Essentially, the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent behavior. It doesn't matter anyway, since all the indicted parties are out of reach for US authorities.
I'm fairly certain the illegality stems from the fact that millions of dollars a month were being used to fund the operation. This is about a foreign finance opearation to effect the campaign. This whole thing boils down to one word....money.
That means nothing. You can spend as much as you want on Facebook ads, there is nothing inherently illegal about that.
If you actually read the indictment, the fraud is a result of Russian nationals posing as US persons, in some cases actually stealing identities. Hence the "impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit".
A solid case of "impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit" could be made against Trump.
Impairing by things like crippling the EPA and State Department and not bothering to appoint an ambassador to South Korea then trying to war with North Korea. Obstructions abound including into Muellers Russia probe and firing Comey. Fraud and deceit are his day to day lies and spin. Constantly telling big old whoppers of lies.
Today, with survivors of the Parkland school shooting looking on, Florida House Democrats moved that a bill to ban assault weapons be brought to the floor for debate and consideration. Republicans voted the motion down.
The gun bill in question would have banned the sale or possession of automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, like the AR-15 rifle authorities say was used at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.
Many people on Twitter noted that Florida lawmakers were using intuition and inconclusive data to call something a "health risk" while not even allowing a debate on assault weapons, which in the real world have a deadly track record.
Far-right media has basically decided to launch an all-out assault on the kids from the school who have decided to use their platform to call for changes. A former Congressman on CNN today (Jack Kingston) not only said, in the most condescending way possible, that 17-year old kids couldn't POSSIBLY be organizing things themselves (which is insane, since kids growing up in this day and age can probably network better than most of us could ever dream of), but that they were pawns of (of course) George Soros and Antifa. A top-aide for a Florida State Congressman called two of the kids who appeared on CNN today "crisis actors". Frankly, I don't even know what the f**k a "crisis actor" is supposed to be, but I have heard the word enough to know it's probably coming from people who watch alot of Alex Jones. And that is what is happening right now in response to the gun debate. Demean the kids who saw their friends butchered less than a week ago, and go full on conspiracy theory, UN black helicopter, tin-foil hat batshit crazy.
I suppose you could say the kids have made themselves fair game for inserting themselves in the debate. From what I've seen and read of them, they can actually handle it (and why wouldn't they be able to, since they have much more recent experience dealing with bullying than most of us adults). That being said, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that even in Trump's America, attacking teenage school shooting survivors is a bad political strategy. Also, for everyone dismissing them, condescending to them....you were a kid once, and you were likely attacked by adults for something YOU were right about (though I doubt it was this serious a subject in most cases). The dearly departed David Bowie had something to say about this:
"And these children that you spit on As they try to change their worlds Are immune to your consultations They're quite aware of what they're going through"
If these kids are all around 16-18 years old, they were born around the time of 9/11. For their whole lives, it's been nothing but endless war in the Middle East, terrorism, and shooting after shooting after shooting at schools and college campuses. I still remember Columbine like it was yesterday. Everyone anticipated then it was some sort of singular event. As these particular kids have grown older, it's become part of life. None of us, when in school, had active shooter drills, in the same way we had fire and tornado drills. They've grown up in a country where, increasingly, it is entirely plausible that yes, one day it very well could be your school's turn. For the kids in Parkland, their number, tragically, got called. But unlike the grade school kids of Newtown, and unlike the kids of Columbine who didn't grow up in an age of all-consuming social media, the Parkland kids can take their grief and anger and channel it into fighting back. I've been hearing that alot of the kids speaking up are associated with the theater program at the school. How wonderful and apt if that is true.
Today, with survivors of the Parkland school shooting looking on, Florida House Democrats moved that a bill to ban assault weapons be brought to the floor for debate and consideration. Republicans voted the motion down.
This is merely representative democracy in action, the system working as it was designed to work--the majority party has more votes and therefore their decision wins. There is a solution, though, for those who wish for Democrats in the Florida Legislature to pass an assault weapon ban--vote them in to office.
It isn't condescension not to give the Parkland teenagers false hope. *Every* group of 18-year-olds thinks they are going to change the world but the reality of the situation is that this never happens. They are motivated now but as time passes and the changes they would like to see never occur their motivation will fade--university happens, needing to get a job happens, settling into a long-term relationship happens, sometimes children happen, and so on. In other words, life happens and life has a way of causing people to put some of the things they wanted on the back burner until they find themselves in their mid-30s thinking back to all the plans they had in college during their lunch hour at work.
Until *all* the people who get shot in Chicago receive just as much front-page attention as the Parkland victims, thinking that Parkland is somehow more of a tragedy is pure hypocrisy. I suppose not all shooting victims are equally tragic, though.
Today, with survivors of the Parkland school shooting looking on, Florida House Democrats moved that a bill to ban assault weapons be brought to the floor for debate and consideration. Republicans voted the motion down.
