Assuming all the information is open it's probably ok!

Yeah I think you're right ianaww. Warren is mostly just spazzing out about nothing.

If only the CFPB didn't exist, the Trump administration would be powerless to deregulate. Good point.

I mean the CFPB is just a starting point for the article to talk about being consistent in principles, however much you may like it or not.

Dunno why I let it get bogged down like that.

I admit I'm rather ignorant about the CFPB, and after reading ianaww link and a couple others still am not sure how it works. Sounds like it doesn't really do much of anything.

I don't know anything about the CFPB either. The point of the article seemed to be that you shouldn't govern in a way you wouldn't want someone else governing you, or not to create unaccountable government bodies because they can be weaponized against you or whatever, which are both fine points I guess. My point was that the Warren/CFPB isn't even an example of either of those.

public subsidies to cars(freeways, pollution fighting etc...) in 2010. jfc that is a lot of money! spend that **** on public transportation!

The mayor installs a police chief whose first order of business is to order all officers to stop patrolling and responding to calls for help.

The former chief of police is shocked and publicly condemns this clear abrogation of duty.



This is why we shouldn't have police forces!

That's how they juke the stats ianaww

I get it's an analogy or something but pretty sure that sorta thing happens more than you think

Hell, maybe that's the end goal for the CFPB, or maybe it was just to make it look like the govt was actually doing something

So people out there realize that school shooting deaths are a really tiny part of gun deaths, right? But they are just ok with the rhetoric and appeals to emotion because it advances a cause they want?

I think everyone knows that. But both the number of gun deaths and the subset of school shooting deaths are way too high.

Yeah that's often what I hear on these topics but that's also just rhetoric. I don't believe in using kids after terrorist attacks to be like "too many Muslims blowing people up".

Honest debate with honest numbers and such.

His primary beef is whatever keeps the 50K per month cheddar rolling in

And if they do, I doubt anybody on the left would conclude "very prog brave new world" when YouTube loses their market share.

NiN version is miles better than the Cash version

usually

Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth.

This whole “March for our lives” and associated political movement seems like trash and at best partially fake. Like on of the key policies being advocated is to give law enforcement unwarranted access to people’s mental health records. Wtf? That is nothing but reactionary trash. The idea that that is the solution to gun violence is not only laughable in a vacuum, but put in juxtaposition with the recent police shooting where cops shot some dude on his cellphone in his parents backyard 20 times it’s almost evil. Meanwhile we have police not only endorsing but facilitating the March? In some places cops even spoke at the March!

Police clearly have an interest -- either or both of the sinister "state oppression of the people" kind and the "they'd rather not get shot whilst doing their jobs" kind depending on your world view -- in reducing access to guns; them endorsing this should not be a great surprise.

Nitting about one not-great policy seems like a really stupid idea given the alternative is the status quo.

police are still shooting way more people than crazies on shooting sprees, right? like not even close?

You are correct, Filthy

Yes, I think so.

Of those, quite a few of them (“most”, even) are reasonably well justified (as in, the people they’re shooting are actually putting police and/or civilian lives in danger first). Many of these would go away with better gun control. That’s good, right?

Quite obviously there are also some cases where it’s clearly not justifiable in any rational moral sense, and better gun control may not help with those. Or it might, reducing the public’s acceptance of these sorts of things further by reducing the perceived overall danger of the job?

I, for one, refuse to endorse any policy that does not perfectly account and solve for every existing problem.

where did you see "allow police officers unwarranted access to mental health records"?

it's not in the organization's petition

Not commenting on this specifically but I think you use reactionary like I do whereas apparently it has a somewhat specific definition.

what dwetz said, but also:


when the police do it wrong, there is an agency that may be called to account

when the crazies do it, there are only thoughts and prayers

which leads me mentally to revisit my previous proposal to address gun violence by holding manufacturers and retailers vicariously liable for the misuse of their inherently dangerous products by their customers

I think the proposal obviates a 2A analysis entirely, plus it's a market-based solution!