Sonea

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the GOP senators, if the House impeaches Trump is going to really turn this into a political circus for the first time in history?  Clinton did much worse (lying under oath) and they passed on removing him, I doubt Mueller will find anything as damning.  The House may impeach as this gives them an opportunity for payback, but who really cares, we already know the Dems and many of the GOP insiders hate Trump just because.

Until we see the report, its all speculation but I wouldn't be surprised to see the House impeach with the Senate killing it.

56 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

A great economy and STILL lost the House. Barely made any gains in the Senate. Failed to turn up at Arlington on Veterans Day. 

IMO, all that has happened is that Republicans have pressed the gas pedal a bit, pushing up wage growth and inflation a tick and probably foreshortening this expansion by 6 months. What are the consequences? A 780 billion dollar deficit. (I believe thats about an 18%  deficit to spending ratio....sustainable deficit spending is generally considered somewhere between 3 to 5%.

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the GOP can run another vanilla Mit Romney who was a good candidate according to the book, but did not excite anyone in the GOP base.  I know, folks hate Trump's demeanor, but if you ignore that and look at his policies, he is much more moderate than most of those running on either side including Biden.  As to Biden, he also suffers from foot-in-mouth syndrome almost as much as Trump does, so that might be a plus for him.  Regardless, it appears that the Democrats are going further left (regressive) with their leading candidates.  Even Elizabeth Warren has eschewed extreme leftist/socialist views.

 

As to Mueller pulling down Trump, he actually does not have that power unless the Constitution was rewritten lately, and if he had some sort of bombshell on Trump, I would have thought that would have leaked by now.  Personally, I think the Mueller report will end up being anticlimactic and we will then hear cries from the Dems/MDL that it was all Trump's meddling, so their House investigations will intensify.  It will be an interesting two years.

I agree that Mueller probably doesn't have enough to pull Trump down, though if there was enough evidence technically he would have the power. If his report is damning enough the house will impeach. Then it depends on how damning it is in terms of key swing votes in the Senate. Its an opportunity for some republican senators to really get back at Trump (For instance, Rand Paul might flip).

Trump won't win a reelection IMO because he won't be able to carry rust belt states like he did in 2016. On Biden, even his worst gaffes hardly register in 2018.

It will come down to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Of those three, Kamala has a diversity advantage but is probably a bit too far left to appeal to moderates / independents outside of CA,NY. Elizabeth Warren also brings the woman angle that Hillary had which is a mild advantage over Biden...but at the end of the day Biden is by far the most electable candidate. The question is, can he survive his own party's primary?

The best thing that could happen to Republicans is for Trump to be pulled down by Mueller in the next year, so they can reset their candidate. He loses to Biden. He has a small chance against Harris or Warren.

36 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

All my industrial OSHA training , makes me look at this and only think, How dangerous with them riding so close to that moving track

Don’t look inside then. Those mark 1 through 5 tanks had the engine right in the middle of the tank with no separate compartment. You could burn your self on it and also got some of the exhaust 

4 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Handguns are recorder when a dealer sells them, yes.  But who keeps that info, and for how long (by federal law)? Only five states require gun registration (eight if you count reporting to law enforcement), and it’s illegal to have a federal gun registry.  Only 18 states require a BG check for private sales.

I don’t think anyone tries to enforce an FFL-like transfer on private sales.  It’s simply impossible.  When I buy or sell a firearm privately these days, I keep a record of the transaction for my own protection, as well as to try and stay as legal as I can.  But I have bought guns for cash with no record in the past.  As you said, as long as you don’t run afoul of the law, it probably doesn’t matter.

In regards to California there is a state registry. So it’s an easy way to discover at least with handguns.

13 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Ever hear of mail forwarding?  Or shipping to a friend in a legal state?  WAY too easy to get around.

 

It’s very rare, but also possible to buy a gun in one state while said person holds a DL in another state.  Always a way around any system in place, even for law abiding citizens.  Criminals have many more options.

Both would be illegal, but yes possible and in terms of the magazine easy.

13 hours ago, Satisfied said:

How would this be enforced?  Many states require it, but in practice, it’s nearly impossible to enforce.  I know an 18 year old kid that just bought an AR-15 pistol in GA from a private seller.  No paperwork “required”.

If you never get in trouble with LE or have a break in, you are probably good. Handguns have been registered for decades, so with them, I would say an illegal transfer is easy to prove based on the age of the firearm. Long gun registration has only been around for about 4 years, so much harder to prove if your firearm is older.

14 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

They wouldn't, they be voting what is best for their States because voila there are more people there!

 

One senator in California represents 20 million people.

One Senator in Texas represents 14 million people.

 

One Senator in Wyoming represents 250,000

One Senator in Vermont represents 300,000.

 

It is absolutely ludicrous that the Senators from Vermont/Wyoming have just as much power as the Senator from Texas/California. It's a false Democracy.

Its a republic for one, and the Senate is a check / balance at the end of the day. Without the Senate there would be no United States because low population colonies like Georgia, Delaware,  New Hampshire etc would not have ratified. We'd still have some form of the Articles of Confederation and in all likelyhood the US would be 2 or 3 countries by now.

At the end of the day if people are complaining that the Senate didn't flip this election, it has more to do with the cycle than anything else. There were simply less republican seats to flip this election. They will probably flip it next election. 