This is merely representative democracy in action, the system working as it was designed to work--the majority party has more votes and therefore their decision wins. There is a solution, though, for those who wish for Democrats in the Florida Legislature to pass an assault weapon ban--vote them in to office.
It isn't condescension not to give the Parkland teenagers false hope. *Every* group of 18-year-olds thinks they are going to change the world but the reality of the situation is that this never happens. They are motivated now but as time passes and the changes they would like to see never occur their motivation will fade--university happens, needing to get a job happens, settling into a long-term relationship happens, sometimes children happen, and so on. In other words, life happens and life has a way of causing people to put some of the things they wanted on the back burner until they find themselves in their mid-30s thinking back to all the plans they had in college during their lunch hour at work.
Until *all* the people who get shot in Chicago receive just as much front-page attention as the Parkland victims, thinking that Parkland is somehow more of a tragedy is pure hypocrisy. I suppose not all shooting victims are equally tragic, though.
Considering we hear about Chicago EVERY time there is a school shooting (or a police killing for that matter), I'd say it gets plenty of play. There is also a major difference between individual murders associated with gang violence and the drug trade as compared to people getting mowed down indiscriminately in nightclubs, movie theaters and elementary and high schools. The rules of the game are not unknown to most young black men involved in the drug trade. I'd venture to guess most of them expect to be dead or in prison before they are 30. Looking at the actual list bears that out. Almost all of the shooting victims are males in their early to mid-20s. These are murders over drug territory. In the universe of the criminal underworld, they are anything but senseless, they are how things have worked since Prohibition. You legalize the drugs they are selling, the murders disappear. But most of those murders aren't what we'd refer to as, for lack of a better word, innocent. The shadow of a violent death hangs over the head of every drug trafficker 24/7.
As for false hope, it's the other way around. It's the children who are giving adults hope, people like me long-resigned to the all-consuming power of the NRA. I still don't think anything changes. But the ground floor has to be put in somewhere.
Considering we hear about Chicago EVERY time there is a school shooting (or a police killing for that matter), I'd say it gets plenty of play.
Not really, since I am about the only person who brings up Chicago. Some nut shoots up a school in Florida or a church in Texas? "*gasp* This is a national tragedy! Congress should *do* something!" A handful of teenagers or young adults get shot in Chicago over a weekend? "Meh--that's just life in the big city."
Most people care only about mass shootings (still defined as "four or more people shot", which has been updated from its original definition of "four or more people killed"), not *all* shootings. Of course, one person being shot typically can't translate into face time on the news networks or publicity for yourself or your cause, which is why they don't get as much attention. Except in cases like Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.
As for false hope, it's the other way around. It's the children who are giving adults hope, people like me long-resigned to the all-consuming power of the NRA. I still don't think anything changes. But the ground floor has to be put in somewhere.
The young people of today don't give me any hope for the future. Too many of them are even more irresponsible than we were when I was that age, the current crop having been brought up in an environment where everyone gets a participation trophy and no one's feelings ever get hurt. They think their walkout is going to do anything? All it will do is give them a little emotional boost to think that they are part of some grassroots movement but that temporary boost will fade in less than 6 months; by this time next year, everything will be back to "business as usual".
If the high school students of today really want to do something about gun control then they need to figure out how to play the long game. Stay in school, major in law and/or political science, run for the State Legislature after graduating university, then eventually run for Congress. Once there, work to pass whatever form of gun control legislation you think can get enough votes to pass and will meet with the SCOTUS's approval. It might take them 30 years but if that is what they really want then it should be worth the wait.
Considering we hear about Chicago EVERY time there is a school shooting (or a police killing for that matter), I'd say it gets plenty of play.
Not really, since I am about the only person who brings up Chicago. Some nut shoots up a school in Florida or a church in Texas? "*gasp* This is a national tragedy! Congress should *do* something!" A handful of teenagers or young adults get shot in Chicago over a weekend? "Meh--that's just life in the big city."
Most people care only about mass shootings (still defined as "four or more people shot", which has been updated from its original definition of "four or more people killed"), not *all* shootings. Of course, one person being shot typically can't translate into face time on the news networks or publicity for yourself or your cause, which is why they don't get as much attention. Except in cases like Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.
As for false hope, it's the other way around. It's the children who are giving adults hope, people like me long-resigned to the all-consuming power of the NRA. I still don't think anything changes. But the ground floor has to be put in somewhere.
The young people of today don't give me any hope for the future. Too many of them are even more irresponsible than we were when I was that age, the current crop having been brought up in an environment where everyone gets a participation trophy and no one's feelings ever get hurt. They think their walkout is going to do anything? All it will do is give them a little emotional boost to think that they are part of some grassroots movement but that temporary boost will fade in less than 6 months; by this time next year, everything will be back to "business as usual".
