/dev/null Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 The 2nd ammendment was regulated under Reagan with the Brady Bill. .
GG Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Without question we are hosed in the immediate term. Of course this generation only cares about the immediate term so many view things only in terms of 2017-2021. IMO if you look at the generations from the past whose toil gave us opportunities and generations of the future who deserve freedoms and opportunities, Hillary solidifying state run everything dooms far more than Trump's chaos. That's my opinion. Don't think I enjoy listening to morons like Sean Hannity ramble on about the positives of Trump and how he will get Bernie voters over to his side. Don't think I agree with any of it. I just see 4 years of folly and craziness and maybe some good as superior to more bricks in the foundation of the almighty government. Don't get sucked into the Trump rabbit hole. This sounds eerily familiar to the proclamations of Obama's supporters in 2008 where they were projecting their hopes on what the candidate would do, despite a track record of the opposite. I do not see how any of the checks on Trump's power that you listed would reign him in if he decides to go off the rails. History proves otherwise. He has a serious authoritarian streak, and with the skids greased for expanding power of the executive, he will certainly take full advantage. He doesn't listen to advice. He doesn't care about bad press, he only cares when the press ignores him, which won't happen if he's President. If you're waiting for Congress to check him, it will result in another four years of gridlock and four more years of subpar economic growth. Trump loves to talk about making deals. He ignores the deals where he got taken to the woodshed, which was frequent. The man accomplished the near impossible, and that is to alienate the biggest whores on the planet. It takes a lot to lose access to Wall Street money. His move to a licensing business model was no accident. He can't get big real estate deals financed because no big bank wants to do business with him. Zero. To me he's the most dangerous candidate left now that Bernie is out. You talk about restoring capitalistic virtues after four years, but it may be much harder after Trump than after Hillary. Trump's views on the global economy are infantile at best and disastrous at worst. Tom jokes about this turning into Weimar, but it's closer to the truth than a joke. The more he talks, the more insular the world gets and everyone starts retreating into a protectionist cocoon. The US economy cannot survive when the global markets are stifled. He can complain about China & Mexico getting a better deal than the US, but he'd be wrong. China is on the verge of a major economic collapse, and the outcome won't be pretty for anyone. It may sound good to wish for the system to blow up to start fresh. A Trump presidency may turn out good. But his history suggests otherwise. Until proven otherwise, I'm a firm believer in the theory that past performance is a pretty good indicator of future results. In reality, a Trump presidency carries an outsized risk for the potential reward and no one in their right mind should be wagering on that risk.
4merper4mer Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Don't get sucked into the Trump rabbit hole. This sounds eerily familiar to the proclamations of Obama's supporters in 2008 where they were projecting their hopes on what the candidate would do, despite a track record of the opposite. I do not see how any of the checks on Trump's power that you listed would reign him in if he decides to go off the rails. History proves otherwise. He has a serious authoritarian streak, and with the skids greased for expanding power of the executive, he will certainly take full advantage. He doesn't listen to advice. He doesn't care about bad press, he only cares when the press ignores him, which won't happen if he's President. If you're waiting for Congress to check him, it will result in another four years of gridlock and four more years of subpar economic growth. Trump loves to talk about making deals. He ignores the deals where he got taken to the woodshed, which was frequent. The man accomplished the near impossible, and that is to alienate the biggest whores on the planet. It takes a lot to lose access to Wall Street money. His move to a licensing business model was no accident. He can't get big real estate deals financed because no big bank wants to do business with him. Zero. To me he's the most dangerous candidate left now that Bernie is out. You talk about restoring capitalistic virtues after four years, but it may be much harder after Trump than after Hillary. Trump's views on the global economy are infantile at best and disastrous at worst. Tom jokes about this turning into Weimar, but it's closer to the truth than a joke. The more he talks, the more insular the world gets and everyone starts retreating into a protectionist cocoon. The US economy cannot survive when the global markets are stifled. He can complain about China & Mexico getting a better deal than the US, but he'd be wrong. China is on the verge of a major economic collapse, and the outcome won't be pretty for anyone. It may sound good to wish for the system to blow up to start fresh. A Trump presidency may turn out good. But his history suggests otherwise. Until proven otherwise, I'm a firm believer in the theory that past performance is a pretty good