@SorcererV1ct0r I don't know why you keep bringing up people killed by "givernments". That's a completely separate issue to gun control, and has zero bearing on the gun discussion.
Anyway, i an in favor of just 2 gun control laws 1 - No guns for "anti gun politicians" 2 - No armed security to "anti gun politicians"
Why? Because you think it will increase the odds of your political opponents being assassinated? If you're truly opposed to gun control, you wouldn't support taking them away from your political opponents.
I was only joking. Hypocrisy should't be a crime or restrict natural rights.
@SorcererV1ct0r I don't know why you keep bringing up people killed by "givernments". That's a completely separate issue to gun control, and has zero bearing on the gun discussion.
Is much easier to the government massacre his own population once his population is disarmed. As i've posted, was common for nazis when they occupied countries on eastern europe to first disarm the population. Same for soviets. One of the greatest problems that French Resistance faced was the shortage of guns. If France had the same cowboy culture that some USA states have with high gun ownership or the same "gaucho" culture that some regions on southern cone have with high gun ownership, i an sure that they will have much more chances.
@SorcererV1ct0r: Fair enough. Still, we should generally be more serious and literal in this discussion than in others. Rule 6 recommends against jokes and sarcasm since they're easier to misinterpret, and clarity is especially important in a political discussion.
It's fairly obvious why political figures would need to have more protection than an average citizen. It is also true that a trained security professional is much different than your average whack-a-loon. What I find most interesting on this particular topic is that the frickin' NRA doesn't allow guns carried at their convention. Imagine that. Isn't their entire platform based on the idea that more guns equal more safety?? A fully-armed convention hall should ostensibly be the safest place in the world if this is true.
Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California? A law barring the open carry of loaded firearms was passed in 1967 with the support of the National Rifle Association, after armed Black Panthers "invaded" the California state capitol earlier that year. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/
4) (on the Liberal side). There are far more incidents involving angry alt-right and right-wingers than any liberal "mob". People may be yelling at Senators, but they aren't beating them up, or forming mobs to do so.
It's fairly obvious why political figures would need to have more protection than an average citizen. It is also true that a trained security professional is much different than your average whack-a-loon. What I find most interesting on this particular topic is that the frickin' NRA doesn't allow guns carried at their convention. Imagine that. Isn't their entire platform based on the idea that more guns equal more safety?? A fully-armed convention hall should ostensibly be the safest place in the world if this is true.
This doesn't change the fact that the state in many countries consider someone at 18 yo apt to "defend politicians interests" in a war, but incapable of defending themselves; in other words, like an gladiador slave that can only own gun when is convenient to his master, the state only allow guns to be used in his own interest. The interests of politicians worth more than your life. That is what the law in many different countries is saying.
As for NRA, have a gun at home and walk everywhere with the gun are two different things. NRA have armed security on their convention
-------------------------
On Brazil before the end of slavery, whites, indigenous and mestizos can own guns. And blacks? Free slaves can't own guns, only the "capitão do mato"(the guy who hunts fugitive slaves) was allowed to own guns.
Remove gun rights is the first step towards make the population an cattle.
New Jersey is certainly seen as one of the most corrupt states. There was a book written about NJ called "The Soprano State". And yeah, I do live there.
But here is the point of the crisis: On why Flint officials wanted to change where the city got its water from
"It had been relying on water from Lake Huron from the Detroit Water Department for about 50 years. The quality was good, but there was a lot of unhappiness about the affordability. It was extremely expensive — the most expensive or among the most expensive water rates in the country. And especially for a city with a very high poverty rate, this was really getting to the point of crisis. And a lot of folks really felt like, 'We want our own water system. We want some more control.' So it decided, it was under state-appointed emergency management, that it was going to switch to a new water department. And until that new water department was built, it was going to temporarily use the Flint River as its drinking water source, and sort of reboot its 50-year-old water plant to provide that."
