U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1131416181943

Comments

  • JaimieT said:
    I would love to hear some analysis about whether this is a normal rate of pushback after a presidential election. I know it's too soon. FiveThirtyEight usually does this in podcast form... so unless anyone else has a good suggestion, I guess I'll be checking in with them tomorrow. 
    Much too early as we have now seen “important” races go both ways. While VA, NY and NJ were good starts, it’s a long way from being “there”. People will need to remain active politically in order for any actual real movement to be made. 
    CretanBull
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    KingKobra said:
    JaimieT said:
    I would love to hear some analysis about whether this is a normal rate of pushback after a presidential election. I know it's too soon. FiveThirtyEight usually does this in podcast form... so unless anyone else has a good suggestion, I guess I'll be checking in with them tomorrow. 
    Much too early as we have now seen “important” races go both ways. While VA, NY and NJ were good starts, it’s a long way from being “there”. People will need to remain active politically in order for any actual real movement to be made. 
    Are you talking about Democrats beating out Republicans and vice versa?  How many years has it been since the last shift?  Every 8 years it usually shifts back and forth between the two.  I think this has been a particularly bad year for Republicans though, so it could be happening earlier.
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    Chris Hurst just beat a Republican incumbent in another VA district. He was the boyfriend of the reporter who was killed along with her cameraman on air in a shooting a few years ago, by a disgruntled former co-worker. 

    Hurst quit his news job to run for office, with reducing gun violence being a big part of his platform.

    http://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/chris-hurst-upsets-del-joseph-yost-in-new-river-valley/article_cd321d09-1059-5224-a88a-cf0e099653f4.html

    As of now Dems have flipped 13 seats in the VA house, I believe they need to flip 17 total to gain a majority (Republicans had a 66 seat super-majority coming into the election), looks like there are still 8 districts still outstanding, 538 says it'll come down to provisional votes.
  • In general elections nowadays tend to shift towards the party not currently in power so Republicans made progress under Obama, Dems under Bush, so it makes sense that Republicans as the Party currently in power with a historically unpopular President would be seeing losses. People like to think the rules were broken because Trump got elected so now “anything could happen” but they really didn’t, if you’re unpopular you’re gonna lose elections. 
    Brawn
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    Alkaid13 said:
    In general elections nowadays tend to shift towards the party not currently in power so Republicans made progress under Obama, Dems under Bush, so it makes sense that Republicans as the Party currently in power with a historically unpopular President would be seeing losses. People like to think the rules were broken because Trump got elected so now “anything could happen” but they really didn’t, if you’re unpopular you’re gonna lose elections. 
    Next year has the potential to be a huge wave. GOP congress dragging their heels on impeachment might actually help the Dems. If they'd gotten rid of Trump at the first hint of emoluments violations they might have stood a chance but now that we're a year out from Election Day '18, the Dems would have to literally stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone in order to not flip at least the House.
  • These are all good steps, but 2018 will tell the story of where things are headed.
  • Alkaid13 said:
    In general elections nowadays tend to shift towards the party not currently in power so Republicans made progress under Obama, Dems under Bush, so it makes sense that Republicans as the Party currently in power with a historically unpopular President would be seeing losses. People like to think the rules were broken because Trump got elected so now “anything could happen” but they really didn’t, if you’re unpopular you’re gonna lose elections. 
    Yup, but the significance in VA is that local elections don't always follow the national trends, and could have a big impact on congressional makeup in the future as state legislatures and governors shape districts. VA State House has been strongly Republican since 1999, despite the state becoming much more blue in terms of presidential/senate/governor elections in the last 10-15 years.

    Hopefully Democrats, if they do pickup some state houses over the next few years, will promote "fair" redistricting so that the congressional delegation generally matches up with the population. In states like VA and NC, statewide elections have been very close to even since 2008. However both states have a disproportionate ratio of GOP:Democrat US representatives, (VA 7:4 , NC 10:3). Some of this is due to Democratic voters herding into urban areas, but a lot (especially in NC) has to do with partisan gerrymandering.
  • gguenotgguenot CA
    edited November 2017
    Pod Save America are live streaming now- they have excellent coverage.

    edit: never mind they’re done, but they had excellent coverage 
  • LordBy said:
    Wonk alert on the House tax proposal:
    Estate Tax is to be repealed as we know, and that is obviously not a benefit for the middle class. They are, however, also preserving the step-up in basis at death unlike what had been earlier proposed by Trump and unlike what was done with the Bush repeal which was effective for one year.

