American Politics

[EihTooms]

2-3 years ago somebody at America's largest business organization finally got around to looking at the past century pattern of results and came to the inescapable conclusion that the Repub Party's supposed expertise in accomplishing what only on the surface sounds like it ought to be great for business, see quote below, in the hands of Real Repubs in the Real World turns out to produce pro-business results notably inferior to that of the Dem Party, at best, and more often than not produces demonstrably horrific results of the worst economic downturns, massive jobs and business destruction in history:

McCarthy, Scalise go to war with U.S. Chamber after group backed some Democrats

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/06/kevi...ndroidappshare

"The Chambers priorities include lower taxes, reduced spending, fighting overregulation and numerous other issues..

Yep, dangling some piddling, utterly useless to the point of being counterproductive marginal tax cut for the wealthy before the eyes of the electorate while, for example, making it easier for industries to pollute the air and water or disregarding critical bank and financial regulations, which has to be cleaned up eventually at considerable cost, does fuck all for business if Real Repubs in the Real World are also going to be criminally negligent on National Security, border control and immigration, ignore warnings about potential foreign and domestic terrorist attacks, Pandemics, economic downturns that could be lessened or averted with the proper timely tweaks, not threatening to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States of America by refusing to pay the bills jacked up disproportionately by Repubs due to their typically horrific stewardship, etc, etc, etc.

[Tiny 12]

Tons of places all over the world have a history of oppression and repression. North Korea and China. The Soviet Union. It's almost the default setting for most of human history, really.

But there's something the places you mentioned have that North Korea, China and the Soviet Union don't. Can you guess what it is?

If you go farther down the list you'll see more places in the Caribbean. And not so many in Africa -- Nigeria, South Africa and the Central African Republic stand out as having high homicide rates, but there are a number of African countries that appear to be safer, from the perspective of getting murdered, than the USA. That's why I think slavery is the common denominator, and why I feel comfortable placing a lot of the blame on a certain political party. Sorry for dancing around this -- as I think I told you, my posts don't require moderator supervision and I want to keep it that way.

[Tiny 12]

....How about requiring a background check and a 30-day waiting period for every handgun sold by every dealer, private individual or gun show seller? How about registering every handgun / buyer combination so that it becomes a matter of record if someone from Illinois goes to Indiana to buy a handgun today and goes to Wisconsin to buy a handgun next week....

Good post PVMonger. Now I don't agree with all of it, but it's well thought out.

Given that the main reason people purchase handguns is to be able to kill people, admittedly for self defense in most instances, I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps it makes sense to at least regulate handguns as strictly as cars. They are deadly weapons, and you do have a lot of yahoos out there who are emotional nut cases and don't know the first thing about gun safety. But I don't have a dog in this hunt as I don't own a handgun. You should take this up with Chris, Elvis or the Marquis. Ask them nicely and they most likely will respond in kind.

[Tiny 12]

Remember that from the 1860's until about 1965, the Democratic Party was "conservative" and the Republican Party was "liberal". About 1965, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, virtually all southern Democrats changed parties.

That's just not true PVMonger. The transition was gradual. I'm from Texas, and while the 1960's were before my time, John Connally was the only Texas politician of note I know of who switched parties in that time frame. Phil Gramm and Kent Hance, two heavyweights, switched in the 1980's during the Reagan revolution. I don't recall any significant switches since then.

I grew up in a strongly Democratic family, and the majority of the family didn't switch parties. I had an uncle who was a racist Democrat. He died a racist Democrat. I have an aunt who was a racist Democrat and she still is. The uncle used to annoy me because he was always saying derogatory things about Mexicans. And I'm a Mexican in a white man's body.

Also, please note that the platform of the Republican Party has never been pro segregation or pro slavery. At least not to my knowledge.

