skinny21

It's probably the wrong venue (though I don't know where else to put it), but to continue the convo... I believe many bought into a some (or a lot of) of the BS directed towards HC. A lot of people thought Trump would change or didn't really mean much of what he said I don't really have a problem with the protest vote, persay, though there is obviously some culpability there. I find it ridiculous to place blame on HC supporters for the current situation (which is different from criticizing the campaign). There's a huge swath of the population that 1) voted Trump but weren't all that sure of him, 2) abstained from voting (whether from uncertainty, diffidence, laziness or in protest), or voted for another candidate because they didn't like the top 2. I really hope those folks can be persuaded to help this country (attempt) to regain it's footing over the next few years. I may be less of an optimist than I was a short time ago, but I find myself hopeful that this... blight wakes up the American population to the need for political engagement.

There should be more talk about our current vetting process. Seems like Trump's comments about our 'terrible' vetting process is not being questioned/criticized enough. Relating to that... here's an interview with David Miliband - Prez/CEO of the International Refugee Committee. Trumpcast is obviously partisan, but Miliband has a lot of interesting things to say. http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/slates-trumpcast

Yep. I'll mention that this is where the Trump vs Pence thing comes unglued. Pence would be absolutely awful for social issues, but Trump is downright dangerous for the country. At this point, I'm just praying that the administration wakes the hell up. Rachel Maddow pointed out that they've been caving under pressure so far, but less than two weeks in 'we've' kicked Mexico, threatened China, drawn serious concern from Europe (and elsewhere), potentially helped ISIS and other terror groups, drawn criticism from the Pope, and have people routinely marching in the street.... and that's almost sure to be the tip of the damned iceberg. Stunning isn't nearly a strong enough word to describe the incompetence and shortsightedness shown so far.

Can't help feeling that Bannon is absolutely gleeful over this... well on the way to "blowing things up".

Thanks for putting the game up FS#21! Had trouble the last several times I tried, but worked like a charm today.

Glad to see the conversation going again in here... was genuinely a little worried ithe thread had been de facto killed

Personally, I think it's stupid to always take the Machiavellian route. Of course, if enough people have the wool over their eyes, it works - see election laws, gerrymandering, obstruction, et. al. I think it was "stupid" of Reid and I'll think it's "stupid" of the GOP.

@Tshile - Is it that posters are saying Reid didn't do anything? I thought people were taking exception to the notion that the filibuster is dead (it's not yet), and if the GOP finalizes removal of the filibuster, then it's all Reid's fault. That's like blaming Trump on Democrats. Reid screwed up from what I can tell (even though I get his frustration). If the GOP does their part, I'll feel the same about them.

Yeah, the "sour grapes" thing is concerning to me - you likely won't convince the necessary people with that attitude (even if it's a perception thing).

Does seem that Reid was a bit short-sighted regarding filibusters, even if I understand the frustration with obstruction. Did this stem from Butts not getting appointed? I'm fuzzy on the background. How viable is campaign finance reform with the Citizen's United ruling? There was a lot of interesting talk regarding redistricting in the election thread - I'd like to see Dems gain control of congress by 2020 and find a way to towards a bipartisan solution. I'm not interested in swinging everything to the other extreme, but a level playing field (or as close as we can get) would be nice. I'd also like to see less outrage from the left (even if I understand it) and the media, and more of an attempt at rational discussion. Much of the GOP is obviously struggling with reason and I'd like the Dems to show America that they're the adults in the room. Obama has been doing an ice job in this vein, though I suspect it's hard as hell for him.

Highly, highly recommend John Oliver's Last Week Tonight. It's on HBO, but you can YouTube it.

What a waste, they should have made their continued employment contingent on airing their dirty laundry on the news. Imagine the ratings, people! The ratings!!

What I like most about his show is the information he imparts and the passion he delivers. The humor is a great addition, but it's more the cherry on top for me. Oh, and I love the use of HBO's money for the "screw you" stunts. Sorry, off topic a bit... though I recommend him to everyone (YouTube has the show divided up for those without HBO).

One of the best things to come out of Britain in a long time. (that's intended as a compliment)

Yeah, its my best attempt at trying to appease both sides. Nothing will be perfect, but this at least nullifies (or attempts to) the "good guy with a gun argument", the "someone may need a gun quickly for self defense", the idea that "they're coming for our guns", etc. I feel like if we can get many of those arguments out of the way, it makes the conversation marginally easier. An attempt at a middle ground that would probably piss off both extremes... which means we'd be on the right path, lol.Edit: sorry, should have lumped this in with my previous post.