"Treating river water is vastly more complex than treating lake water. The upgrades to the water plant were insufficient to deal with that." Anna Clark
On the dramatic announcement of the city's switch to Flint River water
"It was really celebrated. I mean, media was there, they had this ceremony at the water treatment plant, with a countdown and cheers and toasts with the river water and a lot of folks are really celebrating that, 'This is us getting back to our roots, and returning to some self-determination, self sovereignty.' And of course looking back, this is terribly heartbreaking, because the river ... I mean the problems were that treating river water is vastly more complex than treating lake water. The upgrades to the water plant were insufficient to deal with that. And most ominously, the water was not treated with something called corrosion control, and this is something that you add to the water to help keep our very old, ill-maintained water lines from breaking down and having the metals contaminate the water by the time it gets to our tap."
On the health effects of lead from corroded water pipes getting into the water
"There was a series of bacterial issues and other issues with the water even before lead came on the radar. There was also a huge outbreak of something called Legionnaires' disease. That's what actually killed people. With lead, what's frightening about this is that there is no amount of lead that is safe. Children are much more susceptible to it, because their developing bodies absorbed up to five times more lead than adults. And its toxic effects, which can range from more antisocial aggressive behavior, stunted growth, anemia. For adults, miscarriages, reproductive problems — it can take a little while for some of these to show up. But they are also unfortunately uncurable."
On how Flint being run by unelected emergency managers factored into the crisis
"It was huge. In Flint, they had an emergency manager appointed in 2011, and a series of them were in place consecutively up and through April 2015. So essentially through the entirety of this crisis, and all the decisions that were made here. Two of these officials ended up being indicted in the criminal investigation that has since followed. There's an unusually direct route for the state's accountability for what happened in Flint, given that this was a system that was in place in Flint."
@Mathsorcerer I don't think you can say that, because Democrats control both Flint and Newark, that they are to blame, as that seems to be the point of your post. There are different reasons for the water crisis in both cities, even though one of the problems seems to be lead (in both cities).
We can take our pick. Be it from looking at gun charts to infer the cause of gun violence in a complex socioeconomic situation with a multitude of variables, down to looking for D's and R's and assigning blame whenever it fits one's preference.
@Mathsorcerer I don't think you can say that, because Democrats control both Flint and Newark, that they are to blame, as that seems to be the point of your post. There are different reasons for the water crisis in both cities, even though one of the problems seems to be lead (in both cities).
***THANK YOU***
In Flint, there were also Republican State officials that messed up. Does that mean Republican = poisoning water? No. It's laughable to act like this could only happen with some form of Republican oversight. Like suggesting Democrats are simply to blame as well.
I did say "make up your own mind for yourself"; those who choose to disagree with me will choose to disagree with me for reasons of their own.
The problem was presented and I proposed a potential cause for the problem--city leadership. Although it is true that the two cities are not identical, the fact that the two cities have a similar problem despite having different water systems points to some common source for the problem.
Fortunately, it appears that someone has decided to try and link logical fallacies to my posts even though this honor is not bestowed upon any other poster. His reasons for doing so are his own and will not be addressed.
I will neither debate the topic nor engage in back-and-forth discussions. I will, from time to time, leave my observations and/or conclusions about a topic for other people to choose to accept or reject as they see fit. My reasons are my own.
Fortunately, it appears that someone has decided to try and link logical fallacies to my posts even though this honor is not bestowed upon any other poster. His reasons for doing so are his own and will not be addressed.
You'll note I also referenced the gun violence chart debate as well, which did not involve you and instead involved... several other posters. So no. Not just you.
I think (most) any observation is welcome. Dont be surprised if when you make an observation that is demonstrably false, that you are corrected. It happened to me during the Kavanaugh hearing when I mistakenly said that it wasnt Ford's ex boyfriend that accused her of helping someone prepare for a polygraph @WarChiefZeke corrected me on the issue. I'm rather certain it's happened to everyone. Similarly, dont be surprised if you're called out if your observation contains a logical fallacy. It's happened a handful of times to people here, myself included. (Correlation is not Causation is a big one).
