Reports on all major news are that Trump's officially under investigation now for obstruction of justice by the independent counsel
No matter how bad it gets, or what gets reported, Trump supporters will simply not believe it, or, if things pan out the way I think they will, dismiss the entire thing as a liberal plot that had no merit and was an unfair witch hunt. What will never happen is admitting those who had this guy pegged from the beginning were right all along.
Also, we need to be careful....I've been told that us even talking about this caused a guy who has been living out of his car since March to shoot up a baseball field full of Congressmen. God only knows what kind of destruction and mayhem we will be responsible for if we persist.
Reports on all major news are that Trump's officially under investigation now for obstruction of justice by the independent counsel
No matter how bad it gets, or what gets reported, Trump supporters will simply not believe it, or, if things pan out the way I think they will, dismiss the entire thing as a liberal plot that had no merit and was an unfair witch hunt. What will never happen is admitting those who had this guy pegged from the beginning were right all along.
Also, we need to be careful....I've been told that us even talking about this caused a guy who has been living out of his car since March to shoot up a baseball field full of Congressmen. God only knows what kind of destruction and mayhem we will be responsible for if we persist.
Regardless of the truth of the Russia thing, and it's likely there's truth there based on unclassified things that we know, obstruction seems pretty clear cut.
When Admiral Mike Rogers, Dan Coats, Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions all get up in front of congress and stonewall, filibuster, forget conversations, can't recall meetings, they are impeding the investigation. There's four of them doing the same thing. It's clearly a coordinated effort.
They are not doing this without coordinating with someone telling them to do so. This isn't one guy this is all of them. They were all basically daring someone to do anything about it and it had been looking like they would just get away with it. That isn't even the only obstruction we know about there's the schenanigans of Devin Nunes and others too. Obstruction has been happening clearly.
If we want to talk about using a tragedy to further political ends, someone can watch the re-run of Hannity tonight. He broadcasts directly from the baseball field where the shooting took place and, I shit you not, called on Mueller and Rosenstein to resign.
If we want to talk about using a tragedy to further political ends, someone can watch the re-run of Hannity tonight. He broadcasts directly from the baseball field where the shooting took place and, I shit you not, called on Mueller and Rosenstein to resign.
that's code to Trump, who watches, to fire both. That would be a mistake of digging the hole bigger but he's an unreasonable guy who leaps before he looks if he's "slighted" so he'll probably do it.
Obstruction? Like the FBI being refused by the DNC when asked for a first hand look at the allegedly hacked DNC servers? Considering this is the absolute focal point of the narrative that's pretty big obstruction methinks.
Ultimately, what collusion and obstruction are is simply a door that leads to what is really lying under the surface of all this: money laundering. First off, Trump is not a legitimate billionaire, at least not anymore. Billionaires don't run scam universities and hawk frozen steaks in infomercials. When he went belly-up in Atlantic City, no American banks would touch him in regards to a loan. His financing has been coming from somewhere, and that place is Russia. And they aren't doing it because they think he's a swell guy. In my opinion, what we are going to find at the end of this yellow brick road, is that for at least the last decade, Trump's main source of capital has been the result of him laundering money for Russian oligarchs and mobsters through his real-estate properties and casinos.
My money is on Trump firing Mueller. He doesn't care how up in arms everyone gets about it. He's the most powerful man in the world, he will do what he wants when he wants it.
My money is on Trump firing Mueller. He doesn't care how up in arms everyone gets about it. He's the most powerful man in the world, he will do what he wants when he wants it.
Firing Mueller is as good as an admission of guilt for nearly anything you want to assume he is guilty of, at least for anyone with a lick of sense. If you are referring to the fact that Republicans, even at that point, won't care, you are correct, because they are just as bad as he is. But it will be a political abyss, or an abyss for whatever is left of the American experiment. This is also worth remembering:
Mueller, based on all reporting, is coming with seasoned financial crimes and espionage prosecutors. Trump cannot actually fire Mueller, though he can order Rod Rosenstein to do so. At which point, Rosenstein would have to decide whether he wants his reputation and career intact after this is over, or to go down with the ship. If he refuses and resigns, you have a carbon copy of the Saturday Night Massacre, in which Nixon simply went down the line of people in the Justice Department for someone to fire Archibald Cox, until he got to Robert Bork, who decided to go along with it. I don't doubt Trump will try fire Mueller. One thing you can COUNT on with Trump, is that he is a very dumb person who has convinced himself over the course of 50 years that he is one of the most brilliant people on Earth. He was able to con a significant minority of Americans into believing this as well, and 2/3rds of them will follow him to the gates of hell.
No, guns don't upset or bother me. People politicizing events in an effort to advance their agenda of limiting other people's freedoms bothers me.
People's freedoms have to be limited in a civilised society. You would presumably accept that there should be laws against murder and I imagine you think it's fair that there is at least some regard paid to health & safety - so that buildings for instance are not subject to constant collapse. It's therefore not an issue of principle, but where you strike the balance between personal freedom and rights of others.
Obstruction? Like the FBI being refused by the DNC when asked for a first hand look at the allegedly hacked DNC servers? Considering this is the absolute focal point of the narrative that's pretty big obstruction methinks.
Thinking that doesn't make it true. The hacked server is not the absolute focal point.
