Republicans and Democrats are idiots

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

Hard to believe how petty those two groups are over the gun control tweak. 

Republican Cornyn's bill would have flagged people of terror lists.  So did Feinstein's.  Cornyn's had a waiting period for "due process?"  Three days.  Who the f*ck thinks due process is a three day thing?  And, Cornyn has a law degree?  Feinstein's bill would block anyone on a terror list from buying a firearm, period.

So, f*cking stupid. 
Cornyn's bill:  53-47 vote...not the 60 needed. 
Feinstein's:  47-53...not the 60 needed.

GOP's Grassley and Jackass Party's Murphy also had bills, but they also failed along similar vote line.

Utterly stupid.  For the sake of seven votes, the Senator's of both parties can't do the right thing.  It is more important for the them to "be right" and "win" in the eyes of the most extreme wings of their constituencies than to actually do some good. 

God forbid that each side's talking heads can't get on CNBC, CNN, FOXNews, and MSNBC and claim "victory."  That's what it's really about these days; and, that's all it's about. 

And, people wonder why I haven't bothered to vote in a decade.  The 21st Century politicians in America are worthless f*cking PR machines for whomever bids the most for their interest.  The whole lot of them, both sides of the aisle, have divided up the country for the sake of unions, insurers, Planned Parenthood, and the NRA. 

Not one of them is worth a squirt of goat piss - politician, union, insurer, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA.  Not one.  

It doesn't matter.  When the GOP totally implodes during and after the 2016 elections, Hillary and all future Democratic presidents will simply rewrite the laws via executive order, as Bush and Obama have spent the last decade+ doing.

And, you know what?  I don't f*cking blame them, Bush or Obama.  We have three branches of government:  executive, legislative, and judicial.  If the legislative branch has decided to opt out for the sake of their own (union, insurer, Planned Parenthood, and NRA) PR battles, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the laws of this country are written by the president and tweaked by the Supreme Court.

Congress is dead because the parties are too stupid to cooperate even on issues where the vast majority of the electorate agree. 

Pathetic.

Edited June 21, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[FirefightnRick]

Agree, addressing guns when this is a radical Islamic terrorist issue is pretty stupid.

 

Rick

 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

11 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

Agree, addressing guns when this is a radical Islamic terrorist issue is pretty stupid.

 

Rick

 

So, which Senator do you want to get rid of first, Cornyn or Cruz, because they both voted for Cornyn's bill which would have created a three day waiting period for people on terror watch lists?

[EagleMBA]

Agree with Rick about what the real issue is. But suppose, for the sake of discussion, that I wanted to assent to the dilution of my Second Amendment rights. In that case, Cornyn's bill seemed the least offensive to me. Why, you exclaim? I do not trust the Government to be competent enough, and unbiased enough, to compile a decent list. I do not trust Obama's Justice Department (Eric Holder in a skirt) to resist the temptation to load the "terrorist" list with perceived political enemies. These are the people that had Ted Kennedy (pleasant thought actually, but unjust) and recently Stephen Hayes, a well-known journalist, on the "List". At least Cornyn's bill would have forced them to show a Federal Judge in confidence in a timely manner why the citizens' right to purchase a firearm should be abrogated. If the Government can't do this, the people should not be on the list.

[FirefightnRick]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

So, which Senator do you want to get rid of first, Cornyn or Cruz, because they both voted for Cornyn's bill which would have created a three day waiting period for people on terror watch lists?

And he voted against the other two bills but not before first calling it how it is...that this isn't a gun control problem, it's a terrorist problem.

