And people wonder why the US is so divided

[Enhance]

Coming into this conversation late - my apologies if it's already been discussed.

 

I believe everyone, or at least most everyone, is on the same page that something has to be done. Gun activists will say we need more mental health reform, but a lot of research questions not only what you'd do but how effective it would be. Gun-control activists will say we need stricter gun laws, but it's often debated what if any impact this would have.

 

What we know for certain is that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is insane. Something has to happen.

 

I'm not a gun owner. I find nothing interesting about them but do understand the value people find in wanting to have them to feel protected and safe.

 

My question is this - isn't there something we can do with gun laws that would help the situation, but still allow reasonable access for responsible gun owners? Are these laws as good as they can be without going too far?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

No...all you did was be critical of the President because he wasn't critical of the people in ferguson. (Which may every valid). But,should he also be critical of the NRA, gun industry and people like the idiots that took their guns to Nevada to "defend" an idiot rancher that was breaking the law?

Did you read the entire thread? This thread was very specific to the timing of Obama's comments hours after the tragedy and the divisive nature of his rhetoric. I offered a very specific explanation of what he could have said to set the tone for a respectful discourse on this topic, and just explained a multi-step approach I would have taken as a leader to bring the opposing sides together. I deal with opposing views all the time as a leader at my organization and certainly do not condone the approach he took.

 

Do you approve of his comments last Thursday...both the timing and tone of them?

I said in my post your complaints may be very valid.

 

Do you think complaining about the president is going to fix the problem?

 

 

Well I think its going to take a lot to fix the problem, but I think its good for any of us to hold our leaders accountable, especially when they are taking actions or making comments that take us further away from fixing the problem. I have been just as critical of Boehner, McConnell, and other Republicans for their inaction or unfortunate statements, but at the end of the day, there is one elected official that has more votes than any other elected official that sets the tone for our entire federal government and has the most power to influence change for the better...that is the President. Presidents get all the glory, but they also need to be able to take the heat when they screw up. This President still has a chance to bring both sides together and follow some of the points I referenced above if he is truly committed to solving this problem. Let us pray that he is able to do so.

[HuskerNation1]

Coming into this conversation late - my apologies if it's already been discussed.

 

I believe everyone, or at least most everyone, is on the same page that something has to be done. Gun activists will say we need more mental health reform, but a lot of research questions not only what you'd do but how effective it would be. Gun-control activists will say we need stricter gun laws, but it's often debated what if any impact this would have.

 

What we know for certain is that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is insane. Something has to happen.

 

I'm not a gun owner. I find nothing interesting about them but do understand the value people find in wanting to have them to feel protected and safe.

 

My question is this - isn't there something we can do with gun laws that would help the situation, but still allow reasonable access for responsible gun owners? Are these laws as good as they can be without going too far?

 

Well part of the problem with this topic is that its so big and broad it's difficult for anyone to get their arms around it. But, if you break it down into more management pieces, such as "how do we reduce killings of innocent lives by guns in a school setting," the solution seems more achievable. One option that could meet this solution, but that would require TONS of money, would be to add metal detectors to every school, limit the entrances and exits into those school dramatically, and have an armed guard at the entrance. Again, that may not seem feasible given the cost, but it would definitely deter those wanting to do harm in schools, and should they try to enter, their chance of killing many innocent students is greatly diminished.

 

But, say we went to all that trouble, a criminal is still a criminal and wants to hurt others. They would find a different way to penetrate the school with explosives or something that would bypass the metal detector, so it really gets back to finding ways to track likely killers, and allowing our federal government more power to see our emails, phone calls, social media, etc... to stay on top of potential mass killers.

[Saunders]

 

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

Uh, zombies. Duh.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

No...all you did was be critical of the President because he wasn't critical of the people in ferguson. (Which may every valid). But,should he also be critical of the NRA, gun industry and people like the idiots that took their guns to Nevada to "defend" an idiot rancher that was breaking the law?