There are plenty of other focal points. There's Jeff Sessions secret meetings with the ambassador that he didn't disclose on security clearance forms. There's Jared Kushner doing the same and trying to set up a secret back channel to Russia. There's intercepted conversations of Russian operatives. Sometimes those recordings were talking to Trump campaign people. There's more than all that including Carter Paige, Paul Manaford, Chris Steele dossier and even more stuff that's been briefed to Congress in classified settings that we don't know.
Oh wait, back to obstruction. obstruction into the investigation looking into those things has nothing to do with the DNC server. It has everything to do with Trump administration covering up these things.
@Ayiekie I assume you mean by this that if you go back far enough you'll find the royal family was not British in origin (though even the House of Hanover, starting in 1714, was chosen as they had the closest male, non-Catholic, relative to the previous monarch). However, that's a pretty meaningless argument anyway - if you applied the same logic to Canada, then no-one is Canadian in origin ...
No, if I was using that logic, I'd be insisting on an indigenous monarch. (Although they just came over the Bering Strait too, if you go far enough back.)
Queen Elizabeth II, who was born in Britain, lives in Britain, and rules Britain, has nothing to do with Canada. She is a useless appendage hanging on from a colonial past. The fact her family's actually German is rather beside the point.
Of course having any monarch in the 21st century is self-evidently terrible; it's just extra specially bad when it's some other country's monarch and not even your own. Canada even has to hire somebody else to do her useless figurehead work because she doesn't live in Canada. Pretty ridiculous, makes one wonder why the whole daft thing still exists (answer: because it'd be too much of a hassle to change, and more Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy than hate it).
Surely the point is that you're not swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country, but the monarch of your country. Canada is free to choose an alternative arrangement for appointing a head of state, but until/unless they do so the oath is being made to Canadian institutions, not to British ones.
I think I've already adequately made the point that she is not the monarch of the country in anything but name.
And, of course, even if she spent half the year there like a modern-day Persephone, she would still be a queen, and that is, as they say, a deal-breaker. So why should anyone wanting to be Canadian have to swear allegiance to someone I'd give up my Canadian citizenship before I'd swear allegiance to?
Why do I have the freedom as a Canadian to think the Queen should be stripped of all titles and lands and shoved in an old age home with a modest pension, but a new Canadian is not allowed to think this? Is swearing allegiance to the parasitic figurehead monarch of Britain a required Canadian value or is it not? Should any immigrant be deported if they join a republican league, while they remain perfectly legal for native-born citizens such as myself?
In other words, is "respect for Charter of Rights And Freedoms-protected speech and beliefs" or "loyalty to QEII, long may she reign" the more fundamental Canadian value? Because you cannot have both, and the requirement for new citizens to swear fealty to a foreign monarch relies on the latter being true... in stark contrast to most other parts of Canadian life, where it is the former which holds sway.
All Canadians are constitutionally entitled to think the Queen of England is a useless parasite, or for that matter to not care about her at all. That should include new Canadians. Thus, demanding they swear otherwise is absurd.
1) Symbols are never meaningless. Check the definition.
2) monarchy isn't a person, its an institution. If you don't have a monarch, you run the risk of a simple minded person thinking that they are the institution. See: Trump.
3) people are quite obviously not born equal. Some are both with money and some are not. Some people are born stupid, and some slightly less stupid. Some people are born selfish, some are born less selfish.
All people are of equal value and deserve equal rights. I didn't say all people are identical.
4) Sure patriotism, like religion, can lead to terrorism. But in both cases it arises out of a misiterpretation, that loving one thing means hating everything else. But it can also lead to a desire to put things right. If you care about your country you aren't blind to its faults, you are driven to correct them. If you don't care about your country, then it won't bother you when it's leaders are an embarrasment.
Trump bothers me and a) I'm not even American, and b) I think patriotism is silly. I also voted in all appropriate federal/provincial elections before I left Canada and become ineligible to. You don't need patriotism to have an interest in good governance, though of course they're not incompatible.
5) It's cheeper for Canada to borrow someone else's symbols. But there is no one preventing Canadians from creating thier own.
That's true. I feel that if we must have a figurehead of state (a common argument by monarchists even though lots of countries get by without one), it should be a reality show. They could sell merch of the winner, they might even pay for themselves, and nobody would take Queen Celine Dion seriously enough to demand a loyalty oath for her.
My money is on Trump firing Mueller. He doesn't care how up in arms everyone gets about it. He's the most powerful man in the world, he will do what he wants when he wants it.
Firing Mueller is as good as an admission of guilt for nearly anything you want to assume he is guilty of, at least for anyone with a lick of sense. If you are referring to the fact that Republicans, even at that point, won't care, you are correct, because they are just as bad as he is. But it will be a political abyss, or an abyss for whatever is left of the American experiment. This is also worth remembering:
Mueller, based on all reporting, is coming with seasoned financial crimes and espionage prosecutors. Trump cannot actually fire Mueller, though he can order Rod Rosenstein to do so. At which point, Rosenstein would have to decide whether he wants his reputation and career intact after this is over, or to go down with the ship. If he refuses and resigns, you have a carbon copy of the Saturday Night Massacre, in which Nixon simply went down the line of people in the Justice Department for someone to fire Archibald Cox, until he got to Robert Bork, who decided to go along with it. I don't doubt Trump will try fire Mueller. One thing you can COUNT on with Trump, is that he is a very dumb person who has convinced himself over the course of 50 years that he is one of the most brilliant people on Earth. He was able to con a significant minority of Americans into believing this as well, and 2/3rds of them will follow him to the gates of hell.
