Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

You're welcome buddy. Was that too difficult for you to understand professor? I looked at your question again and you asked why Dems are into healthcare over stuff. I told you: it takes care of a bunch of people and helps the economy. . If you don't get that, try again...or just spin it the way you like. That's very Trumpian of you, but minus the insults and raw stupidity...but whatever. Look if you're going to troll...do a better job.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

Just curious: besides health care, what kinds of policies should Democrats be pushing? Which of these do you think could actually gain majority support, rather than just being something you personally want?

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

Just curious: besides health care, what kinds of policies should Democrats be pushing? Which of these do you think could actually gain majority support, rather than just being something you personally want?

---

Nice, but wholly irrelevant condition on the response. Obamacare in its current form wouldn't pass the Senate and barely passed the Senate in 2008, but Democrats still talk about changing health care all the time anyway.

I want to know about other aspects of the country that they would like to change and why they didn't push for any of those changes between 2008 and 2010 when they had the votes to do it.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

Just curious: besides health care, what kinds of policies should Democrats be pushing? Which of these do you think could actually gain majority support, rather than just being something you personally want?

---

Nice, but wholly irrelevant condition on the response. Obamacare in its current form wouldn't pass the Senate and barely passed the Senate in 2008, but Democrats still talk about changing health care all the time anyway.

I want to know about other aspects of the country that they would like to change and why they didn't push for any of those changes between 2008 and 2010 when they had the votes to do it.

---

I'm just curious what you'd like to see out of the Democratic Party that would cause you to more wholeheartedly support them.

Following upon that, I'd like to know if you think those things can actually get done.

This is an open-ended question. I'm not actually trying to trap you or anything, though admittedly I am trying to frame the question in a practical way.

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

---

Why? Shouldn't you, as an avowed Democrat have a laundry list of reforms they're hungry to make? I'm asking about Democrats, not myself.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

---

Why? Shouldn't you, as an avowed Democrat have a laundry list of reforms they're hungry to make? I'm asking about Democrats, not myself.

---

So, not gonna answer the question then.

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

---

Why? Shouldn't you, as an avowed Democrat have a laundry list of reforms they're hungry to make? I'm asking about Democrats, not myself.

---

So, not gonna answer the question then.

---

He thinks he's clever

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

Just curious: besides health care, what kinds of policies should Democrats be pushing? Which of these do you think could actually gain majority support, rather than just being something you personally want?

---

Nice, but wholly irrelevant condition on the response. Obamacare in its current form wouldn't pass the Senate and barely passed the Senate in 2008, but Democrats still talk about changing health care all the time anyway.

I want to know about other aspects of the country that they would like to change and why they didn't push for any of those changes between 2008 and 2010 when they had the votes to do it.

---

I'm just curious what you'd like to see out of the Democratic Party that would cause you to more wholeheartedly support them.

Following upon that, I'd like to know if you think those things can actually get done.

This is an open-ended question. I'm not actually trying to trap you or anything, though admittedly I am trying to frame the question in a practical way.

---

Democrats don't need to do anything to get my vote right now. Just not being Republicans is sufficient. The Republican Party, as currently constituted, must die and with it must die the political careers of nearly every currently elected Republican official, who have put politics above the law, above ethics, and above common decency.

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

Now, you can choose not to answer the question. There's nothing saying you must. But then that would suggest to me that an unwillingness to answer such a softball question is tantamount to admitting that other than healthcare and being able to appoint liberal judges to federal positions and a few minor things around the margins, a large majority of elected Democratic officials (or those that would like to be - and I'm talking like 80% of the party) are perfectly content with the status quo other than the fact that the Republicans are in charge instead of them. Rashida Tlaib, Illhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley are vocal about wanting very large changes, but they are freshmen Congressmen who aren't in my district so they are a drop in the bucket and I can't vote for or against them (depending on how I feel about their policy stances).

