2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I'm still not clear what law you're talking about, so I found a White House fact sheet from January on the topic of executive actions on gun violence.

Can you tell me what specifically in that document you consider an egregious erosion of your basic rights as a US citizen? Your 2A rights are not unqualified. The qualifications of those rights are decided by the government - all three branches thereof, working either together or in opposition.

So, no: the President doesn't have the authority to remove your rights under the Constitution. But the President, Congress and SCOTUS have the authority to determine the practical limits of those rights.

This actually comes from the Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, an advocate for stricter gun laws.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms must be licensed.2 Although Congress did not originally define the term “engaged in the business,” it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”). That Act defined the term “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

From the link you provided, Obama defies this ruling.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.”

He has made so that anyone deciding to sell a gun (legal under our laws without a license under certain circumstances) for any reason, afraid that they might fall under his interpretation of the law and be subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.

This is edict by intimidation.

BoatMad

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a part of me that would like Clinton as President, so when this whole economic bubble bursts she is there for it, but then I think of all the lives she will destroy abroad with her warmongering policies, this the woman who talked about obliterating a country, which Obama said was irresponsible in 2008 as in using nuclear weapons against Iran.

Clinton argued for Military intervention in Libya and such intervention, resulted in the chaos that is there now. One could argue that US foreign policy from Geogre Senior was a mess and created vast instability and chaos all over the ME. Clinton is a bit player in this

I don't want that neocon Hillary Clinton in power as it guarantees war. It doesn't help with the Clintons compromised/beholden to Saudi Arabia through the $25 million donation by the Saudis to the Clinton Foundation.
Is it any wonder that only in 2015 that Hillary was still threatening war against Iran.

yet Trump is threatening to " nuke:" this that attack the US, how is that different, The fact is the US is far too bellicose anyway , Democrat or Republican

Trump said the rich have to pay their fair share of taxes, and that Wall Street and rich people like himself should have loopholes and other measures removed that are used to reduce their tax bills.
Hillary Clinton says the middle class will have their taxes raised under her. So she is offering the US less spending power by the majority which are in the middle class.
Trump has said he would have a 15% business tax which would be 2.5% higher than our corporation tax. It may spell bad news for Ireland, but for the US this is one of the best proposals in the US elections.
Not to mention the 10% tax he proposes on money held abroad by US companies if they bring that money back to the US.

There is no clear worked out proposal how Trump will reduce taxes so much and still retain a functioning country. we have seen the results in Ireland of unthinking lowering of taxes. low taxes in themselves are not better. Stiff has to be paid for one way or the other

The thing is the US cannot keep doing more of the same.
The US national debt:
Under Bush it went from $4.5 trillion to $9 trillion.
Under Obama it went from $9 trillion to over $20 trillion.
It is just getting worse and is now seen as a national security threat to the US.

The deficit is only an issue if the world looses confidence in the US, will that happen more under Trump or Clinton. !!!!!

When Bush took over there was the dot com bubble which happened under Clinton.
Obama had the banking crisis which happened under the Clinton presidency with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law in 1999.
The next president will have another mess to deal with.

you have mixed up so many causes and effects here its not worth debating

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trump proposes massively reducing Buffet and Icahn's tax bill. Icahn would benefit massively from Trump's policies relating to Wall Street. Buffet on the other hand wouldn't.

By removing tax loopholes?
Hillary would raise their taxes but keep the loopholes so they would be better off under her.

The Democrats...the party of the little guy...but with billionaires flocking to it.

Why aren't these all these billionaires apart from the likes of Icahn not going to Trump?

Buffett had been backing Hillary even before it was announced that Trump was running.

Amerika

I was watching The Morning Joe show on MSBNC this morning. For the first hour they trashed Trump. Not until about one hour into the show did they even mention the Wikileaks matter and the murdered DNC staffer, and it was a very short segment.

The media's Operation Get Trump is running rather smoothly.

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

This actually comes from the Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, an advocate for stricter gun laws.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms must be licensed.2 Although Congress did not originally define the term “engaged in the business,” it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”). That Act defined the term “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

From the link you provided, Obama defies this ruling.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.”

He has made so that anyone deciding to sell a gun (legal under our laws without a license under certain circumstances) for any reason, afraid that they might fall under his interpretation of the law and be subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.

This is edict by intimidation.

There is a widespread body of opinion in the US , that the freedoms around gun control , particularly the sale of guns at swap meets and fairs etc , lead to a risk of the proliferation of firearms into the hands of those that should not hold them, without reasonable background checks.

