Your replies to your credit showed grace and humility. However you err in taking @mkjayakumar to task for portraying a group of people he knows nothing about as stupid and arrogant. Pretty much every day there is fresh proof the WH group are stupid, arrogant and worse. Anyone not in a reality blackout knows plenty about this group.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Politics - Quarantine Thread
- Thread starter steve841
- Start date
- Status
Your replies to your credit showed grace and humility. However you err in taking @mkjayakumar to task for portraying a group of people he knows nothing about as stupid and arrogant. Pretty much every day there is fresh proof the WH group are stupid, arrogant and worse. Anyone not in a reality blackout knows plenty about this group.
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
AH but at least most of them are old world creationists.
Pence is a YOUNG earth creationist. IE The earth is less than 10,000 years old.
It all depends on whose reporting you listen to. Since you KNOW (right?) that the press is partisan on both sides, how can you tell which version of WH events is accurate? Anyways, I stand by my assertion that it is arrogant to think you know something based on third hand reports, especially when you know such reports are biased (both ways). I always approach politicians based on what actually happens, not on rhetoric or reporting of events. What bills get passed, what regulations get repealed or put in place, how the economy is doing, etc.
The usual false equivalence. There is a huge difference between the accuracy of say Fox Propaganda and MSNBC.
Is it really factually in doubt as to whether WH chief of staff knew POTUS secretary had abused ex wives and was allowed to serve despite not having received a security clearance? Is it factually in doubt that WH was briefed by Justice Dept on Jan. 26,2017 that Gen. Flynn had
been compromised by the Russians and was a blackmail risk? Or that Flynn continued to have access to top secret national security information for over two weeks before being fired on Feb 13?
These and a million others are not 'third hand reports' they are part of the public record. They are facts.
Facts many are willing to consciously ignore because they won't make a responsible citizens effort to critically question and independently verify the news they consume.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Reciprocity
Active Member
I have no clue what you are talking about. I was just responding to the fact that they are crazy, because they are wrong about the statement you made. My guess is that they are wrong about a lot of things. I am not a Republican, I am sane and rational so that makes me not able to be part of any political party. The problem is that we live in a world of extremists on both sides that exaggerate and obfuscate everything to point where everyone is left supporting the lesser of 2 evils and hoping they do less damage then the other guys.
I would prefer no parties, but thats not the way things are setup. That way ideas would win the day instead of picking sides and going to war. Its gotten so bad that even Judges are partisan hacks. Journalists on both sides are clearly in the bag for each party. Its rather sad and disgusting really. I just happen to think Trump is going to do less damage then Clinton would have. I would have preferred many others, but that was the choice.
I also do not think trump gives two craps about Tesla and isnt doing anything specific to take down Tesla. If anything, the tarrifs only help Tesla and all the EV and Solar related tax credits have been protected, and some recently extended. If he is trying to hurt Tesla, then he is doing a poor job of it.
Hey Coal is good for electric cars. Cheap electricity. Trump is fairly single minded in this stuff, its all about the jobs. It has nothing to do with hurting Tesla. If solar tariffs hurt jobs, I promise they will go away. My guess is that they are a bargaining chip. You can have a bargaining chip if you are unwilling to actually use it. I mean washing machines and solar. Mexico and China. There are many many products from many many countries, why those? Trump either hates Tesla and Solar or Clean clothes or both. Time will tell.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
You mean Boulder has been taken over by Trumpers ?
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
If we as Americans care about fatalities, don't you think we would try and stop drug deaths? You are twice as likely to die from drug overdoses than by car accidents. But we are passing laws to make drugs more accessible to people of all ages.
All you have to do to reduce the # of auto deaths is make it crime to kill somebody with your car in an 'accident'. Kaitlyn Jenner was driving with reckless disregard for human life on PCH and killed an innocent person. Not a day in jail, not even a 30 day license suspension. For manslaughter. I don't think she even got a ticket.
We consider driving stupidly and dangerously OK as long as we are not exceeding the posted limit, not racing, and not drunk. If you meet those three criteria, you can kill to your heart's desire. It's an accident to run over somebody because you weren't looking forward at the crosswalk. Not a crime. Just something that 'happens' to everybody. Acceptable driving.
All you have to do to reduce the # of auto deaths is make it crime to kill somebody with your car in an 'accident'. Kaitlyn Jenner was driving with reckless disregard for human life on PCH and killed an innocent person. Not a day in jail, not even a 30 day license suspension. For manslaughter. I don't think she even got a ticket.
