• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

NO MORE BUD LIGHT! NO MORE BUD LIGHT! NO MORE BUD LIGHT!

:rofl:

I don't drink it because it sucks, but that's a legitimate reason.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Fan the fire....

Every day, about 32 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes — that's one person every 45 minutes. In 2020, 11,654 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths — a 14% increase from 2019. These deaths were all preventable - NHTSA.

229 children ages 0–14 years were killed in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver in 2020 - CDC.

Why no outrage at this number of 0-14 killed? Likely similar a number of 0-14 every year. The DUI death number will certainly increase when including ages 15-18 (to match school-age children) are included but could not locate that statistic. Far higher than school deaths per year shown below. Why no outrage at the overall DUI death number? Why no cry to ban alcohol as is done with firearms? Each is unacceptable, but not entirely preventable no matter what law is in effect.

Should we ban alcohol? Tried that - didn't work. Should be keep alcohol locked up and you have to check it out to use? Is alcohol vital to life? Has it prevented life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of many? Absolutely. If the argument that firearms are not needed and should be banned, same holds true with alcohol. Think of how many needless DUI deaths can be prevented if only near beer was legal. You are far more likely to be injured or killed by DUI than a victim of a school shooting. But what about other shootings? What about other types of vehicle accidents? NHTSA projects that an estimated 42,915 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year, a 10.5% increase from the 38,824 fatalities in 2020. Thousands of people are killed in vehicle accidents which are caused by 99% human error. But we need vehicles. Well, I need my firearms. Which, incidentally, have never been used in a crime, along with million of others.

Should we have an absence of laws? Absolutely not. With laws, crime will still exist as this is human nature. Do laws prevent some crimes from happening? Yes, and that is best we can ask for since such activity can never be eliminated.

The school shooting data below includes stats from 1970 to 2021. Partial 2022 data can be found on the CHDS website - chds.us via campussafetymagazine.com.
  • There have been 1,924 school shooting incidents since 1970.
  • 2021 had the greatest number of incidents, with 249. The next highest year was 2019 with 119.
  • Since 1970, 637 people have died in shootings at schools. Additionally, 1,734 were injured and 73 suffered minor injuries.
  • 2018 was the year with the highest number of people killed, including the shooter, with 51 killed. This was the year of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, which claimed 17 lives.
About 90% of school-associated youth homicide incidents from 1994-2016 involved only one victim - CDC.

CDC.gov:

View attachment 59912

nces.ed.gov
Violent deaths at school*
2018/19 - 39
2017/18 - 56
2016/17 - 42
2015/16 - 38
* A school-associated violent death is defined as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States,” while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims may include non-students as well as students and staff members.

No child (or anybody) should be a victim of a violent crime. However, there will never be utopia where this exists. With freedoms, comes risks.
Click to expand...

I find this post interesting because, although this may not be the point you were making, I do find the lack of outrage on road safety and fatalities, as well as drunk driving, quite concerning and depressing. On top of that I am worried we are actually going down the same path with gun safety and mass shootings. In other words, things will stay exactly the way they have been, the trends either stay the same or more likely get worse, and US media/politics/culture in general keeps collectively shrugging about it until it finally becomes fully normalized and we lose the imagination to even envision a culture where the conditions are better. To think that we might not be far away from a reality where people react to news stories about mass shootings with the same detachment as news stories about traffic fatalities is pretty horrifying to me.
 
HomerJ said:
I find this post interesting because, although this may not be the point you were making, I do find the lack of outrage on road safety and fatalities, as well as drunk driving, quite concerning and depressing. On top of that I am worried we are actually going down the same path with gun safety and mass shootings. In other words, things will stay exactly the way they have been, the trends either stay the same or more likely get worse, and US media/politics/culture in general keeps collectively shrugging about it until it finally becomes fully normalized and we lose the imagination to even envision a culture where the conditions are better. To think that we might not be far away from a reality where people react to news stories about mass shootings with the same detachment as news stories about traffic fatalities is pretty horrifying to me.
Click to expand...
We were awarded a grant through the Safe Streets and Roads for All program (along with like a third of the country). Since working on the application, I've been hyperaware whenever I hear of a fatality in our region. I sincerely tell my husband to be careful every time he leaves the house. I try to remind him that driving is an inherently risky activity, and I often think about the amount of trust it requires of us to instill in the other people we are on the road with.

