The Boy Who Cried Wolf

[highfigh]

Look at the alternate republican candidates. Not like there were any really good choices. The last election was doomed and I hope to see that change for next year, but I doubt it.

My dad would ask "Is the best we have" when campaigns started before he passed in 2001. I imagine he would puke if he had seen the dumpster fires that our elections have become.

The ones we need don't want the job and the ones who do want it aren't the ones we need.

 

[highfigh]

Too old I tell ya...on cue, Bernie suspends campaign due to chest pain and ends up having a stent placed yesterday...he's too freakin' old to be president. Get well soon, Bernie, but please drop out.

He's too angry, too, IMO.

 

[highfigh]

In the US, all convicted felons are prohibited from possessing a firearm of any type for life. Even for white collar crimes.

And yet, a huge number of shootings are committed by felons who have guns that were purchased from someone "who knows a guy" or through some other network, like gangs. I haven't seen stats on straw buyers, but I don't think they're as much of a problem as some think although that needs to stop, too. It's almost impossible to get people to stop doing something when they just don't care that it's illegal.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And yet, a huge number of shootings are committed by felons who have guns that were purchased from someone "who knows a guy" or through some other network, like gangs. I haven't seen stats on straw buyers, but I don't think they're as much of a problem as some think although that needs to stop, too. It's almost impossible to get people to stop doing something when they just don't care that it's illegal.

I agree. I was simply responding to 3db when he wanted the ex-cop never to be able to own a gun again. Of course, even Elizabeth Warren's campaign didn't know that. As I've pointed out, part of her gun control proposal is that no one convicted of a hate crime be allowed to own a gun. All hate crimes are felonies, so always no one in the US convicted of a hate crime can ever possess a gun, owned or otherwise. Sort of dumb for an ex-law professor not to know that...

 

[GO-NAD!]

So you think we should stay the course where countries put tariffs on our goods, but we don't put the same on theirs?

You think it's better to keep smoking because quitting is too painful?

Not at all. But, there should be some prospect of righting a wrong or not exacerbating a situation. And, I believe it was the US that has started this tariff war. Other countries have simply retaliated.

I'll refer to the Boeing case - because, let's face it - the case was only brought to the WTO due to Boeing lobbying the US government. If the EU implements retaliatory tariffs, how will that resolve anything? In other words, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Boeing also lobbied the US government to implement tariffs against Bombardier, while Bombardier does not even compete in the same category! Boeing is not suffering any losses due to competition from Bombardier. It was all in an effort to prevent Bombardier from evolving to the point where they would actually become a competitor.

I don't have an issue with tariffs - or even outright bans - against certain products/companies when justified, such as when intellectual property theft is involved. But, right now, trade barriers are being thrown up willy-nilly without, seemingly, the slightest forethought.

It was the raising of trade barriers during the Great Depression that lengthened and exacerbated it.

 

[panteragstk]

I agree. I was simply responding to 3db when he wanted the ex-cop never to be able to own a gun again. Of course, even Elizabeth Warren's campaign didn't know that. As I've pointed out, part of her gun control proposal is that no one convicted of a hate crime be allowed to own a gun. All hate crimes are felonies, so always no one in the US convicted of a hate crime can ever possess a gun, owned or otherwise. Sort of dumb for an ex-law professor not to know that...

IMHO if a law professor doesn't know the law and is running for office, I'm not sure that person is qualified. Huge red flag. Wonder what else she doesn't know?

 

[Irvrobinson]

IMHO if a law professor doesn't know the law and is running for office, I'm not sure that person is qualified. Huge red flag. Wonder what else she doesn't know?

Yup, here it is. Copied right out of her gun control plan web page:

• Prohibiting anyone convicted of a hate crime from owning a gun. Too often, guns are used in acts of mass violence intended to provoke fear in minority communities; more than 10,000 hate crimes involve a gun every year. Any individual convicted of a hate crime should be permanently prohibited from owning a gun, full stop.

The full web page:

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be

 

[mtrycrafts]

He's too angry, too, IMO.

As are some of his supporters.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Sort of dumb for an ex-law professor not to know that...

Well, her specialty was in a much different area of the law.

 

[mtrycrafts]

IMHO if a law professor doesn't know the law and is running for office, I'm not sure that person is qualified. Huge red flag. Wonder what else she doesn't know?

Do law professors know all the laws on the books?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Do law professors know all the laws on the books?