If the high school students of today really want to do something about gun control then they need to figure out how to play the long game. Stay in school, major in law and/or political science, run for the State Legislature after graduating university, then eventually run for Congress. Once there, work to pass whatever form of gun control legislation you think can get enough votes to pass and will meet with the SCOTUS's approval. It might take them 30 years but if that is what they really want then it should be worth the wait.
What @Mathsorcerer said, plus...aren't these the same teenagers (not specifically the Parkland ones of course) that have made cyber-bullying such a big headline? I'm sure that doesn't contribute to violent outcomes.
The young people of today don't give me any hope for the future. Too many of them are even more irresponsible than we were when I was that age, the current crop having been brought up in an environment where everyone gets a participation trophy and no one's feelings ever get hurt.
I agree, but that's mostly the fault of their parents. Baby Boomers (as a collective) were the worst, most selfish generation generation ever.
They've passed on massive debts to my generation, and have helped make millennials ill-prepared to deal with new challenges by being helicopter over-protective parents (it is not the kids who demand participation trophies, btw, it is the parents). Makes me happy I grew up in an immigrant household. /rant
I think the constant ragging on today's youth is nothing but narcissistic, self-serving revistionist history among those of us who have moved past the age of 30. Our parents said the same thing about us, and our grandparents said the same thing about them. I see no evidence youth are in worse shape now than at any other time the last 50+ years.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a revised district map. Here is the previous, heavily gerrymandered map: And here is the neutral version: It's much simpler than the old one, but it's more complex than I would have expected. I previously suggested that an anti-gerrymandering law could include a provision that all districts must be convex, but this supposedly neutral map has lots of concave districts. Maybe concave and convex aren't the ideal qualifiers for a neutral or gerrymandered map.
I am already on record blaming my fellow GenXers for making Millennials what most of them are--unable to be fully-functional adults who are able to live independently. I concur wholeheartedly about Baby Boomers since I am the child of them. Noty kept telling me "you are a good dad" but the secret to my success was simple: I didn't do the things my father did.
edit/add @semiticgod You might need to explain the terms "convex" and "concave" for those who have not studied topology. *I* know what they mean, but I am a statistical anomaly. All you can really aim for with district lines are districts which have approximately equal populations.
@jjstraka34 We took our lumps from older generations; they can take theirs, as well.
I think the constant ragging on today's youth is nothing but narcissistic, self-serving revistionist history among those of us who have moved past the age of 30. Our parents said the same thing about us, and our grandparents said the same thing about them. I see no evidence youth are in worse shape now than at any other time the last 50+ years.
I'm not yet 30 myself
On Gerrymandering:
There needs to be a better solution than relying on the courts to redraw maps. We need to get an independent commission. It is a bad, bad look for the judicial system if they have to step in when these situations arise. Especially bad in states where judges are elected (which is already a mistake).
Gun control doesn't work in municipal level. Why it will work in federal level? You can mention UK, but the criminality in UK is growing while in US is declining and in Switzerland too. Also, even if you can magically prevent that people who doesn't follow the law get guns. A Truck killed almost 100 people in Europe and 98,4% of massacres occur in gun free zones ( https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/09/over-98-of-mass-shootings-occurred-on-gun-free-zones-research-shows )
If you look to "third world" countries, the same happens. Uruguay have less than 0.5% of murder numbers of Brazil and guns are far more accessible in Uruguay. In Brazil almost only criminals have guns.
Gun control failed in some cities in North America Gun control failed in South America Gun control failed in Europe Gun control failed everywhere Is like socialism and interventionism.
If you don't like guns, you can live in a city with strict gun laws. Few countries in world enjoy decentralized government. You don't need the federal government to enforce the same law in every city.
Gun control encompasses a much wider array of policies that "gun free zones".
You can't just use "gun control" as a blanket statement and say it hasn't worked, or could never work. Gun control takes many forms: complete bans, partial bans, buy-backs, ownership regulations, licensing requirements, and more.
Gun control is also not only about reducing criminality, but reducing the number of fatalities that result from criminal behavior.
While you might be right that many proposals won't work in the United States, where a large number of firearms are already in circulation, a simple claim that that "gun control never works!" is just not an accurate statement.
For those who aren't aware, this is the difference between a concave and a convex shape: A concave shape curves inward or has a "gap," so you can draw a line between certain points on the shape and still have part of that line fall outside the shape. A convex shape only curves outward, and if you draw a line between any two points on the shape, the line will always fall within the shape.
A convex shape would include a hexagon, circle, semi-circle, triangle, square, and most basic geometric shapes.
A concave shape would include a heart, a hook, a moon, a star, an "S," or a spiral.
It would be harder to gerrymander a map using convex shapes for districts because you couldn't twist it around to catch left-leaning or right-leaning communities. All you could is tweak the proportions.
Gun control encompasses a much wider array of policies that "gun free zones".
