Political Roundtable Part XV

[CobraCommander]

Read on Twitter

Hugging aint leading but it does show compassion.


THe mayor appears to be a compassionate person...but i dont know if she has the skills or support needed to lead San Juan through this situation. AND THATS NOT A BAD THING....we make it seem like leaders have to know what to do in every situation. She is a DR manager...she is a mayor. The gov does have pros that plan and deal with these types of things...put them in to help.

[stilldropin20]

you pass legislation to take every gun off the street and criminals or crazy people that want guns will still get them. or use poison, or bombs, or vehicles, or machetes.

i dont think you do more than put a small dent in homicide due to losing efficiency say a car vs automatic rifle. do you give up the 2nd amendment for a small dent in efficiency? and what happens when these crazies learn to use poisons instead of guns? and they get into water supplies?

Now if that small dent really matters. and it should, maybe we can discontinue manufacturing and selling all the ammo for the current automatic weapons and semi automatic with large clips? make them useless over time cuz no ammo. same for large clips. get large clips out.

then make new "smart" guns and offer to trade in old gunz for new ones for free. recoup cost over time in taxes from ammo. then use technology to help? gun n ammo gps tracking systems? where licensed gun owner's phone, their gun, and that ammo must be used together? and the gun is always tracked. a national data base goes off when the weapon is loaded (call it a yellow light). another light goes off when safety is disengaged (call it a red light). all yellow lights get tracked. all red lights get called in. if gun is fired another sensor goes off (call it a green light). responders respond immediately to all green lights. green lights must be preauthorized unless its self defense. after 6 shots the gun is turned off? the phone gives up the location of where the shots were fired and also simultaneously beginning recording audio and video.

when the gun comes into proximity of large amounts of ammo the gun is turned off? red light call goes out. officer must respond. at home none of these restrictions apply to allow for ample self defense at home.

basically a "smart" gun n ammo is the future.

[dobrojim]

The last person one might expect -- 64 year old white male. Well that's not true the advanced age is the last thing one would expect.

As bad as this tragedy is it would have been even worse had it been a Muslim or a black man or an Arab.

About the only thing I can say is there is a need to try to limit the number of automatic weapons.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using RealGM mobile app

33,000 people die per year from guns, but we're more worried about Muslims than we are about guns. Makes sense?

And voter fraud. There's been something like 31 cases of voter impersonation since 2000.

[I_Like_Dirt]

you pass legislation to take every gun off the street and criminals or crazy people that want guns will still get them. or use poison, or bombs, or vehicles, or machetes.

(1) Poison, bombs and vehicles all require much more planning and follow-through than getting a gun, finding a spot and shooting. Vehicles less so, I suppose, but you're much more exposed there - and it isn't exactly hard to use vehicles now, either, yet gun violence is much more prevalent. Nobody ever killed and wounded so many people from 1200 feet with a machete.

(2) You don't pass legislation to take every gun off the street. You stop dumping so many new guns into the street every day and clamp down on ammunition to start with. All those guns out there are suddenly a lot less useful once that ammunition dries up. And yes, bad guys will still find ways to get ammunition, but the guys who tend to go on shooting sprees are going to have a much more difficult time with it. You aren't going to get rid of gun violence completely - nowhere has ever eradicated it completely, really - but you are going to start causing a decline in it. It works if there is political will behind it and it isn't intentionally being sabotaged at every turn by people who would rather have guns than see less people die. Yeah, yeah, we get it, people need to be able to fight off the evil government when they come for them, but that really isn't possible anymore. The only people they're actually fighting off should push ever actually come to shove are unarmed civilians.

(3) Yes, it can work. Just look at smoking legislation. Smoking hasn't been eradicated, but it's decreased dramatically. Why wouldn't we want to attempt to have similar results with mass shootings and gun violence?

[stilldropin20]

So if I got this straight, you guys as a whole are basically 100% behind restricting the second amendment and in some cases the first assessment.

Yet no one is serious at all about wealth inequality besides one poster. And his proposals barely make a dent.

You guy's step back and think about the bigger picture like that?

As for vehicular homicide rates being low compared to guns. It's only cuz the guns are easier n more efficient. Get rid of the guns and vehicles into crowds becomes one of the next most efficient and those rate will then increase.

Monste, posted a kool aid thing with jim Jones a while back. Jim Jones got a lot of people that day with poison in the kool aide.

The world is always gong to have a very very small percent of "crazies." They will unfortunately do some crazy things.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

Hugging aint leading but it does show compassion.

THe mayor appears to be a compassionate person...but i dont know if she has the skills or support needed to lead San Juan through this situation. AND THATS NOT A BAD THING....we make it seem like leaders have to know what to do in every situation. She is a DR manager...she is a mayor. The gov does have pros that plan and deal with these types of things...put them in to help.

