Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
My bad.....LEFT
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
Actually, now that I read more of her positions, the only thing she's really far left on is the issue of health care, and of course a forum full of doctors wont be in favor of that (myself included) and for me it's mostly because I know a significant tax increase is needed to pay for it and we ain't about taxes in this country.
The Nazis had a registry for Jews.
Do you know why?
Regarding a gun registry, you don't know what is going to happen in the next 150 years, and there's a real possibility of a tyrannical government in the United States. You can be sure the registry would be used to disarm the population.
Regarding cars, that's not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Regarding other civil rights, is there a free speech registry that ties all speech into a database?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
50,000 to 3,000,000 lives saved every year because of defensive gun use.
I believe it was your guy who wanted to have a "muslim database". So we seem to be much closer to that tyranny you speak of.
I'm glad you finally realized that databases of people who possess certain things are bad.
Except I'm talking about databases of firearms, not human beings. Big difference.
Also, how about this good guy with a gun?
Black Man Killed by Police in Alabama Was Shot From Behind, Autopsy Shows
That is a massive range of numbers. Any data on that?
Citation?
Too many to count murders in the US in 2017
Table 20
353 justifiable homicides in 2017 (defined as citizen killing a felony during a felony)
Expanded Homicide Data Table 15
Table 20
353 justifiable homicides in 2017 (defined as citizen killing a felony during a felony)
Expanded Homicide Data Table 15
D
deleted50478
Yeah, I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that it isn’t actually do-able, but as far as what would be better- probably disarming would be better.
I think the discussion should first be ‘what is the ideal gun law?’ And after that is decided ‘how do we make that happen?’
I think the story about armed citizen militias holding back an oppressive government is a fantasy.
I think hunting is unimportant relative to public safety. (Though it could be preserved is firearms were limited to bolt action rifles and low-capacity shotguns.)
D
deleted643396
You are spamming the hell out of this thread with Facebook memes.
What on Earth do you think a firearm database is? It's a database of the people who own firearms.
It's a database of people.
So do away with the Census?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Blade-style lol. (We differ on some opinions but you’re still my dude)
Apparently the census can't ask if you're here illegally, but you think it should be used to gather the owners/addresses of all firearms?
I guess we’re all just a bunch of lunatics here in the US so everyone needs a gun to be safe
Yes I do. Just like they do with cars.
Cars aren't a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Non-violent offenses shouldn't be punishable with prison. The fact that we put human beings in a cell is a barbaric practice with roots in post-emancipation segregation. The fact that we've somehow accepted it as a just punishment is a different story.
Also Biden has lost a lot of weight. One has to wonder how healthy he is.
Well, it's lucky then that debtors prisons didn't exist as far back as the 1600s. That would really screw up your narrative.
Also, Google "the bloody code". I sure do wish we hanged people for cutting down trees that don't belong to them.
I'm done with the pictures. But, I do like them as they make my points quite well. Oh, the ones with guns on them reflect firearms I own. I won't bore you with another 2 dozen pictures but the point is the second amendment gives me the right for self-defense. I own my guns for self defense and some sport shooting.
As you can all see Beto's comment to take all our AR15s and AK47s will be used by Trump as proof the DEmocrats really are coming for your guns. Combine Beto with Warren/Sanders extreme socialist agenda to raise taxes, eliminate private insurance and force all of us to give up our gasoline powered cars the Trump 2020 campaign should be off to a great start.
Biden suffers from early memory loss. Unlike Warren, Sanders or even Trump (who is a bit crazy) only Biden seems to be succumbing to obvious memory loss.
"Our current prison practices have roots in post-emancipation segregation"
Does that make you happier?
Does an Exception Clause in the 13th Amendment Still Permit Slavery? | HISTORY
The amendment, which officially abolished slavery in the United States in 1865, includes a loophole regarding involun...
No (as the subject neither makes me happy or unhappy), but it makes you not wrong."Our current prison practices have roots in post-emancipation segregation"
Does that make you happier?
Does an Exception Clause in the 13th Amendment Still Permit Slavery? | HISTORY
The amendment, which officially abolished slavery in the United States in 1865, includes a loophole regarding involun...www.history.com
Elizabeth Warren Details Bold Plans for Green New Deal
The Massachusetts senator's proposal, which builds on Gov. Jay Inslee's, would transition the U.S. to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.
www.truthdig.com
If the USA adopts these insane Green New deal initiatives the Chinese, Indians and Russians certainly won't follow. Instead, they will use abundant, cheap fossil fuel to spur their economies. We, on the other hand, will be destroying GDP growth, raise taxes through the roof and hurt the middle class who can't afford a $45,000 Tesla.
