Another US mass shooting

[Taylor]

I thought I was? We seem to be making some progress on the DC statehood issue - perhaps you could explain why DC being given by Maryland 200 years ago for the purpose of a federal capital outweighs the people living there now and their right to representation under the American system?

That you expose your fairly rank double standards when discussing stuff like this isn't my fault and deserves to be noted, because it diminishes your arguments - one of which on the above topic is Democrats only want DC to be a state because more power. GOP don't want it to be one because...?

No car dealerships, apparently

They have a member of congress. They do have representation. The entire point of it is that the federal seat of power wouldn't be residing in a state that would control it, it would control itself and be independent - and it is. A tenth of the jobs in the district are directly employed by the federal government, do you think these people don't have access to the political system?

I think it's perfectly acceptable for one side of politics to oppose an action of the other that grants them more power for that sole reason alone.

Puerto Rico used to be the one the Democrats wanted to be a state, but they have given up on that one now and there are way more people there. The real reason that they have lost support for that is quite a few wealthy donors have relocated to the tax haven.

So of course I'm deeply cynical about politics.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They have a member of congress. They do have representation. The entire point of it is that the federal seat of power wouldn't be residing in a state that would control it, it would control itself and be independent - and it is. A tenth of the jobs in the district are directly employed by the federal government, do you think these people don't have access to the political system?

I think it's perfectly acceptable for one side of politics to oppose an action of the other that grants them more power for that sole reason alone.

Puerto Rico used to be the one the Democrats wanted to be a state, but they have given up on that one now and there are way more people there. The real reason that they have lost support for that is quite a few wealthy donors have relocated to the tax haven.

So of course I'm deeply cynical about politics.

No Taylor

The push for PR hasn't been because it's what the Dems wanted. It's because:

1967 (66% turn out)
- 39% statehood
- 1% independence
- 60% Commonwealth (current status)

1993 (74% turn out)
- 46% statehood
- 4% independence
- 49% Commonwealth

1998 (71% turn out)
- 46% statehood
- 3% independence
- 0.06% Commonwealth
- 50% none of the above

2012 (79% turn out)
- 61% statehood
- 6% independence
- 46% Commonwealth
- 33% free association

2017 (23% turn out)
- 97% statehood
- 2% independence
- 1% Commonwealth

2020 (55% turnout)
- 53% statehood
- 47% none of the above

As this shows, there has been a move in preferring statehood to the current Commonwealth status amongst the people living in PR

 

[Taylor]

2012 (79% turn out)
- 61% statehood
- 6% independence
- 46% Commonwealth
- 33% free association

Can you explain these results to me please

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Can you explain these results to me please

Referendums and plebiscites held in PR over the question of their status.

This is an issue being driven from the island, esp since Congress changed the laws and stopped allowing us firms to operate there with no trade barriers to the USA (they now effectively have to export goods to the USA now the same way we do)

 

[Taylor]

Referendums and plebiscites held in PR over the question of their status.

This is an issue being driven from the island, esp since Congress changed the laws and stopped allowing us firms to operate there with no trade barriers to the USA (they now effectively have to export goods to the USA now the same way we do)

What is the difference between the four options and why aren't they equal to one?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What is the difference between the four options and why aren't they equal to one?

Commonwealth is the current status, a non incorporated Commonwealth that is a territory of the USA. It cannot raise it own taxes, issue bonds, or major laws without congressional approval.

Statehood is it becomes the 51st state of the union. Gets its own state govt and ability to make it's own laws and taxes like every other state.

Independence is when PR stops being a territory of the USA, and becomes its own independent nation.

Free association is an odd one, but essentially an independent alignment between PR and the USA, with a compact negotiated to determine shared/interdependent/USA jurisdictions between the two. This is what the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia have with the usa. So it's kind of like being mostly independent, but still a USA territory


2012 doesn't equal one because it was two questions:

1) should PR continue its current status?
54% no
46% yes
*Excludes 4% of votes that were informal

2) which model do you prefer
61% statehood
33% free association
5% independence
*Excludes 27% that were informal

 

[Taylor]

Commonwealth is the current status, a non incorporated Commonwealth that is a territory of the USA. It cannot raise it own taxes, issue bonds, or major laws without congressional approval.