We consider driving stupidly and dangerously OK as long as we are not exceeding the posted limit, not racing, and not drunk. If you meet those three criteria, you can kill to your heart's desire. It's an accident to run over somebody because you weren't looking forward at the crosswalk. Not a crime. Just something that 'happens' to everybody. Acceptable driving.
DFibRL8R
Active Member
A bit off topic but I can assure you there are a lot of people working on the opioid epidemic which has nothing to do with laws that "make drugs more accessible" (opiates are illegal to possess without prescription). Legalization of marijuana is not responsible for the recent spike in overdose deaths (unless you think it is the "gateway" drug that eventually leads to heroin.
As for reckless driving, I don't disagree with the sense that enforcement of distracted driving could be better. I'd like to see special licensing requirements to drive a full sized SUV/truck (and much stiffer penalities for moving violations and at fault accidents of these vehicles). Due to mass and height, they are more lethal (on average) to pedestrians and other drivers in collisions so I believe operators of these vehicles should meet a higher standard. The tragic collision that resulted in the death of a child in the 2nd row of a Model S is an example of this. Rare fatal accident in a Tesla Model S rear-ended by a large SUV in California
In my area, the unfortunate typical outcome of a pedestrian struck by a vehicle is finding the pedestrian at fault for not exercising "due regard" when entering a crosswalk. The logic goes something like, obviously the pedestrian wasn't paying attention when they were hit since they shouldn't have stepped into the crosswalk if it wasn't safe to do so. There is a problem of distracted pedestrians (smartphones, headphones) but clearly there is a problem with distracted drivers who just aren't actively looking out for pedestrian traffic in many cases.
One rare example of a modicum of justice occurred in my area recently with a tragic case where a man driving a Jeep Cherokee struck and killed an infant being pushed by his mother in a crosswalk in broad daylight. He received a year in jail and was fined $2,500 for reckless driving and $250 for failure to yield. Alcohol and cell phone/texting were found not to be factors in the case.
Va. driver in 2016 crash that killed 5-month-old boy gets 12 months in jail
Open borders to drug producing cartels, light to no sentencing (California in particular), more people and companies making a living sell drugs, more acceptance by the entertainment industry (people on NBC go to rehab, in real life, it's the morgue after rehab), etc.
There is no correlation to legalization of marijuana, just like there is no correlation to higher opioid deaths due to lighter sentencing and higher surveillance of doctors by the DEA.
The deaths just flew out a monkey's arse one sunny day at random. There was no cause and effect. It just happened. And continues to happen. It can't be attenuated much like car fatalities can't be attenuated by making cars safer. It's God's Will, it's Fate, it's Genetics, it's the CIA, it's Aliens trying to abolish humans.
Seriously, it's Americans who think that cause and effect doesn't exist and problems don't have solutions if they cramp your style.
DFibRL8R
Active Member
Probably a sensitive subject when you live in a town called Norco (which is the brand name for the opiate hydrocodone-acetaminophen)
Probably a sensitive subject when you live in a town called Norco (which is the brand name for the opiate hydrocodone-acetaminophen)
Actually, it's North Corona, a horse community. We don't have a problem with people taking horse tranquilizers, but we do arrest people for riding a horse while intoxicated. Seriously.
Inattention while driving kills. We know this. We are willing to make that sacrifice.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Moderator note (bmah): The first three posts of this thread came from a thread on personal safety.
That’s what we do here in Australia and our homocide rate is 1/5th of the yours.
Get into a helluva lot of slap fights though...
Best is for no one to have guns.
That’s what we do here in Australia and our homocide rate is 1/5th of the yours.
Get into a helluva lot of slap fights though...
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you 100 percent that society would be better off without guns and I am a lifetime NRA member.
Since criminals are never going to turn in theirs my family will be keepIng ours. Those without guns can still be killed by them.
Australia demographics are completely different than the United States. It’s like comparing kiwis and rutabagas.
My area of California is safer than Sydney and we have more firearms than what’s left in all of Australia including your military.
It’s demographics not Guns that are the drivers behind homicides.
I didn’t have firearms when I was in China and felt completely safe. Chinese are a law and order society.
Last edited:
Definitions of different crimes vary from one country to another, so it can be difficult to compare violent crime from one country to another. Some countries have a very low bar for what is considered assault (just shoving someone can be considered a serious crime) whereas the crime stats in another country may not classify an assault until someone is put in the hospital.