Tell me I'm wrong. I desperately want to be wrong about this. But I don't think I am.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

---

First of all, you can f*** right off with this stuff. I am telling you the truth. If you don't think I'm being genuine then there's no point in having a dialogue here.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

---

Okay, so here are some things you would have liked to see. The answer is that Democratic leaders have proposed many such reforms from 2008 onward. They were typically blocked by either (1) Republicans wielding filibuster power in the Senate or control of one or more houses of Congress or (2) some conservative Democrats getting nervous about doing too much. That's Congress for you, stuff tends to move slowly. Everything is a big lift. There literally wasn't time to do all of this between 2008-2010, given that there are recesses and time when Congresspeople don't want to do anything because they are busy campaigning for the next election.

Many of the issues are more structural than about a lack of will (though sometimes there is a lack of will).

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Add this to the list of ways you are similar to your bro Bernie.

By the way, a lot of the areas you said Democrats didn't take action on were the subject of EOs and agency reform, much of which has been undone by Trump and his kleptocracy/kakistocracy.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

It's pretty simple really. The U.S. pays DOUBLE over other developed nations for healthcare but with crappier results, fewer covered and something unknown in socialist countries like France: bankruptcy due to illness. Furthermore from an economic POV: paying more and getting less is a major drag on the economy, dead weight overhead that doesn't create a return...just goes down the drain.

Conversely, look at Canada. Do you know what American GM executives say to the Canadian government? We love Canadian healthcare because it eliminates a major overhead expense and workers get better coverage.

The Democrats want to reform healthcare because the benefits are many, like savings that can be rolled back into more coverage. Not sure how you don't get the mandate of providing for citizens and helping the economy in a long term way. Only a knucklehead conservative with zero business experience...or the current GOP, refuses to get it. The thing is, some of those people get it...but refuse to make hard, long term, pragmatic decisions.

Common sense says kill or reduce overhead. GOP say keep paying in an illogical system just because.

---

Thanks for giving a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

Just curious: besides health care, what kinds of policies should Democrats be pushing? Which of these do you think could actually gain majority support, rather than just being something you personally want?

---

Nice, but wholly irrelevant condition on the response. Obamacare in its current form wouldn't pass the Senate and barely passed the Senate in 2008, but Democrats still talk about changing health care all the time anyway.

I want to know about other aspects of the country that they would like to change and why they didn't push for any of those changes between 2008 and 2010 when they had the votes to do it.

---

I'm just curious what you'd like to see out of the Democratic Party that would cause you to more wholeheartedly support them.

Following upon that, I'd like to know if you think those things can actually get done.

This is an open-ended question. I'm not actually trying to trap you or anything, though admittedly I am trying to frame the question in a practical way.

---

Democrats don't need to do anything to get my vote right now. Just not being Republicans is sufficient. The Republican Party, as currently constituted, must die and with it must die the political careers of nearly every currently elected Republican official, who have put politics above the law, above ethics, and above common decency.

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

Now, you can choose not to answer the question. There's nothing saying you must. But then that would suggest to me that an unwillingness to answer such a softball question is tantamount to admitting that other than healthcare and being able to appoint liberal judges to federal positions and a few minor things around the margins, a large majority of elected Democratic officials (or those that would like to be - and I'm talking like 80% of the party) are perfectly content with the status quo other than the fact that the Republicans are in charge instead of them. Rashida Tlaib, Illhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley are vocal about wanting very large changes, but they are freshmen Congressmen who aren't in my district so they are a drop in the bucket and I can't vote for or against them (depending on how I feel about their policy stances).

Tell me I'm wrong. I desperately want to be wrong about this. But I don't think I am.

---

The part highlighted above is, I think, the substance of what the Professor is after. The answer is because during those two years Obama and the Democratic Congress (including a Senate which had 60 Democratic Senators for only about 60 days) made a priority of Obamacare over those other issues. Passing those other issues at the same time as Obamacare could have derailed everything. That's a judgment call you disagree with. That's fine. Even after just passing Obamacare Republicans had sweeping victories in the 2010 elections. But I think it is disingenuous to say most Democrats haven't been fighting for those things all along. Keep voting for Democrats and progress will be made on all those issues.

With the introduction of the Professor, I have to say the quality of the trolls here has gone way, way down. This is disappointing on many levels. It means either the Russkies are getting their butts filled with Putin and the deep state Pizza-gate weirdos have gotten their messaging to the White House...or the in-house trolls are in rehab. Whatever the case, the current trolls here suck shtt covered donkey balls.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Add this to the list of ways you are similar to your bro Bernie.