indicator of future results. In reality, a Trump presidency carries an outsized risk for the potential reward and no one in their right mind should be wagering on that risk. I understand what you're saying. I don't wish for Trump or anyone like him. If I am to be totally honest, I do have a bit of a tin foil hat wrt Trump. He blew up the entire Republican cycle in a year where the Dems have a reviled candidate. There were establishment candidates who were ripe to be beaten by someone like Cruz or even Paul. Rubio was probably the worst case scenario. The whole thing would have been so different without Trump and the winner would have a real shot at Hillary. His connection with the Clintons makes me suspicious. Do I think the odds of this conspiracy are high? No. I think he is too arrogant to look that bad by losing, but who knows. I don't think it is too much to ask to have congress do their jobs if Trump is elected. The same goes for State governments and Courts. The President of the United States should not be all powerful. Election of Trump will undoubtedly cause conflict. It is not the type of conflict I'd prefer, but I do think our country NEEDS conflict right now. The design of our system of government is being ignored. Maybe the conflict will call some attention back in the right direction. Hillary's election will be seen by the political class as tacit approval of the status quo or even worse. Why wouldn't they see it that way? The entire country knows that she should be in jail for things that are already publicly known. This FBI director is made out as some sort of tough guy in the press. This is a set up and an absolute joke. He will do nothing and planned on nothing right from the beginning. This doesn't even account for what is probably under the covers of the Clinton Foundation which will also be ignored. Without even going into what she might do....especially with the completion of the communizing of the SC...., there is no excuse for any nation to elect someone like her ever. If we do, we have no reason to expect the citizenry to have any power over the government at all anymore. I don't like any of the Dems because they are communists and/or crazy people, but she is the worst among them. Would I buy your argument if the Dem nominee were Biden? Sure. I'd probably even buy it with some of the crazies if they had run like Pelosi or Reed. I am not aware of any of them doing the things Clinton did. What she has done is right there for all of us to see. There is no excuse for her doing it and there is no excuse for us accepting it. If elected, she has every reason to see it as a license to go further and do so in a much more powerful office.
TH3 Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 My point should have been obvious, but it apparently went straight over your head. I'll simplify it for you: anyone who views constitutional amendments as something that can be regulated has no business holding elected office at the federal level, let alone to head the executive branch. Sorry to break this news to you - They are already ALL regulated - not my opinion - just they way it is. The 2nd ammendment. Invasion of privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures. Restrictions on free speech and expression. Loss of religious freedoms Second amendment rights have not changed in the last 8 years. Invasion of privacy? I believe that started with Bush 43 Loss of religious freedoms - What religious freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years and expect to lose under HC? MY specific tales? I'm not allowed to believe my right to religious freedom is curtailed because the Little Sisters of the Poor's rights are? Or that my right to assembly isn't infringed by the IRS's refusal to consider certain groups for tax exemption? Or that my fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth amendment rights aren't violated by the mere existence of civil asset forefeiture, even though it hasn't been applied to me? Or that the tenth amendment wasn't gutted by Obergefell v Hodges? You're going to argue that rights aren't abridged, and you can't be against rights being abridged, unless you've personally and directly been impacted? Because if it is, you are going to get MASSIVE amounts of **** for your endless liberal pontificating for the rights of other people, you dumbass. The LS don't want to sign a piece of paper - and that is relevant to you personally how? The IRS stopped you from assembling - when was that? I missed that party? How - when... sharpshooter? Civil assets - BO did that? HC is running on a platform of that? What - gay people marrying - affects you personally how? Give it up marksman....the world aint that bad....
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Sorry to break this news to you - They are already ALL regulated - not my opinion - just they way it is. Second amendment rights have not changed in the last 8 years. Invasion of privacy? I believe that started with Bush 43 Loss of religious freedoms - What religious freedoms have you lost in the last 8 years and expect to lose under HC? The LS don't want to sign a piece of paper - and that is relevant to you personally how? The IRS stopped you from assembling - when was that? I missed that party? How - when... sharpshooter? Civil assets - BO did that? HC is running on a platform of that? What - gay people marrying - affects you personally how? Give it up marksman....the world aint that bad.... You only read half my post, didn't you?