This one is pretty basic, and especially considering this is a presidential candidate formulating national policy proposals. I'm still mulling over whether I think it's worse if she just didn't know about such an important law, she never researched it in the first place, or some ignorant staff member wrote the position blog entry and she never even reviewed it. And she wasn't a professor at Joe's Corner Law School, it was Harvard Law. Pretty embarrassing for her by my reckoning.

 

[GO-NAD!]

This one is pretty basic, and especially considering this is a presidential candidate formulating national policy proposals. I'm still mulling over whether I think it's worse if she just didn't know about such an important law, she never researched it in the first place, or some ignorant staff member wrote the position blog entry and she never even reviewed it. And she wasn't a professor at Joe's Corner Law School, it was Harvard Law. Pretty embarrassing for her by my reckoning.

Her staff failed her on this one. They should have caught this before it was released.

 

[highfigh]

I agree. I was simply responding to 3db when he wanted the ex-cop never to be able to own a gun again. Of course, even Elizabeth Warren's campaign didn't know that. As I've pointed out, part of her gun control proposal is that no one convicted of a hate crime be allowed to own a gun. All hate crimes are felonies, so always no one in the US convicted of a hate crime can ever possess a gun, owned or otherwise. Sort of dumb for an ex-law professor not to know that...

But, by saying things that make people see her as doing things that will help, she's doing what she needs to be elected. The problem is that the people who will likely vote for her should also know this already- if they don't, they're not well enough informed to pick the best candidate, IMO. Not saying they don't have the right to choose, but they really need to be informed.

You wrote "can ever possess a gun"- Sure they can. Do you remember grade school English teachers who would answer the question "Can I go to the bathroom?" with "I don't know- are you able?"? Same applies to gun possession- the felons are able, but not legally allowed. I think she knows, but she wants to appear strong on gun control.

 

[highfigh]

Her staff failed her on this one. They should have caught this before it was released.

You really want to give her a pass on this? If she taught at Harvard, she damn well better know this kind of thing- it's not exactly an obscure area of Criminal Law and since it's such a hot topic, people only need to pay attention 50% of the time to learn it if they didn't already know..

 

[highfigh]

IMHO if a law professor doesn't know the law and is running for office, I'm not sure that person is qualified. Huge red flag. Wonder what else she doesn't know?

But the person who has the lowest passing grade on the Bar exam is still a lawyer.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You wrote "can ever possess a gun"- Sure they can. Do you remember grade school English teachers who would answer the question "Can I go to the bathroom?" with "I don't know- are you able?"? Same applies to gun possession- the felons are able, but not legally allowed. I think she knows, but she wants to appear strong on gun control.

You're just being difficult. Yes, I left out the word "legally", but it's implied. I'm not sure what Warren knows and what she doesn't, but as an ex-law professor she should also know that there is a difference between federal law and state law. In some states some felons are allowed to own guns after being released from prison and parole, but federal law grants no exceptions I'm aware of. (I'm not an attorney.) So gun control laws are like pot possession laws; legal in some state laws, but still illegal according to federal law. If a federal agency isn't involved in the investigation of a crime an ex-convict can legally possess a gun in some states. The difference is that the feds don't seem to ever enforce federal pot laws anymore, except with federal employees, but they appear to rigorously enforce federal gun laws when they get the opportunity.

 

[kystorm]

If the democrats wanted to win, they'd lie their collected butts off about where they stand on issues and run a centrist candidate with more moderate views. If not they better pray that the economy tanks right before the election. The further they run to the left the harder it will be for them to win. This won't happen of course because the democrat party as people knew it is dead. I'ts ran by far leftists and socialists. They've all but purged moderates from the party and embraced the radical aoc types that hold this country and many of its citizens in contempt. John f kennedy would be tarred and feathered by today's democrat party.
The sad truth is, the republican party is drifting to the left as well but not as much.
Basically both parties are dragging this country towards a cliff and the biggest difference is the speed at which they wanna take us there.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You really want to give her a pass on this? If she taught at Harvard, she damn well better know this kind of thing- it's not exactly an obscure area of Criminal Law and since it's such a hot topic, people only need to pay attention 50% of the time to learn it if they didn't already know..

I'm not giving her a pass or fail. But, if you base your vote next year on which candidate has made the fewest gaffs, I can only assume you won't be voting for the incumbent.

 

[GO-NAD!]

"... the republican party is drifting to the left as well ..."

Really? How so?

 

[panteragstk]

Do law professors know all the laws on the books?

What Irv said.

I'll add, no they don't, but if you are a former law professor for one of the most prestigious law schools in the country and are running for office, you damn well better check what laws your platform is proposing to make sure they either don't exist, or undermine another current law without explaining how you plan to handle it.