There wasn't as much of a con as you might think. Despite all of this crap that's coming out, I still don't wish I'd voted for Hillary. I DO wish the doofus Republicans could have gotten their heads out of their behinds and picked a better candidate than another friggin Bush to go all in for. Trump wouldn't have happened if EITHER party would've picked a better candidate!
People's freedoms have to be limited in a civilised society. You would presumably accept that there should be laws against murder and I imagine you think it's fair that there is at least some regard paid to health & safety - so that buildings for instance are not subject to constant collapse. It's therefore not an issue of principle, but where you strike the balance between personal freedom and rights of others.
Yes, obviously some freedoms have to be limited--I support libertarianism, not anarchy. Murder illegal? Of course--no one would argue against that. Building codes so that your light switches aren't running on bare aluminum wires in the walls? Yes, please--I don't want my house to burn down. I have to have a valid photo-based license in order to be able to drive my car? Sure, I don't mind that at all--I am not one of those fringe pseudo-libertarian folks who think "the government cannot tell me that I cannot drive so I don't need a license".
Telling me that I cannot smoke some marijuana in my own back yard? No, thank you--keep your nose out of my business. Telling me that I cannot indulge in romantic interludes with the male of my choice (presuming I were so inclined to do so)? Keep your nose out of my bedroom.
Telling me that I cannot own an AR-15 because some guy shot up an elementary school? Just because he did something awful is no reason *my* freedom should be restricted--I didn't shoot anyone. That would be like telling me that I can't own a katana because some guy goes crazy and sword-slashes some people in a city park, or forbidding me from renting a moving truck because a couple of guys used one to blow up a Federal building in Oklahoma City, or that I can't own a bathtub because some crazy woman drowned all five of her children after she came to the realization that they were possessed, or that I cannot consume whiskey because someone killed a couple of people while driving drunk, or that I cannot own a mobile device with a built-in camera because some loser passed around some pictures of a naked teenage girl. If we start restricting things or making owning things illegal because a handful of people misuse them then that logical process ends only when we are back to living in caves...but even then someone will misuse fire or a rock at some point, and we can't very well make that illegal, now can we?
No, when I talk about politicizing things we can take another look at health care coverage. For the sake of discussion, let us presume that every person has a right to cost-effective health insurance coverage. Does that give you the right to make me pay for *your* coverage? If so, why? I would wager that your car is more important to your daily life than health care coverage--you need it to get to work, buy food, etc--so if we follow the same logic then shouldn't I also be paying for your car? That door swings both ways, though--if I am paying for your health care coverage then you are also paying for mine. Wouldn't it make more sense and be less confusing if you pay for yours and I pay for mine? If you come down with one of those long-term chronic conditions I mentioned several pages back that is a shame because your health care costs are going to rise considerably but, on the other hand, that isn't my problem--I didn't cause you to come down with that condition so why should I have to pay for it?
I apologize for the wall of text--I normally don't say quite that much.
Queen Elizabeth II, who was born in Britain, lives in Britain, and rules Britain, has nothing to do with Canada.
She does indeed have a lot to do with Canada - she's the head of state! If Canada wishes to change that system and, for instance, require any future head of state to be resident in the country they are free to do so. For the moment though, your contention she has nothing to do with Canada is simply untrue.
Of course having any monarch in the 21st century is self-evidently terrible; it's just extra specially bad when it's some other country's monarch and not even your own. Canada even has to hire somebody else to do her useless figurehead work because she doesn't live in Canada. Pretty ridiculous, makes one wonder why the whole daft thing still exists (answer: because it'd be too much of a hassle to change, and more Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy than hate it).
The issue has been considered numerous times by parliament, so I suspect that its continuance is not simply a matter of indifference.
Why do I have the freedom as a Canadian to think the Queen should be stripped of all titles and lands and shoved in an old age home with a modest pension, but a new Canadian is not allowed to think this?
In other words, is "respect for Charter of Rights And Freedoms-protected speech and beliefs" or "loyalty to QEII, long may she reign" the more fundamental Canadian value? Because you cannot have both, and the requirement for new citizens to swear fealty to a foreign monarch relies on the latter being true... in stark contrast to most other parts of Canadian life, where it is the former which holds sway.
Your point of view has been presented a number of times through legal challenges. In 2013 the Ontario Superior Court rejected a challenge, explaining that the applicant had misunderstood the purpose of the oath. That rejection was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2014 and in 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada refused to allow a further appeal. The courts have also considered your argument that the oath is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rejected this - making clear that taking the oath does not prevent a citizen from arguing for the abolition of the monarchy for instance. The basis of this argument is that the oath is to the Queen in her persona as head of state - and that the Queen's situation is subject to amendment in the same way as other parts of the constitution.
People's freedoms have to be limited in a civilised society. You would presumably accept that there should be laws against murder and I imagine you think it's fair that there is at least some regard paid to health & safety - so that buildings for instance are not subject to constant collapse. It's therefore not an issue of principle, but where you strike the balance between personal freedom and rights of others.
