They are logical actions that the majority of americans support and that most in congress or the senate won't do themselves for fear of the NRA. It was also an open and honestly emotional speech by the president.
Is it enough? Hell no. Not even close. But at least someone is willing to do something. Baby steps are better than no steps at all.
How to enforce it? Not sure but the impression I get is that this is something that the agency itself has wanted. I think they know they have ways to enforce it.
The executive order is not a onerous or shocking one. It's common sense. Common sense that most agree on. The only thing the GOP has is a "slippery slope" argument. The GOP has over and over again said "just enforce existing laws!"...well low and behold the executive action calls for just that and adding agents. The GOP response is "how dare you!".
I think the president framed it properly...this isn't going to stop all gun violence. Nothing they do can stop it all. But if it stops one incident then how is that not worth it? These are common sense things. Enforce current laws. Increased background checks. Mental Health funding/treatment improvements.
Informed vs Misinformed vs uninformed article from 538.
In short, Trump supporters in general have lower education levels and are misinformed.
Quote:
Furthermore, in 2010, political scientists Brendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”
....
Telltale signs of misinformation, for example, were on display in a focus group of Trump supporters run by Republican media consultant Frank Luntz. Not only did negative information about Trump that was presented by Luntz to the group strengthen support for the candidate, participants held on more confidently to their misinformation as the session progressed.
author info: Dr. Anne Pluta is an assistant professor of political science at Rowan University. Her research interests include the American presidency, political communication and media politics.
Good article, but do we really need a study to tell us that?
I'd like to see a study for where the most misinformation comes from. Who/what spews the most lies? Trump? Fox News? CNN? Shouldn't there be some serious repercussions for stuff like this? Like, I can't believe that debate moderators don't just interrupt these people with a "uhhh, well that's just not true."
How can the leading Republican candidate consistently and purposefully misinforming the voters not be one of the bigger election stories? Shouldn't it be grounds for being booted from the race at a certain point?
Good article, but do we really need a study to tell us that?
I'd like to see a study for where the most misinformation comes from. Who/what spews the most lies? Trump? Fox News? CNN? Shouldn't there be some serious repercussions for stuff like this? Like, I can't believe that debate moderators don't just interrupt these people with a "uhhh, well that's just not true."
How can the leading Republican candidate consistently and purposefully misinforming the voters not be one of the bigger election stories? Shouldn't it be grounds for being booted from the race at a certain point?
In a normal world it should matter but it doesn't seem to yet. His bluster is good for TV ratings and it appears the media will ride out his crazy train as long as possible. Check CNN right now, I'd bet he's on the top stories in one way or another, he always is.
I was watching CNN this morning while getting ready for work and one stat really jumped out at me
From 2001 to 2013 406,000 + people have died due to gun violence. Basically they've exterminated a mid sized city.
They've killed more people in 12 years in America then America lost all together in WW2.
I'm no fan of Obama, and I think that he could have taken his executive orders further and to hell with the NRA, and the Senate and Congress and the Presidential Candidates.
A stat like that opens your eyes.
In 2014 12,576 killed and another 23,040 people were wounded. Probably less people would have been killed or wounded if you dropped a nuke on Lethbridge.
While Hillary is probably cringing at the executive order and its effect on her campaign, this is one battle and one legacy point that Obama has to dig his heels in on before he leaves office.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Please expand. Explain how a restriction list in unconstitutional. Explain how this is a contravention of due process.
? Because you can be denied a constitutional right without any defined "due process". You can be placed on a list without being able to defend yourself as the constitution defines.
I'm not sure "buying a service from a private business" is a constitutional right. Not saying I like or dislike no fly lists but does alleged National Security not trump the ability to pay to fly in the air for transportation?
I'm not sure "buying a service from a private business" is a constitutional right. Not saying I like or dislike no fly lists but does alleged National Security not trump the ability to pay to fly in the air for transportation?
The problem is that it IS, in their country, for this one single product, for some reason.
? Because you can be denied a constitutional right without any defined "due process". You can be placed on a list without being able to defend yourself as the constitution defines.
I think you are oversimplifying the due process concept. I think you need a better understanding of the due process clause and the interpretations from the Supreme Court. Because these restriction lists affect controlled products or spaces, the due process expectation is greatly limited. You are going to have to explain how these restriction lists deprive anyone from "life, liberty, or [freely available] property."
In respect to air travel, that is not a protected or constitutional right. This is regulated and being allowed to travel by air is a privilege, not a right. In respect to weapon ownership, there are laws which restrict ownership should an individual meet specific criteria. There are also restrictions on types of weapons you may own, and specific processes you have to go through to own such weapons. Due cause is enough to restrict an individual from having access to weapons.
The problem is that it IS, in their country, for this one single product, for some reason.