By the way, a lot of the areas you said Democrats didn't take action on were the subject of EOs and agency reform, much of which has been undone by Trump and his kleptocracy/kakistocracy.

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/91180

Professor, are you a Russkie troll or bot? Hard to tell what you're trying to troll here but I guess it really doesn't matter. Russkie trolling is sorta like diarrhea...random, non-organized, really messy and nasty. Or are you a center-right, semi-moderate Democrat?

Whatever, I doubt you can even vote in this country.

Quote:

---

"THERE IS REAL FEAR": INSIDE THE BIG MONEY HUNT FOR AN ALTERNATE BIDEN

The Ukraine scandal has only amplified fears that the 76-year-old Biden might not have what it takes to go the distance in the general election. But with Bennet polling at 0% in Iowa, and Warren considered too progressive, who might take up his centrist lane?

A few days after the third Democratic debate, a movie producer of some renown was in his car, at a quarter past 7 p.m., on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles. There was a lot of traffic, and he was late for a dinner party off the Sepulveda Pass. We started talking about the Democratic primary, and when I asked him whether Joe Biden had the stamina to win the nomination and, ultimately, the White House, he laughed uproariously. "**** no," he said. "Only septuagenarians in the Palisades think that. Everyone else knows he's the Titanic." When I asked whether he'd go on the record, he laughed louder. "Of course not. I have the utmost respect for the former vice president."

---

Quote:

---

A prominent Democratic bundler scoffed at the Alternate Biden camp. "We found an alternative to Biden," the bundler said. "Her name is Elizabeth Warren, and it's the elites in the party, in L.A. and New York, who don't like her, people who think the wealth tax is going to be unpopular. Guess what? It's not."

Warren, like Bernie Sanders, has rejected big-dollar fundraisersat which supporters routinely pay up to $2,800 for a chance to hear the candidate give her stump speech while sipping pinot from a plastic cup next to someone's infinity pool overlooking the Los Angeles basinand opted for a more grassroots approach. It's working: In the third quarter, she reeled in just shy of $25 million, about $10 million more than Biden did and $700,000 less than Sanders's haul. More than 500,000donors gave to the Warren campaign. The average contribution was $26. She is tied with or ahead of Biden in many recent polls.

The Democratic bundler added: "She's played it so brilliantly because she doesn't need any of the party establishment, but she hasn't made an enemy of us, like Bernie did."

---

Another Bear said:

---

With the introduction of the Professor, I have to say the quality of the trolls here has gone way, way down. This is disappointing on many levels. It means either the Russkies are getting their butts filled with Putin and the deep state Pizza-gate weirdos have gotten their messaging to the White House...or the in-house trolls are in rehab. Whatever the case, the current trolls here suck shtt covered donkey balls.

---

So you'd prefer more posts by BearForce2, GBear4Life, cal88, and kelly09?

Interesting.

I don't think PTB is a bot or Russian troll. His point of view doesn't line up with many here but he seems genuine. I would imagine we agree on a great many things, he just seems to believe that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to achieve what he wants so he launches somewhat random and tangential attacks on Warren because she's far more likely to win than Sanders.

I don't agree of course and think starting multiple threads posting Warren hit pieces is both pointless and bizarre, but I have no beef otherwise.

Tl; dr - PTB seems like a patriot who hates Trump and thinks Bernie is the solution to all our problems. That doesn't make him a troll or bot or useful idiot.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

With the introduction of the Professor, I have to say the quality of the trolls here has gone way, way down. This is disappointing on many levels. It means either the Russkies are getting their butts filled with Putin and the deep state Pizza-gate weirdos have gotten their messaging to the White House...or the in-house trolls are in rehab. Whatever the case, the current trolls here suck shtt covered donkey balls.

---

So you'd prefer more posts by BearForce2, GBear4Life, cal88, and kelly09?

Interesting.

---

HAHAHA...no but they're more honest in their Trumpkieism. I'm just pointing out your weak trolling style. At least they go balls to the wall BLIND like a good Trumpkin. Your game seems to be more subtle but even more pointless...yet you know all the other trolls. You're trying to dissuade people from Elizabeth Warren? Why?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't think PTB is a bot or Russian troll. His point of view doesn't line up with many here but he seems genuine. I would imagine we agree on a great many things, he just seems to believe that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to achieve what he wants so he launches somewhat random and tangential attacks on Warren because she's far more likely to win than Sanders.