Several years ago a friend who grew up in the UK, moved to the US for a while, and then moved back (he married an American and was too heartbroken staying here after she died) told me that while the murder rate was higher in the US because guns were used for more assaults, overall assaults were more common in the UK. He had a black belt in karate and taught self defense classes.
I tried to make my own comparison of the violent crime rates between the two countries and couldn't come up with anything definitive because most US states have a fairly low bar for the definition of assault plus it varies from state to state and the crime statistics aren't all that granular. It did appear though that what most US states would define as at least misdemeanor assault is more common in the UK than in the US. I've heard alcohol fueled violence is more common in the UK than it is in the US. The threshold here for behavior when drunk is pretty low. People may do things in private places, but the cops will lock you up pretty quickly if you misbehave while drunk while out in public.
Another interesting statistic about the US and guns is the number of gun owners in the US has dropped in the last 10 years, while the total number of guns owned has gone up to a point where there are over 300 million out there (in a country of 310-320 million people). Conservative media and the NRA pumped the meme that Obama was going to come and take your guns, which spurred a relatively small segment of the population to go out and hoard them. Now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the presidency, the gun companies are in financial trouble. Remington will probably be filing for bankruptcy this year.
The legal stumbling block in the US is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It was written at a time when the most potent portable arm a person could have was a muzzle loading rifle which took a couple of minutes to reload. It was a good hunting weapon and could be used for some self defense, but as a weapon of war, you needed a lot of them concentrated in a small area to be very dangerous.
There is also an old argument about what exactly the 2nd amendment means. There is a phrase about "well regulated militia" which is an ad hoc military unit. It probably meant something akin to the minutemen rural farmers who would be rounded up and used as local military forces during the American Revolution. This has evolved into the National Guard today and inspired Israel and Switzerland to form their citizen armies.
As weaponry became more dangerous, the government putting limitations on private ownership of weapons didn't really get much argument. As infantry weapons developed hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, mortars, etc. There wasn't much resistance to banning them. Fully automatic weapons were legal until the 1930s and the Roosevelt administration managed to get new ownership banned, though ownership of older fully automatic weapons is still legal if the state allows it, though most states don't. And anyone who owns one must register it with the BATF and must submit to unannounced searches of their premises at any time to ensure the weapon is still there and kept in a certain manner.
Before 1980 Evangelical Christians didn't really have a strong association with either party, but in 1980 the Republicans strongly embraced anti-abortion which was a hot topic with the Evangelicals and they mostly joined the Reagan Revolution. Since then the conservative meme machine has worked to blend the idea the Bible is this rigid document only open to one interpretation (which some Christians, most of whom vote Republican now, believe) and the Constitution is the same way. At least the parts of the Constitution they want interpreted a certain way. The 2nd amendment is one of these.
There are some people who believe the 2nd Amendment allows someone to own any weapon and that it is sacrosanct and unyielding, even though you can't buy a nuclear weapon or even a fully automatic weapon made after some date in the 1930s.
There is plenty of precedent to limit weapon ownership. It's been done before. However, it's been mostly political suicide for anybody to try for the last 30 years. But that's changing and the counter current is getting stronger.
Getting rid of guns entirely is probably not going to happen though. It's too legally embedded in the Constitution and it would take a significant portion of the population believing they should be gone from private ownership along with an incredibly strong campaign to overcome the gun lobby. It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress plus 2/3 of state legislatures to approve a constitutional amendment. The US is nowhere near the unity necessary.
And if the US did ban guns, getting them out of criminal hands would take a decade or more and the violent crime rate would probably soar in the meantime. Other developed countries were able to ban guns and get them out of circulation both because they didn't have a constitution that guaranteed it, and there was usually less ownership in the first place.
My partner came up with a novel solution though, require liability insurance for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon. The gun lobby should be mixed about it because it would be another revenue stream for the gun industry, but it would be yielding a restriction on gun ownership. If the insurance also include a background check, then people could use it as a shortcut for buying guns in a shop. No need for gun shop owners to run background checks on everyone.
I've also thought for years that a person should be trained and have to pass a test to own or use a gun like learning to drive a car.
I expect this will probably be seen by few people and sent to snippiness since I have wandered from the topic. In a vain attempt to get back on topic... It probably is a bit more reassuring in another country with limited gun ownership that you know nobody hanging around a supercharger is carrying a gun, though they could have a knife or other weapon.
- Status
Similar threads
