General US Politics

[Res]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

To the extent grim humor can be found in such things, it's humorous he feels the need to rehash this talking point in Japan of all places. Like--they already solved this problem. By doing the exact opposite of what he's saying. Annnnyways. Virginia just elected the country's first transgendered lawmaker. Defeating the 13 term incumbent who championed Virginia's toughest anti-LGBT laws. That's something.

It is!!!

Three people are worth more than half the entire U.S. population and wealth disparity is ever increasing. 

[Res]

Edit: Ugh

Edited November 9, 2017 by Res

[Tryhard]

7 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

He was also a raving anti theist, but a supermajority of them are at least sane and law abiding, so I'm inclined to believe this wasn't ideologically motivated.

Sure, but there's at least an aspect of that he partly did it because his in-laws were religious and he was staunchly opposed to that. I don't think he was ideologically motivated but it's worth noting how extremism can have many forms, and that goes for violence at abortion clinics or anti-federal terrorism mainly from the right, and environmental terrorism or vandalism (generally property damage, or against slaughterhouses or harming of animals) from the left.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[SullyMcGully]

So does anybody have any guesses as to why all of these shootings are happening now? Because if it was because guns are easy to get in America, don't you think people would have gone on mass-killing rampages all of the time back in the days before background checks? Instead, we're seeing a few contradictory trends: More background checks, more mass shootings. Less gun-owning households, more mass shootings. 

Just saying, maybe we should focus on addressing the actual problem. Mass shootings didn't happen all of the time in the 60's but anybody who wanted a gun could have one. Look at a list of the 20 deadliest shootings in US history and more than half of them are post 2000. Maybe guns aren't the real issue. Maybe something else is.

 

 

[Dark Holy Elf]

Guns are significantly more prevalent in the US now than at any previous point in history. There are over 350 million of them now, whereas there were under 100 million in the 60's. Even adjusting for a per capita basis this is over a twofold increase.

I don't believe it's the case that guns are more difficult to get now than they used to be... quite the opposite if anything? The NRA has campaigned hard for a "any laws which restrict gun access are a slippery slope which was lead to the abolition of the second amendment" for my entire lifetime, and it's certainly had an effect in conservative states for sure. I'm not an expert on specifics, beyond that they vary on a state-by-state basis, so someone more educated on this subject can correct me if necessary.

Logic dictates that more guns will almost invariably be a contributing factor for the rate of mass shootings (though how much of one is unclear), so I have to regard the spike of gun ownership in the US over the last half century to be a bad thing.

That said I certainly agree that we should look at other contributing factors. Mass shooters are often mentally ill, so it's in the interest of everyone to treat mental health seriously. (Health care for everyone please, America.) I think social isolation (something the internet age has exacerbated, strangely) is often a contributing factor as well, but I have no idea what remedies to suggest for that (though I encourage my fellow net-dwellers to stand up against toxic behaviour in internet communities; not a big issue here on Serenes I'm happy to say).

I think the NRA has created a wrong-headed culture about guns in America (serioulsy, feitshising a tool for killing is just weird), but sadly the genie is out of the bottle there and gun control won't fix it in my lifetime, so I do agree that exploring other avenues is generally best and I'd prefer if the left focused less on gun control generally.

@Rezzy: I'm aware of all those things, yeah (as you may have noticed, I'm overly fond of political prognostication; I'm a math/stats nerd at heart). I agree that this level of success is what the Democrats need to maintain just to have a >50% chance of winning the House (an article I read recently is that Democrats need a 7-point win in popular vote to win the House with the current distribution; polls and electoral results suggest they're slightly over that, in the 8-10 region... but emphasis on slightly!). However, the results this week show that this remains a decent possibility. If Northam had won a squeaker (and the aforementioned special elections had been about 10 points better in the Republicans' favour), then I'd be talking right now about how the Republicans have the House all but locked up in 2018.

[SullyMcGully]

6 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Guns are significantly more prevalent in the US now than at any previous point in history. There are over 350 million of them now, whereas there were under 100 million in the 60's. Even adjusting for a per capita basis this is over a twofold increase.

I don't believe it's the case that guns are more difficult to get now than they used to be... quite the opposite if anything? The NRA has campaigned hard for a "any laws which restrict gun access are a slippery slope which was lead to the abolition of the second amendment" for my entire lifetime, and it's certainly had an effect in conservative states for sure. I'm not an expert on specifics, beyond that they vary on a state-by-state basis, so someone more educated on this subject can correct me if necessary.

Logic dictates that more guns will almost invariably be a contributing factor for the rate of mass shootings (though how much of one is unclear), so I have to regard the spike of gun ownership in the US over the last half century to be a bad thing.

That said I certainly agree that we should look at other contributing factors. Mass shooters are often mentally ill, so it's in the interest of everyone to treat mental health seriously. (Health care for everyone please, America.) I think social isolation (something the internet age has exacerbated, strangely) is often a contributing factor as well, but I have no idea what remedies to suggest for that (though I encourage my fellow net-dwellers to stand up against toxic behaviour in internet communities; not a big issue here on Serenes I'm happy to say).

