SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?

heybruce · March 13, 2018

13 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Yeah see that looks real nice on paper but the end result is a ban on standard length semi auto rifles, and as such would do nothing to reduce firearms deaths in the USA. Most deaths are a result of handguns and most of those deaths are suicide. I’m not ok with that.

2A is to fight against tyranny and oppression. Can’t do that with a bolt action rifle and a pistol with (insert arbitrary ammo limit).

If so many believe that the “vast majority” want “gun control” then politicians would go after the amendment itself and make firearm ownership a privilege like everywhere else in the world. But they won’t. Because they can’t.

But the rest of what you posted is true. Most people are fairly moderate outside of this forum. I used to think I was pretty moderate as well but I’ve dug in pretty hard lately.

Unfortunately there arent really any mainstream moderate moderate politicians to vote for so you kind of have to pick a side or stop caring. I’m not ready to stop caring, and can’t stand current liberal politics, so Trump it is.

"2A is to fight against tyranny and oppression. Can’t do that with a bolt action rifle and a pistol with (insert arbitrary ammo limit)."

I agree that you can't take on tanks with a bolt action rifle and a pistol. You also can't take on tanks with an AR15. In fact an AR15 isn't good for much beyond carnage.

As I pointed out earlier in replying to one of your posts, the Second Amendment was written at a time when civilian arms were as good as or better than military arms. Well organized civilian militias with civilian arms could present a serious challenge to regular armies in the eighteenth century. That is no longer true. The Second Amendment is obsolete, it no longer serves a useful purpose.

Polls show that the majority of Americans do want sensible gun control. However lobbying by the NRA and the clout of single-issue voters is preventing Congress from doing what the majority wants. That is not unusual.

heybruce · March 13, 2018

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, most people of both politcal parties do want the rich to pay more in taxes, not less.

Most Americans want to raise taxes on the rich: poll

As President Donald Trump promotes a tax plan that critics say would raise the federal deficit by slashing corporate rates and eliminating some taxes paid by the rich, some three-quarters of Americans believe the wealthiest should pay more, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows.

https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/most-americans-want-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-poll/

And as for illegal immigrants, there's this:

Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Large majorities of voters favor granting work permits or citizenship to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Sixty-two percent say it is extremely or very important Congress pass immigration law that will address the Dreamers. Voters think this is more important than passing new health care (58 percent important) or tax reform legislation (52 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28/fox-news-poll-83-percent-support-pathway-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants.html

Polls show Americans are closer to Democrats than Donald Trump on immigration

Quinnipiac, February 2-5, 2018: 59 percent oppose a wall on the border with Mexico;37 percent support one.

Monmouth University, January 28-30, 2018: 57 percent oppose a wall; 40 percent support one.

Pew Research Center, January 10-15, 2018: 60 percent oppose a wall; 37 percent support one. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/3/16959458/immigration-trump-compromise-public-opinion-poll-dreamers-wall

Not surprising. The MAGA crowd are vague about when they think America was great, but one gets the sense that it was at a time with unions were strong, income disparity was much lower, and the top income tax rate was 70%. Republicans aren't fans of any of these things.

heybruce · March 13, 2018

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I so wish we could just have a flat tax. Everyone pays the same. From the lowest wage to the highest. No more loop holes.

It's fine to address the so called dreamers, just don't give the store away.

Supplement your flat tax with a wealth tax and I might be with you.

Andaman Al · March 13, 2018

4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

It's fine to address the so called dreamers, just don't give the store away.

Well as you took the store clean away from it's rightful owners, there should be no problem sharing some of it out.

Jingthing · March 13, 2018

Not surprising. The MAGA crowd are vague about when they think America was great, but one gets the sense that it was at a time with unions were strong, income disparity was much lower, and the top income tax rate was 70%. Republicans aren't fans of any of these things.

You're being too generous. For a good portion of them their perverted nostalgia is about Jim Crow laws, non uppity stay at home women, and gays cowering in the closet. The "trump" movement is evil.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Jingthing · March 13, 2018

Supplement your flat tax with a wealth tax and I might be with you.

Poor people already pay regressive taxes like sales taxes.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Andaman Al · March 13, 2018

Quote

Trump fires Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

Oh Dear. I bet Rex is glad he gave up the most powerful, well paid oilman's job in the world to work with Trump.