Rick

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

1 hour ago, EagleMBA said:

Agree with Rick about what the real issue is. But suppose, for the sake of discussion, that I wanted to assent to the dilution of my Second Amendment rights. In that case, Cornyn's bill seemed the least offensive to me. Why, you exclaim? I do not trust the Government to be competent enough, and unbiased enough, to compile a decent list. I do not trust Obama's Justice Department (Eric Holder in a skirt) to resist the temptation to load the "terrorist" list with perceived political enemies. These are the people that had Ted Kennedy (pleasant thought actually, but unjust) and recently Stephen Hayes, a well-known journalist, on the "List". At least Cornyn's bill would have forced them to show a Federal Judge in confidence in a timely manner why the citizens' right to purchase a firearm should be abrogated. If the Government can't do this, the people should not be on the list.

Yes, and so why aren't the two sides compromising and getting it done?  That's my point. 

It's clear that both sides want to pass legislation of some sort to prevent people on terror list from purchasing firearms.  But, it's also clear that neither side will compromise to actually get it done.

 

4 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

And he voted against the other two bills but not before first calling it how it is...that this isn't a gun control problem, it's a terrorist problem.

Rick

That's right.  So, don't sell guns to terrorist.  He agrees because he voted for Cornyn's bill.

[Army of Dad]

6 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

It's clear that both sides want to pass legislation of some sort to prevent people on terror list from purchasing firearms.  But, it's also clear that neither side will compromise to actually get it done

There is a third option:

Neither side (or factions within each side) really wants to pass legislation.

It could be argued the left might wish to keep the 'guns are evil' bogeyman and not get voted out like has happened before. It could also be argued that the more strict constructionists on the right voted along party lines to win the concession to not allow any legislation to pass and protect their jobs as well.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

1 minute ago, Army of Dad said:

There is a third option:

Neither side (or factions within each side) really wants to pass legislation.

It could be argued the left might wish to keep the 'guns are evil' bogeyman and not get voted out like has happened before. It could also be argued that the more strict constructionists on the right voted along party lines to win the concession to not allow any legislation to pass and protect their jobs as well.

That's not a third option - I've already said that's what the two parties do:  (1) protection their paid interests first and foremost, (2) attempt to gain PR advantage on every issue.

 

[Army of Dad]

Just now, MeanGreenMailbox said:

That's not a third option - I've already said that's what the two parties do:  (1) protection their paid interests first and foremost, (2) attempt to gain PR advantage on every issue.

 

The only modification I made to your post was to delete the portions I wasn't directly responding to. It certainly is possible that portions of either side don't really want to pass legislation.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

2 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

The only modification I made to your post was to delete the portions I wasn't directly responding to. It certainly is possible that portions of either side don't really want to pass legislation.

Yes, I know that.  That was the reason for the entire post. 

You have polls showing that over 80% of people who identify as Republicans and Democrats saying they want some sort of ban on gun purchases for people on a terror list.  This is low-hanging legislative fruit.  

But, instead of actually passing a common sense measure, the two sides have again decided to protect their interest groups and go into full posturing mode.  

In the end, it won't matter because the GOP is lost to the point of having Donald Trump as their nominee.  Hillary Clinton, with a mixture of Donald Trump and changing demographics favoring Democrats in the Electoral College, will win the elections.

And, I predict now, that one of her first Executive Orders will be expanding restrictions on who can purchase firearms.  And, because the Supreme Court is now, and will be in the future, in favor of more Liberal legislative and Executive act, it will uphold the Order.

The NRA will weep and gnash their teeth, of course.  But, few beyond their paying donors and bought off politicians will care.

 

[FirefightnRick]

29 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Yes, and so why aren't the two sides compromising and getting it done?  That's my point. 

It's clear that both sides want to pass legislation of some sort to prevent people on terror list from purchasing firearms.  But, it's also clear that neither side will compromise to actually get it done.

 

That's right.  So, don't sell guns to terrorist.  He agrees because he voted for Cornyn's bill.

No, his message is to address the terrorist problem, and he goes on to insist passage of bills that limits those from areas that support terrorism from entering our country.