B-Man Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 You only read half my post, didn't you? if that........... Meanwhile, back at the thread...................all was not well. CIVIL WAR: 4-in-10 GOP insiders want to derail Trump at the convention. ROGER SIMON: To Win, Trump Must Defeat His Most Formidable Adversary—Barack Obama: This is a subject on which Obama (and therefore Hillary with him) is uniquely vulnerable. The economy, in a word, stinks. The Democrats, as everyone knows, will deny this, blame Bush—ludicrous as that sounds after so many years—and urge everyone to “stay the course.” But what course? Most people know the situation. The middle class, especially, live it…As always, for 2016—it’s the economy, stupid. Bring it on! The Obama Admin Blocked An Iranian-American Judge From Hearing Iranian Immigration Cases http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/the-obama-admin-blocked-an-iranian-american-judge-from-hearing-iranian-immigration-cases/ …
Doc Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Meanwhile, back at the thread...................all was not well. CIVIL WAR: 4-in-10 GOP insiders want to derail Trump at the convention. Shocking!
Deranged Rhino Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Invasion of privacy? I believe that started with Bush 43 It did. And it was strengthened and doubled down upon by 44. Something you're conveniently leaving out of your "everything is fine with a democrat in office" narrative.
GG Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Would I buy your argument if the Dem nominee were Biden? Sure. I'd probably even buy it with some of the crazies if they had run like Pelosi or Reed. I am not aware of any of them doing the things Clinton did. What she has done is right there for all of us to see. There is no excuse for her doing it and there is no excuse for us accepting it. If elected, she has every reason to see it as a license to go further and do so in a much more powerful office. That's why this election infuriates me. In the other post you talk about the current generation needing instant gratification. I think that the primary GOP electorate played into that trap. The GOP has been setting up the long game for 7 years, and was on the verge ... I don't buy into the claptrap of talk radio that GOP bent over to Obama's whims on the budget, because they needed to be pragmatic. The idiots waste too much time talking about budget items that are a pimple on an elephants ass and that gets the headlines and keeps Rushes & Hannitys in business. But if you are in a results-oriented business and understand math, you know that entitlement spending and DoD are the only things that matter if you want to really address the budget. And you don't address these two gorillas by reading Dr Seuss for 24 hours on the Senate floor.
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 That's why this election infuriates me. In the other post you talk about the current generation needing instant gratification. I think that the primary GOP electorate played into that trap. The GOP has been setting up the long game for 7 years, and was on the verge ... I don't buy into the claptrap of talk radio that GOP bent over to Obama's whims on the budget, because they needed to be pragmatic. The idiots waste too much time talking about budget items that are a pimple on an elephants ass and that gets the headlines and keeps Rushes & Hannitys in business. But if you are in a results-oriented business and understand math, you know that entitlement spending and DoD are the only things that matter if you want to really address the budget. And you don't address these two gorillas by reading Dr Seuss for 24 hours on the Senate floor. What is this "budget" that you speak of?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 That's why this election infuriates me. In the other post you talk about the current generation needing instant gratification. I think that the primary GOP electorate played into that trap. The GOP has been setting up the long game for 7 years, and was on the verge ... I don't buy into the claptrap of talk radio that GOP bent over to Obama's whims on the budget, because they needed to be pragmatic. The idiots waste too much time talking about budget items that are a pimple on an elephants ass and that gets the headlines and keeps Rushes & Hannitys in business. But if you are in a results-oriented business and understand math, you know that entitlement spending and DoD are the only things that matter if you want to really address the budget. And you don't address these two gorillas by reading Dr Seuss for 24 hours on the Senate floor. Immigration of the illegal variety is a REAL problem, and Trump's tapped into it. I know you don't think 11 million illegal mexicans in our midst is a bad thing, but I think it is.
