Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk?

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk? (Page 13)
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2017, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
This has been discussed before. Handgun legislation is extremely weakened when anyone can hop over to a nearby state(s), load up with as many handguns as they like, and drive back to Chicago with zero checkpoints or border stops.

In Canada our firearms-related violence is incredibly minuscule compared to the USA - and we allow long gun ownership, and restricted handgun ownership - but the figure I've seen thrown around is that something like 70% of the handgun and semi/automatic weapons used in shootings are with guns illegally smuggled across the border from the US.
If you adjust for the outliers, our rate looks very similar to yours. Outliers being Baltimore, New York, DC, Chicago, LA, etc. These places all have the strictest gun laws in the country, yet still manage to drive a majority of homicides and violent crime.


And that's across a controlled, patrolled border crossing with extremely tough smuggling penalties. How do you possibly expect Illinois legislation to have any chance in hell of being effective as a local state law? And how can anyone possibly use Illinois' situation as an example of how gun control is ineffective without appearing completely disingenuous?
Precisely why the strict gun control laws are not the answer.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because you don't have our problems with gangs and cartels.
There is that. Also, they're relatively new to the significant minority population game.

Also also, 1/3 of the country's entire population could fit in New York City.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2017, 05:51 PM
 
Things are about to get real interesting.

President Donald Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey – a move that comes as the FBI is probing potential contacts between Trump’s campaign aides and Russian officials ahead of the election.

"The president has accepted the recommendation of the Attorney General and the deputy Attorney General regarding the dismissal of the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

It was not immediately clear exactly why Comey was ousted.

Comey, who was appointed FBI director by former President Barack Obama in 2013 to a 10-year term, has come under fire for his handling of both the Trump campaign probe and the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Trump fires FBI Director James Comey | Politico.com

OAW
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2017, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because you don't have our problems with gangs and cartels.
Maybe because your national attitude towards weapons encourages these problems?


Originally Posted by subego View Post
There is that. Also, they're relatively new to the significant minority population game.
And yet, Toronto is generally regarded as the most diverse city in the world. Are you saying we just need to sit and wait for all this diversity to explode?

Also also, 1/3 of the country's entire population could fit in New York City.
That's a bullshit line of argument. Toronto is the fourth-largest city in North America and not far off Chicago in terms of total municipal population.

I mean, no one from Canada is going to argue that we don't have huge swaths of empty whiteness. But our large cities are fairly large and quite diverse. And they still have nowhere in the ballpark of your firearms-related violence.

The difference isn't gangs, or minorities. The difference is the American Way. It makes you powerful, but it also destroys you. You do it to yourself, you do.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 03:18 AM
 
How does the argument there are things we bring upon ourselves negate the fact the U.S. has a gang problem which Canada simply doesn't?

Or that keeping 36 million people in line is easier than 320 million?

Or that for all the time the U.S. labored under institutionalized segregation, Canada was more lily white than my ass?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 03:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Maybe because your national attitude towards weapons encourages these problems?
Again, there's no issue if you remove the gang problem, and the gang problem isn't caused by guns (though illicitly acquired guns do aggravate it).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Outliers being Baltimore, New York, DC, Chicago, LA, etc. These places all have the strictest gun laws in the country, yet still manage to drive a majority of homicides and violent crime.
In your mind, is that a valid criticism against strict gun laws?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 11:12 AM
 
Maybe just maybe, they have strict gun laws in an effort to reduce violent crime? Need a graph of crime vs when gun laws put in place.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
In your mind, is that a valid criticism against strict gun laws?
In my mind, if your goal is reduce the homicide/violent crime rate, yes. We have data that demonstrates is effectiveness (or more precisely, lackthereof). I can't think of any metric that would be more relevant, or any criticism founded in empirical data that could be more valid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Maybe just maybe, they have strict gun laws in an effort to reduce violent crime? Need a graph of crime vs when gun laws put in place.



This graph doesn't even include the recent explosion in homicides (it's much worse today). The line indicates where the strict gun control laws were put into place.

You can see the gun control laws at best were not effective, and at worse contributed to more homicides.

Data obtained from:
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mur...fter-gun-bans/


Compared to the overall murder rate from the same period.




So nationwide, you have gun ownership going up, and the homicide rate going down.

In Chicago, you have strict gun control laws in place, and the homicide rate going up.

