Biden as a centrist

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

They have completely different goals. They have little in common.

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%.

[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.

[bobabode]

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.

Given to conspiracy theories, aren't you?

Maybe you're just naïve.

[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.

[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.

[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]

I have reason to be concerned:
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Got a better explanation?

[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?