It won't be a turning point for the right; it is a turning point for the left to have their President's agenda thrown back into his face with the help of fellow democrats.
I doubt these 'polls' considered the fact that the reason these Senators voted against more laws is because their constituents WANTED IT THAT WAY?
"The harsh reaction some senators are facing in their home states for voting down new background checks on gun purchasers shows the U.S. might be at a “turning point,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.
“One of the big changes, and one of the reasons that I am truly optimistic we will get something done, is that I am hearing support for gun safety in places I've never heard it before,” Schumer told the Daily News.
“We're at a turning point now, even in redder states, the broad middle is now engaged, and saying they want common sense measures,” he added.
Schumer was referring to intense blowback that some of his fellow lawmakers have experienced in their home states ever since they voted against tighter gun-sales background checks."
Read more: Pro-gun senators slammed in polls, country at
Great argument. Actually, it's a terrible one, but I imagine you felt good making it.This is a "Be careful what you wish for" scenario. Yes the people want the idea of UBCs but when they pass the 27,000 page deficit spending big government freedom crushing bill that we have to pass to find out what is in it, it will be too late.
Not according to Pat Toomey. According to Toomey, they voted that way because they didn't want to be seen siding with Obama.I doubt these 'polls' considered the fact that the reason these Senators voted against more laws is because their constituents WANTED IT THAT WAY?
Toomey on gun laws: GOP didn’t want to be seen helping Obama – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs"In the end, it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey said.
Only 4 Democrat Senators voted against expanding background checks, vs 50 Republican Senators that voted against it.
I think Schummer is wrong. According to USA support for new gun control laws has dropped from 90% to 46% and is falling. Reading Larry Sabato's crystal ball report, no GOP senator is in trouble or even in the toss up column for the up coming mid terms. Charlie Cook backs this up. In the states where the majority of people want more gun control, they are already controlled by the Democrats. In the states that want less gun control, it is here such as West Virginia, Montana, Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota and North Carolina that the Democratic candidates are in trouble. Hence, Begich, Pryor, Baucus's vote against the new gun control bill. Heidkamp from North Dakota, although not running in 2014 was another Democrat who voted against the bill as per her constituents wishes.
Great argument. Actually, it's a terrible one, but I imagine you felt good making it.
Toomey on gun laws: GOP didn’t want to be seen helping Obama – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Not that it comes as any real shock to those who have been paying attention to the Republican Party over the last few years.
I don't care how many people make the argument, it's still a terrible argument. :shrug:"The bill is 49 pages long: Does the 90 percent relate to the 49 pages of law that they're talking about?" asks Alan Korwin, local gun-rights advocate and author. "They're lying to your face on the surface of it."
How about that I'm not the only one making that argument.
We know that is why we keep voting for them.
Good afternoon, Pero. :2wave:
I decided quite a while ago to take whatever Schumer says with a grain of salt...no, make that a handful of salt! :2razz:
I don't care how many people make the argument, it's still a terrible argument. :shrug:
Congratulations, you support paying people to get nothing done. I hope you're proud.
On a side note, could I work for you? I promise I'll do a great job of doing nothing as long as you pay me.
I read the 49 page Manchin-Toomey Amendment, I imagine most people probably would support it. What specific problem did you have a problem with it?So you seriously think people that agree with the idea of UBC will also support all the BS included in a 49 page bill? Unlikely.
Exactly, you support wasteful government spending on people whose sole intention is to make sure nothing is done to help Americans. Can I have a job now? I promise I'll do nothing.They are making sure Obama gets nothing done and since I oppose everything he does I am quite proud indeed.
Good afternoon, Pero. :2wave:
I decided quite a while ago to take whatever Schumer says with a grain of salt...no, make that a handful of salt! :2razz:
I read the 49 page Manchin-Toomey Amendment, I imagine most people probably would support it. What specific problem did you have a problem with it?
By the way, I notice you trying to change the context of the discussion from your original terrible argument. I don't mind going with you, but I do appreciate your acquiescence that your argument was terrible.
Exactly, you support wasteful government spending on people whose sole intention is to make sure nothing is done to help Americans. Can I have a job now? I promise I'll do nothing.
If Schumer was looking at New York or most of the Northeast he is probably correct. The problem is that there are no Republican Senators running for re-election there with the exception of Collins from Maine and she voted for the bill. Any Republican from the South or the plain states voting for it and running for re-election next year would have probably doomed his chances. What some people do not recognize is different parts of the country have differing views on things like this.
Yes, you did. You compared barely related things together, to try and create a false narrative which essentially said (paraphrased), "People should not support UBC because it will lead to a 27,000 page rights infringing bill". You've gotten away from the fallacious argument that UCB will cause "deficit spending big government freedom crushing" legislation and have turned that into a conversation about Manchin-Toomey.I changed nothing in my argument other than the swipe at Obamacare.
You're again trying to change the narrative.How is it wasteful spending to spend a few hours salary to prevent bills that will cost hundreds of billions over the years that follow?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?