Dunno about the regulations really. Something that would at least moderately appease the gun control crowd - primarily aimed at trying to prevent mass shootings and criminals getting (at least certain) guns... some kind of fairly extensive background check and psychological eval. Obviously the tricky part is 1) deciding how to work the evaluations, 2) how to pay for them and 3) getting congress and the general population to agree. What I like about this idea is that it still allows ease of access, doesn't outright ban any guns, doesn't mess with concealed carry (and open carry) laws, doesn't affect ammo sales. On the other hand, in theory anyway, it works towards limiting the people with (hopefully fairly specific) mental issues from getting the type of guns typically used in mass shootings. Obviously it would have to include a lot more details, but that's the gist of it. Does that make sense? What do you think would be a logical step, regulation-wise, to trying to prevent those with anger, hate or resentment issues being able to get their hands on a gun that can fire a significant amount of bullets in a short time (and taking it out on innocents)?

Still think separating (currently legal) firearms into two categories makes sense. Extremely relaxed regulation for guns that don't hold clips, stringent regulation (and registration) for those that do. No (currently legal) guns are banned. Someone who feels they need one suddenly for self defense (or sport) can get one quickly. Of course, it would still run contrary to the interests of gun show sellers, but that can be worked around to some degree.

They'd definitely take the Texans - people abroad are fascinated by us. As to the 25 mark, some studies have shown that people's brains (believe it was males in particular) have a portion of the brain that doesn't develop until around that age. If I recall, that portion is what tempers risk. It's a big reason for a push to change incarceration laws for offenders under 25.

I like that they're talking about finding recourse to getting off a watch list too - shows they (or some) are looking at both sides of the issue. Really hope the GOP steps up on this one.

I'd be happy to lump all handguns, however, I could see someone arguing "what if someone suddenly feels the need for protection. Why should they have to wait?" Or some such. Also, and maybe more importantly, it may undermine the idea of how you're dividing the 2 types of guns. Don't see a need to have a check for every purchase, you're right. Hesitant to set a timeframe for the waiting period (yet) - I think the professionals would need to decide how long it would reasonably take to conduct a thorough background check. Good catch with the 2nd edit. Yes. Yeah, I mean it's such a divisive topic and although I personally may want more, I can understand the need to compromise. Do I think certain people are right to think they may need semi-autos in case the government oversteps its bounds (in a big way)? No, but I also don't want to alienate those people either... because I guess you never know. And alienating a segment of the gun owning population will make the conversation that much more difficult. Nothing seems a bit strong of a word there. It won't do nearly enough, I'm sure, but it's a compromise that I hope could make some small difference. Don't know what to say regarding both mental health and buying sprees. Maybe there's something that could make a difference though. Really, it's about looking to the future - if a law like that passed, it would make it that much more difficult for a person (down the road) to get ticked off and a few days later be armed with a semi-auto in a crowded area. I'm loathe to get into specifics like that though... both sides get into the "yeah, but what if..." that undermines any move forward. As to the guns already out there, I don't know that either. Maybe they're grandfathered in but have to abide by the new law if they're sold? Tough to regulate that I'm sure, but it could be incentivized in some way I think. I'll also add that the loopholes need to be closed as best as possible, selling multiple guns at the same time to one buyer needs to be looked at, the 1% of dealers that's always brought up need to be heavily examined, studies have to be allowed, and agencies (like the ATF) need to have fewer restrictions*. * like being able to do their paperwork online, for example. My knowledge is insufficient to say much more than that though. Bottom line is the idea of compromising. No one's gonna be thrilled with this type of legislation, but I'd hope both sides would agree that it's better than nothing. Better yet, I don't think either side really 'loses' in this scenario.

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this: Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever). Thoughts?

Gotta imagine every potential candidate has made a mistake at some point.

I agree with your premise, but part of the reason the ILBs aren't contributing is that Compton stepped up. Well, that and Hayward went to IR. Also think you're a bit harsh on Clark - most of the big plays have been because the young guys aren't covering their zone. But yeah, Clark has not been much of a difference maker (apart from a few key stops). Here's hoping Long and Moses step up in the offseason, though I hope the FO doesn't sit on their hands due to said 'hope'. You can probably add Rambo to the WTH file.

Think I've heard enough expounding by Costas on the subject. Just one of the many reasons I miss the good old days, where media didn't broadcast (no pun intended) their bias.

My guess is that many view Morris as a product of the system.