Quote

President Donald Trump has fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, replacing him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

With Mr Pompeo moving, CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel will take over the running of that department.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-rex-tillerson-fired-secretary-state-cia-director-mike-pompeo-latest-news-a8253491.html

Trump really is running this like a reality TV show, what with his pathetic show in Pennsylvania and now this it should shape up to be another week when news anchors don't know what's coming next.

Jingthing · March 13, 2018

No chaos to see here folks. Yeah that's the ticket. Respect to Tillerson. Getting fired by this potus obviously for pushing back too much on his nuttiness is an honor!

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Skywalker69 · March 13, 2018

President Trump fires Rex Tillerson: Live updates

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics/trump-tillerson-latest/index.html

Thakkar · March 13, 2018

22 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

President Trump fires Rex Tillerson: Live updates

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politics/trump-tillerson-latest/index.html

Just before he was ousted as secretary of State, Rex Tillersonhad cast the poisoning of an ex-spy in Britain as part of a "certain unleashing of activity" by Russia that the United States is struggling to understand – diverging from the White House's official response.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/tillerson-poison-used-on-ex-spy-came-from-russia.html

The manic · March 13, 2018

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"2A is to fight against tyranny and oppression. Can’t do that with a bolt action rifle and a pistol with (insert arbitrary ammo limit)."

I agree that you can't take on tanks with a bolt action rifle and a pistol. You also can't take on tanks with an AR15. In fact an AR15 isn't good for much beyond carnage.

As I pointed out earlier in replying to one of your posts, the Second Amendment was written at a time when civilian arms were as good as or better than military arms. Well organized civilian militias with civilian arms could present a serious challenge to regular armies in the eighteenth century. That is no longer true. The Second Amendment is obsolete, it no longer serves a useful purpose.

Polls show that the majority of Americans do want sensible gun control. However lobbying by the NRA and the clout of single-issue voters is preventing Congress from doing what the majority wants. That is not unusual.

The VC and ISIS? They beat or are beating gun technology and technical superiority..

heybruce · March 13, 2018

37 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Yeah, no.

Its “well regulated militia” and in old-speak it means “well equipped”.

And LOL at you somehow equating 2A as being temporary.

You need to provide a credible source for your "old-speak" claim. So far you give the impression of someone who makes stuff up and posts it as fact.

The Founding Fathers knew they could not predict the future, that's why they included a mechanism for changing the constitution. Had they been able to foresee the lethality and affordability of modern weapons available to civilians, and the orders of magnitude greater lethality of modern military weapons, they would have written the constitution differently.

heybruce · March 13, 2018

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Poor people already pay regressive taxes like sales taxes.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I understand that. That's why I think a wealth tax is in order, a tax based on an individual's net worth.

Scott · March 13, 2018

An off-topic post has been removed and a whole lot of replies. Please try to stay a little closer to the topic at hand. Arguing gun control in this thread is a little too far afield.

heybruce · March 13, 2018

58 minutes ago, The manic said:

The VC and ISIS? They beat or are beating gun technology and technical superiority..

I'm not sure what your point is. The VC helped to destabilize an unpopular South Vietnam government, but it was the North Vietnamese army that ultimately took control of the south. ISIS took advantage of chaos in Syria and incompetence in the Iraq military to temporarily seize and loot territory. Neither the VC nor ISIS were fighting tyranny.

Edit: Agreed, this is getting far off-topic. The only link is that Trump is pandering to the NRA and gun-nuts, to the detriment of the country.

Edited March 13, 2018 by heybruce

heybruce · March 13, 2018

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

Just before he was ousted as secretary of State, Rex Tillersonhad cast the poisoning of an ex-spy in Britain as part of a "certain unleashing of activity" by Russia that the United States is struggling to understand – diverging from the White House's official response.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/tillerson-poison-used-on-ex-spy-came-from-russia.html

One can't help but wonder if Tillerson's bad-mouthing Russia is what pushed Trump over the edge.

riclag · March 13, 2018

musical chairs,I'm getting dizzy lol .Pompeo is a super star from West Point ,#1 in his class . Staunch republican ,Awesome CIA head.Gonna miss Rex! All my liberal friends(2) liked Rex.

Bad timing though ,I think it gives fire to the PA election for Congressman

heybruce · March 13, 2018

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

musical chairs,I'm getting dizzy lol .Pompeo is a super star from West Point ,#1 in his class . Staunch republican ,Awesome CIA head.Gonna miss Rex! All my liberal friends(2) liked Rex.