Statehood is it becomes the 51st state of the union. Gets its own state govt and ability to make it's own laws and taxes like every other state.

Independence is when PR stops being a territory of the USA, and becomes its own independent nation.

Free association is an odd one, but essentially an independent alignment between PR and the USA, with a compact negotiated to determine shared/interdependent/USA jurisdictions between the two. This is what the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia have with the usa. So it's kind of like being mostly independent, but still a USA territory


2012 doesn't equal one because it was two questions:

1) should PR continue its current status?
54% no
46% yes
*Excludes 4% of votes that were informal

2) which model do you prefer
61% statehood
33% free association
5% independence
*Excludes 27% that were informal

I see, so someone might be playing Howard silly buggers with the question when each of the no longer territorial choices were less than the staying as they are option but the combined total of them was greater, by a lot.

Has anyone run the numbers on how much a state administration would cost the people there? I know they estimate between 5 and 9 billion extra in taxes for existing obligations for corporations existing there but I'm not sure that factors in the additional cost of fielding their own branches of government. They don't pay income taxes there, which they would start to.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I see, so someone might be playing Howard silly buggers with the question when each of the no longer territorial choices were less than the staying as they are option but the combined total of them was greater, by a lot.

Has anyone run the numbers on how much a state administration would cost the people there? I know they estimate between 5 and 9 billion extra in taxes for existing obligations for corporations existing there but I'm not sure that factors in the additional cost of fielding their own branches of government. They don't pay income taxes there, which they would start to.

It was only that one vote which was split into two questions, so don't do your usual thing of using one example to say "this happened every time"

And the people of PR need to raise taxes, they are essentially bankrupt, have massive infrastructure issues, but cannot raise funds. And they are in an economic no man's land, because they are treated as a non USA territory for trade, but they cannot negotiate a trade deal like every other nation.

You want to make this political, but this is about basic services for people in DC and PR. Basic money bills get held up because polis in Cali, Texas, Florida, and ny (and on and on) treat them as a political bargaining piece, with no cost to them for rejecting money or services.

Be it statehood, independence, or retrocession, a solution needs to be found for both, because Congress and the WH have shown for decades they have no interest in governing for the people of DC or PR

 

[Taylor]

It was only that one vote which was split into two questions, so don't do your usual thing of using one example to say "this happened every time"

I wasn't going anywhere on that at all, just interesting to see how tricky it can be for independence or unity tickets to get up when they don't have a single unified plan to choose. That's where the Howard reference came in. Wording our own republic question in a way republicans didn't like.

Be it statehood, independence, or retrocession, a solution needs to be found for both, because Congress and the WH have shown for decades they have no interest in governing for the people of DC or PR

I don't think that is exclusive to DC or PR. As I said before, to wrap the little bow on the subject, the same is done with issues like gun control.

The issue is far more, I'd argue only, valuable when it serves as an unresolved and present issue. They can run on slogans of "getting it fixed", nice simple phrases that aren't specific plans because the general message is appealing. (And personally I think our own gun control system here is perfectly adequate to service the needs of the USA too, the amount of guns in the Australian community would shock people, with very few events)

This is why my primary argument is that politicians, and their agents, don't actually care about victims or the issues. Not with a view to solving them. They will present themselves as a solution to the problem if you pick them, then not do anything and later run on wanting to be able to fix it.

This latest attempt to push the issue to the next election will be an executive order being sent to the supreme court. They will either uphold or reject it, it doesn't matter - the result will be that the politicians hands are clean (except Biden, but he has already said he isn't running in 2024) and they get to run on either protecting the protections of the supreme court or unwinding the decisions of the supreme court.

