Straggler

Femi is awesome.

There is loads that can be done to combat the problem of mass shootings. It is a big job, it will be difficult, but what is not acceptable is just continuing along the current path. 

The biggest problem is still that any good work done now would simply be destroyed by the next Republican President, but fight that battle when it happens, doing nothing now is unacceptable.

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

America is a democracy. Candidates are chosen via a primary process and then voted on a second time in the final election. There is plenty of opportunities for voters to direct policy but their society votes the way it does and gets the result it deserves.

Just today was the Georgian Republican primary elections to decide up coming representative. Marjorie Taylor Greene was one under threat from being unseated, she was up against 5 other Republican candidates with various views and comfortably beat them all. She will most likely go on to retain her seat against which ever Democrat is chosen by their voters. It's the will of the people unfortunately... 

America is a broken democracy. 88% favour the govt negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. It's not happening. 60/70% want abortion to be legally available, it is getting banned. 52% want more gun control and that is going the other way too.

When a party puts its weight behind a candidate on average that candidate will win selection. For example Nancy Pelosi just endorsed Henry Cuellar for Congress. He is an anti abortion candidate with an A rating from the NRA. With that endorsement comes publicity, a stamp of approval from democratic leadership and a shed load of advertising money. Any candidate trying to fight that is starting the race with their shoes tied. It's not impossible, but it is so hard that it is very much the exception when it happens. The same thing happens with a Trump endorsement for the republicans.

The candidates are endorsed for the benefit of the party and the parties work for their donors. The system is rigged, whoever you vote for the money wins.

25 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It absolutely is the public that is the reason for lack of reform. A majority of people might have an idea they they would prefer tighter gun laws but when they are alone in the voting booth their voting intention is obviously decided on other lines. Gun reform is not important enough for them to be the deciding factor when choosing who to vote for. 

It's not like people are voting for a candidate who campaigns on gun reform but once they are in office decide to become pro gun, against the wishes of those who voted for them. The pro gun candidates told everyone they were pro gun and then were duly elected and are carrying out the mandate they were elected on.

The majority of the public don't have the choice to vote for the gun reform candidate. Neither party will field one if they can help it. That is the point. The influx of money from special interest groups ensures that the system from both parties choose candidates that won't challenge the way things are today. Do you vote for the pro gun republican or the not anti gun democrat?  

Lest we forget, the pro gun republican party did actually lose the last election. Democratic voters are on average more pro some reform of gun laws yet none are forthcoming from their representatives. There is a massive gap between what the public want and what their political class are prepared to deliver.

25 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's not as simple as this, is it? 

It'd need an amendment to the constitution, a simple majority in the house and senate isn't going to cut it.

There are loads of reforms they could do before a constitutional amendment would be required. Background check, licensing, banning certain types of weapons and ammo. All can be passed with a simple majority, but isn't.

1 minute ago, Genie said:

There might be many more pro-gun people in the US that are not official NRA members.

Don't doubt it, but I'm only responding to a point that funding is overwhelmingly from its membership.

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

It's doesn't seem to be much of a vote winner if it's just over half, and skews along party lines (I should point out that 77% of NRA members identify as Republican).  Plus you talk about NRA using funds to lobby as the issue, but the majority of their funds come from memberships (ie citizens), and only 27% from private contributions. The american people in large part fund the NRA, enabling them to lobby.  

NRA has around 5.5 million members, it's hardly a big number against the rough 160 million who would like to see change, yet it is the will of the 5.5 that prevails. Look the only point I'm making is that it would be really unfair for any politicians to point the finger at the public as the reason there has been no reform. There are many reasons that new rules have not been introduced, the smallest of which is a lack of public support.

11 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Let me ask you then. Whoever was in power at present, Trump, Obama, whoever. If they enacted gun reform would they win the next election? 

If the answer is no, then the public are right front and centre of this issue, not just the NRA. 

That is an opinion not backed up by any fact at all.  The polls state that 52% of the US public are in support of tighter gun legislation.  34% are for keeping the status quo and this is before the events of the last day.  It should be a vote winner.  The only reason this is in contention is because of the very vocal and willing to chuck money around pro gun lobby minority.  The problem in 100% not that people would vote against a party proposing stricter gun laws.  The problem is the pro gun lobby would spend huge amounts of money to campaign against such legislation and because the influence of money is so disproportionately more powerful than the will of the majority.  Again the problem is not the will of the people, it is the disproportionate power of a minority with a large amount of money subverting the will of the people.

Within both parties it is easier to take the NRA money and shut their eyes to the problem than it is to fight them.  This is because to fight them, they would have to point out the unhealthy and fundamentally undemocratic influence of campaign donations and they all like the money more than they care about kids getting shot.

gun data in USA

Quote

55 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

27 school shootings so far this YEAR.