[Tiny 12]

If it weren't for Caucasus Hillary would have beat Obama in the primaries. They are anything but democracy in action. Another thing is I heard that Hillary people were arrogant and Obama's people were very personable and so Hillary didn't get support or enthusiasm from local Democratic organizations. Obama had virtually no experience but what he did have was an excellent education in Constitutional Law.

Something similar happened in the 2016 primaries. The powers that be decided Hillary would be a better general election candidate than Bernie so they made that happen. I seem to recall the Democratic Party had a large number of super delegates who were selected by the party bosses? I'm not sure if they fixed that?

Doubtful Republicans can find a qualified person to run, there just aren't any.

They are there. If you define "qualified" as Tooms does, more than in the Democratic Party. I'm partial to blue state Republican governors, like Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Chris Sununu. They're all popular, they're not divisive, and they've all done a good job. John Kasich and Nikki Haley too, although they hail from red states.

[Tiny 12]

Darth Vader w a big nose. Now you got me interested! Hehe.

No, no, no! You must have missed my previous post JustTK,

What, are you crazy? That's not the way I roll. What woman is going to want to bang Darth Vader? I'll be the guy with the surgical grade N95 mask, the aviator goggles, Bermuda shorts, and wife beater (sleeveless) T-shirt. Here in God's country, Texas, I'd typically have a semiautomatic weapon slung over my shoulder too. This is called peacocking -- appealing to the opposite sex. Women can't resist a man with aviator goggles and an AR-15. And the aviator goggles, like the N95 mask help prevent transmission of COVID!

Yes, I do have a hazmat suit and self contained breathing apparatus. But I only wear them to indoor sporting events.

[JustTK]

But there's something the places you mentioned have that North Korea, China and the Soviet Union don't. Can you guess what it is?

They're not stooges to the USA or some other imperialist power?

[Chris P]

Not necessarily Chris. If you've got a big nose that's been broken a couple of times those diapers can work to your advantage.

I dunno, a lot of women like a broken nose. It's a sign of ruggedness and potential violence that keeps them on their toes.

[Chris P]

Obama didn't have enough experience? He was a Dem and not a disastrous Repub or a useless Libertarian. Any Dem would have been better at recovering us from that one than any member of any other party.

We've cracked it guys! You don't have to have any experience, or indeed know anything. The key to success is. Wait for it. When you write your name, put a the after it.

*Cue laugh track and Benny Hill theme song*.

Eihtooms: bringing comedy to the forum come rain or shine.

[Chris P]

Y
The countries/territories with the highest homicide rates are the USA Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Lesotho, and Trinidad and Tobago. If you spend a little time with Google, you'll see these countries have strict gun laws.

What do they have in common? Well, like Mississippi and Alabama, they have a history of extreme oppression and repression

Tons of places all over the world have a history of oppression and repression. North Korea and China. The Soviet Union. It's almost the default setting for most of human history, really.

But there's something the places you mentioned have that North Korea, China and the Soviet Union don't. Can you guess what it is?

[PVMonger]

You guys are gaslighting, trying to change the subject from the higher incidence of homicides in cities and counties controlled by Democrats.

Go down to the UNODC study, and sort the countries in reverse order by homicide rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

The countries/territories with the highest homicide rates are the USA Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Lesotho, and Trinidad and Tobago. If you spend a little time with Google, you'll see these countries have strict gun laws.

What do they have in common? Well, like Mississippi and Alabama, they have a history of extreme oppression and repression, of treating some of their people reprehensibly. In Mississippi and Alabama, the Democratic Party, which admittedly is much more enlightened than it was many years ago, enabled this treatment.

Taking a look at the other countries with high homicide rates, Honduras is the only one I see that doesn't have reasonably strict gun control laws.

PVMonger, if you would qualify your analysis to treat handguns separately from long guns, we might have more room for agreement. Except that now the cat's out of the bag. There are probably more handguns in America than their are Americans. The price of that Saturday night special's not going from $50 to $1000.

