Georgia Senate blocks mega tax cuts for Delta in response to Delta punishing law abiding NRA

[Cecilie1200]

Delta does not have to be neutral, they are there to make money. The government on the other hand is supposed to be neutral, and not force one company to give discounts to another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

great - except delta SAID they were neutral when clearly they are not. neutral would be staying the course. anything else, to me, picks a side. and the ramifications for doing so in this instance could cost them $50mil.

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

I think you need to get over thinking that Republicans are like Democrats. Just because politicians on the left are bought and paid for by big-dollar monoliths doesn't mean that's how it works on the right.

It isn't "the NRA" that holds power over elected officials; it's the NRA MEMBERS who hold it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

great - except delta SAID they were neutral when clearly they are not. neutral would be staying the course. anything else, to me, picks a side. and the ramifications for doing so in this instance could cost them $50mil.

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

I think you need to get over thinking that Republicans are like Democrats. Just because politicians on the left are bought and paid for by big-dollar monoliths doesn't mean that's how it works on the right.

It isn't "the NRA" that holds power over elected officials; it's the NRA MEMBERS who hold it.

There is no difference between Republican and Democrats, all politicians are bought and paid for. You live in a fantasy world if you think the Repubs are any more honest or noble than the Dems.

 

[Cecilie1200]

then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.

but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.

It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.

More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?

As far as other airlines, I couldn't say for sure. I don't believe it's ever been a question of ending them; the tax break they had been giving Delta had actually already expired. They were going to negotiate to restart it, and the Lt. Governor basically said they weren't going to do so after all if Delta was going to cancel their discount agreement with the NRA. I know a lot of conservatives in Georgia came forward and said, "We shouldn't give out tax break deals like that no matter what happens with the NRA." So it may just be going along with that position.

You are correct, and I used a poor choice of words. I should have said that they put the tax break legislation on hold, or something along those lines.

If Georgians spoke to their representatives and told them they were opposed to airline tax breaks, I absolutely support the Georgia government deciding not to go forward with it.

Given how quickly after Delta's announcement that the Lt. Gov. spoke, I'm guessing that he was . . . shall we say, anticipating what he thought his base would want, which is not really surprising for a gubernatorial candidate during an election. And since it WAS just a position statement, if he turned out to be wrong, then he could always change direction when it came down to actual action in the Senate. What people are forgetting is that the Georgia Senate hasn't actually done anything at all yet. Unless I missed some breaking news in the past day or two (which is possible), all that's really happened so far is a bunch of different people staking out positions.

The NRA said jump and the LtGov said "how high"

No, the NRA probably didn't say anything to him at all. They wouldn't have needed to. The man's a moderately-successful state politician who's running for governor. He's perfectly capable of making judgements about what will fly with his constituents all on his own, not to mention that a Republican in Georgia is very likely to already hold those positions himself. And, of course, he's not a Democrat, so marching orders from huge donors is much less of a thing. Do try to remember that YOU do not represent the norm.

 

[iceberg]

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

I think you need to get over thinking that Republicans are like Democrats. Just because politicians on the left are bought and paid for by big-dollar monoliths doesn't mean that's how it works on the right.

It isn't "the NRA" that holds power over elected officials; it's the NRA MEMBERS who hold it.

There is no difference between Republican and Democrats, all politicians are bought and paid for. You live in a fantasy world if you think the Repubs are any more honest or noble than the Dems.

in history you can find examples of each rather easily. right now the dems rep is taking a beating and hard for their identity politics and attacks on people they *say* are attacking them. that style is dying or dead and they need to clean house and start over. the repubs are just in chaos right now because of trump and he's not going away so they need to eat shit and deal with it. while they don't have the same problems the democrats have, they still have problems. ie - they owned everything for a year and didn't do shit on healthcare as promised for 8 years.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

great - except delta SAID they were neutral when clearly they are not. neutral would be staying the course. anything else, to me, picks a side. and the ramifications for doing so in this instance could cost them $50mil.

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

....

There is no conspiracy, the NRA does not hide in any way their actions.

Also, I did not say the NRA was evil, just that it wielded a lot of power, just like many other lobbyist.

