CA high school shooting

[sk8knight]

Many of the discussions about social issues are also just made up BS trying to blame it on things like violent video games and Hollywood and what not. And, if we want to talk about mental health I think that is legitimate, but then we also have to talk about healthcare which I don't think is a topic many on the right would like to travel down. Mental health treatment is a part of healthcare. If we want to talk about homes without a father or parenting in general, I think that is legitimate too, but we cant talk about that without talking about how many of these fathers are locked up for non violent crimes. So I agree there are deeper issues than just guns (though the volume of guns in this country is absolutely part of this), but a lot of people who want to talk about other things on the surface without actually having solutions for those things either.

There have been some recent studies that show a causative effect between entertainment violence and violent behavior. 85 posted at least one in the previous discussion that we had. So I think it would be prudent to not simply dismiss it as BS but consider it as a potential factor.

One parent homes are also a factor to explore, as you mentioned. It would be an interesting to look at actual statistics of how many one-parent homes are created by incarceration versus simple out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Not to mention the bigger question of how we penalize people for crimes. As far as violent vs nonviolent crimes, it is a very strange position that has emerged that people should only face punishment in this day and age for violent crimes. Non-violent crimes have societal impact as well, some far more devastating to people than any simple assault.

I would put forth that the volume of guns has no effect on this conversation whatsoever. The vast majority of guns and gun owners are never used in a crime and never put in a situation to be used for a crime. The issue is the possession of guns by someone with the malicious intent to do harm to another. It takes those two factors to cause the situation. Which brings us back around to the beginning where we need to tackle both issues. We need to tackle the first in a way that does not infringe on the rights of that vast majority of gun owners who responsibly keep guns and never have and never will commit a crime with those weapons. We also need to tackle the second in a way that does not infringe on the rights of the accused to due process and liberty. Red flag laws are a decent concept but the application of them needs to have the measured due process required by the Constitution.

 

[Cubs79]

There have been some recent studies that show a causative effect between entertainment violence and violent behavior. 85 posted at least one in the previous discussion that we had. So I think it would be prudent to not simply dismiss it as BS but consider it as a potential factor.

One parent homes are also a factor to explore, as you mentioned. It would be an interesting to look at actual statistics of how many one-parent homes are created by incarceration versus simple out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Not to mention the bigger question of how we penalize people for crimes. As far as violent vs nonviolent crimes, it is a very strange position that has emerged that people should only face punishment in this day and age for violent crimes. Non-violent crimes have societal impact as well, some far more devastating to people than any simple assault.

I would put forth that the volume of guns has no effect on this conversation whatsoever. The vast majority of guns and gun owners are never used in a crime and never put in a situation to be used for a crime. The issue is the possession of guns by someone with the malicious intent to do harm to another. It takes those two factors to cause the situation. Which brings us back around to the beginning where we need to tackle both issues. We need to tackle the first in a way that does not infringe on the rights of that vast majority of gun owners who responsibly keep guns and never have and never will commit a crime with those weapons. We also need to tackle the second in a way that does not infringe on the rights of the accused to due process and liberty. Red flag laws are a decent concept but the application of them needs to have the measured due process required by the Constitution.

You will have to show me the study you are referring to me, because almost everything I have read on this points to video games having little to no impact on mass shootings.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...wiz.......0i333.VUmX3kUvqJI#spf=1573846276058
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/health/video-games-violence-explainer/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/sports/trump-violent-video-games-studies.html

Nobody said there shouldn't be punishment for non violent crimes. But the punishments should be proportionate to the crime. 5 years for putting the wrong address when enrolling your child in school for example? Ridiculous. And let's also be honest the justice system doesn't treat all people the same way. And the reality is, is that when you lock up someone who has a child, you are taking a parent away from that child. That isn't to say people don't need to be locked up at times, obviously some people need to be off the streets, but it is saying we need to reevaluate our justice system.

So you don't think the volume of guns is an issue, but you think watching movies or playing video games is an issue? Sorry but I honestly just find that kind of take ridiculous.