I think the NRA has created a wrong-headed culture about guns in America (serioulsy, feitshising a tool for killing is just weird), but sadly the genie is out of the bottle there and gun control won't fix it in my lifetime, so I do agree that exploring other avenues is generally best and I'd prefer if the left focused less on gun control generally.

But why are people buying more guns? When you look at the charts, they don't show a steady climb upwards. Instead, the movement is erratic, with gun purchases spiking anytime a mass shooting occurs. The reason there are so many guns in America is because people are afraid of acts of terror and want to protect themselves, not because everybody is crazy about having guns just for the heck of it.

Your last point is very correct though. Every time Democrats threaten to enact stricter gun control laws, people begin stocking up for Armageddon "while they still can". America isn't ready for Japan-level firearm restriction, and won't be for another few decades, so it really is a futile battle from a logical standpoint. From a political standpoint, however, getting on a stage and downing on guns is pretty much a necessity to get the Democrat vote, so I doubt they'll stop pushing gun control anytime soon.

[Res]

Fewer gun-owning households, but more than twice as many guns per capita than in 1968.

More background checks, but background checks that aren't thorough and don't amount to much.

An antiquated and difficult to use database (so it's nigh on impossible to trace firearms).

Improved technology.

As for mental health... I'm all for improved mental health services. However, plenty of people in other countries are mentally ill. Women in the U.S. have a higher rate of mental illness than men, yet 98% of mass shooters are male. Mentally ill people are also more likely to be victims of shootings than perpetrators.

I would like to see stronger convictions/more attention paid to violent backgrounds; we know that animal cruelty and violence is often a precursor to worse crime yet it's rare to see anything done until someone is dead.

 

 

[Phoenix Wright]

5 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

So does anybody have any guesses as to why all of these shootings are happening now? Because if it was because guns are easy to get in America, don't you think people would have gone on mass-killing rampages all of the time back in the days before background checks? Instead, we're seeing a few contradictory trends: More background checks, more mass shootings. Less gun-owning households, more mass shootings. 

Just saying, maybe we should focus on addressing the actual problem. Mass shootings didn't happen all of the time in the 60's but anybody who wanted a gun could have one. Look at a list of the 20 deadliest shootings in US history and more than half of them are post 2000. Maybe guns aren't the real issue. Maybe something else is.

 

 

there's a lot of parameters that you're disregarding. starting with the ones you didn't forget: are the background checks done right? though there are less households that own guns, are there less guns than in the past?

population density is huge. guns are more prolific now than ever. our culture revolving around guns likely plays a role. where they occur is important to consider. what guns are used matters. who's doing the shooting matters. lots of stuff.

one thing is certain: removing access to guns will decrease the amount of mass shootings.

[Lord Raven]

Also I’m wondering if there’s some sort of gun stocking effect. Gun stocks tend to go up after mass shootings because people are afraid of their guns being banned and the NRA must’ve exacerbated this issue over the past 50 years (on top of deregulation).

Guns have also gotten significantly more efficient at killing people in the last half to whole century. I don’t think that a musket would be able to pull off a mass shooting.

[Tryhard]

Funny I mentioned Roy Moore considering the allegations against him now.

But well, some politicians have a unique way of defending it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/359749-gop-official-says-hed-vote-for-moore-even-if-allegations-are-true

[Crysta]

Trump voters: We believe Democrats ran a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor that had no basement.

Also Trump voters: We don't believe the major newspaper story with 30 SOURCES about a Republican pedophile.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Agent 707

[Time the Crestfallen]

49 minutes ago, Agent 707 said:

Also Trump voters: We don't believe the major newspaper story with 30 SOURCES about a Republican pedophile.

That's because they don't trust major news companies anymore. Fake News and what-not.

[Crysta]

Yes. They're much more willing to believe made up conspiracy theories instead.

At that point you pretty much forfeit the illusion that you care about the truth or facts and care more about demonizing your opponent and winning at all costs.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Agent 707

[Slumber]

15 hours ago, Agent 707 said:

Trump voters: We believe Democrats ran a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor that had no basement.

Also Trump voters: We don't believe the major newspaper story with 30 SOURCES about a Republican pedophile.

If I didn't have chronic migraines, I'm willing to bet that politics in this term would be giving me mad headaches.

This whole Roy Moore thing is making my head spin.

The whole "Well, Jesus' father married a teenage girl." thing. MARY'S WHOLE THING IS THAT JOSEPH DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH HER. SHE'S THE VIRGIN MARY.

HOW DOES A PARTY THAT DOES NOTHING BUT EXPLOIT CHRISTIANS SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE? AGH

Edited November 11, 2017 by Slumber

[Shoblongoo]

...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/11/trump_says_he_believes_putin_s_denials_of_meddling_in_u_s_election.html

 

[ping]

I'm sure there's no way that Putin could deceive a man like Donald Trump. It's not like he's a former KGB agent or anything, right?