    Good article on this in the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.78150a3152c2

    Going back to the prior real estate taxation discussion this has extra gravy for folks who make money that way, coincidentally like our President. You get to deduct depreciation on real estate against your income over a 27.5 or 39yr period, the downside being that this depreciation is subtracted from your basis resulting in higher capital gains tax when you sell it. Under this proposal, if you leave the real estate to your kids they’d pay no estate tax on the transfer and have a magically-restored basis to depreciate against income all over again (higher basis as it would be the market value of the real estate at death and this stuff usually appreciates over time). So you could shelter income for generations on big real estate holdings and never have to pay a transfer or capital gain tax.

    No way this should happen as even if his being a multi-Billion-dollar-real-Estate-mogul who refused to divest assets when he took office is a coincidence, it just looks really bad. Like blatantanly using the office for self-enrichment. No middle-class or pro-growth lipstick to put on the pig either, just codifying multigenerational real estate dynasties at the expense of chumps who actually pay their taxes.
    The real thing is, anyone who thinks the rich don't pay enough in taxes will not be happy with any tax reform scheme that involves lower taxes across the board. 

    realistically people who pay the most taxes will get the most benefit from any tax breaks 
    I don’t understand the connection between the specific issue raised in my post, and your response.
    Phoebes89Flukes
  • LordBy said:
    LordBy said:
    Wonk alert on the House tax proposal:
    Estate Tax is to be repealed as we know, and that is obviously not a benefit for the middle class. They are, however, also preserving the step-up in basis at death unlike what had been earlier proposed by Trump and unlike what was done with the Bush repeal which was effective for one year.

    Good article on this in the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.78150a3152c2

    Going back to the prior real estate taxation discussion this has extra gravy for folks who make money that way, coincidentally like our President. You get to deduct depreciation on real estate against your income over a 27.5 or 39yr period, the downside being that this depreciation is subtracted from your basis resulting in higher capital gains tax when you sell it. Under this proposal, if you leave the real estate to your kids they’d pay no estate tax on the transfer and have a magically-restored basis to depreciate against income all over again (higher basis as it would be the market value of the real estate at death and this stuff usually appreciates over time). So you could shelter income for generations on big real estate holdings and never have to pay a transfer or capital gain tax.

    No way this should happen as even if his being a multi-Billion-dollar-real-Estate-mogul who refused to divest assets when he took office is a coincidence, it just looks really bad. Like blatantanly using the office for self-enrichment. No middle-class or pro-growth lipstick to put on the pig either, just codifying multigenerational real estate dynasties at the expense of chumps who actually pay their taxes.
    The real thing is, anyone who thinks the rich don't pay enough in taxes will not be happy with any tax reform scheme that involves lower taxes across the board. 

    realistically people who pay the most taxes will get the most benefit from any tax breaks 
    I don’t understand the connection between the specific issue raised in my post, and your response.
    You should copy this and save it for later, trust me - it will come in handy :)

    FlukesLordBy
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Hey @emnofseattle, feel free to answer my question about why you think people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists should be able to buy guns ;) 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    MrX said:
    JaimieT said:
    I would love to hear some analysis about whether this is a normal rate of pushback after a presidential election. I know it's too soon. FiveThirtyEight usually does this in podcast form... so unless anyone else has a good suggestion, I guess I'll be checking in with them tomorrow. 
    They have a liveblog going with some pretty good commentary. Here's my favorite analysis of the night:

    Here’s the metaphor that one of us just used in the office: “I’m jumping out the window with my boogie board to catch the wave.” I won’t say who it was. [Editor’s note: It was Harry.]