They've been handballing issues upwards like that to avoid being responsible for the issues for a while, both sides do it. That's why I said it's political cowardice.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I wasn't going anywhere on that at all, just interesting to see how tricky it can be for independence or unity tickets to get up when they don't have a single unified plan to choose. That's where the Howard reference came in. Wording our own republic question in a way republicans didn't like.



I don't think that is exclusive to DC or PR. As I said before, to wrap the little bow on the subject, the same is done with issues like gun control.

The issue is far more, I'd argue only, valuable when it serves as an unresolved and present issue. They can run on slogans of "getting it fixed", nice simple phrases that aren't specific plans because the general message is appealing. (And personally I think our own gun control system here is perfectly adequate to service the needs of the USA too, the amount of guns in the Australian community would shock people, with very few events)

This is why my primary argument is that politicians, and their agents, don't actually care about victims or the issues. Not with a view to solving them. They will present themselves as a solution to the problem if you pick them, then not do anything and later run on wanting to be able to fix it.

This latest attempt to push the issue to the next election will be an executive order being sent to the supreme court. They will either uphold or reject it, it doesn't matter - the result will be that the politicians hands are clean (except Biden, but he has already said he isn't running in 2024) and they get to run on either protecting the protections of the supreme court or unwinding the decisions of the supreme court.

They've been handballing issues upwards like that to avoid being responsible for the issues for a while, both sides do it. That's why I said it's political cowardice.

this response shows you just dont get it

you take it back to gun reform, but guess what - each state has its own gun laws. Federal inaction isnt stopping states making their own changes.

when the feds dont agree on healthcare reforms, the states still fund and maintain hospitals.

this doesnt happen in DC or PR.

if congress cannot decide, they get nothing.

for the best example, look at what happened to PR past the export law changes.

- feds removed PR being able to export into the USA with the same treatment as any US state to support US jobs.
- PR economy tanked as US businesses relocated back to the mainland overnight
- PR budget blew out, resulting in massive losses as revenues collapsed due to the massive job losses and loss of company taxes
- PR was due to make massive payments to the sole power generator on the island, they couldnt
- PR asked permission to declare bankruptcy (something cities have routinely done to recover their position during similar changes - like detroit)
- congress refused permission, saying the private power utility must be paid, and they just have to cut services and expenditure
- PR gutted the health budget, and spending for infrastructure maintenance to comply with this demand
- cyclone *s up PR
- white house refuses aid, saying its PR fault for not maintaining their services, infrastructure, and tax base


congress gets to dictate how PR lives, but they dont have to live with the consequences, because the people making the decisions have no accountability to any voters in PR

 

[bourbons]

They have a member of congress. They do have representation.

Representation, but no voting rights

District of Columbia federal voting rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think it's perfectly acceptable for one side of politics to oppose an action of the other that grants them more power for that sole reason alone.

lol, "sole reason alone". Ned is articulating the issues that need addressing there better than I can.

Ya reckon the GOP are oh so concerned about the situation coz they're sticklers and adherents to independence and the constitution? The mob that just looked the other way on someone trying to overturn a democratic election, yeah?

Or could it be they have a sole reason of their own that matches up quite well with your take on the democrats (ya know, as long as we discount the lack of car dealerships )

 

[Taylor]

Representation, but no voting rights

District of Columbia federal voting rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

lol, "sole reason alone". Ned is articulating the issues that need addressing there better than I can.

Ya reckon the GOP are oh so concerned about the situation coz they're sticklers and adherents to independence and the constitution? The mob that just looked the other way on someone trying to overturn a democratic election, yeah?

Or could it be they have a sole reason of their own that matches up quite well with your take on the democrats (ya know, as long as we discount the lack of car dealerships )

Does the constitution matter now again? Not when state legislatures are being circumvented to change voting rules in the state courts. Hmm.

this response shows you just dont get it

you take it back to gun reform, but guess what - each state has its own gun laws. Federal inaction isnt stopping states making their own changes.

when the feds dont agree on healthcare reforms, the states still fund and maintain hospitals.

this doesnt happen in DC or PR.

if congress cannot decide, they get nothing.

for the best example, look at what happened to PR past the export law changes.

