ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [371] -- GOP Begins To Freak Out Over Trump

[ Posted Friday, December 4th, 2015 – 17:26 PST ]

We took last week off for the holidays, so we've got a lot of ground to cover today. Sadly, this included two terrorist attacks in America, one in Colorado and one in Southern California. The truly sad part is that these mass shootings are becoming so common nowadays that within a few months most people will have forgotten them, as we all focus on fresher, more recent tragedies. Welcome to a very grim "new normal," in other words. Sorry to start off on such a heavy note, but such news is impossible to ignore.

Moving along to more lighthearted fare, the Republican presidential race is still as amusing as ever, with no sign yet that Donald Trump is heading for any sort of inevitable collapse in the polls. In fact, he's actually gaining ground. CNN released a poll this week showing Trump at a whopping 36 percent, a full 20 points higher than his nearest competitor. Most of this rise is coming at the expense of Ben Carson, who seems to be fading fast. Carson is now essentially tied with Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, in the mid-teens. Even more stunning, Jeb! Bush has dropped to a measly three percent, after his super PAC poured almost $30 million down the advertising rathole. With Carson flailing, this means that in all likelihood the Republican nominee will be either Rubio, Cruz, or Trump. And the most likely scenario is that Donald Trump becomes the Republican standard-bearer. We're officially through the looking glass, folks.

Some Republicans are finally waking up to this reality, and reacting in various amusing ways. Some are openly predicting a Barry Goldwater-sized electoral disaster. Some are beginning to openly call Trump a fascist. John Kasich is running a brutal ad which essentially compares Donald Trump to the Nazis. Lindsey Graham has apparently decided that, since he has no chance of winning the nomination, he might as well just go ahead and say what he feels about Trump. Earlier in the week he was quoted calling Trump a "xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot," and last night Graham told an audience: "I believe Donald Trump is destroying the Republican Party's chances to win in an election that we can't afford to lose. You think you're gonna win an election with that kind of garbage?!"

None of it has mattered. Trump can say pretty much anything at this point -- which he's proven time and time again. They that have sown the wind are now reaping the Trump whirlwind. We've said it before, and we'll no doubt say it again -- this couldn't have happened to a nicer political party! In fact, there's only one Republican who is now enjoying himself no matter what happens on the campaign trail -- because Scott Walker has already stopped running (freeing up lots of time for doing much more fun things than dealing with Trump).

In non-Trump campaign news, Ted Cruz jumped to the most bizarre conclusion heard after the Colorado shooting. The shooter, according to Cruz (and based on pure malarkey), was nothing short of a "transgender leftist activist." Cruz also took the time to share his experiences buying rubbers when in college, for some inexplicable reason. Ben Carson, meanwhile, took a quick trip to a refugee camp in the Middle East, and then returned back home to speak to a group of Jewish activists, where he warned of the threat of "hummus," apparently mistaking chickpea purée for Hamas. Lindsey Graham (yes, he's still running, officially) engaged in a bit of truth-telling, knocking other Republican candidates: "If you are going to tell a woman who has been raped that she has to carry the child of the rapist, you're going to lose most Americans. If the Republican nominee won't allow an exception for rape or incest, they will lose." Of course, Republicans voting in primaries probably won't listen to such sage advice.

Things have been pretty quiet on the Democratic side of things, mostly as Democrats everywhere sit back and watch the continuing trainwreck that is the Republican nomination fight. In recent head-to-head polling, Hillary Clinton defeats the entire Republican field. So does Bernie Sanders, and by even wider margins. That's right -- Sanders is more electable than Clinton!

What else? We got another good jobs report today, with 211,000 new jobs created last month. Unemployment stayed stable at five percent. Congress is right now in a frenzy of "doing what they should have been doing during all those vacation weeks they took," but we're going to wait until next week to focus on that circus, personally.

One last interesting note before we get on with the awards (and a very special talking points section) -- immigration is going to be a huge issue next summer, right in the middle of the presidential campaign. This is now virtually assured by the Supreme Court denying the delaying tactics Texas was attempting, in order to push the issue out past the election (into the Supreme Court's next term, in other words). Because of this decision, it's almost certain the case of President Obama's new immigration policy will be decided by June -- which puts it right at the start of the general election campaign. So there's that to look forward to, a half a year from now. OK, that's enough, let's get on with things.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is a Missouri state representative, Stacey Newman.

Her response to the recent shootings is the best we've come across. From the story:

A Missouri lawmaker is introducing a bill that would subject gun buyers in the state to the same kind of restrictions that women face if they choose to have an abortion.

State Rep. Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis) has pre-filed a bill for the state legislature's 2016 session that would require buyers to wait 72 hours to make a gun purchase, which they would only be able to do at a store at least 120 miles from their home. Women in the state must wait 72 hours before they can get an abortion and the 120-mile restriction is intended to draw attention to the long distances that women must travel to have one.

. . .

The bill would require gun buyers to undergo an evaluation and receive counseling from a physician about the risks associated with owning a gun. Women in Missouri must sign a consent form 72 hours before an abortion, be given a chance to look at an ultrasound of the baby and be informed about potential health hazards of the procedure, according to the Columbia Daily Tribune.

Under Newman's bill, the gun purchaser would be required to tour an emergency trauma center between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on a weekend when firearms victims are present and meet with at least two families affected by gun violence as well as two people who have officiated the funerals of minors who were shot dead.

This bill is pure political grandstanding, we should note, because it's simply not going to pass. However, it is also an excellent piece of political theater, pointing out the hypocrisy of those that call themselves "pro-life." As Newman put it, "If the appetite is for more and more reproductive restrictions, then it makes sense if to apply those to gun purchases."

In Washington, the Senate just voted down two amendments that would have stopped some of the loopholes in the background check system and denied gun purchases to those on the terrorism watch list. Both were also symbolic, to get Republicans on the record opposing them. But in our opinion, Newman's symbolic measure was even more pointed, which is why she's the winner of this week's MIDOTW award. Well done, Representative Newman!

[Congratulate Missouri Representative Stacey Newman on her contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

The level of corruption in Albany, New York is at such a high rate that it's almost tough for a crooked politician to get noticed. Salon had a handy rundown of recent history in New York's capital:

Meanwhile, 30 lawmakers have left office because of criminal charges or allegations of ethical misconduct since 2000. The Senate's former No. 2 member, Republican Thomas Libous, was sentenced to house arrest last week for lying to the FBI. Ex-Senate Leader Dean Skelos, R-Long Island, currently is on trial for charges that he extorted bribes and jobs for his son.

In just the past five years, one Albany lawmaker was convicted of taking bribes from a carnival promoter. A second entered into a sham marriage in order to become a citizen. A third was accused of harassing female staffers and forcing one to touch cancerous tumors on his neck and armpit.

But even with all that stiff competition, former speaker of the state Assembly Sheldon Silver stood out this week. He was just convicted in federal court of "fraud, extortion, and money-laundering," to the tune of $4 million in illegal bribes and kickbacks -- some extorted from a cancer researcher. Got that? Money that should have gone to curing cancer went into Silver's pocket instead. It's hard to imagine anything sleazier, really.

We gave Silver his first Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award back in January. Now that he's been found guilty, we're taking the opportunity to hand him his second one.

There's a reason why the first-ever Museum Of Political Corruption is being organized in Albany. That reason is that it's hard to even stand out among the fetid swamp of corruption that is New York's capital. But with this verdict, Sheldon Silver managed to do that this week.

[Sheldon Silver is no longer a sitting official, and it's our policy to not provide contact information for private individuals.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 371 (12/4/15)

Before we begin (and because we didn't know where else to stick it), we have two program notes. The first is that I was interviewed this morning on Talk910, a San Francisco Bay Area radio station, so if you'd like to hear me waffle on about Trump and Carson, check it out (my bit starts about 77 minutes in)! The second is that it is our holiday fundraising season, once again. With all that out of the way, let's move along to the talking points.

We have a very special talking points section this week, because all of them come straight from Republicans. It's our way of offering sympathy to all those in the Republican Party who now stand horrified at the Frankenstein's monster they have created in Donald Trump.

The first four of these come from the extraordinary internal Republican memo leaked this week to the Washington Post. The memo was written by Ward Baker, who has the unenviable job of trying to get Republicans elected (and re-elected) to the Senate. The entire memo consists of advice for candidates on what to do if Trump does become the Republican nominee. One line sums up the thrust of the memo: "Understand the populist points Trump makes and ride that wave."

The next two talking points are from various Republican officials reacting to the prospect of a Trump nomination, especially on how it would affect all the down-ballot races. Remember, all of these talking points are from Republicans. We can afford to do this because Republicans are doing such a great job of bad-mouthing Trump right now that no Democratic help is even necessary. Here's a bonus talking point from the article, by way of example: "If he carries this message into the general election in Ohio, we'll hand this election to Hillary Clinton -- and then try to salvage the rest of the ticket." With Republicans saying stuff like that, all Democrats have to do is repeat such great lines.

Are you a journalist who wants to watch a Republican squirm in fear? Or maybe you just like teasing your Republican friends and relatives? It's easy to do, right now. All you have to do is ask them a very simple and straightforward question: "If Donald Trump becomes the nominee of your party, will you wholeheartedly support him?" Some of the Republican candidates are already getting asked this question, and dodge it though they may, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens if Trump starts actually winning primaries and caucuses. So keep asking the question to every Republican you meet! Over time, the answers should get more and more panicky, that's for sure.

 

1
   Never, ever

As mentioned, the first four of these are from that Republican senatorial campaign memo. This was the very first bullet point from the memo, and it paints a very grim picture for Republicans.

Trump is a Misguided Missile. Let's face facts. Trump says what's on his mind and that's a problem. Our candidates will have to spend full time defending him or condemning him if that continues. And, that's a place we never, ever want to be.

 

2
   Farcical fits

Once again, this is not parody -- this is straight from the Republican establishment.

Show your Independence. As we know, Trump is subject to farcical fits. You can still obey the "run your own campaign" edict, while still taking Trump to task on outrageous statements where the media won't let you off the hook.

 

3
   Trump-lite

The basic theme of the memo is to become Trump-lite. Agree with Trump on everything while at the same time condemning everything he says -- hey, that shouldn't be too hard, right?

Trump Can Hit The Right Chord. We may not like it, but Trump has connected with voters on issues like trade with China and America's broken borders.... Trump will continue to advance those messages, but you don't have to go along with his more extreme positioning. Instead, you should stake out turf in the same issue zone and offer your own ideas.

