The All Things Political Thread (One thread to rule them all and in the darkness bind them)

[Darkpriest]

Yes, well... I care because reasons. But what's more important is that someone is not "walking the talk" and by all the virtue speech and signaling by politicians, they stop caring once the interests of their party and potential for election is jeopradized. This makes them very predictable in what they are willing to do. All the jawboning on the 'human rights' is nothing but a show to the voters. Sometimes though, with such an approach you kill your potential long term development chances and you stagnate and fall behind. 

[rjshae]

2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Yes, well... I care because reasons. But what's more important is that someone is not "walking the talk" and by all the virtue speech and signaling by politicians, they stop caring once the interests of their party and potential for election is jeopradized. This makes them very predictable in what they are willing to do. All the jawboning on the 'human rights' is nothing but a show to the voters. Sometimes though, with such an approach you kill your potential long term development chances and you stagnate and fall behind. 

Politicians will be politicians. At least they have to put on a show of pleasing the voters, instead of doing whatever the heck the want in a despotism.

[Guard Dog]

Quote

 

Moving from the Funny Stuff thread. Replying to Giftd, Skarp, etc. 

In all seriousness the right to bear arms like any other is not absolute. There can be reasonable restrictions and to tell you the truth I really don’t have a problem with background checks being one of them. If that was as far as it was going to go. But it’s not. My opposition to any form of gun control is at a philosophical level. We cannot agree on reasonable curbs because we are not dealing with reasonable  opposition. The aim of gun control proponents is prohibition and confiscation. Every “reasonable“ restriction begets another and another and another until they reach the desired end. That is not reasonable. What I want to hear is gun control advocates plainly and publicly state that they concede that the right to own a firearm is an individual and  incorporated right. THEN we can come to some mutual agreements on restrictions and safety. If it’s going to be a continuation of the process we have had we are first they want one thing, then another, then the next, then it is far better to say “NO” right from the start.

I am not a hard hearted man. I am as horrified as everybody else every time there is a mass shooting. But not so horrified that I will acquiesce to punishment having not committed a crime. Nor ask anyone else to do so.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Quote

@Malcador said: 

Funny, they'd say the same thing about you.

Had forgotten all about Sinfest, still going

When one side starts with "some can be banned" and the other side starts with "all must be banned" the compromise will not be pretty. Nor equitable. 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Moving from the Funny Stuff thread. Replying to Giftd, Skarp, etc. 

In all seriousness the right to bear arms like any other is not absolute. There can be reasonable restrictions and to tell you the truth I really don’t have a problem with background checks being one of them. If that was as far as it was going to go. But it’s not. My opposition to any form of gun control is at a philosophical level. We cannot agree on reasonable curbs because we are not dealing with reasonable  opposition. The aim of gun control proponents is prohibition and confiscation. Every “reasonable“ restriction begets another and another and another until they reach the desired end. That is not reasonable. What I want to hear is gun control advocates plainly and publicly state that they concede that the right to own a firearm is an individual and  incorporated right. THEN we can come to some mutual agreements on restrictions and safety. If it’s going to be a continuation of the process we have had we are first they want one thing, then another, then the next, then it is far better to say “NO” right from the start.

I am not a hard hearted man. I am as horrified as everybody else every time there is a mass shooting. But not so horrified that I will acquiesce to punishment having not committed a crime. Nor ask anyone else to do so.

Another issue I have with the proposed gun control measures in the USA is you have US citizens volunteering to fight in overseas wars where its okay to use guns and automatic weapons but now you telling these same people that because of a few incidents of mass shootings, often caused by mentally unbalanced people, no one can be trusted to use certain weapons responsibly so everyone gets lumped together 

In SA we have very strict gun laws but you still see killings and crimes committed by a criminal element who dont care about  gun control laws anyway and get access to weapons on the black market which is trenchant in the USA as well 

Owning a gun responsibly is an engrained part of the culture in many states where things like hunting are normal  and when people want to implement gun control their is too much " stoopid rednecks who wont give up their big guns " unhelpful  commentary from the left and liberals  and not enough acceptance of the reality of the way many Americans see this intrinsically as a Constitutional issue and a  right  which has both historical and legal precedent 

So better mental health facilities and accessible therapy should be the first objective before we generalize and focus on the " banning " aspect of the understandable objective of reducing  all mass shootings

Thats why I dont support gun control anymore in the USA and the way it gets framed 

Edited March 24, 2021 by BruceVC

[Gfted1]

15 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

...but you still see killings and crimes committed by a criminal element who dont care about  gun control laws anyway and get access to weapons on the black market which is trenchant in the USA as well 

I think this is important. Theres probably more unregistered weapons in the Chicagoland area than there is registered ones in the SA Army.  But it would be interesting discussion to know how they make it from the manufacturer -> black market.

