Biden as a centrist

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

I have reason to be concerned:

Are you equally concerned that the Orange Shitstain has completely taken over what used to be the Republican Party?

[FordGT90]

Nope. Two republicans (including Bill Weld whom ran as Gary Johnson's running mate in 2016) challenged Trump and got <1% of the vote. If a candidate announces intent to run for a second term, the party usually doesn't challenge it.

Whether or not he can win a second term is up in the air. Before COVID-19, Trump was almost certain to win. After COVID-19 odds are against him. At the same time, COVID-19 is interfering with how people vote. I have no idea what the federal government is going to look like in 2021.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Nope.

No concern at all that an irrational, impulsive buffoon with the reactions of a two year old is running your favorite party, much less is the most powerful person in the world!?

[watsup1000]

Biden wants to do what didn't work (Obamacare) in an even bigger, more expensive way. The only difference is that the insurance company he wants to set up will be public instead of private. How is that going to drive prices down when health exchanges accomplished nothing? Public can't beat private unless it is supplemented with taxpayer money, which it shouldn't be, because the private businesses can't compete. His entire proposal is nonsense. It's a waste of effort.

Profit. Private companies are for PROFIT. Take that out of the picture and it is indeed possible to lower overall medical prices.


What Republicans wanted to do since the 90s is private health savings accounts; not insurance. The idea is to put cost pressures on providers so providers drive their operating costs down. They're also not funds the government can take and there's no profit/loss component of them. It's mandatory savings account because as most people age, their need for healthcare goes up. If they've had a productive life, they'll have a big pool of money to use for end of life care. If they haven't, that's why we have Medicaid and Medicare.


HSAs are the typical ELITIST Republican "answer", just as in so many other cases. HSAs are only good for those who have an income that allows for extra monies to be put into such savings. Problem is that most of those who do not have insurance are at the lower economic levels, and thus the HSAs do them not a bit of good. This is a "solution" that only makes the problem worse and give those of better income more breaks, as usual with Republican proposals. Upside down.

[watsup1000]

Biden isn't talking about anything that is Constitutional, never mind remote feasible.

Republicans and Democrats agreed bump-stocks are a technology covered under the spirit of the National Firearms Act so they passed a law to include bump-stocks as a modification which turns a semi-auto rifle into a full-auto rifle; therefore banned. That is a centrist proposal and it passed because it was centrist and almost everyone agreed something should be done about it.

By the way, the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by pistols which the Heller decision made explicitly clear government cannot deprive people of (unless felon).

You don't know that it is unconstitutional. There are literally thousands upon thousands of gun laws on the books both federally and in the states and cities.
And the fact is that the assault-type weapons with fast fire and very large magazines are the "go to" for a great many mass murderers because of their ability to kill people quickly.
And if it is pistols that are the problem, there could be laws that would help in that regard too. Except any attempt to bring ANY gun sanity law into being is totally opposed by the NRA, whose slogan should actually be "any gun, anywhere, any time".

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Profit. Private companies are for PROFIT. Take that out of the picture and it is indeed possible to lower overall medical prices.

Then require them to reorganize as not-for-profit organizations to participate in the market. What Obamacare did and Bidencare proposes didn't and won't accomplish any of the stated goals.

Originally Posted by watsup1000

HSAs are the typical ELITIST Republican "answer", just as in so many other cases. HSAs are only good for those who have an income that allows for extra monies to be put into such savings. Problem is that most of those who do not have insurance are at the lower economic levels, and thus the HSAs do them not a bit of good. This is a "solution" that only makes the problem worse and give those of better income more breaks, as usual with Republican proposals. Upside down.

It's the first step to reforming healthcare in the USA.

Employers would contribute to HSAs as they do now with health insurance.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

You don't know that it is unconstitutional. There are literally thousands upon thousands of gun laws on the books both federally and in the states and cities.

And most of them are moving through the judicial system. States and cities pass dumb laws faster than judges can rule on them, you know.

Originally Posted by watsup1000

And the fact is that the assault-type weapons with fast fire and very large magazines are the "go to" for a great many mass murderers because of their ability to kill people quickly.

Using the phase "assault-type" shows your knowledge on this subject is based on politicians which don't know jack !@#$ about the subject. There's really only four components that make a gun:
1) Trigger assembly. According to the National Firearms Act: only semi-auto are permitted to be sold to the public without special licensing. "Therefore, a pistol and an "assault-type" weapon have the same capacity to fire: one. at. a. time.
2) Barrel. This includes type and length. NFA requires barrels on shotguns and rifles to be above a specific length. The reason for this is to forbid them from being concealable. Long barrels tend to mean higher muzzle velocity because the gases coming from the shell have a longer period of time to act on the bullet. The barrel also often has rifling which imparts a spin on the bullet increasing accuracy. Larger diameter barrels usually result in higher kinetic force of the round fired but also adds to weight reducing the handling of the gun.
3) Magazine. How many rounds the firearm holds in a state ready to be fired in rapid succession. All guns have a standard magazine that's strongly tied to the overall effectiveness of a gun. Long rifles, for example, tend to have a small magazine because one shot is intended to kill the target. Short rifles tend to have 30 because there's a minor component of "spray and pray" when using it. Pistols are usually somewhere in between the two: simply because people are drawn to pistols that look nice so they design it to hold as many rounds as will fit in the look of it (usually handle). Belt fed weapons and drum magazines are used for suppression (firing in the general direction of an enemy to make them keep their heads down) which is why they can carry in excess of 100 rounds.
4) Stock. This used to not matter much but with the invention of bump stocks, they do. Since bump stocks are controlled now, there's not too much to be said here. Stocks in general increase accuracy of follow up shots by reducing recoil.