 

4
   A big problem

Houston? Are you there? Hello? Anybody?

Trump and Women. Houston, we have a problem: Donald Trump has said some wacky things about women. Candidates shouldn't go near this ground other than to say that your wife or daughter is offended by what Trump said. We do not want to reengage the "war on women" fight so isolate Trump on this issue by offering a quick condemnation of it.

 

5
   Trump, unmolested

This comes from "a prominent Republican senator" who chose to remain nameless, quaking in fear over what Trump would say about him or her in retaliation. Senator Nameless was asked about Trump's effect on Senate races in places like New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

There is not a bit of confusion among our members that if Donald Trump is the nominee, we're going to get wiped out. Until somebody with A, the money, and B, the incentive to step up comes along, I worry he kind of glides along unmolested.

 

6
   Tell us how you really feel, Lindsey!

Here's the full quote from Lindsey Graham, also talking about all those down-ballot races.

It would be an utter, complete and total disaster. If you're a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you're going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you're going to do irreparable damage to the party.

 

7
   Kasich goes full Godwin

And finally, we close with the text of that ad John Kasich has been airing. The following lines obviously are an homage to a very famous statement made after World War II. It's the most forceful attack on Trump that anyone's yet made, but it likely won't make a bit of difference.

You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's okay to rough up black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there's someone left to help you.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

129 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [371] -- GOP Begins To Freak Out Over Trump”

  1. [1] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Did you see Trevor Noah's evisceration of Ted Cruz last night?

    I think Trump folds up by South Carolina.

    Cruz, who is very smart and basically evil, is setting himself up to take over Trump's support.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points [371] -- GOP Begins To Freak Out Over Trump

    I wouldn't call it "FREAKING OUT"....

    Seems to me to be more of "resignation"...

    Sadly, this included two terrorist attacks in America, one in Colorado and one in Southern California.

    No, there was only ONE terrorist attack..

    If we are going to call every shooting where multiple people are killed, then the US is going to start looking like Israel or Gaza...

    What else? We got another good jobs report today, with 211,000 new jobs created last month.

    How can you call that "good" when the projected jobs were far beyond that??

    That's like saying a business had a "good month" because it made $20,000.. The problem is it needed to make $50,000 to stay afloat...

    Because of this decision, it's almost certain the case of President Obama's new immigration policy will be decided by June -- which puts it right at the start of the general election campaign.

    Considering Obama's track record of losing appeals over his Mint Fresh New Democrat Voters program, I wouldn't be to cocky if I were you..

    On the other hand, with my track record of predicting SCOTUS rulings, I shouldn't be too cocky either.. :D

    State Rep. Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis) has pre-filed a bill for the state legislature's 2016 session that would require buyers to wait 72 hours to make a gun purchase, which they would only be able to do at a store at least 120 miles from their home. Women in the state must wait 72 hours before they can get an abortion and the 120-mile restriction is intended to draw attention to the long distances that women must travel to have one.

    This would seem to indicate that Democrats are finally realizing that abortion is killing a human being...

    Does the Dem Party REALLY want to go there???

    In Washington, the Senate just voted down two amendments that would have stopped some of the loopholes in the background check system and denied gun purchases to those on the terrorism watch list.

    There are no loopholes, but why let facts ruin things, eh? :D

    Michale
    121

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, Let's pretend...

    Let's pretend that Trump is running as a Democrat...

    NOW let's write the Talking Points from the Democrat perspective..

    Trump is a Misguided Missile. Let's face facts. Trump says what's on his mind and that's a problem. Our candidates will have to spend full time defending him or condemning him if that continues. And, that's a place we never, ever want to be.

    Trump tells it like it is. He gives voters the straight scoop and doesn't sugarcoat anything.. He is a refreshing breath of fresh air..

    Show your Independence. As we know, Trump is subject to farcical fits. You can still obey the "run your own campaign" edict, while still taking Trump to task on outrageous statements where the media won't let you off the hook.

    Trump is a passionate guy. He REALLY cares about the American people and making America great again...

    Trump and Women. Houston, we have a problem: Donald Trump has said some wacky things about women. Candidates shouldn't go near this ground other than to say that your wife or daughter is offended by what Trump said. We do not want to reengage the "war on women" fight so isolate Trump on this issue by offering a quick condemnation of it.

    Trump calls a spade a spade. If someone says something stupid or moronic, he's going to call them on it..

    There is not a bit of confusion among our members that if Donald Trump is the nominee, we're going to get wiped out. Until somebody with A, the money, and B, the incentive to step up comes along, I worry he kind of glides along unmolested.

    Trump is his own man. He's not bought by special interests and kicks lobbyists out of his office.. He is a Demcorat's wet dream...

    It would be an utter, complete and total disaster. If you're a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you're going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you're going to do irreparable damage to the party.

    The only way that opponents can attack our man Trump is by immature personal attacks. They can't fight him on the issues or on policy, so they stoop to groundless and childish personal attacks. Out man Trump is da bomb!!

    You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's okay to rough up black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there's someone left to help you.

    And now Republicans are going FULL GODWIN on our guy Trump.. If THAT doesn't prove that Trump IS the best candidate for the job, nothing will..

    TRUMP FOR POTUS!!

    If Trump had a '-D' after his name, this is pretty much what things would look like..

    Ya'all would be defending Trump just as much as ya'all are defending Hillary..

    Go ahead.. Tell me I am wrong.. :D

    Michale
    122

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    After San Bernardino: How political correctness could get us all killed
    By K.T. McFarland

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/04/after-san-bernardino-how-political-correctness-could-get-us-all-killed.html?intcmp=hphz05

    Someone who gets it...

    Michale
    123

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    When it comes to the threat of Islamic Terrorism, Obama is our very own Baghdad Bob.. :D

    On ISIS, Barack Obama Is Baghdad Bob
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/04/on-isis-barack-obama-is-baghdad-bob/

    "ISIS is the JV Team.."

    "ISIS is contained.."

    "Americans are not under threat of any attack.."

    WRONG....

    WRONG....

    WRONG.....

    Michale
    124

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Islam is in the throes of a religious war. The primary victims are other Muslims, but thousands of Christians, Jews, Hindus and others have been bloodied by it as well. Obama told Christians not to get on "our high horse," referring to the Crusades. Yes, when Christianity was about the age that Islam is now, it too was engulfed in righteous violence (Protestants versus Catholics). The West is long past it. They're not. If another civilization had been able to exert influence over Europe in the 1500s and 1600s to quell the violence and encourage the "better angels" of the society, it would have been no bad thing.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/04/nothing_to_do_with_islam_128933.html

    Hmmmmmm That sounds familiar... I think someone around here has said the EXACT same thing... :D

    The facts are clear.. Whereas christianity has evolved (by and large) to settle differences of teachings thru debate and discussion, islam is currently in the CRUSADES mode of it's existence...

    I don't think anyone in the west wants to wait a thousand years for islam to grow up...

    Michale
    125

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Trump goes..

    Once again, ya'all ignore the WHY....

    WHY is Trump so popular...

    WHY is Trump still in the game..

    WHY does Trump attract crowds that makes even SANDERS envious...

    Once ya'all understand the WHY, you will be able to see that a President Trump is not as far fetched as ya'all HOPE it is...

    Michale
    126

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump tells it like it is. He gives voters the straight scoop and doesn't sugarcoat anything.. He is a refreshing breath of fresh air..

    "She's a breast of fresh air... I mean.. A breath of fresh ass.."
    -Artemus Gordon, WILD WILD WEST

    :D

    Michale
    127

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    In one recent survey, Ben Carson is a Condorcet winner among self-identified likely Republican primary voters:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/upshot/ben-carson-beating-all-comers.html

    Condorcet voting is a better representation of people's preferences than first-choice plurality voting is. But it's still not a real reflection of the will of the people. For that, you would need some Bayesian scheme to take strength of preferences into account.

    Condorcet reasoned (if I remember right) that people's preferences are reflected in their actions. They can choose one option over another, when other options aren't available. But that doesn't provide any meaningful way to quantify how much happier they are when they get their first choice than when they get their third choice. You could ask them, but that would just get their verbiage with no clear way to evaluate its significance, and besides, they would have an incentive to exaggerate. A ranking of all the options, then, would apparently contain all the information we can reasonably expect to use in trying to figure out "the will of the people".

    Bayes reasoned that people make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. They may be faced, for example, with a choice between one action that will give them either their first choice or their third, with a fifty-fifty chance of getting each, and another action that will give them a certainty of getting their second choice. If we could present them with enough situations, and they choose consistently, then the results of such decisions can be pieced together into a set preferences telling not only which possibility they prefer over which others, but how much they prefer each.

    Ideally, given a numerate electorate, voters would decide elections by choosing among such random options.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Once ya'all understand the WHY, you will be able to see that a President Trump is not as far fetched as ya'all HOPE it is...

    I understand that the people who are supporting Trump are very angry and very afraid. They are gravitating toward someone they perceive is strong enough to alleviate their anger and protect them from the sum of all their fears.

    It is my hope that many of these people will have come to their senses by the time the caucuses and primaries are upon them with the clear realization that they must make wiser choices about the future leadership of their country.

    I don't think any reasonable American will cast a ballot for Donald Trump, mostly because I haven't completely lost faith in the American people or in the promise of America.

    Finally, I would say that if you care about the future of your country and wish it well in meeting the critical challenges facing it - domestically and internationally - then you, too Michale, must see a Trump presidency as being as "far-fetched" and destructive as the rest of us do.

  11. [11] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Ya'all would be defending Trump just as much as ya'all are defending Hillary..

    Go ahead.. Tell me I am wrong.. :D

    Still hobbling around on that rhetorical crutch?

    You say you do not support Trump but it's looking like a Trump / Clinton match up is likely. Who are you going to vote for? :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    I understand that the people who are supporting Trump are very angry and very afraid. They are gravitating toward someone they perceive is strong enough to alleviate their anger and protect them from the sum of all their fears.

    Not at all..

    Trump is offering HOPE...

    Put another way...

    Americans are as "angry" as they were when they were taken in by Obama's "HOPE" message...

    Finally, I would say that if you care about the future of your country and wish it well in meeting the critical challenges facing it - domestically and internationally - then you, too Michale, must see a Trump presidency as being as "far-fetched" and destructive as the rest of us do.

    Says the people who are going to vote CLINTON... A PROVEN liar, manipulator and power-mongering politician...

    Trump is a better PERSON and would be a better POTUS than Hillary Clinton any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    That answer yer question, Bashi?? :D

    The difference is that I am voting for a person, NOT for a Party...