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I think this is important. Theres probably more unregistered weapons in the Chicagoland area than there is registered ones in the SA Army.  But it would be interesting discussion to know how they make it from the manufacturer -> black market.

This is extremally relevant, gun control supporters understandably use examples of the UK and Oz as where their are very few examples of gun violence because of gun control laws and banning of the usage of most guns but you cannot implement the same type of policy in any country that has a thriving and established black market where its easy to get guns illegally

In SA and the USA this is sadly the reality in many cities. So you " ban " guns but you dont really because criminals, societal reprobates and mentally unbalanced people will just get them on the black market which is a reality you cannot deny

I will give you a similar example, during the lockdown last year our government decided to " ban cigarettes  " for some illogical virus spread related reason ( this only lasted 3-4 months ) Do you think anyone actually stopped smoking? No one I know because everyone just bought cigarettes in our establish black market and we paid 3x as much initially for cheap, inferior, illegal  cigarettes' imported from counties like Zimbabwe

So when you decide to ban things you need to consider questions like " is their a way for citizens to access these banned things illegally " ....if their is then you wasting your time in most cases 

[Guard Dog]

South Carolina senator proposes bill to make all citizens over the age of 18 and a good legal standing a member of a state militia
 

well I guess that’s one way to go. Not necessarily the what I would’ve done. But every time a state tells the federal government to f—k off It warms my heart.

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

South Carolina senator proposes bill to make all citizens over the age of 18 and a good legal standing a member of a state militia
 

well I guess that’s one way to go. Not necessarily the what I would’ve done. But every time a state tells the federal government to f—k off It warms my heart.

Geez thats one way of ending any gun control debates, make everyone part of a state militia ....extreme but effective 

[Amentep]

20 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

South Carolina senator proposes bill to make all citizens over the age of 18 and a good legal standing a member of a state militia
 

well I guess that’s one way to go. Not necessarily the what I would’ve done. But every time a state tells the federal government to f—k off It warms my heart.

Will the militia require them to learn how to use the gun and gun safety?  What if a person doesn't perform to the expected level in the militia, can they be kicked out?  Questions, questions...

[Malcador]

24 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

South Carolina senator proposes bill to make all citizens over the age of 18 and a good legal standing a member of a state militia
 

well I guess that’s one way to go. Not necessarily the what I would’ve done. But every time a state tells the federal government to f—k off It warms my heart.

South Carolina planning to secede again ?

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Will the militia require them to learn how to use the gun and gun safety?  What if a person doesn't perform to the expected level in the militia, can they be kicked out?  Questions, questions...

Amentep please stop being captious, yes of course you will be trained in counter-insurgency and the art of warfare  when they pass the same law in Georgia. No need to worry 

Edited March 24, 2021 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

South Carolina senator proposes bill to make all citizens over the age of 18 and a good legal standing a member of a state militia
 

well I guess that’s one way to go. Not necessarily the what I would’ve done. But every time a state tells the federal government to f—k off It warms my heart.

Isn't he bit late? Or is his aim to add women in the militia too?

"Be it enacted by the Senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

- Militia Act of 1903 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Elerond

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

South Carolina senator proposes bill to make all citizens over the age of 18 and a good legal standing a member of a state militia
 

well I guess that’s one way to go. Not necessarily the what I would’ve done. But every time a state tells the federal government to f—k off It warms my heart.

As much as I don't like the federal government, I don't think state governments drafting every citizen into a militia is a good thing. Seems like a precedent for some very big abuses of power.

[ComradeYellow]

I want a good federal government that you know, actually puts citizens interests somewhere in their agenda.

Anyone who says the the federal government should be abolished and states should take over is literally no different that a confederate sympathizer.

[Guard Dog]

5 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

I want a good federal government that you know, actually puts citizens interests somewhere in their agenda.

Anyone who says the the federal government should be abolished and states should take over is literally no different that a confederate sympathizer.

The Federal government has its powers, the states have theirs. They should be able to coexist as long as each stays on their side of the street.
 

