Gimpy wrote:So can the “if more people carry guns, these shooters won’t be a big deal because anyone will be able to stop them” line be done now? The Dayton shooter was neutralized in 20-30 seconds and he had already killed 9 and wounded 27.

RIP 'good guy with a gun' theory.

Yes, obviously it would have been much worse had armed officers not been there, but it shows that 1. it's not a deterrent. this guy must have known there were armed officers there. 2. it's not effective if you can shoot more than a person a second while they're reacting.

And he had a legal 100 round magazine. An AR-15 shatters your bones and eviscerates your soft tissue. Insane how anyone can argue that these things should be available to (just about) any fuckhead who wants one. They only belong in war zones. Period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/heal ... -ar15.html

I know I give ole beto some ribbing some times but he did nail it here.

https://twitter.com/TrueFactsStated/sta ... 6263718913

trump's pc

"May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo"

ReadingPhilly wrote:trump's pc

"May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo"

I'm sure he'll blame it on the teleprompter.

Biden said they happened in "Houston and Michigan" at an event the other night. Not sure either of them know what's going on.

ReadingPhilly wrote:trump's pc

"May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo"

Strikes me as something as more on the head of his speechwriter than Trump himself, but indicative of a total disinterest in actual people's lives despite the emotive rhetoric so regularly on display.

In Tweets, the President called for "strong background checks" and "immigration reform."

At some point you have to care more about changing things for the better than winning. I would be tempted if I were the House to pass the grand "wall of medicare for all, magazine limits, and background checks" bill, providing the following four things:

1. Money for Medicare for All& Medicare for All;
2. Money for the Wall and the Wall;
3. A single, federal background check system for firearms;
4. A limit on commercially available ammunition magazines

And then dare the Republicans to veto it. Everybody gets something they want, the Wall keeps not a soul actually out of the country but sure does shut the motherfuckers up about it already and maybe even provides some nice blue collar jobs for awhile while they build the fucking thing, and everybody is insured and maybe there are fewer firearms on the streets with a little less fire power. Then dare the Republicans to veto it.

The Sarge wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:trump's pc

"May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo"

I'm sure he'll blame it on the teleprompter.

He's racist Ron Burgundy

“At some point you have to care more about changing things for the better than winning.”

Unfortunately that will never, ever happen for Trump and Moscow Mitch.

JFLNYC wrote:“At some point you have to care more about changing things for the better than winning.”

Unfortunately that will never, ever happen for Trump and Moscow Mitch.

No doubt, but what's weird is I think Trump is uniquely positioned to do great things, if he wanted to. He is exactly what you need: he is, arguably, personally more popular than his own party among the group of voters likely to vote Republican. He can wag the Republican dog. If the Dems propose a "Medicare-for-all / Wall / Gun control grand bargain" and President Trump says, "We're interested,"(and honestly the gun control is a throw-in here), Republicans will have to heel or risk getting primaryed.

Dems interested in governing could leverage the situation on the right to pass some really great stuff right now, or expose the Republicans for the total frauds they are, one or the other. Medicare-for-all/universal health insurance, a couple of broad gun control measures, and immigration reform all enjoy varying levels of popularity; you give Trump the Wall, it gives him a win, gives his people a win, gives them reason to put pressure on the R legislators to vote for the thing. Gets you stuff in return. You know, politics.

A senate with fewer than 60 Democrats will NEVER have a reason to pass Medicare for all or any other universal single-payer system, either as the main source for healthcare or as the backstop for those who cannot get private insurance, unless you give it one. The Wall is ugly and sends an uglier message - BUT is also silly and stupid as it won't keep anybody out who is clever and wants to come here. Knowing this, rather than waiting around for the moment when the Dems can control all three branches again with a 60-40 advantage in the senate, Democrats should leverage the Republican base's (and base) desire for something shiny but ineffectual to get some things that are critically important.

I realize this is as good as handing Trump the 2020 election (unless the economy tanks), but if you have principles and you are running for principles, and not yourself, this is the best opportunity you're likely to have for a long, long time. This is the risk I would be very tempted to take, the moment is now.