    Michale
    129

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is a better PERSON and would be a better POTUS than Hillary Clinton any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    "MAYBURN!!! You are an ASS every day of the year! Couldn't you take ONE day off!!!??"
    -Major Samantha Carter, STARGATE: SG1

    :D

    Michale
    130

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooooooooo

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/05/former-congressman-unleashes-on-attorney-general-in-rant-against-islam-go-ahead-and-prosecute-me-i-dare-you/

    Former Congresscritter slaps AG Lynch with a gauntlet and flings it to the ground..

    Will Lynch pick it up?? :D

    I would LOVE to see her try.....

    I can't believe in the immediate aftermath of an ISIS terrorist attack, Lynch would spout off about prosecuting hate speech against islamic terrorists...

    Well, she fits in with Obama's administration perfectly..

    Clueless... Absolutely clueless...

    Michale
    131

  15. [15] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Says the people who are going to vote CLINTON... A PROVEN liar, manipulator and power-mongering politician...

    As opposed to a much more proven liar and manipulator, power-mongering billionaire?

    Sounds like your choice is driven by political bias as much or more than those you accuse...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    As opposed to a much more proven liar and manipulator, power-mongering billionaire?

    Yea??

    Prove it... :D

    And if all you have is "Bush Lied!!!" type lies, I'll be very disappointed... :D

    Michale
    132

  17. [17] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Prove it... :D

    And if all you have is "Bush Lied!!!" type lies, I'll be very disappointed... :D

    Easy...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair enough..

    Apply those same standards to Hillary...

    Michale
    133

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, Politifact's bias in favor of the Left Wingery is well-documented...

    Do you have any other source for Trump's "lies"??

    Michale
    134

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... I don't have any enslavement to Trump..

    Yea, him and Hillary are the same when it comes to bullshit and lies...

    Happy?? :D

    Michale
    135

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Closing of Barack Obama’s Mind

    Mr. Obama is lost and confused, inhabiting a world of his own making. That would be bad enough if he was a community organizer; it is disastrous for a man who is president. America and the world are paying a terrible price because of the closing of Barack Obama’s mind.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/the-closing-of-barack-obamas-mind/

    To quote a respected Weigantian...

    yep, yep yep yep... :D

    Michale
    136

  22. [22] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Bernie besting Hillary against all the Repubs sure does make you wonder about the Dem primary polling.

    Still considering a piece on an analysis of those polls?
    The landline bias that may be skewing numbers toward Hillary remains a debate, and your expertise is needed.

    I also think we should get a pool going, or maybe a petition started, on Letterman and Stewart coming out of retirement for a Trump Comedy Special if he actually is the Repub nominee.
    I just can't see them staying out of it.
    I won't be satisfied with brief appearances on other people's shows either.

    The Establishment Repubs lashing out at the Trumpon is certainly entertaining. But Bush spending millions to fall further and further is truly heartwarming. The family deserves nothing less. It appears that Dems aren't the only ones who had their fill.

    A

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  24. [24] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Apply those same standards to Hillary...

    Here you go

    On the other hand, Politifact's bias in favor of the Left Wingery is well-documented...

    Every single link you have posted so far in this thread has ranged from slightly right wing to far right wing and even far neo-con right wing. I'm not going to take cries of bias seriously until you practice what you preach...

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Non-sequitur announcement for everyone:

    Looks like someone in the White House reads my sage advice. A week ago, I ran:

    Speak To Us, Mister President

    which all but begged President Obama to give an Oval Office speech, in prime time.

    And the following headline just caught my eye:

    Obama To Deliver Third Oval Office Address Of His Presidency On Sunday

    Ahem. Didn't know I pulled that kind of weight. Heh.

    In an unrelated and entirely selfish subject: Hey, let's get on that holiday pledge drive thing, folks! That thermometer hasn't budged in days!

    OK, sorry for that blatant begging...

    We now return you to your regularly-scheduled comments....

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every single link you have posted so far in this thread has ranged from slightly right wing to far right wing and even far neo-con right wing. I'm not going to take cries of bias seriously until you practice what you preach...

    Nothing like Cherry Picking yer data, eh??

    I have always posted a wide range of links up to *AND INCLUDING* HuffPoop and DK...

    My point is, that if you are going to point to a Fact Check site (which is what we ARE talking about in this particular issue) you might choose one not in the bag for Hillary and the Democrat Party...

    That's all I am saying...

    Michale
    137

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Looks like someone in the White House reads my sage advice.

    Naaawwwww If anyone from the White House read the pages of CW.COM, I would have been audited a LONG time ago...

    :D

    And the following headline just caught my eye:

    Obama To Deliver Third Oval Office Address Of His Presidency On Sunday

    Ahem. Didn't know I pulled that kind of weight. Heh.

    President Barack Obama will address the nation on Sunday evening to give an update on the investigation into the San Bernardino shooting that killed 14 and to discuss terrorism, the White House said on Saturday.
    The president will talk about the "broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it," the White House said in a statement.

    OK New Drinking Game...

    Everyone DRINKS when Obama says "Islamic Terrorists" or "Muslim Terrorists" or any variation thereof..

    Sheet, we won't even have to crack open one beer... :^/

    Michale
    138

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Thank you but I have the warmest heart around here...

    I care for my fellow Americans first.. The female terrorist went thru the EXACT same vetting process that Democrats want to put Syrian refugees thru..

    And she made it to the US and was able to kill and wound almost 30 innocent people..

    The WORST terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 was caused by "vetted" terrorist..

    The point you don't seem to get (or refuse to acknowledge) is that the Syrians that will be processed as refugees are ALREADY OUT OF HARMS WAY...

    You can pull all the heartstrings you want, but the simple fact is, the refugees are already OUT of Syria... They are SAFE and SOUND... There is absolutely NO reason to bring them to the US...

    Other than to mint fresh new Democrat voters..

    As to the guns issue..

    Despite BS claims from the Left, the US is not the only country that has a problem with guns and massacres.

    Not by far...

    But I will ask you the exact same thing I ask whenever this subject comes up.

    Give me a common sense law that will prevent these types of crowd-based mass shootings that is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment of the US..

    California is a Anti-Gun fanatic's wet dream.. Every gun control law that Obama could POSSIBLY want is part and parcel to California...

    And yet, San Bernardino STILL happened...

    Santa Barbara STILL happened...

    If one looks at the problem objectively, rationally and logically, the ONLY possible conclusion that one could come to is that, short of an outright ban, gun control laws will NOT address the issue...

    Michale
    139

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, there is one interesting fact.. Or couple o facts..

    Gun ownership and purchases have skyrocketed in the previous years..

    Since Obama took office, there are hundreds of thousands of new gun owners and millions of new guns in circulation..

    Now, if you believe the anti-gun crowd, this explosion of new guns in in the hands of legal and law-abiding owners would result in a sharp... a VERY sharp... increase in gun-related violence..

    But the exact opposite is true.. Nationally gun related violence has sharply decline...

    It's ONLY in places where there is strict, VERY STRICT, anti-gun laws that violent gun crime is on the rise...

    AND violent gun crimes are on the rise in "gun free zones"..

    The only explanation that fits all these facts is that guns, in the hands of responsible and law-abiding adults, actually deters gun violence.

    But hay... I am a fair guy.. The will of the people is paramount, blaa blaaa blaaa..

    Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, gut the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments and then the Left Wingery can do whatever they want about guns.. In essence, just get rid of the entire Bill Of Rights...

    Then yer golden...

    But until such time as the Constitution is re-written to fit the desires of the anti-gun crowd, every law that CAN be passed... HAS been passed...

    No proposed law would have ANY effect on gun violence..

    It's time... It's PAST time to look at other causes...

    Michale
    140

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    One sure way to curtail crowd-based mass shootings is to make business and property owners that are Gun Free Zones, financially liable for any crowd-based mass shootings that are on their property..

    When business owners start having to pay for funeral expenses and medical bills of the people killed and wounded on their property because they forbade people from defending themselves??

    Gun Free Zones (AKA Psychotic Shooting Galleries) will become a thing of the past..

    That will go a long way in curtailing crowd-based mass shootings..

    Michale
    141

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jerry Brown is a moron..

    “California has some of the toughest gun control laws of any state. And Nevada and Arizona are wide open, so that’s a gigantic back door through which any terrorist can walk.”
    -Jerry Brown

    Of course, what Moonbeam Brown *DOESN'T* tell you is that the weapons were purchased legally and lawfully *IN CALIFORNIA*!!

    So, the ONLY conclusion that one can logically draw is that even with the TOUGHEST gun laws in the country, criminals and terrorists can STILL get guns...

    So, the path forward is clear...

    Eliminate the 2nd Amendment and gut the BOR...

    Good luck with THAT, Moonbeam...

    Michale
    143

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I'm afraid that it may be too late for a presidential address from the oval office.

    Besides, President Obama may not be capable of delivering the kind of speech you and I are hoping for, anymore. Perhaps, he never was ...

    It's all rather unfortunate as this administration has accomplished quite a lot over the years and resisted the temptation for easy answers to difficult problems. I think this is especially so when it comes to the effort to put US foreign policy back on track after watching it go largely off the rails in the years following the September 11 terror attacks.

    Throughout his administration, Obama has failed to adequately communicate what he is doing and why he is doing it. There was time for this to be overcome but I really think that time has come and gone, regardless of how appropriate, if not always effective, his policies and strategies are. It feels like his opportunity to lead has been lost.

    Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow night, after he speaks to the nation and beyond. I hope so ...

    As for the holiday pledge drive thing ... I'm still working on how that's going to work for me and, Michale isn't making it any easier, I might add ,,,

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz.

    I understand that the people who are supporting Trump are very angry and very afraid. They are gravitating toward someone they perceive is strong enough to alleviate their anger and protect them from the sum of all their fears.

    Ya gotta ask yourself..

    *WHY* are people angry and afraid??

    Once you answer that question honestly, you will begin your journey to enlightenment... :D

    Michale
    144

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do ya'all want to know why Trump is so appealing??

    Because he is not beholden to ANYONE...

    He is a man who has made it clear that he is going to do what is right for the COUNTRY, not what is right for the Democrat Party or Republican Party..

    Establishment Republican politicians hate Trump as much as establishment Democrat politicians do...

    THAT is the appeal of Trump... A person who will do what's right for the COUNTRY and tell BOTH Political Partys to go pound sand...

    Michale
    146

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Throughout his administration, Obama has failed to adequately communicate what he is doing and why he is doing it.

