straightUp Loc: California

First of all... ALL major cities are blue because Republicans just cant handle large diverse populations. And yes I see the challenges that large diverse populations present. Nothing new. Large population have ALWAYS pushed the limits of our abilities. Red media just likes to pretend its all about blue policies. They are the people not good enough to play football, on the bleachers yelling at how lame the players are.

The crime levels that red media LOVES to talk about are to a significant point the result of red states using the federal government to override the policies of blue cities, especially when it comes to gun control. One more reason to divorce. Let the blue cities deal with their problems in their own way without being overruled by federal actions that cater to lunacy of redneck obsessions and you will see conditions in the cities improve. I guarantee it.

American Vet

No

They are blue because the people there voted for democrats - in spite of years of failure.

I assumed you learned about 'elections' in junior high - my apologies.

Please explain which gun control laws criminals ......

BIRDMAN

I can guarantee they won’t. The reason they’re collapsing is because white people are leaving. And all big businesses

straightUp Loc: California

And they vote for Democrats because "Republicans just cant handle large diverse populations." I just didn't think I would have to explain EVERYTHING to you.

Democrats have long proven themselves to be the better bet when it comes to difficult problems such as those encountered in large cities. What you are calling "failure" is a distorted view of the ongoing struggle to solve such problems. As in every effort to break new ground there are successes and failures. But Republicans ignore the successes and magnify the failures because it suites their narrative.

Bottom line is the cities, where about 80% of the American people live, are thriving... Republicans are so obsessed with the negatives that they don't realize how small those negatives are compared to the positives.

I've lived in cities and remote locations... I like both for different reasons but if I had to chose, I would live in a city because it's more fun, the jobs pay better, everything is more convenient, the food choices are better, the women are sexier and the entertainment is better.

So don't waste your time trying to convince me the cities are falling apart because as someone who's been there I can tell you that's just a conservative fantasy.


Please explain which gun control laws criminals? That grammatical disaster doesn't even make any sense. If you are referring to my statement about the federal government overruling city laws, you can look at the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned New York City's prohibition of hand guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/23/us-supreme-court-new-york-law-gun-control

It simply astounds me that conservatives fight every attempt to limit the availability of guns and then squawk about resulting increase in crime rates and THEN suggest we can fix it by letting people have even MORE guns.

There is no better example of stupidity.

American Vet

My apologies. I omitted the key word.

Please explain which gun control laws criminals obey.

So please proceed and tell me which gun control laws criminals obey.

Wonttakeitanymore

You guys are the dead weight! Dependent on government!! Go away

Wonttakeitanymore

Absolutely

Wonttakeitanymore

Look at Ohio! Weeks late and dollars short! FEMA wouldn’t even respond and joe sgmuck went to five our money to Ukraine

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

The same can be said for the Republican half of the country. Hate and book banning are not normal or is a return to tribalism the new normal?

BIRDMAN

Republicans are banning kids from seeing books transvestite fruitcakes and lesbians.Not green eggs and ham

American Vet

Only by ELWNJs such as you.

Justice101

Assuming data supported the claim that “blue states” bail out “red states,” using balance-of-payment ratios as a measure to support that claim is a non-sequitur, because balance-of-payment ratios depend entirely on federal tax and spending policy. The amount of federal revenue collected from state taxpayers depends mostly on state income, and the federal income tax levies higher rates on filers with higher incomes. Progressives designed the federal income tax to burden high-income earners on purpose and support policies to make the federal income tax increasingly weighted toward the wealthy.

The other side of balance-of-payment ratios is federal spending. Some of the most expensive federal programs are Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Each of these is “means tested,” meaning recipients must earn below a certain income threshold in order to receive federal assistance. Low-income states receive more federal money than high-income states by design because of means-tested federal poverty programs. As these programs expand and become more generous, the gap between state balance-of-payment ratios will only increase as federal taxes and spending increase to pay for means-tested poverty assistance.

On the other hand, a state’s financial health has everything to do with state policy. In the ALEC publications Unaccountable and Unaffordable, Other Post-Employment Benefit Liabilities and State Bonded Obligations, it is very clear some states practiced restraint and shored up state finances in preparation while other states continuously raised taxes and spending while underfunding long-term obligations. Many policy organizations — ALEC included — have urged against a federal bailout of states because of the inherent moral hazard. Pundits will use the red herring of a “red state” bailout to distract from what a federal bailout of states truly looks like — a redistribution of tax dollars from taxpayers in responsible states to states that refused to make hard choices during the good times.

Statistical differences in federal income taxation and welfare policy is not a bailout. Pumping federal cash into spendthrift states to rescue them from underwater pensions and backlogged debt service is.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/502321-no-blue-states-do-not-bailout-red-states/

straightUp Loc: California

Oh THAT! - LOL One of the most overused joke-arguments ever... "Criminals are people that break the law so therefore they wouldn't be the one's abiding by a gun control law."

Ah, the bliss of a simple mind...

Never mind the fact that most serious gun control laws aren't meant for "criminals" to follow in the first place. They're meant for the dealers to follow so that certain types of guns are effectively removed from the market.

If a gun is taken off the market, it won't be so easy for a criminal to get one. It won't be impossible but it will be a LOT harder AND riskier. Not just for them but for anyone else which means there will be fewer of them left around by careless owners where their retarded klds or their friends can find them.

All around it decreases the chances that such a gun will wind up in the hands of criminals or idiots whether they buy them, borrow them or steal them.

All those nancy-pansey laws about background checks are being suggested by groups like the NRA that would prefer that the state profile everyone than to stop dealers from selling a line of firearms. That crap won't work and they know it. The only serious option is to ban the products that make killing lots of people SO ridiculously easy that even weak and mentally retarded kids like Rittenhouse can do it.