GG Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Immigration of the illegal variety is a REAL problem, and Trump's tapped into it. I know you don't think 11 million illegal mexicans in our midst is a bad thing, but I think it is. No it's not. The last two decades is the first time in American history where massive economic expansions weren't matched by increases in allowable immigration. Central Americans wouldn't be coming here in huge numbers if there wasn't demand for the unskilled low wage labor and if there was supply of unskilled low wage American labor. Of course Trump had no problem sourcing cheap East Europeans for temporary work that Americans didn't "want" to do.
meazza Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 Of course Trump had no problem sourcing cheap East Europeans for temporary work that Americans didn't "want" to do. You mean like having sex with him?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 No it's not. The last two decades is the first time in American history where massive economic expansions weren't matched by increases in allowable immigration. Central Americans wouldn't be coming here in huge numbers if there wasn't demand for the unskilled low wage labor and if there was supply of unskilled low wage American labor. Of course Trump had no problem sourcing cheap East Europeans for temporary work that Americans didn't "want" to do. They're here illegally. So the second they set foot in the country, they've already broken the law. That's an issue whether you admit it or not.
Chef Jim Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 No it's not. The last two decades is the first time in American history where massive economic expansions weren't matched by increases in allowable immigration. Central Americans wouldn't be coming here in huge numbers if there wasn't demand for the unskilled low wage labor and if there was supply of unskilled low wage American labor. Of course Trump had no problem sourcing cheap East Europeans for temporary work that Americans didn't "want" to do. How many of those 11 million are actually working? How many legal citizen would be off the taxpayer's nickel if there weren't those unskilled low wage laborers lining up to do that work? That's my issue and I don't really think there is anything that can be done about it at this point. The slope has long since been slid down.
Joe Miner Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 You mean like having sex with him? Combing his hair.
GG Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 They're here illegally. So the second they set foot in the country, they've already broken the law. That's an issue whether you admit it or not. No **** Sherlock. Which part of legislative abdication in favor of grandstanding is hard for you to understand? How many of those 11 million are actually working? How many legal citizen would be off the taxpayer's nickel if there weren't those unskilled low wage laborers lining up to do that work? That's my issue and I don't really think there is anything that can be done about it at this point. The slope has long since been slid down. My guess is that very few of the jobs that are taken by illegals would be taken by Americans. Welcome to the first world dilemma.
4merper4mer Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) That's why this election infuriates me. In the other post you talk about the current generation needing instant gratification. I think that the primary GOP electorate played into that trap. The GOP has been setting up the long game for 7 years, and was on the verge ... I don't buy into the claptrap of talk radio that GOP bent over to Obama's whims on the budget, because they needed to be pragmatic. The idiots waste too much time talking about budget items that are a pimple on an elephants ass and that gets the headlines and keeps Rushes & Hannitys in business. But if you are in a results-oriented business and understand math, you know that entitlement spending and DoD are the only things that matter if you want to really address the budget. And you don't address these two gorillas by reading Dr Seuss for 24 hours on the Senate floor. Although I agree that Trump was the wrong choice for the Republican voters, I see no evidence that they were playing any sort of long game. If they were, they absolutely did not articulate it at all. This is nobody's fault but theirs and it is the reason the anti-establishment votes won out. Trump was the wrong person to vote for in the primaries, but the primaries are over. Hillary is a criminal who has shown no interest whatsoever in anything other than advancing herself. She has done repugnant things that demonstrate how our society's sense of right and wrong, or at least large parts of it, are gone. There is a structure behind her that will look the other way at anything she does. These are not the traits of a healthy society and even a country as great as ours risks slipping into something unrecognizable if we allow people like her to have power. I'm not naive. I know a lot of these people, if not all, have traits similar to Hillary. Even on the dem side, many of them get called on it. Anthony pulled out his weiner and he is gone. There are other examples. What she did with her email.....and that is just one example.....is far worse than pulling out her privates. Many among us would be in jail for it. It is easy to see and everyone is told to look the other way......including a lap dog FBI.....that is not good. It cannot be allowed to continue and the only people who can stop it are voters. Edited June 10, 2016 by 4merper4mer
....lybob Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 No **** Sherlock. Which part of legislative abdication in favor of grandstanding is hard for you to understand? My guess is that very few of the jobs that are taken by illegals would be taken by Americans. Welcome to the first world dilemma. Not only do very few Americans want to do those jobs but very few Americans could do those jobs physically even if they wanted to.
Recommended Posts