Merry Kissmyass Nancy.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

What exactly do you mean by that? Serious question because I wanna respond but I want us to be on the same page. Are you talking legislation wise or some other way?

---

Net effect, not platform. Not talking about what legislators wanted, talking about what we ended up with. During Obama's era we saw CCW restored in parks, sweeping increases in reciprocity, strong firearm lobby, etc. Largely the "cause" is because he was viewed as the enemy, so any action was met with rabid attacks, no matter how slight, while Trump is viewed as "the friend", so any action will be reasoned away as a necessary evil, no matter how severe in comparison .

PS: There's not much point in discussing various other replies if people can't concede at least a few points. I'm not going to waste time arguing against dissonance, altering virtually all actions of trump and inventing reasoning to be "positive" to fit the belief he's the perfect person to "save the country". He's not all bad. But he's definitely not "gods gift to the country". Want an example of manipulation? Erdogan. North Korea (generally). Xi. Russia. E.g. Kim manipulated Trump to get world recognition, first meeting, Chinese help, concessions left and right, Trump says nice things about him, blah blah blah, and all Kim had to do is predictably stroke his ego just right. I'm not go into fifteen pages of elaboration because no matter the depth, it will be reasoned away as somehow "winning" - Charlie Sheen.

Not buying it. The only reason we got carry in parks is because it was tied to the CARD Act (or whatever it was called). Obama sure as hell didn't want it but he had no choice. And the CARD Act turned out to be some pretty terrible legislation that was good for the credit card industry and horrible for the consumer.

You're other argument, he's so bad on guns he's actually good, doesn't really make sense. It's like saying you whacked your hand off when you just had the flu so you wouldn't have to wait in line at the emergency room. An argument can also be made that Trump, despite his epic failures on gun policy (specifically the bump-stock ban), is far better for gun owners than Obama. Again, not policy but effect. You sure as hell couldn't buy an AR-15 for $350 during the Obama years. Ammo is plentiful again, too. Parts are available. There are all sorts of positives. He's the leader of a party that DOESN'T include all sorts of gun control in it's platform. Make no mistake...I don't view Trump as a friend to gun owners. At all. He's proven that. But I didn't see Reagan as a friend to gun owners, either. Neither Reagan nor Trump was in the same anti-gun class as Obama, though.

Especially interesting is your stance that you're not going to discuss anything unless people actually agree with you. And you have the nerve to say Trump acts childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Not buying it. The only reason we got carry in parks is because it was tied to the CARD Act (or whatever it was called). Obama sure as hell didn't want it but he had no choice. And the CARD Act turned out to be some pretty terrible legislation that was good for the credit card industry and horrible for the consumer.

You're other argument, he's so bad on guns he's actually good, doesn't really make sense. It's like saying you whacked your hand off when you just had the flu so you wouldn't have to wait in line at the emergency room. An argument can also be made that Trump, despite his epic failures on gun policy (specifically the bump-stock ban), is far better for gun owners than Obama. Again, not policy but effect. You sure as hell couldn't buy an AR-15 for $350 during the Obama years. Ammo is plentiful again, too. Parts are available. There are all sorts of positives. He's the leader of a party that DOESN'T include all sorts of gun control in it's platform. Make no mistake...I don't view Trump as a friend to gun owners. At all. He's proven that. But I didn't see Reagan as a friend to gun owners, either. Neither Reagan nor Trump was in the same anti-gun class as Obama, though.

Especially interesting is your stance that you're not going to discuss anything unless people actually agree with you. And you have the nerve to say Trump acts childish.

---

Guns are cheap is your argument (for effect)? Your analogy is also way off.

Firearm companies have been dropping like flies and filing for bankruptcy. NRA dropped a hot turd on itself this year. Gun stores have been plopping over like a 114 year old in a heat wave.

Guns were expensive in the Obama years only because demand was freakishly high. It also brought a lot of new shooters into the fold because "I can't sit on the fence anymore, even if I'm broke all the time, Obama gunna ban all the guns!". People were buying 8, 10, 20 AR's. Money flowed back into R&D, lots of new product releases and development, stocks boosted, the artificial panic resulted in a greater penetration of 2A people. And nothing was ever banned. (Kind of how liberals foam at the mouth that Trump is going to "Ban abortion". Not happening, people don't understand politics)

Call it irony, call it what you want, but every aspect of the firearm industry and lobby thrived from 2008-2016.

You have to be crazy to say Trump has had a "positive" indirect effect on the industry. Not that it's his fault, it's panic cycles.