I've been corrected lots of times, in this thread and the previous one. If somebody posts a convincing counterargument, I'll just give it an "Insightful" or a "Like" or directly acknowledge it in a post. Hell, I did that yesterday with @Balrog99. It's not a personal thing--@Balrog99 was trying to shed light on an issue; not make me look bad or anything like that.
Fortunately, it appears that someone has decided to try and link logical fallacies to my posts even though this honor is not bestowed upon any other poster. His reasons for doing so are his own and will not be addressed.
You'll note I also referenced the gun violence chart debate as well, which did not involve you and instead involved... several other posters. So no. Not just you.
I think (most) any observation is welcome. Dont be surprised if when you make an observation that is demonstrably false, that you are corrected. It happened to me during the Kavanaugh hearing when I mistakenly said that it wasnt Ford's ex boyfriend that accused her of helping someone prepare for a polygraph @WarChiefZeke corrected me on the issue. I'm rather certain it's happened to everyone. Similarly, dont be surprised if you're called out if your observation contains a logical fallacy. It's happened a handful of times to people here, myself included. (Correlation is not Causation is a big one).
Yeah, the "boyfriend" that claimed he took her off the credit card they shared yet somehow decided NOT to get a bank fraud department involved when he claimed she supposedly ran up over $600 worth of transactions. while he himself didn't notice this happening for over year. And also insisted on having his name redacted in the document. I talk to people about financial transactions for a living. The idea someone would let $600 in charges accruing interest go unnoticed or unchallenged for a year is absurd. Receipts and records of this would have been very easy to get ahold of and share. They weren't.
I did say "make up your own mind for yourself"; those who choose to disagree with me will choose to disagree with me for reasons of their own.
The facts do not back your conclusion, which is why I disagreed. Flint Michigan had problems because of switching water sources because the first was too expansive and they were ill-prepared for the switch. Newark's water crisis appears to come from aging pipes, which they are trying to replace as fast as possible. As most of these pipes are underground and hard to replace, it will apparently take them eight years presently. It might be able to be alleviated in other ways as well.
How would having different leadership have made a difference? Will it make Newark pipes be replaced faster? Would it have made Flint's water problems suddenly different?
If I found two cities with Republican City councils having very similar problems, would I be therefore okay in blaming that party for those problems? Because that is what you are doing. You are seizing one point of similarity and using that to place blame on an entire party. And that's not right.
I will neither debate the topic nor engage in back-and-forth discussions. I will, from time to time, leave my observations and/or conclusions about a topic for other people to choose to accept or reject as they see fit. My reasons are my own.
You are already participating in a debate and a back-and-forth discussion merely by replying to the two posts you did.
People please! Obama went to Flint and pretended the water was safe to drink. Speaking of water, Obama sided with DAPL. Obama feigned to side with Occupy Wall Street, but did not increase the budget for investigating white collar crimes and he did not sign an executive order that the bankers that caused the 2009 financial meltdown should be prioritized targets by the law enforcement. But he did extend the Bush tax cuts! And so on and so forth. Yes, the problem with Flint is the Democratic leadership. The pipes needs to be replaced, that is something a normal government takes care off. Why are you making defenses for them? Do not, they do not deserve it.
The only problem with pointing at the Democrats corruption is that Republicans are way worse! Trump killed the EPA! What that does is that the next Flint may not make headlines, because the probability just increased that none will know it is even happening!
But please note that the Democrats also do wonderful things as well, for instance, Obama sided with Warren for setting up the CFPB. So, when they deserve praise, then praise them.
It is just that the elephant in the room is the corruption. The millions upon millions of dollars politicians depend upon for TV ads claiming they are not corrupted. Also, they get personal bribes, usually in the form of a promise of a sleepy desk job with incredibly high salary once their political career ends. Now, this is not a US only problem. The EU passed for instance IPRED, DMCA and CETA*. All of these shit bills have been greased all the way from start to finish by filthy filthy corporate bribes to elected officials.