Here is the thing... PR was already bankrupt before this happened. Their infrastructure was a mess and their power grid was failing (a couple of articles on the mess):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/23/puerto-rico-electricity-returns-outage
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/403291009/power-problems-puerto-ricos-electric-utility-faces-crippling-debt

So, to fix this was going to be really messy. The best you could really do is to offer anyone on the island (our American Citizens) the offer to move them to the mainland (either permanently or temporarily). But that is moving 3.5M people. And this is the Trump administration you are talking about.

Then they need to basically refit the Island with solar. It may not matter though - they are so far under financially that I don't see them recovering.

And people were leaving before:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/americas/puerto-rico-exodus/index.html

And this will just accelerate the loss and make it impossible to recover financially.

[Wizardspride]

Mueller Tasks an Adviser With Getting Ahead of Pre-Emptive Pardons

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Yet no one is serious at all about wealth inequality besides one poster. And his proposals barely make a dent.

This is inaccurate - we just don't want to do it by seizing assets.

[I_Like_Dirt]

So if I got this straight, you guys as a whole are basically 100% behind restricting the second amendment and in some cases the first assessment.

Yet no one is serious at all about wealth inequality besides one poster. And his proposals barely make a dent.

You guy's step back and think about the bigger picture like that?

As for vehicular homicide rates being low compared to guns. It's only cuz the guns are easier n more efficient. Get rid of the guns and vehicles into crowds becomes one of the next most efficient and those rate will then increase.

Monste, posted a kool aid thing with jim Jones a while back. Jim Jones got a lot of people that day with poison in the kool aide.

The world is always gong to have a very very small percent of "crazies." They will unfortunately do some crazy things.

Trust me, I'm 100% for wealth redistribution, I just disagree with you on how to go about it, and based on your posts, it's pretty clear we're going to have to agree to disagree on that side of things.

And this isn't about a small percent of "crazies" (a term among many which I really think we need to stop using because it absolutely isn't accurate or helpful in any way, but that's another debate for another time). The reality is that many other countries have been far more successful at limiting gun violence than the USA has. Sure, people argue that it isn't guns that are the problem, but there really is no good reason not to try given that so many other countries seem to think it helps. It isn't like there are massively amazing arguments for having so many firearms on the streets and so poorly regulated - it really just boils down that people want it that way because they like guns. Understandable, but not a particularly good reason not to try to stop so many people from killing each other so effectively.

[stilldropin20]

So if I got this straight, you guys as a whole are basically 100% behind restricting the second amendment and in some cases the first assessment.

Yet no one is serious at all about wealth inequality besides one poster. And his proposals barely make a dent.

You guy's step back and think about the bigger picture like that?

As for vehicular homicide rates being low compared to guns. It's only cuz the guns are easier n more efficient. Get rid of the guns and vehicles into crowds becomes one of the next most efficient and those rate will then increase.

Monste, posted a kool aid thing with jim Jones a while back. Jim Jones got a lot of people that day with poison in the kool aide.

The world is always gong to have a very very small percent of "crazies." They will unfortunately do some crazy things.

Trust me, I'm 100% for wealth redistribution, I just disagree with you on how to go about it, and based on your posts, it's pretty clear we're going to have to agree to disagree on that side of things.

And this isn't about a small percent of "crazies" (a term among many which I really think we need to stop using because it absolutely isn't accurate or helpful in any way, but that's another debate for another time). The reality is that many other countries have been far more successful at limiting gun violence than the USA has. Sure, people argue that it isn't guns that are the problem, but there really is no good reason not to try given that so many other countries seem to think it helps. It isn't like there are massively amazing arguments for having so many firearms on the streets and so poorly regulated - it really just boils down that people want it that way because they like guns. Understandable, but not a particularly good reason not to try to stop so many people from killing each other so effectively.

I dunno. Seems like not having concert venues or large gatherings near high rises like what happened in Vegas is far more effective and could begin tomorrow.

Remove the high ground. And the shooter wound need to be I the ground where cops and security van deal with quickly.

I propose that this shooter. A. Would not have been able to even bring his weapons to the venue. B. Not gotten off more than 1 clip of a handgun before being engaged by law enforcement. You know the police that ran into the gun fire 2 nights ago to save lives. Those Same police are trained to engage shooters quickly on the ground. Severely reducing his efficiency to not much more than if he drove a truck into the crowd.

