Why I left the Democratic Party

@maporsche,

Quote:

Can’t do anything with teeth until there are majorities AND pressure to change. But majorities come first.

So much for "government of the people, by the ..., ... crap.

0 Replies

@Lash,

There you go again, to use a well known phrase. You twist information to suit your narrative, whatever it happens to be at the time. Now you are down on the FBI because of the whole Russia wiki leaks thing so...anyway. (And probably you are a secret pro-gun person.. anything to avoid talking about some sensible gun laws.)

Quote:

The FBI was warned in September about a possible school shooting threat from a YouTube user with the same name as the suspect in Wednesday's campus massacre in Parkland, Florida, according to a video blogger.

Ben Bennight, the 36-year-old YouTube video blogger from Mississippi, noticed in September an alarming comment on a video he'd posted. He told CNN he immediately contacted the FBI.

Bennight emailed a screenshot of the comment, which he shared with CNN, to what he thought was an FBI tip line, but the email address was invalid, he said. Bennight said he followed up with a phone call to the FBI. The comment on YouTube has since been pulled down.

According to Bennight, agents from the FBI's field office in Mississippi contacted him and came to his office to conduct an in-person interview the next morning. Bennight told the agents he didn't know anything about the user, he told CNN.

That was the last contact he had with the FBI until Wednesday, he said.

It's not clear whether the FBI ever made contact with the individual who left the YouTube comment. The FBI and the bureau's Mississippi field office did not immediately respond to CNN's requests for comment.

Then, on Wednesday afternoon, after Cruz was arrested, Bennight got a call from an agent in the FBI's Miami field office, who wanted to follow up on the September incident, he said. A few hours later, FBI agents from the Mississippi office paid Bennight another visit.

"I saw the story kind of go across my newsfeed but I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it, but when the FBI said it was the same name the first thing that went through my mind was, 'Wow, I hope you were at least watching this guy that I alerted you to months ago,'" he recalled Thursday in a phone interview with CNN.

CNN's Marie Malzberg contributed to this report.

You do not know that they dropped anything.

2 Replies

I agree with edgar the more I look at the budget deal, I don't recall any of the following being talked about during the budget debate of a few weeks ago. If it was, I totally missed it. Democrats shouldn't have folded, now we got changes to health care we can't do anything about until democrats or left leaning people take over congress and the white house.

Quote:

Seemingly overnight, big changes to Medicare morphed from being an item on various congressional wish lists into reality as part of last week’s budget deal, diverting me on my way to this week’s reader questions.

The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the financial impact of the budget deal includes five pages of detailed health care changes, and I suspect there are others that have yet to be reported. However, the law has already been signed by President Trump, so whether these are good changes or not is moot for the time being.

Read on at PBS

So what to do? I say elect any left leaning democrat and/or independent in all offices until we have enough power to undo these changes and make better ones.

In the meantime, I'll probably have to divorce my husband to keep my insurance. There is no way my husband is going to be able afford insurance which will cover my bills.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

My opinions on gun laws have been shared here over a decade.

I do know the FBI dropped the ball on this recent shooter.

You are wrong in both counts. You can be counted on to uphold that great habit of yakking meaningless, baseless drivel.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

I do know the FBI dropped the ball on this recent shooter.

Prove your claim by some kind of link; otherwise it is an opinion of your interpretation of the event described by CNN.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was told about this guy who admitted on social media that he aspired to being a school shooter.

Months before the shooting.

He used his name.

A clear failure in ‘Investigation’.

‘See something, say something’ worked.

Our elite investigatory agency failed.

17 children died.

1 Reply

@Lash,

In other words, no proof of your assertion. OK.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710

Quote:

The FBI has confirmed that it was warned about the teenager who allegedly carried out a mass shooting at his former school in Florida.

Nikolas Cruz, who has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, reportedly left a comment on a YouTube video last year stating: "I'm going to be a professional school shooter."

A user alerted authorities to the post.

Teachers were also warned about Mr Cruz, who was not allowed on campus with a backpack, US media report.

The FBI said it had investigated the YouTube comment but had been unable to fully identify the person who posted it.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

A user alerted authorities to the post.

Teachers were also warned about Mr Cruz, who was not allowed on campus with a backpack, US media report.

The FBI said it had investigated the YouTube comment but had been unable to fully identify the person who posted it.

=============

Something is just not right when one considers all these statements together.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Either they are bumbling baffoons or lying.