Yes, obviously some freedoms have to be limited--I support libertarianism, not anarchy. Murder illegal? Of course--no one would argue against that. Building codes so that your light switches aren't running on bare aluminum wires in the walls? Yes, please--I don't want my house to burn down. I have to have a valid photo-based license in order to be able to drive my car? Sure, I don't mind that at all--I am not one of those fringe pseudo-libertarian folks who think "the government cannot tell me that I cannot drive so I don't need a license".
Telling me that I cannot smoke some marijuana in my own back yard? No, thank you--keep your nose out of my business. Telling me that I cannot indulge in romantic interludes with the male of my choice (presuming I were so inclined to do so)? Keep your nose out of my bedroom.
Telling me that I cannot own an AR-15 because some guy shot up an elementary school? Just because he did something awful is no reason *my* freedom should be restricted--I didn't shoot anyone. That would be like telling me that I can't own a katana because some guy goes crazy and sword-slashes some people in a city park, or forbidding me from renting a moving truck because a couple of guys used one to blow up a Federal building in Oklahoma City, or that I can't own a bathtub because some crazy woman drowned all five of her children after she came to the realization that they were possessed, or that I cannot consume whiskey because someone killed a couple of people while driving drunk, or that I cannot own a mobile device with a built-in camera because some loser passed around some pictures of a naked teenage girl. If we start restricting things or making owning things illegal because a handful of people misuse them then that logical process ends only when we are back to living in caves...but even then someone will misuse fire or a rock at some point, and we can't very well make that illegal, now can we?
No, when I talk about politicizing things we can take another look at health care coverage. For the sake of discussion, let us presume that every person has a right to cost-effective health insurance coverage. Does that give you the right to make me pay for *your* coverage? If so, why? I would wager that your car is more important to your daily life than health care coverage--you need it to get to work, buy food, etc--so if we follow the same logic then shouldn't I also be paying for your car? That door swings both ways, though--if I am paying for your health care coverage then you are also paying for mine. Wouldn't it make more sense and be less confusing if you pay for yours and I pay for mine? If you come down with one of those long-term chronic conditions I mentioned several pages back that is a shame because your health care costs are going to rise considerably but, on the other hand, that isn't my problem--I didn't cause you to come down with that condition so why should I have to pay for it?
I apologize for the wall of text--I normally don't say quite that much.
You will see exactly why we should pay for the healthcare of others if these Medicaid cuts go through. As will alot of Trump voters when all of a sudden mom has to move back in because her nursing home subsidies have been gutted, or when therapy sessions for their adult children with severe disabilities are defunded. This is THE problem on the American Right. A total and utter lack of empathy for anyone who isn't a family member or close friend. Insurance is ALREADY exactly what you are talking about. Healthy people get nothing out of it and pay for the sick. But one day, you WILL get sick, and someone will pay for you. Any argument against government healthcare is also an argument against the concept of insurance itself, which would leave no alternative but to have everyone pay out of pocket, which would cause a societal collapse.
You will see exactly why we should pay for the healthcare of others if these Medicaid cuts go through. As will alot of Trump voters when all of a sudden mom has to move back in because her nursing home subsidies have been gutted, or when therapy sessions for their adult children with severe disabilities are defunded. This is THE problem on the American Right. A total and utter lack of empathy for anyone who isn't a family member or close friend. Insurance is ALREADY exactly what you are talking about. Healthy people get nothing out of it and pay for the sick. But one day, you WILL get sick, and someone will pay for you. Any argument against government healthcare is also an argument against the concept of insurance itself, which would leave no alternative but to have everyone pay out of pocket, which would cause a societal collapse.
This is why they should have just expanded Medicare to everyone. This would also have made employer-granted group insurance unnecessary and would have made it possible to raise the Medicare rate, paid by every person who earns a paycheck every two weeks (or monthly or whatever), from 1.45% to 2.5% or even 3%; I could even see raising it to 5% since no one is having to pay for insurance--that would have kept the program funded despite expanding it to everyone. *shrug* Unfortunately, no one invited me to those meetings when they were debating the issue in Congress.
Trump isn't going to fire Mueller or have anyone do it for him. As I have stated many times now, he will opt for pardons. Sure, the recipients admit guilt after the fact but they since they can't be charged with whatever activity for which they received a pardon it won't matter.
Democracy Now! has coined a new term I haven't seen before in regards to the San Francisco shooting at the UPS facility: assault pistol. I presume they mean "semi-automatic" pistol but I suspect they chose the word "assault" for its usual connotations. Mr. Lam, the shooter, had filed a grievance in March because he was working "excessive" overtime, presumably not by choice. erm...legally, employers cannot *force* anyone to work overtime even though they usually do so with the unspoken threat of "work the overtime or we'll fire you", which is one of the things Wal-Mart is famous for.
Oh, wow--five State and local officials have been charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the Flint water disaster, including Nicy Lyon, the Director of the Michigan Dept. of Health and Human Services. Flint's lead-laden water is connected to at least 12 deaths and dozens of lead-poisoning cases.
Yes, obviously some freedoms have to be limited--I support libertarianism, not anarchy. Murder illegal? Of course--no one would argue against that. Building codes so that your light switches aren't running on bare aluminum wires in the walls? Yes, please--I don't want my house to burn down. I have to have a valid photo-based license in order to be able to drive my car? Sure, I don't mind that at all--I am not one of those fringe pseudo-libertarian folks who think "the government cannot tell me that I cannot drive so I don't need a license".