You can't just use "gun control" as a blanket statement and say it hasn't worked, or could never work. Gun control takes many forms: complete bans, partial bans, buy-backs, ownership regulations, licensing requirements, and more.
Gun control is also not only about reducing criminality, but reducing the number of fatalities that result from criminal behavior.
While you might be right that many proposals won't work in the United States, where a large number of firearms are already in circulation, a simple claim that that "gun control never works!" is just not an accurate statement.
Anyone with a CNC machine or a lathe and internet access can easily make homemade guns. Prevent criminals from obtaining guns using state law is like try to prevent gravity using state law. Simple will not work and will only affect professional shooters, private security, etc. Every number shows how gun control only gives security to criminals.
Do you really think that someone that want make a massacre will stop because guns are illegals?
For those who aren't aware, this is the difference between a concave and a convex shape: A concave shape curves inward or has a "gap," so you can draw a line between certain points on the shape and still have part of that line fall outside the shape. A convex shape only curves outward, and if you draw a line between any two points on the shape, the line will always fall within the shape.
A convex shape would include a hexagon, circle, semi-circle, triangle, square, and most basic geometric shapes.
A concave shape would include a heart, a hook, a moon, a star, an "S," or a spiral.
It would be harder to gerrymander a map using convex shapes for districts because you couldn't twist it around to catch left-leaning or right-leaning communities. All you could is tweak the proportions.
They really should draw the maps so that they look cool (ie: dragons, ghosts, skulls, etc...). We could even pay starving artists to come up with creative ideas. Win/win!
Seriously though, I remember reading an article from sometime back in the 1800's or early 1900's where a district was drawn that looked like a jabberwocky! This problem has been around for a loooooong time...
It's much simpler than the old one, but it's more complex than I would have expected. I previously suggested that an anti-gerrymandering law could include a provision that all districts must be convex, but this supposedly neutral map has lots of concave districts. Maybe concave and convex aren't the ideal qualifiers for a neutral or gerrymandered map.
The reason it's more complex is one of the criteria the court used was to follow existing county lines as much as possible.
@Mathsorcerer I think you're much too pessimistic about the possibilities for change - even in relation to such an entrenched issue as gun control. It's hard to imagine a more entrenched situation than apartheid in South Africa and I'm still amazed in retrospect that ended as peacefully as it did. There have been plenty of other structural changes in societies in my lifetime along with similarly fundamental changes in social attitudes - to things like homosexuality for instance. Once you get the combination of a public desire for change, with activism from a relatively few influential people in government, change can come quickly.
@booinyoureyes I think an independent commission would be a good idea. Changes to electoral boundaries always have the potential to cause political argument, but I think the extent to which that occurs has significantly reduced in the UK since the Boundary Commission was formed. They have an ongoing responsibility to review boundaries, for instance to ensure that population changes don't lead to the sizes of different constituencies getting too disparate. That takes away the political anger when one side or the other announces a review (the timing of which is likely to help them).
@semiticgod electoral boundaries normally follow existing boundaries of some sort (towns, health, schools etc). In turn those existing boundaries often reflected geographical features, so tend not to be that regular and make using a particular type of shape as a model difficult. If you're trying to roughly equalize population (which not all electoral systems are - consider the US Senate) then there will clearly be major differences in size of constituencies. The map you posted looks at first glance to me like a pretty good attempt.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
It's much simpler than the old one, but it's more complex than I would have expected. I previously suggested that an anti-gerrymandering law could include a provision that all districts must be convex, but this supposedly neutral map has lots of concave districts. Maybe concave and convex aren't the ideal qualifiers for a neutral or gerrymandered map.
The reason it's more complex is one of the criteria the court used was to follow existing county lines as much as possible.
In other words, they used the most logical demarcations possible, that the general public could easily wrap their head around. People understand quite well what county they live in. Under this criteria, any objection would then have to be aimed at how Pennsylvania has already been partitioned for decades.
@Mathsorcerer I think you're much too pessimistic about the possibilities for change - even in relation to such an entrenched issue as gun control. It's hard to imagine a more entrenched situation than apartheid in South Africa and I'm still amazed in retrospect that ended as peacefully as it did. There have been plenty of other structural changes in societies in my lifetime along with similarly fundamental changes in social attitudes - to things like homosexuality for instance. Once you get the combination of a public desire for change, with activism from a relatively few influential people in government, change can come quickly.
Sometimes my desire to be a realist--I am fond of saying "we must deal with the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist"--bleeds over into pessimism--a situation which needs to be changed hasn't changed in the last 20 years so it probably won't change in the next 20 years, either. There are times, though, when I am incorrect about something (and this is a good thing) but there are other times when I *need* to be incorrect about something. Perhaps I am wrong about these teenagers and this fledgling movement--maybe they will be able to enact the change they wish to see...but I am not going to bet on it. Remember--Black Lives Matter was a nascent movement once, as well, and here we are now, years later, and the medium-term outcome from BLM is "no significant change".