Kind of hard for me to take seriously that the NRA does not hold any power when a one hour meeting with the POTUS can get him to sing a whole new song.

People on the right used to lament about the power of lobbyist in DC, yet when those folks are lobbying for them, well then is is not an issue.

This is what I am talking about when I say there is very little difference between the "right" and the "left". One cannot complain there is too much outside influences on our elected officials and then cheer when that influence favors them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

I think you need to get over thinking that Republicans are like Democrats. Just because politicians on the left are bought and paid for by big-dollar monoliths doesn't mean that's how it works on the right.

It isn't "the NRA" that holds power over elected officials; it's the NRA MEMBERS who hold it.

There is no difference between Republican and Democrats, all politicians are bought and paid for. You live in a fantasy world if you think the Repubs are any more honest or noble than the Dems.

It's not a matter of "honest and noble", Chuckles. It's more a matter of mindset, and who has the truly high-dollar, manipulative donors. I actually think it's pretty rare for ANY politician to espouse a position they don't already believe in, in and of themselves, simply because someone with deep pockets told them to. I don't think political backers go find some random guy to run for office and then tell him what to support. I think they go looking for someone who ALREADY supports what they want.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, the NRA probably didn't say anything to him at all. They wouldn't have needed to. The man's a moderately-successful state politician who's running for governor. He's perfectly capable of making judgements about what will fly with his constituents all on his own, not to mention that a Republican in Georgia is very likely to already hold those positions himself. And, of course, he's not a Democrat, so marching orders from huge donors is much less of a thing.

I am sorry, but I just have no tolerance for partisan zealotry, so I am not even going to waste my time trying to respond to talking points being parroted.

Do try to remember that YOU do not represent the norm.

Thank God! This is the best compliment you could possibly give me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

I think you need to get over thinking that Republicans are like Democrats. Just because politicians on the left are bought and paid for by big-dollar monoliths doesn't mean that's how it works on the right.

It isn't "the NRA" that holds power over elected officials; it's the NRA MEMBERS who hold it.

There is no difference between Republican and Democrats, all politicians are bought and paid for. You live in a fantasy world if you think the Repubs are any more honest or noble than the Dems.

in history you can find examples of each rather easily. right now the dems rep is taking a beating and hard for their identity politics and attacks on people they *say* are attacking them. that style is dying or dead and they need to clean house and start over. the repubs are just in chaos right now because of trump and he's not going away so they need to eat shit and deal with it. while they don't have the same problems the democrats have, they still have problems. ie - they owned everything for a year and didn't do shit on healthcare as promised for 8 years.

The bright side of Trump's chaos is that he seems to have encouraged, by example, the willingness of people on the right to stand up for themselves a lot more aggressively. The down side is that he's encouraged, also by example, them to do it without a great deal of thought and coherency.

 

[iceberg]

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

....

There is no conspiracy, the NRA does not hide in any way their actions.

Also, I did not say the NRA was evil, just that it wielded a lot of power, just like many other lobbyist.

Kind of hard for me to take seriously that the NRA does not hold any power when a one hour meeting with the POTUS can get him to sing a whole new song.

People on the right used to lament about the power of lobbyist in DC, yet when those folks are lobbying for them, well then is is not an issue.

This is what I am talking about when I say there is very little difference between the "right" and the "left". One cannot complain there is too much outside influences on our elected officials and then cheer when that influence favors them.

so - let me be clear before we move on.

the NRA isn't hiding anything or lying to the people, correct? if not correct, please show the lies as a reference.
the NRA isn't evil, but they deserve this protest and boycott? if not what you're saying apologies - trying to pin this down so i know how to better respond.
if they deserve it, why? they're not lying or hiding anything. people just don't like it. if that's the reason for the boycott, great. but at least we'll have that baseline.

now we're to a hidden doors meeting where they made trump change his mind.
ok - could they have presented facts to trump he could not refute or are you saying they said "fall in line OR ELSE" and if OR ELSE then how can we say they're NOT evil? i'd consider that evil.

and for anyone of us it's seldom an issue when people in power lobby for us. not even sure what that shared characteristic is supposed to say other than taking a shared characteristic and putting it against one side only. that doesn't make sense to me.

so - NRA not lying or evil, just powerful. is this a correct summary of your stance on the NRA?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

in history you can find examples of each rather easily. right now the dems rep is taking a beating and hard for their identity politics and attacks on people they *say* are attacking them. that style is dying or dead and they need to clean house and start over.

