Thakkar

52 minutes ago, Tonyt00 said:

Just arm all the teachers and students. 

Don’t forget the janitors and lunch ladies! Good guys with mops can’t stop bad guys with guns!

48 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

It seems this is, for many, the price there is to pay, to have the privilege to bear arms. 

 

This is something, unless one is American, unattainable to understand. 

 

Impossible to debate as well. 

Let me help.

Study after study after study shows that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of gun control. So what’s preventing such legislation—which can be done without breaching the 2nd Amendment—from being enacted? Various local,  state and federal congresspeople, the vast majority of them Republican, but a good number of Dems and independents as well, are beholden, not to their voters, but to pro gun interests.

It’s really that simple. You don’t have to be American to understand it.

Also, the 2nd A is not God’s law. It’s Man’s law—it too can be changed.

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

I think this is an excellent idea and I think more and more people will come around to thinking so as well. People who are incarcerated are already paying their debt to society no need to disenfranchise them further. People with some skin in the game make for a better society.

It’s even more fundamental than that. The prison population is counted as part of the area’s population when allocating legislative seats, other representation, some resources, etc. Yet have no say, thus giving those in the area who are not in prison disproportionate power. This is fundamentally undemocratic. It also means criminals who haven’t been caught, and continue to commit crimes get to vote while those paying for their crimes, don’t.

On 4/25/2019 at 8:03 PM, Becker said:

Wow, those are some serious character flaws you have listed, especially considering the moral and intellectual beacon they'll be running against!

Please. Too harsh, dude.

Who among us hasn’t cheated on three wives, divorced two, slept with porn stars (then illegally paid them off to keep quite), bragged about grabbing pussies, publicly lusted after own daughter, accidentally on purpose walked into teen dressing rooms to ogle at naked teens, starred in soft porn, married a soft porn star, run penny ante scams, stolen from charities, laundered money, started a fake university, defrauded investors, skipped on bank loans, faked billionaire status, palled around with child sex trafficker Jeff Epstein, flirted with nazis, or publicly told 12 blatant lies a day, every day?

Let he who hasn’t done *all* those things throw the first stone!

10 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

A beating from most probably Mexicans, classified probably as a hate crime in jail. It sounds to me like he got off easy, this time, with a broken rib. 

 

Having to fear stuff like this is part of your sentence. It is part of the deterent too. If jails were cozy places where you had your own cell and were protected from other prisoners, there would most likely be a lot more crime. 

Actually the opposite is true.

Prison systems where inmates are treated with respect, provided safety and reasonable living conditions, along with some training, lead to much lower recidivism rates. The trick is to get the balance right between punishment and rehabilitation. Some countries have figured it out. Others can learn from that and adapt it to their conditions. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

I’d expand on this, but we’d then be going way off topic.

23 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Accusations against Clinton - false. Accusations against Trump - true.

 

FCKU any evidence, biased investigations etc etc.

 

So easy when your political view is good, others bad.

I guess, despite my effort,  re litigation *is* on the cards, so here goes:

Trump University scam - settled out of court, with Trump paying compensation.

Trump Foundation - shut down due to self dealing. Still under investigation.

Trump Casinos - multiple fines for money laundering 

Trump and his dad - convicted and fined for law-breaking on rental exclusion

Again, just off the top of my head.

Clinton: Benghazi, emails, Whitewater - thorough, years long multiple, exhaustive investigations turned up no indictable crimes by her.

For Trump, there are still multiple on-going investigations that may yet turn up more crimes.

For Hillary, the fact that no indictable crimes were uncovered just proves, in detractors’ eyes, that she is super duper deviously clever. If so, that alone would’ve made her a better President than the dufus Trump who can’t even manage to get away with penny-ante crimes!

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

in the last election the choice was between a war mongering political hack who used their influence to enrich themselves, versus a con man who could only dream of how he might enrich himself, win or lose. The responsible choice was to vote for neither. Would you be worse off if you had? 

 

On your last question, yes; a few things immediately come to mind:

The US would not have withdrawn from the Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear deal. Flawed as they were, the situation is now made worse, especially in the case of the latter, and especially for the lives of ordinary Iranians.

Khossoggi would probably still be alive, or at least died a less gruesome death.

The despicable corporatists, Garouch and Kavanaugh would not be on the SC. They will be setting back, or at the very least, slowing down progress for a generation.