[Phoenix Wright]

a silver lining to this corruption scandal: there's something to be said with how quickly this came to light, and how much it's in the spotlight. i can't help it if the people watching are naive, but at least the precautions our nation has put in place to stop things like this from occurring seem to be working, albeit. trump is a nasty individual, but the investigations are rooting out the cronies he put into power. 

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, ping said:

I'm sure there's no way that Putin could deceive a man like Donald Trump. It's not like he's a former KGB agent or anything, right?

...I mean there's 3 options at this point...

1)  Every single American who has seen the raw intelligence on Russian involvement in the 2016 election is a damn dirty liar, except Donald Trump.

2)  Trump knows what they did. But is willfully lying and casting doubt upon the facts as presented to him, because:

     a.    He believes that general acceptance of these facts casts a giant shadow over the legitimacy of his presidency; they must be denied for the sake of his ego and his reputation as a "winner."

    b.     He helped them do it. The facts must be suppressed, because the truth of the matter is grounds for impeachment (or worse).

3)  Trump is such a mentally deficient, infantile, silver-spoon-up-his-ass pampered child of privilege that he got where he got in life while lacking the capacity to understand the intelligence as it is being presented to him, on Russian interference. And the president of the United States is receiving the assessments of the rest of government with all the intellectual alacrity of:

Edited November 11, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Time the Crestfallen]

7 hours ago, Slumber said:

The whole "Well, Jesus' father married a teenage girl." thing. MARY'S WHOLE THING IS THAT JOSEPH DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH HER. SHE'S THE VIRGIN MARY.

HOW DOES A PARTY THAT DOES NOTHING BUT EXPLOIT CHRISTIANS SAY THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE? AGH

It's even worse when you consider that the Republicans like to market themselves as good, God-fearing citizens. You'd think this sort of one-for-one comparison that indirectly makes God out to be a pedo would be blasphemous, but ah well.

[Dandee Leone]

Short and Fat.

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, Dandee Leone said:

Short and Fat.

...so I had this theory a while back that Trump's strategy for dealing with the Russia Scandal when it hits critical mass is going to be create an even bigger story for the media to cover--Huge Ratings!!!!! i.e. Trump gets indicted--And immediately declares war on North Korea + announces our first troop movements. Everything he does makes sense when you remember he isn't treating the presidency as a public office; he's treating it as a reality TV show. This isn't an administration. It's a 4 season run of Trump TV--Celebrity White House. He never wants the star of the show to be the Russia Scandal; there always has to be something shinier for the cameras to zoom in on. He fucks up and says he trusts Putin over his own intelligence services after meeting with Putin in Vietnam--the biggest story coming out of his Asia trip is going to be Russia Scandal. IMMIDIATELY afterwards--like before even his first scheduled press appearance after the fuck-up--he sends out a grade-school level taunt to Kim Jung Un. That's what he wants everyone to be talking about now. The unpresidential, childish tweet (Huge Ratings!!!). He's fucked-in-the-head, but there is a method to the madness.

[Tryhard]

So for a somewhat harrowing statistic, 29 percent of all respondents and 37 percent of evangelicals are more likely to vote for Moore because he's accused of sexual misconduct with underage girls.

For this question - Question 8: Given the allegations that have come out about Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct against four underage women, are you more or less likely to support him as a result of these allegations?

I hope that 'yes' votes are from people who simply don't believe the allegations (i.e FAKE NEWS, etc).

http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Alabama-Senate-Executive-Summary-General-Election-Poll-2.pdf

It becomes peak partisanship when "if he sexual assaulted a minor = being pro-abortion or, a political leaning I don't agree with"

when compromise becomes the dirtiest word this is when it reaches the height of agenda mattering over all regardless of principle

US politics is a sport, and very fucked

[SullyMcGully]

I don't intend to protect Moore, but if a relationship between a sixteen-year old and a thirty-something is pedophilic, then... I know a few pedophiles. Homeschoolers can be weird that way.

[Tryhard]

One of the accuser claims she was fourteen year old at the time - I'm pretty sure this is what people were referring to. While a relationship between someone of legal age and someone twice their age is pretty weird, it isn't the same.

Pedophile isn't the right word, but even consensual sex with a minor is still illegal - and even worse if it was sexual assault (obviously).

Edited November 12, 2017 by Tryhard

[Slumber]

45 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

I don't intend to protect Moore, but if a relationship between a sixteen-year old and a thirty-something is pedophilic, then... I know a few pedophiles. Homeschoolers can be weird that way.

If it was 16, it'd be tricky, since 16 is the age of consent in some places in this country(Though I think Alabama is not one of those places). It'd still be super skeevy, but there'd be a gray area.

But one of the accusers says she was 14. That's a whole different ball park.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Slumber