Biden as a centrist

[watsup1000]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

No, I'm talking about how momentum didn't matter at all and that is clearly on display here:

The momentum was behind Sanders and against Biden; then suddenly Biden was taking all the states. How does this make any sense whatsoever? And where is the drop that supported Biden's surge? It should have come from other candidates, no? Oh right, they all got out and threw their lot in with Biden. Almost all at once too. Totally legit. Totally.

Ummmm…..the analysts said all along that South Carolina was the Biden firewall, that states like Iowa and NH were places where Bernie could do well, but once he got out into the open in the Midwest and South, that Biden would start to shine. So in spite of your conspiracy theories, the Dem primaries worked out just as had been expected.
And yes, the others were more in tune with Biden, so once they found that they could not win, they threw in their lot with him. Once again, this was expected. Once again, in spite of your conspiracy theories.

[watsup1000]

I've been an independent for 18 years, says Insane.

*L*. Yes, lots of right-wingers claim that. In actuality, they are just more extreme than the regular Republican party and so they claim to be "independent" and yet vote for REPUBLICANS or throw their vote away on a Libertarian or Consitutionalist. I am not impressed.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Ummmm…..the analysts said all along that South Carolina was the Biden firewall, that states like Iowa and NH were places where Bernie could do well, but once he got out into the open in the Midwest and South, that Biden would start to shine. So in spite of your conspiracy theories, the Dem primaries worked out just as had been expected.
And yes, the others were more in tune with Biden, so once they found that they could not win, they threw in their lot with him. Once again, this was expected. Once again, in spite of your conspiracy theories.

Ayup. That's how it went exactly. Bernie never has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Ayup. That's how it went exactly. Bernie never has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

Don't you just love how these reich-wingnuts see EVERYTHING as a conspiracy? They're just incredibly gullible.

[watsup1000]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

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.
It's the first step to reforming healthcare in the USA.
Employers would contribute to HSAs as they do now with health insurance.

To repeat, HSA is just another way for Repubs to take care of those who have means. Not only do they have the extra money to save for healthcare (which those of lesser means could not possibly do), but they also get a tax cut for doing so, which means they pay less taxes and drive the nation even further into debt.
Here's the bottom line: the Repubs had TWO FULL YEARS of both houses of Congress plus Trump as president and did NOTHING as regards realistic proposals for health care. In fact, they very much want to take down Obamacare and thus throw a few millions back to the dogs of no health insurance.

Same with Social Security. Junior Bush ran around the country after his 2004 election trying to drum up support for SS "reform". Both houses of Congress were Republicans. And not only did neither of them present a bill for SS reform, they wouldn't even bring it to the floor for debate on the subject. They preferred waiting until the Dems once again regained power and then BLAMING them for "doing nothing" when that is exactly what they did.

[watsup1000]

[QUOTE=FordGT90;388485]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.



Ah, yes. The right-winger feint so that they don't have to discuss gun sanity laws in a serious manner. Make it an arcane discussion of "what assaulter weapons" are. Forget about the FACT, as previously stated, that mass murderers have made assault type weapons their primary choice because they can be fired relatively rapidly (up to 60 rounds a minute) and have large magazines such that the murderer will not have to reload. Makes it awfully easy for the murderers to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.
Not to mention that the assault type weapons serve no useful purpose in either self-defense or hunting.
The number and casualty list of mass murders has increased greatly since the Repubs in Congress repealed the Clinton ban on them and Junior Bush signed it. They have the blood of literally hundreds of victims since that time on their hands.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Ummmm…..the analysts said all along that South Carolina was the Biden firewall, that states like Iowa and NH were places where Bernie could do well, but once he got out into the open in the Midwest and South, that Biden would start to shine. So in spite of your conspiracy theories, the Dem primaries worked out just as had been expected.
And yes, the others were more in tune with Biden, so once they found that they could not win, they threw in their lot with him. Once again, this was expected. Once again, in spite of your conspiracy theories.

Buttigieg won Iowa, not Sanders, but it didn't matter. None of it mattered.

GOP 2016, it was a three way race until June. DNC 2020: it was over in March.