I think our viewpoints are probably quite similar about the desirability of freedoms in principle. There's just a specific cultural issue associated with guns that I think is very different between the US and UK.
It's interesting that you say you're happy that drivers should be licensed. The basis for getting a license is to demonstrate that you can drive safely. Should it not therefore be the case that the basis for getting a gun license is to demonstrate that you can keep and use one of those safely?
It's interesting that you say you're happy that drivers should be licensed. The basis for getting a license is to demonstrate that you can drive safely. Should it not therefore be the case that the basis for getting a gun license is to demonstrate that you can keep and use one of those safely?
The NRA has fought bitterly for decades to keep anyone from keeping any sort of database or license registry for guns. The irony is that the NRA had its own database of gun-owners it used for sending out flyers or for fund-raising efforts. I really don't like the NRA--that organization gives truly responsible gun-owners a bad name.
If having a license and/or being registered means I can own several pistols, single-shot long rifles, and semi-automatic rifles then that is, to me, not an insurmountable obstacle or an unreasonable condition. I have to have a license to drive my car, fish on a lake, or hunt animals, anyway, so what is one more license? That sort of licensing would most likely be State-issued, anyway, rather than Federal and the Constitution places no restrictions on what States may do vis-a-vis guns--the Second Amendment restricts only Congress. That may seem counter-intuitive since I self-identify as a Libertarian but, as I note, I am not a fanatic about it and I am not in the fringe. If you are going to buy a gun then you had damned sure better take a safety course, as well, before you seriously hurt--or kill--someone or yourself.
edit to add: By the way, I presume you are from the UK? If so, what are your thoughts about what happened at Grenfell Tower? I have seen comments from fire investigators that the fire seemed to spread more quickly than it should have, based on the findings from similar fires in the past.
There's obviously been a lot of coverage on Grenfell Tower and it doesn't sound like a good story. The block has only recently been refurbished, but there have been complaints about the lax attitude to fire safety for quite a few years - including after the refurbishment.
Theresa May has announced a public inquiry into it, in addition to the normal fire investigation - so I would expect the full story will come out in due course. From what's been said so far I would suspect that the cladding added to the building during the refurbishment is a large source of the problem - that's aluminium based with a plastic core and has been criticized in other tower block fires elsewhere in the world (a similar product with a mineral core is available, but at a slightly higher price) as contributing to a much quicker spread of fire than expected.
What's horrific is that the design intention of that type of block is to try and limit the spread of a fire from its starting location. As a result the advice to other residents is to stay in their flat if they're not directly affected by a fire (to avoid clogging up the stairs which fire-fighters will use to tackle the blaze). That means that there were almost certainly people who could have got out in the early stages of the fire, but stayed put in order to be 'safe'.
One of the officers who saved the lives of all those GOP reps yesterday was Crystal Griner, who happens to be a lesbian. If Steve Scalise and the rest of those reps had their way, her wife would not be able to be visiting her as she recovers in the hospital right now, because they don't believe she has the right to marry another woman. Says it all really.
Of course, the more relevant one is: When you do everything in your power to make sure the mentally ill have access to assault rifles...
Can we stop throwing mentally ill people under the bus?
It's simply the phrase we as society have decided makes us feel better, since we are not really allowed to have any real discussion about the epidemic of gun violence that no other comparable society has. Nevermind the mass shootings, we have had 4 Presidents assassinated, and credible attempts on at least 4 more. That is nearly 20% of all of them. This is an inherantly violent country, as much so as any Muslim or African country we act so superior to. Resorting to the "mentally ill" trope is simply a exercise in mass denial of reality. We have way too many f'n guns, and they are easier to get ahold of than sudafed at a Wal-Mart.
In EMPLOYER provided care, which most people tend to view as their gold-standard if they have a good job. This means if ONE member of your family has to battle a serious disease or injury, you are going to cap out within 18 months, and the insurance company will not cover further care. Now imagine the MILLIONS of people in this boat. If this passes, prepare to attend a plethora of spaghetti feeds and silent auctions so people can simply survive.
@BelleSorciere No one was throwing anyone under the bus; rather, @BillyYank was making a pertinent point that it is too easy for some people to obtain guns when they ought not have them.
As you look into gun violence, though, you will notice some strange patterns. In places like Chicago or New York City, where local laws are rather restrictive, guns are essentially smuggled into the city, usually by gang or organized crime affiliates, which means that criminals are bringing the guns in and giving or selling them to other criminals. Another thing to notice is how they are concentrated in large urban areas, for the most part. Many young black men in these areas who have owned a gun illegally have done so primarily out of self-protection because they know, as FBI crime statistics show, the number one killer of young black men is "other young black men". This isn't too surprising, though--putting lots of people in a relatively small area leads to negative interactions among the citizens from time to time. Another factor common to all such events is the over-indulgence of either alcohol or other chemical substances.
Ultimately, though, you will realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with far too many people these days which has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. Those "what the hell?" stories of people attacking each other because their hamburger wasn't cooked correctly, they didn't get fries with their meal, they got cut off in traffic even though the other driver didn't hit their car, the referee called their child "out" at a baseball game, or any ridiculous circumstance where people let their tempers fly over something trivial. This lack of emotional self-control is another large factor which leads to people thinking that "I'll just get a gun--that will solve all my problems", a line of reasoning which defies any sort of logic.