 

[sk8knight]

You will have to show me the study you are referring to me, because almost everything I have read on this points to video games having little to no impact on mass shootings.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...wiz.......0i333.VUmX3kUvqJI#spf=1573846276058
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/health/video-games-violence-explainer/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/sports/trump-violent-video-games-studies.html

Nobody said there shouldn't be punishment for non violent crimes. But the punishments should be proportionate to the crime. 5 years for putting the wrong address when enrolling your child in school for example? Ridiculous. And let's also be honest the justice system doesn't treat all people the same way. And the reality is, is that when you lock up someone who has a child, you are taking a parent away from that child. That isn't to say people don't need to be locked up at times, obviously some people need to be off the streets, but it is saying we need to reevaluate our justice system.

So you don't think the volume of guns is an issue, but you think watching movies or playing video games is an issue? Sorry but I honestly just find that kind of take ridiculous.

I didn't say that watching movies or playing games is an issue. I'm saying that maybe we shouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand as a factor because a couple of industries make huge dollars off of violence.

Here are some articles referencing studies that do indeed find a link between violence movies and violent actions:
1. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...-make-people-more-aggressive-study-shows.html
2. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/viol...DwEwzrHS1WrqIoAguqdAR08U8A9FuzhCxM-XnqyXwYKSu
3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ent-média-and-aggressive-behavior-in-children

As for "taking a parent away from a child," that is an emotional appeal. You are punishing a criminal for their crimes to serve sentences that have been legislated by your elected representatives. The criminal is taking themselves away from their family when they choose to commit the crime for which they have been convicted (ignoring wrongful convictions, of course). It's not the system's fault that they decided to commit a crime. You also can't just ignore crimes that are committed.

I'm all for re-evaluating the penalties for crimes. But remember that it isn't the "justice system" that sets these penalties. It is the democratically-elected representatives of the people that legislate criminal penalties. They are espousing the will of the people when they pander for votes off cracking down on some crime or another after it makes the news. You can reform the criminal justice system all you want but it won't make a difference if the legislators continue to behave as they have been behaving.

I recently read a study by the secret service (sorry, I don't have a link) that found that there were significant warning signs in most of the school shooters that included criminal acts that were ignored or dropped to avoid a classroom-to-prison pipeline. So, in our reforming of the system, we also need to make sure that we don't excuse or under-penalize people for criminal acts and thus encourage more and worse criminal acts.

 

[Cubs79]

I didn't say that watching movies or playing games is an issue. I'm saying that maybe we shouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand as a factor because a couple of industries make huge dollars off of violence.

Here are some articles referencing studies that do indeed find a link between violence movies and violent actions:
1. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...-make-people-more-aggressive-study-shows.html
2. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/viol...DwEwzrHS1WrqIoAguqdAR08U8A9FuzhCxM-XnqyXwYKSu
3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-baby-scientist/201801/violent-média-and-aggressive-behavior-in-children

As for "taking a parent away from a child," that is an emotional appeal. You are punishing a criminal for their crimes to serve sentences that have been legislated by your elected representatives. The criminal is taking themselves away from their family when they choose to commit the crime for which they have been convicted (ignoring wrongful convictions, of course). It's not the system's fault that they decided to commit a crime. You also can't just ignore crimes that are committed.

I'm all for re-evaluating the penalties for crimes. But remember that it isn't the "justice system" that sets these penalties. It is the democratically-elected representatives of the people that legislate criminal penalties. They are espousing the will of the people when they pander for votes off cracking down on some crime or another after it makes the news. You can reform the criminal justice system all you want but it won't make a difference if the legislators continue to behave as they have been behaving.

I recently read a study by the secret service (sorry, I don't have a link) that found that there were significant warning signs in most of the school shooters that included criminal acts that were ignored or dropped to avoid a classroom-to-prison pipeline. So, in our reforming of the system, we also need to make sure that we don't excuse or under-penalize people for criminal acts and thus encourage more and worse criminal acts.

Nobody has dismissed it out of hand, there has been plenty of research. Even your first link, "Watching violent movies really does make people more aggressive - but only if they have an abrasive personality to start with, a study shows". It is saying that it only effects people who had an abrasive personality to begin with, so those traits were already in them with or without the movies or video games.