I wonder if the reason the US seems complicit in allowing shootings to continue is because it’s serving some group’s purpose.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You're not trying hard enough.

So much on their plate, but they had time to deal with literally hundreds of inane bills?

I saw a meme on Facebook today that read "Not thoughts and prayers, policy and change" which I thought was one of the better ones despite the fact that even for a liberal, the two things are not mutually exclusive, however it should be pretty clear to the folks posting this meme that if the Democrats don't push for this change in policy, for better or worse, it won't happen.

Based on all the other ones I've seen along with the tweets and public statements it certainly appears that the FL shooting has triggered another round of outrage and anguish. And well it should, providing it is properly directed.

Now, while I'm quite sure that you have been affected by the tragedy (who hasn't?), I haven't seen, from you, strident accusations that it is the fault of the GOP and that something must be done to prevent future attacks!!! However such expressions are all over the internet today.

They are indicative of a deep and pervasive desire to have Congress implement additional gun control measures, or they are just a mix of virtue signals, people popping off and cynical political attacks. If we assume they are the former, it's difficult to imagine that this sentiment wasn't held back in 2009 and 2010. You can argue that such was the case, but I wouldn't give such an argument much credence.

What we do know existed during those two years was a general aversion and opposition among the public to Obamacare and yet the Democrats didn't postpone their efforts to ram it through with the hopes of a change in the political climate

The argument that the Democrats were as committed to saving lives through increased gun regulations as they were to dumping nearly a trillion dollars into the economy (and the coffers of party allies) and making major changes to our system of providing healthcare to citizens, just doesn't hold up.

Nancy Pelosi didn't mind responding to the public's skepticism of Obamacare with perhaps her most inane comments of a very long list of stupid remarks: "We have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill," and therefore the suggestion that she and the others didn't want to embark upon what might be a generally unpopular path is specious. It certainly would not have been a Quixotic effort if the leadership was prepared to seduce and coerce reluctant members of their caucus as they did with Obamacare.

Again, this is all only relevant if one is adamantly demanding changes or ridiculously blaming Republicans and their supporters for the deaths in Florida. You may not be, but my original post was not directed towards you.

If incidents like yesterday's are to be prevented in the future it will take a much more complex and comprehensive plan than tweaking gun regulations. I know this, you know this and the Democrats know this, but by presenting these marginal changes as a silver bullet, outrageously blaming Republicans and their supporters for the deaths of innocents, AND making no real attempt to implement them and thereby risk losing seats the Democrats have been able to have their cake and eat it too. (You know, I've always thought this cliche should be changed to "keep your cake and eat it too." As a kid I remember thinking it didn't make any sense: Of course you eat the cake you have. What else would you do with it?)

I've long thought that any effort to address this problem through monitoring or documenting people who have been treated for "mental illness" is a terrible idea and so regardless of the NRA's motivation and ability to pull the strings of the President of the United States, I think Trump made the right decision. Improved mental health services is a component of whatever complex and comprehensive "solution" might be implemented, but the potential abuse of monitoring and documentation is far too great to risk, not to mention the chilling effect it might have on people in need of help to seek it. The intent of the regulation may not have been to deprive someone who briefly saw a doctor because of panic attacks of his or her 2nd Amendment rights, but that decision, through a process with only minimal if any due process, was left in the hands of bureaucrats, not judges.

In any case, the bottom line is the Democrats could have chosen to employ a full court press on gun control in 2009 and 2010 as they did with the Stimulus and Obamacare, but they didn't. If this isn't a clear indication of their priorities, I don't know what it. Moreover, in the past 13 months, they have devoted exponentially more time and effort to the goal of bringing down the Trump presidency than implementing additional gun control measures...again, priorities. If anyone is OK with this prioritization that's fine unless they are going to engage in the blame game.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

In any case, the bottom line is the Democrats could have chosen to employ a full court press on gun control in 2009 and 2010 as they did with the Stimulus and Obamacare, but they didn't. If this isn't a clear indication of their priorities, I don't know what it.

It's not an issue which is guaranteed to remain strictly partisan. Lots of Dems from rural districts and states (and there were a lot more of them in '09-'10) had to walk a pretty fine line so as not to get on the bad side of the NRA. Remember all the flack Sanders got for opposing the liability bill. The "hundreds of inane bills" probably didn't pose a threat to maintaining their tenuous majority. Re-instituting an "assault weapons" ban would have. Their precarious status as a majority was demonstrated in the mid-terms.