If you are not woke, if you refuse to see the corruption, and, say, pretend that are legitimate reasons the pipes in Flint have not been replaced, or to take a republican issue, why people on the terrorist watch list are allowed to purchase assault rifles, then you are part of the problem. Do not make excuses for the corrupt politicians; point out their corruption and vote for someone else. Well, unless the corrupt politician is less corrupt than it's opponent (see Hillary - as bad a "swamp monster" as she is, now that the cards are on the table only a fool would deny that Trump is a bigger swamp monster than her).
* This bill is insanity! Corporations can now sue governments, if a government pass a law that the corporation disagree with.
It's true, both parties have corruption. Both parties have problems. That's why I am a registered independent. I can vote for whoever is less of a horrible person, no matter party affiliation. I also think we (the people of the US) should cut off the gravy train by not allowing this sort of "soft money" and people and corporations pumping money to candidates to get them to vote the way the corporations want. I support the bill to do away with these things proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren. I think getting money out of politics would be a good first step. But only a first step.
"There is perhaps no more insidious drain on the overall welfare of society than greed unchecked." -Harold A. Ackerman, U.S. District Judge, first sentence of the introduction of SEC vs. Antar, 1998.
Now, the Antars perpetrated one of the largest bankruptcies and frauds of the 1980s.
* This bill is insanity! Corporations can now sue governments, if a government pass a law that the corporation disagree with.
Corporations have always been able to sue governments. The fundamental belief of corporate personhood is that a corporation is but an organization of people who own the corporation and that the rights of the owners can be passed down to the rights of the corporation itself. And the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is right in the Constitution in the First Amendment.
Effectively, a corporation suing the government is in a sense a class-action lawsuit, where the "class" is "people who are owners of the corporation".
Granted, one usually has to be able to demonstrate harm caused or likely to be caused to effectively have a leg to stand on legally. The governments tends to win about 2/3 of the time, though as usual, settlements happen more often than the case being decided one way or another.
What's relatively new is corporations suing foreign governments. It used to be that foreign corporations had to get their home country to act against the country that harmed them.
But this is not totally new, for example NAFTA has had provisions for more than 20 years allowing investors in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. to sue the other governments directly.
"There is perhaps no more insidious drain on the overall welfare of society than greed unchecked." -Harold A. Ackerman, U.S. District Judge, first sentence of the introduction of SEC vs. Antar, 1998.
Now, the Antars perpetrated one of the largest bankruptcies and frauds of the 1980s.
* This bill is insanity! Corporations can now sue governments, if a government pass a law that the corporation disagree with.
Corporations have always been able to sue governments. The fundamental belief of corporate personhood is that a corporation is but an organization of people who own the corporation and that the rights of the owners can be passed down to the rights of the corporation itself. And the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is right in the Constitution in the First Amendment.
Effectively, a corporation suing the government is in a sense a class-action lawsuit, where the "class" is "people who are owners of the corporation".
Granted, one usually has to be able to demonstrate harm caused or likely to be caused to effectively have a leg to stand on legally. The governments tends to win about 2/3 of the time, though as usual, settlements happen more often than the case being decided one way or another.
What's relatively new is corporations suing foreign governments. It used to be that foreign corporations had to get their home country to act against the country that harmed them.
But this is not totally new, for example NAFTA has had provisions for more than 20 years allowing investors in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. to sue the other governments directly.
