Beto's newest......

[jdh]

Bobby is no longer running for president. He is using his presidential campaign funds to run against Ted Cruz for his seat in the Senate. Another position for which he is wholly unqualified for.

 

[40-82]

Baiting liberals at parties might make you feel good for a moment but you are hurting our cause when you do it.

You're probably right, but it's not unusual to find myself in a conversation with someone, establish some basis of respect as an ordinary decent human, and then listening to their conversation devolve into an anti-Second Amendment, anti-NRA rant. They don't see a nickel's worth of difference between my political and social views and those of a Klansman or a Neo-Nazi. They view us as knuckle-dragging, uneducated idiots, spouting slogans, chewing Redman, and waving a Confederate flag we don't understand.

They won't accept my views of course, but it's enough of a shock for the moment when they realize that someone as educated and sophisticated as they are doesn't automatically share their political views. The idea that there's more than one way to view an issue upsets them.

Few anti-gunners have studied the issue. A few have. Those just believe that the idea of freedom and individual rights is ridiculous and that guns belong in the hands of the politically connected. Most of them believe what they believe not as reasoned consideration but as a result of social pressures.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I thought Noir's quoting the Declaration of Independence was the best thing, our FOUNDING DOCUMENT mentions rising up against a tyrannical government.

I REALLY respect Noir. He just gets better with time. Unfortunately what scared me wasn't what Beto said; it was the applause after his little diatribe. I recognize that the audience speaker was probably the only one in the room not of the "collective", but I find it terrifying there are so few Americans who know their history or founding documents state.

With those of the socialist collective, my most common interaction of late is to listen, then pull out my phone an point out there are a number of Apps which have the Constitution and other founding documents. I usually suggest they find one with the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and other related documents and challenge them to read it. I usually make it clear I have, and I will be happy to engage in a debate if they have. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have taken up the challenge.

 

[AlexanderA]

Bobby is no longer running for president. He is using his presidential campaign funds to run against Ted Cruz for his seat in the Senate.

That doesn't come up again until 2024! Beto will be but a distant memory by then.

As for running against John Cornyn in 2020, the filing deadline for the primary is Dec. 19. Beto would have to drop out of the presidential race by then. But he won't because he's still angling for the VP slot. (He doesn't have a chance of getting that either.)

 

[Insignificant bill]

The reason he calls them "weapons of war" is that he's actually terrified that the citizens will fight back and does not want a level playing field if that happens. Did you hear what he said about how much the government spends on defense blablabla? This is right up there with that other creep saying citizens shouldn't resist confiscation because the government has nukes. Then he says these weapons don't belong on our streets. Guess what, more people are killed by feet and fists than by all types of rifles combined, maybe we should cut off everyone's hands and feet.

He told an audience that we had no right to fight the government over tyranny. He is a loon

 

[danez71]

(He doesn't have a chance of getting that either.)

Agreed.

Id guess Harris, Warren, or Booker will be in the VP slot (no particular order) and that there's a fair chance 2 of the 3 will be the ticket.

Keeping this gun related and not strictly political....

Will it be thier collective (anti) 2A message and gun (AWB, buy back) policy that we will hear going into the elections?????

Or will they tone it down and walk it back to be more moderate sounding?

 

[AlexanderA]

Will it be their collective (anti) 2A message and gun (AWB, buy back) policy that we will hear going into the elections?????

Or will they tone it down and walk it back to be more moderate sounding?

I don't expect their basic antigun stance to change, but they will be very quiet about it.

What's more interesting is what will happen on the Republican side, if Trump is forced out of office. At this point, I see a 50/50 chance of that happening. I've seen this unfold before, in 1974 with Nixon.

 

[jdh]

That doesn't come up again until 2024! Beto will be but a distant memory by then.

As for running against John Cornyn in 2020, the filing deadline for the primary is Dec. 19. Beto would have to drop out of the presidential race by then. But he won't because he's still angling for the VP slot. (He doesn't have a chance of getting that either.)