Maybe not the point of your post, but I'm incredibly outraged and saddened every time I hear of yet another mass shooting, but I think I'm also fairly detached to hearing about them now, at least in most cases. I don't feel like doing anything to reduce them is within my ability to control. But maybe I have an opportunity to make our local roads a little safer, so it feels more rational to care about that deeply.
 
HomerJ said:
I find this post interesting because, although this may not be the point you were making, I do find the lack of outrage on road safety and fatalities, as well as drunk driving, quite concerning and depressing. On top of that I am worried we are actually going down the same path with gun safety and mass shootings. In other words, things will stay exactly the way they have been, the trends either stay the same or more likely get worse, and US media/politics/culture in general keeps collectively shrugging about it until it finally becomes fully normalized and we lose the imagination to even envision a culture where the conditions are better. To think that we might not be far away from a reality where people react to news stories about mass shootings with the same detachment as news stories about traffic fatalities is pretty horrifying to me.
Click to expand...
That was part of the reason for the post. If the ultimate goal is to protect our youth, why not the outrage at child DUI deaths as there are shooting deaths? Is an average of 200 under 14 years of age an acceptable number? Is one here, one there, acceptable? Alcohol prohibition will never happen again so it will always be around. The public seems good with enforcing existing laws even though many die from DUI. And to add more fuel, how many beverage companies are held responsible when there is a DUI death? None that I'm aware of. Firearm manufacturers are held responsible more and more, at least by lawsuit count, when a shooting occurs, even though the company did nothing illegal, the shooter was the responsible party. When a DUI death occurs, it is always the fault of the drinker and not Anheuser-Busch or Chevy. Maybe a bar gets sued for serving an intoxicated customer.

When a shooting is a few or "mass" or at a school then we are vocal? Other locations occur and not saying those are not an issue (Pulse, Mandalay, etc.). The Chicago Tribune reports as of April 10, 125 murders have occured in the city. Likely many of you did not know that. Not a peep in the media. Why? Because of the overwhelming majority occur in the urban neighborhoods and gang/drug related and likely zero use of an AR firearm so the public does not care. BLM is quiet, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are silent, when Obama was president, he was silent (and still is) and it was his city. I always thought he would make change in Chicago. Rahm? Lori? Murder is okay in the urban neighborhood because the AR is not the firearm of choice. And for the record, I own firearms, lean Republican but think Trump is an idiot.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
BLM is quiet, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are silent, when Obama was president, he was silent (and still is) and it was his city.
Click to expand...
They are not quiet. A Tribute editorial responded to this incorrect talking point when it appeared during the Obama presidency. Post-presidency, Obama started My Brother's Keeper specifically to work on this.

I'd recommend looking at who's talking in your media consumption if it appears like the above folks are silent. I found it helpful to review the demographics of what podcasts and radio stations I was listening to, the authors of the books I was reading, and noticed I wasn't seeing the perspective of a lot of Americans.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
That was part of the reason for the post. If the ultimate goal is to protect our youth, why not the outrage at child DUI deaths as there are shooting deaths? Is an average of 200 under 14 years of age an acceptable number? Is one here, one there, acceptable? Alcohol prohibition will never happen again so it will always be around. The public seems good with enforcing existing laws even though many die from DUI. And to add more fuel, how many beverage companies are held responsible when there is a DUI death? None that I'm aware of. Firearm manufacturers are held responsible more and more, at least by lawsuit count, when a shooting occurs, even though the company did nothing illegal, the shooter was the responsible party. When a DUI death occurs, it is always the fault of the drinker and not Anheuser-Busch or Chevy. Maybe a bar gets sued for serving an intoxicated customer.