That it has been possible to do in Mexico for 20 years does not make it better. Secondly, no, you are wrong. Well, maybe not of the laws of old, but CETA law does not require the company to show any harm. It is enough to say "I WOULD HAVE made an investment, had this law not existed, and I expected to earn xyz from this investment. Therefore, the government A owes me my expected earnings." It is absolute and utter nonsense, and, furthermore, and admission that not even corporations believe in capitalism. See, nature creates circumstance, in which inventive people comes up with solutions to tackle these problems, and whomever does it best gets the "vote of the wallet" so to speak. However, the solution which the vote of the wallet prefers might be fraught with economic, ecologic and / or societal damages to third party. For instance, let's say a paper factory pollutes a river from which fishermen used to be able to fish and fish used to be able to live and the local population used to be able to get their drinking water. And also take a swim in every now and then. So, whose rights are more important? Well, there is where the government comes in and either sides with the paper industry or the fishermen by writing laws / regulations and upholding the laws / regulations etc. This is now a NEW circumstance, an artificial circumstance if you will, which - if you believe in the free market and the free market of ideas - capitalism will solve; another inventive person comes up with a new solution (such as a filter on the paper manufacture drain pipe or whatever). What CETA does is say "No! We do NOT believe in the power of capitalism! ONLY natural circumstances exist, because capitalism is so fragile*, it cannot handle artificial circumstance!"
To add further ridicule to CETA; hearing corporation can sue government, you would be thinking "Ok ok, they go to the courts and..." NO!!! You would be dead wrong! Disputes are settled by a new entity existing of corporate lawyers. I kid you not, google it. It is beyond absurd!
* Which begs the question, why should we place our trust in such a weak system?
What is the point of punishing someone by a "crime without victim"?
When i mean crime without victims, i mean for eg : - Owning an piece of metal that killed much more innocent people in hands of government than on civilian hands - Saying unpopular opinions - Having consensual relationships between two adult persons, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc or even a monetary factor involved. - Modifying his own body - Having any "illegal" substance
What is the point of flooding the prison with people wo committed crimes that have no victim? Isn't better to put the police and state force to actually hunt those who commit crimes with real victims? The government shouldn't decide what you can own, what you can do with your own body(aka limiting plastic surgeries), otherwise you are not a free man.
Brian Kemp is a piece of garbage, and the more information we get about him, the worse he looks. Here is an article that details his attempts to put African-Americans in jail for DECADES based on what can hardly even really be called technicalities, much less actual violations of any law, including simply giving someone basic information about how voting works and people assisting their blind parent fill out an absentee ballot:
What is the point of punishing someone by a "crime without victim"?
When i mean crime without victims, i mean for eg : - Owning an piece of metal that killed much more innocent people in hands of government than on civilian hands - Saying unpopular opinions - Having consensual relationships between two adult persons, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc or even a monetary factor involved. - Modifying his own body - Having any "illegal" substance
What is the point of flooding the prison with people wo committed crimes that have no victim? Isn't better to put the police and state force to actually hunt those who commit crimes with real victims? The government shouldn't decide what you can own, what you can do with your own body(aka limiting plastic surgeries), otherwise you are not a free man.
Just for one, "Illegal" substances are those prohibited by law. While you may have meant drugs here, it can also mean things like biological warfare weapons (poison gas, mustard gas, e.g.. And also actual weaponized disease-causing vectors, like Anthrax and similar. Would you suggest those should be legal to own?
By the way, I am also for restricting the use of Alcohol, a drug that is more dangerous and more addicting than most "illegal" drugs.
Saying unpopular opinions sounds like it should be allowed. Should anybody be able to say, "We should burn all people of X ethnic/religious/cultural heritage?" In some cases, like the pipe bomber and the man who shot up the Jewish Temple just in the last two weeks, speech convinced these people they had to take action. And they did. There was a suspect in Kansas who is trying to get leniency because he listened to Donald Trump. "Free" speech about how all X should be burned to death or have knives driven into their eyes shouldn't be allowed. Because it's actively hateful.
