And after the Republican president told them to.
Those decades of saying the devices were legal was mostly under Democratic presidents.
Roberts is not a Republican?
Are you saying that you can’t trust the Republican president, nor those appointed by Republicans to uphold your gun rights?
If Biden or the Dems give any kind of gun control measures any level of priority, they deserve to spanked in 2022. Just off the top of my head there are so many, far bigger priorities:
No one is crying out for new gun control measures right now. Why go there?
Yes, there’s way too much else to work on. The danger is that the Republicans will raise this (non-existent) issue in an attempt to focus the public’s attention on something where they don’t fail so miserably, like health care, the economy and election reform. Dems must stay locked in on the big stuff.
Roberts is a traitor to conservative positions he claimed to hold. As far as Trump, you need to do your research on my attitude about him, the primary system, and dealing with RINOs.
But that’s not appropriate for this thread, stop trying to hijack it. I maintain that if Biden gets even a smidge on what he wants 2022 will make 1994 look like a blue year.
If Democrats win the presidency and the Senate, their biggest priority should be making changes that keep them in power. The two big ones:
Give statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C. Bam, now we’re talking about 3 or 4 out of 4 Democratic Senators for the future. D.C. already has electoral votes, but Puerto Rico would be a reliable “leans Democratic” for future presidential elections.
Fight for voting rights and against voting suppression. The more people that vote, the more Democrats will be elected. That’s a fact. They must do everything they can to make sure as many people as possible can vote.
These two things can change politics completely and make the Republicans a minority power forever (or until both parties shift left as a result).
Bolding mine. Can a state simply be added by the same process as normal legislation – i.e., passing both houses of Congress and getting signed by the president? That just seems too easy!
A quick web search finds nothing deeper than this. Please help fight my ignorance!
I’m just pointing out that the Republicans do not uphold the values that you elect them to uphold. They lie to you to get your support, and they get it.
Anyway, if it was a hijack, then you started down that path, and to then declare that you can make a statement like that, and that there can be no response is a particularly odd form of debate.
As far as your claim that if Biden gets does anything that he has campaigned on doing, it will cause a red wave in 2022, I think that that is a completely unsupported and unsupportable claim.
These are the things that he is campaigning on, why do you think that doing the things that he promises to do is going to be harmful?
Sure, conservatives won’t vote for these things, but he’s not catering to conservatives who aren’t going to vote for him anyway.
If he doesn’t get a substantial amount of what he is campaigning on doing, then why should we trust him any more than you should trust the republicans who have lied to you to get your vote?
Yeah, the logic that voters will desert Dems after two years of Dems doing things that voters approve of by a majority escapes me. What Republicans call the “radical agenda” is simply slightly middle-left stuff now.
And let’s not forget that Republicans have to win three open Senate seats in blue leaning states just to break even. To regain control of the Senate, they would have to sweep those three and then beat almost half of the incumbent Dems.
I recently researched this because I didn’t know either. Apparently it’s just a vote by the House and then the Senate, then signed by the President. It’s just like any other bill.
Will they still be rioting in Seattle?
Will the experiment to “defund police” be working out?
Will we be in a major war?
What “experiment”? Are you talking about the Trump budget proposals that have reduced funding for local and state law enforcement? If not, then what on Earth are you talking about? Biden has proposed increasing, not decreasing, funding for law enforcement.
Also, 1994 and 2010 had their own unique characteristics and so will 2022. Heck, one could say part of the problem in 2010 was that the most visible part of work towards the promises was a badly abridged, hobbled health care insurance compromise, that then the putative allies of Obama ran away from in the midterm. One wonders if the Dems had decided to get the most they could and then owned it and said,“yes, I voted for ACA and damn I’m proud!” it would have helped.
(Another part of the problem was that, alas, #44 had lousy coattails. People showed up to vote for him and then sat at home when he was not the one on the ballot.)
It’s not just 1994 and 2010 that are instructive here, the President’s party tends to lose seats in the Congress in the first midterm - The Republicans lost in 1982, the Democrats in 1962. Exceptions to this pattern were 1934 and 2002. The Democrats will be swimming against a historical tide in 2022 if Biden wins.
One can speculate about how this might occur this time - the Democrats in control of the Presidency and Congress enact policies that are unpopular or arouse strong opposition (like strict gun control, liberalization of immigration) and overconfidently run progressive candidates in conservative districts. Add in a slow recovery from the coronavirus / economy (every Administration tries to blame problems on the previous, it won’t work this time around either) and you have a blue wave in 2022.
That’s amazing. From the standpoint of pure fairness, DC should be a state yesterday. How can ~700,000 people not have representation in Congress?
Of course, the GOP will scream that this 100% constitutional, pro-democracy move is just a partisan stunt. Know what? Fuck them.
Republicans are going to fight this in the courts because there are wording issues in the constitution and because they will lose the battle legislatively (this assumes of course that Dems are willing to take up this cause).
The GOP is looking at a couple of looming existential threats. One is big sun belt states urbanizing. The other is DC statehood.
How would DC statehood be an existential threat to the GOP? DC already gets three electoral votes. Statehood would add two presumably D senators, but the GOP has had bigger majorities than that. (In fact they have one right now.) And 700,000 people would only rate one House representative, which would hardly swing the balance there.
It would hurt the GOP, sure, but an existential threat?
Admitting DC as a state presents some Constitutional questions not present for P.R. and other territories, mostly around defining the “federal district” and what to do about the presidential electors given to DC under the 23rd amendment.
The electorate is hardening around national ideologies. And the balance of red states vs blue states is currently pretty close in terms of numbers of states on either side. DC getting two senators swings the balance to favoring Dems, or at least decreasing the GOP advantage to the point that they can’t win a majority without abandoning Trumpian insanity.
We can both agree that DC statehood would be a not-insignificant advantage for Democrats, but what you describe will not threaten the GOP’s very existence. They have their own actions to do that for them!
I might have been a little hyperbolic in my post. And not for the first time.
I do believe that Republicans are facing the more difficult challenges in the years ahead that DC statehood would exacerbate, though. But then again I’m old enough to have witnessed both parties rebound from crushing defeat before.