GW Hayduke

If this was true and Manafort and Stone really did collude with Russia, why didn’t Trump give them pardons? Checkmate libtards!

Giving an identity (street groups, gang members, Chicago) to the others while assigning identies to ourselves (good guy with gun, lawful gunowner) help some put off the need for gun control since they can tell themselves it is someone else's problem. Our firearm problem in the US extends further than just shootings in cities. We also have mass shootings, shooting by suicide, and non-"street group" shootings. The idea that mass shooting events (the ones that are severe enough to make it to national media) only compose 2% of all firearm fatalities in the US is telling. Massachusetts is an example of a state that has taken firearm violence seriously and requires a license for possession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts

We wouldn't need to take all of them. We would only need to decrease the number of firearms in our population (buy-back program, registration system), replace the firearms that serve little purpose to society with those that do serve a purpose (buy-back program, licenses based on need), and limit the possession of firearms (background checks, license, registration, training). The point isn't to get the risks from firearm violence in the US to zero. The point is to get the risk of firearm violence in the US so it is close to the level of other developed countries.

Why was the Trump campaign giving internal polling data to a foreign national with links to Russian intelligence?

Not enough thoughts and prayers

Why is it foolish to call them insurrectionists?

PBS Frontline's documentary on the insurrection. They piece things together between Charlottesville, proud boys, boogaloo, the military, the michigan governor kidnapping plot, MAGA, and the insurrection. A few notable interviews with extremists. Hopefully, no one here views them as anything more than duped traitors. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/american-insurrection/

I'm sure folks are aware, but Bighorn is a good example of how the pro-gun crowd use identity to separate themselves from the problem of gun violence. There is the "responsible gun owner" identity, the "goog guy with a gun" identity, and the scary "gang member" identity. When shit starts to get weird they can always fall back on the guy with "poor mental health" or "having a bad day" identity.

I think we should only define mass shootings as when the victims and shooters match my identity. Thanks.

I was able to make it half way through the video. I agree he made some points. But did he make any good points that should be considered when developing public policy?

What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

Which is consistent with the common right-wing theme of giving zero fucks about anyone who doesn't match their identity.

That is notable because it means those others are the real problem while my identity of being a law-abiding citizen insulates me from any sort of firearm regulation

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

There is inherent absurdity in equating corporations with people especially in terms of giving them unlimited election spending and greater control over our elections. It is "We the people" and not "We the multinational corporation" or "We the LLC" or "We the shell company." They are not citizens and are not allowed to vote or run for office. Giving them overly weighted power in electioneering is unamerican. It is antithetical to self governance. It is antithetical to democracy.

If we take away the right to unlimited election spending free speech from corporations, what will be next? Are we going to take away their right to vote? The right to own a gun? The right to run for office? That would be terrible.

You are describing actual speech. Citizens United was about moving money under the umbrella of speech. You are again describing actual speech by corporations. Corporations can't vote or hold office. Corporations are influenced by foreign actors. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html "At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Conservative humor isn't funny to a lot of folks because they use trickle-down comedy. This means only about 1% get it.

Sure. But the point is that the wealthy used to pay a much higher share of their income as taxes, which is very true. Especially since the 80s tax act, capital gains rates were decoupled from ordinary income rates. And since the wealthy gain much of their income from capital gains, this resulted in:

I'm embarrassed to live in a society where TMZ is real.

Technology is surely playing a role in wealth disparity, and I agree market efficiencies can leave folks out of a job. We have always had changing technologies. IMO our current problem is bigger and is a result of the boomer generation. We used to heavily tax the rich and invest in future generations. Boomers benefited from all of that. When the boomers came along and due to their large population held a lot of political power (which they still wield), those trends shifted. Higher education was much more affordable for boomers when compared to current college kids. Pell grants have been replaced with our current student loan system. At one point, the cost of college was growing eight times faster than wages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States#/media/File:InflationTuitionMedicalGeneral1978to2008.png Boomers were able to support a family on a single income. That is no longer the case. From the 1930s to the 1980s, the top annual tax rate never dropped below 63%. When the boomers came of age, the top annual tax rate dropped to 28% and has virtually remained below 40% for top earners. Since boomers came of age, government investment in future generations have decreased. The solution to our growing wealth disparity IMO is reversing the boomer trends. We need to greatly raise taxes on the rich and heavily invest in workers and future generations (like prior generations invested in the boomer generation).

Technology is a part of the story. Technology does influence the disparity in wealth between the upper and the middle/lower classes. IMO technology plays a minor role when compared to our policies related to taxation, education, social safety nets, worker protections, minimum wage, health care, etc. etc.

Author Ibram X. Kendi defines racism as: "Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities." (p. 17-18, How to Be an Antiracist) Kendi then goes on to define racial inequity, racist policies, and racist ideas. "Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing." (p. 18) "A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people." (p. 18) "A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society." (p. 20) For more on these important distinctions and definitions, read pp. 17-23 of his book, How to Be an Antiracist.

Not many folks know this but a year back, Matt bought some very special porpoises. They were immortal. But only if you fed them a special diet of seagull hatchlings from a remote beach in Western Florida. As Matt spent a lot of time in Washington D.C. and wanted to keep his new pets nearby, he paid some friends to catch the necessary gulls and bring them up north for his porpoises. But while in transit, the truck carrying the birds encountered a circus train in North Carolina that was bringing a pair of older, rare lions, to a farm where they could live their remaining regal days in peace. It was a dark and stormy night, and visibility was poor. So their truck ran right over the train car carrying the lions. It created a serious furor. Since it was Matt Gaetz who bought the gulls, and it was Matt who owned the porpoises, the federal prosecution charged him with transporting young gulls, over stately lions, for immortal porpoises.