*************
One of the latest people to be accused of harassment in the past is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The accuser, Angela Wright-Shannon, a journalist, claims that Thomas pressured her to date him and "made comments about her breasts" back when they were working at the EEOC together in the mid-1980s. She would like to see him impeached over his former misconduct.
Why didn't Ms. Wright-Shannon come forward back when Justice Thomas was having his confirmation hearings in the Senate? Anita Hill had the courage to show up, so it isn't like she would have been alone. Why now? Is it because she thinks that MeToo will be sufficient to see a Supreme Court Justice be impeached? She cannot seriously think that the Senate is going to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, can she?
By this time next year, the pendulum will have started to swing back against MeToo. At that point, leveling an accusation against someone will not be sufficient to remove them from their political position or force them to step down from some high-profile job. No, as with all other accusations they will have to be accompanied by proof. Note that I am not saying that the allegations are untrue, only that without proof the act of making an allegation is insufficient. We know that people will lie even when they have nothing to gain from it--people were telling Jimmy Kimmel what they hated about Trump's most recent SotU address the day before he gave it--so when they *do* have something to gain the incentive to lie is greater.
*************
Speaking of lying...some of the charges being handed out in the Mueller investigation are for the crime of "lying to investigators". If I sit you down, any of you, and I grill you for 6 hours straight, then do that again 4 or 5 times over the course of a month, I will eventually find a "lie", or at least an inconsistent statement, somewhere in your testimony. At that point, at best I can charge you with "lying to an investigator" and at worst I can get you for "perjury". So...without the investigation there wouldn't be any questions and without the questions there wouldn't be any "lying to investigators". Therefore, the investigation *seems* to be trying to justify its own existence by manufacturing guilty parties. One of the latest charges was because one guy failed to disclose an e-mail communication he had with Manafort over a case he was handling for a law firm back in 2012 about a report on a political opponent of Yanukovych (a former PM of Ukraine). I didn't know the Mueller Investigation was looking into Ukrainian political housecleaning, did you?
. Under this criteria, any objection would then have to be aimed at how Pennsylvania has already been partitioned for decades.
Well, no, it can still be skewed one way or the other even if they do use counties. Also, I can imagine some objections over who the court gave the authority to draw the lines to (they outsourced it to a law professor with progressive leanings).
Its a bad situation for the courts, especially courts where judges are elected for terms (where they run on party tickets!), to be drawing these lines.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that : - Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms - The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence - Count suicide as "gun violence" - Don't separate legal and illegal guns (...)
I have been meaning to do this for some time and procrastinating now is as good as a time as any and with @Mathsorcerer mentioning #Metoo backlash and now it's a good time as any:
Previously, I mentioned how the opposition party leader of Ontario, Patrick Brown, was forced to step down due to 2 anonymous accusations of "sexual misconduct" that was in the press. He vowed to fight back against the allegations and by golly he is fighting back.
It started with this opinion piece from the Toronto Star which kinda states my stance on it better than I could possibly say.
Some of the more serious allegations have also already been proven false. Originally it was stated one of the accusers was underage drinking at the time. That has now been debunked although the accuser is still standing by the fact she was intoxicated and taken advantage of by someone who was sober.
There is even a penned open letter stating, from women he represents in the Simcoe area stating their support for him. It goes on to say how much Brown has done representing women in the past, both as a federal MP and as a leader of the Ontario PCs.
And now, after being dragged through the mud, being removed as the leader, he is back attempting to regain his position, and he is suing the news channel that first broke the story.
It's still early in all of this, as the leadership race has just begun, with prominent names such as Doug Ford (brother of the late Mayor Ford), Christine Elliott, who Brown surprisingly defeated the last time the leadership was up for grabs, and Caroline Mulroney, daughter or former Prime Minister Bryan Mulroney.
The party is extremely divided at this time and it seems more and more likely that someone from the Conservative Party was actually behind the story instead of the Liberals as once thought, with accusations of being dirty being thrown against him by his own party, and the party removing two candidates Brown had a hand in putting in place. The money is on new comer Mulroney to win as she is probably the only one who can heal the division that has formed in the party over the last few months.
PC leadership race is an opening act of the circus of what is going to be the Ontario election in November. Can't wait.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that : - Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms - The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence - Count suicide as "gun violence" - Don't separate legal and illegal guns (...)
From the article you shared about rape prevention: "Not all of these statistics are fully documented, but they are interesting nonetheless."
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that : - Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms - The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence - Count suicide as "gun violence" - Don't separate legal and illegal guns (...)
I stated in the past how terrorist using trucks can be stopped by small evenly spaced out concrete barriers along pedestrian pathways. A simple fix for a simple problem.