    There's a reason for that...

    As for the holiday pledge drive thing ... I'm still working on how that's going to work for me and, Michale isn't making it any easier, I might add ,,,

    How so???

    It's not my fault that the facts overwhelmingly support my positions... :D

    OK, OK... Granted, I could be a little less 'arrogant plick' about it... :D

    Michale
    147

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The choice between Clinton and Trump is crystal clear..

    It's the choice between a candidate bought and paid for by corporate and special interests...

    And a candidate who is beholden to NO ONE except the American people who voted him into office..

    Like I said... It's a crystal clear choice...

    Michale
    148

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    You wingnut troll.
    How about admitting that the Trumpon isn't self-funding his campaign and that his donors represent interests who are super special too?
    Or does your raging ignorance extend to that too?
    You seem to have convinced yourself with you false claims, but all that money he's spending isn't coming out of his own pocket.

    Your lies justifying your wingnuttery are pathetic just like everything you spew.
    Layers of hypocrisy and head in the sand denial have you whistling past the graveyard while criticism from the Trumpons own party goes unanswered as if ignoring it is adequate or honorable... or anything remotely comparable to discussion or debate fit for an election.

    The troll tactics you use to avoid presenting an honest defense are the only thing that is crystal clear.

    The only thing anywhere near as pathetic would be your counterpart fools nominating the DINO neolibcon warmonger Hillary and actually giving your beloved fascist a chance at success.

    And the worst part is that you think you're so different from them and they think they're so different from you, like a denial contagion has swept through.

    "These aren't the drones we're looking for" should be the slogan for both their campaigns.

    A

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    OK, sorry for that blatant begging...

    @cw,

    awwwww! sad puppies!

    https://thatbeatjuice.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cute-puppy-sad.jpg

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:
  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The troll tactics you use to avoid presenting an honest defense are the only thing that is crystal clear.

    The only thing anywhere near as pathetic would be your counterpart fools nominating the DINO neolibcon warmonger Hillary and actually giving your beloved fascist a chance at success.

    @alto,

    come on, don't hold back now, tell us how you REALLY feel! :)

    i always found the DINO/RINO claims to be a bit silly, since neither party has ever wanted for members who were less committed to the ideals of the party (or the nation) than to themselves, their campaign coffers and their private agendas. that's why obama has been so disappointing to many, because he initially came off as one of the rare exceptions, and it turned out that he isn't.

    i think that at some point, one has to get over the fact that not everyone can be a lincoln, and see candidates for the varied combinations of self-interest and public interest that they comprise.

    JL

  41. [41] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-25

    "Ahem. Didn't know I pulled that kind of weight. Heh."

    Well, apparently you do. Congratulations, all Weigentia salutes you!

    http://www.thedarktide.com/music/imperial.mp3

    As for the CNN poll, what do Orcs know about scientific polling...really, what kind of faith should you put in trends based sub-samples of just 250? CNN should farm the work out to The Elves! Heh.

    Trump doesn't have to win in order to wreck the GOP for the upcoming cycle...he just has to kill the brand. To the extent that Republicans are showing panic, I think that's the reason.

  42. [42] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-25

    "Ahem. Didn't know I pulled that kind of weight. Heh."

    Well, apparently you do. Congratulations, all Weigantia salutes you!

    http://www.thedarktide.com/music/imperial.mp3

    As for the CNN poll, what do Orcs know about scientific polling...really, what kind of faith should you put in trends based sub-samples of just 250? CNN should farm the work out to The Elves! Heh.

    Trump doesn't have to win in order to wreck the GOP for the upcoming cycle...he just has to kill the brand. To the extent that Republicans are showing panic, I think that's the reason.

  43. [43] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I had to correct the spelling of Weigantia, felt a tightening in my throat.

  44. [44] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    I must admit, as Trump gets more and more outrageous, I start to wonder if this is an amazing piece of performance art. How crazy can he go before even the craziest of right wingers say "whoa man, that's too much"?

    His willingness to lie and then bluster (e.g. thousands of Muslims celebrating in Jersey City) must test the devotion of even the most 'head in the sand' Trumpeters.

    If this is performance art, perhaps the next stage will be a gradual adoption of extreme left wing viewpoints dressed up in Trumptease? Or a visit to Cuba to meet and greet Castro? Perhaps a strategy session with Jeremy Corbyn?

    I would vote for him just on artistic grounds if he starts wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.

    Anybody got any other suggestions?

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The point you don't seem to get (or refuse to acknowledge) is that the Syrians that will be processed as refugees are ALREADY OUT OF HARMS WAY...You can pull all the heartstrings you want, but the simple fact is, the refugees are already OUT of Syria... They are SAFE and SOUND... There is absolutely NO reason to bring them to the US...

    So, you would keep all the refugees in transit camps until the Syrian war is over and they can return to their homes which will, of course, be there waiting for them? Or, you would just rather they go somewhere else, perhaps to Jordan which has already taken in more refugees than the US could ever dream to accommodate, in its wildest nightmare? Ahem.

    I'm afraid that what you don't know about refugees, Syrian and otherwise, is a lot. Ditto for how to defeat IS.

  46. [46] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Gun ownership in America:

    Guns sold - still increasing (6M in 2002, 14M in 2013, and a record number of background checks issues on Black Friday - source: FBI)

    Households with a gun - still dropping - source: General Social Survey

    Simple math dictates that fewer people are buying more and more guns. Lots of people with mini-arsenals that include military style weaponry results in the carnage we are seeing at the moment.

    How long are we willing to do nothing about it?

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I care for my fellow Americans first..

    The violently deranged Islamist barbarians are counting on the fact that you are not the only American who believes that and, more importantly, all the implications that follow from it.

    You don't say it explicitly but you certainly imply that you don't care about anyone else and that the ideals that America was founded upon are meaningless. And, that sort of attitude plays directly into the hands of the Islamist extremists and makes a critical part of the struggle to defeat them next to impossible to achieve.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you would keep all the refugees in transit camps until the Syrian war is over and they can return to their homes which will, of course, be there waiting for them?

    Is the United States the world's Housing Agency or Welfare Agency??

    Where is all the concern for CHRISTIANS in the region??

    It's NON-EXISTENT..

    Over 2200 Syrians brought into the US... Less than a hundred of them are christian... ALL the rest are muslims. Democrat voting muslims...

    I would be more inclined to have my heart strings tugged if I didn't know for a fact that the Left is simply trying to mint fresh new Democrat voters..

    So spare me the violins..

    Michale
    150

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simple math dictates that fewer people are buying more and more guns. Lots of people with mini-arsenals that include military style weaponry results in the carnage we are seeing at the moment.

    How long are we willing to do nothing about it?

    Gun related violence is sharply declining...

    Two questions.

    WHY should anything be done about the legal arsenals?

    WHAT exactly would you have done?

    Michale
    151

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have no violins for you, Michale.

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you have been among those who turned back the Jewish refugees when they came seeking refuge in the United States?

    Do you understand anything about refugees, regardless of their faith?

    Do you understand anything about how to defeat IS?

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have no violins for you, Michale.

    Good.. I hated playing the violin in 6th grade..

    I was more of a trumpet guy.. :D

    Would you have been among those who turned back the Jewish refugees when they came seeking refuge in the United States?

    If there was evidence that terrorists were mixed in with Jewish refugees, my response would be the same..

    Do you understand anything about how to defeat IS?

    More than you know..

    ONE of the ways we defeat them is not giving them an engraved invitation to come to this country and slaughter innocents...

    The female terrorist was vetted with the EXACT same process that the Syrian refugees are being vetted..

    Obama's own FBI director says they we do not have the capability to vet the refugees properly...

    What's more important? The lives of innocent Americans??

    Or more voters for the Democrat Party???

    Michale
    152

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    His willingness to lie

    "If you like your Health Care Plan, you can keep your Health Care Plan..."

    "I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance."

    "We had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia"

    "I did not send classified intelligence thru my homebrewed private insecure email server"

    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

    I just thought I would mention that... :D

    Michale
    153

  54. [54] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    @M[49]

    Total criminal acts are down (mostly due to demographics), however gun violence is not decreasing on a per capita basis, and since our population is increasing, this means there are is an increase in total gun violence. (source - CDC).

    Where do you get your statistics?

    What am I doing about gun control? I'm pestering my politicians and donating monthly to gun control groups.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You DO realize that, **BY LAW** christian Syrians take precedence over muslim Syrians, right??

    So, why is Obama importing 99.9% muslim and .1% christian??

    Because muslims are reliable Democrat Party voters and christians are reliable GOP voters....

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where do you get your statistics?

    FBI and the Justice Department..

    What am I doing about gun control? I'm pestering my politicians and donating monthly to gun control groups.

    OK, what law would you enact to prevent crowd-based mass shootings that are not in violation of the 2nd Amendment...

    You are King Obama the 1st.. You can make ANY decree you want, as long as it doesn't infringe a citizens right to keep and bear arms..

    "Talk to me, Goose..."
    -Maverick, TOP GUN

    :D

    Michale
    155

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    Just to make sure we are all on the same page.. :D

    Michale
    156

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if we're going to reference an amendment, let's not forget the first half of it.

    "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

    the purpose of the right to bear arms is a well-regulated militia. the implication being that arms not necessary for a well-regulated militia are not necessarily covered by the second amendment.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    @M[56]

    FBI stats are weak because they rely on voluntary reporting by police departments. That is why the total numbers from the CDC are more reliable. The FBI stats are used for primarily by researchers when they need more information about trends in types of gun violence, because the FBI collect more information about individual criminal acts.

    Proposal for gun control from a GoP Republican precinct committeeman:

    http://goplifer.com/2015/08/27/gun-control-is-easy/

    You should also read his book:

    http://goplifer.com/book-the-politics-of-crazy/

    He perhaps could be one of the architects of the next generation Republican Party. The one I'd consider voting for.

    You may also like "2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America" by Whit Ayres, another Republican.

  60. [60] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    @M[56]

    FBI stats are weak because they rely on voluntary reporting by police departments. That is why the total numbers from the CDC are more reliable. The FBI stats are used for primarily by researchers when they need more information about trends in types of gun violence, because the FBI collect more information about individual criminal acts.

    Proposal for gun control from a GoP Republican precinct committeeman:

    goplifer -dot- com/2015/08/27/gun-control-is-easy/

    You should also read his book:

    goplifer -dot- com/book-the-politics-of-crazy/

    He perhaps could be one of the architects of the next generation Republican Party. The one I'd consider voting for.

