RpR:applause:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38860907
Oh dear the paranoia really seems to be taking hold…..
Yes you seem a bit paranoid about U.S. politics, you posted it twice.
Better watch out, they are coming to get you.:applause:
RpRNot wearing panties – it’s Friday!
I think you will find the medical concept of ‘mental defective’ as covered by Federal law refers quite specifically to reduced brain function, does not even mention schitzophrenia, and “does not include deviant behavior or disturbances that are essentially conflicts between the individual and society”.
In other words, nut job behaviour.
State Court laws concerning firearms and mental problems can prevent firearm ownership.
Federal definition only matters if the Federal court decides that the State law is voided by the Federal Constitution.
RpRDo you even know what that word means, or have you just heard it featured a lot on the media since Mr Trump started his bid for power?
Anyway I am sure you will be able to explain to me what is narcissistic about my exposition of the basic facts as in the post to which you refer.
Moggy
As much as I love the OED this ‘merican definition fits better.
noun
1.
person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.
Your facts, are your opinion, nothing more.
You greatly value your opinion, me, not so much.
RpRI think RpR’s position is quite clear.
It’s fine to be shot by a nutjob / incompetent / drunk / toddling / American. That is a defence of our freedom to kill our own people. God bless America.
It is a bad thing to be shot by somebody with brown skin who isn’t an American and we need to take lots of action that, even a few minutes thought will establish, is likely to be ineffective, but will appeal to the hard of thinking.
Moggy
I do believe such a self-righteous, narcissistic obtuse line of thought is below you, but you are welcome to it, if you so wish.
I do wonder though, why do you even give slight damn about what are or are not the immigration laws of the U.S.?
Just how do they affect your life?
RpRThat’s the funniest thing I have read for ages
You need evidence that it basically isn’t a good thing to stop people with these mental conditions owning guns and ammunition?
You are in some kind of a dreamworld with the esteemed Congressman.To that extent the BBC / Liberal ‘hyperbole’ seems to be spot on accurate.
Moggy
Before you get your panties in a twist, that huge number of 75,000 people if so sick as to be dangerous are covered by these laws.:stupid:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
RpRAnd now using things that didn’t happen as justification.
Kellyanne Conway admits mistake in citing non-existent ‘Bowling Green Massacre’
She linked to a story that cited the criminal cases involving two Iraqi citizens who had been living in Bowling Green, Ky., who admitted in federal court to using improvised explosive devices against U.S. troops in Iraq and trying to send weapons and money to al-Qaida in Iraq.
One of them, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, was sentenced to life in prison, while the other, Waad Ramadan Alwan, received a 40-year term. Also contrary to Conway’s claims, their cases were widely covered by newspapers and wire services.
City officials in Bowling Green, Ky., said they appreciated the clarification
There is an old saying “measure twice cut once” she is learning the hard-way think twice speak once.
RpRBrilliant news today, the Republican Congress is repealing the laws brought in by Obama to prevent nut jobs having access to guns. Arming the psychologically troubled is patently a great way to maintain the well regulated Militia, that is necessary to the security of a free State.
Moggy
I am guessing you only read the BBC version which is the usual liberal hyperbole.
Here is what it does.
Passed last year, the law affects those on social security with a mental disorder such as severe anxiety or schizophrenia who need a representative to manage their benefits. It was opposed by the gun lobby and some disability advocates.
The checks, introduced under the Obama administration, are believed to affect an estimated 75,000 people.
“There is no evidence suggesting that those receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration are a threat to public safety,” said Congressman Bob Goodlatte.
If you are not on social security it does not affect you.
Oddly, the only newspaper headlines that popped up on my computer that mentioned this in detail were from the U.K. and Australia with Australia having less hyperbole.
Now the environmental law they killed makes me wonder a bit.
RpRI can’t quite see how instigating immigration restrictions to stop terrorists, from those Muslim countries, that killed 0 people, whilst relaxing arm control on Americans who kill 10,000+ people a year are compatible?
There is no connection except in your mind.
RpROk, I get that. But how does that alter the fact of the popular vote? By which I mean how does that make 62 more than 65 – apart from Drumpf math.
And can you explain how Mrs. Clinton winning the presidency under a direct vote system would suddenly make two states ‘control’ the other Forty-eight any more than they might or might not now? .
For the same reason Donald Trump was able to gain the Republican Votes to run for president.
For years the Rep. candidates, Pres., Senate and Congress said, or promised a,b and other bs, but they did not do what they said they could do, they were Wash. insiders as much as the Dem..
Democrats, love them or hate them, candidates said they would do a, v , or k and did just what they said they would do.
What Dem. said they would do catered to the coastal cities and liberal desires. The rest of the ” fly over” country was irrelevant. If Clinton or any other Dem. or in reality, all but a few of the renegade Rep. candidates would have won, the majority of this countries desires would have the value of used toilet paper.
Donald Trump spoke to and represented the part of the country that those two states do not represent in any form or matter. (For what it is worth, Northern Calif. and all but metro New York are as irrelevant to politicians as are the other 48 states. Although a New Yorker, New York resident once said to me , Minn. makes New York look conservative.)