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2017-election-live-coverage-results/

    LOL. Of course it was Harry.
  • Political Tsunami or not, Virginia just elected the first openly transgender woman to the House of Delegates, couldn't be more proud as a Virginian. That alone is enough feel great about the direction of the country.
    MrXPhoebes89Travis
  • adobo1148 said:
    Political Tsunami or not, Virginia just elected the first openly transgender woman to the House of Delegates, couldn't be more proud as a Virginian. That alone is enough feel great about the direction of the country.
    Not only that, but she beat Bob Marshall - the guy who wrote the stupid trans washroom bill!
    MrXPhoebes89TravisJaimieT
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    JaimieT said:
    I would love to hear some analysis about whether this is a normal rate of pushback after a presidential election. I know it's too soon. FiveThirtyEight usually does this in podcast form... so unless anyone else has a good suggestion, I guess I'll be checking in with them tomorrow. 
    Listened to their 20 minute podcast on the way into work this morning. It sounds like it's about what they'd expect when the party in power has a president with a 38% approval rating.
    JaimieT
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited November 2017
    LordBy said:
    Wonk alert on the House tax proposal:
    Estate Tax is to be repealed as we know, and that is obviously not a benefit for the middle class. They are, however, also preserving the step-up in basis at death unlike what had been earlier proposed by Trump and unlike what was done with the Bush repeal which was effective for one year.

    Good article on this in the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.78150a3152c2

    Going back to the prior real estate taxation discussion this has extra gravy for folks who make money that way, coincidentally like our President. You get to deduct depreciation on real estate against your income over a 27.5 or 39yr period, the downside being that this depreciation is subtracted from your basis resulting in higher capital gains tax when you sell it. Under this proposal, if you leave the real estate to your kids they’d pay no estate tax on the transfer and have a magically-restored basis to depreciate against income all over again (higher basis as it would be the market value of the real estate at death and this stuff usually appreciates over time). So you could shelter income for generations on big real estate holdings and never have to pay a transfer or capital gain tax.

    No way this should happen as even if his being a multi-Billion-dollar-real-Estate-mogul who refused to divest assets when he took office is a coincidence, it just looks really bad. Like blatantanly using the office for self-enrichment. No middle-class or pro-growth lipstick to put on the pig either, just codifying multigenerational real estate dynasties at the expense of chumps who actually pay their taxes.
    The real thing is, anyone who thinks the rich don't pay enough in taxes will not be happy with any tax reform scheme that involves lower taxes across the board. 

    realistically people who pay the most taxes will get the most benefit from any tax breaks 
    Full disclosure, I have not read the tax bill, but I have read about it and heard a lot of the bullet points and had a lot of discussions around our tax office (if it passes I'm going to get a pretty big dose of it in my tax seminars, but we're not there yet). That said, from the bullet points that I am hearing this seems like a slam dunk for rich investors and a pretty mixed bag for the lower and middle class. The deductions thing is better for me personally, but in a larger scope it strikes me as a bit of a shell game. You're raising the standard which is great and all (something that as I have discussed I would be in full favor of in a vacuum), but you're removing the personal exemptions and raising the bottom line tax by 2 points. So, if you're a family with a couple of kids you're basically coming out at the same point where you were. Personally, being married with no kids on a standard deduction return, we do come out a bit better but there are many scenarios where this is not the case. You might say "but the child tax credit increase" but that phases out pretty low on the spectrum, and in my experience a dependency deduction is worth about $600 or so in federal tax so they raised it to about a wash. Only the original $1,000 will be refundable. So there is some help to some taxpayers here when all is combined, but it's really kind of a wash. I kind of see all of this as a bit of a wash for lower and middle tier taxpayers. There is actually a pocket of taxpayers who seemingly could get really screwed here in the sort of "upper middle." You figure there is a pocket of people who may have a mortgage in the $700,000+ range who live in high tax states (states with generally high real estate costs as well) that I could see being really adversely effected here. People who aren't too deep in the AMT and are losing a ton of deductions. Also, seniors of many income groups between losing 2 exemptions (one for being a taxpayer and another for being 65+) and losing the medical deduction, which may have a stiff haircut (7.5% for seniors and 10% for everyone else) but still certainly comes into play on returns, particularly with retirees with medical conditions. Hell, I've done quite a few returns where a senior in a nursing home has $80-100k+ in medical and around $50-70k in otherwise taxable income from pensions and IRAs what not. From what I am seeing, those taxpayers would get completely screwed here. Ultimately, the notion that this is some gift to the working folks is a total shell game. It's the same tired BS where they pretend to give people a real break and they can gin up some figure based on some best case scenarios for some good soundbites, but this is really a huge tax break for people who don't need it. The rich keep getting richer while most everyone else more or less treads water. 
    CretanBullFlukes
  • Travis said:
    He's a dimwit...a story came out awhile back that the (Republican) White House staffers call Don Jr Fredo!
    Travis
  • adobo1148 said:
    Political Tsunami or not, Virginia just elected the first openly transgender woman to the House of Delegates, couldn't be more proud as a Virginian. That alone is enough feel great about the direction of the country.
    Not only that, but she beat Bob Marshall - the guy who wrote the stupid trans washroom bill!
    Another good story from last night...dude mocked the women's march, which inspired a woman to run against him and she won!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/08/new-jersey-womens-march-joke-candidate-beaten?CMP=share_btn_fb