Yes "terrorist" will find loopholes and ways to do as much destruction as possible. But why make it easier for them by not having gun laws? As I said, laws are a deterrent for these types of acts. It makes it harder for people to commit crimes, but it won't prevent it 100% of the time, nothing ever will. Using arguments of other forms of attacks, let it be knives or trucks, or someone's own fists doesn't change this fact.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that : - Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms - The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence - Count suicide as "gun violence" - Don't separate legal and illegal guns (...)
I stated in the past how terrorist using trucks can be stopped by small evenly spaced out concrete barriers along pedestrian pathways. A simple fix for a simple problem.
Yes "terrorist" will find loopholes and ways to do as much destruction as possible. But why make it easier for them by not having gun laws? As I said, laws are a deterrent for these types of acts. It makes it harder for people to commit crimes, but it won't prevent it 100% of the time, nothing ever will. Using arguments of other forms of attacks, let it be knives or trucks, or someone's own fists doesn't change this fact.
Gun laws will not make "hard" for then. Will simple make anyone that follows the law be unable to defend themselves. Massacres will simple become more frequent and kill more people if the shooters know that will be nobody to defend or prevent his massacre. They know that will need 10-20 minutes to police come.
USA cities with more strict gun laws are more violent because if by an example i an a criminal. I rather commit a crime against someone who can't defend. Is more easy to "kill sheeps" than is to "kill lions"
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that : - Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms - The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence - Count suicide as "gun violence" - Don't separate legal and illegal guns (...)
From the article you shared about rape prevention: "Not all of these statistics are fully documented, but they are interesting nonetheless."
But don't change the reality. Is thanks to guns that the average woman can have a chance to defend himself against a muscular tall rapist.
@Mathsorcerer "Black Lives Matter was a nascent movement once, as well, and here we are now, years later, and the medium-term outcome from BLM is "no significant change". "
Not entirely. The rise of the movement (and circumstances immediately preceding it) brought a problem to my attention that I never held much stock in. Its an almost direct cause of my current stance on law enforcement and how they should conduct themselves/be held accountable for their actions. As well as being VERY vocal about it. Which, with the large number of family members, friends , and aquantences that are IN law enforcement, this is a very hard stance to support. And I surely cannot be the only one.
Comments
Impairing by things like crippling the EPA and State Department and not bothering to appoint an ambassador to South Korea then trying to war with North Korea. Obstructions abound including into Muellers Russia probe and firing Comey. Fraud and deceit are his day to day lies and spin. Constantly telling big old whoppers of lies.
The gun bill in question would have banned the sale or possession of automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, like the AR-15 rifle authorities say was used at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.
Many people on Twitter noted that Florida lawmakers were using intuition and inconclusive data to call something a "health risk" while not even allowing a debate on assault weapons, which in the real world have a deadly track record.
I suppose you could say the kids have made themselves fair game for inserting themselves in the debate. From what I've seen and read of them, they can actually handle it (and why wouldn't they be able to, since they have much more recent experience dealing with bullying than most of us adults). That being said, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that even in Trump's America, attacking teenage school shooting survivors is a bad political strategy. Also, for everyone dismissing them, condescending to them....you were a kid once, and you were likely attacked by adults for something YOU were right about (though I doubt it was this serious a subject in most cases). The dearly departed David Bowie had something to say about this:
"And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through"
If these kids are all around 16-18 years old, they were born around the time of 9/11. For their whole lives, it's been nothing but endless war in the Middle East, terrorism, and shooting after shooting after shooting at schools and college campuses. I still remember Columbine like it was yesterday. Everyone anticipated then it was some sort of singular event. As these particular kids have grown older, it's become part of life. None of us, when in school, had active shooter drills, in the same way we had fire and tornado drills. They've grown up in a country where, increasingly, it is entirely plausible that yes, one day it very well could be your school's turn. For the kids in Parkland, their number, tragically, got called. But unlike the grade school kids of Newtown, and unlike the kids of Columbine who didn't grow up in an age of all-consuming social media, the Parkland kids can take their grief and anger and channel it into fighting back. I've been hearing that alot of the kids speaking up are associated with the theater program at the school. How wonderful and apt if that is true.
It isn't condescension not to give the Parkland teenagers false hope. *Every* group of 18-year-olds thinks they are going to change the world but the reality of the situation is that this never happens. They are motivated now but as time passes and the changes they would like to see never occur their motivation will fade--university happens, needing to get a job happens, settling into a long-term relationship happens, sometimes children happen, and so on. In other words, life happens and life has a way of causing people to put some of the things they wanted on the back burner until they find themselves in their mid-30s thinking back to all the plans they had in college during their lunch hour at work.
Until *all* the people who get shot in Chicago receive just as much front-page attention as the Parkland victims, thinking that Parkland is somehow more of a tragedy is pure hypocrisy. I suppose not all shooting victims are equally tragic, though.
As for false hope, it's the other way around. It's the children who are giving adults hope, people like me long-resigned to the all-consuming power of the NRA. I still don't think anything changes. But the ground floor has to be put in somewhere.
