RugbyRebels

"Private government contractors"...

I don't like the sound of that at all.

Hey Hey.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/89971282 ... estigation

Get in there Letitia.

morepork wrote:Hey Hey.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/89971282 ... estigation

Get in there Letitia.

I'm almost happier when they're abusing member fees tbh

I'm willing to forgo that particular form of financial cannibalism if it means they no longer show up in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings to promote more guns in society and fewer restrictions on such.

Much like Trumpism has (maybe just for now) replaced the GOP we might well find the NRA v.2 is worse than the NRA, and without huge debts to service/cover up

Digby wrote:Much like Trumpism has (maybe just for now) replaced the GOP we might well find the NRA v.2 is worse than the NRA, and without huge debts to service/cover up

Leaving aside this is NRA v2, how could they be worse?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Much like Trumpism has (maybe just for now) replaced the GOP we might well find the NRA v.2 is worse than the NRA, and without huge debts to service/cover up

Leaving aside this is NRA v2, how could they be worse?

They could direct resources into much more worrying areas than delivering a life of excess to those at the top, at least from my pov. They're quite disorganised with a lot of their own messaging and how they link up with other conservative groups, and they've largely ignored having a well funded militia

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Much like Trumpism has (maybe just for now) replaced the GOP we might well find the NRA v.2 is worse than the NRA, and without huge debts to service/cover up

Leaving aside this is NRA v2, how could they be worse?

They could direct resources into much more worrying areas than delivering a life of excess to those at the top, at least from my pov. They're quite disorganised with a lot of their own messaging and how they link up with other conservative groups, and they've largely ignored having a well funded militia

It what sense have they ignored it? They've enabled and sustain many militias across America. They've bought politicians. Who needs to keep as private army when you can subcontract several to go your bidding with political cover. It's the isis playbook.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Leaving aside this is NRA v2, how could they be worse?

They could direct resources into much more worrying areas than delivering a life of excess to those at the top, at least from my pov. They're quite disorganised with a lot of their own messaging and how they link up with other conservative groups, and they've largely ignored having a well funded militia

It what sense have they ignored it? They've enabled and sustain many militias across America. They've bought politicians. Who needs to keep as private army when you can subcontract several to go your bidding with political cover. It's the isis playbook.

To some extent the NRA is struggling because they don't have a clear threat to guns to argue against, Obama was a clear threat even if in reality Obama not only didn't do much about but didn't even try to do much about guns, I suspect more because Obama considered he didn't have the requisite political capital but still in reality he achieved not a lot. And they're also struggling because they cannot get Trump to support them, indeed at times they have to walk Trump back from his public comments that there should be extra controls and the GOP shouldn't be afraid of the big bad NRA. All this has dropped their revenues.

But for all they spent big they spent big to try and push concealed carry reciprocity across state lines and to allow for easier access to silencers/suppressors, and they failed in both those actions no matter some huge spends on individual GOP campaigns. And while they've been thinking big they haven't been thinking small about control of individual members and coordinated approaches of militia. They're now even being out organised and out spent by the gun control lobby, which fine I think a good thing, but it's a clear case of dropping the ball if you're the NRA, in their defence their group leaders were busy thieving money from the group coffers and that is going to make it harder to actually do your job.

The more the Dems and/or the gun control groups start to counter the NRA the more I suspect the NRA will come back stronger, but with what legislative agenda isn't clear, will they be seeking to advance rights, or by then be on the back foot defending what they can? Even if Trump clings on it's hard to see the GOP taking more control at state and congressional levels.

I don't imagine the members love the NRA, they love their guns and they'd quickly get behind a more organised better message than the NRA have been delivering. Whether such a group emerges from the disparate aims of the NRA we'll have to wait and see

Guns have never seriously been under threat. The proposals have only ever been extremely modest regulation. In the past the NRA running screaming has been enough, however baseless it was. The ride has started to turn, mainly because others have realised that since reasonable regulation is, and always had been, more popular than Wild West NRA style, they just needed to organise. Moms Demand Action and others have changed the game in terms of funding, legislation (by taking a state approach) and PR.

Obama tried to do a lot about guns. Was stonewalled by a bought and paid for senate. See Sandy Hook and efforts thereafter.


Thanks NRA.

Obama tried to do a little about guns, eventually, and failed. I think he might have failed even if he'd tried a lot more and a lot earlier, and it's hardly the only issue on which once in office he couldn't get the traction he wanted. I like the bloke, and I like and appreciate his thoughts on how ideas and systems progress, and he inherited some problems that massively hindered his efforts, nonetheless his actual record of delivery was/is patchy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the future face of the Republic:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... gia-qanon/


Congressional Republicans came a step closer Tuesday to welcoming into their ranks a promoter of the QAnon conspiracy theory, whose adherents believe President Trump is battling a cabal of “deep state” saboteurs who worship Satan and traffic children for sex.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has endorsed the baseless theory and made a slew of other racist remarks on video, won a Republican primary runoff in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, according to the Associated Press. Her victory, in a northwestern swath of the state that has favored Republicans by wide margins, sets her up to become QAnon’s first devotee in Congress.


Somebody hit the RESET button on this mother fucker. Please.

morepork wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the future face of the Republic:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... gia-qanon/


Congressional Republicans came a step closer Tuesday to welcoming into their ranks a promoter of the QAnon conspiracy theory, whose adherents believe President Trump is battling a cabal of “deep state” saboteurs who worship Satan and traffic children for sex.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has endorsed the baseless theory and made a slew of other racist remarks on video, won a Republican primary runoff in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, according to the Associated Press. Her victory, in a northwestern swath of the state that has favored Republicans by wide margins, sets her up to become QAnon’s first devotee in Congress.


Somebody hit the RESET button on this mother fucker. Please.

This made the UK press. She seems nice, in a batshit crazy Gileadesque sort of way.

Heavens to murgatroyd, what on earth does Gileadesque mean?

Digby wrote:Heavens to murgatroyd, what on earth does Gileadesque mean?

Handmaids Tale.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Heavens to murgatroyd, what on earth does Gileadesque mean?

Handmaids Tale.

Is that what it means, or does it pertain to the book/TV series? I've heard Margaret Attwood talk, I've just never read any of her books and I've not seen the TV drama

Gilead also manufacture remedisivir, previous CEO's include all round good guy Donald Rumsfeld

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Heavens to murgatroyd, what on earth does Gileadesque mean?

Handmaids Tale.

Is that what it means, or does it pertain to the book/TV series? I've heard Margaret Attwood talk, I've just never read any of her books and I've not seen the TV drama

Gilead, in the Book and Mini-series, is the name of the fecked up US that is run by a bunch of chauvinistic, religious nut jobs (think Saudi Arabia without the weather). The leaders are supported by a bunch of crazy women who seem to like being treated as second class citizens.

If you haven't watched the mini-series then the first season is well worth a look. The follow on series don't have the same impact, although I'm still curious to see where they will take it.

Weird that people are getting in a tissy that AOC has a short speaking slot at the convention, the odd thing is she has a slot not that it's a short one. And that before the numbers of people who pay attention to the longer speeches is tiny

Are they? I assumed this was just a jab about all this pining for Bush-era-esque calm and civility.

I didn't actually pay any attention to the Onion part of that.

Well if you’re saying it seemed like a real thing to you that would make my point quite well.

Mikey Brown wrote:Well if you’re saying it seemed like a real thing to you that would make my point quite well.

More I've never paid any attention to the Onion, whereas back in reality I know some people were unhappy about the time allotted AOC.