Bad timing though ,I think it gives fire to the PA election for Congressman

I don't know anyone who liked Tillerson, but many gave him credit for being smarter than Trump. At least he understood that backing out of a nuclear deal with Iran while trying to arrange a nuclear deal with North Korea was a bad idea.

lannarebirth · March 13, 2018

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

"2A is to fight against tyranny and oppression. Can’t do that with a bolt action rifle and a pistol with (insert arbitrary ammo limit)."

I agree that you can't take on tanks with a bolt action rifle and a pistol. You also can't take on tanks with an AR15. In fact an AR15 isn't good for much beyond carnage.

As I pointed out earlier in replying to one of your posts, the Second Amendment was written at a time when civilian arms were as good as or better than military arms. Well organized civilian militias with civilian arms could present a serious challenge to regular armies in the eighteenth century. That is no longer true. The Second Amendment is obsolete, it no longer serves a useful purpose.

Polls show that the majority of Americans do want sensible gun control. However lobbying by the NRA and the clout of single-issue voters is preventing Congress from doing what the majority wants. That is not unusual.

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

Edited March 13, 2018 by lannarebirth

ilostmypassword · March 13, 2018

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

There is another process for doing that called creating a new amendment or something like that. The point is you don't need a constitutional convention to change the constitution. In point of fact, the constitution has been amended many times but not once by a constitutional convention.

UncleTouchyFingers · March 13, 2018

15 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

I disagree with Heybruce but I DO agree with going after the amendment. If they want change then go after the amendment instead if infringing on rights. At least then it’ll really legitimate. Not illegitimate incrementalism based on lies and revisionist history.

heybruce · March 13, 2018

23 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I agree with you so change the amendment. There's a process for doing just that, called a Constitutional Convention, but there's a catch. Once the Convention is opened there is nothing to limit what gets changed. I think a majority of Republican controlled state legislatures have voted to hold a Constitutional Convention. It is the Democrat controlled state legislatures that are dragging their feet because they are worried about the possibility of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" coming out of the convention. So, there you go, different priorities.

It would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy for the Republicans to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment when they are running trillion dollar deficits, but I wouldn't put it past them. Regardless, a Constitutional Convention is not required:

"Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or
A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment

lannarebirth · March 13, 2018

Just now, heybruce said:

It would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy for the Republicans to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment when they are running trillion dollar deficits, but I wouldn't put it past them. Regardless, a Constitutional Convention is not required:

"Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment

You can amend the Constitution that way and it has been done, but it is not going to happen again in our lifetimes. I personally prefer a method that is closest to the local constituencies.

Scott · March 13, 2018

Let's get back to the issue of Trump and away from amending the Constitution.

Jingthing · March 14, 2018

In bellwether election in the Pittsburgh area congressional district that "trump" won by TWENTY points, the current results are near a TIE, with the democrat Lamb showing a small lead. Given that, too early to call a winner, but win or lose, the republicans aren't going to like what these results show going into the midterms.

Jingthing · March 14, 2018

OMG, this is ridiculous but I think the more rural areas are yet to come in so maybe that means the republican will pull this out:

House District 18

97.8% reporting

Candidate	Votes	PCT
Conor Lamb (D)	107,155	49.8%
Rick Saccone (R)	106,570	49.6%

lannarebirth · March 14, 2018

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

OMG, this is ridiculous but I think the more rural areas are yet to come in so maybe that means the republican will pull this out:

House District 18

97.8% reporting

Candidate Votes PCT
Conor Lamb (D) 107,155 49.8%
Rick Saccone (R) 106,570 49.6%

Looks like the kid pulled it out. Done deal or is a recount in the cards?

soalbundy · March 14, 2018

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

OMG, this is ridiculous but I think the more rural areas are yet to come in so maybe that means the republican will pull this out:

House District 18

97.8% reporting

Candidate Votes PCT
Conor Lamb (D) 107,155 49.8%
Rick Saccone (R) 106,570 49.6%

The rural areas maybe frightened of Trumps tariffs and how China and the EU will react to farm produce so just maybe Trump will lose a few more hairs on his head.

wayned · March 14, 2018

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Looks like the kid pulled it out. Done deal or is a recount in the cards?

Not a done deal yet, he is 847 votes ahead but they are still counting the absentee ballots.

lannarebirth · March 14, 2018

13 minutes ago, wayned said:

Not a done deal yet, he is 847 votes ahead but they are still counting the absentee ballots.

Ah, ok. Probably goes to recount then. Next week maybe.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/13/17118196/pennsylvania-special-election-law-recount-2018

Edited March 14, 2018 by lannarebirth

Sign In

SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?