Large gatherings can no longer be near high rises. We can pass this law tomorrow. Everyone will sign it. Then make sure security and police are ample on the ground for large gatherings. No gun legislature needed for that. And everyone would be behind it right now due political pressure from the vegas tragedy. Name the bill after the victims. 100% support right now.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[dobrojim]

Trust me, I'm 100% for wealth redistribution, I just disagree with you on how to go about it, and based on your posts, it's pretty clear we're going to have to agree to disagree on that side of things.

And this isn't about a small percent of "crazies" (a term among many which I really think we need to stop using because it absolutely isn't accurate or helpful in any way, but that's another debate for another time). The reality is that many other countries have been far more successful at limiting gun violence than the USA has. Sure, people argue that it isn't guns that are the problem, but there really is no good reason not to try given that so many other countries seem to think it helps. It isn't like there are massively amazing arguments for having so many firearms on the streets and so poorly regulated - it really just boils down that people want it that way because they like guns. Understandable, but not a particularly good reason not to try to stop so many people from killing each other so effectively.

The scary and arguably anti-democratic aspect of this is that a small minority of people
have been able to effectively thwart the will of a significant majority.

I saw some data yesterday on the percentage of all firearms owned by a tiny fraction of the
overall population. Some people are nuts (IMO obviously).

[cammac]

Wealth distribution isn't a one line solution and if SD20 limit people to a 100 million is absurd. People have the right to accumulate as much wealth as they can in there lifetime. After that that wealth needs to be redistributed inheritance taxes can definitely help. Lets say 0 to 3 million zero tax, 3.01 to 5 million 10%, 5.01 million to 10 million 20%, 10.1 to 50 million 25%, 50.1 to 100 million 35%, 100.1 to 150 million 50%, over 150.1 million 75%. To give a example the Koch brothers are old and worth 82 billion so 62 billion goes into the public coffers. I believe in simplified tax rates but also like harmonized sales taxes which produce significant income and with rebates do not hurt the less fortunate. Again taxes on corporations should be lowered but with that the loophole that companies like Exxon use to pay zero taxes be closed. Obviously getting rid of a minimum tax is absolutely nuts re Trump in 2008 would have paid zero tax.

[DCZards]

I dunno. Seems like not having concert venues or large gatherings near high rises like what happened in Vegas is far more effective and could begin tomorrow.

Remove the high ground. And the shooter wound need to be I the ground where cops and security van deal with quickly.

I propose that this shooter. A. Would not have been able to even bring his weapons to the venue. B. Not gotten off more than 1 clip of a handgun before being engaged by law enforcement. You know the police that ran into the gun fire 2 nights ago to save lives. Those Same police are trained to engage shooters quickly on the ground. Severely reducing his efficiency to not much more than if he drove a truck into the crowd.

Large gatherings can no longer be near high rises. We can pass this law tomorrow. Everyone will sign it. Then make sure security and police are ample on the ground for large gatherings. No gun legislature needed for that. And everyone would be behind it right now due political pressure from the vegas tragedy. Name the bill after the victims. 100% support right now.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

That's a band-aid approach at best. All it would do is further erode our freedoms. On top of that, mass killers would just find another way to kill people, and we all would eventually be fearful of going to any concerts, sporting events or other large gatherings.

We need to stop turning a blind eye to our "gun problem" and do something about it. I'm not holding my breath though. I thought Sandy Hook was the tipping point...but I was obviously wrong.

[stilldropin20]

I dunno. Seems like not having concert venues or large gatherings near high rises like what happened in Vegas is far more effective and could begin tomorrow.

Remove the high ground. And the shooter wound need to be I the ground where cops and security van deal with quickly.

I propose that this shooter. A. Would not have been able to even bring his weapons to the venue. B. Not gotten off more than 1 clip of a handgun before being engaged by law enforcement. You know the police that ran into the gun fire 2 nights ago to save lives. Those Same police are trained to engage shooters quickly on the ground. Severely reducing his efficiency to not much more than if he drove a truck into the crowd.

Large gatherings can no longer be near high rises. We can pass this law tomorrow. Everyone will sign it. Then make sure security and police are ample on the ground for large gatherings. No gun legislature needed for that. And everyone would be behind it right now due political pressure from the vegas tragedy. Name the bill after the victims. 100% support right now.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

That's a band-aid approach at best. All it would do is further erode our freedoms. On top of that, mass killers would just find another way to kill people, and we all would eventually be fearful of going to any concerts, sporting events or other large gatherings.

We need to stop turning a blind eye to our "gun problem" and do something about it. I'm not holding my breath though. I thought Sandy Hook was the tipping point...but I was obviously wrong.

