The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[RogueWriter]

Great example of faulty logic! Let's see, if A is somewhat similar to B, and B is somewhat similar to C, D and E, then A must be identical to C, D, and E, right?

Actually, I believe his logic could be defined as:

If B is a subset of A, and C, D and E are subsets of B, then C, D and E are also subsets of A. Soooooo.....yer point?

 

[DU]

Actually, I believe his logic could be defined as:

If B is a subset of A, and C, D and E are subsets of B, then C, D and E are also subsets of A. Soooooo.....yer point?

Actually, he doesn't have any logic other than the reverse engineered:

G(guns) + U(country) = P (Problems)
G(guns) + I(country) <> P (Problems)

From which he determines the not logically provable fact that G is not the problem.

His math is roughly to start with the position that:

Problems = k x G

Where:

k = Coefficient
G = Rate of Gun Ownership in Country

Trying to create a "k" that holds across all countries, demographics and societies is clearly a flaw so obvious it's not something I would even consider worth calling out normally.

But I'm sure we can argue this silly point of nonsense forever. :hearts:

Interestingly about Iceland for example (understanding the article is biased but not fabricated: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25201471)

"A study of the Icelandic class system done by a University of Missouri master's student found only 1.1% of participants identified themselves as upper class, while 1.5% saw themselves as lower class.

The remaining 97% identified themselves as upper-middle class, lower-middle class, or working class."

"However, acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test."

"Police are unarmed, too. The only officers permitted to carry firearms are on a special force called the Viking Squad, and they are seldom called out."

Low drug use:

"According to a 2012 UNODC report, use among 15-64-year-olds in Iceland of cocaine was 0.9%, of ecstasy 0.5%, and of amphetamines 0.7%."


"They have a higher percentage of shared family genes"

I made the last one up

 

[RogueWriter]

The US also has a culture of violence.

Although there may be some violence in America, I would argue there are other cultural points that play a more important role in the makeup of America.

America has a culture of independence and indipendent thought, of creativity; there is an entrepreneurial spirit, certainly. America is soulful. Church attendence may be on the decline, but a large segment of the population defines themselves as 'religious'.


Most of my friends have owned guns or multiple guns, or bows, their entire lives, yet none of them have ever shot anyone or even started a fist fight for that matter. These same friends run the gamut of religions, some are artists, some are politicians, some are builders many are merchants.

A culture of violence? I don't think so.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"G = Rate of Gun Ownership in Country

Trying to create a "k" that holds across all countries, demographics and societies is clearly a flaw so obvious it's not something I would even consider worth calling out normally."

you can never ever use "k" as anything because what would hold up across all countries, demographics and societies? Nothing. Therefore he can not compare any country to any country since they are all so different, using this logic.

Guns still are not the problem

-
this is where the discussion started:
"
If anyone knows a city or country that totaly banned handguns or guns in general and things were better afterward then lets hear about it.
it might be easier to find a country that freely allows guns to just about anyone, and see how they are doing . . . like, uh, the USA."

well no countries are the same because of the nice "K". Therefore we are back at finding a city that totaly banned handguns or guns in general, but surely you cant compare any other cities because the culture, demographics, history and mentality are so different.

 

[DU]

Guns still are not the problem

I believe the argument was availability of guns.. but clearly the blame for gun violence has to be the number of blue cars that are sold in the month of January.

 

[verbster]

I see the US Appeals Court ruled against net neutrality.

http://news.msn.com/us/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality

 

[Theo Goodman]

"I believe the argument was availability of guns."

avalibility of guns is not the problem

"If anyone knows a city or country that totaly banned handguns or guns in general and things were better afterward then lets hear about it."

People could interpret "totaly banned" as a "strict limit in availability".



surly unemployment is down as is inflation because more blue cars were sold during christmas.

 

[verbster]

surly unemployment is down as is inflation because more blue cars were sold during christmas.

So you say. . . and stop calling me Shirley.

 

[Theo Goodman]

everything is fine:

 

[JB Lions]

One of the places mentioned was Iceland, which has a population of 320,137.

United States has about 314 million or 980x the population. So on population alone, I would expect more gun violence.

Easier to get guns.

Cheaper to get guns.

Big gun culture.

Poverty, I think is a major factor. You live in poverty or don't have a great home environment, more apt to be in gangs, which is responsible for a lot of the gun violence in this country.

Mental health, we probably could do better in this area.

etc.

Was reading something else and found some other reasons.