Most people care only about mass shootings (still defined as "four or more people shot", which has been updated from its original definition of "four or more people killed"), not *all* shootings. Of course, one person being shot typically can't translate into face time on the news networks or publicity for yourself or your cause, which is why they don't get as much attention. Except in cases like Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice. The young people of today don't give me any hope for the future. Too many of them are even more irresponsible than we were when I was that age, the current crop having been brought up in an environment where everyone gets a participation trophy and no one's feelings ever get hurt. They think their walkout is going to do anything? All it will do is give them a little emotional boost to think that they are part of some grassroots movement but that temporary boost will fade in less than 6 months; by this time next year, everything will be back to "business as usual".
If the high school students of today really want to do something about gun control then they need to figure out how to play the long game. Stay in school, major in law and/or political science, run for the State Legislature after graduating university, then eventually run for Congress. Once there, work to pass whatever form of gun control legislation you think can get enough votes to pass and will meet with the SCOTUS's approval. It might take them 30 years but if that is what they really want then it should be worth the wait.
They've passed on massive debts to my generation, and have helped make millennials ill-prepared to deal with new challenges by being helicopter over-protective parents (it is not the kids who demand participation trophies, btw, it is the parents). Makes me happy I grew up in an immigrant household. /rant
And here is the neutral version:
It's much simpler than the old one, but it's more complex than I would have expected. I previously suggested that an anti-gerrymandering law could include a provision that all districts must be convex, but this supposedly neutral map has lots of concave districts. Maybe concave and convex aren't the ideal qualifiers for a neutral or gerrymandered map.
edit/add
@semiticgod You might need to explain the terms "convex" and "concave" for those who have not studied topology. *I* know what they mean, but I am a statistical anomaly. All you can really aim for with district lines are districts which have approximately equal populations.
@jjstraka34 We took our lumps from older generations; they can take theirs, as well.
On Gerrymandering:
There needs to be a better solution than relying on the courts to redraw maps. We need to get an independent commission. It is a bad, bad look for the judicial system if they have to step in when these situations arise. Especially bad in states where judges are elected (which is already a mistake).
If you look to "third world" countries, the same happens. Uruguay have less than 0.5% of murder numbers of Brazil and guns are far more accessible in Uruguay. In Brazil almost only criminals have guns.
Gun control failed in some cities in North America
Gun control failed in South America
Gun control failed in Europe
Gun control failed everywhere
Is like socialism and interventionism.
If you don't like guns, you can live in a city with strict gun laws. Few countries in world enjoy decentralized government. You don't need the federal government to enforce the same law in every city.
Gun control encompasses a much wider array of policies that "gun free zones".
You can't just use "gun control" as a blanket statement and say it hasn't worked, or could never work. Gun control takes many forms: complete bans, partial bans, buy-backs, ownership regulations, licensing requirements, and more.
Gun control is also not only about reducing criminality, but reducing the number of fatalities that result from criminal behavior.
While you might be right that many proposals won't work in the United States, where a large number of firearms are already in circulation, a simple claim that that "gun control never works!" is just not an accurate statement.
A concave shape curves inward or has a "gap," so you can draw a line between certain points on the shape and still have part of that line fall outside the shape. A convex shape only curves outward, and if you draw a line between any two points on the shape, the line will always fall within the shape.
A convex shape would include a hexagon, circle, semi-circle, triangle, square, and most basic geometric shapes.
A concave shape would include a heart, a hook, a moon, a star, an "S," or a spiral.
It would be harder to gerrymander a map using convex shapes for districts because you couldn't twist it around to catch left-leaning or right-leaning communities. All you could is tweak the proportions.
Do you really think that someone that want make a massacre will stop because guns are illegals?
Seriously though, I remember reading an article from sometime back in the 1800's or early 1900's where a district was drawn that looked like a jabberwocky! This problem has been around for a loooooong time...
@booinyoureyes I think an independent commission would be a good idea. Changes to electoral boundaries always have the potential to cause political argument, but I think the extent to which that occurs has significantly reduced in the UK since the Boundary Commission was formed. They have an ongoing responsibility to review boundaries, for instance to ensure that population changes don't lead to the sizes of different constituencies getting too disparate. That takes away the political anger when one side or the other announces a review (the timing of which is likely to help them).
@semiticgod electoral boundaries normally follow existing boundaries of some sort (towns, health, schools etc). In turn those existing boundaries often reflected geographical features, so tend not to be that regular and make using a particular type of shape as a model difficult. If you're trying to roughly equalize population (which not all electoral systems are - consider the US Senate) then there will clearly be major differences in size of constituencies. The map you posted looks at first glance to me like a pretty good attempt.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
*************
One of the latest people to be accused of harassment in the past is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The accuser, Angela Wright-Shannon, a journalist, claims that Thomas pressured her to date him and "made comments about her breasts" back when they were working at the EEOC together in the mid-1980s. She would like to see him impeached over his former misconduct.