It is more than an emotional appeal, it is logic. You can't raise a child if you are locked up, that is simply a fact. You can argue the person did it to themselves and all of that for sure, but that doesn't change the fact a parent is being taken away from a child. So, if parents being around is so important, then we now have an issue that at least needs to be considered. I say we lock people up who need to be locked up, and we find other punishments for people who don't need to be locked up.

With Gerrymandering and lot's of these laws having been on the books for ages, I don't think just writing it off as the will of the people is accurate. For instance, over 2/3's of the country is for marijuana legalization, but it is still illegal in many states and still technically illegal federally. I live in a state where polls show over 80% of people want it legalized in some form, but the state Reps haven't done it at all, so I don't think you can say they represent the people in that regard.

 

[sk8knight]

Nobody has dismissed it out of hand, there has been plenty of research. Even your first link, "Watching violent movies really does make people more aggressive - but only if they have an abrasive personality to start with, a study shows". It is saying that it only effects people who had an abrasive personality to begin with, so those traits were already in them with or without the movies or video games.

It is more than an emotional appeal, it is logic. You can't raise a child if you are locked up, that is simply a fact. You can argue the person did it to themselves and all of that for sure, but that doesn't change the fact a parent is being taken away from a child. So, if parents being around is so important, then we now have an issue that at least needs to be considered. I say we lock people up who need to be locked up, and we find other punishments for people who don't need to be locked up.

With Gerrymandering and lot's of these laws having been on the books for ages, I don't think just writing it off as the will of the people is accurate. For instance, over 2/3's of the country is for marijuana legalization, but it is still illegal in many states and still technically illegal federally. I live in a state where polls show over 80% of people want it legalized in some form, but the state Reps haven't done it at all, so I don't think you can say they represent the people in that regard.

But until now you were of the opinion that any argument that violence in entertainment had an effect on realized violence was BS and that it was ridiculous that I would even think that it had a factor. Those studies showed a variety of angles, from bringing out aggressive nature in those predisposed to eliciting behavior in children where there was no such behavior in the control group. There is more than enough literature on the side of violent entertainment having a factor to consider it.

Yes, a parent is locked away from their family. The emotional appeal is in the way the argument is worded; that they are "taken away" as if it was someone else's doing and their own actions played no part. That is meant to imply that jail sentences are inappropriate for those criminals. I guess the question is, who needs to be locked up? It's more than just the non-violent criminals, so who is it?

For the last one, gerrymandering isn't switching an entire state legislature from one side to the other and every side has taken positions of being tough on crime throughout recent history. Polls aren't nearly as reliable as voting. If candidates viewed it as a winning issue, they'd be running on it and they'd get elected and would probably legislate for it. As for MJ, it's high time for the federal government to remove their criminal statute for simple marijuana possession.

 

[UCFWayne]

remember when the racists in congress gave cocaine and crack very different sentences even though they are basically the same thing? all because cocaine was seen as the white people drug and crack was for black people. racists.

 

[Cubs79]

But until now you were of the opinion that any argument that violence in entertainment had an effect on realized violence was BS and that it was ridiculous that I would even think that it had a factor. Those studies showed a variety of angles, from bringing out aggressive nature in those predisposed to eliciting behavior in children where there was no such behavior in the control group. There is more than enough literature on the side of violent entertainment having a factor to consider it.

Yes, a parent is locked away from their family. The emotional appeal is in the way the argument is worded; that they are "taken away" as if it was someone else's doing and their own actions played no part. That is meant to imply that jail sentences are inappropriate for those criminals. I guess the question is, who needs to be locked up? It's more than just the non-violent criminals, so who is it?

For the last one, gerrymandering isn't switching an entire state legislature from one side to the other and every side has taken positions of being tough on crime throughout recent history. Polls aren't nearly as reliable as voting. If candidates viewed it as a winning issue, they'd be running on it and they'd get elected and would probably legislate for it. As for MJ, it's high time for the federal government to remove their criminal statute for simple marijuana possession.