I kind of want Biden to do a national address and rather than offer condolences, just say 'I can't stop this unless you give me a mandate. This will 100% carry on until there is gun reform, and I can't do that unless 50% of you let me. American voters- It's YOUR fault this is happening. You are killing your kids.'

He has a mandate, the overwhelming majority of Americans want more regulation on gun ownership.  He has control of both houses and the Presidency.  The problem is absolutely not the willingness of the public to go along with new gun legislation, it is 100% that the political classes (Democratic and Republican) are there to do the bidding of their donors, not the people they are supposed to represent.  It would be an act of cruelty and utter hypocrisy to turn around to the American public and pin this on them.  The people are let down by a corrupt system that is these days by design anti-democratic.

It's not one man one vote, it's one dollar one vote.  The more dollars you have, the more your vote counts.

It's the same with all the legislation coming out against abortion.  The right to let women choose has support of around 70% of the American population, but with Democratic everything at the top of government it is being banned over many states.

Public support is not a problem, politicians being money grubbing aholes not remotely interested in actually representing the wishes of the people who elected them is.

Apparently the word removed was in a shootout with police before he got into the school. Seems he had body armour on so they couldn't bring him down. The logical answer is still stop people from having guns, but I bet the one offered is an arms race to get higher powered weapons into the hands of police. 

46 minutes ago, Genie said:

I don’t really mind who wins, as long as it’s fair. I really like the prospect of 3 teams who can challenge for every win.

Completely agree (apart from Max, he can do one).

Met Police really going the extra mile to look like an old boys club. Why does everything have to be so predictably shit?

12 hours ago, Chindie said:

 

Oh dear, looks like the budget ran out for special effects.  It plays like Ally McBeal with superpowers. I guess they are going for laughs here, as the writer has pretty much only comedy credits to her name, but not a single joke in the trailer landed with me, they were very predictable.

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Shameless, honestly.

To be fair, being a Tory that hasn't been caught sexually assaulting someone yet, is something of a badge of honour these days. 

It was oven ready in 2019 so has been cooking for 3 years. I'm not surprised it's burned the house down.

Amazing that the answer is never taxing the 1% or making global corporations like Amazon pay their fair share. 

I'd put money on Buendia and Phil both knowing that this was going to be the plan before the Burnley game. Rotation with games in such quick succession is not without merit. It's not necessarily poor man management if they buy into the rotation and both stay motivated.

10 minutes ago, AshVilla said:

She's done a runner with Dominic Cummings.

Then he needs his eyes tested....

Elected on a pro life, family values platform.....

5 minutes ago, Mozzavfc said:

That's why I don't understand why Tories are pushing it so much. He either ends up being found guilty and resigns, which makes Boris look bad, or he's found not guilty, which makes Boris look bad

It's because in the short term it gives them something to shout about. They don't care what tomorrow may bring, and if it is inconvenient, they will simply lie about it or shout about something different. It's a shitty playbook, but it's really all they have (aside from shovelling money from taxpayers into the hands of the stupidly wealthy, but even the Tories know they can't actually campaign on that).

Quote

Belief that top Democrats are sex traffickers

Three in 10 Americans say that it is definitely or probably true that “top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings,” a specific element of the QAnon conspiracy theory that hasn’t been substantiated by any national media reporting or established groups that fight sex trafficking. When we asked a similar question of registered voters in 2020, slightly fewer (25%) said they thought this was true. 

Nearly Half of Republicans Now Think Top Democrats Are Running Pedophile Cabals

How do you even begin to reach out to a country that has become totally untethered from the truth?  Even 13% of Joe Biden voters believe it, God knows how they managed to go out and vote for him.  I can only assume that the 13% is the Democrat pro child sex trafficking wing of the party.  Food for thought for the "it's the left that have got more extreme" conversation.

12 minutes ago, Genie said:

What excuse is he gonna go with then.

Opened it by mistake? Phone was hacked? Accidentally typed in p*rnhub and then big boobs milf whilst his phone was in his back pocket? 

What ever it is I assume it’ll be a genuine error that could happen to anyone. Lessons will be learned and let’s move on.

He had heard Boris call Raynor a MILF and was just googling to find out what that means. He then realised he also did not understand what CFNM meant, but he now totally understands why his own party can't stand the BBC 

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

He's had the whip withdrawn. 

I wonder how far in it was? 

Oh god, just laughed hard at that one in the quiet carriage on the train too.

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

He’ll probably just get a slap on his wrist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If he keeps it still for long enough.

I would love Starmer to say something like this at PMQ's. Then jus go on a full on pun run about beating off the opposition and if he would like to come and see HR, specifically in that order.