All_Pro_Bills

I also find the Big Boy statue offensive.

There's a lot of grey area here so its not like just getting rid of the law. So let's say you can sue gun manufacturers. Okay, so lets say five armed robbers break into my home and threaten my family and I shoot them all dead. The police investigate, refer the evidence to the prosecutor's office, and they determine it was self-defense and decline to press charges against me. Under that scenario do you think the families of my "victims" that intended to harm and rob me are entitled to sue either me or the gun manufacturer? I say Hell no to that..

Plus product liability law is very complex. For example, differentiation of circumstances of intentional misuse or accident. Assumed and implied liability of the user and the supplier. But that's why lawyers love passing new laws. It keeps them all busy, well compensated, and employed!

That's absolutely true to the "woke". What's important to them is words and language and the emotions, feelings, microaggressions, and offense those words and language generate. Reality, logical and critical thinking, reasoning, facts, intent, and objectivity don't matter. They are emotional and mental weaklings. If they read my post it would trigger them and make them cry.

Well I did put "asylum" in quotes for a reason. My point is the Mexican government appears powerless or unwilling to stem the flow so send forces across the border into Mexico and conduct "sweep and clear" patrols to weed out and eliminate smugglers and cartel members. We're spending over $800B a year on defense and military spending and this seems like the biggest national security threat out there. And if you're afraid to use that power when threatened, and this is a threat, then why spend the money?

Part of the tragedy here is how the people seeking "asylum" are mistreated and abused by these smugglers. It obvious the Mexican government at all levels is unwilling or unable to take any actions to protect life here. Everybody it seems is in on the take here. My view, we should inform the Mexican government of our intent to cross the border to arrest, detain, and eliminate these smugglers and cartel associates by whatever means are necessary and at our disposal. And if they get in our way we shoot them too. Basically let them know if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Is that too strong a message?

You may have friends and family like my father-in-law. He's one of those people convinced the virus is waiting outside his living room window just looking for a chance to get into the house to kill him. Like it roams freely in the outdoor environment and acts with some sentient intent expressed by higher forms of life. I can provide him with all sorts of science about how viruses live and spread along with specifics about COVID but he's convinced CNN is right and I am wrong.

Yes, and taking it one step further it could be reasoned that the practices and polices enacted in response to the pandemic did more to harm the economy than the pandemic itself. The classic outlier referenced is Sweden which didn't lock down, took precautions to protect the most vulnerable, didn't experience high death rates, and saw minimal disruptions to their national economy. I'm not so sure that would have worked in the US because I think a lot of it had to do with demographics. Sweden has a much more "relatively" healthy population than the US. We have what might be characterized as a national health crisis with a high percentage of overweight and out-of-shape people with lots of other co-morbidities which makes for a target-rich environment for the fatal aspects of the infection. A lot of it is just common sense since if you are in good physical condition and have a strong immune system and haven't experienced the degenerative impacts of aging to any degree you'll experience less severe symptoms of almost any virus or bacterial infection.

The election in 2020 played out pretty close to how 2016 played out with the exception that Trump lost a significant number of swing voters in key contested states he won by slim margins in 2016. A lot of analysts believe the handling of the pandemic was the cause but I think its simply because he failed to deliver on any of his populist promises and these voters defected to Biden who they ultimately decided to pin their hopes on after Trump basically failed to deliver for them.

DOES THEIR HYPOCRISY HAVE NO LIMITS. Democrats used the filibuster 257 times in 2020. But since they were doing battle with the forces of evil it will be justified by the believers. And now that the forces of good and all that is moral and just have the majority there is no use for this procedure as the minority must be disarmed in order for there to be no resistance to the program.

Tell me how many of the 600K that died had no serious pre-existing conditions that compromise their health or were very old? Do you know the average life expectancy of people with these conditions? How many people die from obesity, hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, cancer annually? Bottom line it was a big mistake to lock down everything and we are all going to pay for a long time. What don't you get? There is no "back to normal" coming.

