The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Ingomike]

Yeah, at this point I'm not worried about Trump leaving at the legally-appointed time (whenever that may be). I remember rumors about Bush the Elder declaring some sort of emergency and staying in the office.

Seems like that's something that gets floated every cycle.

I still hope Trump resigns, though.

Resigns for what or why?

He will work to win a second term. If he does he will continue to do exactly what he has been doing. Reduce regulations, unleash business, put America first, reform immigration and build a wall, all with a much better crop of judges on the bench overseeing it all.

To those making smug comments about "most critical election ever", how is this election not? I get and agree it has been clichéd in hindsight in the past, but the current choices are more of the above, or a president that pledged to dismantle the above. Pretty stark contrast in my book. This election is not a policy disagreement over numbers of immigrants allowed in, it is open borders vs. controlled, it is gun confiscation vs. gun freedom. Those are not policy differences in any way, they are foundational differences which are critical and dire elements...

 

[T.Lex]

Resigns for what or why?

For whatever reason his ego deigns reasonable.

To those making smug comments about "most critical election ever", how is this election not?

Because it never is.

 

[nonobaddog]

Because it never is.

I'm a little surprised to see your head in the sand on this one. The policy differences between the parties are certainly as different as it can be. Are you thinking congress will be a moderating force? What if one side gains control of the Presidency and the Congress? Are you ready to give up your guns?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm a little surprised to see your head in the sand on this one. The policy differences between the parties are certainly as different as it can be. Are you thinking congress will be a moderating force? What if one side gains control of the Presidency and the Congress? Are you ready to give up your guns?

Were you ready in 2008 when the same doomsaying was going around?

 

[Ingomike]

For whatever reason his ego deigns reasonable.


Because it never is.

Really?

If politics of who is elected does not matter, why are you posting in political threads with folks who think it does? To troll them?

If it doesn't matter why should you care if it is Trump or anyone else? Why bother to vote if it doesn't matter?

Are you saying that the outcome is the same with Trump as President as if HRC had been elected? And the outcome is the same if Bernie or Trump elected? I think not.

 

[nonobaddog]

From 2009 to 2013 I was very worried. However I personally will never be ready. I am old enough that I will not comply with any unconstitutional actions while conscious.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm a little surprised to see your head in the sand on this one. The policy differences between the parties are certainly as different as it can be. Are you thinking congress will be a moderating force? What if one side gains control of the Presidency and the Congress? Are you ready to give up your guns?

No sand necessary.

Accepting for argument, without conceding, that the POLICIES of the PARTIES are reflected in the candidates, Americans favor the rule of law.

I've survived - and I think you have, too - control of the Presidency and Congress by either party. SSDD (with the 2d "D" being "decade").

And the best way to protect our guns is to unelect Trump.

 

[T.Lex]

Really?

If politics of who is elected does not matter, why are you posting in political threads with folks who think it does? To troll them?

If it doesn't matter why should you care if it is Trump or anyone else? Why bother to vote if it doesn't matter?

Are you saying that the outcome is the same with Trump as President as if HRC had been elected? And the outcome is the same if Bernie or Trump elected? I think not.

Is moving goalposts your exercise for today? Or are you mixing in some jumping to conclusions?

Elections are important.

Yet, this election is not "the most critical election ever."

 

[Hatin Since 87]

No sand necessary.

Accepting for argument, without conceding, that the POLICIES of the PARTIES are reflected in the candidates, Americans favor the rule of law.

I've survived - and I think you have, too - control of the Presidency and Congress by either party. SSDD (with the 2d "D" being "decade").

And the best way to protect our guns is to unelect Trump.

Sadly, this is probably true. It seems republicans tend to fight harder when democrats control congress and presidency than they do when we have both. It’s almost as if they know that’s a crucial voting issue or something

 

[printcraft]

Is moving goalposts your exercise for today? Or are you mixing in some jumping to conclusions?

Elections are important.

Yet, this election is not "the most critical election ever."

Supreme Court going forward.

DC v Heller was pretty ****ing close.

It's in the Constitution and it was still pretty ****ing close. One would say too ****ing close.

Seems pretty important.

 

[nonobaddog]

No sand necessary.
Accepting for argument, without conceding, that the POLICIES of the PARTIES are reflected in the candidates, Americans favor the rule of law.
I've survived - and I think you have, too - control of the Presidency and Congress by either party. SSDD (with the 2d "D" being "decade").
And the best way to protect our guns is to unelect Trump.

Yes we have survived but that is a meaningless argument. Just because I have never been in a car accident in no way guarantees that I won't be in one today. History is just a record of the past. It does NOT guarantee anything about the future.
The gun-grabbing forces are at an all-time high in this country. The fact that we still have our guns right now is meaningless to the future.

The best way to keep the Second Amendment and keep our guns is to reelect Trump and keep Republican control of at least one chamber of congress forever.

 

[T.Lex]

Supreme Court going forward.

DC v Heller was pretty ****ing close.

It's in the Constitution and it was still pretty ****ing close. One would say too ****ing close.

Seems pretty important.

Almost as if I said "elections are important."

And yet, "important" is still not the same as "most critical election ever."