So, let's see if we have this straight:

Nancy Pelosi isn't sending the articles of impeachment to the senate until she gets her way on setting the rules of the senate trial. Nancy isn't in the senate yet she's attempting to use her power to influence how the senate operates. Wouldn't that be an "abuse of power" by obstructing how the senate operates?

Nancy Pelosi says she'll send the articles of impeachment to the senate if she gets what she wants in terms of how the trial is conducted. She'll give something if she gets something. Isn't that the definition of a quid pro quo? Or bribery?

So who should be impeached here? Trump or Pelosi?

The House is not a co-equal branch of government, obviously.

The house is democrat controlled...so they're more equal than the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

...
So who should be impeached here? Trump or Pelosi?

---

You can't impeach a Crypt Keeper.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...te-640x480.jpg

or

http://www.denverpost.com/wp-content...rypt.jpg?w=620

One is pure evil, the other is just a TV character...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

So, let's see if we have this straight:

Nancy Pelosi isn't sending the articles of impeachment to the senate until she gets her way on setting the rules of the senate trial. Nancy isn't in the senate yet she's attempting to use her power to influence how the senate operates. Wouldn't that be an "abuse of power" by obstructing how the senate operates?

Nancy Pelosi says she'll send the articles of impeachment to the senate if she gets what she wants in terms of how the trial is conducted. She'll give something if she gets something. Isn't that the definition of a quid pro quo? Or bribery?

So who should be impeached here? Trump or Pelosi?

---

Well written and a good point. If they can do that a bit more terse, and without the regular political lingo attached by either party (which you've mostly avoided), I think that would really resonate with independents and moderates if they ran a very plain ad campaign.

E.g. something in the lines of:

Quote:

---

After a partisan vote for impeachment on party lines for what has been identified as a constitutional high crime of "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress", the majority chair, Nancy Palosi, has stated she will refuse to forward the articles to the Senate for a trial and a vote as required, until and unless the Senate agrees to let Ms. Palosi, a house representative, dictate the rules of the Senate process.

Does this mean that Ms. Palosi, a house representative, is leveraging her majority chair to manipulate senate process, in an ongoing effort to remove the president for "obstructing congress" and "abusing power"?

---

They already have to contend with the rush job due to the "urgency" in preventing another abuse of power and defense of the Constitution.

...and then they create an unnecessary delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

Net effect, not platform. Not talking about what legislators wanted, talking about what we ended up with. During Obama's era we saw CCW restored in parks, sweeping increases in reciprocity, strong firearm lobby, etc. Largely the "cause" is because he was viewed as the enemy, so any action was met with rabid attacks, no matter how slight, while Trump is viewed as "the friend", so any action will be reasoned away as a necessary evil, no matter how severe in comparison .

---

So your argument is that the gun owners reacting to Obama caused good things so Obama was better for firearm rights? Okaaaaayyyy .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

There's not much point in discussing various other replies if people can't concede at least a few points. I'm not going to waste time arguing against dissonance, altering virtually all actions of trump and inventing reasoning to be "positive" to fit the belief he's the perfect person to "save the country". He's not all bad. But he's definitely not "gods gift to the country". Want an example of manipulation? Erdogan. North Korea (generally). Xi. Russia. E.g. Kim manipulated Trump to get world recognition, first meeting, Chinese help, concessions left and right, Trump says nice things about him, blah blah blah, and all Kim had to do is predictably stroke his ego just right. I'm not go into fifteen pages of elaboration because no matter the depth, it will be reasoned away as somehow "winning" - Charlie Sheen.

---

Because you don't have any rebuttal. Cite one way Trump has been manipulated to real effect by a foreign leader. How do you think Erdogan manipulated Trump? What did Erdogan get? Erdogan is stil trying to find a way to push us the way Turkey pushed past administrations. Buying Russian weapons hasn't worked so far.

Trump saw saying nice things about Kim as a step toward getting Kim to change his behavior but he didn't ease up on the monitoring or sanctions. Kim hasn't received bucket loads of cash the way his father did from Clinton. I was against giving Kim the world recognition he desperately wanted but he hasn't got anything from it except maybe some pictures and untranslated video for his domestic propaganda.

How exactly has Trump been easy on Russia outside of saying diplomatic platitudes? What exactly do you think Xi manipulated Trump to do? All I see are increases in CHinese sanctions that got China to do what Trump wanted (partially).

I'm a telepath so I can't see what you're thinking but so far you are just saying "Orange Man Bad" without citing anything real or substantive -- and I've despised Trump since the 80s so I'm hardly a Trump apologist. I think the guy is a low-class arrogant egotist and can cite specific instances of those points but your contentions that he's easily manipulated or that Obama was better for firearm rights fail completely for lack of evidence.