As a gun owner myself and a defender of the 2nd Amendment, I can tell you with utmost confidence that NONE of the assault weapon bans interfere with our right to bear arms. I have a perfectly legal Mossberg 500 for home defense because I know enough about guns to know that an AR-15 is a super-shitty choice for that purpose. And guess what? My Mossberg is NEVER on a ban list. I'm not much of a hunter because I don't get off on killing things for fun but I know there's a wide range of hunting rifles that are also NEVER on a ban list and I'm sorry but if you need a magazine of 30 rounds to hit a deer, you're not much of a hunter.

There IS a valid purpose for a gun like the AR-15, which is actually a very well-designed and versatile weapon and that's the battlefield - the ONLY place where you will ever be surrounded by a lot of people trying to kill you. That's where you actually need something that can fire off a lot of rounds in a very short time. Otherwise, there's no reason for it.

It's not my intention to turn this into my 1,200th argument over gun control, but at least you will know better than to come back with something as naive as "guns don't kill; people do." So if you want to have this argument, think it over first... Just assume that I'm way beyond the typical "guns don't kill; people do" rhetoric.

American Vet

[quote=straightUp][/wuote]Oh THAT! - LOL One of the most overused joke-arguments ever... "Criminals are people that break the law so therefore they wouldn't be the one's abiding by a gun control law." Ah, the bliss of a simple mind... [/i]
Yes, a simple, unpolluted mind has the simple answer that is almost always the best answer. Plus, by keeping it simple increases the possibility you will understand it.

Never mind the fact that most serious gun control laws aren't meant for "criminals" to follow in the first place. They're meant for the dealers to follow so that certain types of guns are effectively removed from the market. If a gun is taken off the market, it won't be so easy for a criminal to get one. It won't be impossible but it will be a LOT harder AND riskier. Not just for them but for anyone else which means there will be fewer of them left around by careless owners where their retarded klds or their friends can find them. All around it decreases the chances that such a gun will wind up in the hands of criminals or idiots whether they buy them, borrow them or steal them.
By that logic, states/cities with harsher gun control laws will have lower crime rates. Correct?

[i]All those nancy-pansey laws about background checks are being suggested by groups like the NRA that would prefer that the state profile everyone than to stop dealers from selling a line of firearms. That crap won't work and they know it. The only serious option is to ban the products that make killing lots of people SO ridiculously easy that even weak and mentally retarded kids like Rittenhouse can do it.[i]
So what does the Second Amendment say about banning guns?

As a gun owner myself and a defender of the 2nd Amendment, I can tell you with utmost confidence that NONE of the assault weapon bans interfere with our right to bear arms. I have a perfectly legal Mossberg 500 for home defense because I know enough about guns to know that an AR-15 is a super-shitty choice for that purpose. And guess what? My Mossberg is NEVER on a ban list. I'm not much of a hunter because I don't get off on killing things for fun but I know there's a wide range of hunting rifles that are also NEVER on a ban list and I'm sorry but if you need a magazine of 30 rounds to hit a deer, you're not much of a hunter.
So essentially you are saying that certain guns should be banned because some entity does not believe the good citizen should have one?

There IS a valid purpose for a gun like the AR-15, which is actually a very well-designed and versatile weapon and that's the battlefield - the ONLY place where you will ever be surrounded by a lot of people trying to kill you. That's where you actually need something that can fire off a lot of rounds in a very short time. Otherwise, there's no reason for it.
Any semi-automatic weapon can ‘fire off a lot of rounds in a short time’. So that will be the criteria - the cyclic rate of fire for a particular weapon? As a reminder, the 2A is not about need. That being said, the reason for the 2A was so ‘the people’ could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. So there is a reason.[/b]

It's not my intention to turn this into my 1,200th argument over gun control, but at least you will know better than to come back with something as naive as "guns don't kill; people do." So if you want to have this argument, think it over first... Just assume that I'm way beyond the typical "guns don't kill; people do" rhetoric.
Nothing naive about my comments - they are simply common sense. And, it appears you are way beyond common sense - way out there in your fantasy land.

Keep in mind your little rant about AR 15’s. Far and away people using a gun to commit a crime use a pistol.

straightUp Loc: California

I disagree.


Yes, running a big city *IS* a challenge for anyone. That's kinda the point I already made. Democrats are just more up to the challenge and that's because they aren't afraid of new ideas. Republicans always want to revert to what worked in the past when such populations didn't exist.

BLM isn't besieging anyone. They successfully brought attention to the abuses black people suffer from systemic racism in law enforcement, they organized peaceful protests that became an inspiration for activists all around the world and they negotiated policies with city governments, probably producing more results in two years than we will ever get from the House of Representatives in the next two years.

I know you're thinking about the vandalism associated with the George Floyd protests... They had nothing to do with BLM and even the people who DID organize those protests (in Portland it was a Christian Church) were only there during the hours they had the permits for. The vandalism all happened AFTER those hours by people who operated on their own accord and are not linked to any organization. Some of them admitted to being Antifa, but Antifa isn't even an organization. It's just a term loosely applied to young people who feel compelled to confront racist Nazis, the same way stoners is a term applied to young people who smoke weed, Goths, a term for young people who like to dress all dark and weird. None of these terms involve an actual command center the way you folks portray them.

The only people besieging the cities are red state politicians who should mind their own f*cking business.


Yes, because it's not actually about money... it's about finding other people to blame for their own shortfallings... oh, wait - you weren't referring to white MAGA-muffins were you? Sorry, when you said "those who have been trained to regard themselves as victims" I just automatically thought of them.


You should try understanding what people write before responding. That way you won't be responding to the assertion that big cities create challenges on a level that some people can't handle with an argument that "running a big city is a challenge".

;)