Of course, the highest likelihood is he rejects such a proposal (although I really do think he might go for it, he loves the idea of dealing, and if you call your universal health insurance scheme, whatever it is, "TrumpCare" it increases the likelihood 100% that he does go for it, simply because of the appeal to his ego), in which case you can go to the electorate with a powerful message:

He had a chance to deliver what he promised, if he delivered two other things that consistently poll very positively, and he rejected them - because he doesn't care about you, or the Wall even - he only cares about himself winning, and will damn it all if he can't get his way.

JUburton wrote:

Gimpy wrote:So can the “if more people carry guns, these shooters won’t be a big deal because anyone will be able to stop them” line be done now? The Dayton shooter was neutralized in 20-30 seconds and he had already killed 9 and wounded 27.

RIP 'good guy with a gun' theory.

Yes, obviously it would have been much worse had armed officers not been there, but it shows that 1. it's not a deterrent. this guy must have known there were armed officers there. 2. it's not effective if you can shoot more than a person a second while they're reacting.

And he had a legal 100 round magazine. An AR-15 shatters your bones and eviscerates your soft tissue. Insane how anyone can argue that these things should be available to (just about) any #$!&@ who wants one. They only belong in war zones. Period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/heal ... -ar15.html

Which was always a dumb argument because if someones at the point where they are ok will going into a public place to fire off rounds at will I am sure they don't give AF if everyone is armed too.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:“At some point you have to care more about changing things for the better than winning.”

Unfortunately that will never, ever happen for Trump and Moscow Mitch.

No doubt, but what's weird is I think Trump is uniquely positioned to do great things, if he wanted to. He is exactly what you need: he is, arguably, personally more popular than his own party among the group of voters likely to vote Republican. He can wag the Republican dog. If he says, "We're interested in a Medicare-for-all / Wall / Gun control grand bargain" (and honestly the gun control is a throw-in here), Republicans will have to heel or risk getting primaryed.

Dems interested in governing could leverage the situation on the right to pass some really great stuff right now, or expose the Republicans for the total frauds they are, one or the other. Medicare, a couple of broad gun control measures, and immigration reform all enjoy varying levels of popularity; you give Trump the Wall, it gives him a win, gives his people a win, gives them reason to put pressure on the R legislators to vote for the thing. Gets you stuff in return. You know, politics.

A senate with fewer than 60 Democrats will NEVER have a reason to pass Medicare for all or any other universal single-payer system, either as the main source for healthcare or as the backstop for those who cannot get private insurance, unless you give it one. The Wall is ugly and sends an uglier message - BUT is also silly and stupid as it won't keep anybody out who is clever and wants to come here. Knowing this, rather than waiting around for the moment when the Dems can control all three branches again with a 60-40 advantage in the senate, Democrats should leverage the Republican base's (and base) desire for something shiny but ineffectual to get some things that are critically important.

I realize this is as good as handing Trump the 2020 election (unless the economy tanks), but if you have principles and you are running for principles, and not yourself, this is the best opportunity you're likely to have for a long, long time. This is the risk I would be very tempted to take, the moment is now.

I’ve felt since Trump’s first year that we could get universal healthcare if someone would tell Trump that it would embarrass Obama since he couldn’t get it done and would get great ratings and polling numbers.

Gimpy wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:“At some point you have to care more about changing things for the better than winning.”

Unfortunately that will never, ever happen for Trump and Moscow Mitch.

No doubt, but what's weird is I think Trump is uniquely positioned to do great things, if he wanted to. He is exactly what you need: he is, arguably, personally more popular than his own party among the group of voters likely to vote Republican. He can wag the Republican dog. If he says, "We're interested in a Medicare-for-all / Wall / Gun control grand bargain" (and honestly the gun control is a throw-in here), Republicans will have to heel or risk getting primaryed.

Dems interested in governing could leverage the situation on the right to pass some really great stuff right now, or expose the Republicans for the total frauds they are, one or the other. Medicare, a couple of broad gun control measures, and immigration reform all enjoy varying levels of popularity; you give Trump the Wall, it gives him a win, gives his people a win, gives them reason to put pressure on the R legislators to vote for the thing. Gets you stuff in return. You know, politics.