Did you read the entire thread? This thread was very specific to the timing of Obama's comments hours after the tragedy and the divisive nature of his rhetoric. I offered a very specific explanation of what he could have said to set the tone for a respectful discourse on this topic, and just explained a multi-step approach I would have taken as a leader to bring the opposing sides together. I deal with opposing views all the time as a leader at my organization and certainly do not condone the approach he took.

 

Do you approve of his comments last Thursday...both the timing and tone of them?

I said in my post your complaints may be very valid.

 

Do you think complaining about the president is going to fix the problem?

 

 

Well I think its going to take a lot to fix the problem, but I think its good for any of us to hold our leaders accountable, especially when they are taking actions or making comments that take us further away from fixing the problem. I have been just as critical of Boehner, McConnell, and other Republicans for their inaction or unfortunate statements, but at the end of the day, there is one elected official that has more votes than any other elected official that sets the tone for our entire federal government and has the most power to influence change for the better...that is the President. Presidents get all the glory, but they also need to be able to take the heat when they screw up. This President still has a chance to bring both sides together and follow some of the points I referenced above if he is truly committed to solving this problem. Let us pray that he is able to do so.

 

Great...I said your complaints about the President may be very valid. Yaaaa....good job.

 

Now, are we also holding the conservative leaders accountable on this issue? And...how are we going to fix the problem?

[Landlord]

bnillhome, you're not holding the President accountable, you're just bitching about him.

 

 

You're not offering any solution, you're just throwing out a worthless, "Well this is what I would do if I was President" shtick.

 

 

You're not the President. So what are you actually doing about it? Besides being critical of the President? Because taht's all we really ever see from you.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

No...all you did was be critical of the President because he wasn't critical of the people in ferguson. (Which may every valid). But,should he also be critical of the NRA, gun industry and people like the idiots that took their guns to Nevada to "defend" an idiot rancher that was breaking the law?

Did you read the entire thread? This thread was very specific to the timing of Obama's comments hours after the tragedy and the divisive nature of his rhetoric. I offered a very specific explanation of what he could have said to set the tone for a respectful discourse on this topic, and just explained a multi-step approach I would have taken as a leader to bring the opposing sides together. I deal with opposing views all the time as a leader at my organization and certainly do not condone the approach he took.

 

Do you approve of his comments last Thursday...both the timing and tone of them?

I said in my post your complaints may be very valid.

 

Do you think complaining about the president is going to fix the problem?

 

 

Well I think its going to take a lot to fix the problem, but I think its good for any of us to hold our leaders accountable, especially when they are taking actions or making comments that take us further away from fixing the problem. I have been just as critical of Boehner, McConnell, and other Republicans for their inaction or unfortunate statements, but at the end of the day, there is one elected official that has more votes than any other elected official that sets the tone for our entire federal government and has the most power to influence change for the better...that is the President. Presidents get all the glory, but they also need to be able to take the heat when they screw up. This President still has a chance to bring both sides together and follow some of the points I referenced above if he is truly committed to solving this problem. Let us pray that he is able to do so.

 

Great...I said your complaints about the President may be very valid. Yaaaa....good job.

 

Now, are we also holding the conservative leaders accountable on this issue? And...how are we going to fix the problem?

 

 

Wow, you are a riot. For starters, as I've said before, the purpose of this thread was a reaction to the President's anger rant after the Oregon shooting, which was so inappropriate that the liberal Washington Post even criticized him yesterday for the approach he took to the issue. And that is what I have laid out explaining how I think a President should approach it. You and Landlord can criticize all you want, but it's the President (regardless of party) that people look up to, not Mitch McConnell or whoever Boehner's replacement is. Now I would expect the GOP to also come to the table of a summit and be open and honest as well.

 

As for specifics, I just laid out specifics on how to reduce loss of life in school settings...did you not care for that SPECIFIC solution to that particular problem?