    You may also like "2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America" by Whit Ayres, another Republican.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    the purpose of the right to bear arms is a well-regulated militia. the implication being that arms not necessary for a well-regulated militia are not necessarily covered by the second amendment.

    If that were true, then the amendment would read, THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    The writers were obviously making the distinction between a militia and "the people"....

    But it doesn't really matter what you or I think..

    The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to "THE PEOPLE" and not to "A MILITIA"....

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI stats are weak because they rely on voluntary reporting by police departments. That is why the total numbers from the CDC are more reliable. T

    The CDC is a health organization and, as such, it not a reliable clearing house for crime based statistics...

    Sum it up for me..

    Give me a common sense law that will help prevent crowd-based mass shootings and would not violate the 2nd Amendment...

    There IS no such law possible... Because, if there was, it would have already been passed in California...

    Michale
    158

  63. [63] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    @M[62]

    Did you read the link? Basically (and this is all constitutional) a gun registry, with insurance similar to how we control automobiles. Freedom with responsibility - the cornerstone of Republican thinking.

    In a society that allows access to guns we will never achieve the levels of gun violence that e.g. the United Kingdom achieves, but that is just a consequence of the 2nd amendment.

    Also, when gun control laws in California can be circumvented by driving to Nevada, or attending a gun show, the laws are useless. Also, there are already 300M guns in circulation, so it is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.

    Why don't you read the argument from one of the better Republican thinkers and tell us why it won't work or is unconstitutional?

  64. [64] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    @M[62]

    The CDC collects fatality numbers from medical examiners, much as they do on all fatalities.

    BTW, Congress passed a law restricting their collection of more detailed information (which is why researchers have to use the unreliable FBI numbers) and cut their budget for gun death research to zero.

    I wonder why - maybe you can explain that to us?

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you read the link? Basically (and this is all constitutional) a gun registry,

    A gun registry, huh??

    How will that prevent crowd-based mass shootings?

    How will it prevent gun violence??

    Answer: It won't..

    It will just make it possibly maybe could-be easier AFTER the crime has been committed..

    I need not bother mention that every dictatorship in the history of the planet has insisted on a gun registry...

    Also, when gun control laws in California can be circumvented by driving to Nevada, or attending a gun show, the laws are useless.

    You have hit the nail on the head...

    GUN LAWS ARE USELESS IF PEOPLE WILL CIRCUMVENT THEM...

    So, if people will circumvent California laws (which the San Bernardino terrorists DID NOT, by the bi) what makes you think that people won't circumvent NATIONAL laws??

    Also, there are already 300M guns in circulation, so it is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.

    Exactly again!!!

    The ONLY way gun control will have the desired effect is with a gun ban and confiscation...

    And, like I said... ALL you have to do is get rid of the 2nd Amendment and gut the Bill Of Rights..

    Why don't you read the argument from one of the better Republican thinkers and tell us why it won't work or is unconstitutional?

    I may when I get time.. Closing up the shop right now...

    But if the cornerstone of his idea is a gun registry (which will do ZILCH to prevent gun violence) then I wouldn't call him a "better thinker:"' Republican or otherwise...

    Michale
    159

  66. [66] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    So you are arguing against a proposal by a Republican Party member but you haven't read it? It would take you less time to read it than type out the reply above. It is not difficult, and has links to support the key points.

    I think you just can't figure out how to counter it so make wild claims that it won't work.

    Not very impressive thinking on your part, I'm afraid.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, Congress passed a law restricting their collection of more detailed information (which is why researchers have to use the unreliable FBI numbers) and cut their budget for gun death research to zero.

    I wonder why - maybe you can explain that to us?

    Because it's completely and utterly ridiculous to have an organization called the CENTER for DISEASE CONTROL have ANYTHING to do with gun death research...

    In case, further explanation is required...

    Guns are not a disease.... :D

    Michale
    160

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you are arguing against a proposal by a Republican Party member but you haven't read it?

    You mentioned "gun registry"...

    That's all I needed to know to realize it wouldn't do anything to PREVENT gun violence..

    California is a Gun Control's person's wet dream..

    And it doesn't PREVENT gun violence..

    These are the only relevant facts...

    Michale
    161

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Let me ask you...

    Do you favor a gun ban and gun confiscation?

    Michale
    162

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, if it will allow us to continue the conversation....

    I plan on taking tomorrow off. I will read your link and give you specifics as to why it won't work...

    Fair??

    Michale
    163

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    MY position is simple..

    Gun violence is not a new issue.. It's been an issue for decades, centuries even....

    Do you HONESTLY believe that, if there WAS a law out there that would A> prevent gun violence and 2> is compatible with the 2nd Amendment that it would not have already been enacted??

    Secondly, look at the locations that DO have strict gun laws... Massive gun violence and crime...

    Look at the locations that have liberal gun laws...

    Finally, crowd-based mass shootings OVERWHELMINGLY occur in "Gun Free Zones".... Next to guns themselves, GFZ is the CONSTANT common denominator...

    Since it is clear that the gun aspect is unassailable due to the US 2nd Amendment and the US Bill Of Rights, then it is clear that the NEXT biggest common denominator should be addressed...

    Simple logic....

    Michale
    164

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem I have with taking Gun Control advocates seriously is the instance of the Chattanooga church shooting...

    The Left Wingery's solution to that was to ban a historical battle flag...

    You simply HAVE to agree how completely and utterly ludicrous that is...

    All the Left Wingery has when it comes to gun control is "Wouldn't It Be Nice" laws...

    There are NO LAWS that can be passed that would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale
    165

  73. [73] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    You're gish galloping again Michale - try not to be all over the place. I take it as a sign that you can't address key issues so babble on about everything - a shotgun approach, to be topically metaphorical.

    Basically gun control does work, take England or any advanced European country as an example. They have a small fraction of the mass shooting we have because they have very strict gun control laws.

    Since we have the second amendment we can't have similar laws, so, no I don't support confiscation because that isn't a constitutional proposal. I support responsible ownership. If you read the proposal you'll see annual insurance will be required, and the free market, in the form of increased premiums for higher risk individuals will kick in. Also insurance will introduce the ability to hold somebody liable if their gun is used and they have been irresponsible owners.

    How high do you think the premiums would have been for the couple in San Bernadino when they bought their third and fourth guns, especially as one of the family members was a Saudi citizen?

    This is free market capitalism coupled with free access to firearms. It is a right wing wet dream.

    Try not to gish gallop again, it makes you look like you are trying to avoid the key points.

  74. [74] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Regarding your comment about the CDC and gun deaths. Look at the work that the CDC does regarding research into injury and death prevention for motor vehicles (www.cdc -dot- gov/motorvehiclesafety/) and you will see that similar research into gun deaths is part of their remit.

    I'd like them to be able to investigate how many accidental gun deaths occur, and have information similar to their recommendations on child safety, etc.

    It makes a mockery of any claims the NRA has regarding responsible gun ownership that they make sure their bought politicians stifled this line of investigation.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're gish galloping again Michale - try not to be all over the place. I take it as a sign that you can't address key issues so babble on about everything - a shotgun approach, to be topically metaphorical.

    Nope.. Just that I have a whole lot of facts to support my case..

    I'll try and slow down...

    But feel free to pick one and refute it. :D

    Basically gun control does work, take England or any advanced European country as an example.

    That's not gun control..

    That's a gun BAN...

    And yes.. A gun ban DOES work... For EUROPE and ANY other country that DOESN'T have a 2nd Amendment and a Bill Of Rights..

    So, I'll say it again...

    Get rid of the 2nd Amendment and gut the Bill Of Rights and ya'all can have your gun "Control"...

    Since we have the second amendment we can't have similar laws, so, no I don't support confiscation because that isn't a constitutional proposal.

    Exactly...

    I support responsible ownership.

    No, you support GOVERNMENT IMPOSED "responsible" ownership whereas it's GOVERNMENT that defines what is "responsible"..

    And the current government would define "responsible" as NOT OWNING GUNS...

    If you read the proposal you'll see annual insurance will be required, and the free market, in the form of increased premiums for higher risk individuals will kick in.

    How would you impose an insurance mandate?? You would impose a financial hardship on people who haven't committed any crimes.. Whose only offense is their constitutional right to own a gun??

    Yea.. THAT's gonna fly..

    Irregardless of all that, how would gun-owner insurance prevent gun violence and crowd-based mass shootings??

    Answer: It wouldn't.. It's just another way to infringe on people's constitutional right to own a gun..

    Ya'all want to make it so difficult to own a gun, to make so many gun owners jump thru so many hoops that no one would go thru all the hassle..

    How high do you think the premiums would have been for the couple in San Bernadino when they bought their third and fourth guns, especially as one of the family members was a Saudi citizen?

    WOW... So ethnicity or country of origin will be a determining factor??

    What about sexual orientation or race?? Will white people pay more or less gun-owner insurance than black people??

    Do you understand the can of worms you are opening??

    This is free market capitalism coupled with free access to firearms. It is a right wing wet dream.

    FREE access??

    Oh... You mean, this gun owner's insurance is not going to COST anything!!???

    Well, why didn't you say so!!!???

    Sign me up!!! I have dozens of firearms I can insure!!! :D

    Try not to gish gallop again, it makes you look like you are trying to avoid the key points.

    I realize all these FACTS can be a bit overwhelming..

    By all means.. Just pick one and we can concentrate on that.. :D

    But, if it will help, let me re-iterate my original question...

    What common sense laws can anyone come up with that will not violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and WILL PREVENT OR HELP PREVENT CROWD-BASED MASS SHOOTINGS.

    That second part is kinda important, don'tcha think??

    NOTHING that ANYONE has proposed would have ANY impact on preventing or helping to prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

    Therefore they are nothing more than "WOULDN'T IT BE NICE" laws...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    What about sexual orientation or race?? Will white people pay more or less gun-owner insurance than black people??

    Considering the crime statistics available, you just HAVE to know that black people would pay more insurance for gun ownership than white people..

    Do you REALLY want to open up THAT can of worms??

    Michale
    167

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd like them to be able to investigate how many accidental gun deaths occur, and have information similar to their recommendations on child safety, etc.

    Why not have them investigate how many deaths occur in earthquakes and create information on building codes??

    What's the justification for having a DISEASE CONTROL organization to have any input in ANY of that??

    It makes a mockery of any claims the NRA has regarding responsible gun ownership that they make sure their bought politicians stifled this line of investigation.

    It's utterly ridiculous and totally PARTISAN for the CDC to be involved in gun studies...