Pointing to Trump’s rhetoric, attorneys for Kansas militiaman convicted of mosque bomb plot ask for a more lenient sentence
Comments
Trump wants to "put tents up all over the place" for migrants. How much might that cost?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tent-cities-all-over-the-place-for-migrants-how-much-would-it-cost/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5bd96f894b73850001f40654&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0iwPgP3ALnN2sUpAc9VgWl40qpGoGPX3OHtMLArXbqZ7IO7Hh9HPu1StcTrump May Be The Most Fiscally Reckless President In American History
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2018/05/20/trump-may-be-the-most-fiscally-reckless-president-in-american-history/?fbclid=IwAR0pdupzHd1kpDi_ul1nR7adY_gfcCe4LQGYUoLibPKCTwi66L7q38XPVDE#72d29250564aThe Supreme Court Case That Dooms Trump’s Citizenship Plan
https://www.weeklystandard.com/tony-mecia/birthright-citizenship-the-supreme-court-case-that-dooms-trumps-new-plan?fbclid=IwAR3g6_KZH1uOfHPBcndKRebRKNu4gGhU1fDOEcrLRXh32UgSdQ1gc-Zj_UEThe NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California?
A law barring the open carry of loaded firearms was passed in 1967 with the support of the National Rifle Association, after armed Black Panthers "invaded" the California state capitol earlier that year.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/
It's almost as if it's that's a right wing dog whistle used to scare white folks about 'others.'
And add hateful platform inspired two prominent domestic terrorist attacks to the right column of this chart
Gun control rooted in racism http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/gun-control-rooted-in-racism,121558 This doesn't change the fact that the state in many countries consider someone at 18 yo apt to "defend politicians interests" in a war, but incapable of defending themselves; in other words, like an gladiador slave that can only own gun when is convenient to his master, the state only allow guns to be used in his own interest. The interests of politicians worth more than your life. That is what the law in many different countries is saying.
As for NRA, have a gun at home and walk everywhere with the gun are two different things. NRA have armed security on their convention
-------------------------
On Brazil before the end of slavery, whites, indigenous and mestizos can own guns. And blacks? Free slaves can't own guns, only the "capitão do mato"(the guy who hunts fugitive slaves) was allowed to own guns.
Remove gun rights is the first step towards make the population an cattle.
But here is the point of the crisis:
On why Flint officials wanted to change where the city got its water from
"It had been relying on water from Lake Huron from the Detroit Water Department for about 50 years. The quality was good, but there was a lot of unhappiness about the affordability. It was extremely expensive — the most expensive or among the most expensive water rates in the country. And especially for a city with a very high poverty rate, this was really getting to the point of crisis. And a lot of folks really felt like, 'We want our own water system. We want some more control.' So it decided, it was under state-appointed emergency management, that it was going to switch to a new water department. And until that new water department was built, it was going to temporarily use the Flint River as its drinking water source, and sort of reboot its 50-year-old water plant to provide that."
"Treating river water is vastly more complex than treating lake water. The upgrades to the water plant were insufficient to deal with that." Anna Clark
On the dramatic announcement of the city's switch to Flint River water
"It was really celebrated. I mean, media was there, they had this ceremony at the water treatment plant, with a countdown and cheers and toasts with the river water and a lot of folks are really celebrating that, 'This is us getting back to our roots, and returning to some self-determination, self sovereignty.' And of course looking back, this is terribly heartbreaking, because the river ... I mean the problems were that treating river water is vastly more complex than treating lake water. The upgrades to the water plant were insufficient to deal with that. And most ominously, the water was not treated with something called corrosion control, and this is something that you add to the water to help keep our very old, ill-maintained water lines from breaking down and having the metals contaminate the water by the time it gets to our tap."
On the health effects of lead from corroded water pipes getting into the water
"There was a series of bacterial issues and other issues with the water even before lead came on the radar. There was also a huge outbreak of something called Legionnaires' disease. That's what actually killed people. With lead, what's frightening about this is that there is no amount of lead that is safe. Children are much more susceptible to it, because their developing bodies absorbed up to five times more lead than adults. And its toxic effects, which can range from more antisocial aggressive behavior, stunted growth, anemia. For adults, miscarriages, reproductive problems — it can take a little while for some of these to show up. But they are also unfortunately uncurable."
