President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Permit required to purchase? No.
Registration? No.
Assault weapon regulation? No.
Capacity restriction? No.
Owner license needed? No.
Permit required for concealed weapon? No.
Permit required for open carry? No.
Local restrictions allowed? No.
Background checks for private sales? No.
Duty to inform? No.

But we can tell a 20-year old they cannot have a gun while sending them to die in the desert…with a gun.

Well regulated!

 

That was a different Democratic Party. Here's Dick Gephardt in 1987.

In recent years, he has taken a traditional Democratic position and voted against President Reagan’s defense spending increases, the MX missile and military aid to the Contra rebels fighting the Nicaraguan government. He is leading this year’s liberal charge for a freeze on testing of U.S. nuclear weapons.

He also opposed abortion pretty stridently.

A Democrat cannot hold, well, either of the above positions currently. And the Democrats, somewhat stunningly, now represent corporate America.

 

It must be awful hard to be a Republican where you have to keep track of Trump's twitter feed to figure out what the party supports and opposes on any given day. Both parties have evolved - most of the blue collar Dems that helped in Missouri, Tenn. and Arkansas are among the hardest core Trumpers. The Dems have clearly become more comfortable cozying up to Wall St.

 

A Democrat cannot hold an anti-abortion position currently.

https://www.democratsforlife.org/


Among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic who say abortion
should be
NET Legal in all/most cases (80% of Democrats)
NET Illegal in all/most cases (18% of Democrats)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...r-legal-abortion-and-democrats-who-oppose-it/

 

The Wall Street angle resulted from the loss of revenue from (declining) union sources.

 

The GQP is the Taliban, in suits and ties.

 

Which corporations?

 

South Dakota governor says her two-year-old grandchild has several guns

 

These rights are to some extent in conflict with each other, are they not?

Just five years ago, a group of high school kids who survived a mass shooting while some of their classmates were not so lucky and apparently they were perceived as entitled snowflakes just because they wanted something done that might decrease the likelihood of something like what happened in their school happening again. One of them was even subjected to harassment from a current member of Congress. He was swatted and subjected to death threats. Another one was accused of bullying the shooter because in a speech she admitted the kid was “ostracized ,” which is not the same thing as bullying.
Some people here, including some who are still here thought they deserved this shit.
They deserved a lot better than they got.

 

If that state had a sane governor that kid would be in a foster home.

 

Is that a bad thing?

 

I was rebutting another poster’s assertion.

If anything, we need more conservative Democrats AND more liberal Republicans.