    Travis
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    John Oliver really nailed it--this is stupid Watergate--just like original watergate but everyone is -20 IQ points
    CretanBull
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited November 2017
    My boss just handed me our continuing education service's breakdown of the tax plan. Some items that maybe don't effect a ton of people, but good credits and deductions that are going away, and some things that further my point about screwing people over:
    1. Way to get rid of the adoption credit and lifetime learning credit, jerks. Also, no more plug in electric vehicle credit which was a very nice incentive to make a good environmental change.
    2. No more deductible interest on student loans. Definitely a useful adjustment for a whole lot of lower and middle income taxpayers.
    3. No more moving deductions, no more pre-tax daycare plans (though, there is the dependent care credit so that doesn't offend me so much). No more employer provided education assistance programs (which seems like a pretty shitty thing to do away with, by the way).
    4. Whoa! No more deductions for alimony paid for divorce agreements after 12/31/17. That's a really shocking one. 
    5. It bears repeating, no more medical expense or state and local tax deductions, as well as lowering the deductible mortgage interest from principles of 1 Million to 500k. Also, no more miscellaneous deductions (ie employee business expenses and much more).

    There is plenty more that I'm not adding, but those are the items that jumped out at me. All to lower the corporate tax and reduce the cap on passthrough income by 14%. This is a bad deal, even if some people come out a little bit ahead which is definitely less than they would have you believe given all of the deductions they're taking away.

    EDIT: I will say that in reviewing the brackets, they are more favorable across the board. This I cannot refute, but I would again point to the lost deductions and my opinion is unchanged. This is a great deal for super rich people and for my personal situation (and my situation is not entirely uncommon), but I still say that it is at best a mixed bag for lower and middle tier taxpayers. Really any tax package that relies on a "trickle down economics"  is bad for the country.

    Some numbers: Full disclosure. I would save around $3,500 under this bill based on my 2016 return. On the other side, I just reviewed a client who would pay almost $5,700 more. She is elderly and in a nursing home, relying on her retirement plans for income, about $61k for the 2016 return I based it on. This is just one return that I thought to check off the top of my head. Another example. CA family, two working parents and two kids earning wages of ~$240k (not very uncommon). They end up paying $300 more in taxes from what I have calculated against their 2016 return. The big culprit here is the loss of their ability to deduct their ~$24k in state and local taxes paid. Good tax bill?
    FlukesPhoebes89CretanBull
  • I keep hammering the estate tax tax here because it is the most egregious and indefensible action in the proposed tax bill.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/08/who-really-pays-the-estate-tax/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_tax-reform-11am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cb08dab27cb0

    Not a tax paid even by the top 1% in this country, but only by the top 0.2%. You can’t spin this.

    The next most egregious is the AMT, which does need to be reworked, but not repealed (and which, coincidentally, was responsible for $31mil of the $38mil President Trump paid in Federal taxes in 2005 on about $150mil of income; the only year we have). Should kick in at a higher income than it does, which should be indexed to inflation going forward, and some of the allowed deductions should be removed. Outright repeal is silly, and appears self-serving for the Administration.