Again, it has been considered and still is considered. You are acting like the issue hasnt been studied, and it has. I would honestly bet that social media and bullying from it (and bullying in general) has more of an impact than violent movies or games. The last article you posted is talking about aggressive behavior in children, but it still refers to them as "playing". Playing with a gun and going on a shooting spree arent the same thing. I played with toy guns as a child as I am sure many of us did, but I have never shot anyone, and aggression and violence aren't one in the same.

It depends on the crime obviously. But Ethan Couch ran over and killed 4 people and got house arrest because his lawyer argued he didnt understand his actions because he was from a wealthy home. A poor child wasnt getting that sentence for that crime, so there is certainly lots of room for variance in sentencing and we obviously know sentences arent handed out evenly across the board. The judge in the Stanford swimmer case gave him a light sentence because he didnt think he would do well in prison. You think a poor kid, especially a poor kid of color is going to get that benefit? Of course not, but if it is an option for a Stanford student it should be an option for everyone (and this example doesnt necessarily fit because it was a violent crime, but you get the point).

Every issue isnt a side or the other issue though. Many issues are decided by a few votes, and gerrymandering can certainly swing those few votes. You dont have to flip the entire legislature to get things passed. Many times you just need to change a handful of votes. Plus when voting for a politician most people arent voting only on one issue.

And just to add, and this will obviously never change, but I dont think our system is very representative anyway, even if gerrymandering isnt considered, because we only have the option to vote for a handful of people that actually impact our lives. Meaning, on a Federal level the only office we all vote on is president, and even that isnt decided by popular vote. But neither you nor I has any way of voting Mitch McConnell out for instance, even though he has been around for decades and has a major impact on what gets passed and what doesnt. So out 100 senators, we each have a say in only 2. Out of 435 Reps, we each only have a say in 1, and as discussed, gerrymandering can even impact that 1. I dont know that it can really be argued that the make up of our government is representative of the people.

 

[sk8knight]

Again, it has been considered and still is considered. You are acting like the issue hasnt been studied, and it has. I would honestly bet that social media and bullying from it (and bullying in general) has more of an impact than violent movies or games. The last article you posted is talking about aggressive behavior in children, but it still refers to them as "playing". Playing with a gun and going on a shooting spree arent the same thing. I played with toy guns as a child as I am sure many of us did, but I have never shot anyone, and aggression and violence aren't one in the same.

It depends on the crime obviously. But Ethan Couch ran over and killed 4 people and got house arrest because his lawyer argued he didnt understand his actions because he was from a wealthy home. A poor child wasnt getting that sentence for that crime, so there is certainly lots of room for variance in sentencing and we obviously know sentences arent handed out evenly across the board. The judge in the Stanford swimmer case gave him a light sentence because he didnt think he would do well in prison. You think a poor kid, especially a poor kid of color is going to get that benefit? Of course not, but if it is an option for a Stanford student it should be an option for everyone (and this example doesnt necessarily fit because it was a violent crime, but you get the point).

Every issue isnt a side or the other issue though. Many issues are decided by a few votes, and gerrymandering can certainly swing those few votes. You dont have to flip the entire legislature to get things passed. Many times you just need to change a handful of votes. Plus when voting for a politician most people arent voting only on one issue.

And just to add, and this will obviously never change, but I dont think our system is very representative anyway, even if gerrymandering isnt considered, because we only have the option to vote for a handful of people that actually impact our lives. Meaning, on a Federal level the only office we all vote on is president, and even that isnt decided by popular vote. But neither you nor I has any way of voting Mitch McConnell out for instance, even though he has been around for decades and has a major impact on what gets passed and what doesnt. So out 100 senators, we each have a say in only 2. Out of 435 Reps, we each only have a say in 1, and as discussed, gerrymandering can even impact that 1. I dont know that it can really be argued that the make up of our government is representative of the people.

I was with you on the lack of representation in our 2 party system. Then you went off the rails with your analysis of our representative republic. There’s too much there that you are either ignoring or don’t understand at all given your view that I don’t have the time to unpack it all. Let me ask you, what would you replace it with?