I am going to tell you, I just do not see this sort of thing as dying or dead, I see it getting worse as both sides do it more and more. Our president plays identity politics on a daily basis, and it is what makes him so very popular among his faithful. They call it "not be PC" or "being a man" but it is nothing but identity politics taken to a whole new level by Trump.

I would suggest you start to follow Trump on Twitter and then come back and tell me that the days of identity politics are dead.

 

[iceberg]

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

I think you need to get over thinking that Republicans are like Democrats. Just because politicians on the left are bought and paid for by big-dollar monoliths doesn't mean that's how it works on the right.

It isn't "the NRA" that holds power over elected officials; it's the NRA MEMBERS who hold it.

There is no difference between Republican and Democrats, all politicians are bought and paid for. You live in a fantasy world if you think the Repubs are any more honest or noble than the Dems.

in history you can find examples of each rather easily. right now the dems rep is taking a beating and hard for their identity politics and attacks on people they *say* are attacking them. that style is dying or dead and they need to clean house and start over. the repubs are just in chaos right now because of trump and he's not going away so they need to eat shit and deal with it. while they don't have the same problems the democrats have, they still have problems. ie - they owned everything for a year and didn't do shit on healthcare as promised for 8 years.

The bright side of Trump's chaos is that he seems to have encouraged, by example, the willingness of people on the right to stand up for themselves a lot more aggressively. The down side is that he's encouraged, also by example, them to do it without a great deal of thought and coherency.

i have to 100% agree. while i don't like what trump does A LOT in regard to the antics and fighting, sometimes you gotta use the same tactics as the other side to get your point across. rough waters as the left is going to have to realize screaming, stomping their foot and holding their breath are tactics of yesterday anymore.

 

[iceberg]

in history you can find examples of each rather easily. right now the dems rep is taking a beating and hard for their identity politics and attacks on people they *say* are attacking them. that style is dying or dead and they need to clean house and start over.

I am going to tell you, I just do not see this sort of thing as dying or dead, I see it getting worse as both sides do it more and more. Our president plays identity politics on a daily basis, and it is what makes him so very popular among his faithful. They call it "not be PC" or "being a man" but it is nothing but identity politics taken to a whole new level by Trump.

I would suggest you start to follow Trump on Twitter and then come back and tell me that the days of identity politics are dead.

i don't follow *anyone* on twitter. as close as i get is twitchy where i read the commentary that is HILARIOUS when it comes the stupid things all people say on twitter.

i give you IP (identity politics) may not be dead, but if trump is taking it to a new game, maybe it's to prove a point, not advance it along. i *do* see more and more people call it out and that's the first step to ending it. but yes, i do agree it's gonna get nasty as we get to where ever we're headed these days.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

....

There is no conspiracy, the NRA does not hide in any way their actions.

Also, I did not say the NRA was evil, just that it wielded a lot of power, just like many other lobbyist.

Kind of hard for me to take seriously that the NRA does not hold any power when a one hour meeting with the POTUS can get him to sing a whole new song.

People on the right used to lament about the power of lobbyist in DC, yet when those folks are lobbying for them, well then is is not an issue.

This is what I am talking about when I say there is very little difference between the "right" and the "left". One cannot complain there is too much outside influences on our elected officials and then cheer when that influence favors them.

Why should the NRA hide anything? Influencing policy is the purpose of their existence. They're an advocacy group. Trying to hide advocating for things would be silly.

As for the President, have you taken a good look at our President lately? I can't remember the last time I laid eyes on someone that changeable and susceptible to flattery. It's practically his mission statement to say whatever his current audience wants to hear. Oh, and to insist on being the brashest, most shocking person in the room, ALWAYS. It doesn't require a lot of power and influence to get him to run off at the mouth in your direction; just send in someone who can turn a good compliment, and you're pretty much done and heading for the golf course.