Why didn't Ms. Wright-Shannon come forward back when Justice Thomas was having his confirmation hearings in the Senate? Anita Hill had the courage to show up, so it isn't like she would have been alone. Why now? Is it because she thinks that MeToo will be sufficient to see a Supreme Court Justice be impeached? She cannot seriously think that the Senate is going to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, can she?
By this time next year, the pendulum will have started to swing back against MeToo. At that point, leveling an accusation against someone will not be sufficient to remove them from their political position or force them to step down from some high-profile job. No, as with all other accusations they will have to be accompanied by proof. Note that I am not saying that the allegations are untrue, only that without proof the act of making an allegation is insufficient. We know that people will lie even when they have nothing to gain from it--people were telling Jimmy Kimmel what they hated about Trump's most recent SotU address the day before he gave it--so when they *do* have something to gain the incentive to lie is greater.
*************
Speaking of lying...some of the charges being handed out in the Mueller investigation are for the crime of "lying to investigators". If I sit you down, any of you, and I grill you for 6 hours straight, then do that again 4 or 5 times over the course of a month, I will eventually find a "lie", or at least an inconsistent statement, somewhere in your testimony. At that point, at best I can charge you with "lying to an investigator" and at worst I can get you for "perjury". So...without the investigation there wouldn't be any questions and without the questions there wouldn't be any "lying to investigators". Therefore, the investigation *seems* to be trying to justify its own existence by manufacturing guilty parties. One of the latest charges was because one guy failed to disclose an e-mail communication he had with Manafort over a case he was handling for a law firm back in 2012 about a report on a political opponent of Yanukovych (a former PM of Ukraine). I didn't know the Mueller Investigation was looking into Ukrainian political housecleaning, did you?
Its a bad situation for the courts, especially courts where judges are elected for terms (where they run on party tickets!), to be drawing these lines.
Also, guns prevent 3600 rapes a day https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/178541/guns-prevent-3600-rapes-day-daniel-greenfield
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that :
- Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms
- The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence
- Count suicide as "gun violence"
- Don't separate legal and illegal guns
(...)
I have been meaning to do this for some time and procrastinating now is as good as a time as any and with @Mathsorcerer mentioning #Metoo backlash and now it's a good time as any:
Previously, I mentioned how the opposition party leader of Ontario, Patrick Brown, was forced to step down due to 2 anonymous accusations of "sexual misconduct" that was in the press. He vowed to fight back against the allegations and by golly he is fighting back.
It started with this opinion piece from the Toronto Star which kinda states my stance on it better than I could possibly say.
Some of the more serious allegations have also already been proven false. Originally it was stated one of the accusers was underage drinking at the time. That has now been debunked although the accuser is still standing by the fact she was intoxicated and taken advantage of by someone who was sober.
There is even a penned open letter stating, from women he represents in the Simcoe area stating their support for him. It goes on to say how much Brown has done representing women in the past, both as a federal MP and as a leader of the Ontario PCs.
And now, after being dragged through the mud, being removed as the leader, he is back attempting to regain his position, and he is suing the news channel that first broke the story.
It's still early in all of this, as the leadership race has just begun, with prominent names such as Doug Ford (brother of the late Mayor Ford), Christine Elliott, who Brown surprisingly defeated the last time the leadership was up for grabs, and Caroline Mulroney, daughter or former Prime Minister Bryan Mulroney.
The party is extremely divided at this time and it seems more and more likely that someone from the Conservative Party was actually behind the story instead of the Liberals as once thought, with accusations of being dirty being thrown against him by his own party, and the party removing two candidates Brown had a hand in putting in place. The money is on new comer Mulroney to win as she is probably the only one who can heal the division that has formed in the party over the last few months.
PC leadership race is an opening act of the circus of what is going to be the Ontario election in November. Can't wait.
Yes "terrorist" will find loopholes and ways to do as much destruction as possible. But why make it easier for them by not having gun laws? As I said, laws are a deterrent for these types of acts. It makes it harder for people to commit crimes, but it won't prevent it 100% of the time, nothing ever will. Using arguments of other forms of attacks, let it be knives or trucks, or someone's own fists doesn't change this fact.
USA cities with more strict gun laws are more violent because if by an example i an a criminal. I rather commit a crime against someone who can't defend. Is more easy to "kill sheeps" than is to "kill lions"
But don't change the reality. Is thanks to guns that the average woman can have a chance to defend himself against a muscular tall rapist.
Not entirely. The rise of the movement (and circumstances immediately preceding it) brought a problem to my attention that I never held much stock in. Its an almost direct cause of my current stance on law enforcement and how they should conduct themselves/be held accountable for their actions. As well as being VERY vocal about it. Which, with the large number of family members, friends , and aquantences that are IN law enforcement, this is a very hard stance to support. And I surely cannot be the only one.