So they would find another way to kill people? On that we most assuredly agree. Restricting guns or not.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[stilldropin20]

Wealth distribution isn't a one line solution and if SD20 limit people to a 100 million is absurd. People have the right to accumulate as much wealth as they can in there lifetime. After that that wealth needs to be redistributed inheritance taxes can definitely help. Lets say 0 to 3 million zero tax, 3.01 to 5 million 10%, 5.01 million to 10 million 20%, 10.1 to 50 million 25%, 50.1 to 100 million 35%, 100.1 to 150 million 50%, over 150.1 million 75%. To give a example the Koch brothers are old and worth 82 billion so 62 billion goes into the public coffers. I believe in simplified tax rates but also like harmonized sales taxes which produce significant income and with rebates do not hurt the less fortunate. Again taxes on corporations should be lowered but with that the loophole that companies like Exxon use to pay zero taxes be closed. Obviously getting rid of a minimum tax is absolutely nuts re Trump in 2008 would have paid zero tax.

A very convincing argument can be made by even a dumb that Wealth inequality hurts faaaaaaaaaaaaar more than guns. Millions are living in poverty right now. Depressed. Suicidal. Mean. angry. Taking that Anger out on others. Turning to drugs. Both consumption and selling. Making streets more violent. Then using those same guns to control their drug turf.

Wealth inequality is at the end of almost all these rabbit holes.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[I_Like_Dirt]

I dunno. Seems like not having concert venues or large gatherings near high rises like what happened in Vegas is far more effective and could begin tomorrow.

Remove the high ground. And the shooter wound need to be I the ground where cops and security van deal with quickly.

I propose that this shooter. A. Would not have been able to even bring his weapons to the venue. B. Not gotten off more than 1 clip of a handgun before being engaged by law enforcement. You know the police that ran into the gun fire 2 nights ago to save lives. Those Same police are trained to engage shooters quickly on the ground. Severely reducing his efficiency to not much more than if he drove a truck into the crowd.

Large gatherings can no longer be near high rises. We can pass this law tomorrow. Everyone will sign it. Then make sure security and police are ample on the ground for large gatherings. No gun legislature needed for that. And everyone would be behind it right now due political pressure from the vegas tragedy. Name the bill after the victims. 100% support right now.

No more large gatherings in New York, Chicago, LA, or any other major metropolitcan area. Seems far more realistic than starting to regulate guns even a little bit. (No, I don't do green sarcasm - the sarcasm should be obvious). And how many mass shootings does that actually stop? Not as many as you think given how many just happen on the streets or at schools or whatever. Hmmm... Well, now we basically need a curfew and passes to go walking on the streets and schools are out, too, because it's easier to close schools than regulate guns - plus, closing schools saves taxpayer dollars allowing for lower taxes.

You know what? Scrap that, it's already too complicated. Let's just go with mandating everyone walk around in a bullet-proof bubble. Anyone outside of said bubble when not in their own home is fair game to be shot, purge style. There's one catch, though. We only need a single piece of gun control legislation: everyone can have as many guns as they want but they can only be fired inside of their own bulletproof bubble. Any gunshot outside of such a bubble is immediately gunned down by drones from above. I think that sounds like freedom to me.

My point here is that taking things to extremes to prove a point is of limited value. There is no good reason at all not to start regulating even a bit, and slowly work things towards better controlling the issue. As I mentioned earlier, the only reason for having firearms out there so uncontrolled without any attempts to contain them is that people like guns. And I get it - it's just not a good enough reason not to try to limit the number of people from dying needlessly. You don't have to prevent every single gun crime to benefit society; this isn't an all or nothing situation on either side. Japan seems to have reasonable gun laws. Cars kill lots of people, like guns, and cars are far more useful in general life and yet they are also far more regulated than guns.

[Wizardspride]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-praises-himself-for-administrations-great-job-in-puerto-rico/2017/10/03/fdb5eeb4-a83a-11e7-8ed2-c7114e6ac460_story.html

[quote]President Trump on Tuesday told Puerto Rico officials they should feel "very proud" they haven't lost thousands of lives like in "a real catastrophe like Katrina," while adding that the devastated island territory has thrown the nation's budget "a little out of whack."

"Every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina, and you look at the tremendous — hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died, and you look at what happened here, with really a storm that was just totally overpowering, nobody's ever seen anything like this," Trump said, before turning to a local official to ask how many people had died in storm. "What is your death count as of this moment? 17? 16 people certified, 16 people versus in the thousands."
[/quo

Read on Twitter

te]

[Wizardspride]

I don't know if anyone's watching Trump's press conference but he LITERALLY fishing for compliments and praise.

Speechless...

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[cammac]

I don't know if anyone's watching Trump's press conference but he LITERALLY fishing for compliments and praise.

Speechless...

The man is the biggest attention W---e ever. A totally dispicable man.