The best argument you could make for gun control & homicide rates in Chicago is that they have no effect. The data suggests a correlation the other way, juxtaposed against a nationwide trend of higher ownership and lower homicide rates.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 12:19 PM
 
Would you say that strict gun laws don't work in small geographic areas surrounded by areas with lax gun laws?

Or that these cases prove that strict guns laws don't work at all?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post


This graph doesn't even include the recent explosion in homicides (it's much worse today). The line indicates where the strict gun control laws were put into place.
thank you for finding a chart! very helpful. It seemed to hold steady from the gun law until 1990 or so when the steep spikes started. Wonder what other factors came into play 1988-1990? Increase in unemployment, birth rate, change of leadership?

I agree it seems the gun laws are not as effective as we'd like, especially in Chicago. But we don't have the chart for Alternate Reality Chicago with no Gun Law to compare it to. Would that chart have a worse homicide rate, or better?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 01:06 PM
 
That was when crack finally caught up to us.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Would you say that strict gun laws don't work in small geographic areas surrounded by areas with lax gun laws?

Or that these cases prove that strict guns laws don't work at all?
Strict gun control laws can work, but I feel the consensus is they'd need to be federal. We also already have about 300,000,000 horses out of the barn, which is a separate problem.

The narrative here, which I can't tell you with assuredness whether it's correct, is the violence isn't due to laws, but that the Chicago Police, for all intents and purposes, are "on strike" over the release of the Laquan McDonald tape.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Strict gun control laws can work, but I feel the consensus is they'd need to be federal. We also already have about 300,000,000 horses out of the barn, which is a separate problem.
I would cite the war on drugs as evidence that any such measures could not be very effective.

I would also argue again for a distinction between long guns and handguns. When >99% of these crimes are committed with handguns, a new assault weapons ban isn't going to do jack all.

I am all for entertaining new measures for handguns, but not for long guns (including so called "assault weapons").

The narrative here, which I can't tell you with assuredness whether it's correct, is the violence isn't due to laws, but that the Chicago Police, for all intents and purposes, are "on strike" over the release of the Laquan McDonald tape.
The data in question only goes up to 08, which is long before the recent madness in Chiraq where the violence has escalated to unprecedented levels, even with their strict gun control laws on the books.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I am all for entertaining new measures for handguns,
You'd stomp all over our constitution?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Would you say that strict gun laws don't work in small geographic areas surrounded by areas with lax gun laws?

Or that these cases prove that strict guns laws don't work at all?
I think it's pure conjecture that such a phenomenon occurs. There's no basis for it in the empirical data, and logically speaking it does not follow:

1. The majority of all gun crime are perpetrated with illegal guns NOT guns that were purchased legally from surrounding areas.
2. Those perpetrating the crimes usually don't have the means of transportation to run out of town to legally purchase a gun and bring it back.
3. The areas with lax gun control themselves do not experience an uptick in gun crime. If the gun control laws were that effective, we would expect to see higher homicide rates in those areas as opposed to the areas with strong gun control laws. Instead, the opposite appears true. The lax areas have lower crime rates than the strict areas.
4. Those perpetrating the gun crimes are more often than not unable to legally purchase a gun due to criminal history.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You'd stomp all over our constitution?
I don't believe this to be stomping all over the constitution. In every context imagineable for the 2A, long guns fit that necessity. (personal/home/business defense, militia, etc) whereas handguns do not (or at least not as well as long guns). The only thing handguns are good for are CCW and gangbanging - I don't mind a higher bar for CCW and/or handguns in general.

I'm not advocating a handgun ban or an effective handgun ban. I think we could make it a bit more stringent though without impacting the the 2A.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You'd stomp all over our constitution?
I would argue handguns aren't necessary for a militia, whereas rifles are.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2017, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I would cite the war on drugs as evidence that any such measures could not be very effective.

I would also argue again for a distinction between long guns and handguns. When >99% of these crimes are committed with handguns, a new assault weapons ban isn't going to do jack all.

I am all for entertaining new measures for handguns, but not for long guns (including so called "assault weapons").
With drugs, I'd actually only half-jokingly sneak the desire to self-intoxicate into Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Guns don't have the same allure.

Likewise, just practically speaking, I can fit a kilo of coke in the space I can fit two pistols. The coke nets me a much better ROI.

Further, the logistics of protecting a farming operation are much less difficult than protecting a gun factory.
( Last edited by subego; May 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 12:40 PM
 
More evidence of Trump's delusional thinking ...