"The author-researcher of the BBC crime study, Andrew Clark of Boston's Suffolk University Law School, attributed the low incidence of violent crime in Iceland to the absence of class distinctions in a country where 97% identify themselves as middle class."

"Clark also noted that, unlike in the United States, acquiring a gun involves a more rigorous system of checks, including a medical examination of the applicant and a written test."

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/de...eland-police-shooting-first-fatality-20131202

Oh yeah, the Unemployment Rate continues to fall, now 6.7%, probably will be in the 5's time Hillary gets in.

 

[DU]

"
surly unemployment is down as is inflation because more blue cars were sold during christmas.

No, that's because of the fall in stock of red sweaters over the 4Q. Try to keep up.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
"

So if you count all the people without a job, unemployment is up.

 

[verbster]

So if you count all the people without a job, unemployment is up.

You mean count all those people who don't have to work, choose not to work or cannot work as part of the workforce even though they aren't?

 

[Theo Goodman]

"So if you count all the people without a job, unemployment is up.
You mean count all those people who don't have to work, choose not to work or cannot work as part of the workforce even though they aren't? "

What I said is too general. I mean if you count the unemployed with the same system that was used in 1994, unemployment is way up.

--long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.--

long term discouraged workers +short term discouraged + the rate that is known as U3. All of these people are out of work,


"dont have to work" not sure exactly what you mean. This does not include people that are reitred if that is what you are getting at.

"choose not to work" again, what exactly do you mean? "lazy people"?


"cannot work as part of the workforce even though they aren't"
they aren´t what?

 

[RogueWriter]

Oh Theo, Theo, Theo, you are supposed to accept the fact that the Obama administration has simply made millions of people so rich "they don't need to work" anymore or "don't choose to work" anymore, they suddenly became wealthy over the last year.

I expect to become one of those millions any moment now, I bought my powerball ticket for saturday AND I filled out the forms that publisher's clearinghouse sent to me.

I'm so confident in Obama's ability to make me instantaneously wealthy without having to work, I'm not even crossing my fingers.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Bush used the same figures, its not really about "Obama" per se.

 

[RogueWriter]

I'm commenting in context with the current 6.7% unemployment figures posted by the current administration, a complete misrepresentation of how the economy is really doing.

Since Bush has been retired for what 5 or 6 years now, it seems pointless to bring up the "if Bush did it, it is okay for Obama to do it" argument.

 

[JB Lions]

6.7%. It was 7.9% this time last year. It was 7.8% when he was sworn in. I always like posting these up to see Obama haters try to spin it, starting talking about U this and U that numbers. B bb bbu but, but it's not real, let me go find another number that tries to make it look bad. If the roles were reversed and there was a Republican President, you guys on the right would be pumping it up.

As far as those U numbers, well again, it's as simple as reading a chart - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

All down from a year ago. The big number that people like to use, last year it was 14.4, now it's 13.1. So whatever one you want to use, continues to go down. The economy is getting better. That's a good thing last time I looked.

It's so pathetic that I link to and use real numbers and Theo, you're posting up Shadow Stats?? Guy is a little on the conspiracy theory side.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shadow_Government_Statistics

 

[Theo Goodman]

"It's so pathetic that I link to and use real numbers and Theo, you're posting up Shadow Stats?? Guy is a little on the conspiracy theory side.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shadow_...ent_Statistics"

Hi,
No matter what "rationalwiki" says. The stats that I posted are put together in a clear way and use the methology used pre 1994. The "real" numbers you talk about, that is what is used to calculate the stats. If that is defined as a "conspiracy theory" then fine. It is quite simple, either you are democrat, republican, or a conspiracy theorst.

Yes of course, if you go by what is now called "official" then unemployment is down. However if you look at how many people are out of work, not counted in the "official " figure, then the number is up.

as an opinon article that is used as a footnote on the opinion site "rationalwiki" states:

Shadow:
"Unemployment is more than twice the official 5 percent rate when all those who want jobs but have given up looking for work are counted.

Offical:
The Labor Department regularly publishes data on "discouraged" workers (those who have looked for work sometime in the last year). Nevertheless, the single best measure of unemployment is the one that counts only those still actively looking for work among the unemployed. "

That is it really. It is just two ways of looking at it.


When I mentioned "Bush" I didnt suggest that sr or jr is to blame for anything, I just meant that the republicans were also more than willing to use this method to calculate unemployment. This method is not exclusive to Obama.

 

[DU]

What are the numbers like compared to the rules in place 40 years ago?