On how Flint being run by unelected emergency managers factored into the crisis
"It was huge. In Flint, they had an emergency manager appointed in 2011, and a series of them were in place consecutively up and through April 2015. So essentially through the entirety of this crisis, and all the decisions that were made here. Two of these officials ended up being indicted in the criminal investigation that has since followed. There's an unusually direct route for the state's accountability for what happened in Flint, given that this was a system that was in place in Flint."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions
We can take our pick. Be it from looking at gun charts to infer the cause of gun violence in a complex socioeconomic situation with a multitude of variables, down to looking for D's and R's and assigning blame whenever it fits one's preference.
***THANK YOU***
In Flint, there were also Republican State officials that messed up. Does that mean Republican = poisoning water? No. It's laughable to act like this could only happen with some form of Republican oversight. Like suggesting Democrats are simply to blame as well.
MIGRANT CARAVAN TROOP DEPLOYMENT COULD COST U.S. $50 MILLION DESPITE NO EVIDENCE OF TERRORISTS, MAJOR CRIMINAL GANG PRESENCE
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-migrant-caravan-border-troops-1194215?fbclid=IwAR1S-chgrz8LrPOLXiR-QJlrRK78TH66npJponutunix9i8PLrR2mwbK710Trump’s hate and lies are failing. Two new studies show why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/31/trumps-hate-and-lies-are-failing-two-new-studies-show-why/?fbclid=IwAR0N-LWlKRrWpdi27rQJUfQDdD41YvdoF2wRjKkBFbK6lu3qMZgHj5IbqXU&utm_term=.bd73c5d13e78The problem was presented and I proposed a potential cause for the problem--city leadership. Although it is true that the two cities are not identical, the fact that the two cities have a similar problem despite having different water systems points to some common source for the problem.
Fortunately, it appears that someone has decided to try and link logical fallacies to my posts even though this honor is not bestowed upon any other poster. His reasons for doing so are his own and will not be addressed.
I will neither debate the topic nor engage in back-and-forth discussions. I will, from time to time, leave my observations and/or conclusions about a topic for other people to choose to accept or reject as they see fit. My reasons are my own.
I think (most) any observation is welcome. Dont be surprised if when you make an observation that is demonstrably false, that you are corrected. It happened to me during the Kavanaugh hearing when I mistakenly said that it wasnt Ford's ex boyfriend that accused her of helping someone prepare for a polygraph @WarChiefZeke corrected me on the issue. I'm rather certain it's happened to everyone. Similarly, dont be surprised if you're called out if your observation contains a logical fallacy. It's happened a handful of times to people here, myself included. (Correlation is not Causation is a big one).
Yeah, the "boyfriend" that claimed he took her off the credit card they shared yet somehow decided NOT to get a bank fraud department involved when he claimed she supposedly ran up over $600 worth of transactions. while he himself didn't notice this happening for over year. And also insisted on having his name redacted in the document. I talk to people about financial transactions for a living. The idea someone would let $600 in charges accruing interest go unnoticed or unchallenged for a year is absurd. Receipts and records of this would have been very easy to get ahold of and share. They weren't.
How would having different leadership have made a difference? Will it make Newark pipes be replaced faster? Would it have made Flint's water problems suddenly different?
If I found two cities with Republican City councils having very similar problems, would I be therefore okay in blaming that party for those problems? Because that is what you are doing. You are seizing one point of similarity and using that to place blame on an entire party. And that's not right. You are already participating in a debate and a back-and-forth discussion merely by replying to the two posts you did.
The only problem with pointing at the Democrats corruption is that Republicans are way worse! Trump killed the EPA! What that does is that the next Flint may not make headlines, because the probability just increased that none will know it is even happening!
But please note that the Democrats also do wonderful things as well, for instance, Obama sided with Warren for setting up the CFPB. So, when they deserve praise, then praise them.
It is just that the elephant in the room is the corruption. The millions upon millions of dollars politicians depend upon for TV ads claiming they are not corrupted. Also, they get personal bribes, usually in the form of a promise of a sleepy desk job with incredibly high salary once their political career ends. Now, this is not a US only problem. The EU passed for instance IPRED, DMCA and CETA*. All of these shit bills have been greased all the way from start to finish by filthy filthy corporate bribes to elected officials.