- feds removed PR being able to export into the USA with the same treatment as any US state to support US jobs.
- PR economy tanked as US businesses relocated back to the mainland overnight
- PR budget blew out, resulting in massive losses as revenues collapsed due to the massive job losses and loss of company taxes
- PR was due to make massive payments to the sole power generator on the island, they couldnt
- PR asked permission to declare bankruptcy (something cities have routinely done to recover their position during similar changes - like detroit)
- congress refused permission, saying the private power utility must be paid, and they just have to cut services and expenditure
- PR gutted the health budget, and spending for infrastructure maintenance to comply with this demand
- cyclone fu**s up PR
- white house refuses aid, saying its PR fault for not maintaining their services, infrastructure, and tax base


congress gets to dictate how PR lives, but they dont have to live with the consequences, because the people making the decisions have no accountability to any voters in PR

Your last line on no accountability is a big deal. I don't think it's the same for DC as they have to walk past the people there, but it's a big deal all the same.

The voting populace that want gun reform have placed that expectation on the federal politicians and the federal politicians are happy to carry that if it wins them votes, but they aren't interested in taking federal action on any of it while their hands carry the dirt from it.

That's why this will get sent up to the supreme court and they will wear the decision. They will either be heroes or the entire institution will be questioned and calls for something to be done about that will come about. As long as they aren't talking about why Pelosi and Schumer haven't even tried to pass anything then it's a win for the politicians.

 

[Taylor]

Just so it's perfectly clear, my position on firearms is that Australia has the exact right idea. Waiting period for the first, smaller waiting period for subsequent ones. All you need is a slight hurdle of a paper trail that might cost a bit of money but it's a one time expense and you own the guns, kept in your safe and safe from hurting anyone in the public.

They could have a similar situation and wipe out the majority of their mass shootings when you include gang shootings, because hand guns would be off the street.

If we could purchase AR-15s here I'd probably get one and it would be just as safe as almost every single one of them over there. But I don't see a purpose for a handgun, so I wouldn't get one, and they are responsible for most of the trouble over there.

So I propose the USA make it a law that they will swap all handguns for an AR-15. Then any handguns found will be treated like murder weapons and anyone carrying one is treated accordingly.

Not so easy to hide a rifle down your pants.

PLUS, they check the criminal record and immigration status of people turning in the handguns quietly on the side and follow up any irregularities.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Does the constitution matter now again? Not when state legislatures are being circumvented to change voting rules in the state courts. Hmm.


Your last line on no accountability is a big deal. I don't think it's the same for DC as they have to walk past the people there, but it's a big deal all the same.

The voting populace that want gun reform have placed that expectation on the federal politicians and the federal politicians are happy to carry that if it wins them votes, but they aren't interested in taking federal action on any of it while their hands carry the dirt from it.

That's why this will get sent up to the supreme court and they will wear the decision. They will either be heroes or the entire institution will be questioned and calls for something to be done about that will come about. As long as they aren't talking about why Pelosi and Schumer haven't even tried to pass anything then it's a win for the politicians.

its federal for a simple reason

Michigan has strict gun control laws. Indiana doesnt. people cross the border to indiana, buy guns there at swap meets, and bring them back across the border.

there is a reason some s**t needs federal solutions

 

[Taylor]

its federal for a simple reason

Michigan has strict gun control laws. Indiana doesnt. people cross the border to indiana, buy guns there at swap meets, and bring them back across the border.

there is a reason some sh*t needs federal solutions

Do you think a state is responsible for enforcing the laws it chooses to overlay on it's own people?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Do you think a state is responsible for enforcing the laws it chooses to overlay on it's own people?

the only way this gets enforced is with border checkpoints, and mandatory searches of all people coming and going.

given this hasnt even happened with COVID, im guessing (yes, guessing) there are constitutional issues around this

 

[Taylor]

the only way this gets enforced is with border checkpoints, and mandatory searches of all people coming and going.

given this hasnt even happened with COVID, im guessing (yes, guessing) there are constitutional issues around this

Perhaps something about freedom of movement?