I don't agree of course and think starting multiple threads posting Warren hit pieces is both pointless and bizarre, but I have no beef otherwise.

Tl; dr - PTB seems like a patriot who hates Trump and thinks Bernie is the solution to all our problems. That doesn't make him a troll or bot or useful idiot.

---

Okay fair enough...and Bernie just had a heart attack.

So where is Anarchistbear?

Another Bear said:

---

Professor, are you a Russkie troll or bot? Hard to tell what you're trying to troll here but I guess it really doesn't matter. Russkie trolling is sorta like diarrhea...random, non-organized, really messy and nasty. Or are you a center-right, semi-moderate Democrat?

Whatever, I doubt you can even vote in this country.

Quote:

---

"THERE IS REAL FEAR": INSIDE THE BIG MONEY HUNT FOR AN ALTERNATE BIDEN

The Ukraine scandal has only amplified fears that the 76-year-old Biden might not have what it takes to go the distance in the general election. But with Bennet polling at 0% in Iowa, and Warren considered too progressive, who might take up his centrist lane?

A few days after the third Democratic debate, a movie producer of some renown was in his car, at a quarter past 7 p.m., on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles. There was a lot of traffic, and he was late for a dinner party off the Sepulveda Pass. We started talking about the Democratic primary, and when I asked him whether Joe Biden had the stamina to win the nomination and, ultimately, the White House, he laughed uproariously. "**** no," he said. "Only septuagenarians in the Palisades think that. Everyone else knows he's the Titanic." When I asked whether he'd go on the record, he laughed louder. "Of course not. I have the utmost respect for the former vice president."

---

Quote:

---

A prominent Democratic bundler scoffed at the Alternate Biden camp. "We found an alternative to Biden," the bundler said. "Her name is Elizabeth Warren, and it's the elites in the party, in L.A. and New York, who don't like her, people who think the wealth tax is going to be unpopular. Guess what? It's not."

Warren, like Bernie Sanders, has rejected big-dollar fundraisersat which supporters routinely pay up to $2,800 for a chance to hear the candidate give her stump speech while sipping pinot from a plastic cup next to someone's infinity pool overlooking the Los Angeles basinand opted for a more grassroots approach. It's working: In the third quarter, she reeled in just shy of $25 million, about $10 million more than Biden did and $700,000 less than Sanders's haul. More than 500,000donors gave to the Warren campaign. The average contribution was $26. She is tied with or ahead of Biden in many recent polls.

The Democratic bundler added: "She's played it so brilliantly because she doesn't need any of the party establishment, but she hasn't made an enemy of us, like Bernie did."

---

Quote:

---

The Alternate Biden camp tends to view Warren as too progressive to be a serious alternative. She is, in their view, a reaction to Trumpan ideological counterpointand she won't, or can't, accomplish what is needed more than better health care or a Green New Deal: national unity.

"I've been a Democrat my whole life, and I'm very concerned that the party nominates what I would call a mainstream Democrat," said Russell Goldsmith, who is a Bennet supporter. "Unfortunately, the process is such that it's very hard to get attention, unless you are either extremely well known and extremely visible, like Joe Biden, or you are kind of the loudest voice on the extremes. That worked to Trump's benefit last time, and that's working for Warren and Sanders this time."

---

---

Democrats rejected the public option in 2010. Just because politically motivated candidates are appealing to their base with rhetoric about huge transfers of health care from private sector to the government doesn't necessarily mean the Dems would pass it in 2021 (though they could, I don't know...I doubt it)

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't agree of course and think starting multiple threads posting Warren hit pieces is both pointless and bizarre,

---

No? You don't approve of incessant and redundant hit pieces?

BearsWiin said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

---

Why? Shouldn't you, as an avowed Democrat have a laundry list of reforms they're hungry to make? I'm asking about Democrats, not myself.

---

So, not gonna answer the question then.