All of these trillions won't do much, if anything, to alter Climate Change in a significant degree. It will be wasted money like the Iraq war was for Bush. But, we no longer have trillions to waste.
What is the alternative? Would you argue Bernie Madoff shouldn’t be in prison? $50 Billion in fraud affecting 5,000 people (thank you Wikipedia). It sure sounds like something you should go to jail for...
Capone would have never gone to jail either since his only conviction was tax fraud.
Maybe there was less of a need for incarcerations due to non violent crimes 200 years ago because there were simply less (or less severe) non violent crimes...haven’t heard of a lot of Ponzie Schemes Involving 5,000 people or drug lords trafficking thousands of pounds of heroin in the 1800s...
Last edited:
Nothing crazy,the earth has been warming for 20,000 yrs since the last ice age. This isnt news.
The thing is conservatives aren't against a fossil free economy and taking care of our beautiful planet. We all want clean water and less trash in our oceans. The question is do we want to ruin our economy and hurt the middle class with this insane notion that we only have 10-15 years to fix this problem. The Green New Deal will be the last straw (pun intended) in making the USA a second tier nation. GDP will fall, regulations will stifle business and the cost for just about any product will skyrocket. Did I mention the trillions of dollars of debt we can't repay as well?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The American Action Forum (AAF) released its study of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) widely panned “Green New Deal” (GND) as it sought to calculate the actual cost of her plan. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, put it bluntly: “The Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation.” He added, “On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill. The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That’s no deal.”
The AAF broke down the 10-year cost of implementing the GND’s major goals. The following is a list of some of those goals and their estimated total cost and cost per household:
One of the glaring ironies with the GND and AOC’s loudly expressed alarm over climate change — the “Millennials’ World War II,” as she has bloviated — is the absence of any promotion of the most practical, reliable, efficient, and lowest-cost source for green energy: nuclear power. As Barrasso argued, “Instead, we should promote innovation to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. Promising new technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization held the key to significant emissions reductions. We can lower our emissions without crashing our economy.”
The AAF broke down the 10-year cost of implementing the GND’s major goals. The following is a list of some of those goals and their estimated total cost and cost per household:
- Low-carbon Electric Grid: $5.4 trillion; $39,000
- Net Zero Emissions Transportation System: $1.3 to $2.7 trillion; $9,000 to $20,000
- Guaranteed Jobs: $6.8 to $44.6 trillion; $49,000 to $322,000
- Universal Health Care: $36 trillion; $260,000
- Guaranteed Green Housing: $1.6 to $4.2 trillion; $4,000 to $12,000
One of the glaring ironies with the GND and AOC’s loudly expressed alarm over climate change — the “Millennials’ World War II,” as she has bloviated — is the absence of any promotion of the most practical, reliable, efficient, and lowest-cost source for green energy: nuclear power. As Barrasso argued, “Instead, we should promote innovation to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. Promising new technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization held the key to significant emissions reductions. We can lower our emissions without crashing our economy.”
"What's most shocking about the Green New Deal, however, isn't the unprecedented economic destruction it would cause. Nor is the fact that it will do nothing to prevent "climate change" from happening. Nor the fact that a 29-year-old socialist and her legions of followers think this would be neat.
What's most shocking about the Green New Deal is that so many leading Democrats, many of whom very much hope one day to be president, are blindly embracing it."
www.investors.com
What's most shocking about the Green New Deal is that so many leading Democrats, many of whom very much hope one day to be president, are blindly embracing it."
How Does 'Boss' AOC Plan To Pay For Her $93 Trillion Green New Deal?
Since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has declared herself the "boss" of the "Green New Deal," maybe she can explain were the money will come from to pay its $93 trillion cost. Because taxing the rich won't even scratch the surface.
www.investors.com
There is no way China and the rest of the world will ruin their economies over Global Warming. So, Warren may want to spend trillions but the vast majority of the rest of the world won't be joining us in this economic suicide venture.
I don’t think the last 3 years support this argument. You literally have a gutting of common sense environmental regulations that have been in place for decades. Trump reverse a clean water act rule that would go back to standards set in 1986. He wants to open Tongass National forest to development. Something that has been off limits for 30 years and that the majority of people in the region don’t want. He overturned the Pebble Mine proposal. Both of these projects are a major threat to the last wild runs of salmon; a 1.5 billion dollar local industry. This isn’t stewardship, this is insanity. The proposed drilling in ANWR is also just stupid. We have no reason to drill in a difficult location that requires huge capital investment when the current prices of oil are so low. Also there are no good estimates of what is actually in ANWR because test well data has been kept secret since the 1970s.