He hasn't filed to run against him, now, or in the past, because he doesn't poll as well against Cornyn as he does against Cruz. Also there are already ten dems declared for that seat in 2020. At least four of them have a good chance of beating him in the primary. My union has already said they cannot endorse Bobby for anything because of his stance of criminal coddling.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I don't expect their basic antigun stance to change, but they will be very quiet about it.

What's more interesting is what will happen on the Republican side, if Trump is forced out of office. At this point, I see a 50/50 chance of that happening. I've seen this unfold before, in 1974 with Nixon.

Yep. And thus we got the Carter presidency...
But he was less a threat to the 2nd Amendment than the zealots who will win this time.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yep. And thus we got the Carter presidency...
But he was less a threat to the 2nd Amendment than the zealots who will win this time.

A strange dynamic is at work this time. A lot of the support of the Democrats is driven by personal antipathy towards Trump. If the Republican nominee ended up not being Trump (because of his resignation or removal), I think that person would have a better chance against the Democrats than if Trump were the nominee. (That's because a lot of the policy positions of the Democrats, such as abolishing private health insurance, taxing wealth, etc., in addition to confiscating guns, are deeply unpopular with the general public.) And anyway, Trump is not all that pro-2A, so he would be no great loss to the pro-gun side. Trump holding the Republican party hostage has not been good for the RKBA. The NRA, right now, is making a giant strategic mistake in going all-in for Trump. We would actually be far better off with him gone. Just about any other Republican would be better, both in their chance of winning, and for what they might do once elected.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I don't expect their basic antigun stance to change, but they will be very quiet about it.

What's more interesting is what will happen on the Republican side, if Trump is forced out of office. At this point, I see a 50/50 chance of that happening. I've seen this unfold before, in 1974 with Nixon.

It won't happen Dems aren't going to survive a trial in the Senate. They have to testify under oath.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

A strange dynamic is at work this time. A lot of the support of the Democrats is driven by personal antipathy towards Trump. If the Republican nominee ended up not being Trump (because of his resignation or removal), I think that person would have a better chance against the Democrats than if Trump were the nominee. (That's because a lot of the policy positions of the Democrats, such as abolishing private health insurance, taxing wealth, etc., in addition to confiscating guns, are deeply unpopular with the general public.) And anyway, Trump is not all that pro-2A, so he would be no great loss to the pro-gun side. Trump holding the Republican party hostage has not been good for the RKBA. The NRA, right now, is making a giant strategic mistake in going all-in for Trump. We would actually be far better off with him gone. Just about any other Republican would be better, both in their chance of winning, and for what they might do once elected.

You make some good points, again, but I fear that these are the "Interesting Times.." that have been foretold in that old curse...

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

It won't happen Dems aren't going to survive a trial in the Senate. They have to testify under oath.

Oh yeah, they are such honest and honorable folks and wouldn't dream of not telling the truth.

 

[AlexanderA]

It won't happen Dems aren't going to survive a trial in the Senate. They have to testify under oath.

I've seen the "analysis" circulating on the Internet that says that a Senate trial would be wide open, and would allow the Trump team to introduce all sorts of testimony impugning the motives of the Democrats, etc. This overlooks the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts would be presiding, and he's a stickler for procedure. All testimony introduced would have to be relevant.

The key phase would not be the trial in the Senate, but would be the hearings before the House committees drafting the Articles of Impeachment. If enough damning evidence is put forward in these hearings, there could be a collapse of support for Trump among Republican senators, just as happened in the case of Nixon. If a committee headed by Mitch McConnell, for example, went to Trump and told him he had lost the support of 35 GOP senators, he would be forced to resign, with no trial. This is exactly what happened to Nixon. And BTW those 35 (say) GOP senators would be looking at the political implications for themselves, as well as the raw evidence. If polls began to show that Trump was an albatross around their necks, they would flip.