---

He thinks he's clever

---

He is
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

---

First of all, you can f*** right off with this stuff. I am telling you the truth. If you don't think I'm being genuine then there's no point in having a dialogue here.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

---

Okay, so here are some things you would have liked to see. The answer is that Democratic leaders have proposed many such reforms from 2008 onward. They were typically blocked by either (1) Republicans wielding filibuster power in the Senate or control of one or more houses of Congress or (2) some conservative Democrats getting nervous about doing too much. That's Congress for you, stuff tends to move slowly. Everything is a big lift. There literally wasn't time to do all of this between 2008-2010, given that there are recesses and time when Congresspeople don't want to do anything because they are busy campaigning for the next election.

Many of the issues are more structural than about a lack of will (though sometimes there is a lack of will).

---

Here's a review of gun control since 2008.
https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

---

Why? Shouldn't you, as an avowed Democrat have a laundry list of reforms they're hungry to make? I'm asking about Democrats, not myself.

---

So, not gonna answer the question then.

---

He thinks he's clever

---

He is
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

---

I don't understand your point here.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

---

First of all, you can f*** right off with this stuff. I am telling you the truth. If you don't think I'm being genuine then there's no point in having a dialogue here.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

---

Okay, so here are some things you would have liked to see. The answer is that Democratic leaders have proposed many such reforms from 2008 onward. They were typically blocked by either (1) Republicans wielding filibuster power in the Senate or control of one or more houses of Congress or (2) some conservative Democrats getting nervous about doing too much. That's Congress for you, stuff tends to move slowly. Everything is a big lift. There literally wasn't time to do all of this between 2008-2010, given that there are recesses and time when Congresspeople don't want to do anything because they are busy campaigning for the next election.

Many of the issues are more structural than about a lack of will (though sometimes there is a lack of will).

---

Here's a review of gun control since 2008.
https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

---

Yes, as I said, gun control failed to gain enough support in Congress, largely thanks to Republicans blocking it in the Senate (after Sandy Hook).

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

---

First of all, you can f*** right off with this stuff. I am telling you the truth. If you don't think I'm being genuine then there's no point in having a dialogue here.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

---

Okay, so here are some things you would have liked to see. The answer is that Democratic leaders have proposed many such reforms from 2008 onward. They were typically blocked by either (1) Republicans wielding filibuster power in the Senate or control of one or more houses of Congress or (2) some conservative Democrats getting nervous about doing too much. That's Congress for you, stuff tends to move slowly. Everything is a big lift. There literally wasn't time to do all of this between 2008-2010, given that there are recesses and time when Congresspeople don't want to do anything because they are busy campaigning for the next election.

Many of the issues are more structural than about a lack of will (though sometimes there is a lack of will).

---

Here's a review of gun control since 2008.
https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

---

Yes, as I said, gun control failed to gain enough support in Congress, largely thanks to Republicans blocking it in the Senate (after Sandy Hook).

---

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/obama-gun-control-227625

Quote:

---

The main problem gun control advocates had in 2013 was not the rules but the lack of a mandate, the product of Democratic squeamishness about gun control going back several years.

Many Democrats had been uncomfortable with gun control since the moment President Bill Clinton enacted the assault weapons ban in 1994, over the private opposition of the House Democratic leadership. When Democrats were decimated in the 1994 midterm elections, including Speaker Tom Foley, gun control was blamed. (In his autobiography, Clinton wrote that the National Rifle Association "could rightly claim to have made [Newt] Gingrich the House speaker.")

---

Quote:

---

And so Barack Obama released an approving statement during the 2008 presidential campaign when the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to bear arms, and proceeded to flip several states with significant gun-owning constituencies. In his first term, Obama did not push for gun control measures after the fatal mass shootings at Fort Hood, Texas; an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater; and the Tucson, Arizona supermarket that cut short Rep. Gabby Giffords' congressional career. He continued to keep quiet on gun control in the 2012 presidential campaign as well.
The Sandy Hook massacre, which took place one month after the 2012 election, upended Obama's second-term legislative agenda. The national trauma resulting from the murders of 20 small children was so profound that Obama reasonably concluded this was not a time for caution and calculation. In January 2013, Obama proposed a long list of measures, including bans on assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets and a limit on the size of magazines.