When a shooting is a few or "mass" or at a school then we are vocal? Other locations occur and not saying those are not an issue (Pulse, Mandalay, etc.). The Chicago Tribune reports as of April 10, 125 murders have occured in the city. Likely many of you did not know that. Not a peep in the media. Why? Because of the overwhelming majority occur in the urban neighborhoods and gang/drug related and likely zero use of an AR firearm so the public does not care. BLM is quiet, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are silent, when Obama was president, he was silent (and still is) and it was his city. I always thought he would make change in Chicago. Rahm? Lori? Murder is okay in the urban neighborhood because the AR is not the firearm of choice. And for the record, I own firearms, lean Republican but think Trump is an idiot.
Click to expand...
bribribike said:
They are not quiet. A Tribute editorial responded to this incorrect talking point when it appeared during the Obama presidency. Post-presidency, Obama started My Brother's Keeper specifically to work on this.

I'd recommend looking at who's talking in your media consumption if it appears like the above folks are silent. I found it helpful to review the demographics of what podcasts and radio stations I was listening to, the authors of the books I was reading, and noticed I wasn't seeing the perspective of a lot of Americans.
Click to expand...
As bribribike stated, the Chicagoland region and State of IL are certainly not silent. They are trying hard to get rid of many guns in IL - 2023 assault weapon ban legislation

Plus - all major cities are having gun crime problems throughout the nation. In Chicago, it's easy to move illegal guns from IN into IL since you can literally step over the state line from IN into the City of Chicago.
 
mendelman said:
As bribribike stated, the Chicagoland region and State of IL are certainly not silent. They are trying hard to get rid of many guns in IL - 2023 assault weapon ban legislation

Plus - all major cities are having gun crime problems throughout the nation. In Chicago, it's easy to move illegal guns from IN into IL since you can literally step over the state line from IN into the City of Chicago.
Click to expand...

And that will not change the Chicagoland area murder rate. The majority of murders in Chicago, and all firearms murders, are not made with "assault weapons". Gang/drug violence is done overwhelmingly with the easily concealable pistol. So the weapons ban will not change Chicago. You point out the border issue, but he issue is a law is already then being broken. Pass another which will be broken. Nature of criminals. Not saying to don't have laws but criminals don't follow laws. That is what makes them criminals. The only true way to reign in the problem, but some level of the problem will always exist, is to completely ban firearms and mandate turn in/destruction. Allow limited use single-shot only with locking up in a central location with check in/check out by public safety. Not going to happen.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Allow limited use single-shot only with locking up in a central location with check in/check out by public safety.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, a single-shot gun, was likely what the founders intended as protection. They didn't even know what a bullet was when they made that legislation. If we want to be originalist, we should focus on types of guns that were intended by the founders.

Although I personally think we need to update our constitution for the 21st Century, as the interpretations we have for today are getting more and more stupid, if we want to sit on originalism, than why can't we limit guns to single-shot? Or do we now think the founders meant AR-15 style weapons when they didn't understand anything beyond muskets?
 
Hink said:
Just to be clear, a single-shot gun, was likely what the founders intended as protection. They didn't even know what a bullet was when they made that legislation. If we want to be originalist, we should focus on types of guns that were intended by the founders.

Although I personally think we need to update our constitution for the 21st Century, as the interpretations we have for today are getting more and more stupid, if we want to sit on originalism, than why can't we limit guns to single-shot? Or do we now think the founders meant AR-15 style weapons when they didn't understand anything beyond muskets?
Click to expand...
Freedom of the Press was intended by the founders as newspapers and books/magazines, to use the same rationale. Should we make the internet, tv, radio, etc., illegal?
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
And that will not change the Chicagoland area murder rate. The majority of murders in Chicago, and all firearms murders, are not made with "assault weapons". Gang/drug violence is done overwhelmingly with the easily concealable pistol. So the weapons ban will not change Chicago. You point out the border issue, but he issue is a law is already then being broken. Pass another which will be broken. Nature of criminals. Not saying to don't have laws but criminals don't follow laws. That is what makes them criminals. The only true way to reign in the problem, but some level of the problem will always exist, is to completely ban firearms and mandate turn in/destruction. Allow limited use single-shot only with locking up in a central location with check in/check out by public safety. Not going to happen.
Click to expand...
People down around my way like to talk all the time about crime and murder in the big cities especially Chicago, New York and Baltimore. I got a "fatherly" warning before going to Philly because of all of the crime. But the fact of the matter is that my city's per capita homicide rate is right around Chicago's and way higher than New York.