    The latest proposal to index the brackets to “Chained CPI” rather than CPI is also just a trick to dilute any savings obtained now going forward.

    I’m not going to pick on the corporate cut since at least folks are being straightforward about it, but the implication that this will result in a hiring boom or higher wages for employees is criminally naive. Wages are deductible folks, so any amount paid for them isn’t taxed at any rate and profitable corporations would save on their tax bills by hiring, and don’t pass up growth opportunities for this reason. Lower corporate taxes will go to dividends and share buy-backs for the benefit of the shareholders, this is what corporate boards are supposed to do with excess capital; it’s literally their job to do this.
    TravisCretanBullPhoebes89Flukes
  • Travis said:
     I just reviewed a client who would pay almost $5,700 more. She is elderly and in a nursing home, relying on her retirement plans for income, about $61k for the 2016 return I based it on. 
    Sorry to double dip, but the other post was really long and I think this is extremely important. I will be calling my representatives about the removal of the medical deduction and others may want to do the same too. It isn't an uncommon scenario that an elderly person in long term care is basically just using their income to pay for their care. Currently, they aren't taxed on most of the tens of thousands of dollars that this costs, but under this tax plan that goes away.
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited November 2017
    LordBy said:
    I keep hammering the estate tax tax here because it is the most egregious and indefensible action in the proposed tax bill.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/08/who-really-pays-the-estate-tax/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_tax-reform-11am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cb08dab27cb0

    Not a tax paid even by the top 1% in this country, but only by the top 0.2%. You can’t spin this.

    The next most egregious is the AMT, which does need to be reworked, but not repealed (and which, coincidentally, was responsible for $31mil of the $38mil President Trump paid in Federal taxes in 2005 on about $150mil of income; the only year we have). Should kick in at a higher income than it does, which should be indexed to inflation going forward, and some of the allowed deductions should be removed. Outright repeal is silly, and appears self-serving for the Administration.

    The latest proposal to index the brackets to “Chained CPI” rather than CPI is also just a trick to dilute any savings obtained now going forward.

    I’m not going to pick on the corporate cut since at least folks are being straightforward about it, but the implication that this will result in a hiring boom or higher wages for employees is criminally naive. Wages are deductible folks, so any amount paid for them isn’t taxed at any rate and profitable corporations would save on their tax bills by hiring, and don’t pass up growth opportunities for this reason. Lower corporate taxes will go to dividends and share buy-backs for the benefit of the shareholders, this is what corporate boards are supposed to do with excess capital; it’s literally their job to do this.
    ^ Nailed it!
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Hey @emnofseattle, feel free to answer my question about why you think people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists should be able to buy guns ;) 
    if they've been convicted of a crime or are under indictment or something they should not lose rights because we live in a constitutional republic and not a dictatorship. 

    the FBI gets to put people on the list for whatever reason they want and remove people for whatever reason they want and are under no obligation to tell you if you are even on it and for what reason. You cannot go to court and contest your addition to the list, is those not enough reason? What you're basically saying is by secret administrative process Americans should lose their rights, I do not agree with that position. Really somebody who believes in a constitutional republic cannot take that position, because that position is antithetical to the very idea of a constitutional republic with due process. That's why. 

    a terror watchlist by very nature exists only because there's no actionable evidence. If you had solid proof someone was about to commit a terrorist act or was actively supporting a terrorist they could go pick them up now 
    Brawn
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Travis said:
    My boss just handed me our continuing education service's breakdown of the tax plan. Some items that maybe don't effect a ton of people, but good credits and deductions that are going away, and some things that further my point about screwing people over:
    1. Way to get rid of the adoption credit and lifetime learning credit, jerks. Also, no more plug in electric vehicle credit which was a very nice incentive to make a good environmental change.
    2. No more deductible interest on student loans. Definitely a useful adjustment for a whole lot of lower and middle income taxpayers.
    3. No more moving deductions, no more pre-tax daycare plans (though, there is the dependent care credit so that doesn't offend me so much). No more employer provided education assistance programs (which seems like a pretty shitty thing to do away with, by the way).
    4. Whoa! No more deductions for alimony paid for divorce agreements after 12/31/17. That's a really shocking one. 
    5. It bears repeating, no more medical expense or state and local tax deductions, as well as lowering the deductible mortgage interest from principles of 1 Million to 500k. Also, no more miscellaneous deductions (ie employee business expenses and much more).

