EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2717
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
If he manages to get it through then the republican party has a decent shot,it is a very polarizing subject. Trump or cruz,i don't see any other have a change anymore. Cruz could get a lot of latino votes or no? Bother parties trying to claim their own minority. The democrats going for the afro americans and the republicans going for the latino americans. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On January 06 2016 06:30 Rassy wrote: Obama going after the nra and for gun control in election year is pretty bad for the democratic party I think. If he manages to get it through then the republican party has a decent shot,it is a very polarizing subject. Trump or cruz,i don't see any other have a change anymore. Cruz could get a lot of latino votes or no? Bother parties trying to claim their own minority. The democrats going for the afro americans and the republicans going for the latino americans. He probably senses the weakness from the GOP since they are fracturing. Though if anything can unite them it would be guns....man do they like their guns :\ | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On January 06 2016 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think the establishment's goal is to drive Trump out of the race or marginalize him by crushing his "I'm a winner" narrative immediately after Super Tuesday. Trump won't waste his money if he's clearly getting battered. Then they can bring all cannons to bear on Cruz and consolidate behind whichever establishment candidate remains. It's not like any substantial amount of states will have voted at that point and a Rubio/Bush/Christie win is not inconceivable at that point, a la McCain's win in 2008. I am not a political analyst, but if I was in the establishment I'd probably freak out if that was the plan. If we're hoping for a McCain-style surge we're toast because it's already happening and it's Cruz. The mechanism which powered McCain's surge was Giuliani's fall and poor ground grame. Cruz is in the same position in relation to Trump, and like McCain will likely win Iowa and South Carolina if Trump's numbers start dropping. We could see Cruz run the table on Super Tuesday in that case, and that should scare the establishment shitless. Otherwise as long as Trump and Cruz are duking it out there's a chance an establishment candidate can emerge, but there's also a chance we end up with a brokered convention and that's almost as bad as anything else that can happen. The only saving grace there is that Cruz is probably too power hungry to be Trump's VP. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 06 2016 06:38 Slaughter wrote: He probably senses the weakness from the GOP since they are fracturing. Though if anything can unite them it would be guns....man do they like their guns :\ I also think the public is turning on the NRA and loop holes in gun control. The president was pushing the enforcement of current laws and closing of loop holes, which has broad support even among NRA members. If the Democrats focus on enforcing current laws and improving background checks on the national level, I doubt it will hurt them. | ||
Falling
Canada11401 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
I like this Obama as much as (possibly even more than) underdog 2008 Obama. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 06 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: I also think the public is turning on the NRA and loop holes in gun control. The president was pushing the enforcement of current laws and closing of loop holes, which has broad support even among NRA members. If the Democrats focus on enforcing current laws and improving background checks on the national level, I doubt it will hurt them. They can't really focus on those things, because, first of all, that is not their platform, that is essentially the Republican platform. Plus those are essentially meaningless terms in this sphere. Similarly, things like the "gun show loophole" don't actually exist (its the "friends and family loophole"), and the fringe cases where something that you would describe as a business model utilizing this "loophole"occurs is simply an enforcement failure. Expanding background checks is, essentially, just wrangling bureaucrats to update a database, which basically means "fire some people and hire new people do do their jobs, but better!" so its basically something Trump would say on the campaign trail, except about guns. We already require instant background checks when buying a gun, there are already heavy sanctions on straw purchasers that have such a wide scope that they often catch people buying guns as Christmas presents. Basically, all the "reasonable regulations" exist and the only regulations that aren't on the federal level are: 1. Eliminating concealed carry/open carry; 2. Regulating cosmetic features of guns (aka assault rifle bans); Regulating actual features of guns (magazine size, semi-auto, types of bullets, etc); 4. Total ban. None of those have popular support. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On January 06 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote: Obama grew balls in the last couple years, I wouldn't underestimate him I like this Obama as much as (possibly even more than) underdog 2008 Obama. I mean, it's not hard to have balls when you don't have to worry about being reelected. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade. I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced. That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45243 Posts