*************
Congress simply cannot figure out health coverage legislation. Why should they, though? Their health coverage plan is better than yours, unless you are also a Member of Congress, in which case you are also most likely a millionaire.
Scalise's opinion on marriage equality is irrelevant because the law says that adults who are not related to each other and not already married to other people may marry each other.
@BelleSorciere No one was throwing anyone under the bus; rather, @BillyYank was making a pertinent point that it is too easy for some people to obtain guns when they ought not have them.
As you look into gun violence, though, you will notice some strange patterns. In places like Chicago or New York City, where local laws are rather restrictive, guns are essentially smuggled into the city, usually by gang or organized crime affiliates, which means that criminals are bringing the guns in and giving or selling them to other criminals. Another thing to notice is how they are concentrated in large urban areas, for the most part. Many young black men in these areas who have owned a gun illegally have done so primarily out of self-protection because they know, as FBI crime statistics show, the number one killer of young black men is "other young black men". This isn't too surprising, though--putting lots of people in a relatively small area leads to negative interactions among the citizens from time to time. Another factor common to all such events is the over-indulgence of either alcohol or other chemical substances.
Ultimately, though, you will realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with far too many people these days which has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. Those "what the hell?" stories of people attacking each other because their hamburger wasn't cooked correctly, they didn't get fries with their meal, they got cut off in traffic even though the other driver didn't hit their car, the referee called their child "out" at a baseball game, or any ridiculous circumstance where people let their tempers fly over something trivial. This lack of emotional self-control is another large factor which leads to people thinking that "I'll just get a gun--that will solve all my problems", a line of reasoning which defies any sort of logic.
*************
Congress simply cannot figure out health coverage legislation. Why should they, though? Their health coverage plan is better than yours, unless you are also a Member of Congress, in which case you are also most likely a millionaire.
Scalise's opinion on marriage equality is irrelevant because the law says that adults who are not related to each other and not already married to other people may marry each other.
Well, of course State gun laws won't work, because bordering States have different ones, and you can cross State lines as easily as walking across the street. The exception?? Hawaii, whose gun laws HAVE been effective, for obvious reasons.
ALL ethnic groups and demographic groups are more likely to be the victims of violence from those same groups, because almost all violent crimes take place between people who are acquainted.
Finally, people like Scalise fought tooth and nail for decades to reisist that Supreme Court ruling, so it matters plenty. In Steve Scalise's perfect world, the person who helped save his life would not have the same hospital visiting rights that he and his wife have.
We have way too many f'n guns, and they are easier to get ahold of than sudafed at a Wal-Mart.
I wasn't so much saying "mentally ill people need lots of guns" as I was saying "please stop blaming mentally ill people for the majority of gun violence."
Yes, he was throwing mentally ill people under the bus. The angry people you describe aren't necessarily mentally ill (and I am unaware of any studies that establishes such things). Blaming gun violence on mentally ill people is something people often do to avoid examining the issues that easy access to firearms represents. It's a way to say that the problem is that people who get the guns are violent because there is something wrong with them, without ever engaging in true analysis of the causes of gun violence. And of course the CDC can't do any research on this because of NRA lobbying.
As far as accessibility to guns goes, the majority of guns that were used to kill were initially obtained legally. Yes, there's a black market in firearms but those firearms are largely obtained legitimately (per existing gun laws) somewhere and transported to the point of sale.
Comments
Also, we need to be careful....I've been told that us even talking about this caused a guy who has been living out of his car since March to shoot up a baseball field full of Congressmen. God only knows what kind of destruction and mayhem we will be responsible for if we persist.
When Admiral Mike Rogers, Dan Coats, Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions all get up in front of congress and stonewall, filibuster, forget conversations, can't recall meetings, they are impeding the investigation. There's four of them doing the same thing. It's clearly a coordinated effort.
They are not doing this without coordinating with someone telling them to do so. This isn't one guy this is all of them. They were all basically daring someone to do anything about it and it had been looking like they would just get away with it. That isn't even the only obstruction we know about there's the schenanigans of Devin Nunes and others too. Obstruction has been happening clearly.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html
Mueller, based on all reporting, is coming with seasoned financial crimes and espionage prosecutors. Trump cannot actually fire Mueller, though he can order Rod Rosenstein to do so. At which point, Rosenstein would have to decide whether he wants his reputation and career intact after this is over, or to go down with the ship. If he refuses and resigns, you have a carbon copy of the Saturday Night Massacre, in which Nixon simply went down the line of people in the Justice Department for someone to fire Archibald Cox, until he got to Robert Bork, who decided to go along with it. I don't doubt Trump will try fire Mueller. One thing you can COUNT on with Trump, is that he is a very dumb person who has convinced himself over the course of 50 years that he is one of the most brilliant people on Earth. He was able to con a significant minority of Americans into believing this as well, and 2/3rds of them will follow him to the gates of hell.
There are plenty of other focal points. There's Jeff Sessions secret meetings with the ambassador that he didn't disclose on security clearance forms. There's Jared Kushner doing the same and trying to set up a secret back channel to Russia. There's intercepted conversations of Russian operatives. Sometimes those recordings were talking to Trump campaign people. There's more than all that including Carter Paige, Paul Manaford, Chris Steele dossier and even more stuff that's been briefed to Congress in classified settings that we don't know.