And yet he began his gun control push from a position of political weakness. He had not campaigned on gun control, let alone a specific set of gun control proposals. He couldn't influence lawmakers with clear evidence of red- and purple-state voters who were dedicated to his proposals. No broad-based gun control movement was in place to apply grassroots pressure.

---

They never really tried was the issuse, not that the Republicans obstructed their valiant efforts.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't agree of course and think starting multiple threads posting Warren hit pieces is both pointless and bizarre, but I have no beef otherwise.

---

How are they hit pieces? Name something in one of those articles that is factually incorrect.

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The perceived unreasonableness of Democrats is counteracted by RWNJs collectively giving Trump a big sloppy BJ and rim chew, and gladly bending over to take his lady panis. But some have come around, like miners, farmers and factory workers who were promised economic revival but instead got a lump of coal and a stinky turd sandwich. Those who haven't come around...still giving the Trump panis a good sucking.

---

Problem is Democrats aren't the answer for them economically either, and certainly not culturally. I recall not one Democrat has said we're going to lower the working class' tax burden or (unless Yang's UBI counts), only stuff like we're gonna get you free health care and education [at increased tax rates; but don't worry we're taxing the rich more]. Both parties pay a healthy amount of lip service to the middle class. At least Trump threw some pennies at the working class even though he was throwing dollars at corp.

---

This is probably as close as coming to making a truthful post as you are capable of. Any closer and I'll fall out of my chair in shock.

---

I'll second that. If 4Life made arguments like this more often instead of buzzword word salad I wouldn't have him blocked.

---

Here's something I genuinely don't understand about the Democrats.

For years and years they were gung-ho to reform health care. Tried to do it under Clinton, couldn't get it done. Had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, plus the presidency, and managed to get some level of reform done. Now they want to further reform thing even though they likely will not have enough votes in the Senate to get it done.

Fine. I agree with all that. Health care is too expensive and it is in the public interest to have as healthy a populace as possible.

But it's not like that's the only segment of society that needs serious reform. Yet only among a few politicians are these things ever seriously discussed and no meaningful legislation ever gets proposed, let alone passed. Why are they so passionate about health care and so seemingly apathetic towards the rest of it? If I make the argument that they really don't care about the plight of the comman man, then why touch health care at all? But if one claims that they do care about the comman man and point to health care reform, then where's the rest of it?

Kinda why although I vote for Democrats because Republicans are simply that repugnant right now, I'll never be one.

---

Can you be more specific about these other policies you want action on?

---

Why? Shouldn't you, as an avowed Democrat have a laundry list of reforms they're hungry to make? I'm asking about Democrats, not myself.

---

So, not gonna answer the question then.

---

He thinks he's clever

---

He is
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

---

I don't understand your point here.

---

He doesn't have one

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

---

First of all, you can f*** right off with this stuff. I am telling you the truth. If you don't think I'm being genuine then there's no point in having a dialogue here.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

But all of that has nothing to do with my original question, which still has not been answered. And whether they can be reasonably accomplished with a Republican Senate doesn't matter. Major health care reform, as it is being discussed in Democratic presidential primaries is dead on arrival in the Senate, but they still talk about it all the time. Where are the rest of the reforms they want? They talk about gun control after mass shootings, but why didn't they enact strict reforms between 2008-2010 when they had the opportunity? Where was massive immigration reform? Where was the large energy reform to address climate change? Where was there serious talk about the problem of skyrocketing costs for going to college?

---

Okay, so here are some things you would have liked to see. The answer is that Democratic leaders have proposed many such reforms from 2008 onward. They were typically blocked by either (1) Republicans wielding filibuster power in the Senate or control of one or more houses of Congress or (2) some conservative Democrats getting nervous about doing too much. That's Congress for you, stuff tends to move slowly. Everything is a big lift. There literally wasn't time to do all of this between 2008-2010, given that there are recesses and time when Congresspeople don't want to do anything because they are busy campaigning for the next election.

Many of the issues are more structural than about a lack of will (though sometimes there is a lack of will).

---

Here's a review of gun control since 2008.
https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

---

Yes, as I said, gun control failed to gain enough support in Congress, largely thanks to Republicans blocking it in the Senate (after Sandy Hook).