Why he voted for Cornyn's bill Im not sure.  Maybe he knew it wasn't going to pass anyways and figured it would help gain Cornyn's support down the road on other issues?  I don't like it but it's how it goes sometimes.  But Cruz has been the most conservative voice we've had in DC in years.  I certainly don't want to get rid of him over a single vote for over gun legislation, that's for sure.

 

Rick

[foutsrouts]

4 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Yes, I know that.  That was the reason for the entire post. 

You have polls showing that over 80% of people who identify as Republicans and Democrats saying they want some sort of ban on gun purchases for people on a terror list.  This is low-hanging legislative fruit.  

But, instead of actually passing a common sense measure, the two sides have again decided to protect their interest groups and go into full posturing mode.  

In the end, it won't matter because the GOP is lost to the point of having Donald Trump as their nominee.  Hillary Clinton, with a mixture of Donald Trump and changing demographics favoring Democrats in the Electoral College, will win the elections.

And, I predict now, that one of her first Executive Orders will be expanding restrictions on who can purchase firearms.  And, because the Supreme Court is now, and will be in the future, in favor of more Liberal legislative and Executive act, it will uphold the Order.

The NRA will weep and gnash their teeth, of course.  But, few beyond their paying donors and bought off politicians will care.

 

The only reason she wins is because Trump is an idiot. This was his election to be had if he possessed half a presidential brain. Even a hefty percentage of women dislike the man hater Hillary, but that is what we're going to get, so we might as well get used to the idea.  Unless Hillary gets trapped in a major F up of course.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

11 minutes ago, foutsrouts said:

The only reason she wins is because Trump is an idiot. This was his election to be had if he possessed half a presidential brain. Even a hefty percentage of women dislike the man hater Hillary, but that is what we're going to get, so we might as well get used to the idea.  Unless Hillary gets trapped in a major F up of course.

You have to be realistic about the Electoral College.  Forget, for a moment, about Trump.  How in the world do you think a Republican, with demographics now being what they are, wins Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania?  And, even by some miracle a GOP was able to win one of those again, how do they win the Electoral College while still losing the other two?

It's not going to happen.  Because of St. Louis, Missouri is on the verge of being nationally blue forever as well.  Texas will be within 20 years. 

Trump simply makes what will be a victory by a very poor candidate in Hillary Clinton that much easier.

The fact of the matter is, Republicans, with these votes, had an opportunity to have a hand in how gun laws would be tweaked.  Once Hillary is elected, you can throw that out the window.  Her Supreme Court nominee will be as Liberal as those Obama appointed, and will interpret the 2nd Amendment far differently than the NRA and its politicians and members.

It's common sense legislation scuttled by special interests and sick, slavish devotion to those special interests. 

 

 

[foutsrouts]

5 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

You have to be realistic about the Electoral College.  Forget, for a moment, about Trump.  How in the world do you think a Republican, with demographics now being what they are, wins Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania?  And, even by some miracle a GOP was able to win one of those again, how do they win the Electoral College while still losing the other two?

It's not going to happen.  Because of St. Louis, Missouri is on the verge of being nationally blue forever as well.  Texas will be within 20 years. 

Trump simply makes what will be a victory by a very poor candidate in Hillary Clinton that much easier.

The fact of the matter is, Republicans, with these votes, had an opportunity to have a hand in how gun laws would be tweaked.  Once Hillary is elected, you can throw that out the window.  Her Supreme Court nominee will be as Liberal as those Obama appointed, and will interpret the 2nd Amendment far differently than the NRA and its politicians and members.

It's common sense legislation scuttled by special interests and sick, slavish devotion to those special interests. 

 

 

I think there was/is enough of a base movement for fundamental change in this country, to where the Republicans would have won this time around had they presented a viable candidate. Instead, they will nominate an arrogant bumbling fool who will continue to display his foolishness over the next four and a half months. Ryan, Rubio, or even Romney would have probably pulled it off. Cruz would have been an unlikely winner.

[UNT90]

Governments have historically been far far far far more dangerous to their own citizens than any scary looking single shot rifle. 

