Unfortunatly half of the post to this thread has been from a troll that likes to disrupt the flow of the conversation with 3 at a time post. the Political Opinion thread has not had a post in 10 days because of this troll. I would like to see samewise be the driver of the thread he created,
So true, if it does not suite the political agenda of a certain political party the bought and paid for no longer free press will ignore it
The media like human interest stories with high contrast bold issues. If a new news story fits their current theme or narrative, thatâs great. Highlighting anything else would detract from the hunger they have built up for the public to get that story. Which is just bad for business.
Legislators do not care about the policies they pass for their lobbyists or the impact it will have on the average citizen
Just to give an example, it is too late now
Donât let lobbyists decide what your children eat at school
FIVE YEARS ago, Congress brought some healthfulness to the National School Lunch Program , which spends more than $10 billion a year to feed about 30 million K-12 students. The law is up for renewal this month, and the School Lunch Industrial Complex is trying to make it less healthful again
**. Its arguments in favor of lowering nutritional quality for the nationâs children donât add up, and Congress should reject them.
The role of lobbyists is controversial in American politics. Lobbyists are hired and paid by special-interest groups, companies, nonprofits, groups of citizens, and even school districts to exert influence over elected officials at all levels of government.
They work at the federal level by meeting with members of Congress to introduce legislation and encourage them to vote in ways that benefit their clients.
Lobbyists work at the local and state levels as well.
The late U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia described what he saw as the problem with lobbyists and the practice itself:
"Special interest groups often wield an influence that is greatly out of proportion to their representation in the general population. This type of lobbying, in other words, is not exactly an equal opportunity activity. One-person, one-vote does not apply when the great body of citizens is under-represented in the halls of Congress compared to the well-financed, highly organized special interest groups, notwithstanding the often plausible objectives of such groups."
As a nation, we pay attention to mass shootings committed by extremists but less attention is paid to all the gun crimes committed in some of the most dangerous areas
I would say thereâs plenty of interest in Chicago, at least here. Itâs literally mentioned by somebody on Fox News every 5 min. âA perfect example of how effective gun laws areâŚâ. âperfect example of a democratic mayor running the showâ. âperfect example of what would happen to the Country if we ban thisâŚâ
Fits their agenda as well.
Nobody talks about violent crime and gun being up since the pandemic across the nation, and also not being owned by a single political party. âItâs only in big, blue, coastal citesâ WRONG
Itâs everywhere! It affects GOP states as much as Dem states. Chicago is definitely more violent than the average city in the US, but there are plenty of cities more violent than Chicago. But thatâs not the story the right wants to sell. Itâs always a story to divide us.
Murder increased by 1 percent in 2021, across 168 cities with populations 100,000+ that have reported to the FBI so far.
In 2020, murders and gun homicides increased in the US at record rates. In cities overall, murders increased by 33 percent, and gun homicides increased by 37 percent compared to 2019.
Plenty of red cities with their own gun problems, worse than Chicago.
Sort by per capita 2020. Top 10. St Louis, Jackson, Gary, New Orleans, Memphis, Baton Rouge, all red, along with Flint, Detroit, Baltimore, and Trenton all blue. Chicago doesnât make an appearance until like 20th position. But if you say it enough, it gets believed by those unwilling to check for themselves.
Funny you say that. Hereâs a pic making the rounds. Live coverage of the Jan 6th hearings by all major networks.
You can freely own a full automatic in Switzerland, and military service for men is compulsory, whereas in the UK, all automatics and semi automatic pistols are banned. Only shotguns and hunting rifles are allowed. Whereas in Malaysia, all types of firearms are banned. To even own one for hunting you need special government permission. And in Nigeria, all guns are banned without exception and without excuse. Even paintball is banned.
Homicide rates vary enormously between countries with differing gun laws.
Switzerland has less gun control than the UK but its homicide rate is half the UKâs. Nigeria has made gun ownership illegal, yet its homicide rate is 28 times higher.
Hard to argue that simply making gun control laws is an easy answer to unlawful killings.
Controlling deaths by guns isnât as simple as many commentators suggest, i.e. ban guns. In no country in the world is it legal to murder someone. But murders happen and always will. So passing a new law banning guns might just add to the list of laws without really changing anything: as in Nigeria.
Gun bans require that you have the resources to prevent guns from entering your country, or you can go the way of Saudi Arabia and other arab countries, where it is understood what will happen if you break the law.
And you need a judicial system, laws and police working together to enforce and punish law breakers. Thereâs a limit for sure. But thatâs def something that needs to be there.