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan’s tax reform didn’t.

President Trump: Well, it actually did. But, but it’s called priming the pump. You know, if you don’t do that, you’re never going to bring your taxes down. Now, if we get the health-care [bill through Congress], this is why, you know a lot of people said, “Why isn’t he going with taxes first, that’s his wheelhouse?” Well, hey look, I convinced many people over the last two weeks, believe me, many Congressmen, to go with it. And they’re great people, but one of the great things about getting health care is that we will be saving, I mean anywhere from $400bn to $900bn.

Mr Mnuchin: Correct.

President Trump: That all goes into tax reduction. Tremendous savings.

But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll…you understand the expression “prime the pump”?

Yes.

We have to prime the pump.

It’s very Keynesian.

We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.

It’s…
Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.
Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump | The Economist



OAW
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 01:02 PM
 
At this point zaphod beeblebrox would be an improvement.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 01:09 PM
 
Caligula would be an improvement. At least then the VP would be a horse and you'd only be one bullet away from a drastic improvement.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Sounds about right ...

A new Quinnipiac poll asked what the first word that comes to mind is when you think of Donald Trump. The most common response was "idiot" and among the least common were, "aggressive," "negotiator," and "patriotism."

Here are the top 10 words:
  1. Idiot
  2. Incompetent
  3. Liar
  4. Leader
  5. Unqualified
  6. President
  7. Strong
  8. Businessman
  9. Ignorant
  10. Egotistical
"Idiot" is the most common word associated with Trump | Axios.com

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 01:53 PM
 
Opinions. Waste of time. You have a list for Obama? Double standard/Hypocrite much?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 01:54 PM
 
I got two words for you...

John Koskinen.

When should he be fired?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Though I'm guessing the sample isn't large enough, these types of lists are always more interesting if there's some comparative analysis between demographics.

What terms did women use vs. men, etc.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Opinions. Waste of time. You have a list for Obama? Double standard/Hypocrite much?
You're only saying that because conservatives are bad judges of character.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With drugs, I'd actually only half-jokingly sneak the desire to self-intoxicate into Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Guns don't have the same allure.

Likewise, just practically speaking, I can fit a kilo of coke in the space I can fit two pistols. The coke nets me a much better ROI.

Further, the logistics of protecting a farming operation are much less difficult than protecting a gun factory.
But you can make a gun on your own with simple tools or even a 3D printer. The reason drugs are so expensive and have that great ROI is because they are so hard to make and transport. Guns are easier to manufacture, and aren't illegal in all situations, making the possession of such a gun a far less risky proposition.

I'm not saying we'd see the cartels switch to guns if drugs were somehow invalidated as a business model - I'm saying regardless of what we do there will be illegals guns and they will find their way to criminals in droves, regardless.

Guns are by far easier to make, which would offset any market based reduction in their trade simply because the supply will always be there, as will the demand.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
That's more a reflection on our state of society today than it is on Trump, unfortunately.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Guns are by far easier to make, which would offset any market based reduction in their trade simply because the supply will always be there, as will the demand.
I'm neither a gardener nor a machinist, but if I had to try doing one thing well, I'd for sure try growing pot before I'd try and make a gun.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2017, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'm neither a gardener nor a machinist, but if I had to try doing one thing well, I'd for sure try growing pot before I'd try and make a gun.
Same here, but if you're growing enough pot, you're going to look into making your own gun (or getting one somewhere else).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm saying regardless of what we do there will be illegals guns and they will find their way to criminals in droves, regardless.
Aren't we both arguing restricting handguns will have a positive effect despite this dynamic?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You're only saying that because conservatives are bad judges of character.
Sure and Hillary was such a good choice.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 09:05 AM
 
3D printed guns are not very safe. The plastic used by most printers is extremely flimsy, such a gun will break or explode after very few shots I'd bet.
To print one with a metal printer, thats an expensive piece of hardware. You'd probably be better off buying several guns instead.

