|
I think this has been discussed a bit recently, but it does bother repeating that Trump's campaign has virtually no money and it appears that Trump is not willing to put his own money into a general election run where he won't get reimbursed. This on top of him balking at dialing for dollars, which was leaked last week. On top of all of this, Clinton's campaign has started a giant ad-blitz to which Trump has no response. So you just fired your campaign manager to replace him with a Bond villain, have no campaign money, and virtually no campaign staff on a national level, but somehow you're a threat? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-real-news-is-trump-is-broke
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
The licensing loophole seems like the most obvious one to resolve - if you ever sell a gun for money, you need a licence. The fact you're not a 'regular dealer' and there's nothing that actually determines what a 'regular dealer' is is pretty asinine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Trump is hilariously behind in campaign ad spending, if you didn't already know, but by how much? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/donald-trump-television-ads/index.html quote:Donald Trump, who overcame an onslaught of negative advertising to clinch the GOP nomination, recently turned to supporters at a rally for advice. "Do ads work anymore?" he asked. If they do, Trump is getting left behind. On top of his fundraising issues and general campaign issues, it's a jaw-dropping deficit.  E: Oh goddamnit FlamingLiberal
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Boon posted:We need to ban all immigration from the UK immediately. We have to figure out what's going on. It's true! FlamingLiberal posted:I think this has been discussed a bit recently, but it does bother repeating that Trump's campaign has virtually no money and it appears that Trump is not willing to put his own money into a general election run where he won't get reimbursed. This on top of him balking at dialing for dollars, which was leaked last week. On top of all of this, Clinton's campaign has started a giant ad-blitz to which Trump has no response. So you just fired your campaign manager to replace him with a Bond villain, have no campaign money, and virtually no campaign staff on a national level, but somehow you're a threat? Yeah, well, I'm encouraged that Clinton's not getting complacent over this, though. She can't let people forget about the crazy-rear end, horrible poo poo he's said. Boon posted:Trump is hilariously behind in campaign ad spending, if you didn't already know, but by how much? It's almost as if he's...bad at business? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, in that case your influence is commensurate with how much the nominee needs your voters to feel secure of his or her win. And that is about none, because the vast majority of Bernie supporters are already ok with Clinton, and the vast majority of the rest are conservatives and moderates who can't be catered to by attempting to close the tiny slivers of daylight between Sanders and Clinton. To appeal to them, you need to go away from Sanders' actual platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And that is about none, because the vast majority of Bernie supporters are already ok with Clinton But being "okay" with Clinton, and actually turning out for her (or volunteering for her), are two separate things. It's pretty easy for voters (especially young ones) to say, "Yeah, I hope Clinton beats Trump, but I'm not gonna get off my rear end and vote for her." Plus Clinton doesn't just want their support for this election. She wants them behind her in 2018 and 2020 as well. e: Plus, of course, imagine what would happen if Sanders actually decided he was going to pull a Ted Kennedy and burn the house down around him. Even if it didn't turn a lot of his former supporters off of Hillary, it would dominate the media cycle for months. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
The third of four amendments, the Cornyn amendment, fails 53-47. It would have stopped sales to people on the terror watch list after review by a judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Boon posted:Trump is hilariously behind in campaign ad spending, if you didn't already know, but by how much? He spent virtually nothing in the primary, I guess he's assuming that strategy of letting the news sell him for free is going to work for the general?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The licensing loophole seems like the most obvious one to resolve - if you ever sell a gun for money, you need a licence. The fact you're not a 'regular dealer' and there's nothing that actually determines what a 'regular dealer' is is pretty asinine. It's also probably the least likely one to get resolved, because pretty much everyone with two or more guns participates in the gun trade. People without a lot of liquidity and a lot of storage will sell the 10/22 they're tired of shooting to buy a Remington 870, or a car problem means they're short on rent and need to get rid of an SKS to cover the difference. There's a huge amount of people who do that who would be very, very mad at a law change like that. The only way you could get away with something like that is if you put in language that could force license holders to facilitate the sale between two unlicensed parties pro bono/at minimal cost, and then you're in a fight with the gun store owners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But being "okay" with Clinton, and actually turning out for her (or volunteering for her), are two separate things. It's pretty easy for voters (especially young ones) to say, "Yeah, I hope Clinton beats Trump, but I'm not gonna get off my rear end and vote for her." Plus Clinton doesn't just want their support for this election. She wants them behind her in 2018 and 2020 as well. Sanders has no influence over that anymore. If he did that, everyone would laugh at him, and he'd probably end up having to retire from the senate early out of shame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