If you are not woke, if you refuse to see the corruption, and, say, pretend that are legitimate reasons the pipes in Flint have not been replaced, or to take a republican issue, why people on the terrorist watch list are allowed to purchase assault rifles, then you are part of the problem. Do not make excuses for the corrupt politicians; point out their corruption and vote for someone else. Well, unless the corrupt politician is less corrupt than it's opponent (see Hillary - as bad a "swamp monster" as she is, now that the cards are on the table only a fool would deny that Trump is a bigger swamp monster than her).
* This bill is insanity! Corporations can now sue governments, if a government pass a law that the corporation disagree with.
Now, the Antars perpetrated one of the largest bankruptcies and frauds of the 1980s. Corporations have always been able to sue governments. The fundamental belief of corporate personhood is that a corporation is but an organization of people who own the corporation and that the rights of the owners can be passed down to the rights of the corporation itself. And the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is right in the Constitution in the First Amendment.
Effectively, a corporation suing the government is in a sense a class-action lawsuit, where the "class" is "people who are owners of the corporation".
Granted, one usually has to be able to demonstrate harm caused or likely to be caused to effectively have a leg to stand on legally. The governments tends to win about 2/3 of the time, though as usual, settlements happen more often than the case being decided one way or another.
What's relatively new is corporations suing foreign governments. It used to be that foreign corporations had to get their home country to act against the country that harmed them.
But this is not totally new, for example NAFTA has had provisions for more than 20 years allowing investors in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. to sue the other governments directly.
To add further ridicule to CETA; hearing corporation can sue government, you would be thinking "Ok ok, they go to the courts and..." NO!!! You would be dead wrong! Disputes are settled by a new entity existing of corporate lawyers. I kid you not, google it. It is beyond absurd!
* Which begs the question, why should we place our trust in such a weak system?
"On a Tiny Finnish Island, a Helipad, 9 Piers — and the Russian Military?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/world/europe/sakkiluoto-finland-russian-military.html
When i mean crime without victims, i mean for eg :
- Owning an piece of metal that killed much more innocent people in hands of government than on civilian hands
- Saying unpopular opinions
- Having consensual relationships between two adult persons, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc or even a monetary factor involved.
- Modifying his own body
- Having any "illegal" substance
What is the point of flooding the prison with people wo committed crimes that have no victim? Isn't better to put the police and state force to actually hunt those who commit crimes with real victims? The government shouldn't decide what you can own, what you can do with your own body(aka limiting plastic surgeries), otherwise you are not a free man.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/opinion/election-voting-rights-fraud-prosecutions.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion
By the way, I am also for restricting the use of Alcohol, a drug that is more dangerous and more addicting than most "illegal" drugs.
Saying unpopular opinions sounds like it should be allowed. Should anybody be able to say, "We should burn all people of X ethnic/religious/cultural heritage?" In some cases, like the pipe bomber and the man who shot up the Jewish Temple just in the last two weeks, speech convinced these people they had to take action. And they did. There was a suspect in Kansas who is trying to get leniency because he listened to Donald Trump. "Free" speech about how all X should be burned to death or have knives driven into their eyes shouldn't be allowed. Because it's actively hateful.
Pointing to Trump’s rhetoric, attorneys for Kansas militiaman convicted of mosque bomb plot ask for a more lenient sentence
Attorneys representing a Kansas man convicted of a 2016 plot to massacre Somali Muslim refugees by bombing a mosque and apartment complex in Garden City, Kan., have asked a federal judge to consider a more lenient sentence, arguing that President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric should be taken into account as the “backdrop” for the case.https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/30/pointing-trumps-rhetoric-attorneys-kansas-militiaman-convicted-mosque-bomb-plot-ask-more-lenient-sentence/?utm_term=.c91dbcef24ec