I don't recall having ever complained about outside influence on elected officials. In a republic, where the right to petition the government is enshrined in the Constitution, the existence of people clubbing together to try to get their interests addressed is pretty much a given.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the NRA probably didn't say anything to him at all. They wouldn't have needed to. The man's a moderately-successful state politician who's running for governor. He's perfectly capable of making judgements about what will fly with his constituents all on his own, not to mention that a Republican in Georgia is very likely to already hold those positions himself. And, of course, he's not a Democrat, so marching orders from huge donors is much less of a thing.

I am sorry, but I just have no tolerance for partisan zealotry, so I am not even going to waste my time trying to respond to talking points being parroted.

Do try to remember that YOU do not represent the norm.

Thank God! This is the best compliment you could possibly give me.

"Partisan zealotry" such as dismissing everything the other side says as "talking points" so that you never have to actually listen and engage?

Hey, if you like being an insane outlier, go to it. Just don't project onto the rest of us, please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

....

There is no conspiracy, the NRA does not hide in any way their actions.

Also, I did not say the NRA was evil, just that it wielded a lot of power, just like many other lobbyist.

Kind of hard for me to take seriously that the NRA does not hold any power when a one hour meeting with the POTUS can get him to sing a whole new song.

People on the right used to lament about the power of lobbyist in DC, yet when those folks are lobbying for them, well then is is not an issue.

This is what I am talking about when I say there is very little difference between the "right" and the "left". One cannot complain there is too much outside influences on our elected officials and then cheer when that influence favors them.

so - let me be clear before we move on.

the NRA isn't hiding anything or lying to the people, correct? if not correct, please show the lies as a reference.
the NRA isn't evil, but they deserve this protest and boycott? if not what you're saying apologies - trying to pin this down so i know how to better respond.
if they deserve it, why? they're not lying or hiding anything. people just don't like it. if that's the reason for the boycott, great. but at least we'll have that baseline.

now we're to a hidden doors meeting where they made trump change his mind.
ok - could they have presented facts to trump he could not refute or are you saying they said "fall in line OR ELSE" and if OR ELSE then how can we say they're NOT evil? i'd consider that evil.

and for anyone of us it's seldom an issue when people in power lobby for us. not even sure what that shared characteristic is supposed to say other than taking a shared characteristic and putting it against one side only. that doesn't make sense to me.

so - NRA not lying or evil, just powerful. is this a correct summary of your stance on the NRA?

Trump is HARDLY falling in line with the NRA. Did you SEE that last big meeting of his? Holy cats! The leftists were practically wetting themselves with glee, and every person there on the right had a "WTF?!" look on their faces, like dogs listening to a high-pitched sound. This is the problem with having a President who doesn't have a solid ideology of his own, particularly when you couple it with the fact that he really knows very little about most of the policies and positions he talks about.

I listened all day yesterday to Trump supporters desperately trying to spin it into some "brilliant mousetrap maneuver" to catch out the left, and I'm thinking, "Yeah, or maybe his mouth just flaps without bothering to consult his brain."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

so - let me be clear before we move on.

the NRA isn't hiding anything or lying to the people, correct? if not correct, please show the lies as a reference.

If the NRA were hiding anything, then we would not know about it. But in general they seem to be very open about their power and their goals.

the NRA isn't evil, but they deserve this protest and boycott? if not what you're saying apologies - trying to pin this down so i know how to better respond.
if they deserve it, why? they're not lying or hiding anything. people just don't like it. if that's the reason for the boycott, great. but at least we'll have that baseline.

I have never said they deserved the boycott, not once. I have no issue with people boycotting the people boycotting the NRA. I think that his how these things should be handled, in the marketplace. If you do not like what Delta did, do not give them your money. For those that agree with Delta, then give them more of your money.

As for me I have never taken political positions of a company into account when I choose to spend my money

My whole issue has been with the response of the government in coming to their defense. I could really not care less what private companies do as I feel they have the right to do whatever they want. The government does not have that same freedom, the government is supposed to represent everyone, not just one group over another. Every Time the government interferes with anything like this they are taking away just one more piece of our liberty that will never come back. I am of the mindset that personal liberty trumps just about everything else.

now we're to a hidden doors meeting where they made trump change his mind.
ok - could they have presented facts to trump he could not refute or are you saying they said "fall in line OR ELSE" and if OR ELSE then how can we say they're NOT evil? i'd consider that evil.