I did find this article which describes the situation in the early years of the Obama administration. And no, it wasn't a big priority

Quote:

(...)

After the election, Obama inherited an economic crisis of staggering proportions. As the White House confronted epic decisions, including a stimulus bill, bailing out the banks and whether to rescue the auto industry, officials were desperate to avoid controversial issues that could—in their view—squander their precious political capital. But Eric Holder Jr., the new attorney general, had not gotten the message. At a press conference in which he was announcing a major drug bust against a Mexican cartel, Holder stumbled into the politics of guns. Asked about the administration’s position on regulating weapons, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons.” Holder, obliquely acknowledging that the president had a lot on his plate, was careful to add a cautionary note about how quickly the White House would get to the issue. “There are obviously a number of things…that have been taking up a substantial amount of [Obama’s] time, so I’m not exactly sure what the sequencing would be.” All Holder had done was to reiterate the new president’s campaign position. But the damage was done.

(...)

DB

1 Reply

@Lash,

Teachers were also warned about Mr Cruz, who was not allowed on campus with a backpack, US media report.
==============

I guess that little plan worked wonders, didn't it?

Quote:

The FBI said it had investigated the YouTube comment but had been unable to fully identify the person who posted it.

The person in question left a comment on a YouTube video and the FBI wasn't able to determine who that was. Doesn't posting a comment on YT require a sign in? Even if he faked a name/email address, there is always the person's IP address.

Something is definitely wrong with that news report. Better get on it, ehBeth!!!

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The apparent fact is that you have not answered my questions so I will attempt to repeat them more concisely:

1) Do you believe the proposed additional gun regulations will have a significant impact on preventing shootings like the one that took place yesterday in FL, and previously in Las Vegas, Colorado, and Connecticut?
a) If so, precisely how?

2) Do you believe those who oppose these regulations are
a) Insincere about their concerns regarding the 2nd Amendment?
b) Responsible for the deaths of the victims of shootings like the ones referenced?

3) Do you believe the Democrats are as committed to preventing these shootings as they were to the Stimulus and Obamacare?

4) Do you believe they could have passed these regulations while they controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010?
a) If so, why didn't they?
b) If not, why do you think that is so?

5) Do you believe that some Democrats who embrace additional gun controls would be more vulnerable in the next election?

6) Do you think preventing these shootings is worth the loss of congressional seats and any chance of regaining control of Congress?

7) Assuming any party, other than the murderer, can, rationally, be "blamed" for the deaths of the shooting victims, would you agree that if you believed you had the solution to this problem and you didn't try to implement it when you had your best chance of doing so, that you are more to "blame" than someone who doesn't believe your solution will work and opposed it?
a) If not, why?

As for the "wacky-left," I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I would use that term to describe far more than 10% of the people who hold beliefs that can be described as left of center, never-the-less, I often find that I am in agreement with the general principles of your defined 10% (versus their specic policy agenda). While I can't blame them for insisting that the Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans (I obviously subscribe to the reverse), they appreciate that there is a corrupt Establishment of government officials (whether elected or appointed) who in practice are not very different: Driven by the desire for personal power and wealth, willing to compromise their principles at the drop of a hat, habitual liars, and self-important elitists who at best are out of touch with the American people, and at worst regard them with disdain.

There are exceptions in both parties but, overwhelmingly, the ones who have risen to leadership roles or who aspire to celebrity and higher office are, in one way or another among the very worse: Chuck Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnel John McCain, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, Dick Durbin, Chris Van Hollen, Lisa Murkowski, Loretta Lynch, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Eric Holder, Stenny Hoyer, James Clyburn, Eric Salwell, Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, Devin Nunes, Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Rick Snyder, Mark Dayon, Jim Justice, Elizabeth Warren, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and a whole host of others.

Of course, the absolute worst among them is Hillary Clinton

0 Replies

@maporsche,

And here I agree with you which is interesting because you seem to be a reliable cheerleader for folks like Harris, Booker, and Gillibrand (who, BTW, should have made my list of dirtbags). Is this because Lash has endorsed their actions now?

In this case, Lash is being a pie-eyed romantic which is in keeping with her regard for Bernie Sanders as some sort of folk-hero.

You are 100% correct: This is all optics. These people are not going to risk losing their seats or the offices to which they aspire because of lack of funds. If they don't get the $$ from narrowly defined sources that have a sinister connotation, they will get it from truly sinister sources elsewhere.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Hillary herself was never the issue...