Well, that is the type of discussion/politics the Democrats used to run on. Maybe a Howard Schultz type of candidate would be willing to propose "good stewardship" but that isn't the 10 people running for President.
Our choice is limited to the nutty Trump vs the Socialists Warren/Sanders. Biden suffers from early, mild dementia and won't be on the ticket.
The more polarizing our politics gets the more polarizing the candidates.
Sure, I hear you. I am sorry Trump has turned a blind eye to common sense standards. Most voters are subject to the same choice they had in 2016: Trump vs a bad Democrat Candidate. The moderates have been silenced even though they are the majority of the both parties.
Alaska’s Bristol Bay & The Pebble Mine
An open-pit mine threatened one of the last places on Earth where wild salmon still thrive. We will protect Bristol Bay, one of our world's surviving great ecosystems.
earthjustice.org
We've tried the trump bit. Disaster - whether its international policy (israel annexing land, dictators working without any repercussions, russia winning in syria, abandoning the afghani government and so on), taxation policies that solely benefit the rich, terrible environmental rules lining the pockets of coal and gas companies that republicans love.Sure, I hear you. I am sorry Trump has turned a blind eye to common sense standards. Most voters are subject to the same choice they had in 2016: Trump vs a bad Democrat Candidate. The moderates have been silenced even though they are the majority of the both parties.
Alaska’s Bristol Bay & The Pebble Mine
An open-pit mine threatened one of the last places on Earth where wild salmon still thrive. We will protect Bristol Bay, one of our world's surviving great ecosystems.
Lets try something else. I want a better future for my kids, and I know these rules won't provide it.
For those of you that are getting excited about your little tax cut -- calm down. These rules aren't really helping people that are doctors. It really benefits people that make millions of dollars. We need new wealth taxes in this country, and the reason is to decrease income disparities. When they become too wide, lower income class can revolt.
Sure, I hear you. I am sorry Trump has turned a blind eye to common sense standards. Most voters are subject to the same choice they had in 2016: Trump vs a bad Democrat Candidate. The moderates have been silenced even though they are the majority of the both parties.
Alaska’s Bristol Bay & The Pebble Mine
An open-pit mine threatened one of the last places on Earth where wild salmon still thrive. We will protect Bristol Bay, one of our world's surviving great ecosystems.
The other thing I am horrified by and it has become a rallying cry for some Republicans is the idea that government land isn’t the people’s land. If you have ever spent a significant amount of time hunting, fishing, camping or whatever then you likely did it on OUR land. Try doing that when the GOP enacts legislation transferring and selling that land to the extractive industries. You aren’t typically allowed in logging areas or leased areas to enjoy the outdoors.
An excellent article on the dangers of our New gilded age.
The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
A memo for my fellow filthy rich who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
www.politico.com
D
deleted50478
We already have the answer- nuclear power.
Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it
The global sustainability of nuclear power thus relies on efforts to increase its economic viability. But how? Standardized designs and downsized reactors can help. Governments can offer additional support. But that still might not be enough to keep the nuclear power industry alive in the United...
thebulletin.org
China is already beating their Greening plan and are setting new targets for solar/wind/nuclear energy. They are actually run in a technocractic style making more informed decisions by data and science and less by ideology. There is lots of ideology at play, but at the same time, China sees the writing on the wall. Global warming is going to destroy them just as it would devastate us. They aren't stupid like we are. We have 30-40% of the electorate who believes that global warming is fake even while our own military prepares for the consequences of it.
I have always wondered: if one is "conservative" doesn't that mean they should "conserve" the planet we live on?
I mean if as a conservative you think that we should conserve the religious, moral, and economic principles that are so dear to you, shouldn't we also have a planet where we can observe your conservative values for generations to come?
It seems that being conservative today is more about conserving lobbyists' and corporations' money regardless of the impact that could have on the future of this planet, and that every time someone tries to bring up the inevitable disaster we are heading to if we don't slow down the destruction of earth, the conservatives' response: No, we can't afford that, it costs too much money! But if you don't maintain your house it will collapse on you and having money in the bank won't benefit you, is that too "liberal" to understand?
I mean if as a conservative you think that we should conserve the religious, moral, and economic principles that are so dear to you, shouldn't we also have a planet where we can observe your conservative values for generations to come?
It seems that being conservative today is more about conserving lobbyists' and corporations' money regardless of the impact that could have on the future of this planet, and that every time someone tries to bring up the inevitable disaster we are heading to if we don't slow down the destruction of earth, the conservatives' response: No, we can't afford that, it costs too much money! But if you don't maintain your house it will collapse on you and having money in the bank won't benefit you, is that too "liberal" to understand?
