|
site posted:Can you teal deer that poo poo Congrats Liddle Marco
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Congrats Liddle Marco rip florida
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
It's purely political theater, Sam San. They picked the weakest, most gop-friendly proposal to show how asinine and uncooperative the gop is. It isn't about the particular gun measures at all and all about gop obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
That hilarious court transcript must be true: http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com...f831c18729.html The Constitutional Dumbass:  Judge Fuckman:  I would do anything to see video of it. e: of course that judge was appointed by Sonny Perdue
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:
I have to imagine the judge was close to laughing when he said 1 and then 10 years since there's zero chance of it being enforced but he knows the crazy guy in his court his gonna be crazy either way. Joementum posted:Article I Section 6 Ryan can ends the session and then the Dems can be arrested. The well doesn't have a Protection From Police 10' enchantment on it. Grem posted:I think it means you can't arrest them later for actions taken in the House. You can't arrest congressmen during an active session. IE, police can't come on to the floor mid-debate and haul the next Hastert away in cuffs on CSPAN. Once that session ends? They're fair game. Either way, they aren't going to be arrested. Maybe Ryan tries to get the Sergeant at Arms to move them but good loving luck with that. Hollismason posted:So wait a Senator can just read anything into public record. Like even classified info and nothing can be done? Depending on the material it could fall under one of the exceptions, such as Treason or Felony, in which case they're hosed but that such a high bar to clear it's probably not going to happen unless the Senator's giving orders to enemy troops. Breach of the Peace would be the easiest of the listed things to get someone with and that's still extremely unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It's purely political theater, Sam San. They picked the weakest, most gop-friendly proposal to show how asinine and uncooperative the gop is. It isn't about the particular gun measures at all and all about gop obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Both. Conservative assholes and Too Woke Twitter finally have an arguable excuse to call a Democratic civil rights icon a racist so of course they're climbing all over each other to have the most blistering of hot takes and are being insufferably smug about it. *in best Will Lyman voice* In the great meme wars of 2016, twitter became an arsenal which propelled sick burns at the enemy. Little did anyone know that Hillary had already made her move. Just like the US had smuggled Germany's best scientists during world war 2, she had already acquired the best and brightest connected young millennials for her twitter account. When her 600k+ liked tweet carved a path through the internet, it would be but the opening volley for a torrent of the world's most clever and snarky 160 character limited remarks. The opposition was completely unprepared. Their plan to intersectionalize democrats and republicans into new, hardliner groups using social media had brought some success. But with a leader too busy funneling money out of the republican party, there was no central authority to organize a clear response. In the following months, out of sheer desperation, any notable event was mentally construed and picked apart for anything resembling a contradiction. Their best results only garnered a few thousand likes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:45
|
|
faces lock into an ugly irreversible rictus.
|
New poll out of Arizona has Hillary up 7 points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
oh, word?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
If Paul Ryan ends the session then they still can't be arrested because they will then be "returning from" the session. Also, too, Ryan isn't going to break precedent and start arresting members because those protections cover all members and they have an obvious desire to preserve them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess that makes sense. If the GOP hadn't been shitheads it might have passed though, and we'd have yet another awful no fly list linked law on the books. Yeah it's about as close to a paper bag test for guns as you can get. Saying the gop wouldn't even consider that gives a ton of ammunition for Democratic candidates this fall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:reminder: the other option is grayson And people were rolling their eyes at me when I said this morning that Rubio's announcement basically kept that seat in Republican hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
So a friend of mine posted this and it showed up in my feed. https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/745679387450871808 I'm not american, but would I be correct in assuming this is either a half-truth/"lol Bush has had the CIA doing that since 9/11" statement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
people doing sit in are doing it for attention?? bwwuuuuhhh???