But governments are made up of people. Grasping, venal, selfish, self righteous, duplicitous, and, as often , honorable, honest, and good intentioned. But most of all ignorant. The biggest failure  of government is that it exercises tremendous powers over things it does not understand. The one quality all politicians seem to share is hubris. They genuinely believe because they were the least objectionable candidate on the ballot that one day they are now qualified to make laws about things that are outside their education and experience. At times they are not even qualified to understand who is an expert and who isn’t. Some things obviously are no-brainers. But how does a run of the mill congressman know a good tax policy when one expert tells them one thing and another something different? 

I guess I can talk about this now since I am no longer a employee of the state. I wrote a couple of papers for a sub committee of the state assembly regarding a proposal for dry fertilizer use. The problem with these people was not that they didn’t have good intentions. They were trying to do a good job but they did not understand the most important concept: water solubility. Government decisions are made without wisdom or understanding as often as not. It’s why I always say it's better when they do nothing.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Guard Dog

[ComradeYellow]

Yeah the problem is overreach, not entity.  The best U.S. government quietly helps people, not forcefully like the U.S.S.R., nothing wrong with state projects being implemented and the Feds always quietly being there to subtly distribute funding if they need.

Real good guys don't try to make a splash, they offer aid in the most quietest and most anonymous way possible.

[BruceVC]

13 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I think this is important. Theres probably more unregistered weapons in the Chicagoland area than there is registered ones in the SA Army.  But it would be interesting discussion to know how they make it from the manufacturer -> black market.

You asked a good question that is definitely worth understanding which is " how do all these weapons end up in the black market for sale on the streets "

Each country that grapples with this problem will have similar reasons for this scourge. In SA because of Apartheid their were and  are these hidden arms caches setup  back in the early 1990's that right wing groups thought would be used in the assumed civil war. Some of these have been accessed nowadays

But the main reason is the smuggling of illegal weapons into the country and then corruption within parts of the security forces that sell weapons directly to criminals and gangs

https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-01-01-revealed-ex-cop-who-sold-guns-to-gangsters-is-in-witness-protection/

https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/durban-dealer-who-sold-guns-to-western-cape-gangs-has-case-postponed-cae7c0e8-e0d2-4b72-9fb7-67acabb1d131

In the USA I would say the ease of availability of weapons is smuggling and then similar to SA people within the security forces selling weapons illegally to a broader criminal element 

 

[Darkpriest]

@Guard Dog

I guess you can tell a little bit more from where you sit, how did yoy experience all the years of economic changes

To most of the others, food for thought. Is running permanent deficits really good for you, and how extreme socialist spwnding and redistribution affects growth amd wealth creation. 

 

 

 

 

[Pidesco]

11 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@Guard Dog

I guess you can tell a little bit more from where you sit, how did yoy experience all the years of economic changes

To most of the others, food for thought. Is running permanent deficits really good for you, and how extreme socialist spwnding and redistribution affects growth amd wealth creation. 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that a significant percentage of current public debt in US came from bailing out big companies, tax cuts, especially corporate ones, and projects with low return on investment like the border wall. The first two go by and large into dividends to shareholders, which means it is money that will never reach the broad economy, thus not affecting growth or wealth creation significantly. Infrastructure projects help a bit more, but the border wall was a good example of a project where the money doesn't go back into society, like schools, roads, hospitals, or pretty much whatever. As in everything, it is not so much the amount you spend but how you spend it.

[Darkpriest]

9 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

I suspect that a significant percentage of current public debt in US came from bailing out big companies, tax cuts, especially corporate ones, and projects with low return on investment like the border wall. The first two go by and large into dividends to shareholders, which means it is money that will never reach the broad economy, thus not affecting growth or wealth creation significantly. Infrastructure projects help a bit more, but the border wall was a good example of a project where the money doesn't go back into society, like schools, roads, hospitals, or pretty much whatever. As in everything, it is not so much the amount you spend but how you spend it.

Well, the 2008 drop did go mostly to financial sector, but if i recall, the money there were returned. 

I'd need to go into the yearly spending, but i do not think that additional fed debt went to companies. Not directly at least. 

You'd need to see the big spending figures in the budget.

 

I found this on quick search from 2015

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Pidesco]

The problem isn't so much the spending, I guess, but the tax cuts. Decades of them.

[Gfted1]

All we have to do is tax ourselves into prosperity. True story.

[Pidesco]

6 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

All we have to do is tax ourselves into prosperity. True story.

It's what you did in the 50s. Americans, that is.

[Gfted1]

Sort of like standing in a bucket and trying to lift ourselves up by the handle?