Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, villakram said:

Biden out with an official denial of the Tara Reade allegations of sexual assault.

Just the one? He's up against an opponent with many more, bigly so. He needs to get lawyers to do some pay-offs to some hookers or something, or he's gonna look like such a feeble  loser. #Trump, #MAGA, #odioussexpests4President.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Just the one? He's up against an opponent with many more, bigly so. He needs to get lawyers to do some pay-offs to some hookers or something, or he's gonna look like such a feeble  loser. #Trump, #MAGA, #odioussexpests4President.

Joking apart, it is of course a disadvantage for Biden that he has only one accuser, who the media can and will focus all their attention on, while Trump has dozens. Much for the same reason that 'one death is a tragedy but a million is a statistic'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, check out the msnbc interview this morning with Biden... yikes, he's almost aging visible in front of our eyes. What a horrible look locking up his personal papers when asked about a narrow search. Way to make a bigger issue out of this moron!

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-biden-this-is-an-open-book-there-is-nothing-for-me-to-hide-82865221937

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Trump endorses the Militia storming the Michigan state Capitol, as 'good people'

Where have we heard that before?

"storm", they were allowed in by police and even had their temperatures checked in some cases, up to the pre-determined corona virus occupancy limit. That they carry around guns is neither here nor there. It's legal. Full stop, unfortunately. 

Their use of the media to promote their side is impressive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, villakram said:

"storm", they were allowed in by police and even had their temperatures checked in some cases, up to the pre-determined corona virus occupancy limit. That they carry around guns is neither here nor there. It's legal. Full stop, unfortunately. 

Their use of the media to promote their side is impressive. 

Would be interested to see the police reaction if it had been a black lives matter protest dressed and behaving like that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, villakram said:

"storm", they were allowed in by police and even had their temperatures checked in some cases, up to the pre-determined corona virus occupancy limit. That they carry around guns is neither here nor there. It's legal. Full stop, unfortunately. 

Their use of the media to promote their side is impressive. 

you can rationalise all you like.

This is a president who called literal Nazis who ran over an innocent lady, 'good people' remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

you can rationalise all you like.

This is a president who called literal Nazis who ran over an innocent lady, 'good people' remember.

Blanket statements about large groups are one of the things they use to play victim. 

It's not rationalizing. Legal logic is a strange thing over here. What they did is legal, bonkers (and that's being nice) but legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder how something like this would go down with these guys?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces a ban on 1,500 types of semi-automatic weapons. The decision was made after the mass murder recently when a man killed 22 people.

The deed in Nova Scotia, which began on the evening of April 18 and continued the following day, is among the worst of its kind in Canada. The offender could only be shot dead after 13 hours of police hunting.

The 51-year-old perpetrator had several weapons with him, at least one of which was a powerful semi-automatic weapon.

"These weapons are created for a single purpose, and that is to kill the largest possible number of people in the shortest possible time," Trudeau said on Friday at a press conference.

Those who have weapons covered by the ban will have two years to get rid of them, and Parliament should pass a law to compensate the owners.

But Trudeau says the law on importing, selling and using the weapons in question has immediate effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villakram said:

What they did is legal, bonkers (and that's being nice) but legal.

Did I say it wasn't?

Still rationalising it and saying it's fine.

Whilst it may be under the law, in times of societal norms, it's insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Did I say it wasn't?

Still rationalising it and saying it's fine.

Whilst it may be under the law, in times of societal norms, it's insane.

I didn't say it was fine. You interpreted it that way.

Re-read my original post, note the "unfortunately".

Have a nice evening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sne said:

Wonder how something like this would go down with these guys?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces a ban on 1,500 types of semi-automatic weapons. The decision was made after the mass murder recently when a man killed 22 people.

The deed in Nova Scotia, which began on the evening of April 18 and continued the following day, is among the worst of its kind in Canada. The offender could only be shot dead after 13 hours of police hunting.

The 51-year-old perpetrator had several weapons with him, at least one of which was a powerful semi-automatic weapon.

"These weapons are created for a single purpose, and that is to kill the largest possible number of people in the shortest possible time," Trudeau said on Friday at a press conference.

Those who have weapons covered by the ban will have two years to get rid of them, and Parliament should pass a law to compensate the owners.

But Trudeau says the law on importing, selling and using the weapons in question has immediate effect.

I live in Canada and while the a lot of Liberal  voters cheer this I don't think it's a victory for anyone. Those on the either end of the gun control debate are massively disappointed - don't equate this to what NZ or Australia did. Keep in mind we already have strict ownership, storage and transportation laws.

Things to know:

1. The firearms are banned by name, not any technical specification. If Armalite release the AR16 tomorrow it won't be covered, so cue years of whackamole. Imagine fuel economy laws that only used car makes and models.

2. Many high powered semi-auto guns aren't banned, mostly because they have wood stocks instead of black. The 308 and 300 win mag varients are far more powerful than an Ar15, while the 9mm carbines have less recoil, so there's no good argument to not ban them if that's the goal.

3. The majority of firearms-related crimes in Canada involve hand guns, but the federal government knows banning them would cost a lot of money in buybacks and a lot of votes (a reasonable number of handgun owners live in cities, which is where non-Conservative voters are). Instead the feds suggested that individual cities ban handguns, which passes the buck to mayors who can only ban the sale within city limits, meaning a 20 minute drive to buy one (a lot of big outdoors / gun stores are outside city limits anyway).

4. It's a buy-back, and 95% of people who own these firearms have hundreds or thousands more dollars in related items (gun safes, scopes, cleaning equipment, etc). They are going to take that buy-back money and purchase something else just as lethal, because see 1 and 2. The PM stated that Aboriginal hunters can continue to use the banned firearms for up to two years until they can source a replacement, so this is absolutely the intention and the expected result.

Given the above , I don't see this reducing the number of guns in circulation, or taking the guns out of the hands of criminals (the vast majority of whom use illegally imported handguns from the US).

I do see something that'll cost well in excess of $1B, and has already created more division between firearms owners (approx 1 in 4 households), the general public and gun control advocates. Sensible discussion is almost impossible.

The argument that "at least it gets some guns out of people's hands" or "it's a good start" doesn't hold water. It wasn't debated, it was an order-in-council from cabinet so they could have included anything.

If the government truly wanted to get what I think they view as dangerous firearms out of circulation, they would have banned centre-fire semis and handguns. Everyone would have understood what this meant because its like saying "all has powered vehicles with four or more wheels". There would have been a huge financial and political price to pay, but that's the reality of leading by principal instead of posturing.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago I received a Trump emblazoned message from the CDC about covid best practice.

This week: After I got my $1200 electronically from the IRS, I (and everyone else) received a letter "from/by" Trump (as in his scribble is on the bottom) taking credit for this and various other jingoistic stuff.

urgh...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, villakram said:

Two weeks ago I received a Trump emblazoned message from the CDC about covid best practice.

This week: After I got my $1200 electronically from the IRS, I (and everyone else) received a letter "from/by" Trump (as in his scribble is on the bottom) taking credit for this and various other jingoistic stuff.

urgh...

 

If you pledge money to his campaign you might get a nice MAGA facemask as a thank you gift, though there's no need to wear it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â