I do not know what they did, all I know is before the meeting the POTUS had one position and after he had another. That is power, you cannot deny it. We also have to keep in mind though that Trump changes his mind more than most people change their underwear and he also tends to agree with whatever group is in front of him, so I guess that tempers some of the power the NRA might hold over him.

and for anyone of us it's seldom an issue when people in power lobby for us. not even sure what that shared characteristic is supposed to say other than taking a shared characteristic and putting it against one side only. that doesn't make sense to me.

Then I should never hear another person complain again about money in politics...

so - NRA not lying or evil, just powerful. is this a correct summary of your stance on the NRA?

That works for me.

 

[iceberg]

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

....

There is no conspiracy, the NRA does not hide in any way their actions.

Also, I did not say the NRA was evil, just that it wielded a lot of power, just like many other lobbyist.

Kind of hard for me to take seriously that the NRA does not hold any power when a one hour meeting with the POTUS can get him to sing a whole new song.

People on the right used to lament about the power of lobbyist in DC, yet when those folks are lobbying for them, well then is is not an issue.

This is what I am talking about when I say there is very little difference between the "right" and the "left". One cannot complain there is too much outside influences on our elected officials and then cheer when that influence favors them.

so - let me be clear before we move on.

the NRA isn't hiding anything or lying to the people, correct? if not correct, please show the lies as a reference.
the NRA isn't evil, but they deserve this protest and boycott? if not what you're saying apologies - trying to pin this down so i know how to better respond.
if they deserve it, why? they're not lying or hiding anything. people just don't like it. if that's the reason for the boycott, great. but at least we'll have that baseline.

now we're to a hidden doors meeting where they made trump change his mind.
ok - could they have presented facts to trump he could not refute or are you saying they said "fall in line OR ELSE" and if OR ELSE then how can we say they're NOT evil? i'd consider that evil.

and for anyone of us it's seldom an issue when people in power lobby for us. not even sure what that shared characteristic is supposed to say other than taking a shared characteristic and putting it against one side only. that doesn't make sense to me.

so - NRA not lying or evil, just powerful. is this a correct summary of your stance on the NRA?

Trump is HARDLY falling in line with the NRA. Did you SEE that last big meeting of his? Holy cats! The leftists were practically wetting themselves with glee, and every person there on the right had a "WTF?!" look on their faces, like dogs listening to a high-pitched sound. This is the problem with having a President who doesn't have a solid ideology of his own, particularly when you couple it with the fact that he really knows very little about most of the policies and positions he talks about.

I listened all day yesterday to Trump supporters desperately trying to spin it into some "brilliant mousetrap maneuver" to catch out the left, and I'm thinking, "Yeah, or maybe his mouth just flaps without bothering to consult his brain."

i've not had a chance to dig into it yet. but like you say - trump caters to his audience thats for sure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

in history you can find examples of each rather easily. right now the dems rep is taking a beating and hard for their identity politics and attacks on people they *say* are attacking them. that style is dying or dead and they need to clean house and start over.

I am going to tell you, I just do not see this sort of thing as dying or dead, I see it getting worse as both sides do it more and more. Our president plays identity politics on a daily basis, and it is what makes him so very popular among his faithful. They call it "not be PC" or "being a man" but it is nothing but identity politics taken to a whole new level by Trump.

I would suggest you start to follow Trump on Twitter and then come back and tell me that the days of identity politics are dead.

I agree with you about it getting worse, AND about the fact that it's very much become a two-sided game. On the other hand, I think that's why identity politics are on the way out, however much it might not look that way right now. I think the fact that the right is turning it back on its originators indicates how fed up people are with it, and I think that's only going to escalate.

 

[iceberg]

so - let me be clear before we move on.

the NRA isn't hiding anything or lying to the people, correct? if not correct, please show the lies as a reference.

If the NRA were hiding anything, then we would not know about it. But in general they seem to be very open about their power and their goals.

the NRA isn't evil, but they deserve this protest and boycott? if not what you're saying apologies - trying to pin this down so i know how to better respond.
if they deserve it, why? they're not lying or hiding anything. people just don't like it. if that's the reason for the boycott, great. but at least we'll have that baseline.