 

[Cubs79]

I was with you on the lack of representation in our 2 party system. Then you went off the rails with your analysis of our representative republic. There’s too much there that you are either ignoring or don’t understand at all given your view that I don’t have the time to unpack it all. Let me ask you, what would you replace it with?

I understand it just fine, disagreeing with you doesnt mean I dont understand it. Mitch McConnel, just as an example, has been one of the most powerful people in government for years and only 1 state, a small state at that, has the power to elect him so I dont think you can argue he is representative of the people as a whole. I would prefer a system, which honestly could be achieved in our system if you took out the gerrymandering and some tweaks here and there, where the majority party has the majority of seats. For example, NC several years ago had I believe (and my #s might be off a bit, but youll get the point) 14 seats. 10 of those seats went to Republicans, 4 to Democrats, despite the fact the Democrats had over half the votes in the state. So a system that can be rigged to be that lopsided to a minority party isnt representative IMO, and it certainly isnt Representative of the country as a whole, yet we all have to live with their decisions.

So it isnt really about changing the system necessarily, it is about making it more fair and more representative. Get rid of the electoral college, get special interest money out, let felons who have served their time vote, and get rid of ridiculous gerrymandering. And honestly, I think people should get to vote on the Senate Majority leader and speaker of the house. Have a separate election after the general election, and let people vote for the person in the majority parties who they want to be the leaders.

 

[sk8knight]

I understand it just fine, disagreeing with you doesnt mean I dont understand it. Mitch McConnel, just as an example, has been one of the most powerful people in government for years and only 1 state, a small state at that, has the power to elect him so I dont think you can argue he is representative of the people as a whole. I would prefer a system, which honestly could be achieved in our system if you took out the gerrymandering and some tweaks here and there, where the majority party has the majority of seats. For example, NC several years ago had I believe (and my #s might be off a bit, but youll get the point) 14 seats. 10 of those seats went to Republicans, 4 to Democrats, despite the fact the Democrats had over half the votes in the state. So a system that can be rigged to be that lopsided to a minority party isnt representative IMO, and it certainly isnt Representative of the country as a whole, yet we all have to live with their decisions.

So it isnt really about changing the system necessarily, it is about making it more fair and more representative. Get rid of the electoral college, get special interest money out, let felons who have served their time vote, and get rid of ridiculous gerrymandering. And honestly, I think people should get to vote on the Senate Majority leader and speaker of the house. Have a separate election after the general election, and let people vote for the person in the majority parties who they want to be the leaders.

No, I don’t think you do understand the purposes of the bicameral Congress and their respective responsibilities. We do not have a democracy for very good reasons. Your system would take us much closer to the rule of the mob. The more we participate in the federal government, the more we revert to a strong central government, the closer we get to the prospect of tyranny. The government was designed to prevent this. It was designed as a bottom-up system. Unfortunately, we’ve been giving that away bit by bit. You want to just throw it away completely.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I understand it just fine, disagreeing with you doesnt mean I dont understand it. Mitch McConnel, just as an example, has been one of the most powerful people in government for years and only 1 state, a small state at that, has the power to elect him so I dont think you can argue he is representative of the people as a whole. I would prefer a system, which honestly could be achieved in our system if you took out the gerrymandering and some tweaks here and there, where the majority party has the majority of seats. For example, NC several years ago had I believe (and my #s might be off a bit, but youll get the point) 14 seats. 10 of those seats went to Republicans, 4 to Democrats, despite the fact the Democrats had over half the votes in the state. So a system that can be rigged to be that lopsided to a minority party isnt representative IMO, and it certainly isnt Representative of the country as a whole, yet we all have to live with their decisions.

So it isnt really about changing the system necessarily, it is about making it more fair and more representative. Get rid of the electoral college, get special interest money out, let felons who have served their time vote, and get rid of ridiculous gerrymandering. And honestly, I think people should get to vote on the Senate Majority leader and speaker of the house. Have a separate election after the general election, and let people vote for the person in the majority parties who they want to be the leaders.

You seem oblivious to why our Founders decidedly chose not to use a direct democracy form of government.

