Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

Status
Not open for further replies.
As usual, if Crenshaw is opening his mouth he's telling half-truths to his audience for his own benefit.

Adam Kinzinger doesn't have a record of voting with Trump moreso than most members of the Freedom Caucus and it's not close to 99% of the time. I'm guessing Dan Crenshaw considers himself a legislator yet he's not sponsored a single bill that has been passed into law. He is, however, a performance artist and quite proud of it when not in bipolar mode.



Agreed; as you pointed out a few weeks ago there isn't much reason to trust Crenshaw--he's playing the straight-shooter type in this interview, but is just as likely to don another persona for a different audience.
 
Agreed; as you pointed out a few weeks ago there isn't much reason to trust Crenshaw--he's playing the straight-shooter type in this interview, but is just as likely to don another persona for a different audience.
Even worse, IMO, is Crenshaw preaches a return to civility, to personal responsibility, to the virtues the GOP claims it once stood for - yet he chooses not to hold the leader of his political party to that very standard. It's a choice he's made to preserve his career.

The title of Crenshaw's book is, "Fortitude".

Kinda funny, innit?
 
Oh ffs

Meanwhile
 

The thing I don't like about this is that it has a chance of holding up partially in context of the recent Texas ruling, which could help set the Texas precedent in stone.

I can easily see SCOTUS ruling that only those people who put guns on the streets can be sued. There's an argument that they should be legally liable for the consequences of violating weapons laws. This concedes assault weapons in the blue states, but sets them up to gain things like the death penalty in the red states. The conservatives will gain more than they lose on the disputed set of issues.

This strikes me as a fairly textbook example of a politician proposing something without fully grasping the possible implications.
 
The thing I don't like about this is that it has a chance of holding up partially in context of the recent Texas ruling, which could help set the Texas precedent in stone.

I can easily see SCOTUS ruling that only those people who put guns on the streets can be sued. There's an argument that they should be legally liable for the consequences of violating weapons laws. This concedes assault weapons in the blue states, but sets them up to gain things like the death penalty in the red states. The conservatives will gain more than they lose on the disputed set of issues.

This strikes me as a fairly textbook example of a politician proposing something without fully grasping the possible implications.

Think its more to panic the gun fanatics on the supreme court. I think Kavanaugh actually said something about this exact same scenario, so you know they are worried. SCOTUS have opened up a can of worms here and what follows wont be pretty.
 
Think its more to panic the gun fanatics on the supreme court. I think Kavanaugh actually said something about this exact same scenario, so you know they are worried. SCOTUS have opened up a can of worms here and what follows wont be pretty.
I agree that this is Newsom's intention. I just think that the counterplay favors the conservatives in the end. It is an enormous can of worms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top