A senate with fewer than 60 Democrats will NEVER have a reason to pass Medicare for all or any other universal single-payer system, either as the main source for healthcare or as the backstop for those who cannot get private insurance, unless you give it one. The Wall is ugly and sends an uglier message - BUT is also silly and stupid as it won't keep anybody out who is clever and wants to come here. Knowing this, rather than waiting around for the moment when the Dems can control all three branches again with a 60-40 advantage in the senate, Democrats should leverage the Republican base's (and base) desire for something shiny but ineffectual to get some things that are critically important.

I realize this is as good as handing Trump the 2020 election (unless the economy tanks), but if you have principles and you are running for principles, and not yourself, this is the best opportunity you're likely to have for a long, long time. This is the risk I would be very tempted to take, the moment is now.

I’ve felt since Trump’s first year that we could get universal healthcare if someone would tell Trump that it would embarrass Obama since he couldn’t get it done and would get great ratings and polling numbers.

It's the ego-maniacal Trump version of "Only Nixon could go to China" and "Only Clinton could pass welfare reform." You have a guy who wants to be loved, and doesn't much give a shit about his supposed party.

Use it.

You guys are giving congressional republicans a lot of credit or not enough, depending on your stance. They will gladly stand up to trump when it benefits them and there's not a snowballs chance in hell that they will work with democrats to get things done that their lobbyists do not want done. They 'let' Trump do all the racist shit because they agree with him! Or at the very least they think it's sound to align with it to keep them in office so they can keep doing what they really want to do (get richer, enrich the oligarchy etc.). They will very much fight him against any actual progressive thing.

Not to mention the fact that Trump has brain rot and has had his position on M4A staked for him by fox news over the past few years.

JUburton wrote:You guys are giving congressional republicans a lot of credit or not enough, depending on your stance. They will gladly stand up to trump when it benefits them and there's not a snowballs chance in hell that they will work with democrats to get things done that their lobbyists do not want done. They 'let' Trump do all the racist shit because they agree with him! Or at the very least they think it's sound to align with it to keep them in office so they can keep doing what they really want to do (get richer, enrich the oligarchy etc.). They will very much fight him against any actual progressive thing.

Not to mention the fact that Trump has brain rot and has had his position on M4A staked for him by fox news over the past few years.

If so you use that all against all of them. We offered a compromise to get all kinds of popular things done. When you go after Trump, the message is, that despite all his grand posturing, Trump is in fact so impotent a leader he could not get his own party to go with him on popular measures, and, on the ground in each state and district against anyone who voted "No," you run ads about how they defied their own President, President Trump, hero to gun lovers and 'Murica Firsters everywhere, and prevented him from building their beloved Wall and to deny people very popular programs.

I see it as a Win either way - either you get the things you supposedly are campaigning for (so what if Trump is president if we fix huge problems in ways that are progressive?), or you put them all in a very bad box going into 2020.

Oh good the DOW just went down 700 points after China retaliated in the trade war.

I have a lot to say, but not the stomach to dwell on the disinterest in the well being for the country and its citizen that is on display. It is not a surprise at all. Really all you need to consider is linking gun reform legislation to immigration where someone used a weapon with the intention to kill immigrants. That grand idea was communicated before there was any verbal statement about this next round of tragedies.

For trump to do things, he would actually have to do them. Hes a lazy sack of shit. And he is uniquely incompetent.

TenuredVulture wrote:For trump to do things, he would actually have to do them. Hes a lazy sack of shit. And he is uniquely incompetent.

True.

thephan wrote:I have a lot to say, but not the stomach to dwell on the disinterest in the well being for the country and its citizen that is on display. It is not a surprise at all. Really all you need to consider is linking gun reform legislation to immigration where someone used a weapon with the intention to kill immigrants. That grand idea was communicated before there was any verbal statement about this next round of tragedies.

Very true. I thought of that before I got wrapped up in my own thought process.

Linking the one to the other really is a grave insult.