Millions and millions and millions killed by Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong, but people on here want to give the historical mechanism of mass murder the right to limit citizens from owning weapons of self protection from said government.

This is a very relevant historical discussion, as the USA is historically EXTREMELY long in the tooth for the average representative democracy (average historical lifespan of about 200 years). The symptoms that caused the downfall of these previous representative democracies are already prevalent in American society. We have 40 years left, if we are lucky, The form of government that always follows a representative democracy is a dictatorship. Dictatorships take guns and kill their own citizens. 

So it really is all about fight or flight...

Your choice, folks.

[Shuke-D]

This is your brain:

 

This is your brain during your midlife crisis:

 

This is your brain during your midlife crisis posting on a sports-themed college message board 10 times a day because even if the world doesn't want saving dammit, it would be a moral failure on your part not to arrogate your wisdom to the masses via the most readily accessible means possible. WHY THE HELL WON'T ANYONE LISTEN TO ME?????????

 

 

(note: today's music sucks compared to when I was young and in my prime.)

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

17 hours ago, foutsrouts said:

I think there was/is enough of a base movement for fundamental change in this country, to where the Republicans would have won this time around had they presented a viable candidate. Instead, they will nominate an arrogant bumbling fool who will continue to display his foolishness over the next four and a half months. Ryan, Rubio, or even Romney would have probably pulled it off. Cruz would have been an unlikely winner.

The Republicans couldn't even stop a candidate as weak as Barack Obama.  How did you expect them to beat Hillary Clinton?  The major cities in each state control the Electoral count. 

Do you see the pattern - the candidates of both parties keeps getting worse, but the Democrats still win?  At some point, you have to look at demographics and admit that we are on the slide towards the type of governments they have in Mexico, and Central and South America.

The middle class keeps shrinking, the rich buy the political class in power.  The political class in power stays in power by continuing to make promises to the ever growing poor populace. 

We have creeping socialism.  Everyone will be equally poor, as in most socialist countries in this hemisphere.  Be happy if you are old, and weep for the young.  America's best days are long gone; it's institutions are corrupt to the core. 

[GTWT]

16 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Governments have historically been far far far far more dangerous to their own citizens than any scary looking single shot rifle. 

Millions and millions and millions killed by Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong, but people on here want to give the historical mechanism of mass murder the right to limit citizens from owning weapons of self protection from said government.

This is a very relevant historical discussion, as the USA is historically EXTREMELY long in the tooth for the average representative democracy (average historical lifespan of about 200 years). The symptoms that caused the downfall of these previous representative democracies are already prevalent in American society. We have 40 years left, if we are lucky, The form of government that always follows a representative democracy is a dictatorship. Dictatorships take guns and kill their own citizens. 

So it really is all about fight or flight...

Your choice, folks.

Do you really think that single-shot 22 (or that semi-auto AK47) is going to protect you from the US government if the government really wanted to oppress you?  That's delusional.  What really protects us from government oppression is rule of law. 

NRA nuts screaming that we must protect the 2nd amendment rights of terrorists - That is truly bonkers.

[foutsrouts]

4 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

The Republicans couldn't even stop a candidate as weak as Barack Obama.  How did you expect them to beat Hillary Clinton?  The major cities in each state control the Electoral count. 

Do you see the pattern - the candidates of both parties keeps getting worse, but the Democrats still win?  At some point, you have to look at demographics and admit that we are on the slide towards the type of governments they have in Mexico, and Central and South America.

The middle class keeps shrinking, the rich buy the political class in power.  The political class in power stays in power by continuing to make promises to the ever growing poor populace. 

We have creeping socialism.  Everyone will be equally poor, as in most socialist countries in this hemisphere.  Be happy if you are old, and weep for the young.  America's best days are long gone; it's institutions are corrupt to the core. 

