Originally posted by ANumber1Roy
The left have always been for those policies. They asked biden to lead in creating the 90s crime bill. Its comical how democracts just pretend this isnt their history. Most racists in politics during jim crow era were democratic. Worst run cities are democractic. People leaving california in droves to go to texas and republican ran states but by your logic republicans are ass.



No offense but both parties do it. They stand for something until it doesn't work or until it's obvious to everyone it doesn't work.

I remember when Feinstein was considered an extreme lefty, she's practically a centrist by todays standards.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
No offense but both parties do it. They stand for something until it doesn't work or until it's obvious to everyone it doesn't work.



I acknowledge republicans do it to. I keep a independent stance in politics for this reason. Neither side truly does what is best for the people but we are stuck in this two party system.

I don't think it's as easy as Democrat run cities or Republican run cities.

Bloomberg seemed to do a hell of a job in NYC and at the same time, some of the most backwards, no hope or opportunity areas of the country are deeply red, conservative areas.

It matters more what type of Republican or Democrat is in charge and if the Republican recognizes when higher taxes, deficit spending and larger government is appropriate and the Democrat can recognize when the opposite is appropriate.

Neither approach is right 100% of the time

Originally posted by Cowpoker
I don't think it's as easy as Democrat run cities or Republican run cities.

Bloomberg seemed to do a hell of a job in NYC and at the same time, some of the most backwards, no hope or opportunity areas of the country are deeply red, conservative areas.

It matters more what type of Republican or Democrat is in charge and if the Republican recognizes when higher taxes, deficit spending and larger government is appropriate and the Democrat can recognize when the opposite is appropriate.

Neither approach is right 100% of the time

If you look closely you'll find the reasons why hidden underneath all the fluffy political speech and sideways takes on the same. The answer is always WHY something is done. It it's truly meant to help... or to fix an issue... then it's generally successful even IF it wanders off the track a bit and some will always take advantage of these things so... grain of salt. There are no perfect solutions. However... if the reason WHY something is done is to benefit a particular person or peoples or party, then it's always a wreck and never is worth the paper it's written on or the ink used to make it. As a farmer/rancher, you should kinda know this anyways when there's any legislation done that effects you.

Too many absolutes Wizz. Always and never should be replaced by often or too often.

Many policies are intended to help and end up making the problem worse. Housing assistance programs inflate rent, the most recent "solution" to the baby formula supply problem was to give low income women more free formula, good intention but would only complicate the supply problem. Farm payment programs are and were a well intended disaster.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
, some of the most backwards, no hope or opportunity areas of the country are deeply red, conservative areas.



Can confirm

The murder rate here is actually pretty high. TN ranks 6th in murder rate. Property crime in the nearest small town is 5% higher than the national average.
It's a deeply conservative state, run almost entirely by republicans. Nashville is a high crime area, and the city itself is led by Democrats, but they can't just overrule the state laws... Like "Constitutional carry", which just means no permit required for any weapons. Here you can buy a gun on the street LEGALLY, without any checks of any kind. That contributes more to violent crime than anything else. We had a guy in a nearby city (population 60k) who shot a gun inside a pool hall during an argument. He was arrested, but the republican judge put him in the diversion program (Judge is a gun nut). 3 months later, he shot a guy in the face, twice, killing him. Nothing about the crime in that city has anything to do with democrats. They have zero dems on city commission, and the county commission only has 1 dem out of 15. Police are corrupt, and are actually involved in a lot of the meth and pill distribution. Property crime rate in that city is 38%, but the national average is 19%.
Crime follows poverty, and the South has plenty of both... I'm sure people aren't claiming that the South is run by Democrats

Originally posted by Cowpoker
Too many absolutes Wizz. Always and never should be replaced by often or too often.

Many policies are intended to help and end up making the problem worse. Housing assistance programs inflate rent, the most recent "solution" to the baby formula supply problem was to give low income women more free formula, good intention but would only complicate the supply problem. Farm payment programs are and were a well intended disaster.



Ehh... maybe but I doubt it.Trying to pin ANY politician down as to 'why' they do something is like trying to catch a greased pig... while you're covered in grease yourself. But if you follow the money you'll >always< arrive at the reason and it's always 'why' it was done. In the end, no mater the reason, the more the government has to get involved the worse any system/solution works. Generally speaking, the problem is seldom with the idea... but the implementation and nothing works worse than a government system... Democratic, Socialist, Communist, Theist, Dictatorship... doesn't matter. It's almost always (there ya go... there's yer non-absolute) FUBAR.