What was the issue?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

...by allowing Trump to win, Democrats lost much more than the presidency

Interesting choice of words.

It's not often that the loser is described as allowing the winner to claim victory unless of course they choked and blew a seemingly insurmountable lead.

The Patriots didn't allow the Eagles to win this year's Super Bowl, but it certainly can be said that the Falcons allowed the Patriots to win last year's.

In this case, if your formulation is to be used, it was Clinton who allowed Trump to win and not Democrats in general or Sanders and Stein voters in particular.

Putting aside whether the things you fear have come to pass are not actually positives, do you imagine that everything HRC might have done as president would have been honky-dory? If I may speak for Lash, I believe what she is trying to get across is that HRC would have done as much or more damage than Trump. Perhaps not in the same ways you might actually both agree Trump has, but in quite a few others, and now more than a year after the election, Lash could be writing about how predictable consequences have been realized. (Although we can be certain that HRC and the Establishment would have made certain that a fair amount of it was kept hidden)

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
In any case, the bottom line is the Democrats could have chosen to employ a full court press on gun control in 2009 and 2010 as they did with the Stimulus and Obamacare, but they didn't. If this isn't a clear indication of their priorities, I don't know what it.

It's not an issue which is guaranteed to remain strictly partisan. Lots of Dems from rural districts and states (and there were a lot more of them in '09-'10) had to walk a pretty fine line so as not to get on the bad side of the NRA. Remember all the flack Sanders got for opposing the liability bill. The "hundreds of inane bills" probably didn't pose a threat to maintaining their tenuous majority. Re-instituting an "assault weapons" ban would have. Their precarious status as a majority was demonstrated in the mid-terms.

I did find this article which describes the situation in the early years of the Obama administration. And no, it wasn't a big priority

Quote:
(...)

After the election, Obama inherited an economic crisis of staggering proportions. As the White House confronted epic decisions, including a stimulus bill, bailing out the banks and whether to rescue the auto industry, officials were desperate to avoid controversial issues that could—in their view—squander their precious political capital. But Eric Holder Jr., the new attorney general, had not gotten the message. At a press conference in which he was announcing a major drug bust against a Mexican cartel, Holder stumbled into the politics of guns. Asked about the administration’s position on regulating weapons, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons.” Holder, obliquely acknowledging that the president had a lot on his plate, was careful to add a cautionary note about how quickly the White House would get to the issue. “There are obviously a number of things…that have been taking up a substantial amount of [Obama’s] time, so I’m not exactly sure what the sequencing would be.” All Holder had done was to reiterate the new president’s campaign position. But the damage was done.

(...)

DB

You continue to excuse the Dems for failing to take action on gun control because it might have impacted their control of Congress. So might have Obamacare and, as we all know, it did, and yet they pressed on with it. So what's the difference?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the excerpt but clearly, gun control was not a major priority for Obama or Congressional Dems or they would actually tried to do something about it. This was Klaidman trying to give cover for Obama's failure to assign a high priority to the issue. Yes, he had a lot on his plate when he took office but the epic decisions that Klaidman (and apparently you) would have us believe necessarily diverted Obama's attention away from gun control didn't seem to distract him from undertaking an epic reform of the healthcare insurance syargueOne can argure the Stimulus package was a necessary response to the financial mess the US was in, but not so Obamacare.

In any case, the president can only propose legislation. Bush didn't end the assault rifle ban, Congress did, and Obama couldn't have reinstated it (although I'm sort of surprised he never got around to doing it with an Executive Order) or put new gun control measure into law. That was the job of Congress..who, apparently, worried more about reelections than school children.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

In this case, Lash is being a pie-eyed romantic which is in keeping with her regard for Bernie Sanders as some sort of folk-hero.

Whereas you go full out for the war criminals/terrorists, right, Finn?

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Teachers were also warned about Mr Cruz, who was not allowed on campus with a backpack, US media report.
==============

I guess that little plan worked wonders, didn't it?

Quote:
The FBI said it had investigated the YouTube comment but had been unable to fully identify the person who posted it.

The person in question left a comment on a YouTube video and the FBI wasn't able to determine who that was. Doesn't posting a comment on YT require a sign in? Even if he faked a name/email address, there is always the person's IP address.
Something is definitely wrong with that news report. Better get on it, ehBeth!!!

Yes. Something smells fishy in Denmark. I’m unable to continue believing this gross inaction is merely bureaucracy. It’s got to be design.

1 Reply

Why I left the Democratic Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know