Trans people in the military would not be in the untenable situation they are in and the door for new recruits would not be shut tight.

muslims from about a dozen countries seeking medical treatment or family reunions would not be barred.

Family separation at the border would not be the robust policy it is today, and at least fewer, if not zero kids in cages. 

800, 000 DACA recipients would not be living in fear and limbo.

Arguably, Palestinians would not be as despondent as they are. 

Millions would not have lost (or be paying more for) healthcare.

these are just off the top of my head. No doubt there’s more.

I’ve gone on too long, so will refrain from re litigating all the false accusations against Clinton. 

16 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

To be fair, sometimes there are no good choices to vote for. Your "least worst choice" may be different than someone else's but it's still someone you wish hadn't won. That's why I never recommend that people vote for the least worst candidate. Vote for the one that you think is best. Maybe they'll win, probably they won't, but you wouldn't have liked that "least worst" candidate anyway so what have you got to lose?

I disagree. Firstly, there’s a lot to lose, as the election of Trump shows. I’m aware (if I remember correctly) that you voted third party. Unlike others, I wouldn’t say it was a wasted vote, as it did send a message, though one can dispute if that message was in any way meaningful or  consequential. But my following comment are not directed at you personally. They are directed at the argument I think you are making, and, it is a common argument, not entirely without merit. It is an argument, I feel, borne of exasperation as opposed to hope (or, in the case of Trump voters—anger). At best it is an argument borne of unrealistic hope.

There may never be ideal choices, but there are always better choices. All politicians are not the same. There are bad ones, worse ones, and no so bad ones. There really are people who go into politics for the greater good, and they achieve tangible results. I’ve known many, and I’ve worked for one.

The American system is seriously flawed, no doubt. But, I’d argue, not fundamentally so. It stands on the three pillars of an admirable constitution, robust Bill of Rights, and separation of powers. Under Trump, and years of successive Presidents concentrating power in their office, that third leg of this stool is barely holding up, but still holding. There’s also the added democratic protection of Federation as the US is a collection of fairly independent States.

on the issue of voting, the choices are often not as depressingly dire as excessively cynical people like to argue. Women should have control over their bodies. That doesn’t mean I support abortion. It means I shouldn’t decide for them. Trade Unions should be robust, supported and every worker encouraged to join. Sure, Trade Union leaders can be corrupted, like any human. There are sensible solutions to that short of eliminating trade unions. The vulnerable in society need to be protected and supported. Yes, there will be scroungers, but, again there are solutions that have already been figured out. Even then there will be scroungers. So be it; the greater good is still served. Religion does not belong in government. Billionaires don’t need more tax cuts. Trickle down doesn’t work.

There are politicians on the right side of these issues, and others that are on the wrong side of those issues. And, yes, there is a clear right and wrong. Voting for the third party candidate (or staying home) may send a message, but risks giving power to the politician on the clearly wrong side of those issues.

Part of the public apathy stems from the right wing's cynical assertions of dishonesty and malfeasance where none existed (think Whitewater, Monica, "I invented the internet", Swift-boats, Birtherism, Benghazi, etc) and the media's unwillingness to sort out real corruption from partisan opportunism. Too many people believe the system is irretrievably iniquitous and so when a real corrupt leader like Trump comes along they see it as business as usual. 

It's an old story --- the boy who cried wolf. Well, we have real wolf now.

50 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Despite his xenophopic ideology, the fact remains he's a geriatric citizen in stir. Thye probably should have looked after him better.

Not following this case closely so don’t know the nitty gritty. Elderly care in America is unbecoming of a skef-proclaimed “great” nation that has the money for military spending ten time more than their nearest rival. Speaking in general terms, I think it’s a fair assumption that people like this man would oppose orgs like the ACLU (except when they specifically help him) and have voted for politicians that have eliminated needed funding for things like elderly care. I don’t feel a sense of “som-na-na” but rather sadness.

that is why talking heads on fox, and, sometimes, the other channels anger me so much, because they surely know better, but continue to spout falsehoods that con people into voting against their own interests.

I’m aware that that sounds condescending to the people who vote for those politicians, as if I’m calling them stupid. People vote certain ways for many reasons. It could be religious. It could be emotional (same thing, come to think of it). It could be racism. It could be misinformation. It could be pro or anti tax cuts. But it could also be stupidity, and the associated susceptibility to being conned.