I have never said they deserved the boycott, not once. I have no issue with people boycotting the people boycotting the NRA. I think that his how these things should be handled, in the marketplace. If you do not like what Delta did, do not give them your money. For those that agree with Delta, then give them more of your money.

As for me I have never taken political positions of a company into account when I choose to spend my money

My whole issue has been with the response of the government in coming to their defense. I could really not care less what private companies do as I feel they have the right to do whatever they want. The government does not have that same freedom, the government is supposed to represent everyone, not just one group over another. Every Time the government interferes with anything like this they are taking away just one more piece of our liberty that will never come back. I am of the mindset that personal liberty trumps just about everything else.

now we're to a hidden doors meeting where they made trump change his mind.
ok - could they have presented facts to trump he could not refute or are you saying they said "fall in line OR ELSE" and if OR ELSE then how can we say they're NOT evil? i'd consider that evil.

I do not know what they did, all I know is before the meeting the POTUS had one position and after he had another. That is power, you cannot deny it. We also have to keep in mind though that Trump changes his mind more than most people change their underwear and he also tends to agree with whatever group is in front of him, so I guess that tempers some of the power the NRA might hold over him.

and for anyone of us it's seldom an issue when people in power lobby for us. not even sure what that shared characteristic is supposed to say other than taking a shared characteristic and putting it against one side only. that doesn't make sense to me.

Then I should never hear another person complain again about money in politics...

so - NRA not lying or evil, just powerful. is this a correct summary of your stance on the NRA?

That works for me.

you're always going to hear people complain.

as for gov and the "marketplace" well this is taxpayer money. if their base doesn't want to give this subsidy to delta anymore then that is their right to do so. or not do in this case. i do agree GA acted quickly but i also believe they feel they represent their base and their base will agree. if not they can speak up and this is their role to do so, not mine to tell them how to govern themselves.

i do see your point and on most we agree, on this we don't.

hope you have a great friday

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

....

There is no conspiracy, the NRA does not hide in any way their actions.

Also, I did not say the NRA was evil, just that it wielded a lot of power, just like many other lobbyist.

Kind of hard for me to take seriously that the NRA does not hold any power when a one hour meeting with the POTUS can get him to sing a whole new song.

People on the right used to lament about the power of lobbyist in DC, yet when those folks are lobbying for them, well then is is not an issue.

This is what I am talking about when I say there is very little difference between the "right" and the "left". One cannot complain there is too much outside influences on our elected officials and then cheer when that influence favors them.

so - let me be clear before we move on.

the NRA isn't hiding anything or lying to the people, correct? if not correct, please show the lies as a reference.
the NRA isn't evil, but they deserve this protest and boycott? if not what you're saying apologies - trying to pin this down so i know how to better respond.
if they deserve it, why? they're not lying or hiding anything. people just don't like it. if that's the reason for the boycott, great. but at least we'll have that baseline.

now we're to a hidden doors meeting where they made trump change his mind.
ok - could they have presented facts to trump he could not refute or are you saying they said "fall in line OR ELSE" and if OR ELSE then how can we say they're NOT evil? i'd consider that evil.

and for anyone of us it's seldom an issue when people in power lobby for us. not even sure what that shared characteristic is supposed to say other than taking a shared characteristic and putting it against one side only. that doesn't make sense to me.

so - NRA not lying or evil, just powerful. is this a correct summary of your stance on the NRA?

Trump is HARDLY falling in line with the NRA. Did you SEE that last big meeting of his? Holy cats! The leftists were practically wetting themselves with glee, and every person there on the right had a "WTF?!" look on their faces, like dogs listening to a high-pitched sound. This is the problem with having a President who doesn't have a solid ideology of his own, particularly when you couple it with the fact that he really knows very little about most of the policies and positions he talks about.

I listened all day yesterday to Trump supporters desperately trying to spin it into some "brilliant mousetrap maneuver" to catch out the left, and I'm thinking, "Yeah, or maybe his mouth just flaps without bothering to consult his brain."

i've not had a chance to dig into it yet. but like you say - trump caters to his audience thats for sure.

I can't remember having ever seen anyone who is more of a walking ego with a body attached than Donald Trump.

Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Gun Control