Hanaguma

In other words, abortion up to birth. A radical position.

Getting a bit side tracked, but no I do not support the gag rule or the restrictions on abortion drugs. I am moderate, like most people, up to 15 weeks is enough I think. Democratic politicians are unable to say with clarity their position. For example, "I do not support 3rd trimester abortions except when the woman's life is at risk". They fall back on vague generalities and platitudes. As for the platform, it says, "We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion." Vague.

The Democratic Party platform mentions no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, which is an extreme position when compared with where the public at large sits. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/

..and how easy is it to find a doctor who will certify such a vague judgement?

Can you dig up the position of a Democratic member of Congress that does not feel that way? Because I have seen a number of interviews and they all use the facile euphemism "I support a woman's right to choose" without ever getting any pushback on what they actually mean in terms of what a cutoff day should be.

Green New Deal Abortion on demand up to birth

Tempting.

IMHO both parties have extreme wings that tend to suck a lot of the oxygen out of the room. Biden used to be a centrist, but the party has dragged him left and he is too weak to fight back much.

In other words, trends continued. Gun homicides decreased, yet overall homicides did not, which suggests that those who used guns previously simply changed to other weapons to commit their crimes. Ditto with suicides. Lack of guns didn't stop the people who wanted to end their lives. If you look at the chart provided by Still Kicking up the page, the overall number of murders did not change at all for 5 or 6 years after the gun law was passed. It DID stop most mass killings, but did nothing substantial to reduce crime/murder overall. In other words, ineffective.

Bombing the fentanyl factories and 'auditing' the cartel members would be a lot easier I think. Any other solutions?

Well, she DOES like to work under older men, so maybe VP is the best job for her. She has no experience in leadership whatsoever, no discernible political philosophy, and is remarkably poor on the retail political level. Remember how successful she was in the 2020 Democratic primaries?

Other possible solutions? Perhaps interdict the Mexican coastline to stop the precursor chemicals coming from China?

Care to provide some of these "splendid options"? Generally the sitting VP is the choice, but it seems that few people would be happy if she were the nominee. Like I wrote on another thread, a centrist like former Senator Tester of Montana could help bring the party back to the center and peel off some GOP votes.

I dont think that is quite the win that you think it is. Homicides were decreasing BEFORE 1996, strangely stayed level for 5-6 years after, then resumed the previous decrease. This shows that the law had no measurable impact on murder rates in Oz.

Many Americans point to the supposed results of the Australian experiment in trying to remove guns from citizens. The two are often compared.

I meant the one in the US that some politicians are trying to revive. And yes I have been to Oz on three occasions. Brisbane, Sydney, and Tasmania.

Getting on an over crowded boat after paying a scumbag human trafficker for the privilege? I would call that foolish.

No argument here. Oz was a poor choice and ran a very lackluster campaign. I pity the good people of Pennsylvania for having to choose between the two of them.

Funny thing happened after the assault weapons ban lapsed- the murder rate kept going down. Almost as if the ban had no impact...

How about we look at my link? According to it, the homocide rate in Australia flatlined after the gun control legislation (your link shows that as well), before resuming the downward trend that already existed BEFORE the laws. and overall violent crime (including robberies and armed robberies) actually INcreased. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn32226-eng.pdf Seems no relation between the law and crime in general at all. Rates for most crime went up until years later.

Blah blah blah. The story doesn't even say where the passengers were from, so how can you make that judgement? Plus, Italy hasn't been in the colonial business for a long while.

Trump too. That's why I said I want BOTH parties to choose new candidates. Also perhaps why so many Democrats want to dump him as candidate. The only think keeping him remotely in the picture is the dread spectre of Kamala Harris getting the nomination. Perhaps Joe's best decision was installing her as VP. What a great insurance policy...

OK, then educate me. What impact did the restrictions have on crime, murder, etc?

No it doesn't. The murder rate is the important number, not the manner in which the murders occur. As in most places, the horrible crimes that make headlines have very little impact on the raw statistics. Reducing mass shootings while not impacting the overall crime rate is no accomplishment.

The problem isn't the stutter, it is the obvious cognitive decline. Look at Joe in his VP days compared to now and tell me he hasn't visibly deteriorated.