By the way my above comment is regarding the Senate. I do agree that the electoral college could go. Though I think it would require 38 states to ratify which is unlikely.

8 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that a state like Wyoming with a population of under 600,000 having an equal voice in the Senate as that of California with a population of just shy of 40 million.  

Actually, I think they would. You can easily put today in their context. Imagine all 50 states are independent of one another in terms of government and you are at the Convention to create a Constitution that will govern everyone. There is no way in hell that Wyoming would ratify the Constitution if isn't granted a check on more populated states.

3 hours ago, Satisfied said:

No, you can buy magazines on the internet, shipped to your door.  Same as AA batteries and panty hose, no ID required to purchase.

 

The only portion of a gun that has to be background checked for is the portion with the serial number on it.  Every other piece can be bought and changed/added at will without an ID.

 

This pic is an AR-15 lower.  Has a serial number on it.  And even though it has nothing else to make it go bang, you have to provide ID and have a BG check to buy (thru a licensed dealer; private sales often skip this part).

 

 

 

Below: An AR-15 with lower, upper, and all necessary parts to turn black gunpowder into toppled targets.

 

Not for a California buyer.

Here is one example:

https://www.aimsurplus.com/catalog.aspx?groupid=14&name=AR15+type+Magazines

Note the warning about capacity. If an online website appears to sell to CA they will get sued.

8 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Would he have gone to another state to obtain it? Are background checks required for such a purchase? Guess it wouldn't matter if his past mental behavior didn't put up a red flag.

 

Hearing some of the people there also survived the Las Vegas shooting.

Probably he would have, or 3D printed it. CADOJ has actively targeted and sued companies that even allow a person to put an order in for a magazine (even if the company cancels it after review of the zip code). Therefore, no online stores that I'm aware of ship magazines over 10 rounds to CA.

Yes, California does have background checks in all cases including private parties. He was investigated for a 5150 hold about a year ago, but the investigator dropped the case. Had he been placed on hold, he would have been required to handover the gun. California operates the APPS which is a SWAT-like team that goes door to door and forcefully confiscates firearms that are on a list of prohibited persons.

The majority of voters are over 40 years old. Given that the majority of celebrity endorsements don't fit that demographic, they aren't going to have much impact. 

Just saw in the news this morning that the US has more open jobs than unemployed.

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Time for retribution.  Can't let outrages go unpunished.

The strategic thing to do (if Ginsburg passes in the next 2 years) is to go ahead and nominate and confirm garland. It erases most of the ill will from 2016 and the court still moves right slightly.

8 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Let the hypocrisy of this slowly set in 

 

I have been somewhat critical of Feinstein lately, but to her credit she did want to censure Clinton.

19 hours ago, ivyanddan said:

The writer of the article refused to explicitly acknowledge that the fight for justice told in this book was not just a fight for criminal justice, but a fight against racism. 

 

That the legal battle in this book only existed BECAUSE of RACISM. If Tom Robinson was white, the woman & the accusers would have been called a liar right away... exactly how it’s playing out in current news these days. 

 

The clear-as-day agenda of this article is to decry “lack of due process” only if it aligns with their conservative, sexist, racist rhetoric.

I agree. There is an element of due process in the novel but thats not the primary driving theme of the book. I'm just glad the article didn't try to claim Ms. Lee wasn't the author lol.

Just now, ivyanddan said:

 

I never stated that not having a background similar to mine is negative at all. Please refrain from making false assumptions.

 

You are the one making false assumptions. 

3 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

 

I understand you may not have the background that I have with regards to statistics and the criminal justice system. It's unfortunate you have construed my directness and my nearly obsessive habit of sticking to facts as "snarky." If you have any questions at all about interpreting these, I'm happy to oblige.

See you continue to make an assumption that is wrong. Which is unfortunate.

You will notice, I've never made negative assumptions about your background, I'm only dealing with facts and opinions posted here.

At any rate, over the course of my posts my only point was that from a accusation, you can't really say that the suspect is 95% likely to have committed the act.

27 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

 

 

 

 

"Naive" and "nitpicking" hardly constitute "snarky". Unless there are "meanings" behind it that only come up when you're looking for holes (AKA nitpicking).

 

And as for your additional comment, please refer to the response I actually made and please refrain from twisting its meaning:

 

 

 

 

Also, are you implying that only men can be sexist?

 

I've reread your post and I can only assume there was snark behind it. You make many implications about things I haven't said repeatedly and then claim those views are naive . As to your comment about implying only men can be sexist, I don't know where this is even coming from - you are the one saying "pretend I am a man". Quite frankly, you haven't directly addressed anything I have posted in this thread and seem to be either arguing with yourself or a false impression of my views.

9 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

Is being a direct, factual & critical thinker considered “snarky” because I’m a woman?

 

Just imagine I’m a man, if it helps.

Also I don't get the man comment. Are you saying I'm naive because I'm a woman?

7 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

Is being a direct, factual & critical thinker considered “snarky” because I’m a woman?

 

Just imagine I’m a man, if it helps.

Well lets see. You claimed I'm "under the impression" of alot of things which isn't true. You called me naive. You said I am nitpicking. I could go on....

5 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

That’s great. Avoid nitpicking stats and I’m sure the rest of what RAINN has to offer in data can help you contextualize false reporting & convictions further.

I'm not entirely sure why you are being so snarky with me to be honest, nor do I see how I am nitpicking.