 

Finally, I do find it quite hypocritical of you to make this recent post considering the last post you made in the Planned Parenthood discussion was solely critical of GOP Congressmen "grandstanding" to use your own term when asking questions. You were complaining about the "process" being deployed without offering a single solution on how we can reduce abortions in this country. What are your plans for reducing the number of abortions in this country? Or do you just want to criticize elected leaders for their tone and process? You do a nice job of pretending you are totally objective and split down the middle in all of your posts, yet you do quite a bit of criticizing of GOP politicians and often are not providing your own solutions to the core issues.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The attitude of "I'll respect the President as soon as he does what I want him to" doesn't help mend the divide you're talking about, OP.

[HuskerNation1]

The attitude of "I'll respect the President as soon as he does what I want him to" doesn't help mend the divide you're talking about, OP.

 

As someone pointed out earlier, I am not the President, and the same goes for the rest of us. They call it the Bully Pulpit for a reason. He's got the unique ability to set the agenda and tone for how our political leaders operate. Also, I'm not asking that he adopt my exact views, but he should be finding a way to get both sides talking together. I didn't agree with Bill Clinton on many specific issues, but he did a nice job of partnering with the opposing party and made some great headway on some of the key issues of the time (like welfare reform).

[knapplc]

I'm not asking that he adopt my exact views, but he should be finding a way to get both sides talking together.

That's impossible. Obama cannot force the Republicans to talk to him, and they expressly obstructed him on everything he did as a matter of policy.

 

 

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

 

WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

 

The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."

 

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

 

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.

 

 

You cannot blame Obama for not talking to the Republicans. He tried, they wouldn't listen.

[zoogs]

If the President, this time, can finally move the conversation forward on the gun control issue, then bravo to him. I'm sorry to those who disagree, but it's a "beyond just conversation" issue for a lot of Americans.

 

Claiming there's some sort of moral imperative to continue avoiding this issue or appealing to the latest round of victims is a tactic, and in my opinion, a pretty ridiculous-looking one. If you want to point to a questionable dialogue following a tragedy, look no further than "Look, stuff happens".

 

Also, there's a severe degree of irony in putting forth the argument that the President "needs to get both sides to talk about this" when the point of this very thread -- trumpeting the position of the NRA lobby and their wing -- is to say, "we can't talk about this."

[HuskerNation1]

 

I'm not asking that he adopt my exact views, but he should be finding a way to get both sides talking together.

That's impossible. Obama cannot force the Republicans to talk to him, and they expressly obstructed him on everything he did as a matter of policy.

 

 

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

 

WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

 

The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives."

 

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

 

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.

 

 

You cannot blame Obama for not talking to the Republicans. He tried, they wouldn't listen.

 

 

He has not tried working with them, and it started in his first term. He was dead set in ramming Obamacare through, and that is what he did. Members of both parties of Congress didn't even get to read the final bill (as Pelosi stated) as it was a big rush. If he really wanted to put the GOP on the spot for not offering solutions on that topic, which I agree they need to do more, he should have called their key leaders together, in an open forum, to let all of us decide. He promised to be a transparent President, and from day one, he has not been. And I've said repeatedly that both sides need to come to the table, but again, as President, he is the one that should be leading that, not dividing us further with his politicized partisan rhetoric.

[HuskerNation1]

If the President, this time, can finally move the conversation forward on the gun control issue, then bravo to him. I'm sorry to those who disagree, but it's a "beyond just conversation" issue for a lot of Americans.

 

Claiming there's some sort of moral imperative to continue avoiding this issue or appealing to the latest round of victims is a tactic, and in my opinion, a pretty ridiculous-looking one. If you want to point to a questionable dialogue following a tragedy, look no further than "Look, stuff happens".

 

Also, there's a severe degree of irony in putting forth the argument that the President "needs to get both sides to talk about this" when the point of this very thread -- trumpeting the position of the NRA lobby and their wing -- is to say, "we can't talk about this."