Hence it has been the administrations goal to coral some of these activities


Are you suggesting that the Obama or any Democratic administrations should campaign for even more guns rights then already exist. that simple nonsense

You have to accept that there is a large body of opinion that wishes to place "some" restrictions on gun owner ship and the administration is responding to that

RobertKK

BoatMad wrote: »

Clinton argued for Military intervention in Libya and such intervention, resulted in the chaos that is there now. One could argue that US foreign policy from Geogre Senior was a mess and created vast instability and chaos all over the ME. Clinton is a bit player in this




yet Trump is threatening to " nuke:" this that attack the US, how is that different, The fact is the US is far too bellicose anyway , Democrat or Republican




There is no clear worked out proposal how Trump will reduce taxes so much and still retain a functioning country. we have seen the results in Ireland of unthinking lowering of taxes. low taxes in themselves are not better. Stiff has to be paid for one way or the other




The deficit is only an issue if the world looses confidence in the US, will that happen more under Trump or Clinton. !!!!!


you have mixed up so many causes and effects here its not worth debating

Clinton is a central player. She physically voted for the Iraq war, that holds responsibility. She pushed Obama over Libya and that is her responsibility.

The deficit is an issue as we have seen past great empires and dynasties collapse under debt.

When you say it is not worth debating, it is saying you have no argument.

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

You seem to want to focus elsewhere rather than on the content of the leaks. As has been the narrative everywhere since they broke. Previous poster was too forceful in his allegations and you want to focus on that rather than the fact that Wikileaks have indocated that a DNC staffer murdered two weeks ago was the source of their leak. Which do you think is the most important issue? So, why the obfuscation?

Your average independent voter probably isn't that bothered about wikileaks, the bases and political anoraks on both sides are. Until something concrete comes out people will go on about their lives.

As you posted earlier, Trump is busy throwing away this election, Hillary doesn't have to do anything and unless something big comes out about the emails, that's the way it will keep going because Trump can't help himself.

It was looking like Republicans were starting to unite behind him after the convention, good work by his campaign team and Trump has gone and wrecked that in a week. Big unveiling of his economic plans (this is what he needs to target), another foot in mouth outbreak. 1 step forward and 2 steps back.

This is all too easy for Hillary atm and people can blame the media or whatever but Trump is walking right into it. Seems he isn't that great a media manipulator that everybody thought he was in the primaries.

BoatMad

RobertKK wrote: »

Why aren't these all these billionaires apart from the likes of Icahn not going to Trump?

.

perhaps because they know he is a buffoon and will crash and burn ,maybe.......

ebbsy

Any sign of Hillary ?

RobertKK

BoatMad wrote: »

perhaps because they know he is a buffoon and will crash and burn ,maybe.......

Or maybe she is really beholden to Wall Street, and why she has refused to release her speeches to Goldman Sachs.

RobertKK

ebbsy wrote: »

Any sign of Hillary ?

No, she is still hiding from having a press conference.

She want to keep it all scripted and avoid tough questions.

BoatMad

ebbsy wrote: »

Any sign of Hillary ?

if I was her, Id say nothing right now, Trump is her best spokesman at the moment

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

There is a widespread body of opinion in the US , that the freedoms around gun control , particularly the sale of guns at swap meets and fairs etc , lead to a risk of the proliferation of firearms into the hands of those that should not hold them, without reasonable background checks.

Hence it has been the administrations goal to coral some of these activities


Are you suggesting that the Obama or any Democratic administrations should campaign for even more guns rights then already exist. that simple nonsense

You have to accept that there is a large body of opinion that wishes to place "some" restrictions on gun owner ship and the administration is responding to that

I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't give a president the right to circumvent the law. If there are to be tighter gun control laws then it should be done by Congress, and no one else.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

From the link you provided, Obama defies this ruling.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.”

He has made so that anyone deciding to sell a gun (legal under our laws without a license under certain circumstances) for any reason, afraid that they might fall under his interpretation of the law and be subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.

This is edict by intimidation.

That's a serious, serious stretch.

You're arguing that a gun owner would be intimidated from selling one gun because they're afraid they might be required to become a licensed firearms dealer in order to do so?

That's not executive overreach; that's logic overreach.

K-9

ebbsy wrote: »

Any sign of Hillary ?

Exactly!

She doesn't need to do or say anything atm.

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Clinton is a central player. She physically voted for the Iraq war, that holds responsibility. She pushed Obama over Libya and that is her responsibility.

The deficit is an issue as we have seen past great empires and dynasties collapse under debt.

When you say it is not worth debating, it is saying you have no argument.

Hey Rob, now that we're talking Iraq again, any thoughts?

Skylinehead wrote: »

Why do you like Condoleeza Rice, a 100% proven warmonger?

Just seems totally inconsistent is all.

Amerika

ebbsy wrote: »

Any sign of Hillary ?

I’d venture a guess and say she’s having a secret pow wow with the media on how to spin in her favor the next set of email leaks to come out showing she mixed State Department business with her Clinton Foundation business (which are already coming out), which is against the law and should land her in the hoosegow... but won’t because she too big to jail.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't give a president the right to circumvent the law. If there are to be tighter gun control laws then it should be done by Congress, and no one else.

I wonder if you'd be arguing for the sacrosanctity of Congress if it was Democratic-majority?

molloyjh

RobertKK wrote: »

The US national debt:
Under Bush it went from $4.5 trillion to $9 trillion.
Under Obama it went from $9 trillion to over $20 trillion.
It is just getting worse and is now seen as a national security threat to the US.