I didn't say do nothing. I'm saying respond to the threat in a manner consistent with the impact of the threat. Thanks for your brilliant insights! I eagerly await more..

A big difference between the Spanish Flu of 1918 and COVID 2020 is governments did not lock down entire populations and close the economy in 1918. The lock downs did more harm than the virus. Unemployment, closed business, rampant depression and suicide, needless isolation of young adults and children combined with careless and ineffective policies to protect the most vulnerable. And the general public still seems uneducated about the relative risks associated with COVID. The mortality rate is about .03% with almost the entire risk of death in the over-60 age demographic where commodities or pre-existing conditions exist. In my county the over-60 accounts for 20% of the cases and 95% of the deaths. Yet its treated like the Black Death of the 1300's where a little over 50% of the world's human population died from the plague. I don't see any big economic boom coming out of this. The lock downs destroyed an untold number of businesses and jobs and most are never coming back. Money creation/capital formation has been totally disconnected from productive activity. Handouts and "stimulus payments" increase demand and do nothing to create supply. The administration talks of raising taxes but what's the difference? About 80% of the Federal budget is funded by borrowing. Why not make it 90%? Yet, a bankrupt government is dreaming up some $3T "infrastructure spending bill" where I expect most of the money will end up in the pockets of political cronies and their associates via sweetheart contracts while the peasants get thrown a couple pennies. Trade deficits continue to rise. Simply put, we over consume but under produce and depend on foreign trading partners taking IOU's in exchange for the difference. How much longer is this going to last? Entire segments of the economy are dependent on low rates staying low forever. I'm buying inflation hedges like energy and metals along with foreign stock funds to get a lot of my funds out of the way of what should be a tremendous drop in the purchasing power of the US dollar as inflation heats up and the Fed sits idle pretending inflation doesn't exist and knowing they can't raise rates without torpedoing the entire system.

And the award for best actress in a political drama goes to Nancy Pelosi. Accepting the award for Nancy is her former hairdresser. While accepting the award she stated "Even though Nancy threw me under the bus we're still good friends". And the award for best crying scene goes to AOC for her famous kneeling and crying in front of a fenced off empty yard at the border scene which left no dry eyes in the theater. Somehow she is absent from the current fenced off facilities holding lots of unaccompanied minors. And the award for best liar in a committee hearing is Adam Schiff. Accepting the award is the Russian ambassador to the US saying "he talks about us so much I feel like we share the award". And the award for best actor is Chuck Schummer for his faking sympathy and outrage in episodes in a political satire and comedy.

I'm not certain about your conclusion that riots, looting, property destruction, and attacks on people in the streets won't take place because the Biden/Harris team is going to keep a lid on any blowback of a "not guilty" or least serious charge conviction. But they will somehow contort the outcome to blame Trump.

Some tidbits of what the defense might site: When called to the scene due to Floyd allegedly passing counterfeit money, Floyd denied using drugs but later said he was “hooping,” or taking drugs. The autopsy did not conclude that Floyd died from asphyxiation (though a family pathologist made that finding). Rather, it found “cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).” The state’s criminal complaint against Chauvin said the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.” He also was COVID-19 positive. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner, strongly suggested that the primary cause was a huge amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s system: “Fentanyl at 11 ng/ml — this is higher than (a) chronic pain patient. If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD (overdose). Deaths have been certified w/levels of 3.” Baker also told investigators that the autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting Floyd died of asphyxiation. The toxicology report on Floyd’s blood also noted that “in fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/ml.” Floyd had almost four times the level of fentanyl considered potentially lethal. Floyd notably repeatedly said that he could not breathe while sitting in the police cruiser and before he was ever restrained on the ground. That is consistent with the level of fentanyl in his system that can cause “slowed or stopped breathing.” The restraint using an officer’s knee on an uncooperative suspect was part of the training of officers, and jurors will watch training videotapes employing the same type of restraint as official policy.

From the set up it sounded like a 3rd degree manslaughter (not murder if I got it right) is the most likely conviction. Whether or not that's enough to appease the mob is an unknown.

I think we'd all agree that going to the DMV is never convenient or a pleasant experience.