Off the top of my head, 1860, 1868 and 1932 come to mind as easily more important. We can ask CM about how important people thought they were at the time, but my sense is that the voting population was aware of the historical context. Each of which exceeds the current "most critical"-ness.

 

[nonobaddog]

Just look at Australia - all it takes is one-time for the gun grabbers and there is no recovery once they are gone. If that doesn't concern you because it hasn't happened here yet than I call that head-in-sand.

ETA - And I do not mean that in any derogatory way. It is an expression that means minimizing concern that differs from my level of concern. And, of course, my level of concern is obviously the most appropriate for the threat level.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You can't criticize the message of a teenager... so the only option is to send another teenager.

The future of all debate will be fought with child proxies.

You must fight children with children.

 

[T.Lex]

Just look at Australia - all it takes is one-time for the gun grabbers and there is no recovery once they are gone. If that doesn't concern you because it hasn't happened here yet than I call that head-in-sand.

ETA - And I do not mean that in any derogatory way. It is an expression that means minimizing concern that differs from my level of concern. And, of course, my level of concern is obviously the most appropriate for the threat level.

Your stated concern is fearmongering, or a reflection of it.

Gun grabbing here has happened, and either failed or been walked-back.

I suspect your sky-is-falling proclamations are rooted in an ignorance of the history of gun control in the US. The AWB was a thing right up until the time it wasn't. And that's just one example.

I am not arguing for complacency. Rather, pointing out that even on the sole basis of gun rights, this is not the "most critical election ever."

 

[T.Lex]

You can't criticize the message of a teenager... so the only option is to send another teenager.

The future of all debate will be fought with child proxies.

You must fight children with children.

When weaponized children are banned, only Catholics will have weaponized children.

 

[nonobaddog]

Your stated concern is fearmongering, or a reflection of it.

Gun grabbing here has happened, and either failed or been walked-back.

I suspect your sky-is-falling proclamations are rooted in an ignorance of the history of gun control in the US. The AWB was a thing right up until the time it wasn't. And that's just one example.

I am not arguing for complacency. Rather, pointing out that even on the sole basis of gun rights, this is not the "most critical election ever."

When I was 12 years old I could grab my rifle in one hand and hop on my bicycle and ride into town and buy a box of cartridges and go squirrel hunting just about anywhere I wanted.

That freedom is gone forever. That is part of gun-grabbing. That freedom is not coming back.
I do not agree that I am fear mongering by stating the same thing that several presidential candidates are stating - the same thing several congress critters are stating. I am just stating the truth about them. If that truth is something to be feared then it is what it is.

 

[printcraft]

Your stated concern is fearmongering, or a reflection of it.

Gun grabbing here has happened, and either failed or been walked-back.

I suspect your sky-is-falling proclamations are rooted in an ignorance of the history of gun control in the US. The AWB was a thing right up until the time it wasn't. And that's just one example.

I am not arguing for complacency. Rather, pointing out that even on the sole basis of gun rights, this is not the "most critical election ever."

This is not "sky is falling", it's the stated direction they are TRYING to go in.
If you tell someone that is steering off the cliff "hey watchout, you are steering off the cliff!" That's not fearmongering, that's a genuine concern BASED on the action of the person steering off the cliff.

Bloomberg has this as a central theme of his campaign... and so do pretty much all of the current crop of dem candidates... they let their mask slip.

Bloomberg backed Virginia... what has been going on since he won there?

[video=youtube;nrc0-K3U0MQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrc0-K3U0MQ[/video]

 

[Kdf101]

The upcoming election may not be the most important ever, but I think it is the most important in a while. We have one side that seems to be ready to nominate a person to push multi trillion dollar hard core socialism onto us and the other side is not. The differences are stark and clear. Not to mention that the next occupant will more than likely appoint at least one more Supreme, not to mention lower Federal judges. Gun control will ultimately be decided in the courts, at least I think so. I think it is pretty important.

 

[Ingomike]

Is moving goalposts your exercise for today? Or are you mixing in some jumping to conclusions?

Elections are important.

Yet, this election is not "the most critical election ever."

Almost as if I said "elections are important."

And yet, "important" is still not the same as "most critical election ever."

Off the top of my head, 1860, 1868 and 1932 come to mind as easily more important. We can ask CM about how important people thought they were at the time, but my sense is that the voting population was aware of the historical context. Each of which exceeds the current "most critical"-ness.

The moving goalposts are created by by combining literalism and history which is not what the thread is about. This thread is called "current year" general political discussion, maybe a history analysis thread would be in order. Each election the left has moved farther and farther left, even when republicans have been elected, Trump is a big roadblock to the left and this is certainly "the most critical election ever" in contemporary terms, likely not historical terms.

Turning back the tide of "most critical election" after losing does not necessarily mean the danger was overstated. Do any of you really believe we would be in the exact same place today if Gore had won, followed by HRC or Obama? That Gore lost may just have stopped what the "most critical election" in history was about, no one will ever know that for sure, we do not know alternative history. Just as defeating the agenda of the source of the "most critical election" in history after losing that election is no guarantee those type of defeats can be repeated.