Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official"
channel.
-
90
-
46
-
37
-
23
-
16
-
16
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I get the point, but you're not making a serious argument or even using proper statistics. You're just posting random facts, NRA talking points, and want us to play your political game.
If you don't have facts, stats, or genuine point, what's the point of the gaslighting? Just say you don't ever want to discuss changes in gun-control regulations, and it end it there. The political runaround about mental health, school doors, and other distractions just show that you're not serious.
You want to practice the script you've memorized from conservative media. That's your way of coping, but gaslighting, disingenuous arguments, and inviting a conversation without being transparent about political motives is not being respectful of other people's time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Irina35mm You've explained that very well. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," but there haven't been many failed liberal democracies to be a case study in recent history.
Although most of the US Constitution and the American system of government is modeled from English common law and the UK, the "Term Limits for Executives" and "Fixed Election Dates" became normalized in the modern era. It could have begun outside of America, but I'm not sure.
Using America as an example: We have two terms limit for the president. FDR, who's regularly ranked among the greatest presidents in history, was the only president to ever exceed the two-term limit.
FDR did have expanded powers as a wartime president, but because he remained in office so long, the independence of the judiciary, foreign policy, and other agencies subjected to Presidential Appointment could be questioned.
That's one example, but my point was mainly to agree with you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The only thing you should expect from a career politician is that they focus on getting re-elected and serve the people who put them in power and the special interest that keeps them in power. You might not like grandpa Biden, McConnel, and other DC-insiders, but political experience matters to people and businesses that value effective government. Claiming all politicians are corrupt is just a cliché and a meaningless rant.
This video was about immigration enforcement under Obama, so I'm not sure where the hell you got the ten trillion dollar figure, but that was/is a priority for you only. That's if it even existed. Unless you have a contract with a politician, President Biden, Bush, Obama, and Senator McConnel wouldn't know anything about that either; or even care about it. I know I don't care.
You're free to rant and show faux outrage at "all politicians," as if you represent the majority of voter base, but this is a country of 340 million people, and you get only get a single vote. I don't know how you became entitled enough to you to believe that a president and the senate seek to please a single person. If you don't like a politician, then don't vote for them. There are plenty of people that will gladly replace your vote.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm definitely a layman, and more of a professional passenger. It's rare to here criticism from American pilots (country not the airline) who fly or have flown the Boeing 737 Max. I thought it was maybe the iconic brand, pilot's preference for Boeing, or the sense of patriotism; but most of the comments from pilots are hostile to remarks that implicate all Boeing planes and not just the 737 Max.
It says a lot about the amount of influence, political power, and brand loyalty of the The Boeing Company, the international aviation market and over state and federal governments in the US. The head of the FAA even made a point to fly the plane himself before returning it to service. I even find myself subconsciously defending the company even though I hold no significant financial interest.
I can only image the political influence it has in Washington, DC, over the FAA, NTSB, USDOT, Congress, and the White House since it's a major employer and international symbol of American engineering and innovation. The main objective should be the safety of the planes, but it's in the US foreign and economic interests to insure The Boeing Company recovers and doesn't jeopardize US dominance in the civilian-aerospace manufacturing; and the market for research, developing, and manufacturing military aircraft and weapons systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They are patient and skilled at not taking the aggressive militarism like the Soviet Union. There are structural problems in China, and it's likely being driven by the slowing of the GDP growth, Covid-19 pandemic, corruption, and confrontation with the US and allies. They don't want war, which they know is unwinnable; but they do NOT want to have another Century of Humiliation. They want to be treated as equal to the US, and they want the international community to treat them as an equal to the US. Rather than being hostile directly with the US, they target smaller nations with that have traditionally been aligned with the West: e.g., Australia, Canada, UK, and they are directly disrespectful to Japan, but they have changed to a more aggressive tone.
The territorial claims are insane, but they aren't demanding all of the disputed territories be returned immediately, and they appear to be using strategic patients. They have even claimed Vladivostok, which I doubt Putin has any intention of returning to China. Historically, Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were all part of a single country. They have mostly reintegrated Hong Kong back, but Taiwan is a different story and the most dangerous because that would bring the US into a war if they attacked Taiwan.
They have made huge strides in a short period of time, but communism never works. The new aggressive Chinese foreign policy is having the effective of diving the world similar to the Cold War between US/Nato and Soviet Union/China and US/NATO/China vs Warsaw Pact. There won't be a direct military conflict between the US, mostly because the PLA is inexperienced and not ready to try and fight another global power. We could see China attack a smaller nation that doesn't have a security agreement with the US, but it's more like that the US be the one using a proxy war or nuclear test as a demonstration and intimidation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DV8 *** That's interesting, but why would you talk with me? What do I get from exploiting dead kids for political purposes? That's other than hearing talking points that some like me trained you to parrot. You're assuming that I actually know any serious political/legal proposals to remedy mass shootings with new gun regulations.
You might not realize it, but both you and the OP are free to talk on your own. This comment says something about gun sales and linked to murder rates. That doesn't even make sense, and isn't a claim any, but the OP made. Why would someone explain or defend a position they never had?
It's a complete waste of time, and it's a tactic called "gaslighting." It's been happening for the past five years. We go over these stats and repeat that "correlation doesn't imply causation." When we're done going full circles and mental health, there'll be another mass shooting, and the cycle will repeat. You might think you can predict my positions on guns, but you can't because I don't have a position. My problem is with the ulterior motives and intellectual dishonesty. Why waste time and server space if you can just say, "gun-control is OFF the table?"
Since you're neither a legislature or a judge, why would I make a legal argument? You can't make laws, and neither can I. The only accomplishment will be you having a platform to show how well you've memorized the Fox News script. You don't need me or anyone else. You have the floor and are free to share all of your thoughts about guns. When you're done, let me know what has legally changed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1