 

[DaShuckster]

Your system would take us much closer to the rule of the mob. The more we participate in the federal government, the more we revert to a strong central government, the closer we get to the prospect of tyranny. The government was designed to prevent this. It was designed as a bottom-up system. Unfortunately, we’ve been giving that away bit by bit.

It's funny how this poster sees the value of our government's system of checks and balances when it comes to gun control …

…But when its Presidential abuse of power? where's the same appreciation??!?

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's funny how this poster sees the value of our government's system of checks and balances when it comes to gun control …

…But when its Presidential abuse of power? where's the same appreciation??!?

Is anyone stopping the House charade, nitwit?

 

[DaShuckster]

Is anyone stopping the House charade, nitwit?

Says the little Trumpster calling the whole process a witchhunt.

 

[Cubs79]

No, I don’t think you do understand the purposes of the bicameral Congress and their respective responsibilities. We do not have a democracy for very good reasons. Your system would take us much closer to the rule of the mob. The more we participate in the federal government, the more we revert to a strong central government, the closer we get to the prospect of tyranny. The government was designed to prevent this. It was designed as a bottom-up system. Unfortunately, we’ve been giving that away bit by bit. You want to just throw it away completely.

How would it take us closer to mob rule? Gerrmymandering, felons being able to vote after they served their sentence, money out of politics, voting on congressional leaders from the majority parties, etc would have absolutely no impact on mob rule. Even getting rid of the electoral college wouldnt be mob rule, because we would still have senators and congressmen from each state.

 

[Cubs79]

You seem oblivious to why our Founders decidedly chose not to use a direct democracy form of government.

Thanks for the inciteful post, seriously, you spell out great points here, or something.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

I can say for 100% that younger kids are more aggressive after playing violent video games. I've had to limit my son's fortnite playing for this exact reason. I think a combination of a lot of factors, but I do think video games can romanticize killing.

 

[sk8knight]

How would it take us closer to mob rule? Gerrmymandering, felons being able to vote after they served their sentence, money out of politics, voting on congressional leaders from the majority parties, etc would have absolutely no impact on mob rule. Even getting rid of the electoral college wouldnt be mob rule, because we would still have senators and congressmen from each state.

What you want to do is give more power to the popular vote. The founders understood that the popular vote was a fickle thing, stirred by emotions and subject to the fallacy of recency. The people as a whole are easily manipulated. Especially in this day and age when it’s easy for people with money to reach into every race nationwide.

The American ideal is individual rights and government at the lowest level. The popular vote was saved for the local elections including your local representative to the federal government. The Senate was appointed from the state legislatures until the states fell short of their responsibilities in appointing that position and handed that power over to the people. The division of responsibilities ensured that things like cabinet positions and judiciary followed the will of the states while budget followed the will of the people. That’s all falling by the wayside and that is not a good thing for America.

You look at gerrymandering as if it is evil. It’s not but it can be used inappropriately. When used correctly, it can ensure that people who have similar beliefs have representation. Unlike say, California, where every single state office is held by a Democrat. It’s up to the states to draw the lines and follow ethical principles and it’s up to us to vote scoundrels out. Which is hard, as you’ve pointed out, when the campaign money for state and local races comes from national activists and we are limited to the candidates that we are presented.

it’s a long discussion that would be far better had over a good steak and some beers or wine. If we’re ever in the same place, I’d love to have that discussion with you.

 

[DaShuckster]

You look at gerrymandering as if it is evil. It’s not but it can be used inappropriately.

What's the difference between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' gerrymandering?

If either a Red or a Blue district is gerrymandered, the will of the party supersedes the will of the people because the people in the district were essentially hand-picked to serve the political party, not the other way around. Add separate news and information sources to this mix and voila!!! you've got the dysfunctional mess we have in Washington.

Yet people wonder aloud why this country is 'SO divided' anymore.

 

[sk8knight]

What's the difference between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' gerrymandering?

If either a Red or a Blue district is gerrymandered, the will of the party supersedes the will of the people because the people in the district were essentially hand-picked to serve the political party, not the other way around. Add separate news and information sources to this mix and voila!!! you've got the dysfunctional mess we have in Washington.