Oh wait, back to obstruction. obstruction into the investigation looking into those things has nothing to do with the DNC server. It has everything to do with Trump administration covering up these things.
Queen Elizabeth II, who was born in Britain, lives in Britain, and rules Britain, has nothing to do with Canada. She is a useless appendage hanging on from a colonial past. The fact her family's actually German is rather beside the point.
Of course having any monarch in the 21st century is self-evidently terrible; it's just extra specially bad when it's some other country's monarch and not even your own. Canada even has to hire somebody else to do her useless figurehead work because she doesn't live in Canada. Pretty ridiculous, makes one wonder why the whole daft thing still exists (answer: because it'd be too much of a hassle to change, and more Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy than hate it). They certainly are, yes. That kind of precludes them from being quintessentially Canadian. I think I've already adequately made the point that she is not the monarch of the country in anything but name.
And, of course, even if she spent half the year there like a modern-day Persephone, she would still be a queen, and that is, as they say, a deal-breaker. So why should anyone wanting to be Canadian have to swear allegiance to someone I'd give up my Canadian citizenship before I'd swear allegiance to?
Why do I have the freedom as a Canadian to think the Queen should be stripped of all titles and lands and shoved in an old age home with a modest pension, but a new Canadian is not allowed to think this? Is swearing allegiance to the parasitic figurehead monarch of Britain a required Canadian value or is it not? Should any immigrant be deported if they join a republican league, while they remain perfectly legal for native-born citizens such as myself?
In other words, is "respect for Charter of Rights And Freedoms-protected speech and beliefs" or "loyalty to QEII, long may she reign" the more fundamental Canadian value? Because you cannot have both, and the requirement for new citizens to swear fealty to a foreign monarch relies on the latter being true... in stark contrast to most other parts of Canadian life, where it is the former which holds sway.
All Canadians are constitutionally entitled to think the Queen of England is a useless parasite, or for that matter to not care about her at all. That should include new Canadians. Thus, demanding they swear otherwise is absurd.
Telling me that I cannot smoke some marijuana in my own back yard? No, thank you--keep your nose out of my business. Telling me that I cannot indulge in romantic interludes with the male of my choice (presuming I were so inclined to do so)? Keep your nose out of my bedroom.
Telling me that I cannot own an AR-15 because some guy shot up an elementary school? Just because he did something awful is no reason *my* freedom should be restricted--I didn't shoot anyone. That would be like telling me that I can't own a katana because some guy goes crazy and sword-slashes some people in a city park, or forbidding me from renting a moving truck because a couple of guys used one to blow up a Federal building in Oklahoma City, or that I can't own a bathtub because some crazy woman drowned all five of her children after she came to the realization that they were possessed, or that I cannot consume whiskey because someone killed a couple of people while driving drunk, or that I cannot own a mobile device with a built-in camera because some loser passed around some pictures of a naked teenage girl. If we start restricting things or making owning things illegal because a handful of people misuse them then that logical process ends only when we are back to living in caves...but even then someone will misuse fire or a rock at some point, and we can't very well make that illegal, now can we?
No, when I talk about politicizing things we can take another look at health care coverage. For the sake of discussion, let us presume that every person has a right to cost-effective health insurance coverage. Does that give you the right to make me pay for *your* coverage? If so, why? I would wager that your car is more important to your daily life than health care coverage--you need it to get to work, buy food, etc--so if we follow the same logic then shouldn't I also be paying for your car? That door swings both ways, though--if I am paying for your health care coverage then you are also paying for mine. Wouldn't it make more sense and be less confusing if you pay for yours and I pay for mine? If you come down with one of those long-term chronic conditions I mentioned several pages back that is a shame because your health care costs are going to rise considerably but, on the other hand, that isn't my problem--I didn't cause you to come down with that condition so why should I have to pay for it?
I apologize for the wall of text--I normally don't say quite that much.
The issue has been considered numerous times by parliament, so I suspect that its continuance is not simply a matter of indifference.
Your point of view has been presented a number of times through legal challenges. In 2013 the Ontario Superior Court rejected a challenge, explaining that the applicant had misunderstood the purpose of the oath. That rejection was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2014 and in 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada refused to allow a further appeal. The courts have also considered your argument that the oath is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rejected this - making clear that taking the oath does not prevent a citizen from arguing for the abolition of the monarchy for instance. The basis of this argument is that the oath is to the Queen in her persona as head of state - and that the Queen's situation is subject to amendment in the same way as other parts of the constitution.
Trump isn't going to fire Mueller or have anyone do it for him. As I have stated many times now, he will opt for pardons. Sure, the recipients admit guilt after the fact but they since they can't be charged with whatever activity for which they received a pardon it won't matter.
Democracy Now! has coined a new term I haven't seen before in regards to the San Francisco shooting at the UPS facility: assault pistol. I presume they mean "semi-automatic" pistol but I suspect they chose the word "assault" for its usual connotations. Mr. Lam, the shooter, had filed a grievance in March because he was working "excessive" overtime, presumably not by choice. erm...legally, employers cannot *force* anyone to work overtime even though they usually do so with the unspoken threat of "work the overtime or we'll fire you", which is one of the things Wal-Mart is famous for.
Oh, wow--five State and local officials have been charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the Flint water disaster, including Nicy Lyon, the Director of the Michigan Dept. of Health and Human Services. Flint's lead-laden water is connected to at least 12 deaths and dozens of lead-poisoning cases.
