Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

44,509 Views | 750 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by going4roses
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Good use of Bloomberg money.




I don't think tRump is orange anymore. I think he is starting to get the tone of a French Foreign Legionnaire who has been lost in the Algerian Desert for a month....but who wore sunglasses.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yeah, just throw money at the problem, that's their answer to everything smh
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Don't know. Bigger question: Will GOP be relevant in 50 years?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

yeah, just throw money at the problem, that's their answer to everything smh
When the Supreme Court says that money = speech, then yeah, that's what you've got to do.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Anarchistbear said:

Military budget $738 billion, just increased with bipartisan support of "the resistance." 377-48. Guns rule.
It's not quite like that. The democrats traded family leave for federal workers (which is the right thing to do) for the creation of the unnecessary space force and increase in military. Of course republicans will probably take credit for increased family leave but they were willing to hold it hostage for more blood money - since they can't help but fund republican welfare.

My hope, which may never be fulfilled, is that the democrats will dramatically reduce military spending when they regain the government. I may be one of the few people outside Trump's base who like that he is addressing the military spend of our allies, I just disagree with his desired outcome. I think rather than encouraging people to increase military spend, we should get everyone in the world to decrease spend. It's a massive waste of global resources that could be put to better use, basically any use.


The idea that we have to fund space forces and increase an already bloated military budget and continue to fund a war in Yemen for family leave is not "progressive"- it's notionally crazy, especially if we are to believe they are granting this power to someone they regard simultaneously as unfit to serve as President.

Of course NATO should pay more and Macron, at least, accepts this idea but at the same time Trump's alleged isolationism is a sham-he always wants more- for Saudi Arabia, wars in Yemen and wars in space. And both parties give it. Increases in military and war making is almost always bipartisan
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Anarchistbear said:

Military budget $738 billion, just increased with bipartisan support of "the resistance." 377-48. Guns rule.
It's not quite like that. The democrats traded family leave for federal workers (which is the right thing to do) for the creation of the unnecessary space force and increase in military. Of course republicans will probably take credit for increased family leave but they were willing to hold it hostage for more blood money - since they can't help but fund republican welfare.

My hope, which may never be fulfilled, is that the democrats will dramatically reduce military spending when they regain the government. I may be one of the few people outside Trump's base who like that he is addressing the military spend of our allies, I just disagree with his desired outcome. I think rather than encouraging people to increase military spend, we should get everyone in the world to decrease spend. It's a massive waste of global resources that could be put to better use, basically any use.


The idea that we have to fund space forces and increase an already bloated military budget and continue to fund a war in Yemen for family leave is not "progressive"- it's notionally crazy, especially if we are to believe they are granting this power to someone they regard simultaneously as unfit to serve as President.

Of course NATO should pay more and Macron, at least, accepts this idea but at the same time Trump's alleged isolationism is a sham-he always wants more- for Saudi Arabia, wars in Yemen and wars in space. And both parties give it. Increases in military and war making is almost always bipartisan
No one is arguing that military spending is progressive. The argument is that Democrats had to agree to it to get something else they wanted.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
False construct. . They are the majority.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

False construct. . They are the majority.
I didn't realize Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The law was written in the House, was described as" progressive" by the House Chairman of Armed Services and passed overwhelmingly . As such it represents the majority of your party's thinking on these issues.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

The law was written in the House, was described as" progressive" by the House Chairman of Armed Services and passed overwhelmingly . As such it represents the majority of your party's thinking on these issues.
If you mean that political spin on a typically messy compromise was kind of crappy, no argument here. But this bill is the result of a compromise and negotiation between the Democratic House and Republican Senate, yes?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everything I described was the House's bill. I don't believe it was returned by the Senate and negotiated.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Don't know. Bigger question: Will GOP be relevant in 50 years?


Anything is possible. The lesson of Vietnam did nothing to stop meat grinding futile foreign incursions decades later.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here comes trouble the un is hiring disarming forces in ny. And the state of VA is preparing the national guard to disarm.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

Here comes trouble the un is hiring disarming forces in ny. And the state of VA is preparing the national guard to disarm.
Could you translate this into English? Maybe provide a link to back whatever this is up.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

going4roses said:

Here comes trouble the un is hiring disarming forces in ny. And the state of VA is preparing the national guard to disarm.
Could you translate this into English? Maybe provide a link to back whatever this is up.


The Virginia reference is that rural cities in Virginia are defying newly enacted gun control regulations by setting up second amendment sanctuary cities which would ignore enforcement. One- not too bright- politician threatened to send the national guard to take away guns but that would be insane.

Don't understand the UN reference.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.