Yet people wonder aloud why this country is 'SO divided' anymore.

You’re too stuck in your my team, their team world. I gave the appropriate reason in my earlier post.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Thanks for the inciteful post, seriously, you spell out great points here, or something.

I guess you’re upset that this country wasn’t founded on mob rule for a reason

 

[UCFBS]

We also have existing laws against murder. You also can't run around with a fully automatic weapon. There are rules so it isn't like the wild west. Criminals don't usually follow rules though.

Hence why the US is more like the Philippines than the EU. Organized crime on just the border is worth 11 figures in the US, far more than the wall and other security being proposed.

I could care less what we do, but we need to match organized crime in spending, and seriously look at undercutting their business.

 

[UCFBS]

You seem oblivious to why our Founders decidedly chose not to use a direct democracy form of government.

I guess you’re upset that this country wasn’t founded on mob rule for a reason

^ These

Democracies eventually vote out rights and private ownership, as the majority of people rely on the government, instead of recognizing government is the problem. They eventually use the government's guns to enforce the will of the majority, on the minority.

 

[UCFBS]

What's the difference between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' gerrymandering?

If either a Red or a Blue district is gerrymandered, the will of the party supersedes the will of the people because the people in the district were essentially hand-picked to serve the political party, not the other way around. Add separate news and information sources to this mix and voila!!! you've got the dysfunctional mess we have in Washington.

Yet people wonder aloud why this country is 'SO divided' anymore.

What about gerrymandering with undocumented residents and non-citizens in representation count? That's the left's version of gerrymandering.

California and other states want their 'slaves' to count 1 person per 1 non-citizen. That's worse than what the Southern states got with the 3/5ths Compromise. Yes, it fits ... exactly!

Also, as has been showing in the courts, even when Republican gerrymandering is reversed, it has the opposite effect. Democrats are more than willing to use the courts to get control and gerrymand in their favor too!

As I used to say after the 2000 election, "Recounts are for making sure the Democrat wins" and "Keep recounting until the Democrat wins."

 

[Cubs79]

I guess you’re upset that this country wasn’t founded on mob rule for a reason

I don't know what this means, is it possible for you to be any less articulate?

 

[Cubs79]

What you want to do is give more power to the popular vote. The founders understood that the popular vote was a fickle thing, stirred by emotions and subject to the fallacy of recency. The people as a whole are easily manipulated. Especially in this day and age when it’s easy for people with money to reach into every race nationwide.

The American ideal is individual rights and government at the lowest level. The popular vote was saved for the local elections including your local representative to the federal government. The Senate was appointed from the state legislatures until the states fell short of their responsibilities in appointing that position and handed that power over to the people. The division of responsibilities ensured that things like cabinet positions and judiciary followed the will of the states while budget followed the will of the people. That’s all falling by the wayside and that is not a good thing for America.

You look at gerrymandering as if it is evil. It’s not but it can be used inappropriately. When used correctly, it can ensure that people who have similar beliefs have representation. Unlike say, California, where every single state office is held by a Democrat. It’s up to the states to draw the lines and follow ethical principles and it’s up to us to vote scoundrels out. Which is hard, as you’ve pointed out, when the campaign money for state and local races comes from national activists and we are limited to the candidates that we are presented.

it’s a long discussion that would be far better had over a good steak and some beers or wine. If we’re ever in the same place, I’d love to have that discussion with you.

The popular vs electoral college doesn't change our system of government. We would still have different branches, senators, reps, etc. The popular vote wouldn't change that. You guys keep referring to "mob" rule and the like, but really your party is the minority party and you are advocating for minority rule. I would honestly love to see how many Republicans would flip on a dime if they started to consistently win the popular vote, but lost the elections due to the EC.

Nothing I have said takes away from individual rights, so I don't know why you would even suggest that.

How is gerrymandering used "appropriately"? Yes, we have to redraw lines at times due to population growth and things of that nature but that isn't gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is specifically drawing those lines in a partisan manner. It is essentially letting Reps pick their voters instead of voters picking their Reps. And there are plenty of Red states that have little to no Democratic leadership as well, do you think that is wrong? Or is it ok if Republicans control everything in a state?