That is where I was going, that if a state wanted to add a legislative restriction then it should be responsible for the enforcement of it. BUT, you make a very good point and I'd also question whether a transfer of a firearm across state lines falls under local, state or federal law enforcement jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean a state should be able to legislate as it likes and hand the cost of enforcing that to the federal government.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Perhaps something about freedom of movement?

That is where I was going, that if a state wanted to add a legislative restriction then it should be responsible for the enforcement of it. BUT, you make a very good point and I'd also question whether a transfer of a firearm across state lines falls under local, state or federal law enforcement jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean a state should be able to legislate as it likes and hand the cost of enforcing that to the federal government.

the law is clear, you cannot bring a prohibited gun into the state. its how you enforce it. remember the usa has different laws around a permitted search than we do

 

[Taylor]

the law is clear, you cannot bring a prohibited gun into the state. its how you enforce it. remember the usa has different laws around a permitted search than we do

I was curious about which law enforcement group had jurisdiction over it since I expect crossing state lines to commit a felony is something that bumps it up from local and maybe even state law enforcement.

I would think that if the politicians are held accountable for the inconvenience of border searches, then they might have a change in policy or they might not. If the people are happy for it to occur then why would they have a problem with stop, search and frisk at the border? (besides the obvious)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I was curious about which law enforcement group had jurisdiction over it since I expect crossing state lines to commit a felony is something that bumps it up from local and maybe even state law enforcement.

I would think that if the politicians are held accountable for the inconvenience of border searches, then they might have a change in policy or they might not. If the people are happy for it to occur then why would they have a problem with stop, search and frisk at the border? (besides the obvious)

most states have probable cause laws around searches. you cannot just search someone "because"

 

[Taylor]

most states have probable cause laws around searches. you cannot just search someone "because"

What would constitute probably cause if you were the judge? Assuming the law enforcement wanted to search as many vehicles as possible for the sole purpose of finding firearms, considering that Michigan recognise the conceal carry permits of something like 40 states if I remember correctly.

How do their laws restrict firearms different to Indiana?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What would constitute probably cause if you were the judge? Assuming the law enforcement wanted to search as many vehicles as possible for the sole purpose of finding firearms, considering that Michigan recognise the conceal carry permits of something like 40 states if I remember correctly.

How do their laws restrict firearms different to Indiana?

I'm not a judge, how the * can I answer that question?

As for differences, the firearms permitted. Also purchasing process is different

What is your game here anyway ? You always have some slimy agenda, so just say what you think for once

 

[Taylor]

I'm not a judge, how the fu** can I answer that question?

As for differences, the firearms permitted. Also purchasing process is different

What is your game here anyway ? You always have some slimy agenda, so just say what you think for once

I think a state should be able to make whatever choices it wants and if that means it has to enforce the laws in a fashion that gets the politicians in trouble, then so be it, the politicians might lose their jobs for it, boo hoo. Perhaps the heavy handed law techniques aren't working. Lots of firearm crimes in places with firearm restrictions.

Me thinks the crime is a symptom of the actual problem and that sure won't be dealt with because it would first require backing the truck over decades of democrat policy.

I also think your assumption that I have some hidden motive is an example of how toxic discussion online has gotten but at least now you've admitted it I understand why you're so hostile towards me and why I get so compelled to get you to expand on your positions so much so that everyone else can see the process of how you got there.

 

[Taylor]

The usual play here is I get accused of deliberately taking it off topic after I talk about other people mentioning something off topic.

My position is just as clear on this as it was before. Politicians and their agents only care about things that give them a win.

 

[sherb]

It certainly means it will dissappear from the msm

Just switched over to MSNBC. It's being covered there.