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Yeah it's about as close to a paper bag test for guns as you can get. Saying the gop wouldn't even consider that gives a ton of ammunition for Democratic candidates this fall. May-issue laws are also paper bag tests in practice, but opposing them doesn't seem to hurt Republicans much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess that makes sense. If the GOP hadn't been shitheads it might have passed though, and we'd have yet another awful no fly list linked law on the books. luckily no one has ever lost money on betting that the GOP would act like poo poo heads
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:New poll out of Arizona has Hillary up 7 points. hot drat!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And people were rolling their eyes at me when I said this morning that Rubio's announcement basically kept that seat in Republican hands. It's obviously not a coincidence that this story about Murphy was published the same day Rubio announced his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Yeah it's about as close to a paper bag test for guns as you can get. Saying the gop wouldn't even consider that gives a ton of ammunition for Democratic candidates this fall. Republicans could level the exact same accusation at the Democrats and it would be true. In one form or another, almost everyone in the Senate voted against measures that would restrict the sale of guns to "terrorists".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's obviously not a coincidence that this story about Murphy was published the same day Rubio announced his campaign. Are you suggesting that we dispel the notion that Marco Rubio doesn't know what he's doing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Can someone run by me how your supposed to do sit ins, like bathroom breaks and such? These people are old as gently caress, do they have medication on them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:New poll out of Arizona has Hillary up 7 points. I believe we're going to see a lot of reverse-Arzying this election season.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:So a friend of mine posted this and it showed up in my feed. Basically the Democrats know it wouldn't pass anyways, but they're using it as political ammunition to cut the Republicans at the knees by shouting to the hills that the Republicans don't even want to debate and vote on bills that will keep terrorists from having guns. After all, to the Republican base you're not on the watch list unless you're a dirty Muzzie, and all Muzzies are Terrorists, don'tchaknow? And if it did pass, well they also know that the law, and likely the watchlist, will be challenged and stricken down the first time a white guy trying to buy guns is oh so mildly inconvenienced. Basically they're taking advantage of the R base's immunity to nuance to bludgeon the Republicans in such a way that makes the R's look bad without nuance, but makes the D's look bad if you include nuance...but they also know the law has about a 99.9% chance of dying horribly even if they get what they claim to want so they're safe to make all the political hay about this. Alkydere fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:So a friend of mine posted this and it showed up in my feed. It's pretty true, one of the main policy proposals as part of the gun control reform Democrats have been pushing is to block people on terror watch lists from purchasing firearms. So it would violate due process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's obviously not a coincidence that this story about Murphy was published the same day Rubio announced his campaign. Only Hillary Clinton would do something so dastardly as push a story through the press
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:So a friend of mine posted this and it showed up in my feed. Yes, the particular thing they're fussing about is unconstitutional, but that's not the point. It would never become law regardless. It's about political theater, making it look like Republicans are defending potential terrorists' ability to buy guns. It's all colossally dumb, but that's politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
people accuse the Democrats of always loving up the messaging game, but now they play it properly and people don't like that either Politics, man
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
It is worth noting that Rubio's entrance into the race puts the number of Republican leaning Senate seats at 49 with four tossups: Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Basically the Democrats know it wouldn't pass anyways, but they're using it as political ammunition to cut the Republicans at the knees by shouting to the hills that the Republicans don't even want to keep terrorists from having guns. After all, to the Republican base you're not on the watch list unless you're a dirty Muzzie, and all Muzzies are Terrorists, don'tchaknow? I don't think Feinstein is playing political chess with her amendment. She's proposed very similar things in the past and if it did pass, I think she'd be happier if it never got overturned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Zelder posted:people accuse the Democrats of always loving up the messaging game, but now they play it properly and people don't like that either Handing the Republicans a free and easy objection on this by making it laughably unconstitutional is a gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Zelder posted:people accuse the Democrats of always loving up the messaging game, but now they play it properly and people don't like that either
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Handing the Republicans a free and easy objection on this by making it laughably unconstitutional is a gently caress up. But why should we let people on the terror watchlist have guns? Aren't they possible terrorists? That line of questioning is all that matters here. Nobody is going to think about it beyond those terms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I believe we're going to see a lot of reverse-Arzying this election season. I just hope Clinton and the rest of the Dem DON'T LET UP. Someone posted this before but James Carver said "When your opponent is drowning, throw them an anvil."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Basically the Democrats know it wouldn't pass anyways, but they're using it as political ammunition to cut the Republicans at the knees by shouting to the hills that the Republicans don't even want to debate and vote on bills that will keep terrorists from having guns. After all, to the Republican base you're not on the watch list unless you're a dirty Muzzie, and all Muzzies are Terrorists, don'tchaknow? What was that bill that the republicans grandstanded for a week about and the dems surprise voted in support of it as well causing the repubs to rush in and reverse their votes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Handing the Republicans a free and easy objection on this by making it laughably unconstitutional is a gently caress up. Have the sit-ins actually been pushing a ban on people on the list as a major part of this particular action? I got the impression it was just a general "not leaving until a bill is on the floor" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Have the sit-ins actually been pushing a ban on people on the list as a major part of this particular action? I got the impression it was just a general "not leaving until a bill is on the floor" thing. Yes, it's mentioned regularly in their speeches and is one of the two specific measures they want a vote on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Detaining congressmen on trumped-up charges to prevent them from getting back to Congress and debating or voting was a real thing, and still is in some places. Like if a guy was at lunch and on his way back to the House for an important vote, he could not be pulled aside for "questioning" until the vote was over. Right, that makes sense. Thanks! easier to figure out if you were in the building when it was written, I guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:What does that last clause mean? I've been puzzling it and can't figure it out. The last clause means once they are out of Congress, you can't then detain them and put them on trial for what they said in Congress. This is an old, old privilege that stems from the idea of Parliamentary privilege which was granted by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, but grew out of conflicts between the King and Parliament in the 1630s, when Charles I stormed Parliament with armed guards and attempted to arrest five members for -- as he termed it -- "seditious speech" in the House of Commons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Zelder posted:people accuse the Democrats of always loving up the messaging game, but now they play it properly and people don't like that either The appropriate action to take is to offer a perfect proposal that no one can argue against And then when it gets voted down, sigh and wait until next year
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Handing the Republicans a free and easy objection on this by making it laughably unconstitutional is a gently caress up. I don't disagree with this, but I could see it still playing out well for the Democrats. I suppose I'll have to wait and see, though
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:08
|
|