 

[UCFBS]

Advancements in firearms has me thinking it's time to rewrite that law because our citizens rights to not be shot the **** up are being infringed.

Ahhh, the 'Freedom from Guns' argument.

How's that work for Americans with organized crime? You know, the supermajority of gun violence and homicides in the US?

What you actually mean is 'Freedom from Good Guys with Guns.' How much of a 'deterrent' do you think that is, and why are police so against it?

And don't give me the '[all] police are racist' answer, it doesn't work with me any more than Kaepernick wearing 'pig socks' made me support him (as a Libertarian, I defended his rights though).

 

[sk8knight]

The popular vs electoral college doesn't change our system of government. We would still have different branches, senators, reps, etc. The popular vote wouldn't change that. You guys keep referring to "mob" rule and the like, but really your party is the minority party and you are advocating for minority rule. I would honestly love to see how many Republicans would flip on a dime if they started to consistently win the popular vote, but lost the elections due to the EC.

Nothing I have said takes away from individual rights, so I don't know why you would even suggest that.

How is gerrymandering used "appropriately"? Yes, we have to redraw lines at times due to population growth and things of that nature but that isn't gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is specifically drawing those lines in a partisan manner. It is essentially letting Reps pick their voters instead of voters picking their Reps. And there are plenty of Red states that have little to no Democratic leadership as well, do you think that is wrong? Or is it ok if Republicans control everything in a state?

Again, you're looking at partisan gerrymandering only. Even then, here is an opinion piece that talks to some of the difficulties of redisctricting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2af98a-02e9-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html

If you want to call it redistricting when you're ok with the results but gerrymandering when you're not, then fine. But either way, grouping people of similar values, beliefs, and cultures into districts is not evil. It ensures representation for those groups. In that case, even though the lines are weird, it's not bad. I suppose that you could draw the lines to have an equal number of all groups and that would work for an election cycle or two. But is that realistic? Is that really benefiting anyone? Let's say that, you have a community of Muslims in your city that are spread across a couple of districts but live in a somewhat contiguous area. They are the minority in every current district and so have no true representation in each of those districts. Now, a politician proposes that the redistricting captures those Muslims into a single district where they are the majority. People at that point feel like they have a voice. Some would scream Democrat gerrymandering but, getting out of the prism of red vs blue, it is probably a better thing for our government.

 

[UCFBS]

Again, you're looking at partisan gerrymandering only. Even then, here is an opinion piece that talks to some of the difficulties of redisctricting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2af98a-02e9-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html

Cubs79 is a hard-core leftie who says he's bi-partisan, yet clearly won't listen to any argument that proves the left can be just like the right.

 

[Cubs79]

Again, you're looking at partisan gerrymandering only. Even then, here is an opinion piece that talks to some of the difficulties of redisctricting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2af98a-02e9-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html

If you want to call it redistricting when you're ok with the results but gerrymandering when you're not, then fine. But either way, grouping people of similar values, beliefs, and cultures into districts is not evil. It ensures representation for those groups. In that case, even though the lines are weird, it's not bad. I suppose that you could draw the lines to have an equal number of all groups and that would work for an election cycle or two. But is that realistic? Is that really benefiting anyone? Let's say that, you have a community of Muslims in your city that are spread across a couple of districts but live in a somewhat contiguous area. They are the minority in every current district and so have no true representation in each of those districts. Now, a politician proposes that the redistricting captures those Muslims into a single district where they are the majority. People at that point feel like they have a voice. Some would scream Democrat gerrymandering but, getting out of the prism of red vs blue, it is probably a better thing for our government.

District lines have to be redrawn on occasion. If they weren't we would end up with massive discrepancies in representation due to population booms in areas, but not being able to add reps. when needed. That isn't gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is by definition partisan. It is drawing district lines to give an advantage to one political party.

If people are in a contiguous area I don't think anyone would consider that Gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is basically the opposite of that, where they draw lines that include people that shouldn't be in the same district because they aren't in a contiguous area, or at least the the lines were drawn in odd ways for partisan reasons.