    What part of CENTER for DISEASE CONTROL do you not understand???

    Unless you can make the case for guns being a disease, it's utterly preposterous...

    Michale
    168

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I downloaded an advanced copy of Obama's speech..

    I am awesome.

    Everything is the fault of the evil Republicans.

    I am blameless..

    I have no responsibility here whatsoever.

    Thank you.

    Looks like Obama is going to STAND for his Oval Office speech..

    https://www.instagram.com/p/-9tYwAtNOo/

    Look how CLEAN his desk is!!!

    Maybe he is RESIGNING!!!! :D

    Michale
    169

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it's past my bedtime..

    I'll anxiously read the speech recap tomorrow morning..

    :D

    Michale
    170

  80. [80] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    OK, you gish galloped again. This is dreary.

    Try numbering your points if you are going to list dozens. I'll start you off.

    1. England - I have family who own farms in the UK and they have shotguns. It is gun control, not gun bans. My sister went trap shooting earlier this year, and a British athlete won a gold medal in shooting at the 2012 Olympics. He didn't do that without access to firearms.

    2. All laws are 'government imposed', so your use of the term is a weak ploy that I assume appeals to the more paranoid in right wing circles, but holds no weight in a serious argument. However it brings up an earlier point you made about dictators and gun registries. The whole "the people need guns to protect against the government" argument is rather silly. Firstly, in case you hadn't noticed, the government has a military which has weapons like tanks, attack helicopters, aircraft carriers, etc. Secondly the government would have to convince the military to act against its own citizens wholesale, which would include the mothers, brothers, kids, spouses, etc. of the people in the military, which is not going to happen. Thus there is no way that a few good ole boys with a hideaway, some cans of tuna and an arsenal of AR15s are going to seriously stress the military for more than 10 minutes, or would ever be needed to do so. Also, just to remind you once again, the policy does not call for removal of guns from owners who are law abiding (and currently we have restrictions on felons access to guns that have been ruled constitutional) and pay their insurance.

    3. Next you created a hypothetical (the 'government' will decree that the only responsible owners are non-owners) and then argue against it. The only small point is that nowhere is it suggested that guns are confiscated. In fact if you had read the policy proposal it calls for a removal of currently ineffective laws based on gun types for freer access to guns.

    4. Next, the insurance would be more expensive for different groups argument - well of course it would, that is how insurance works. Immigrants (and I speak from personal experience) pay higher auto rates when they first start driving over here. People who are irresponsible owners (e.g. their toddler shoots them with their gun), just like people who are poor drivers, would pay more. People without a history of ownership, just like young drivers would pay more. You then tried to turn this into a race issue, but I don't fall into race baiting traps. Sorry.

    5. You now show a sudden concern for people who can't afford insurance. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and 99.99% of them are no menace to anybody, and in fact they can be beneficial in home protection. The cost of gun insurance for a responsible owner would be minimal, certainly with respect to the cost of the guns themselves, and the ammo for them. I would assume there would be lower rates for homes with a gun safe, use of trigger locks, people who go thru gun safety training, etc.

    6. We then drift into the role of the CDC. Sorry, but I pointed you to a CDC website that gave advice on automobile safety based on research they have done and/or collected. Why are guns and automobiles different when they are both involved in significant numbers of deaths? The CDC do not do much research into earthquakes because there are very few people who die each year from earthquakes. One assumes this is also why they don't conduct research into asteroid impact deaths. You are also being over literal in the use of the term 'disease', the remit of the CDC extends beyond that, just as the Department of Defense is involved in a lot more than defending our borders from invasion.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Try numbering your points if you are going to list dozens. I'll start you off.

    Or you could make it easier and simply quote the part you are addressing..

    Like that ^^ :D

    . England - I have family who own farms in the UK and they have shotguns. It is gun control, not gun bans. My sister went trap shooting earlier this year, and a British athlete won a gold medal in shooting at the 2012 Olympics. He didn't do that without access to firearms.

    How many handguns does your sister own?

    None..

    Why??

    Because they are banned...

    The whole "the people need guns to protect against the government" argument is rather silly.

    I completely agree.. However, history HAS shown the effectiveness of tin plated dictators with delusions of godhood have had gun confiscations and such..

    History may not repeat, but it does rhyme..

    . We then drift into the role of the CDC.

    Actually, it was YOU who brought up the CDC.. I was just addressing your own point...

    No where in ANY of your comments do you address the ONLY salient point..

    How does this guy's proposal help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??

    It doesn't..

    No where.. No how..

    Ergo, it's nothing but a WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law...

    But I have to hand it to the guy.. Leave it to a Republican to take tragedy and misery and create an agency that can profit from it...

    :D

    Michale
    171

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny...

    The biggest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11..

    Republicans are focused on terrorism and protecting Americans....

    Democrats are focused on their agenda of gun control... An agenda that A> Violates the 2nd Amendment and 2> The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT...

    It boggles the mind..

    Michale
    172

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOTHING on the speech!???

    Michale
    173

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh I see why there is nothing on the speech...

    It wasn't much of a speech..

    Just the same old "I am awesome and everything I am doing is the right thing to do and those that oppose me are evil monsters who should just shut up and let me do what I want."

    I wonder if his teleprompter is stuck..

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    You then tried to turn this into a race issue, but I don't fall into race baiting traps. Sorry.

    Sorry, that's the Democrat in me coming out.. :D

    But it IS a valid point..

    Michale
    175

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    The biggest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11..

    Republicans are focused on terrorism and protecting Americans....

    Democrats are focused on their agenda of gun control... An agenda that A> Violates the 2nd Amendment and 2> The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT...

    It's the Chattanooga church shooting all over again..

    A scumbag walks into a church and guns down 9 people and Democrats want to ban a historical battle flag..

    The BIGGEST terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and Democrats want to ban guns...

    Am I the ONLY one here who sees the inanity of it all??

    Michale
    176

  87. [87] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    1. Handguns my sister owns = 0. Handguns she wants to own = 0. % of British police who want to remain unarmed = 82%. Not everybody has America's fascination with guns. In fact my sister looks at our gun laws and, like most of the rest of the civilized world, wonders why we are so childish and have no restrictions on the mentally ill arming themselves to the teeth with impunity.

    2. Why registration and insurance will work. Basically we need an early warning system when somebody is starting to lost the plot. Take the guy yesterday who killed a 7-year-old girl at soccer practice then killed himself. People around him knew he was losing it and having paranoid delusions, however he was able to purchase a firearm and get a CWC license with ease months before. If an insurance company was on the hook for liability, do you think there might have been some more scrutiny than "Here you go then, sir"?

    3. The flag issue - you fail to remember that the flag was a red herring thrown by the right to deflect the story from why the shooter had access to guns when he was obviously mentally ill. The whole thing was a right wing hand waving exercise. Granted both sides piled on, and the symbol is obviously very distasteful, however I'd have taken some real movement on addressing the mentally ill access to firearm issue before the flag issue, and I suspect so would most right thinking people.

    4. Obama's speech: since he didn't say "your either with us or agin us" and throw a Trump-like hissy fit, I expected the reaction on the right to be childish. They didn't disappoint. However it is our military that is advising him, as he said in the address, and if you research the philosophy of ISIS you will see why a ground war is exactly what they want. Trump is too stupid to learn that of course, and he knows his followers want playground level boasting about whose butt he is going to kick next. But this isn't WWF wrestling*, this is the adult world, a sphere Trump has yet to grow up to participate in. This is why even staunch republicans are saying they will vote for Hillary over Trump.

    *a sport he participated in - google "trump wrestling youtube" to see a video of him and another manager play fighting outside the ring, and this is the person leading the republican nomination race - wow!

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're gish galloping again Michale

    Never heard that term "gish galloping" :D

    I bet the etomology of it is fascinating.. :D

    Michale
    177

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Handguns my sister owns = 0. Handguns she wants to own = 0. % of British police who want to remain unarmed = 82%. Not everybody has America's fascination with guns.

    And that's fine.. More power to them..

    But Americans have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own guns..

    And there IS a gun ban on handguns in the UK...

    Which was my point...

    In fact my sister looks at our gun laws and, like most of the rest of the civilized world, wonders why we are so childish and have no restrictions on the mentally ill arming themselves to the teeth with impunity.

    No disrespect to your sister intended, but she (or you for that matter) are hardly qualified to speak for the "entire" world..

    Even if ya'all were, so what??

    We have a constitutional right to own guns..

    It's THAT simple...

    Last time I checked, we don't poll the world to see which Constitutional Rights are "approved" and which are not...

    Why registration and insurance will work. Basically we need an early warning system when somebody is starting to lost the plot. Take the guy yesterday who killed a 7-year-old girl at soccer practice then killed himself. People around him knew he was losing it and having paranoid delusions, however he was able to purchase a firearm and get a CWC license with ease months before. If an insurance company was on the hook for liability, do you think there might have been some more scrutiny than "Here you go then, sir"?

    And such insurance, even if it did pass constitutional muster won't do diddley squat to curb crowd-based mass shootings.. Which is the *ONLY* time the discussion of gun control is ever raised...

    That girl that was killed at the soccer field.. Where are the screams for GUN CONTROL in response to THAT!??

    Where are the screams for gun control whenever anyone is shot and killed by a gun??

    The ONLY time we hear about Gun Control from the Left Wingery is when there is enough death to push an unpopular agenda...

    If Democrats are SINCERELY interested in gun control for Public Safety sake, why don't we hear from them with EVERY shooting???

    I'll give you three guesses but you are only going to need one..

    It's because the issue for Democrats is NOT public safety...

    The issue is pushing an unpopular and unconstitutional useless agenda that won't do diddley squat for criminal gun violence but WILL make it harder and more expensive for middle class Americans to exercise their constitutional right...

    . The flag issue - you fail to remember that the flag was a red herring thrown by the right to deflect the story from why the shooter had access to guns when he was obviously mentally ill. The whole thing was a right wing hand waving exercise. Granted both sides piled on, and the symbol is obviously very distasteful, however I'd have taken some real movement on addressing the mentally ill access to firearm issue before the flag issue, and I suspect so would most right thinking people.

    But there WASN'T any "real movement"... There was ban the flag and that was that...

    Another WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the shooting and won't do DIDDLEY SQUAT to prevent another one..

    You said you were against that at the time.. Did you voice that opposition?? Did you comment, "Look morons!! This battleflag has NOTHING to do with shootings and such and it's frakin' ridiculous to fight THAT battle in response to THIS incident!!! Morons!!!"