I'm going to say making drugs is easier. If you know how. Machining a gun is skilful work if you do it by hand, if you try to set up a manufacturing process thats huge time and money investment getting it all working right. Most drugs can be synthesised with standard chemistry sets or easily improvised equipment. Its not all breaking bad.
Obviously some of them you have to grow first. Weed can be grown outside in the right climate but in many countries it must be done indoors with headlamps and timers to get quality product.
Cocaine and Heroin are processed from plants so you need acres of crops and a lab. Long lead times but I don't think they are too tough to actually process once the gardening part is done.
If you want to make money without having to buy or rent land, Meth or MDMA, maybe LSD though I don't think its that popular these days are your best options. Completely synthetic so you can make it fast, no growing time. Days per batch rather than weeks or months.
Guns I guess are easy once you have a production line up and running but you're talking about building a fully fledged factory.
I'm guessing meth is where the money is. Thats why you get idiots making it. Low skill required, low investment, high reward.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 01:42 PM
 
Printing the barrel is the first major hurdle.

Middle hurdle is printing bullets and shell casings.

The final hurdle is printing primers and gunpowder.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Aren't we both arguing restricting handguns will have a positive effect despite this dynamic?
Yes, but it shouldn't be viewed as a complete solution as it does not address the root cause of the problem.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Sure and Hillary was such a good choice.
Has it never hit you how sad it is that the only way your candidate can look good is by being compared to someone you hate?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yes, but it shouldn't be viewed as a complete solution as it does not address the root cause of the problem.
Which is?

(Not a challenge... I'm concerned I'm missing the point)
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 02:58 PM
 
Welfare from the Democrats, I'm told.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Has it never hit you how sad it is that the only way your candidate can look good is by being compared to someone you hate?
Isn't that pretty much how all politics work all the time?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which is?

(Not a challenge... I'm concerned I'm missing the point)
The socioecomic conditions that lead to the violent crime/homicides. I view the crime rate as an indicator/symptom of other more fundamental societal problems, among them:

-Poverty
-[lack of]Opportunity for advancement
-The drug trade & associated gang activity
-Law enforcement and their role in the community
-education
-[lack of] educational resources.

etc.

Tying things back in - stricter gun control will not have any impact on the above issues those areas are facing. That's not to say that certain measures pertaining to handguns would be necessarily undesirable, they just won't address the conditions that lead to high violent crime/homicide rates. Even if you put a total ban on all guns tomorrow, those factors would ensure the survival (and perhaps even an increase in scope) of the illegal gun trade. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens would be the one to bear the brunt on two sides (simplifying here to remain concise):

1) They would not be able to defend themselves or act as a deterrence for crime as we do today.
2) They would have to deal with the consequences of the criminal elements being far better armed & far more bold in their transgessions to the law-abiding's persons and properties. Basically, they would be dealing with ever more fearless criminals as they would have no deterrence factor up front nor a method to repel an armed attack.

Does that help clarify what I was going for?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Welfare from the Democrats, I'm told.
Welfare is just a way of hiding/mitigating the problem short-term, with a downside of it creating a dependancy on such welfare that would not allow those communities to "stand on their own feet". Welfare certainly has a place in the equation, but it is not a solution to the problems that vex the areas we're discussing.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Isn't that pretty much how all politics work all the time?
No, I don't believe that was true of every candidate in the primaries last election. The final two? Certainly. But if the best thing BadKosh can do when faced with criticism of Trump is "Hillary would have been no better," that's sad, right? That's sad for your party and your candidate.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Welfare is just a way of hiding/mitigating the problem short-term, with a downside of it creating a dependancy on such welfare that would not allow those communities to "stand on their own feet". Welfare certainly has a place in the equation, but it is not a solution to the problems that vex the areas we're discussing.

What role does compassion play?

I think under the right circumstances almost anybody could have enough shit happen to them that would make welfare a real possibility. E.g. massive health care expenses, some serious emotional trauma, physical disability, etc.

There is often a judgmental tone that seems attached to discussions about welfare. Of course, I'm not claiming that there isn't real abuse of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
No, I don't believe that was true of every candidate in the primaries last election. The final two? Certainly. But if the best thing BadKosh can do when faced with criticism of Trump is "Hillary would have been no better," that's sad, right? That's sad for your party and your candidate.
I mean, that was pretty much the Hillary campaign (reversing the roles). TRUMP IS AWFUL VOTE HILLARY, so I can't really agree with you without the broader scope. On the flip side, much of Trump's campaign was HILLARY SUCKS VOTE TRUMP.