 

 

I would really like it to if the President can move the conversation forward on the GUN VIOLENCE issue. Stating he has to move it forward on "Gun Control" issue is presuming that is the solution to the problem, and that is at its core where the fundamental disagreement is. This is a gun violence issue with multiple causes, and the left wants to just assume a few gun control laws can be put in place and it will solve the issue.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

The attitude of "I'll respect the President as soon as he does what I want him to" doesn't help mend the divide you're talking about, OP.

 

As someone pointed out earlier, I am not the President, and the same goes for the rest of us. They call it the Bully Pulpit for a reason. He's got the unique ability to set the agenda and tone for how our political leaders operate. Also, I'm not asking that he adopt my exact views, but he should be finding a way to get both sides talking together. I didn't agree with Bill Clinton on many specific issues, but he did a nice job of partnering with the opposing party and made some great headway on some of the key issues of the time (like welfare reform).

 

 

He may have the unique ability to set an agenda, to guide how our political leaders operate. That doesn't mean those political leaders will operate exactly how they should according to the agenda, and there really isn't much the President can do if the other side of the aisle refuses to be amicable, and that's exactly what's going on. Even when Obama has been willing to make compromises, his compromises are flat-out rejected by House and Senate Republicans because they don't completely conform to what they want.

 

Hence why I say the attitude of "I'll respect the President as soon as he does what I want him to", doesn't really help mend the divide. It makes no sense for the President to give up everything he's been fighting for just to say he got something done (which is literally what the House and Senate GOP wants). He's been willing to compromise, they're the ones who've refused to accept anything other than total concession, and yet it's the President's fault because he got mad about another school shooting--the continued result of inaction?

 

Makes sense.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

The attitude of "I'll respect the President as soon as he does what I want him to" doesn't help mend the divide you're talking about, OP.

 

As someone pointed out earlier, I am not the President, and the same goes for the rest of us. They call it the Bully Pulpit for a reason. He's got the unique ability to set the agenda and tone for how our political leaders operate. Also, I'm not asking that he adopt my exact views, but he should be finding a way to get both sides talking together. I didn't agree with Bill Clinton on many specific issues, but he did a nice job of partnering with the opposing party and made some great headway on some of the key issues of the time (like welfare reform).

 

 

He may have the unique ability to set an agenda, to guide how our political leaders operate. That doesn't mean those political leaders will operate exactly how they should according to the agenda, and there really isn't much the President can do if the other side of the aisle refuses to be amicable, and that's exactly what's going on. Even when Obama has been willing to make compromises, his compromises are flat-out rejected by House and Senate Republicans because they don't completely conform to what they want.

 

Hence why I say the attitude of "I'll respect the President as soon as he does what I want him to", doesn't really help mend the divide. It makes no sense for the President to give up everything he's been fighting for just to say he got something done (which is literally what the House and Senate GOP wants). He's been willing to compromise, they're the ones who've refused to accept anything other than total concession, and yet it's the President's fault because he got mad about another school shooting--the continued result of inaction?

 

Makes sense.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying he should do what everyone else wants. In fact, he's done much of what he wanted, and has bypassed normal processes for more executive orders than I've seen from any other President. I'd like some great examples of when President Obama has taken a middle ground on an issue, or openly showed a willingness to compromise. There was none of that on Obamacare, none of that on the Iran trade deal, none of that in his immigration executive orders, etc.. He also has not put forward an honest proposal on how to balance the budget and address our fiscal crisis. Again, as I stated previously, other Democratic Presidents have done this, and Bill Clinton did this often, especially after losing part or all of Congress. That is a big reason that the public had higher confidence in Washington in general (Executive and Legislative branches).

 

It's amazing to me that many Obama supporters continue to defend his comments after the Oregon shooting. To any average non-partisan voter, his tone and timing were way off base, and if you can't even admit that, you are so biased it's hard to accept anything you might say. This is no different than when Bush 43 told Fema Director Brown he was doing a great job. Even though I'm a Conservative, I knew that was the wrong thing to say, and openly admitted it.