    No, you didn't.. Because that would have gone against Party orthodoxy and would have sounded too much like me! :D

    But the point is, it was a USELESS and TOTALLY uncalled for response...

    Just like your guy's Insurance idea... Just like "smart guns".. Just like every piece of legislation proposed by the Left... NONE of them will address the very issue that PROMPTED the proposal in the first place... They are nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws designed SOLELY and completely to further a partisan agenda..

    I'll say it again because you have obviously missed it the first 5 times...

    California is Gun Control's wet dreams, as far as restrictive gun laws are concerned..

    And the laws DID NOT prevent San Bernardino and Santa Barbara and a whole slew of other massacres, one of which I was present at (San Ysidro, 1984)...

    If you have an idea for a law that will PREVENT or even help prevent these crowd based mass shootings, then I am all ears.. I'll help such ideas with every thing I can...

    But if all you want to do is push an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda that the majority of Americans are against??

    Sorry, my friend.. You are on your own for that..

    However it is our military that is advising him,

    Yes, it is our military who is advising him. And he is doing the EXACT opposite..

    It's our military who is telling Obama that Daesch is NOT contained.. Yet Obama claimed it was...

    Our military and intelligence is telling Obama that there is a threat of terrorist attacks on US Proper. Yet Obama is telling Americans there is no threat...

    Obama's speech was exactly as I predicted it would be..

    "We're doing the same things over and over, hoping for a different result."

    The very definition of insanity...

    We can always ask the 14 people in San Bernardino if Obama's policies are effective and working..

    Oh no.. wait... we can't....

    Michale
    178

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... I am a fair guy...

    You want gun registration etc etc??

    Fine..

    We will mirror gun laws with voting laws...

    Everything that you want to put an American thru to own a gun will be what that same American has to go thru to vote...

    I am game if you are...

    Registration with MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATION, insurance, background checks, training, tests, the whole shebang...

    Both are Constitutional rights and both should have the same degree of difficulty to accomplish...

    Let's make it happen, Cap'n!!

    Michale
    179

  91. [91] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    1. Do our mentally ill have a constitutional right to arm themselves? Do 5-year-olds have a constitutional right to bear arms, or convicted felons, the list goes on. There are restrictions we place on the second amendment that are constitutional (did you ever read the link to the policy proposal and the references therein?)

    And while you may only hear about gun control after large scale shootings many of us are continually pressing for sensible gun policies day in and day out. As most polls show, restricting access to guns for the mentally ill is a winning proposition even in the U.S.

    2. Let's take California's situation. There are fewer gun deaths in CA in a per person basis than most other states, and there is a clear correlation between the strength of gun laws and gun deaths by state. An inconvenient fact that the gun lobby wants its minions to ignore. Do the research, it is all there. For example, CA has 7.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people (8th lowest). TX has 50% more deaths per 100,000, and AK and LA top out at almost three times the CA rate. Not that you care, but for anybody else out there the facts are at:

    content.njdc -dot- com/media/media/2015/12/04/guns-mainchart-1203.png

    I still think that the rates (even in HI and MA that are under 3.0 gun deaths per 100,000) are too high and a move to a responsible ownership policy can be more effective, but you cannot claim that gun control laws do not work, unless you simply want to avoid reality.

    3. You have fallen for the NRA's wet dream, that all gun control doesn't work and it is our right to buy any guns we want and take them everywhere. You then point to increased gun violence as a need for more guns. This circular argument only benefits the gun manufacturers, not dead 7-year-old girls who want to go to soccer practice without being shot, but what the hey, why let a few dead kids get in the way of profit when we can whip up the emotions of some low information types and get them to buy more guns. Remember the stat that we are buying more and more guns yet fewer households have a gun? They have you hook line and sinker Michale, and they are using partisan divides to make you stop thinking and just follow and do as you are told. In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one supplying facts and statistics to back up my points, you are supplying regurgitated knee-jerk opinions.

  92. [92] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Re: Voting laws - if there are restrictions on the mentally ill voting as well as owning firearms, what will Donald Trump do when he gets no votes in the primaries?

    ;)

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Do our mentally ill have a constitutional right to arm themselves? Do 5-year-olds have a constitutional right to bear arms, or convicted felons, the list goes on. There are restrictions we place on the second amendment that are constitutional (did you ever read the link to the policy proposal and the references therein?)

    There are already laws that address those issues..

    The biggest stumbling block to the mentally ill is the Democrat Party fighting for the privacy of the mentally ill..

    2. Let's take California's situation. There are fewer gun deaths in CA in a per person basis than most other states, and there is a clear correlation between the strength of gun laws and gun deaths by state. An inconvenient fact that the gun lobby wants its minions to ignore. Do the research, it is all there. For example, CA has 7.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people (8th lowest). TX has 50% more deaths per 100,000, and AK and LA top out at almost three times the CA rate. Not that you care, but for anybody else out there the facts are at:

    And yet, Santa Barbara happened.. San Ysidro happened.. San Bernardino happened..

    You can't address the issue of gun deaths by SOLELY concentrating on the guns..

    Any more than you can address the issue of car deaths SOLELY by concentrating on the cars..

    . You then point to increased gun violence as a need for more guns.

    It's a statistical fact that an armed community is a polite community..

    Just as it's a statistical fact that cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country are a cesspool of gun violence, misery and death..

    , I'm the only one supplying facts and statistics to back up my points, y

    And you ignore the facts and statistics that disprove your theories...

    THAT is my point.. Well, one of many...

    Re: Voting laws - if there are restrictions on the mentally ill voting as well as owning firearms, what will Donald Trump do when he gets no votes in the primaries?

    Heh

    I could make the same argument about Hillary Clinton.. Because I think ANYONE that could vote for such a rhymes with witch HAS to have a few screws loose... :D

    Michale
    180

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Let's make things easier and prevent more "gish galloping" :D

    Can we agree that what you have proposed in this commentary and what Democrats have proposed ad nasuem will NOT prevent or help prevent mass shootings... And will DEFINITELY not prevent or help prevent terrorist attacks??

    Because if we can't agree on that, then ONE of us is an alien.. :D

    Michale
    181

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let me warn you...

    My "solution" for criminal gun violence tends to be more punitive in nature...

    For example, premeditated criminal gun violence where innocents are shot?? Death Penalty...

    Michale
    182

  96. [96] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And you ignore the facts and statistics that disprove your theories...

    THAT is my point.. Well, one of many...

    And I have proven time and time again that on this issue you do as well.

    It's a statistical fact that an armed community is a polite community..

    Really? Got anything to back that up? Love to see that study and just how they define "polite"...

    Just as it's a statistical fact that cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country are a cesspool of gun violence, misery and death..

    Really? Can you back that up?

  97. [97] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    neilmcgovern-

    When looking at gun violence I think it's best to follow homicide rates rather than gun deaths. Gun deaths include suicides, which account for almost two thirds of the deaths. The problem here is compared to the rest of the world, the US is in the higher end of the middle of the pack as far as suicides go. People who want to kill themselves, if they have a gun will use it. If they don't, generally find another method. Guns are more effective than many other methods, so our rates are higher by a tiny bit but nothing compared to homicide rates for (first world industrialized) countries with strong gun control.

    I like the insurance idea but the gun lobbies will cry infringement. Even though the right to bare arms has been heavily infringed already and few seem to care, even the gun nuts.

    A side note: as far as I can tell, Michale rarely reads the links he posts. Chances are slim he will read yours...

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just as it's a statistical fact that cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country are a cesspool of gun violence, misery and death..

    Really? Can you back that up?

    Chicago... New York City... Baltimore... Washington DC...

    "Got any more ball-busters..."
    -Billy Madison

    :D

    Comment #93??

    Michale
    183

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    A side note: as far as I can tell, Michale rarely reads the links he posts.

    And ya'all NEVER address the salient point..

    Towhit.

    Will ANY of the Left Wingery's ideas on gun control prevent or help to prevent terrorist attacks or crowd-based mass shootings?

    No, they will not..

    Michale
    184

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA! SMACKDOWN!!!

    Lynch recalibrates message on hateful speech
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/12/lynch-recalibrates-message-on-hateful-speech-216488

    AG Lynch shys away from the gauntlet that she was slapped with and back-pedals on her intentions to prosecute 1st Amendment protected speech... :D

    Michale
    185

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    "ISIL is contained"
    -President Obama

    A new U.S. intelligence report on ISIS, commissioned by the White House, predicts that the self-proclaimed Islamic State will spread worldwide and grow in numbers, unless it suffers a significant loss of territory on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, U.S. officials told The Daily Beast.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/06/us-intel-to-obama-isis-is-not-contained.html

    Obama is clueless, people..

    Only those completely enslaved to Party ideology cannot see this...

    Michale
    186

  102. [102] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Chicago... New York City... Baltimore... Washington DC...

    Baltimore does not make the top 10 of homicide rate, the rest do not make the top 30. Plus have you looked at all the cities with strong gun control and lower rates or lower gun control and higher rates (I have) or only a cherry picked a few and yet are still wrong?

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only in Democrat la-la land is GUN CONTROL the answer to the deadliest terrorist attack on US Proper since 9/11... :^/

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Baltimore does not make the top 10 of homicide rate, the rest do not make the top 30.

    yea, they are the bastion of peace and love, right.. :^/

    You can quote your stats all you want, Bashi..

    But current events trump stats every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    Gun Control doesn't work..

    California proves that..

    New York City proves that..

    Chicago proves that...

    Michale
    188

  105. [105] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You can quote your stats all you want, Bashi..

    But current events trump stats every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    Gun Control doesn't work..

    California proves that..

    New York City proves that..

    Chicago proves that...

    And what do those prove? California has a lower homicide rate than many states with minimal gun control. New York City has a very low homicide rate and so far in 2015 has risen 9%. Even Chicago is not that a high gun homicide city and has only risen 20% whereas cities with little gun control like Milwaukee and St Louis have risen 76% and 60% respectively. I don't think the statistics back you up on this.

  106. [106] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I think a way to do gun control that just might work would be to create a national "well regulated militia". If you own a gun you must register with the local chapter of the militia. Failure to do so would be a felony preventing a person from owning guns. The trick would be to put the law under military conscription rather than gun ownership. all gun owners would be required to attend a militia meeting once or twice a year. They would be required to bring a primary weapon and a secondary if they have one. Basically a long gun and a pistol. These guns would be registered as the persons militia weapons, as a military needs to know what weapons are being used as well as to group by ammunition type. These militia weapons would be required to pass a safety inspection at each meeting. Beyond each persons militia weapons, they could buy whatever other guns they want. No infringement here. The meeting would include sorting and assignment in to an appropriate military structure with commanding officers and units as well as where everyone goes if the militia is called up. Require an allegiance to uphold the constitution. The rest of the meeting would be more social in nature with safety and shooting instruction as well as shooting contests.