Originally Posted by watsup1000

To repeat, HSA is just another way for Repubs to take care of those who have means. Not only do they have the extra money to save for healthcare (which those of lesser means could not possibly do), but they also get a tax cut for doing so, which means they pay less taxes and drive the nation even further into debt.

Except that's how it already works, just with more bureaucrats in the process. HSAs are a mostly automated thing. No bureaucrats involved once it is established.

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Here's the bottom line: the Repubs had TWO FULL YEARS of both houses of Congress plus Trump as president and did NOTHING as regards realistic proposals for health care. In fact, they very much want to take down Obamacare and thus throw a few millions back to the dogs of no health insurance.

Except Republicans didn't have a filibuster-proof majority. Nothing could happen in the Senate unless they ram-throated it, which McCain, Collins, and Murkowski refused to participate in. Collins and Murkowski especially want a replacement; they will not support a skinny repeal. McCain didn't want his legacy to be throwing health insurance into disarray and his party (GOP) taking ownership of all the subsequent failures.

The Senate is a fantastic institution because a simple majority often isn't enough. It filters the terrible ideas coming from the House.

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Ah, yes. The right-winger feint so that they don't have to discuss gun sanity laws in a serious manner. Make it an arcane discussion of "what assaulter weapons" are. Forget about the FACT, as previously stated, that mass murderers have made assault type weapons their primary choice because they can be fired relatively rapidly (up to 60 rounds a minute) and have large magazines such that the murderer will not have to reload. Makes it awfully easy for the murderers to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.
Not to mention that the assault type weapons serve no useful purpose in either self-defense or hunting.
The number and casualty list of mass murders has increased greatly since the Repubs in Congress repealed the Clinton ban on them and Junior Bush signed it. They have the blood of literally hundreds of victims since that time on their hands.

We are not living in Minority Report. We only punish those that act irresponsibly. Thought crimes aren't crimes at all. Actions are if the statues say it is and the jury unanimously believes in the defendant's guilt.

Look up the stats on weapons that were covered by NFA. 60 rounds a minute? M60: 550+. M2: 450+. Glock 18: 1200. MP5: 700+. M16: 700+. AKM: 600+. M134: 2000+. If it isn't already abundantly obvious, the difference in fire rate between full auto and semi is huge. The guns above that are slower (like M2) are only because they're firing really large rounds (e.g. .50 caliber) that have enough kinetic force to destroy an engine block.

Larger magazines have the cost of reduced handling and increased weight which leads to quicker fatigue unless it's mounted.


"Murderers?" Why don't you fixate on that instead of what tool they choose to use to do it? The goal needs to be prevention through consoling and intervention; not deprivation of rights unless they earned it.


The 2nd amendment makes no judgement claims. Whether a person uses a gun to kill a deer, a target, a trespasser, in service to the city/state/federal government, or just plain old air, it makes no difference. If there was belief of wrongdoing, that's what the judicial branch is for: find the facts, prosecutor states charges, argue the case for and against, and let the jury decide the fate of the defendant.


No one repealed the Brady Bill. It had a 10 year sunset provision written in to it. The sunset provision was the only way it could garner enough votes to pass in the Senate.


A "gun death" is counted by the CDC regardless if it was justified or not. The more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be relative to the total number of homicides and suicides. Doesn't at all mean they wouldn't have happened by other means.

[watsup1000]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Except that's how it already works, just with more bureaucrats in the process. HSAs are a mostly automated thing. No bureaucrats involved once it is established.

I don't know how many time I have to repeat this: HSAs only help the more well-to-do and do nothing about those who were without insurance prior to Obamacare.



Except Republicans didn't have a filibuster-proof majority. Nothing could happen in the Senate unless they ram-throated it, which McCain, Collins, and Murkowski refused to participate in. Collins and Murkowski especially want a replacement; they will not support a skinny repeal. McCain didn't want his legacy to be throwing health insurance into disarray and his party (GOP) taking ownership of all the subsequent failures.

The Senate is a fantastic institution because a simple majority often isn't enough. It filters the terrible ideas coming from the House.