On January 06 2016 05:34 JW_DTLA wrote: Last I heard Christie is something like 33% favorable / 66% unfavorable in NEW JERSEY. The guy is a sitting governor and he doesn't bother staying in state because his state hates him. Guy needs to just resign and retire. As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm this lol. The one thing Christie has done right in NJ, to his credit, is Hurricane Sandy. He warned the shit out of everyone beforehand, worked tirelessly to help afterwards, and even gave Obama props because Obama was quick to act too. But Christie has pissed off every public servant in the state with him screwing over our wages and tenures and pensions, hasn't made NJ any better of a state, has completely forgotten about governing us as he campaigns, and frequently just fires off his big mouth for no good reason. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On January 06 2016 07:19 Wegandi wrote: That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has. And this, my European friends, is why simple measures like enforcing existing gun control laws run into so much resistance. Thanks for providing us with such a convenient example Weggy  | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On January 06 2016 07:19 Wegandi wrote: That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has. In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 06 2016 07:19 Wegandi wrote: That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has. Talk to me about chem trails and military exercises to take over Texas. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On January 06 2016 07:24 farvacola wrote: And this, my European friends, is why simple measures like enforcing existing gun control laws run into so much resistance. Thanks for providing us with such a convenient example Weggy By all means, extol those virtuous Europeans because their Governments have done such a good job throughout history at preserving their citizens liberties while they've been disarmed....Gun control in this country started as a means to disarm Native Americans and Blacks from defending themselves, so, what makes you think you're going to be any safer when the only people who have weaponry are the same people who yield all the power. Oh, but Shangri La Government are our omnipotent benevolent overlords who'll never ever do anything wrong, like revoking our liberties, spying on us, killing millions aboard, interning American citizens, droning American citizens, etc. Yeah, history has a real good track record here. How about you leave the guns alone of states that like those rights, and you can move to places like CA, NY, IL, etc. if your heart so desires. Isn't that supposed to be one of the virtues of our Republic? Nah, not for lefty Nationalists. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 06 2016 06:42 Seuss wrote: I am not a political analyst, but if I was in the establishment I'd probably freak out if that was the plan. If we're hoping for a McCain-style surge we're toast because it's already happening and it's Cruz. The mechanism which powered McCain's surge was Giuliani's fall and poor ground grame. Cruz is in the same position in relation to Trump, and like McCain will likely win Iowa and South Carolina if Trump's numbers start dropping. We could see Cruz run the table on Super Tuesday in that case, and that should scare the establishment shitless. Otherwise as long as Trump and Cruz are duking it out there's a chance an establishment candidate can emerge, but there's also a chance we end up with a brokered convention and that's almost as bad as anything else that can happen. The only saving grace there is that Cruz is probably too power hungry to be Trump's VP. McCain didn't win Iowa, Huckabee did (with Romney chasing Huckabee). Then again 2008 was a super gross year because of the lost delegates because of states moving their primaries up as well as the messed up order, so it was really weird. I think the fact that Trump voters are mainly going to Cruz says more about Cruz's massive Iowa people-power investment than it does anything else to be honest. Cruz would also infinitely rather be a Senator with a massive amount of political capital owed by the GOP than a VP for someone he thinks is an idiot (though of course he won't say that at debates). Anyway, we're missing any state poll data for Iowa and New Hampshire since 12/20, so the only people with any idea of the current trends are the campaigns with private pollster access. I would be very surprised if Trump can win Iowa at this point though given how poorly he has polled there compared to his national numbers. (As for Christie in New Jersey, Romney's Mass numbers in 2012 weren't exactly stellar-the state has so few delegates it doesn't really matter in this era of "records mean nothing, words mean everything") | ||
|
Introvert
United States4886 Posts
| ||
| ||