    Obviously the US does not need a militia to protect the country anymore but I think it would go a long way to reducing both gun violence and mass shootings. I don’t think it’s the amount of guns owned by US citizens that is the problem but gun culture. A culture that promotes fear even though the statistics don’t bare that out. The single biggest threat to you as a gun owner is yourself, by a wide margin. Then it’s a family member or close friend, followed by someone you know and are having a dispute with. Way, way down the line is being shot by a random person you don’t know. I think a militia would link guns with civic duty, which in places like Switzerland and Israel seem to keep the gun violence down even though gun ownership is high. A militia would also show who in society is a gun owner for both law enforcement and fellow citizens to see. A lot of gun culture is white in nature. This might change the demographics of main stream gun culture. Lone wolfs would be required to socialize. No longer can you shun society while collecting an arsenal.

    Of course, the bonus is you get to throw the 2nd amendment right back in to the gun nuts faces.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    That's actually not a bad idea...

    So, basically you want to create a national police force....

    And what exactly would the duties of this police force be??

    I am all for the idea...

    I don't think the Democrat Party will go for it..

    Why??

    Because it legitimizes gun ownership instead of demonizing it..

    Democrats hate that...

    But I like the idea...

    You have the MICHALE S.O.P. :D

    Michale
    189

  108. [108] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, basically you want to create a national police force....

    Auxiliary military force would be more accurate. At least that is what a militia traditionally is. I guess they could be used to supplement the national guard in disaster duty...

  109. [109] 
    Paula wrote:

    Bashi (105)

    One of the interesting outcomes of your idea would be (could be) the separation of the "Gun Owners Because We Have a Right To Have Them And We Like Them" folks (sure, we're happy to be part of a well-regulated militia) from the "Gun Owners So We Can Overthrow Tyranny" bunch, who want their guns to be able to overthrow the government, not to assist the government.

    Re: the notion that it is the "gun culture" that is the problem, not the sheer existence/ownership of guns -- promotion of fear when statistics don't support the fear -- is, I think, ALMOST right. I would argue that the fear is fed to the members of the gun culture and then they respond to it by wanting more guns, etc.

    I would also argue that, while fear is a big feeder to the gun culture, of equal importance are economic factors. Wage stagnation, lack of a living wage, lack of opportunities for many etc. leads to "black markets" and many members of the gun culture make money buying and selling guns. I know people who do that. They make a lot of noise about Second Amendment rights and all the rest and stay mum about the dough, but the dough they make is every bit as, if not more, important to many of them. And fear creates customers for them too. So they use it.

    I'm not sure how you'd factor that in to your proposal. My own view is that economics underlies 99% of what we all worry about/fuss about/fight about and that American's Gun Culture and Gun Violence are symptoms of the deeper problem: an economy that doesn't work for too many people.

    We need to deal with the symptoms, but we need to deal with the underlying problem too. And dealing with the underlying problem would reduce, I think, a lot of the symptoms.

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    Maybe not 99%. But a very large percentage.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Your assumption that gun owners own guns out of fear is 10000% wrong and is borne of ignorance of guns...

    But you illustrate my point to Bashi PERFECTLY as to why his idea won't work..

    Because it legitimizes guns and gun ownership instead of demonizing it..

    And, as you aptly prove, the Left wants guns and gun owners demonized...

    Michale
    190

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Irregardless of all that, I am still waiting for someone.. ANYONE.... to explain to me exactly how gun control is going to stop terrorist attacks...

    Michale
    191

  113. [113] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I think both of you exaggerate your positions a bit. Certainly some on the left might feel about guns as Michale accuses but the entire left? Or even a majority? I doubt it. As for buying multiple guns, that is up to a point quite rational depending on the uses. Use a deer rifle on a duck and you end up with a plume of feathers. Use a 22 on a deer and that is animal cruelty. It can certainly get in to obsessive with some people but most gun owners? I again doubt it. Guns have to be kept up especially if you shoot them but even if you don't. At some point a collection becomes large enough that it must become a hobby just to keep them up. Then there are people like my Uncle. He is dedicated duck hunter and has gone through a long stream of shotguns. He has probably bought 8-10 of them before he kept the current core few he likes. Then with people who do obsessively collect, I look it as a whole bunch of guns other people are not using or have access to. But that is the long way of saying that many normal responsible gun owners venture in to the gun culture world to buy and sell guns without fear being a motivating factor. For those who the fear works on, I think forced socialization with fellow gun owners might dispel the fear a little...

  114. [114] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Michale: Take two recent terrorist attacks, Leytonstone Tube Station and San Bernadino.

    In London, the home grown crazy had a knife and caused one serious injury. In San Bernadino the home grown crazies had assault weapons and killed 14 people, and injured over 20 more.

    What do you think the difference between London and San Bernadino is when it comes to easy access to high powered weapons?

    If you had to choose between being in Leytonstone or San Bernadino, which would you have chosen?

  115. [115] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    I'm telling you folks, this is highly advanced performance art, the man might just turn out to be the Picasso of Politics:

    "Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S."

    No way is he serious :)

  116. [116] 
    Paula wrote:

    Bashi (111): it's the extremists IN the Gun Culture that are so vehemently against any reasonable gun control measures. I've read in several places that some 70% of NRA members are perfectly fine with the kinds of gun control measures Dems propose, but they aren't driving the debate.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi

    Certainly some on the left might feel about guns as Michale accuses but the entire left?

    Perhaps not the entire Left, but I would be willing to wager is a very VERY large percentage of the Left.. As evidenced by our own Weigantians..

    As to the rest.. Well reasoned and quite logical..

    Kudos...

    Michale
    192

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Michale: Take two recent terrorist attacks, Leytonstone Tube Station and San Bernadino.

    Well, if we're going to cherry pick individual incidents to support our respective points..

    If the UK didn't ban handguns, then there might have been a ConcealCarry on the tube and NO ONE would have been injured seriously..

    :D

    Michale
    193

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm telling you folks, this is highly advanced performance art, the man might just turn out to be the Picasso of Politics:

    "Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S."

    No way is he serious :)

    I imagine he is just as serious as people were saying "BAN ALL JAPANESE TRAVEL TO THE US" exactly 74 years ago today..

    Michale
    194

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've read in several places that some 70% of NRA members are perfectly fine with the kinds of gun control measures Dems propose, but they aren't driving the debate.

    That's a Left Wingery generated myth...

    I can prove it to you, but only if you promise to publicly concede the point...

    Michale
    195

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who the fear works on, I think forced socialization with fellow gun owners might dispel the fear a little...

    And for those who think that fear is the motivator for gun ownership, the same solution should apply, right? :D

    Love to see Paula at an NRA meeting.. :D

    Michale
    196

  122. [122] 
    John M wrote:

    I would like to toss out an idea that someone else made in another article that I found to be very interesting.

    Ok, so because of the second amendment, we cannot ban or seriously regulate guns. Fine. But the amendment says absolutely NOTHING about ammunition.

    What if we severely restricted access to ammunition as a proposal? Comments? Good? Bad? Possible approach?

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi (111): it's the extremists IN the Gun Culture that are so vehemently against any reasonable gun control measures.

    The problem here is that what the Left Wingery defines as "reasonable" is either A> totally and completely unreasonable or 2> has absolutely nothing to do with incident that prompted the discussion...

    Michale
    198

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as I mentioned before, the solution is simple..

    Since both are Constitutional RIGHTS, tie gun ownership to voting...

    If ya'all want registration, insurance, monthly training, forced socialization and all the rest for gun owners, then the EXACT same should be applied to voters..

    I mean, if people REALLY want to own guns, then they will be HAPPY to jump thru all the hoops, right??

    So, if people REALLY want to vote, then they will be HAPPY to jump thru all the hoops, right??

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral Kirk, STAR TREK IV-The Voyage Home

    :D

    Michale
    200 (taaa daaa!!)

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I'm a proud Muslim – but you don't have to share my faith to share my disgust. Trump wants to literally write racism into our law books."
    -Mrs Carlos Danger

    Ahhhhh

    So, muslim is a RACE now, eh??

    Who knew!?? :^/

    But it proves my point perfectly..

    To the Left Wingery, *EVERYTHING* is racism...

    Of course, what the Lefties don't realize is that if EVERYTHING is racism, then NOTHING is racism...

    And, just a little side note to Mrs Danger...

    Syed Rizwan Farook and Tasheen Malik were also "proud muslims"....

    Think about it....

    Michale
    201

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Ok, so because of the second amendment, we cannot ban or seriously regulate guns. Fine. But the amendment says absolutely NOTHING about ammunition.

    What if we severely restricted access to ammunition as a proposal? Comments? Good? Bad? Possible approach?

    OK... So, here's a plan...

    We'll open voting completely and utterly..

    Anyone and everyone can vote.. No ID's required at all..

    We just close all the voting stations... No voting stations at all...

    :D

    I am also constrained to point out that guns are ALREADY "seriously regulated"... Far beyond anything the Founding Fathers indicated they wanted..

    Why don't ya'all just take the next, the ONLY logical step that's available and concede that nothing short of an outright ban will make the Left Wingery happy and satisfied??

    Because THAT is exactly what the vast majority of the Left wants..

    A gun ban.. That's why they ALWAYS mention the UK and Australia in their rants...

    A gun ban... No less...

    Michale
    202

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are increasingly fearful that President Obama’s handling of the threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is becoming a liability for their party.

    Those fears have become more acute after Obama’s Sunday evening address from the Oval Office, where the president unveiled little by way of news or strategic shifts.

    “Weak and unclear,” Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf told The Hill, when asked for his reaction to Obama’s remarks. “What is the plan of action?”

    Sheinkopf added that, at this point, “any rational person would worry about his legacy, and any rational Democrat would worry about the Democrats being injured in an electoral setting.”

    The Democrat Party is toast in 2016...

    Michale
    204

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    A gun ban... No less...

    I mean, Trump wants to ban muslims...

    Left Wingers want to ban guns..

    I fail to see the difference in the totally cracked-ness of the two...

    Michale
    210

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'll compromise..

    We'll ban guns AND muslims..

    Whose with me!!!??? :D

    Michale
    211

Comments for this article are closed.