By who exactly? National debt is not an issue unless you can't pay it back or it is believed that you can't pay it back. The US rating at the moment is perfectly fine so the national debt, although high, is not actually a problem.

BoatMad

Originally Posted by RobertKK View Post
Clinton is a central player. She physically voted for the Iraq war, that holds responsibility. She pushed Obama over Libya and that is her responsibility.

The deficit is an issue as we have seen past great empires and dynasties collapse under debt.

When you say it is not worth debating, it is saying you have no argument.

you have to laugh at GOP supporters arguing against people that voted for intervention in the ME. Seriously dude the mental gymnastics will make you go blind if you keep this up

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a serious, serious stretch.

You're arguing that a gun owner would be intimidated from selling one gun because they're afraid they might be required to become a licensed firearms dealer in order to do so?

That's not executive overreach; that's logic overreach.

Absolutely not an overreach. If you were here you'd see people are scared. I have read a bit about it and actually know several people and family members that would like to sell a gun or two from their collections but are afraid to because of this executive overreach. I'm trying to get my hands on a Remington Model 7600, but no one I know will sell one to me because they are running scared.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

As I already said, Seth Rich is dead. Kind of hard for them to send him to prison isn't it?

Now, you you made a definitive claim that Seth Rich was the email link, when you did not have proof of that. Why did you do that?

ROBERT

Given that you have responded to posts from after this one, you seem eager not to respond. But I still have to and will continue ask, why did you do that?

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't give a president the right to circumvent the law. If there are to be tighter gun control laws then it should be done by Congress, and no one else.

that isn't the way the system works in the US, the administration is not toothless.

it is also a result of a system where the Administration and Congress are completely at loggerheads , IN effect the Obama administration is rather like an European minority government with a hostile parliament.

in that situation , the administration tries to dance its policy platform and is regularly shot down. ( see recent FG policy attempts for comparison )

in that regard the US system of government has some very significant baked in issues, the democrats and GOP in the past would always arrive at a degree of consensus and the administration could proceed forward.

However the radicalisation of the GOP and its policies by the hard right and certain religious conservative opinions has made working compromises with the Democrats almost impossible. Hence the mess that has resulted

it not of Obamas making

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

Absolutely not an overreach. If you were here you'd see people are scared. I have read a bit about it and actually know several people and family members that would like to sell a gun or two from their collections but are afraid to because of this executive overreach. I'm trying to get my hands on a Remington Model 7600, but no one I know will sell one to me because they are running scared.

to many its arguably a welcome measure in the attempt to stop proliferation of firearms into the hands of the clearly unsuitable.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wonder if you'd be arguing for the sacrosanctity of Congress if it was Democratic-majority?

Absolutely. Even Democrat legislatures need to represent their constituents. I trust the people in whole more than who gets elected from their districts or states. Why do you think tighter gun control measures weren’t enacted when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? They still need to get reelected.

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

to many its arguably a welcome measure in the attempt to stop proliferation of firearms into the hands of the clearly unsuitable.

Okay, but that still doesn't give the President the right to circumvent the law. That's the part nobody seems to understand... or more accurately... accept.

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

Hey Rob, now that we're talking Iraq again, any thoughts?



Just seems totally inconsistent is all.

As Secretary of State, she was not involved in any new wars. That role says a lot about what type of person they are.
Clinton to me was a disaster.

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

that isn't the way the system works in the US, the administration is not toothless.

it is also a result of a system where the Administration and Congress are completely at loggerheads , IN effect the Obama administration is rather like an European minority government with a hostile parliament.

in that situation , the administration tries to dance its policy platform and is regularly shot down. ( see recent FG policy attempts for comparison )

in that regard the US system of government has some very significant baked in issues, the democrats and GOP in the past would always arrive at a degree of consensus and the administration could proceed forward.

However the radicalisation of the GOP and its policies by the hard right and certain religious conservative opinions has made working compromises with the Democrats almost impossible. Hence the mess that has resulted

it not of Obamas making

The way our system works is the President is given the power to veto any law passed by Congress and given to him to sign. Only a 2/3 majority of Congress can override a veto. This President seems to not want to be bothered with any of that.

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, but that still doesn't give the President the right to circumvent the law. That's the part nobody seems to understand... or more accurately... accept.

laws are not rigid instruments, they are a collection of words attempting to express a set of requirements or directions. Their interpretation in a modern democratic state is for the court to decide ( which is precisely why we have them ) , every day governments enacts legislation or issue " executive actions " ( like our SIs) that often fail a subsequent legal challenge. its the nature of our legal system.

your are simply cherry picking because you dont like it.

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

The way our system works is the President is given the power to veto any law passed by Congress and given to him to sign. Only a 2/3 majority of Congress can override a veto. This President seems to not want to be bothered with any of that.

The administration like all governments has a degree of executive power ( for example in ireland they are known as statutory instruments ), it yields that power as and when it can. you can argue about the system of government that constructs such powers ( and I would have a debate with you here ) , but the fact remains that administrations have a degree of autonomous power.