The reason mass shootings are an issue and make the news is the "mass" part. Plus the fact that they typically are intended to cause the most pain and terror to strangers. There's usually not a clear cut reason why and they don't happen in "bad" parts of town most of us can avoid dramatically lower our chances of being a victim.

We have tons of regulation of vehicles and add more often. People who don't follow traffic rules don't follow traffic rules, but that doesn't mean we don't still create new or stiffer rules to induce better outcomes. We've mandated safety features. We require testing, insurance, and registration. Millions of people operate vehicles safely every day without issue. The incidence of accidents to trip or trip miles is probably pretty low. When a pistol or semi-auto military rifle is used for its purpose (not training) its likely intended to do damage either in the protection of or harm to an individual. Most gun owners aren't the problem. Many of the ones who become a problem aren't a problem until they are. Some are just @$$es just like the general population.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
That was part of the reason for the post. If the ultimate goal is to protect our youth, why not the outrage at child DUI deaths as there are shooting deaths? Is an average of 200 under 14 years of age an acceptable number? Is one here, one there, acceptable? Alcohol prohibition will never happen again so it will always be around. The public seems good with enforcing existing laws even though many die from DUI. And to add more fuel, how many beverage companies are held responsible when there is a DUI death? None that I'm aware of. Firearm manufacturers are held responsible more and more, at least by lawsuit count, when a shooting occurs, even though the company did nothing illegal, the shooter was the responsible party. When a DUI death occurs, it is always the fault of the drinker and not Anheuser-Busch or Chevy. Maybe a bar gets sued for serving an intoxicated customer.

When a shooting is a few or "mass" or at a school then we are vocal? Other locations occur and not saying those are not an issue (Pulse, Mandalay, etc.). The Chicago Tribune reports as of April 10, 125 murders have occured in the city. Likely many of you did not know that. Not a peep in the media. Why? Because of the overwhelming majority occur in the urban neighborhoods and gang/drug related and likely zero use of an AR firearm so the public does not care. BLM is quiet, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are silent, when Obama was president, he was silent (and still is) and it was his city. I always thought he would make change in Chicago. Rahm? Lori? Murder is okay in the urban neighborhood because the AR is not the firearm of choice. And for the record, I own firearms, lean Republican but think Trump is an idiot.
Click to expand...
3,579 children died as a result of firearms in 2021 and is the #1 cause of death of children in the U.S. and has only increased over time. Motor vehicle accidents are the #2 cause of death of children but that has decreased over time. Why? Better technology in cars such as front and rear view cameras with automatic breaking when an object/person is detected, highly engineered car seat and child restraint systems, stricter laws about the use of car seats and booster seats until children are 7-8 years old, consistent messaging from child advocacy groups, etc. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html (Childhood’s Greatest Danger: The Data on Kids and Gun Violence)

DUIs have decreased because apart from being an asshole driving under the influence the legal ramifications of getting caught are severe and serve as a good deterrent. The same doesn't exist with firearms.
 
A good reminder for us all.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
mendelman said:
A good reminder for us all.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
As we now have a professional active duty military backed up by reserve services....does this really hold true any more?
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Freedom of the Press was intended by the founders as newspapers and books/magazines, to use the same rationale. Should we make the internet, tv, radio, etc., illegal?
Click to expand...
If you are an originalist, I guess so. My point is that originalism is stupid. The idea that we need to live by the 2nd Amendment because it means so much to this country is stupid. We are a much different place today than we were 200+ years ago.

On the other side, we can interpret the 2nd Amendment to actually mean clear regulation, strong limits, and lots of oversight, without the need to believe the framer's wanted that.
 
Last edited:
We are supposed to believe that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas misunderstood an instruction on his financial disclosure form that led him not to report his wife's income, but he can interpret the founding fathers' meaning in the U.S. Constitution.

Okay, got it.
 
78rpm said:
What a way to get rid of one's spouse!
Sort of like if Clarence Thomas voted against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...
For the country it would be turning the clock of social progress back a century, for him, though, it would just be an annulment.
 
Sad state of affairs when someone posts something on social media about "the recent mass shooting" and you have to stop for a second and think, "wait, which one?"

