Got any more bad analogies you’d like to bring up, or are you done for now?
For-instances would be better than analogies. Especially given that most people in this thread seem to be confused about what’s bothering you and why.
As best as I can tell, the ‘what’ is that when the Dems signaled that people who liked expansive gun rights could safely vote for Dems, they meant it only for a period of several years into the future, rather than for all time.
As for the ‘why,’ I’ll confess I have no clue here.
A bill requires 51 votes to pass the Senate. That’s because there are 100 members in the Senate: 100 /2 = 50. So half the Senate is 50. 1 more than half is 51.
“No support” means what the OP says it does, and what the linked article says it does: no support TO PASS THE BILL.
Well, it was confusing, because you’re equating ‘insufficient support’ with ‘no support.’
Oh, and at least as the game is currently played, the number 51 is irrelevant. A bill requires 60 votes to break a filibuster, and until it gets 60, it won’t pass. So by your definition, 59 votes for a gun control bill would constitute ‘no support.’ :rolleyes:
But you did get one thing right in that post: 100/2 = 50. That is correct.
Yes. Why shouldn’t they? Democrats haven’t done anything to take away people’s guns or limit their right to legally own one. After all, it’s not like a situation where a political party promised they would stop irresponsible spending and then turned a budget surplus into a massive debt. Or like a political party claiming to have superior ability to defend the country and then wasted our resources by miring us in unwinnable wars.
I’m curious as to whether the percentage of Democrats who appeared to change their statements regarding gun control differed markedly from the percentage of Republicans who changed their statements in the wake of Sandy Hook.
I recall seeing a number of Republicans initially saying that Sandy Hook “changed” things. It would seem, therefore, that the reaction to Sandy Hook was a two week phenomenon on both sides of the legislative aisle and that, as it has passed into background, the old attitudes–meaning no serious gun control legislation from either side–have reasserted themselves. Thus, the answer to the OP is that “an interest” in gun control is nothing more than standard boilerplate rhetoric that is irrelevant to any serious voter for the foreseeable future and it it true that, as a party, (individuals differing of course), the Democrats can claim no interest in gun control.
You didn’t like my answer (post 37) - which you replied to, incidentally (post 43) - but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an answer. I replied further in post 44.
At any rate, now that we’ve agreed that what’s bothering you is that the Dems didn’t hold to that position until the heat death of the Universe, I suppose I could ask again why that bothers you.
But the ‘why’ hardly seems to matter, given the ‘what.’ So maybe I won’t bother to inquire further.
Emphasis added. Not seeing any shift in signals here, Bricker. If anything, we’re seeing that many Democrats are not toeing the party line on this item.
Seems that you’re saying the same thing Bricker is: that giving up isn’t giving up, unless it’s a commitment to give up for all time.
I’m rather tired of this semantic debate. If you think that’s how to define things, then we need more terms to fill some middle ground, such as when you give up for the foreseeable future rather than for all time, and we can use one of those instead of ‘give up.’
We can call it ‘babaloo’ when one gives up for just the foreseeable future. The Dems babalooed. Now we can all be happy.
Bricker’s premise is a true one. The Democrats have clearly displayed their intention to pass new gun restrictions, despite having denied this intention in the past.
My guess as to when they will go back into denial mode: Probably before this thread gets inactive.
OK! Good! That part is totally clear and soundly reasoned!
Wait, what? If Reid has a majority of the Senate, 59 votes say but cannot pass the filibuster threshold, then his support by the majority is the same as no support at all? Fifty nine equals zero?
Now, had you said “Reid admits he cannot pass AWB”, you would have been on entirely correct grounds, having not wildly exaggerated the facts. But 59 does not equal zero, or even 20, still does not equal zero. Zero equals zero. Period. Full stop.
Don’t worry, you didn’t. Probably didn’t even mean “no support” in the first place, since that is so obviously stupid. But having said it, you sure as hell weren’t going to back down, now were you, buckaroo?
If I promise not to hit you and then I hit you sixty seconds later am I not breaking my promise because I didn’t say I wouldn’t hit you forever?
Gradually evolving on an issue is one thing. We’ve seen many politicians do that on issues such as gay rights. That’s not what’s happening here. Lying low and waiting for a moment to strike would be a better description.