Our national government is a republic and not a democracy. A union of States. The electoral college was created and designed with the intent of prohibiting a few large high population states from dictating national polices to the remainder of the States. This was a condition for the ratification of the Constitution along with two Senators per State and proportional representation in the House. This issue is no less true in 1789 than it is in 2021. Absent this we'd have a few large states, California, New York, and a few others dictating all Federal policy to the rest of the nation. What's so fair about that?

From a statistical perspective its a certainty there was some form of voter fraud. No system or process is 100% effective in eliminating "defects". Certainly not a mail in process that was thrown together rather quickly and not subject to much testing and validation. The question is how much of it was there. Sure there was no evidence of any "widespread" voter fraud and for all I know there wasn't but when you're not looking for something its hard to find it. If you want examples of voter fraud look no further than Mayor Daley's Cook County political machine of the 1960's. Many of the 2020 claims of fraud are consistent with the practices of the past which were also denied. Such as in many densely populated Democratic districts were vote counting was stopped for no practical reason. Why stop counting when the votes are right there to count? The allegation was to wait for the rest of the state to be counted so you know how many "fake" votes you need to win the State. Specific to Georgia there is a court case pending where the judge is deciding whether or not unseal the votes and allow investigators to "match" specific ballots to specific valid voters in specific counties. The concern is how to protect the identities of the voters. Given there was no funny business it seems logical nobody would object to this scrutiny as there is nothing to find and nothing to hide.

That might work but States have some leeway in how they handle elections so it might be at that level. But I am still not clear on what fact based and objective concerns people have against the requirement of people identifying themselves as "valid" voters? What is so difficult or such a big imposition of having to show some form of valid ID? What keep citizens, specifically objections about how it impacts minorities, from acquiring a valid voter registration ID? Many of us are "proofed" almost daily and I'd expect those same objections should apply to these other requirements but I hear no objections to those situations.

This all just didn't happen overnight. But it did take most people a long time to figure out we're screwed here already and its too late to reverse the course. So maybe the architects of the China "most favored nation" designation back 30+ years ago could explain to us all what they were thinking at the time? Did they not foresee any of this? Assisting a communist and dictatorial regime with favors. In the process businesses and whole industries were shipped off to China from all over the country resulting in a loss of jobs and communities in thousands of small towns and cities. But it did give us "every day low prices" for all the crap we consume that's made in China. Or failure to enforce IP laws and restrictions per international law and trade deals along with forced joint venture arrangements. Or sending trillions in funds to China by way of the US trade deficit. Or a general trend in US foreign relations favoring coercion, sanctions, and consequences for non-compliance with US direction vs. cooperation and mutual benefit. China was playing the "long game" while our leadership has been focused on diversity while sitting clueless as our country is strip mined of assets and productive capacity. To be certain, a world led by China will care not one bit abut diversity or what pronoun somebody wishes to be address by.

I expect at some point these "cancel culture" people are going to mess with the wrong person and they'll be found chopped up into about a hundred pieces stuffed in a big plastic garbage bag.

For gangs I suggest sensitivity training and assigning a social justice "coach" to each gang. Holding anger management sessions where they can discuss their feelings and maybe even hug each other and cry together.

I've got a question to both sides which is slightly off topic but still relevant to the gun control debate. If ownership of these weapons is made illegal should police, public and private security forces that protect rich people, officials, and politicians also be banned from owning and using them? After all, why would police and private security need to be militarized like SWAT teams similar to a Navy Seal team on a covert mission if nobody has these weapons on the streets? Why should they receive an exemption? Why should I as a private citizen be subject to living in an environment where domestic law enforcement and security are armed like the military? Like some occupation force. After all, they are people and they may be more than capable of shooting a lot of people for one reason or another. If expectations in the politicial sphere is the ban works then there is no reason for these organizations to be armed for urban warfare. If the answer is "no" because criminals being criminals don't follow the law and they will still have access to these weapons to do harm then there's not much benefit in passing any new law other than to pursue an objective of systematically disarming private citizens.