Obama had charisma and was very popular among those of whom you speak. Hillary not so much. Your pessimism for the future of this country is shared by many, and therefore we have Donald Trump.

I'm not so sure that it's game/set/match for us yet, but we're going to have to pull a rabbit or two out of a hat to get things going back in a positive direction. I'm not a big Trump fan, but I do agree with him in that illegal immigration needs to be slowed substantially.

Although I'm no cultural sociologist, I do think that people need time to melt into a new society rather than being overly tribal and having strong loyalties to their native countries and such. Protesters in America wrapping themselves in Mexican flags during protests is a pretty clear example of that.   

[CMJ]

Of course, a hundred years ago people in the US were also pretty dang tribal.  There have been several different waves of immigration throughout our history.  It usually takes a couple of generations for the true melting pot effect to REALLY happen.  WWI and WWII also helped because of the common cause.  Though there were plenty of dissenters (especially for the WWI, but even so for WWII believe it or not) -- the bonding effect it had on drafting people from all over the country and throwing them together can't be overstated from a cultural influence.

[eulessismore]

8 hours ago, CMJ said:

Of course, a hundred years ago people in the US were also pretty dang tribal.  There have been several different waves of immigration throughout our history.  It usually takes a couple of generations for the true melting pot effect to REALLY happen.  WWI and WWII also helped because of the common cause.  Though there were plenty of dissenters (especially for the WWI, but even so for WWII believe it or not) -- the bonding effect it had on drafting people from all over the country and throwing them together can't be overstated from a cultural influence.

I have been thinking about what it took for unpopular and antiestablishment groups such as German immigrants, Mormons, former Confederates, etc. to go from being only marginal in America, and barely loyal or even taking up arms against this United States to the point of being considered good groups from which to recruit military, police, CIA, and FBI personnel, and otherwise, just good old patriots.  Wasn't the famous 36th Infantry (Texas) Division of World War 2 fame composed to a large extent of Texans from Italian and German heritage? At least for German Americans, their perceived loyalty and overall contributions were much different during WW1.

Edited June 23, 2016 by eulessismore

[CMJ]

9 hours ago, eulessismore said:

I have been thinking about what it took for unpopular and antiestablishment groups such as German immigrants, Mormons, former Confederates, etc. to go from being only marginal in America, and barely loyal or even taking up arms against this United States to the point of being considered good groups from which to recruit military, police, CIA, and FBI personnel, and otherwise, just good old patriots.  Wasn't the famous 36th Infantry (Texas) Division of World War 2 fame composed to a large extent of Texans from Italian and German heritage? At least for German Americans, their perceived loyalty and overall contributions were much different during WW1.

The 36th did some great things in WWI too btw.  ;)

I'd say most of the Americans of Eastern European descent, and Native Americans really became thought of as true Americans by the end of the First World War.  Look at the names on the crosses in some of our cemeteries in Europe.  A lot of ethnic names.  The country had been scooping up immigrants for decades right before 1914, and I believe I read as much as 25% of those drafted were from families who had been in the US less than thirty years.

Edited June 23, 2016 by CMJ

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

19 hours ago, foutsrouts said:

Obama had charisma and was very popular among those of whom you speak. Hillary not so much. Your pessimism for the future of this country is shared by many, and therefore we have Donald Trump.

I'm not so sure that it's game/set/match for us yet, but we're going to have to pull a rabbit or two out of a hat to get things going back in a positive direction. I'm not a big Trump fan, but I do agree with him in that illegal immigration needs to be slowed substantially.

Although I'm no cultural sociologist, I do think that people need time to melt into a new society rather than being overly tribal and having strong loyalties to their native countries and such. Protesters in America wrapping themselves in Mexican flags during protests is a pretty clear example of that.   

What you are seeing is America being destroyed, little by little.  The future of America is Detroit. 