RpRIt started out interesting and real, and I had hope. But then you said ‘The electors elected Mr. Trump’ and only ‘in my odd thought process the democrats had the popular vote nationwide’.
.
Electors are elected during an election, or is that too simple for you to understand?
The ones who do not do as the voters want, lose their ability to do anything as one elector who refused to vote for Clinton found out.
Naw, too simple for you to understand.
RpRHaving said all that – a US President would be a very suitable position to apply a direct vote to. Certainly more appropriate than a PM, who is just meant to be the leader of the party with the most seats, not a commander in chief elected personally into the role.
For heavens sake how narrow minded is your thought process.
Direct vote means that the liberals in New York and especially California control the country.
That would be no different than when the Blue Bloods of Europe controlled all of Europe and the U.K.
48 STATES would be controlled by 2, even a simpleton should be able to understand that.
THAT is why the founders of this country did not allow a direct vote for president.
People in some states, including this one, wish our State Constitution worked that way at times as now voters from few cities control the whole State.
In our state, politicians and some vocal voters are upset that — these are not real numbers — of a 1,000,000 dollar State Transportation budget, the Twin Cities area, center and suburbs, are not able to control an overwhelming majority of it for themselves as they did in the past simply because the majority of the population is in the Twin Cities area.
Out-State legislators have started to gain favor, and cajones. The Twin Cities is heavily liberal, and recent legislation that has put a heavy crimp on money and power that was given to the Twin Cities area.
We used to have a true three party system here a long time ago but sadly the Farmer/Labor party merged with the Dem. decades ago leaving two.
Farmer/Labor was just what its name says.
In the past few decades though, especially the outstate farmers and miners up North, have found they are an after thought to the party leaders who only real concern is the Metro Twin Cites as that is where the votes, especially welfare roles, are.
It was a surprise to the Dem, that many are no longer robot Dem. voters now, which was shown in the last election by the fact Trump came very close to winning this State.
Some of the talking heads on local TV shows were amazed by this happening as they thought this could never happen.
That problem is what the founders of this country saw when it was founded which is why they stopped it from happening several hundred years ago.
RpRRpR, I think we are all aware that you don’t have a monarchy.
I don’t have a parrot. Your point is?
If you wish to talk of it, minority rule is exactly what you do have.
When this country was founded, the Blue Bloods of Europe controlled the U.K. and most of Europe. Try to remember history and you might start to understand how and why this country is what it is now.
No the rich, there are more millionaire Dem. in Washington than Rep. which the liberal press loves to ignore, do not control the country which if the Pres. were not elected as it is, would be the case.
Money, and welfare payouts to buy votes, cannot buy an election which even though Clinton had far, far more money to spend, did not win because each state only has its fair share of electors.
The electors elected Mr. Trump.
A point which is obviously so far over your head you will never see beyond your nose because you simply do not want to.
This headline from the Washington Times, shows how the majority feel about Democrats that you think in your odd thought process have the popular vote nationwide.
The headlines under this article in the link should make good reading for you so you can begin to have at least an inkling of how this country feels but as you have your ideas of reality, even though it has nothing to do with reality, I doubt it.
Obama’s legacy of losing: Democrats decimated in Congress, DNC in disarray
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/obamas-legacy-democratic-losses-party-chaos/
RpRNo. Think. Please. Unless you are some feudal fundamentalist who believes every acre should have an equal vote, not every person, it is not about comparitive areas coloured in.
Let me try a different way.
Imagine if you will a system whereby your president is decided by referendum. Everyone votes for their choice – directly. The votes are counted, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Really not so hard so far, one hopes.
.
We do not have King or Queen, a royal minority does not control the country, which is the exact reason the founders created the system we have.
RpRRpR, land doesn’t control anyone.
States are not relevant in a hypothetical majority vote system, and that would be the whole point.
Three states, or any state, would not have undue power, as who is President would no longer have anything to do with the power, size or demographic of any state. Quite the opposite of what you claim.
?
Good Lord Beer before it was simple ignorance but now you are ignoring facts previously presented to you.
Go back to the other thread and look at the map that shows the area that voted for Republicans.
The majority vote you are infatuated with represents approx. 10 percent, plus or minus a few, of the total land mass of the U.S. of A.
That small area with a lot of population who vote for a Government that gives them welfare freebies would control, ALL , presidential elections.
You are in denial.
RpRAnd this when I am basically agreeing with you?
*Shrugs*. I won’t bother next time.
Moggy
It was because the minority voters part is silly and irrelevant in U.S. politics unless you think three states should control the entire country which would be the case if it was a simple majority.
Then a majority of the land would be controlled by a minority of the land.
California wanted to run a pipe line from the Great Lakes to Calf. as they are hurting for water. By what you see as an error in our election system, they could have forced it by controlling who is in the White House, except, as the Great Lakes also borders Canada, Canada has a say-so and they said absolutely NO, so thank God all the liberals out there can be dying of thirst and there is not one damn thing they can do about it.
Sign In