935 posted:He spent virtually nothing in the primary, I guess he's assuming that strategy of letting the news sell him for free is going to work for the general? Possibly. In the meantime Hillary is going to try as hard as possible to reverse her unfavorable numbers while maintaining a token effort at ensuring Trump's remain abysmal. She has an almost uncontested opportunity to solidify a substantial portion of soft support before the debates even kick off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
This is apparently a tweet showing who voted against gun control, but I can't tell which bill it's for: https://twitter.com/lawrenceangbk/status/745024156048076801
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sanders has no influence over that anymore. Sure he does. It sounds like he's probably going to get a pretty good slot for a Convention speech, and he could easily decide to go off-message if he wanted to. He won't, but again, Clinton doesn't want to risk it. e: As for 2018 and 2020, he also has some influence over that. The economically populist Democratic voters aren't going to up and disappear after the Convention. Clinton's going to want their support for her party in 2018, and particularly in 2020. Having Sanders' support throughout those election cycles would be a major boon to her. quote:If he did that, everyone would laugh at him, and he'd probably end up having to retire from the senate early out of shame. I dunno, it seemed to turn out okay for Teddy. No, in all seriousness, of course he's not going to do that. The reason why is because Clinton is courting Sanders personally and his voters in general, and not giving him a reason to rebel. It's not going to be an issue, because Clinton knows Sanders has leverage here, and because she's smart enough to cut whatever deals she has to with him. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
935 posted:He spent virtually nothing in the primary, I guess he's assuming that strategy of letting the news sell him for free is going to work for the general?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
I still kind of give Trump credit? Why spend all that money on advertising when the nightly news hit's your best hits of the past twenty four hours and the 24 hour news channels have a camera up his rear end? Or did he think the RNC would do all the money and real campaign stuff for him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
The Feinstein-Kirk amendment fails 47-53. It would have banned sales pre-emptively to anyone on the terror watch list. That's four for four gun control amendments defeated today. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I still kind of give Trump credit? Why spend all that money on advertising when the nightly news hit's your best hits of the past twenty four hours and the 24 hour news channels have a camera up his rear end? Except nowadays the big channels all switch away from his rallies if Clinton is giving a speech. It's a tenuous thing to rely on, especially if he's going to be TeleTrumper from now on and his rallies are so turbo boring that nobody will want to cover them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:That's four for four gun control amendments defeated today. Bust out the champagne, we did it! Finally we can put this whole gun chat thing behind us, the American people have spoken
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Feinstein-Kirk amendment fails 47-53. It would have banned sales pre-emptively to anyone on the terror watch list. I thought the NRA said it didn't want terrorists getting guns. (I may e to the right of this site on gun issues but if someone is being watched by the FBI, they shouldn't be able to buy a gun and the gun show rule is ridiculous).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I dunno, it seemed to turn out okay for Teddy. Ted Kennedy is a loving Kennedy, instead of the junior Senator from Vermont.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I thought the NRA said it didn't want terrorists getting guns. (I may e to the right of this site on gun issues but if someone is being watched by the FBI, they shouldn't be able to buy a gun and the gun show rule is ridiculous). But the FBI doesn't need any kind of judge ruling or warrant or oversight of any kind to put anyone on a watch list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ted Kennedy is a loving Kennedy, instead of the junior Senator from Vermont. Yes, and he also was the Monster of Chappaquiddick. Sanders may not carry as much cache as Teddy did in 1980, but it's still enough for the Clinton camp to consider his support indispensable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
greatn posted:But the FBI doesn't need any kind of judge ruling or warrant or oversight of any kind to put anyone on a watch list. Yeah, if it had passed today the Feinstein-Kirk amendment would have been tossed after the first court challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, and he also was the Monster of Chappaquiddick. Sanders may not carry as much cache as Teddy did in 1980, but it's still enough for the Clinton camp to consider his support indispensable. Which is completely irrelevant. They also don't consider his support indispensable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Clinton will be fine if Sanders never formally bends the knee but it's irrelevant because he will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Which is completely irrelevant. They also don't consider his support indispensable. Well, again, you can believe what you want. The evidence is pretty conclusive, though: they're courting him and giving him concessions. That's what having leverage will get you in the post-primary season. Joementum posted:Yeah, if it had passed today the Feinstein-Kirk amendment would have been tossed after the first court challenge. Perhaps they should have voted in favor of it, then, and reassured their donors that it would get thrown out quickly. The way things have gone down, they've handed Clinton a pretty massive club to beat them with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Perhaps they should have voted in favor of it, then, and reassured their donors that it would get thrown out quickly. The way things have gone down, they've handed Clinton a pretty massive club to beat them with. The Republicans voted for the Cornyn amendment instead, which allowed the FBI to request that a judge block someone on the list from buying a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