You are conflicting yourself Wizz. You are saying that it is difficult to figure out "why" politicians do something and follow it up with if you follow the money you always know the "why".

Originally posted by wormser1971
The murder rate here is actually pretty high. TN ranks 6th in murder rate. Property crime in the nearest small town is 5% higher than the national average.
It's a deeply conservative state, run almost entirely by republicans. Nashville is a high crime area, and the city itself is led by Democrats, but they can't just overrule the state laws... Like "Constitutional carry", which just means no permit required for any weapons. Here you can buy a gun on the street LEGALLY, without any checks of any kind. That contributes more to violent crime than anything else. We had a guy in a nearby city (population 60k) who shot a gun inside a pool hall during an argument. He was arrested, but the republican judge put him in the diversion program (Judge is a gun nut). 3 months later, he shot a guy in the face, twice, killing him. Nothing about the crime in that city has anything to do with democrats. They have zero dems on city commission, and the county commission only has 1 dem out of 15. Police are corrupt, and are actually involved in a lot of the meth and pill distribution. Property crime rate in that city is 38%, but the national average is 19%.
Crime follows poverty, and the South has plenty of both... I'm sure people aren't claiming that the South is run by Democrats

As far as I know, you can private sale a gun legally almost anywhere in the US.

The last two mass shooters (at least the ones in the news), would have passed an FBI background checks. I support red flag laws as long as the person being flagged has an opportunity to legally challenge it but again, that requires friends and families to initiate it.

I think we should pass a series of stricter gun laws and see what happens, sort of put the discussion to bed. Go back to the Clinton era ban on the sale of "assault rifles" and you'll stop seeing them in gun shops that have federal licenses but there are millions available privately and also the ability to take a browning semi auto hunting rifle and have it shoot and perform exactly like an AR.

It would be nice if we actually started enforcing gun laws as well and/or imposing harsher mandatory sentences for gun crimes and a two strike rule (i'm not giving out a 3rd strike). Make a no bail rule for gun crime. Taking away guns won't solve anything, taking away the criminals will but you'll still have too many gun suicides and too many of these nut jobs with easy access to any weapon they want.

Gun markets are sort of like pot. You can make the legal option incredibly difficult, more intense background checks including medical history and make it easier to red flag potential buyers but with very little effort, you can buy a gun privately.

In some states, you can legally purchase pot but lets not pretend that removing the legal status means it's harder to get pot, it's literally everywhere and is actually illegal to sell privately and doesn't seem to make it any harder for someone who wants it to get their hands on it.

If it makes people feel better since humans tend to think they can control everything, pass gun laws. It won't slow down gun crime but maybe people can feel better about it since they tried.

You can't tell me that a mandatory 25 years for armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon wouldn't remove the vast majority of the people responsible for gun crime. The 2nd strike would be life in prison without the possibility of parole and any gun crime would be no bail.

Take all the bad actors off the street and if the prisons gets crowded, decriminalize minor drug offenses. I'd rather see violent people in prison than people who simply make poor life choices or have an addiction problem.

My buddy is a cop here in Jersey and they just got the order that anyone with an arrest warrant under $500 gets off. They are also not allowed to chase anymore.

Unfortunately we are going backwards on crime punishment so highly likely that wont happen.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
But if you follow the money you'll >always< arrive at the reason and it's always 'why' it was done. In the end, no mater the reason, the more the government has to get involved the worse any system/solution works.

Not sure how true that is considering the >money< in politics is trying to stop the government from doing anything.

I think we might be hitting another cognitive dissonance moment for you. There's a reason neoliberalism has been the mode of operation for decades. There's a reason the billionaire owned media unanimously throws punches at the left. There's a reason politicians like Bernie that supports workers gets panned and undermined, even by the most "left" media outlets.

The people with money want the government to do nothing. The people with money and power are able to horde more money and power the less the government is involved. They've monopolized the media to convince people like you, without money and power, that the government doing anything is bad for you.

Honestly, "free thinking" centrists like you need to wake the fuck up. You're more indoctrinated sheeple than any extremists on either end of the spectrum. You've already managed to decimate the middle class, now you're working your magic on the working class. The only things that trickle down in neoliberalism are piss and shit. We've managed to fall behind the world in almost all standard of living metrics since this corrosive policy consumed both major parties.

This country has two neoliberal parties, one that blames the failings of the policy on civil rights, and one that just shrugs and acts like the failings don't exist. One leads to fascism and one continues the deterioration. The trajectory of the country really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.