I think we're arguing two different things. I thought azure and street pharmacist had meant simply being on a no fly list was unconstitutional in and of itself, since people keep saying "due process".
The gun part of it is another ball of wax, if one trusts the process of how people get on the list I could see a solid argument for "you've been deemed a threat to national security, you can't buy guns". Not really that far of a reach from the Patriot Act to get there.
Interesting comments from Bill Gross' latest investment letter:
Quote:
The Romans gave their Plebian citizens a day at the Coliseum, and the French royalty gave the Bourgeoisie a piece of figurative "cake," so it may be true to form that in the still prosperous developed economies of 2016, we provide Fantasy Sports, cellphone game apps, sexting, and fast food to appease the masses. Keep them occupied and distracted at all costs before they recognize that half of the U.S. population doesn’t go to work in the morning and that their real wages after conservatively calculated inflation have barely budged since the mid 1980’s. Confuse them with demagogic and religious oriented political candidates to believe that tomorrow will be a better day and hope that Ferguson, Missouri and its lookalikes will fade to the second page or whatever it’s called these days in new-age media.
Meanwhile, manipulate (sic) prices of interest rates and stocks to benefit corporations and the wealthy while they feast on exorbitantly priced gluten-free pasta and range-free chicken at Whole Foods, or if even more fortunate, pursue high rise New York condos and private jets at Teterboro. It’s a wonderful life for the 1% and a Xanax existence for the 99. But who’s looking – or counting – even at the ballot box. November 2016 will not change a thing – 8 years of Hillary or 8 years of a non-Hillary. Same difference. Central bankers, Superpacs, and K street lobbyists are in control. Instead of cake, the 49.5% (males) will just have to chomp on their Carl’s Jr. hamburger and dream of a night with 23-year-old Kate Upton lookalikes that show them how to eat it during Super Bowl commercials. And if that’s too sexist, then Carl’s is substituting six-pack hunks instead of full-breasted models to appease the other 49.5% (females). It’s a Xanax society. We love it.
I think we're arguing two different things. I thought azure and street pharmacist had meant simply being on a no fly list was unconstitutional in and of itself, since people keep saying "due process".
The gun part of it is another ball of wax, if one trusts the process of how people get on the list I could see a solid argument for "you've been deemed a threat to national security, you can't buy guns". Not really that far of a reach from the Patriot Act to get there.
I thought they were referring to the Gun list, and using the no-fly list as an example.
I don't think it's a big reach either, but the big problem is that it's written in the Bible...ermm.... the Constitution. And there are a lot of people who think that document is infallible and should be forever unchanged.
I think you are oversimplifying the due process concept. I think you need a better understanding of the due process clause and the interpretations from the Supreme Court. Because these restriction lists affect controlled products or spaces, the due process expectation is greatly limited. You are going to have to explain how these restriction lists deprive anyone from "life, liberty, or [freely available] property."
In respect to air travel, that is not a protected or constitutional right. This is regulated and being allowed to travel by air is a privilege, not a right. In respect to weapon ownership, there are laws which restrict ownership should an individual meet specific criteria. There are also restrictions on types of weapons you may own, and specific processes you have to go through to own such weapons. Due cause is enough to restrict an individual from having access to weapons.
The Supreme Court interprets "due process" to all basic rights. That's been established repeatedly. The right to bear arms has also been established. Unless you plan on getting the Supreme Court to change it's interpretations you'll have to work with due process on how you find yourself on a "No gun list"
Good article, but do we really need a study to tell us that?
I'd like to see a study for where the most misinformation comes from. Who/what spews the most lies? Trump? Fox News? CNN? Shouldn't there be some serious repercussions for stuff like this? Like, I can't believe that debate moderators don't just interrupt these people with a "uhhh, well that's just not true."
How can the leading Republican candidate consistently and purposefully misinforming the voters not be one of the bigger election stories? Shouldn't it be grounds for being booted from the race at a certain point?
I do think it needs to be studied and discussed because most people tend to lump misinformed and uninformed into the same pile. It's not. Misinformed is so much more dangerous and the more it's studied and the more people learn about ti the more people can guard against it happening to them. The problem, of course, is that the people that need the knowledge of this type of theing the most are exactly the people who won't read it in the first place.
Also note that Nate Silver in a chat the other day seemed to indicate that Trump is in trouble when the primaries start but didn't want to ruin a piece that will be published on the site soon.
Last edited by ernie; 01-07-2016 at 11:49 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
The 406,000 dead due to gun violence number is misleading as it is also including suicides and justifiable homicide.
But leave it to CNN to BS viewers who they know can't be bothered to look into facts themselves, while they sensationalize the issue with Hollywood-esque promos using bang bang sound bites and dark art to paint a dystopian world while we have a countdown clock for Obamas big interview with Cooper.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