It's interesting that you say you're happy that drivers should be licensed. The basis for getting a license is to demonstrate that you can drive safely. Should it not therefore be the case that the basis for getting a gun license is to demonstrate that you can keep and use one of those safely?
If having a license and/or being registered means I can own several pistols, single-shot long rifles, and semi-automatic rifles then that is, to me, not an insurmountable obstacle or an unreasonable condition. I have to have a license to drive my car, fish on a lake, or hunt animals, anyway, so what is one more license? That sort of licensing would most likely be State-issued, anyway, rather than Federal and the Constitution places no restrictions on what States may do vis-a-vis guns--the Second Amendment restricts only Congress. That may seem counter-intuitive since I self-identify as a Libertarian but, as I note, I am not a fanatic about it and I am not in the fringe. If you are going to buy a gun then you had damned sure better take a safety course, as well, before you seriously hurt--or kill--someone or yourself.
edit to add: By the way, I presume you are from the UK? If so, what are your thoughts about what happened at Grenfell Tower? I have seen comments from fire investigators that the fire seemed to spread more quickly than it should have, based on the findings from similar fires in the past.
Theresa May has announced a public inquiry into it, in addition to the normal fire investigation - so I would expect the full story will come out in due course. From what's been said so far I would suspect that the cladding added to the building during the refurbishment is a large source of the problem - that's aluminium based with a plastic core and has been criticized in other tower block fires elsewhere in the world (a similar product with a mineral core is available, but at a slightly higher price) as contributing to a much quicker spread of fire than expected.
What's horrific is that the design intention of that type of block is to try and limit the spread of a fire from its starting location. As a result the advice to other residents is to stay in their flat if they're not directly affected by a fire (to avoid clogging up the stairs which fire-fighters will use to tackle the blaze). That means that there were almost certainly people who could have got out in the early stages of the fire, but stayed put in order to be 'safe'.
In EMPLOYER provided care, which most people tend to view as their gold-standard if they have a good job. This means if ONE member of your family has to battle a serious disease or injury, you are going to cap out within 18 months, and the insurance company will not cover further care. Now imagine the MILLIONS of people in this boat. If this passes, prepare to attend a plethora of spaghetti feeds and silent auctions so people can simply survive.
The "epidemic" of gun violence appears to be happening only because Reddit users decided to change the definition of "mass shooting" from the FBI criterion of "4 or more people killed" to the much more broad "4 or more people shot". They did this specifically to spike the statistic of "mass shooting events" because--surprise--they don't like guns; the media has picked up on this unofficial definition and runs with it in a classic case of "moving the goal posts". The primary article on gun violence in the United States is here and is a decent place to start researching laws and to locate appropriate statistics. Since I always strive for being equitable, you may view the Shooting Tracker site for yourself. Even by these definitions mass shootings account for only about 1% of all deaths in any given calendar year.
As you look into gun violence, though, you will notice some strange patterns. In places like Chicago or New York City, where local laws are rather restrictive, guns are essentially smuggled into the city, usually by gang or organized crime affiliates, which means that criminals are bringing the guns in and giving or selling them to other criminals. Another thing to notice is how they are concentrated in large urban areas, for the most part. Many young black men in these areas who have owned a gun illegally have done so primarily out of self-protection because they know, as FBI crime statistics show, the number one killer of young black men is "other young black men". This isn't too surprising, though--putting lots of people in a relatively small area leads to negative interactions among the citizens from time to time. Another factor common to all such events is the over-indulgence of either alcohol or other chemical substances.
Ultimately, though, you will realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with far too many people these days which has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. Those "what the hell?" stories of people attacking each other because their hamburger wasn't cooked correctly, they didn't get fries with their meal, they got cut off in traffic even though the other driver didn't hit their car, the referee called their child "out" at a baseball game, or any ridiculous circumstance where people let their tempers fly over something trivial. This lack of emotional self-control is another large factor which leads to people thinking that "I'll just get a gun--that will solve all my problems", a line of reasoning which defies any sort of logic.
*************
Congress simply cannot figure out health coverage legislation. Why should they, though? Their health coverage plan is better than yours, unless you are also a Member of Congress, in which case you are also most likely a millionaire.
Scalise's opinion on marriage equality is irrelevant because the law says that adults who are not related to each other and not already married to other people may marry each other.
ALL ethnic groups and demographic groups are more likely to be the victims of violence from those same groups, because almost all violent crimes take place between people who are acquainted.
Finally, people like Scalise fought tooth and nail for decades to reisist that Supreme Court ruling, so it matters plenty. In Steve Scalise's perfect world, the person who helped save his life would not have the same hospital visiting rights that he and his wife have.
Yes, he was throwing mentally ill people under the bus. The angry people you describe aren't necessarily mentally ill (and I am unaware of any studies that establishes such things). Blaming gun violence on mentally ill people is something people often do to avoid examining the issues that easy access to firearms represents. It's a way to say that the problem is that people who get the guns are violent because there is something wrong with them, without ever engaging in true analysis of the causes of gun violence. And of course the CDC can't do any research on this because of NRA lobbying.
As far as accessibility to guns goes, the majority of guns that were used to kill were initially obtained legally. Yes, there's a black market in firearms but those firearms are largely obtained legitimately (per existing gun laws) somewhere and transported to the point of sale.