    There is plenty more that I'm not adding, but those are the items that jumped out at me. All to lower the corporate tax and reduce the cap on passthrough income by 14%. This is a bad deal, even if some people come out a little bit ahead which is definitely less than they would have you believe given all of the deductions they're taking away.

    EDIT: I will say that in reviewing the brackets, they are more favorable across the board. This I cannot refute, but I would again point to the lost deductions and my opinion is unchanged. This is a great deal for super rich people and for my personal situation (and my situation is not entirely uncommon), but I still say that it is at best a mixed bag for lower and middle tier taxpayers. Really any tax package that relies on a "trickle down economics"  is bad for the country.

    Some numbers: Full disclosure. I would save around $3,500 under this bill based on my 2016 return. On the other side, I just reviewed a client who would pay almost $5,700 more. She is elderly and in a nursing home, relying on her retirement plans for income, about $61k for the 2016 return I based it on. This is just one return that I thought to check off the top of my head. Another example. CA family, two working parents and two kids earning wages of ~$240k (not very uncommon). They end up paying $300 more in taxes from what I have calculated against their 2016 return. The big culprit here is the loss of their ability to deduct their ~$24k in state and local taxes paid. Good tax bill?
    There is some good stuff there though. The fact there even is a deduction for alimony is weird, like why levy taxes if you give someone that kind of deduction? Is divorce such a social good we need to pay people who've had one? If you're paying alimony you presumably make enough money to subsidize someone else's standard of living. I don't think we even do alimony in Washington so your ability to deduct it is a giveaway to residents of states that do it. 

    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 

    The state and local tax deduction? Why subsidize states in their tax collections? Why should the federal government lose revenue because states collect their own? Silly silly. And especially because it's a giveaway to upper earners in blue states that levy more taxes. Which probably also why republicans want to target it, but nonetheless the idea of writing off your state taxes on federal taxes always seemed weird to me, like your state keeps all of it and the Feds take the hit. 

    the fact is, no tax plan will satisfy everyone. It's not even possible. 
    And in my case the plan as proposed would probably save me a lot of money, since the doubled standard deduction will exceed my current deductions. 
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    Hey @emnofseattle, feel free to answer my question about why you think people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists should be able to buy guns ;) 
    if they've been convicted of a crime or are under indictment or something they should not lose rights because we live in a constitutional republic and not a dictatorship. 

    the FBI gets to put people on the list for whatever reason they want and remove people for whatever reason they want and are under no obligation to tell you if you are even on it and for what reason. You cannot go to court and contest your addition to the list, is those not enough reason? What you're basically saying is by secret administrative process Americans should lose their rights, I do not agree with that position. Really somebody who believes in a constitutional republic cannot take that position, because that position is antithetical to the very idea of a constitutional republic with due process. That's why. 

    a terror watchlist by very nature exists only because there's no actionable evidence. If you had solid proof someone was about to commit a terrorist act or was actively supporting a terrorist they could go pick them up now 
    So you would rather a potential terrorist be able to buy a gun than a very tiny percentage of non-terrorists be denied?  Yes, you can fight if your name is on one of those lists.  Please provide any proof you can't fight that.  Either way, you've made your position clear, you are ok with suspected terrorists buying guns because you don't want some random guy being denied.  Makes sense.
  • Thomas said:
    Hey @emnofseattle, feel free to answer my question about why you think people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists should be able to buy guns ;) 
    if they've been convicted of a crime or are under indictment or something they should not lose rights because we live in a constitutional republic and not a dictatorship. 

    While I agree with you, if this were the case the Republicans wouldn't ever win another election ever again.  They survive as a party by purging voter lists.
    Frakkin TLordByPhoebes89Flukes
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline

    While I agree with you, if this were the case the Republicans wouldn't ever win another election ever again.  They survive as a party by purging voter lists.

    CretanBullLordBytom_g
This discussion has been closed.