Put bluntly, NFA already forbids all "assault weapons" to the public. When SWAT or SEALs assault a building, they have full-auto or bursting MGs or SMGs. Those scary carbines are just oversized pistols. Their capacity to kill depends on the user.

Originally Posted by watsup1000

And if it is pistols that are the problem, there could be laws that would help in that regard too. Except any attempt to bring ANY gun sanity law into being is totally opposed by the NRA, whose slogan should actually be "any gun, anywhere, any time".

Except 2nd amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As in government can't deprive people of that ability (unless they're a felon).

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

And most of them are moving through the judicial system. States and cities pass dumb laws faster than judges can rule on them, you know.



Using the phase "assault-type" shows your knowledge on this subject is based on politicians which don't know jack !@#$ about the subject. There's really only four components that make a gun:
1) Trigger assembly. According to the National Firearms Act: only semi-auto are permitted to be sold to the public without special licensing. "Therefore, a pistol and an "assault-type" weapon have the same capacity to fire: one. at. a. time.
2) Barrel. This includes type and length. NFA requires barrels on shotguns and rifles to be above a specific length. The reason for this is to forbid them from being concealable. Long barrels tend to mean higher muzzle velocity because the gases coming from the shell have a longer period of time to act on the bullet. The barrel also often has rifling which imparts a spin on the bullet increasing accuracy. Larger diameter barrels usually result in higher kinetic force of the round fired but also adds to weight reducing the handling of the gun.
3) Magazine. How many rounds the firearm holds in a state ready to be fired in rapid succession. All guns have a standard magazine that's strongly tied to the overall effectiveness of a gun. Long rifles, for example, tend to have a small magazine because one shot is intended to kill the target. Short rifles tend to have 30 because there's a minor component of "spray and pray" when using it. Pistols are usually somewhere in between the two: simply because people are drawn to pistols that look nice so they design it to hold as many rounds as will fit in the look of it (usually handle). Belt fed weapons and drum magazines are used for suppression (firing in the general direction of an enemy to make them keep their heads down) which is why they can carry in excess of 100 rounds.
4) Stock. This used to not matter much but with the invention of bump stocks, they do. Since bump stocks are controlled now, there's not too much to be said here. Stocks in general increase accuracy of follow up shots by reducing recoil.

Put bluntly, NFA already forbids all "assault weapons" to the public. When SWAT or SEALs assault a building, they have full-auto or bursting MGs or SMGs. Those scary carbines are just oversized pistols. Their capacity to kill depends on the user.



Except 2nd amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As in government can't deprive people of that ability (unless they're a felon).

Leaving the preface statement of purpose out of an abbreviated quote of the 2nd is disingenuous.
"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."
Given that authoritized well regulated present day state militias are issued standardized arms, it can be argued that the 2nd is an anachronistic obsolescent portion of the Constitution with no clear present day purpose, other than a justification for armed insurrection for any grievance against authority.

[Oerets]

There is no sane reason for owning a military style weapon capable of sending rounds down range. A magazine of more then a few rounds is all that is ever needed.

After all only a foolish person would still think a citizen or group with a firearm can stand up to modern responses by authorities. A drone at 20K' with a 500lb'r or hellfire can take care of a lot of issues.

Face it the firearm is just a toy!

If what is to be believed intended in the 2nd. The why stop at firearms? Allow full auto grenades C4 mortars for that matter nukes!

Remember this, much like racism was ignored played down until a boiling point was reach such as now. When a movement growing almost uncontrollable presently with little real solutions in sight. So to the gun issue will someday reach a point where it moves to a reactive one.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

I disagree. Both sides agree on 90% of things like the importance of infrastructure and justice. The thing is, 90% of focus isn't on those things, it's on the 10% of disagreement. Meanwhile, that 10% is distracting from getting the 90% done and so, our country crumbles under the weight of 10%.

On the surface that may be true, but here is the problem: What do you mean by "justice".

To give an example. Imagine two men with the exact same three primary focuses in their life:
Family
Job
Health

So they "agree". Except one guy orders them thusly:
1. job
2. Health
3. Family

And the other orders them thusly:
1. Family
2. health
3. Job

Those two men will live completely different lives and actually have very little in common, even though their top three priorities in life are the same, just in a different order.

This is what is happening with the abortion issue, the "justice" issue, infrastructure, etc. They prioritize them differently.