more interested in having a high number of rounds for the eventual breakdown of society OR for shooting as many of the bastards who try to remove a weapon from my home than I am for home invasion purposes.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now THAT bait I'll take.

I'm more interested in having a high number of rounds for the eventual breakdown of society OR for shooting as many of the bastards who try to remove a weapon from my home than I am for home invasion purposes.

And I'll take this one

Which is more likely in Trump becomes President, both nationally and globally the way he is carrying on.

It has all the hallmarks of a self-fulfilling prophecy

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Look at the stats. Criminals in America generally don't enter the house...because we are armed to the teeth. In Chicago, where criminals do quite a bit of "hunting", 90% of the crimes take place on the street or the sidewalk where people are less likely to be armed. Think about it. You aren't armed in your home because you are taking advantage of all the people that do defend their homes, good for you, but don't turn your nose up at the benefits we provide to you. Criminals assume you are armed.

I live in Massachusetts, where very few people own a gun, yet somehow we survive. I live in kind of a downtown area where we occasionally have homeless people or heroin addicts trying to sleep on our back porch... am I supposed to grab a gun before I go kick them a couple times and tell them to move along? I generally oppose more governmental gun regulation, but it's really hard to defend at times, especially when owning a gun is basically a sign of cowardice in the culture I live in.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now THAT bait I'll take.

I'm more interested in having a high number of rounds for the eventual breakdown of society OR for shooting as many of the bastards who try to remove a weapon from my home than I am for home invasion purposes.

If that's because you can think you can fight off the (remnants of the) US Army, good luck!

But if it's for the eventual zombie apocalypse, I'll take you on my team any day of the week. As long as you get to the coast in a more reasonable period of time than Rick and crew!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But if it's for the eventual zombie apocalypse, I'll take you on my team any day of the week. As long as you get to the coast in a more reasonable period of time than Rick and crew!

Fort Gorges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure I would pick that for sustainable living when the ZA hits. There looks to be too many open windows/slots on the lower levels (not the Z's but against the bad guys) and doubt there is ready source of fresh water.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I live in Massachusetts, where very few people own a gun, yet somehow we survive. I live in kind of a downtown area where we occasionally have homeless people or heroin addicts trying to sleep on our back porch... am I supposed to grab a gun before I go kick them a couple times and tell them to move along?

What I would do is make sure I have a weapon ready to protect my family in case something happens and call 911 to kick them out. Do you let them stay in your back porch?

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I generally oppose more governmental gun regulation, but it's really hard to defend at times, especially when owning a gun is basically a sign of cowardice in the culture I live in.

Funny, its the other way around in the South like GA, AL, AR, MS, TX etc. Its normal to have weapons - not just for self defense/ZA/UN etc. but for hunting, plinking etc. Not really that your are a coward if you don't have one or not supportive of gun rights but likely a liberal, a transplant and/or just don't get it.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now THAT bait I'll take.

I'm more interested in having a high number of rounds for the eventual breakdown of society OR for shooting as many of the bastards who try to remove a weapon from my home than I am for home invasion purposes.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person...we have had the right to bear arms since the inception of our country. Why do you think people are going to forcibly remove guns from your home? Because they want more background checks? Sure, there is a small minority of people who want to ban all guns but just like the Supreme Court protected the discrimination of gay folks, they will protect your constitutional right as well.

[Dutch]

Nobody is arguing that the government wants to remove the 2nd amendment in one fell swoop. It's a long term goal and the left knows they have to do this slowly but incrementally and without hurting their base in the process (the ones that primarily use the guns for violence).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Who y'all gonna be shootin?

You continually touch on "y'all" but never touch on the large portion of Americans that kill with guns that dont say "y'all". Is this some effort to keep your opinions safely in the liberally-accepted PC zone?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person...we have had the right to bear arms since the inception of our country. Why do you think people are going to forcibly remove guns from your home? Because they want more background checks? Sure, there is a small minority of people who want to ban all guns but just like the Supreme Court protected the discrimination of gay folks, they will protect your constitutional right as well.

From what I've read there is a spectrum of conspiracy/TEOTWAWKI beliefs.

Conspiracy would include some Illuminati, UN, Masonic/Jewish/Business Cabal trying to rule the world and if that was the case, the Supreme Court is likely ineffective or in in cahoots with the bad guys.

End of the World scenarios goes from Katrina-like event to some event that disrupts communications, the food supply chain (e.g. solar flares) to total economic collapse (e.g. virus in electric grid, nuclear war) to (my favorite) the Zombie Apocalypse.

Most of these events would result in a breakdown of law and order making the Supreme Court moot (or at least in the short term).

I think I am more on the lower end of Katrina-like event and some short term disruption of communications and food supply.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Nobody is arguing that the government wants to remove the 2nd amendment in one fell swoop. It's a long term goal and the left knows they have to do this slowly but incrementally and without hurting their base in the process (the ones that primarily use the guns for violence).

That will never happen. The left doesn't believe anything like this unless you boil down the term to such a small group that their are too few to ever make it happen. And even if they tried, the rest of the population and the courts would stop it from happening. This is as nutty as saying the oil companies started the Iraq war.