Is it sad? Yes, but there's nothing special about this time around, save for the fact that democrats really, really don't like Trump, like super really. Other than that, it was the same thing in 12 when republicans really didn't like Obama. 08 too. Infact, I can't think of a single gen election that wasn't 90% "The other guy sucks!" and 10% "We don't suck as much!" and the accompanying post-election "the other guys would have sucked more!". If you want, I can go back to our ACA/election threads from '12 to demonstrate in droves. It's par for the course, and again isn't attributable to either party but to politics as a whole. If you want to start calling it out now, by all means you are technically correct considering that type of rhetoric has existed in legion for as long as I've followed politics, you can't really make that argument now as something "sad" or "unique" for any particular candidate and/or party, .
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What role does compassion play?
Compassion comes into play for the end-goal.

Something along the lines of the "teach a man to fish" proverb. Replace teach with "provide".

You can provide a man a fish for a day, or you can provide him an environment with plenty of fish to go out and catch.

I think under the right circumstances almost anybody could have enough shit happen to them that would make welfare a real possibility. E.g. massive health care expenses, some serious emotional trauma, physical disability, etc.
Again, that would be part of the equation for sure, but by no means a solution to the underlying problems that lead to needing it long-term in the first place. I'm not as concerned with temporary help vs the plethora of people that have relied on and will rely on welfare for the entirety of their lives.

There is often a judgmental tone that seems attached to discussions about welfare. Of course, I'm not claiming that there isn't real abuse of it.
You'll not get that from me (aside the aforementioned abuse). Welfare is a tool, it is not a solution. A means to an end. It should not be the ends themselves.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I mean, that was pretty much the Hillary campaign (reversing the roles). TRUMP IS AWFUL VOTE HILLARY, so I can't really agree with you without the broader scope. On the flip side, much of Trump's campaign was HILLARY SUCKS VOTE TRUMP.
I disagree.

Hillary was not super inspiring in terms of her charisma and ability to broaden the tent, but I think most people on the left saw her as supremely more qualified for the job than Trump, and still feel that way to this day. Perhaps Hillary was a lousy campaigner, but she would be a much better president. To be honest, at this point I'm not sure how anybody could really disagree with this, but I know we won't agree on that.

Is it sad? Yes, but there's nothing special about this time around, save for the fact that democrats really, really don't like Trump, like super really. Other than that, it was the same thing in 12 when republicans really didn't like Obama. 08 too. Infact, I can't think of a single gen election that wasn't 90% "The other guy sucks!" and 10% "We don't suck as much!" and the accompanying post-election "the other guys would have sucked more!". If you want, I can go back to our ACA/election threads from '12 to demonstrate in droves. It's par for the course, and again isn't attributable to either party but to politics as a whole. If you want to start calling it out now, by all means you are technically correct considering that type of rhetoric has existed in legion for as long as I've followed politics, you can't really make that argument now as something "sad" or "unique" for any particular candidate and/or party, .

This is much, much different. I think a lot of people saw Bush as kind of reckless and dopey, many people saw Obama as a threat for reasons I still don't fully comprehend, but Trump is flat out a sociopath which is a whole other level of danger.

I mean, his obsession with his TV ratings is flat out abnormal mental behaviour, for starters. I don't mean this as rhetoric and hyperbole, I mean this quite literally.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Compassion comes into play for the end-goal.

Something along the lines of the "teach a man to fish" proverb. Replace teach with "provide".

You can provide a man a fish for a day, or you can provide him an environment with plenty of fish to go out and catch.


Again, that would be part of the equation for sure, but by no means a solution to the underlying problems that lead to needing it long-term in the first place. I'm not as concerned with temporary help vs the plethora of people that have relied on and will rely on welfare for the entirety of their lives.


You'll not get that from me (aside the aforementioned abuse). Welfare is a tool, it is not a solution. A means to an end. It should not be the ends themselves.


It is an end for many people, including some of those I've listed (massive recurring health care expenses, disability, etc.) This is a subset of the people using welfare, and I would agree that for many/most it is a transitional thing, but at the end of the day I think we need to be far more compassionate about people on welfare just as we have to be more compassionate about people that can't afford their health care (but are not on welfare).

I say "have to" because I think continuing on with this sort of dickish rhetoric that people use with a wide range of subject matter is going to be the slow death of the country.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2017, 11:15 PM
 
Our good friends on the right may really dislike Hillary and Obama. They may vehemently disagree with them on POLICY or simply based on IDEOLOGY. But they would be hard pressed to be critical with any sort of credibility on the basis of COMPETENCE for the office. The same simply can't be said of Trump.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,