What those three voted against was the attempt to repeal Obamacare. Good for them. They didn't want to take millions off of health insurance. The Repubs didn't have a replacement.
And blaming it on the Dems is just lame excusing. The fact is that the Repubs and Trump never had a program in the first place. And if they did make up a plan, then it is up to them to sell it to the American people so that the people will put pressure on the Dems to vote for it. The fact is that the Repubs just don't care if millions lose health insurance without a replacement. No plan. Just criticism. That goes nowhere.



We are not living in Minority Report. We only punish those that act irresponsibly. Thought crimes aren't crimes at all. Actions are if the statues say it is and the jury unanimously believes in the defendant's guilt.

Look up the stats on weapons that were covered by NFA. 60 rounds a minute? M60: 550+. M2: 450+. Glock 18: 1200. MP5: 700+. M16: 700+. AKM: 600+. M134: 2000+. If it isn't already abundantly obvious, the difference in fire rate between full auto and semi is huge. The guns above that are slower (like M2) are only because they're firing really large rounds (e.g. .50 caliber) that have enough kinetic force to destroy an engine block.

Larger magazines have the cost of reduced handling and increased weight which leads to quicker fatigue unless it's mounted.

Again, you are trying to obfuscate. I'm not talking about "full auto". I'm talking about the assault style weapons that have become the choice of mass murderers since the Repubs repealed the Clinton ban on them. They have blood on their hands, the blood of hundreds.


"Murderers?" Why don't you fixate on that instead of what tool they choose to use to do it? The goal needs to be prevention through consoling and intervention; not deprivation of rights unless they earned it.


The 2nd amendment makes no judgement claims. Whether a person uses a gun to kill a deer, a target, a trespasser, in service to the city/state/federal government, or just plain old air, it makes no difference. If there was belief of wrongdoing, that's what the judicial branch is for: find the facts, prosecutor states charges, argue the case for and against, and let the jury decide the fate of the defendant.


No one repealed the Brady Bill. It had a 10 year sunset provision written in to it. The sunset provision was the only way it could garner enough votes to pass in the Senate.


A "gun death" is counted by the CDC regardless if it was justified or not. The more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be relative to the total number of homicides and suicides. Doesn't at all mean they wouldn't have happened by other means.

Ummm, yes it does. A mass murderer normally can't use a knife to kill ten or twenty or sixty at a time with no more effort than pulling a trigger. Only a gun can do that. Guns are made for one primary purpose: to kill. Rifles to kill animals and handguns have the primary purpose of killing other humans. And the assault style weapons have the primary purpose of killing LOTS of other humans very quickly. It's just that simple.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by watsup1000

Ummm, yes it does. A mass murderer normally can't use a knife to kill ten or twenty or sixty at a time with no more effort than pulling a trigger. Only a gun can do that. Guns are made for one primary purpose: to kill. Rifles to kill animals and handguns have the primary purpose of killing other humans. And the assault style weapons have the primary purpose of killing LOTS of other humans very quickly. It's just that simple.

Except most shooting incidents only four die (usually immediately family). You know what the top three mass murders used?
#1 commercial airliners (9/11)
#2 arson (bar fire where there was only one exit)
#3 explosion (Oklahoma City bombing)

Next you're going to tell me we should ban all commercial planes, forbid fires in all forms, and no longer let people buy fertilizer.


I already explained to you that "assault style" weapon has no definition. A semi-auto rifle is functionally the same as a semi-auto pistol except having a longer barrel and stock which improves accuracy at the cost of handling.

[donquixote99]

I would think it obvious that lots of features, of large and small importance, have been dialed in on the 'assault rifle' type weapon, to optimize it for use in combat with human beings. The result is a weapon much more dangerous to citizens in crowded venues than either a semi-automatic pistol, or a rifle more optimized for long-range shooting. You can peruse the vast literature of the weapons fetishists to find ideas about these clusters of features discussed, tested, and debated ad-nauseum. To argue that the results of all this intensive evolution of design don't exist or don't matter strikes me as peculiar and disingenuous.