D
deleted731525
I want Trump vs Biden just so we can get dementia bowl
A question for the Republicans on this thread: What's the opinion of states canceling primaries given that there are a few Republicans wanting to run against Trump? I know Nevada, South Carolina, Kansas and Arizona have all canceled Republican primaries. In may head canceling primaries seems a bit shady.
D
deleted126335
Got a chart on CO2 emissions by country on a per capita basis? Looks quite a bit different.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The fast and simple answer (though perhaps a little glib) is that there's no Constitutionally enumerated civil right to own a car, and so there's a substantially lower legal threshold for regulating them.
It's also a little disingenuous to suggest that cars, if stolen and used in crimes, somehow confer liability to the victim of the theft. They don't. And being able to trace the license plate of a bank robbery getaway car to a victim (who has likely reported it stolen already) doesn't aid any kind of criminal investigation into the robbers.
The more practical answer is that the pushback is because gun control advocates are lying, as they always have, as they always do, and as they always will.
A registry won't affect violence or crime. What it will facilitate is eventual confiscation. This is the ONLY utility any registry actually has. The notion that it would aid police in solving crimes is simply false. Criminals get their guns primarily through straw purchases or theft. They are generally unlikely to register them.
This is why so many of us oppose gun control that is superficially "reasonable" ... we know it won't achieve the positive effects it is promised to achieve, and we know it's just a stepping stone to further control.
While we're being honest, I think universal background checks are fine. I don't think they'll actually solve any problems, but they wouldn't materially infringe on anyone's core 2nd Amendment rights. But I'll continue to oppose them, because
1) there's never a clean bill proposed to to just background checks; they're always saddled with other poison
2) as long as they're fighting for universal background checks, they're one step further away from a registry
One step beyond a registry is a transfer or sale ban (Exhibit A: 1934 NFA followed by 1986 Hughes Amendment to FOPA).
And one step beyond a transfer or sale ban is confiscation, aka mandatory buy "back" plans.
People like me are fighting a holding action until SCOTUS hands down a ruling in favor of strict scrutiny, at which point the patchwork of AWBs and other restrictions in the US will begin to fall. We've got nothing to gain by "compromising" because the last 150 years of history has proven that any time we "compromise" and give up part of this civil right, even a tiny bit, a little while later we get asked to compromise again.
I feel somewhat confident that the current 5-4 conservative SCOTUS majority will get us a strict scrutiny ruling, possibly even as soon as 2020 when the NYSRPA vs NY case is heard. If RBG was enjoying retirement and it was a 6-3 majority I think we'd be more likely to get a more far-reaching ruling in our favor. I get the feeling that Thomas has been waiting since the day he was appointed to pen a majority opinion on a 2A case.
I mentioned this upthread, but it's interesting to me that the same people who tell us in one breath that Trump is leading us to some kind of tyrannical fascist dictatorship, complete with mandatory uniforms for immigrants and Muslims ....
... are the same people who tell us that only the police and military should have weapons and that there's never ever going to be a need to resist the government.
So which is it? Can we forever trust the police and the government to do the right thing and not round up another batch of undesireables for the ovens? Or should we keep an armed population? There isn't any middle ground. Either you trust citizens to be independent and thus dangerous, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
I think Elizabeth Warren is an intelligent and decent human being. Of course, so was Carter. Decent doesn't always mean effective.
A lot of her ideas need to be massively scaled back to the realm of achievability and affordability ... which would probably have to happen to get any of them through a likely-to-be-evenly-split Congress. Some ideas I am vehemently opposed to (I bet you can guess which 🙂) and I don't think I'd like her federal court appointees very much. But we could do worse than her.
Compared to Biden, I think she would be a lot less likely to beat Trump though.
The problem with only looking at this statistic is that you're ignoring every other defensive use of a firearm, namely
1) those in which no one is killed
2) those in which no shots are fired
3) those that aren't even reported in the first place
If you were walking down the street and some MAGA-hat-wearing, Confederate-flag-waving, Red-Bull-drinking, shirtless, shoe-less, low-tooth-to-tattoo-ratioed, flavored-vape-puffing mugger says he'll stick a knife in you if you don't make an online donation to the President's re-election campaign right then and there ... and he turns and runs away when he sees you have a Birdman-side-sighted Glock ... that's an instance where a gun was successfully used to defend a person against felony assault. But it won't make it to any databases. And if it does, it'll be accidentally on purpose excluded from the conclusions by someone who thinks "353 justifiable homicides in 2017" is the message he wants to publish.
The reason there's a lot of uncertainty in published statistics concerning defensive firearm use is because most of the time the gun isn't fired.
- Status