You call it pessimism, but it's reality.  Socialism doesn't work in places where there are too many ignorant. poor people.  What gets dragged out for examples of successful socialism are countries like Sweden, whose population is 80-90% Swedish, very small at less than 10 million, with very little immigration or foreign influence.     

America is different.  The huddled masses now come mainly from Mexico, and Central and South America.  There are more illegal immigrants in America than there are inhabitants of Sweden by a count of almost 2 to 1.  And, they are not wealthy or educated.

Add those poor to our already expanding welfare class, and you get what you get:  the seeds of Idiocracy - the world here not becoming better with time, but worse and poorer.

The poor choose politicians with the most pie-in-the-sky promises.  But, look around. For all of the money thrown into ghettos by local, state, and federal politicians, has anything changed?  No. 

Again, your model is Detroit.  It's been run by socialist exclusively for almost 50 years now.  It's a sh*thole.  America is becoming the same - and, more and more, by judicially mandated and protected acts.

Because those who treasure safety and education have fled Detroit-like cities, the courts are now mandating that poverty and those who practice the lifestyles that lead to it, be foisted upon suburbs under threat of federal penalties.

You are no longer allowed to move to a safe place, mind your own business, and get on with your own life.  Doing such is now deemed, "covert racism/subtle racism/systemic racism, etc."  All you've done is set up your life in the safest possible place to live, work and raise a family.  You are now that target of a government bent of making the mistake of punishing you with socialism.

You can't tell the poor to stop smoking dope, committing crimes, and having kids out of wedlock.  That's racist.  You don't understand.  You got it?  You don't understand.

The government understands - you have things that the poor want, but won't work to get.  You don't know you're racist.  You're too ignorant to understand that what your community needs is a little Detroit in it so that you can understand the poor. 

Buckle up.  The Electoral College is against the GOP.  Barack Obama proves that poor candidates with no track record can be elected by the jealous masses of socialists.  Hillary is a shoe in. 

The 10th Amendment has already been rendered moot, even by Justices such as John Roberts.  Once Hillary appoints her choice, what has been a gradual decline toward socialism will become more rapid.

Look at Venezuela.  People don't demand change until they are starving.  And, still - STILL - they may not get change because of the jealousy and sloth instilled into the masses in poverty. 

In spite of all its abject failures wrought for decades by those who run it, Detroit still elects politicians of the same stripe.  Ghettos remain ghettos.  And, because you won't move to the ghetto, the politicians and the judiciary that back them, will move the ghetto to you.

 

And, so what is the GOP answer to all of this:  let's fight about a slam dunk background check for those on terror lists?

Stupid.  Utterly stupid and shortsighted to the end.

RIP, GOP.    

 

 

 

[FirefightnRick]

It would be interesting to know if there is a difference, and if so how much a difference in attitude toward assimilation then...and what it is now.  

 

Rick

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

It would be interesting to know if there is a difference, and if so how much a difference in attitude toward assimilation then...and what it is now.  

 

Rick

Exactly!

And, here is the other piece of the puzzle that is different, that socialists tend to ignore (wilfully?):  for immigrants 100 years ago and before, there was no welfare system, which began during the Great Depression.

Immigrants - and, their kids - now get all sorts of benefits courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.  Back then, they didn't get jack squat.  Immigrants then knew that coming to America, they'd have to work hard.

But, then, that was the lure:  in America, you could work hard and get ahead.  Not so in the countries they left. 

Immigrants now, to get the basics of living, don't have to work.  They merely need a kid - who will get free education, breakfast and lunch, year round, lowered/subsiduzed rents for you, etc.

To compare immigration pre-Great Depression/Welfare Era, to post-Great Depression/Welfare Era is to compare apples to oranges.  It's not the same, or even close to the same.  It's disingenuous at its core to say that immigrants 100 years ago were in the same state as those today.  It's simply a lie. 

Immigrants used to come for opportunity to be successful due to their own hard work.  Immigrants now flood the border, then demands rights and handouts.  It's sickening to watch.

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox