The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,380
    113
    Upstate SC
    The point was that the circumstances they were able to use for this process failed at the 51 threshold. If they change the rules to allow only 51 votes for normal legislation where does that really get them or even the US in the end? What happens if and when the Democrats gain control again? Sorry but at some point to make this work there's going to have to be some compromise.

    Under strict Budget Reconciliation rules, only changes that increase/decrease taxes and spending are allowed. So, no true "repeal", and definitely no "replace" as no rule changes are allowed. For example, under these "rules" the "mandate" would remain, only the penalty would be changed to $0.

    Which is presumably why McCain voted against, as he had voted several times and ran upon repeal.
     

    Dddrees

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 23, 2016
    3,188
    38
    Central
    Under strict Budget Reconciliation rules, only changes that increase/decrease taxes and spending are allowed. So, no true "repeal", and definitely no "replace" as no rule changes are allowed. For example, under these "rules" the "mandate" would remain, only the penalty would be changed to $0.

    Which is presumably why McCain voted against, as he had voted several times and ran upon repeal.

    So here we are. So I very much doubt given the divides that exist in the Republican Party even if they changed the rules so that only 51 votes were required for normal legislation that the Republican Party could pass anything on their own with regards to healthcare.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,321
    113
    Gtown-ish
    This really seems to have gotten your skirt ruffled.

    ~ 0.3% of the general population are "real" transgenders (that is, people who actually have the disorder vs people who say they do for social reasons). So, let's give the benefit of the doubt that this proportion is is also true for people joining the military. I strongly suspect the skirt ruffling is primarily tribal, since we're only talking about a policy which would affect ~4200 people out of 1.4 million.

    I know that there has been some reporting that estimates the number at more like ~15000. Okay, fine, let's say that for some reason, being in the military attracts transgenders at a rate higher than the general population. We're still talking about a policy that affects 15K of 1.4 million. How that's become the most important issue facing the military now must be a function of political posturing more than because of the actual importance of the issue.

    I'm not dismissing the issue, I'm just saying that there are probably more important issues than what the military disposition should be for a comparatively small group of people who have this specific mental condition. This kind of applies to both sides of the issue too. Why is it a big thing for Trump to tweet about this? There's a reason he made this a bigger deal than it is, and there's a reason progressives are making a bigger deal of it than there is.
     

    Dddrees

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 23, 2016
    3,188
    38
    Central
    10 days...


    It's way more dysfunctional than we expected. Or at least hoped.

    Whatever gave anyone any hope that this guy had ever projected any degree of good judgement or stability? Long before he was elected there were many indicators that he didn't. His campaign certainly never depicted he was and a good number of his associates and people who wrote books on him said he wasn't.
     

    Dddrees

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 23, 2016
    3,188
    38
    Central
    ~ 0.3% of the general population are "real" transgenders (that is, people who actually have the disorder vs people who say they do for social reasons). So, let's give the benefit of the doubt that this proportion is is also true for people joining the military. I strongly suspect the skirt ruffling is primarily tribal, since we're only talking about a policy which would affect ~4200 people out of 1.4 million.

    I know that there has been some reporting that estimates the number at more like ~15000. Okay, fine, let's say that for some reason, being in the military attracts transgenders at a rate higher than the general population. We're still talking about a policy that affects 15K of 1.4 million. How that's become the most important issue facing the military now must be a function of political posturing more than because of the actual importance of the issue.

    I'm not dismissing the issue, I'm just saying that there are probably more important issues than what the military disposition should be for a comparatively small group of people who have this specific mental condition. This kind of applies to both sides of the issue too. Why is it a big thing for Trump to tweet about this? There's a reason he made this a bigger deal than it is, and there's a reason progressives are making a bigger deal of it than there is.

    The skirt ruffling per say has everything to do with Trumps Policy by Tweet. Just one more example of how incompetent he trully is.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,380
    113
    Upstate SC

    Apparently, new Chief of Staff Kelly fired Scaramucci post haste... like within an hour of Kelly's swearing in.

    Kelly faces a herculean task ahead, but firing Scaramucci was a good first move. He had no business being in the WH and especially not as Communications Director. Taking away the official @POTUS twitter password, enforcing some discipline/coordination on Trump's personal twitter account, and firing a few more leakers would be promising second steps.
     

    Dddrees

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 23, 2016
    3,188
    38
    Central
    Apparently, new Chief of Staff Kelly fired Scaramucci post haste... like within an hour of Kelly's swearing in.

    Kelly faces a herculean task ahead, but firing Scaramucci was a good first move. He had no business being in the WH and especially not as Communications Director. Taking away the official @POTUS twitter password, enforcing some discipline/coordination on Trump's personal twitter account, and firing a few more leakers would be promising second steps.

    Trump is 71 yrs old. He may in fact recognize something at this point was necessary, I just don't see him sticking with it. He's just way too erratic. Good idea like this has a expiration date, or is that an expiration time. Anyone care to venture how long it lasts?

    Anyone really believe he can be more Presidential than any other President with exception of Lincoln. Restraint doesn't - Trump. As I was told in another thread Trump wasn't elected for that reason. Trump was elected to be a disrupter.
     
    Last edited:
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom