Guns, Guns Guns

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Ummm, yes... that happens every single damn election year. They're called "primaries".

No, that's where party members are asked who they want to vote for,

...a membership which is free and open to anyone caring to participate...

of those the party leaders have already decided to let run

The current comedy clown car of the GOP primary gives the lie to your statement here.

gcomeau wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:No, that's where party members are asked who they want to vote for,

...a membership which is free and open to anyone caring to participate...

of those the party leaders have already decided to let run

The current comedy clown car of the GOP primary gives the lie to your statement here.

You can care to participate but not want to be a member of either party. I usually end up with a pretty even split between parties (with usually quite a few 3rd party candidates too). What we need are primaries with every candidate on a single ballot with the top 3 vote getters moving on to the general election. Elections need to be about people, not parties.

Starsaber wrote:...
Elections need to be about people, not parties.

I have to say that the opposite is much more reliable. Individual people can change opinions, lie far more easily than a group(someone always talks), have superb charisma but still be an idiot, not have the requisite knowledge, be a wellhidden sociopath who once in power can start showing why it´s a bad thing, or simply just go crazy.

With a party, they have desired politics and an agenda written up, and while individuals will wary from that, they will usually not stray far from it, meaning that you know at least roughly what to expect.

Never EVER vote for people, vote for their politics. If you vote for people, then don´t be surprised when you´re disappointed. And also don´t be surprised if you end up with a dictature.

The only reason to ever vote for people, is if you know that they have integrity beyond belief and are exceptionally superior organisers and preferably pragmatics, while having no real political convictions.
And then let them be an optimal caretaker/administrator, someone who only changes what NEEDS to be fixed, and then only in the most minimal way possible.

If you can find the rare few people that qualify, that could work quite well, for some time, until change in the world requires change "here". At that point you need someone with enough vision to make the right choices the moment they can be made. Someone who gets things done, and make sure that what gets done are the right things, before they are actually done.

Tenshinai wrote:

Starsaber wrote:...
Elections need to be about people, not parties.

I have to say that the opposite is much more reliable. Individual people can change opinions, lie far more easily than a group(someone always talks), have superb charisma but still be an idiot, not have the requisite knowledge, be a wellhidden sociopath who once in power can start showing why it´s a bad thing, or simply just go crazy.

With a party, they have desired politics and an agenda written up, and while individuals will wary from that, they will usually not stray far from it, meaning that you know at least roughly what to expect.

Never EVER vote for people, vote for their politics. If you vote for people, then don´t be surprised when you´re disappointed. And also don´t be surprised if you end up with a dictature.

The only reason to ever vote for people, is if you know that they have integrity beyond belief and are exceptionally superior organisers and preferably pragmatics, while having no real political convictions.
And then let them be an optimal caretaker/administrator, someone who only changes what NEEDS to be fixed, and then only in the most minimal way possible.

If you can find the rare few people that qualify, that could work quite well, for some time, until change in the world requires change "here". At that point you need someone with enough vision to make the right choices the moment they can be made. Someone who gets things done, and make sure that what gets done are the right things, before they are actually done.

It's true that there can be issues with people too, but I don't agree with any party on every single issue. I tend to agree with the Democrats more than the Republicans, but there are quite a few financial issues I lean more Republican on.

Here are a couple quotes on the dangers of political parties that I find apt

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
- George Washington's Farewell Address

I have a feeling you may have misinterpreted the Washington quote.

"each arranged under its leader" pretty clearly shows the parties in themselves wasn´t the problem.

And i wasn´t really referring to USA.

The antiquated system there causes anything but a two-party system to be highly unlikely. The system favours the biggest possible parties, if parties split up, they loose most of their influence, so there won´t ever be anything but 2 big parties with the current system.

Anyway, my point was that voting for a party, you vote for a stated and usually somewhat clearcut political stance, voting for a person, you effectively vote for that person´s whims.
They MIGHT stick with what they promised, but there´s no checks on individuals the way there are in parties.

It's hard to think of any other real democracy that has such a strong firmly established 2 party system. Most have at least a reasonably effective 3rd party. (I mean elected. The US Libertarians aren't reasonably effective if you look at election results)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:It's hard to think of any other real democracy that has such a strong firmly established 2 party system. Most have at least a reasonably effective 3rd party. (I mean elected. The US Libertarians aren't reasonably effective if you look at election results)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Indeed. It certainly cuts down on the effectiveness of democracy.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/europe/france-train-shooting-americans-overpower/
So…guess the French should make a law, that makes taking an Automatic Assault Rifle, on a train, illegal. It’ll keep terrorists from attacking trains with them again, good thing there were some brave Frenchmen there to stop them ..., ..., ... Oh hang on they were Americans, (& 1 Brit )...wait, isn’t it illegal to take an assault rifle on the train in France???? Didn’t the LAW, making it illegal, stop him from doing it? No! I think it was the American passengers who did that! ... Hmm, I’m confused ... I thought ya’ll said making guns illegal would stop anyone from using the guns to commit crimes? That seems to have worked out sooo well for this French train.

MAD-4A wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/europe/france-train-shooting-americans-overpower/
So…guess the French should make a law, that makes taking an Automatic Assault Rifle, on a train, illegal. It’ll keep terrorists from attacking trains with them again, good thing there were some brave Frenchmen there to stop them ..., ..., ... Oh hang on they were Americans, (& 1 Brit )...wait, isn’t it illegal to take an assault rifle on the train in France???? Didn’t the LAW, making it illegal, stop him from doing it? No! I think it was the American passengers who did that! ... Hmm, I’m confused ... I thought ya’ll said making guns illegal would stop anyone from using the guns to commit crimes? That seems to have worked out sooo well for this French train.

How many times does this nonsense have to be addressed?

NOBODY ON EARTH has ever passed A SINGLE LAW with the expectation that it would never ever ever be broken. So pointing out that laws sometimes gets broken is rather pointless. If people thought laws stopped people from breaking laws the police wouldn't exist.


What is the overall nationwide incidence of mass shootings in France vs. the US? THAT is the measure of the effectiveness of gun control.

(Hint, you won't like the numbers)

gcomeau wrote:What is the overall nationwide incidence of mass shootings in France vs. the US? THAT is the measure of the effectiveness of gun control.

Yes, because France is the same size and has the same population and mix of population as America, Really? No...France is more like Massachusetts without the diversity, ok, Texas in land area & NY, Florida & Cali in Population. nowhere close to the U.S. as a whole, & yes, ya'll keep insisting that anti-gun laws will stop gun crime, so, yes we keep pointing out - no it doesn't - duh. You can't stop criminals from committing crimes by making more crimes for them to commit. They just commit more of them.
"Well, it's your first offence so, we were going to let you go on the mass murder charge, but you had the gun illegally so we can't let you go on that charge, we have a mandatory penalty for possessing an illegal gun of guillotining. You should have used an ax instead, we'd of let you go then, sorry. Off with his head!!!"