They did a good job. She should hire them. They ran a campaign that turned a long shot candidate into a serious contender.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Republicans voted for the Cornyn amendment instead, which allowed the FBI to request that a judge block someone on the list from buying a gun. Ah, of course.  Still, my instinct is that this is going to provide some powerful ammo for Clinton (pardon the pun). What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, again, you can believe what you want. The evidence is pretty conclusive, though: they're courting him and giving him concessions. That's what having leverage will get you in the post-primary season. They really aren't granting him concessions anymore, because he no longer has leverage. Because he lost horribly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Feinstein-Kirk amendment fails 47-53. It would have banned sales pre-emptively to anyone on the terror watch list. Huh. look at that. Nothing happened just like I predicted. Well onto the next mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I thought the NRA said it didn't want terrorists getting guns. (I may e to the right of this site on gun issues but if someone is being watched by the FBI, they shouldn't be able to buy a gun and the gun show rule is ridiculous). I believe in total confiscation but it's pretty plainly obvious that using the arbitrary, quasi-secret list established by the bush administration as a method of restricting access to guns is very bad. Incrementalism or whatever but the no fly list is a rose made entirely out of thorns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ah, of course. I think that Democrats will think that the Democratic proposals were reasonable and it's a shame they didn't pass and Republicans will think that the Republican proposals are reasonable and it's a shame they didn't pass. I doubt it's going to move any votes. FWIW, if I were a Senator, I'd have voted for the Cornyn and Murphy-Booker-Schumer-Blumenthal amendments today. I don't think the Feinstein-Kirk amendment is defensible as anything more than a messaging bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:Bust out the champagne, we did it! The point was never to win this battle. It was to be able to air "X voted to let known Terrorists buy guns" adds in November.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They really aren't granting him concessions anymore, because he no longer has leverage. Because he lost horribly. Well, first of all, we haven't seen what Sanders negotiated with Clinton after the DC primary last week. So I don't think one can fairly say that they aren't granting him concessions anymore, at least until we know that. Secondly, he certainly has enough clout to make them keep their promises to him, and to keep them from regressing back to the center. As far as I'm concerned, that's fairly important leverage. Joementum posted:I think that Democrats will think that the Democratic proposals were reasonable and it's a shame they didn't pass and Republicans will think that the Republican proposals are reasonable and it's a shame they didn't pass. I doubt it's going to move any votes. How about driving people to get out and vote, though? (or not get out and vote?) Same difference?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Clinton will be fine if Sanders never formally bends the knee but it's irrelevant because he will. This needs to be repeated every six posts for the next week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How about driving people to get out and vote, though? (or not get out and vote?) Same difference? I don't see how this has any more of an effect on turnout than the failure of Manchin-Toomey did after Newtown, which is to say: none at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, first of all, we haven't seen what Sanders negotiated with Clinton after the DC primary last week. So I don't think one can fairly say that they aren't granting him concessions anymore, at least until we know that. If he negotiated things last week then he already got things last week, and them being implemented isn't further concessions. This is really simple stuff!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:I believe in total confiscation but it's pretty plainly obvious that using the arbitrary, quasi-secret list established by the bush administration as a method of restricting access to guns is very bad. Pretty much. I'm rather left on guns myself, but the mere idea of an extrajudicial list denying people current extant Constitutional rights, even if I disagree with that section of the Constitution, gives me literal shivers. That was a terrible idea and that list itself needs to go away or get heavily reformed. I am not sad to see that proposal go down in flames.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
fishmech posted:If he negotiated things last week then he already got things last week, and them being implemented isn't further concessions. This is really simple stuff! I'm just not following your logic for how this necessarily means that more concessions aren't forthcoming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:18
|
|