There are no data (at least that I could find) that broke out the number of handguns from the number of "firearms" per capita in the US. Only some vague assertions that there were more handguns than long guns. One source says that 60% of murders were by handgun, 3% by rifle and 1% by shotgun. But then there's the pesky "remainder" of 36%. Is it the same percentage? Larger? Smaller? But if the percentage is 51%-49% or 80%-20% is unknown and probably unknowable. We already know that there are 120+ firearms per 100 people in the US. https://pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...hs-in-the-u-s/.

But the problem with firearms in general is their availability and their ease of acquisition. Firearms are obtained through legal gun dealers, through gun shows, from private sellers, from out-of-state and from theft. The simple problem is that other than obtaining a firearm through a legal dealer (which sometimes requires a background check and sometimes requires a license), none of the other means of acquisition require diddly-squat.

But let's say that the US decided that they'd had enough of the violence and that they were going to "crack down". If we ignore the handwringing from the right about how the US was going to confiscate every firearm in America, what can be done?

How about requiring a background check and a 30-day waiting period for every handgun sold by every dealer, private individual or gun show seller? How about registering every handgun / buyer combination so that it becomes a matter of record if someone from Illinois goes to Indiana to buy a handgun today and goes to Wisconsin to buy a handgun next week. Since people have only two hands, nobody needs more than two handguns. And you'd better damn well have both if you've bought both because you'd need the paperwork.

How about firearm laws that are tough and equal from state to state? The largest problem now is that many states have very lax firearm laws. That means that a handgun that is easy to obtain in one state may be difficult to obtain in another state so it make absolute sense for somebody to obtain it where it is easy to do so and resell it where it is difficult to obtain. I cannot find the article that referenced how tough gun laws in every state would have an effect on lowering crime because of the price of a handgun. The basic premise was that if handguns were extremely difficult to obtain, the supply would go down and the price would go up. That's, you know, ECON 101. Would the price go to $1000? Who knows. But common sense says that the price would go up dramatically.

Now, to theft. I read one article that said that 300,000 firearms were stolen each year from retail establishments. Really? What do these morons do? Do have a neon sign that says "Premises unlocked so come and take what you want"? And stolen from homeowners? Any homeowner who doesn't have a hand gun in a locked safe ought to be shot on sight.

I have seen nothing, from either side of the aisle, about tackling the problem. Dems won't do it because they know that handgun legislation simply can not get passed. Repubs won't do it because handgun legislation will infuriate their base.

[JustTK]

You arent an American so it wasnt directed at you per se, but in your case it probably is, "You hate us because you aint us".

In the case of the others that hate America and are from there its more they hate it because they are losers and instead of looking in the mirror. They blame everything and everyone else, includ America and want to destroy it.

So in my case, I am not a USAn so I hate it. So I hate everything and everyone that I am not part of? I hate all Swedes, all Nepalese, all Tahitians, all Chileans, all Bulgrians, all Malawians, or Singaporeans. Right?

And in the case of USAns. Am struggling to follow you there. Are you saying that any USAn that complains about the state of the economy or poliiciies is Anti-American? . And this applies regardless of which political party is in power?

[PVMonger]

So you can't define men and women. Noted.

I said 'We don't "define" men and women because when we do, we get douches asking idiotic questions like "Then why can't you define them?" Or douches making idiotic statements like "Trannies are mentally ill".

You said "So you can't define men and women. ".

Don't and can't are two (that's 2, not 'to' or 'too' in case you didn't know those differences, either) different words with two different meanings. Here they are: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/cannot and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/dont.

And, by the way, my prior statement still stands. Dems don't define men and women because there are too many idiots who make idiotic statements that make them selves seem far smarter than they are. Idiots who believe that "globohomo" is funny. Idiots who believe that there is such a thing as "heritage Americans". Idiots who believe that Jews will replace them. Idiots who believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Idiots who believe that transgender folks are mentally ill. Anybody who believes any one of those things is an idiot.