---

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/obama-gun-control-227625

Quote:

---

The main problem gun control advocates had in 2013 was not the rules but the lack of a mandate, the product of Democratic squeamishness about gun control going back several years.

Many Democrats had been uncomfortable with gun control since the moment President Bill Clinton enacted the assault weapons ban in 1994, over the private opposition of the House Democratic leadership. When Democrats were decimated in the 1994 midterm elections, including Speaker Tom Foley, gun control was blamed. (In his autobiography, Clinton wrote that the National Rifle Association "could rightly claim to have made [Newt] Gingrich the House speaker.")

---

Quote:

---

And so Barack Obama released an approving statement during the 2008 presidential campaign when the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to bear arms, and proceeded to flip several states with significant gun-owning constituencies. In his first term, Obama did not push for gun control measures after the fatal mass shootings at Fort Hood, Texas; an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater; and the Tucson, Arizona supermarket that cut short Rep. Gabby Giffords' congressional career. He continued to keep quiet on gun control in the 2012 presidential campaign as well.
The Sandy Hook massacre, which took place one month after the 2012 election, upended Obama's second-term legislative agenda. The national trauma resulting from the murders of 20 small children was so profound that Obama reasonably concluded this was not a time for caution and calculation. In January 2013, Obama proposed a long list of measures, including bans on assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets and a limit on the size of magazines.

And yet he began his gun control push from a position of political weakness. He had not campaigned on gun control, let alone a specific set of gun control proposals. He couldn't influence lawmakers with clear evidence of red- and purple-state voters who were dedicated to his proposals. No broad-based gun control movement was in place to apply grassroots pressure.

---

They never really tried was the issuse, not that the Republicans obstructed their valiant efforts.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Proposed_assault_weapons_ban

Background check legislation got a majority vote but failed in the Senate thanks to filibuster rules.

Dems haven't gone hard for gun control, but it's incorrect to say they haven't tried anything.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't agree of course and think starting multiple threads posting Warren hit pieces is both pointless and bizarre, but I have no beef otherwise.

---

How are they hit pieces? Name something in one of those articles that is factually incorrect.

---

Don't care to read them but you do know that hit pieces can be factually accurate right? Omitting relevant facts is a common way to be "factually correct" but a disingenuous hit piece.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I don't agree of course and think starting multiple threads posting Warren hit pieces is both pointless and bizarre, but I have no beef otherwise.

---

How are they hit pieces? Name something in one of those articles that is factually incorrect.

---

Don't care to read them but you do know that hit pieces can be factually accurate right? Omitting relevant facts is a common way to be "factually correct" but a disingenuous hit piece.

---

Liz will always fail the ideological purity tests that the Bernie Bolsheviki require of everybody. It's unreasonable to accept that people evolve their ideological and political viewpoints over time (and that political environments can change over time) when your guy has been ideologically steadfast for decades, a lone voice screaming in the wilderness. We don't all arrive at the present having changed naught since our creation, as Athena sprung fully formed from Zeus' helm. But nobody can measure up to the one who's always been old guy yelling at cloud, so here we are, having to endure crude sophistry on our humble board

Another Bear said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

With the introduction of the Professor, I have to say the quality of the trolls here has gone way, way down. This is disappointing on many levels. It means either the Russkies are getting their butts filled with Putin and the deep state Pizza-gate weirdos have gotten their messaging to the White House...or the in-house trolls are in rehab. Whatever the case, the current trolls here suck shtt covered donkey balls.

---

So you'd prefer more posts by BearForce2, GBear4Life, cal88, and kelly09?

Interesting.

---

HAHAHA...no but they're more honest in their Trumpkieism. I'm just pointing out your weak trolling style. At least they go balls to the wall BLIND like a good Trumpkin. Your game seems to be more subtle but even more pointless...yet you know all the other trolls. You're trying to dissuade people from Elizabeth Warren? Why?

---

A well-informed voting public makes well-informed decisions. Even if they ultimately make bad decisions like electing Trump, they should have all the available information at hand so they know exactly who the candidates are, rather than a marketed image of what the candidates claim to be.

As for claiming that I'm a Trumpkin, I'll just reiterate that your reading skills are poor.