I have close family members who are Black. I am terrified that one day one of them will make an innocent mistake that results in their murder. I can only imagine what it must feel like to be the parent of a BIPOC in the USA and dread every time your child leaves the house. Will they ring the wrong doorbell? Turnaround in the wrong driveway? Run through a different neighborhood? Get pulled over for DWB? The country is so f@cked up. Gun nuts, disinformation, faux news, racism, fascism, capitalism are all to blame.
 
Gedunker said:
We are supposed to believe that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas misunderstood an instruction on his financial disclosure form that led him not to report his wife's income, but he can interpret the founding fathers' meaning in the U.S. Constitution.

Okay, got it.
Click to expand...
He did say at one point his law degree was worth "15 cents". As Ms Hill reminded us, Clarence likes to look at pictures...maybe not much of a reader.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
My favorite fact about Tucker Carlson is that his mother left him $1 in her will, indicating he was intentionally cut out.
Click to expand...
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
Confused Tucker Carlson GIF by GIPHY News
 
Planit said:
Tucker Carlson out at Faux News
Click to expand...

I wonder where he will land. Would be nice if Apple TV+ could find a way to do a Team Up special with him and Jon Stewart.

Queue "Reunited" by Peaches & Herb.

good_old_days.jpg


It's feel so good. Solid love. A perfect fit. Exactly what I have been dreaming of, all through the day, and all through the night.

Probably going to end up up on OANN or NewsMax. Right now, the headline on NewsMax is "Fox News Dumps Tucker Carlson, Ends Show".
 
The best part, since Fox doesn't broadcast the whole and complete truth, all it's viewers will be confused on why Tucker was canned. They don't know about the settlement or any of his statements that came up during the case.
 
Carlson ends up at Newsmax or does a podcast that is way to successful.

He has a cult following. The cult will follow.
 
"He was pushing voting fraud stuff. I have no doubt there was fraud. But at this point, Trump and [pro-Trump lawyers] Lin [Wood] and [Sidney] Powell have so discredited their own case, and the rest of us to some extent, that it's infuriating. Absolutely enrages me.

"That's the last four years. We're all pretending we've got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it's been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn't really an upside to Trump."

Tucker Carlson





Man speakth with forked tongue.
 
Have you read about the Oakland A's financial dealings/mess - Wow can you say public finance extortion.
 
JNA said:
Have you read about the Oakland A's financial dealings/mess - Wow can you say public finance extortion.
Click to expand...
Oof. I read the Sports Illustrated article about it and the following quote just highlights so much that's wrong with a society where capital is the primary, or only, value and form of power :
What use is a boycott when that only plays directly into ownership’s hands? What use is a reverse boycott when it puts money in their pockets? What power do fans have against an ownership class that lacks capacity for shame?
Click to expand...
 
I saw Rick Wilson, of Lincoln Project fame, on Twitter pose the "What If?" of Tucker Carlson running for President.

Interesting times my dudes, interesting times.
 
Ready for another verse of Cumbayah round the campfire ring of gun control advocates?

Active shooter at dotter's workplace midtown Atlanta, dipshit still at large but dotter home safely.

I hear that in Japan guns are legal but bullets really hard to find.
 
Super Amputee Cat said:
Proud Boys leader convicted of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy
Click to expand...
Moderator note:

This is a warning regarding your tone and demeanor with this post. This is a very charged and volatile time online in the US and we do not want negative attention and extremism focused on our good community here in Cyburbia. Please refrain from further extremist rhetoric. If not, suspension or worse will likely be warranted.

This also applies to all of us in this thread.
 
mendelman said:
Moderator note:

This is a warning regarding your tone and demeanor with this post. This is a very charged and volatile time online in the US and we do not want negative attention and extremism focused on our good community here in Cyburbia. Please refrain from further extremist rhetoric. If not, suspension or worse will likely be warranted.

This also applies to all of us in this thread.
Click to expand...
...walking on eggshells now.j
 
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Capping several quarters of robust profit growth, Ginni Thomas has announced that she will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


Investors are expected to snap up shares in Thomas, who is believed to be the first spouse of a Supreme Court Justice also to be a major corporation.


Harland Dorrinson, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, rated Thomas as a “strong buy,” telling CNBC, “I’m urging institutional investors to get out of the banking sector and into Ginni. Unlike the banks, Ginni doesn’t have to disclose where her revenue comes from.”
 
Back
Top