[EihTooms]

Kicking Obama in 2012 out of the running (yeah, four years prior experience is probably the best preparation to be POTUS), the best qualified candidates in general elections in 2008/20012/2016 were Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Both had experience running states and businesses. Both were uniters, Republicans who served as governors in blue states. I'd put Hillary at #3. Obama in 2008 would be neck and neck with Trump in 2016 as the worst qualified, both behind McCain, even though he's a neocon.

If Hillary had won in 2016 we might be better off. The negatives would be that she would not have lessened the regulatory burden on businesses, we would have been less likely to lower the corporate tax rate, and perhaps vaccines wouldn't have gone into peoples arms as quickly. I'm being a little iffy here because Hillary Clinton, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell working together might have done good thinks, like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Bill, unlike many Democratic politicians, recognized the wisdom of cutting the capital gains tax rate, and perhaps Hillary would have viewed our corporate tax rate, then the highest in the developed world, similarly. And yes Hillary would have used the presidential bully pulpit more effectively than Trump during COVID. Would we have been better prepared for the pandemic, as you undoubtedly believe? Perhaps marginally, but not enough to make a difference.

The biggest positive is that I don't think we'd be looking at a public debt of 100% of GDP if Hillary had won. A Republican House and Democratic president historically have been the best combination for controlling spending. Trump, Biden, and a Democratic Congress, despite the moderating influence of Senate Republicans before 2021, spent like drunken sailors.

Trump was bad for the Republican Party. Back in 2016 he was threatening to run as an independent if he wasn't chosen as the Party's nominee, despite a pledge he signed in 2015 to do exactly the opposite. Republicans suffered in elections in 2018, 2020 and 2022 because of Trump's influence. I believe the Republican Party would be much stronger today if Hillary had won in 2016, after we suffered through the recession caused by the Hillary Clinton Pandemic. A strong Republican Party is better for the USA.

Lolol. Now THAT'S funny!

In 2008 we were heading into one of the worst Great Repub Crashes and Great Repub Recessions of all time. NO Repub was qualified to assume the job of pulling us out of it. None. Period.

MittWitt? Ever, much less in 2008 or 2012? OMG! He would have pulled a Herbert Hoover on steroids. Yeah, Hoover was ok many places other than in the WH. But in the WH he was a total Repub disaster.

Nobody would have followed Johnson on any recovery legislation even if by some amazing election rigging he squeaked out an EC win.

Only Dems know what to do, how to do it and will do it with regard to pulling us out of those Great Repub Crashes and Recessions.

Obama didn't have enough experience? He was a Dem and not a disastrous Repub or a useless Libertarian. Any Dem would have been better at recovering us from that one than any member of any other party. Hell, they've been doing it for almost 100 years.

And, no, my position on Hillary being elected POTUS in 2016, as was the obvious will of the American electorate, is she would not have removed the Pandemic Monitor, Prevention and Response teams from China 5 months before the first cases emerged against all expert dire warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous in the first place, as Trump did. Therefore, as Trump himself admitted on a March 2020 audio recording, that 5 month heads up would have been plenty of time to prevent Trump's Pandemic from developing, easy, and we would not have had any of these problems.

Would her response have been better than Trump's? LOL. Silly question. Trump's response to having laid the groundwork for Trump's Pandemic was to lie about everything until his mass murder counts were getting to big and the stock market reaction was too negative for him to ignore and continue lying about it and he had to request shutting down schools and businesses. Your dog's response would have been better than Trump's.

Bulletin: MittWitt, Johnson, GrinBitch, Moscow Mitch, Ryan and all the other non Dems you mentioned would likely have done something just as stupid and dangerous against all expert warnings not to do it and produced as horrific a general result in their supposedly "experienced" stewardship as Trump did. There is really no historical record or pattern of results for the past century to argue otherwise.

[Chris P]

We don't "define" men and women

So you can't define men and women. Noted.